LTF 31: The 16 Aspects of the 4 Noble Truths; True Stoppings & True Paths

We were looking at Verse 45:

[45] Belief in fact, joyful perseverance, and mindfulness, absorbed concentration, and discriminating awareness are the five supreme Dharma measures. Strive after them. These are known as the forces and the powers, and also what brings you to the peak.

We started our discussion of this, and we saw that these five points, belief in fact, etc., refer to the five powers and the five forces, which are part of the thirty-seven factors leading to a purified state. So, we started to discuss that. Also, we noticed that all of these are aimed at the sixteen aspects of the four noble truths. Of course, this is a little bit complicated because there are all these different lists that intertwine or mix with each other. 

The Three Purified States (Bodhi)

As we started to explain last time, there are three purified states that we are aiming for. “Purified state” is a way of translating “bodhi,” which is a difficult term to translate because it can refer to the state of a shravaka arhat, a pratyekabuddha arhat, or a Buddha. We proceed through these purified states as we develop the five pathway minds, or the five paths. We discussed this already – that we start on the shravaka or pratyekabuddha path when we have unlabored renunciation all the time, automatically so, we don’t have to build it up by thinking through a line of reasoning. And we have the entrance to the first of the five bodhisattva pathway minds when we have developed, in addition to unlabored renunciation, unlabored bodhichitta all the time. 

As we proceed through these five pathway minds, developing our minds one stage after the next, we go through the thirty-seven factors that lead to this purified state of bodhi. This is common to the shravaka path, the pratyekabuddha path, and the bodhisattva path. What Nagarjuna is explaining here – the five forces and powers – is in the middle of those thirty-seven. 

The Thirty-Seven Factors Practiced with the Five Pathway Minds

The thirty-seven factors are divided as follows: 

[1] The four close placements of mindfulness.

That is satipatthana in Pali (what we find very commonly practiced in the Theravada tradition, although there is also a tradition of it in Mahayana). These are close placements of mindfulness on the body, feelings (feeling levels of happiness), the mind, and on all phenomena. That’s a very, very specific practice in the Mahayana, and quite different, I must say, from the Theravada practice of it. 

[2] Then, we practice the four factors for attaining correct riddances, or abandonments. 

This entails generating constructive phenomena not generated before, generating constructive phenomena that are already generated (in other words, causing them to increase), stopping the further increase of destructive phenomena already generated, and preventing the generation of destructive phenomena not yet generated. So, we work on that. These are quite specific; it’s not just a general practice.

[3] After that, we develop what’s called “the four legs” for attaining miraculous powers. 

These are intention, joyful perseverance, pondering (thinking about the teachings), and scrutiny (really scrutinizing the teachings).

Then we get what Nagarjuna mentioned here: 

[4] The five powers and the five forces, which are what Nagarjuna lists as belief in fact, joyful perseverance, mindfulness, absorbed concentration, and discriminating awareness.

Participant: What is “scrutinizing”?

Dr. Berzin: “To scrutinize” means to look very, very carefully at something; to analyze it. It’s very similar to the term “analysis.” 

Then, after the five powers and five forces, we get: 

[5] The seven causal factors for attaining a purified state. 

These are what one practices to achieve an arya’s level. These factors are mindfulness, thorough sorting of phenomena (going through them), perseverance, zest (fresh, joyous interest), a sense of physical and mental fitness, absorbed concentration, and even-mindedness, or equanimity. 

[6] Then, we get the eight factors of an arya pathway mind. 

This refers specifically to what one works on, on the path of meditation, the accustoming pathway mind. Although there is another explanation of this as just a general practice, in this context, it is quite specifically related to right view, right motivating thought, right speech, right boundaries of action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right absorbed concentration.

So, we have these thirty-seven. That number appears over and over again in the teachings: the thirty-seven bodhisattva practices, the thirty-four arms of Yamantaka plus his body, speech, and mind, which make thirty-seven; there’s also Vajrayogini surrounded by thirty-six dakinis (which is found in both Chakrasamvara and Vajrayogini practices). All of these represent these thirty-seven practices, which are very, very common in all of the Hinayana and Mahayana traditions. Nagarjuna is speaking about the specific ones that are practiced on the second of the pathway minds, the applying pathway mind, which are the five powers and five the forces. 

All of these thirty-seven are aimed at the sixteen aspects of the four noble truths. And as we were explaining last time, that is actually the main topic of meditation that one adopts in order to progress along the path. And, of course, it’s based on already having done a tremendous amount of practice of renunciation and bodhichitta and having an understanding of karma, impermanence, and so on, and also, of course, having gained some concentration, although one perfects that along the way here. But all of that would be basic lam-rim material and be a preliminary to what we are doing here with these sixteen factors or aspects. And, of course, it’s very important to really understand these sixteen now, on our way to developing the pathway minds. 

We started our discussion last time with the four aspects of true sufferings and then the true origins of suffering. 

We saw in brief that the true sufferings are referring to the tainted aggregates, the five aggregates, that make up each moment of our experience. The five aggregates are: forms of physical phenomena, feelings of levels of happiness, distinguishing, other affecting variables, and primary consciousness. All of these derive from disturbing emotions and karma. 

The suffering that is involved with the aggregates is threefold: the suffering of unhappiness, also known as the suffering of suffering; the suffering of change, which is our ordinary happiness that never lasts and never satisfies; and the one that really is the main point here, which is the all-pervasive suffering. The all-pervasive suffering is that we continue to have these five aggregates. They’re generated over and over again and are the basis for the first two types of suffering. That’s the real problem. 

These types of aggregates have four aspects to them: 

• They are non-static and changing all the time; they end with each lifetime, after which you get another basic set of them.  
• They are miserable in the sense that they perpetuate the various types of suffering.  
• They lack a coarse impossible “me.”  
• They lack a subtle impossible “me” as defined in the various schools of the tenet systems. That’s the problem we have to deal with and the true suffering. That’s really what we need to understand.

We need to understand the true origins of the suffering in terms of the twelve links of dependent arising. That requires quite a lot of study and understanding. Specifically, when we say that true suffering – the samsaric aggregates happening over and over again – comes from karma and disturbing emotions, we need to understand that in terms of the twelve links of dependent arising. 

If you recall our study of the twelve links, it’s because of our unawareness, or ignorance, of how we exist (taking that in general to cover both the Hinayana and Mahayana schools), that we have karma, karmic impulses that lead us to act in impulsive types of ways. As a result of that, we plant various karmic tendencies and habits on the mental continuum, and those tendencies and so on continue on as karmic aftermath. Then, at the time of death, we activate them. This is specifically what we are talking about as true origins of suffering. It’s this whole activation process – what perpetuates samsara. 

So, true origins of suffering doesn’t just include the factors of ignorance and the karmic deeds that we do under the influence of disturbing emotions; it also includes this activation process. For that, we have craving (thirsting) – craving to be parted from feelings of unhappiness and craving not to be parted from from feelings of happiness. Then, there is also just the general craving for further existence, for our existence to go on. We have some form of craving all the time. And that, in a sense, is what is activating our karma all the time. 

Particularly, though, we want to watch out for activating the throwing karma at the time of death, which is activated by craving and an obtainer attitude, or more specifically, an obtainer deluded outlook. An obtainer deluded outlook includes three deluded outlooks. These are basically talking about identifying with some aspect of our aggregates as the solid “me.” That’s the most important of these, the most common of these. We identify with our body – this is “me” – and then, we don’t want to let go of the happiness that we have with our relatives and friends, and so on. Then, we grasp for further existence. We see that further existence either in terms of future lives or in terms of this life. We don’t want to let go of it. That activates the throwing karma. 

The activated throwing karma is also the karma that is referred to here as the true origin. That’s what we have to understand – that this is what perpetuates samsara. It’s the origin of having these tainted aggregates over and over again, which are the basis for the suffering of unhappiness and the suffering of the unsatisfying happiness that we do have and that changes all the time. OK? This is what we were discussing last time. That’s important to really understand. We have to really understand what we are aiming at, what the problem is – the true problem and true suffering and the true origins of the suffering. Are there any questions on that?

Participant: I have a question about this craving of further existence. You have also people who want to commit suicide. They are really fed up with existence and don’t want to continue.

Dr. Berzin: OK, so you are talking about craving for further existence and about people who commit suicide and don’t want to further exist. You don’t necessarily have all of these cravings. In order to have this suicidal wish, they would have to have the craving to be parted from their unhappiness (obviously, they are unhappy). 

In terms of the obtainer deluded outlooks, there is one that is called an “extreme outlook,” which is grasping for the extreme of either eternalism or nihilism. Here it would be nihilism, basically. Or maybe this is the one called “holding a deluded outlook as supreme.” I think it’s something like that. They think that if they kill themselves, they become nothing (that there’s no rebirth) and that this will be the liberation from their sufferings, from their problems. So, basically, they are grasping at that idea. And this will activate throwing karma. They want to be parted from their unhappiness, and they think that all their problems are going to be solved by killing themselves and that nothing will follow after that, that they’ll become a nothing. So, you don’t necessarily have to have craving for further existence. 

In short, the tainted aggregates and the mechanism of the twelve links that perpetuate them – that’s the problem and that’s the origin of the problem. You have to become convinced that this is correct. This is the true problem, the true suffering.

Then we have the third noble truth, which is true stoppings, or true cessations. This refers to the true stopping of the true sufferings and the true origins, which are the stoppings that occur on the mental continuums of aryas, the highly realized practitioners who have non-conceptual cognition of these sixteen aspects. True stoppings occur on their mental continuums through the power of their application of opponent forces. So, we are not talking here about a depletion of karma that happens by it ripening and then finishing. We are talking about getting rid of the true origins of suffering and the suffering that those origins produce by means of applying opponents and getting rid of them such that they never occur again. That’s the true stopping, or true cessation. 

These true stoppings are static phenomena: they never change, and they last forever. The true sufferings and origins are gone, finished. And that situation of them being gone – not there – is not going to change. So, it remains static. More specifically, these are stoppings of portions of either the emotional or cognitive obscurations. In order to analyze a little bit more deeply the clinging and the obtainer attitudes – what activates karma (the disturbing emotions and all of that) – we would have to get into the emotional obscurations that prevent liberation and the cognitive ones that prevent omniscience, or Buddhahood. 

We discussed this some years ago. The different schools of tenets define differently what is in each of these sets of obscurations. But according to the Prasangika point of view, the emotional obscurations refer to all the disturbing emotions and attitudes plus the tendencies of the disturbing emotions and attitudes and the tendencies of grasping for truly established existence that accompany them. A tendency (sa-bon, Skt. bija) is what causes something to arise intermittently – so, it arises sometimes, not all the time. Take anger. Let’s say that we have a tendency to get angry. Because of that tendency, we get angry sometimes; we don’t get angry in every moment of our existence. Those are the tendencies, or seeds. 

Then, in the cognitive obscurations, Prasangika includes the habits, the constant habits (bag-chags), of these disturbing emotions. Of particular importance is the constant habit of grasping for truly established existence. These constant habits ripen all the time. That’s why they’re called “habits,” but I like to add the word “constant” as well so that the distinction between these habits and what we more colloquially refer to as habits is a little bit easier. 

So, when we still have both types of obscurations, the habits of grasping for truly established produce two things: the appearance of truly established and the belief that this appearance accords with reality. The word “grasping,” when referring to grasping for truly established existence (bden-'dzin), can contain both aspects. Grasping means actually perceiving it. And it can also mean not only perceiving it but believing it. When we have both sets of obscurations, the habits produce both of these aspects in every single moment. When we get rid of the emotional obscurations, we no longer believe in these appearances. Nevertheless, in every moment, the mind is making this appearance of truly established existence because of these habits, except when we are totally absorbed on voidness. 

What we are talking about when we refer to a true stopping is a true stopping of some portion of these obscurations. There are many, many portions, and one gets rid of different portions at different stages along the path. A true stopping is, in a sense, an absence. In very complicated Gelugpa philosophy, there is a whole equation between a true stopping and its voidness, or absence (perhaps not very, very complicated but difficult to understand). In any case, it’s an absence; it’s not there anymore. And it will never return. From the Gelugpa point of view, the nature of the mind was never stained by this, so it is, in a sense, always void of existing in this crazy way with these crazy appearances. 

We Achieve True Stoppings with Non-Conceptual Cognition of the Voidness of the Sixteen Aspects

Alright, that’s the true stoppings. You achieve them with the non-conceptual cognition of the sixteen aspects of the four noble truths. The non-conceptual cognition of these (remember, Shantideva made a big point of this) is not just the conventional, or superficial, truth of these sixteen; more specifically, it is the understanding of the voidness of these sixteen. That’s what will actually bring about true stoppings. 

So, just understanding impermanence, nonstaticness – Shantideva had quite a few verses saying that was not enough. We are focusing here not just on what these sixteen aspects are and what the truth of them is but also on the voidness of them. Voidness here includes the voidness of the person who is meditating, the sixteen aspects themselves, the meditation on them, and so on. There is also the voidness of the understanding of them, which acts as a cause for enlightenment, or this purified bodhi state, and the voidness of the purified state as being a truly existent result of this process. There is a whole menu of different types of voidness meditation that we learned about in Shantideva’s text. So, when we focus on voidness, that’s specifically what we are focusing on – voidness of these sixteen rather than the voidness of the pillar, the vase or the chariot. Those are just given as examples for learning the general principles involved.  OK?

True Stoppings Are Static Phenomena; a True Stopping Is Forever

So, that’s a true stopping. It’s gone forever; it’s never going to return. That state of being gone, that absence (true stopping is an absence or a parting from something), is static. It’s not actually created by anything. Something that is static is not created by anything. This is really quite interesting and, as I said, not so easy to understand. It’s like you remove something that was fleeting and then that state of what was fleeting being gone was always the case because, by basic nature, that state was always there. It’s like you’re getting rid of the clouds in open space. In this sense, you get back to the state that was there all the time anyway – being devoid of existing truly and all of that. The attainment of a true stopping comes about by causes and conditions, but that state of the stopping is not produced by anything: it was always the case. That’s not so easy to understand. Think about that for a moment.

Let me give an example that maybe makes it easier to understand: being naked. We are always naked from the time of our birth on. When you take your clothes off, does that produce being naked? You were naked anyway; you’re just getting rid of some temporary cover. The state of nakedness is not produced by anything: you are always naked. The attainment of getting naked – that’s produced by taking off your clothes. So, the attainment is produced by something, but not the naked state itself. 

Participant: But I think that depends on the definition.

Dr. Berzin: Of course. 

Participant: I cannot say that he’s naked.

Dr. Berzin: Under your clothes you are naked. Your natural condition is being naked. Clothes are just added on top. This is just an example to try to help to make it easier to understand. Think about it for a moment. 

OK. Questions?

Double Purity of the Mind

We always have descriptions of these true stoppings in terms of what’s called “double purity” (dag-pa gnyis-ldan). Double purity refers to (1) the natural purity of the mind, of the mental continuum – so, its actual nature – was never stained by the fleeting stains, the disturbing emotions and obscurations; and (2) the purity achieved through removing the fleeting stains such that they never recur. That’s why the true stoppings are forever, and that’s a very important aspect that we need to be convinced of – that it is possible to actually get rid of these obscurations, these disturbing emotions, karma, and all that stuff, such that they will never return. If you aren’t convinced that they will never return, then what’s the point? It’s like getting a higher rebirth and just getting a temporary vacation. It’s not that easy to understand, actually.

Participant: The Buddha gave no clear answer to that question. This idea of a purified state of mind, of a clear light mind – that the mind was stainless before and then stainless after the true stoppings take place – just brings up the idea that, well, where does this first piece of defilement come from that disturbs the clear light mind?

The Conundrum: The Fleeting Stains Have No Beginning and the Natural Purity of the Mind Has No Beginning

Dr. Berzin: This is a very important point, actually. The question, the way you phrased it, was that if the clear light mind was unstained before (here’s the problem: the word “before”) and that after you get rid of the fleeting stains, it’s unstained again, how do the fleeting stains start? There was no start. There was no “before.” This is what makes this so difficult to understand. The stains have no beginning, and the purity of the clear light mind has no beginning. But the stains can come to an end, whereas the purity of the mind doesn’t come to an end. That’s always the case. 

Participant: Also, in science, causality is much more important and is of more concern than time. Time, because of this “before” and “after”, is not… Well, it’s not absolute by any means.

Dr. Berzin: Jorge is saying that in science, causality is the main point, whereas the sequence of time is not because there can be other ways in which causality occurs. That gets into complex quantum physics, into the simultaneity of information transference. What is the technical term for it? 

Participant: No simultaneity. There is no absolute reference for two events being simultaneous.

Dr. Berzin: Right. There is no absolute reference for two events being simultaneous because it depends on how you measure them, where you measure them from, the speed of the measure, and all of that. It gets very complicated. But in any case…

Participant: You leave out the focus on time, no?

Dr. Berzin: Yeah. Time is not the issue. The causal relationship is more important. 

Participant: Just recently, I was reading a book by Stanislav Grof called, “Kosmos und Psyche.”  In it, he describes how many, many years ago, we actually were in a kind of non-dual state, maybe you can say “god-like state.” Then, out of a feeling of boredom, and also because we wanted to express ourselves, wanted to feel something, wanted to make a game or something like this, we actually make a kind of decision to go into this material world to just make a game. Then, after some years, we go back again. What does Buddhism say about this kind of idea?

Dr. Berzin: So, in “Cosmos and Psyche,” he says that, originally, we are in a state of non-duality, and then, out of boredom, we go into the material world. Then, at some point, we go back again. That, again, entails the concept of a beginning. In Buddhism, there is no beginning. That’s not at all the Buddhist view. The Buddhist view is that the clear light mind has always had these fleeting stains, that it has always been producing these appearances. This is samsara. Samsara has no beginning. But it can have an end. 

Why is it like that? That’s just the way that it is. There is no reason why it’s like that. Nobody is testing us; nobody is giving us a challenge. We didn’t get into this because we were bored – just for fun. It’s not an experiment or anything like that. It’s just the way that it is and has always been. 

The point I want to make here is to emphasize that really understanding these sixteen aspects is actually not easy to do. Obviously, they’re something that requires us to work very hard  to really understand them. If we have just a general idea of what they are talking about and feel, “Oh, yeah, now I understand it,” after only a couple of classes, or we decide, “This is stupid; I don’t believe this,” we’re not going to get very far along the path. It requires three countless eons of working on them in order to really understand them fully. First, though, we need to hear about them so that we can even just mouth the words of what the sixteen are and be able to list them correctly. Then we have to think about them. 

Participant: To be honest, it does make me a little uneasy that the Buddha didn’t speak about the reasons for the fleeting stains being there. Why shouldn’t they come back if there is no explanation of why those things are there? What’s the reason, really?

Dr. Berzin: You are asking what the reason is and saying that the reason for them not coming back depends on a reason for them being there. 

Participant: Yes, I would say so.

Dr. Berzin: Does it? My reason for being here is because there are students. If there were no students, then my reason for not being here would depend on that. My reason for not being here could be dependent on other things, though, too. 

Participant: What if the students come back?

Dr. Berzin: Well, I think our analogy is here not very appropriate. So, let’s not work with this analogy. 

Why does it have to be? The question “why” can be understood several ways. Is there a purpose? That would be a “why.” Is there a purpose, like, for instance, “God created it in order to test man”? Buddhism would certainly say that there is no intended purpose like that. Or another purpose could be, “It’s there as the grand challenge that the cosmos has created for us,” or “the grand punishment in order to make us suffer.” Certainly, there is no intention behind it. So, what can be another understanding of your question “why”?

Participant: For example, in normal human existence, some people may acquire all kinds of abilities and knowledge and so on, and then get Alzheimer disease and forget everything. Why couldn’t there be some kind of Maha-Alzheimer’s? You could already be a Buddha, and some noise in the universe, or whatever, starts causing these obscurations to resurge…

Dr. Berzin: With enlightenment itself, you are focused forever, without any break, on the non-conceptual understanding of voidness. The appearance-making of truly established existence and the belief in it could never coincide with that understanding of voidness because the two ways of perceiving reality are mutually exclusive. Also, that understanding is stronger than the misunderstanding. So, then you have to understand why the understanding is stronger than the misunderstanding. Why can correct understanding overpower misunderstanding? So, why is that? 

The usual explanation is that if you try to find something on the side of an object that establishes its existence, you can’t find it, whereas, the understanding of something can be validated by logic, experience. That stands up. So, if you have that all the time, then you’ll see that the correct understanding and the misunderstanding are mutually exclusive.

The real problem, however, is when you have, as an arya, a true stopping of the doctrinally-based disturbing emotions and attitudes such as belief in a permanent soul and so on, and then attachment that’s based on that belief system and anger at anybody who challenges it. So, the disturbing emotions that are based on that doctrinally-based ignorance – why would those never come back? That’s a more difficult question because, as an arya, you are not focused on voidness all the time, only during total absorption. 

In your subsequent attainment, what you would have all the time is the realization that everything is like an illusion. It might appear one way, but you know that that’s not true. So, that you have all the time. And that gets rid of that wrong belief. You don’t believe it anymore because you know that, even though it appears like that, it’s not true. So, the answer to this question has to do with the level of (as it says here, in this list of factors) mindfulness and concentration. You’re always keeping the correct understanding in mind. You’re always focused on it, and you’re always discriminating it. That’s why these thirty-seven factors are actually quite important; they’re not just lists, even though it might sound like just lists. 

Yeah, Karsten?

Participant: Maybe one can approach this in the same way that one approaches karma. Like, for example, we also can’t understand karma right now, but we have this whole idea that the Buddha said this and this in texts. So, you know, in order to prove that this is correct, we have to rely on other parts that we know are correct. So, maybe, one could also approach this from this direction. But then the question is: in which texts does the Buddha talk about this never-ending enlightened state? Which texts do we have, actually, where he is quoted in this way?

Dr. Berzin: The question is whether we could approach this initially in the same way that we approach karma, which is to acknowledge that this is very difficult to understand and that we can only understand it by the logic of proving that a Buddha is a correct source of information. However, these sixteen aspects aren’t that type of phenomenon. They are not extremely obscure phenomena that you can only know from a valid source of information: they’re logical. That’s why the force of analysis and so on is part of these thirty-seven. So, you need to work through it with logic. 

But in the beginning, yes, we basically do accept it on what you’d have to describe as belief – belief that the Buddha is a valid source of information. What are the sources of this? This goes back to, in the first turning of the wheel of Dharma, to the Dharmachakra Sutra where Buddha first taught the four noble truths. All of this stuff is in the Pali literature as well. These sixteen aspects are very fundamental.

In the Pali literature, they speak about these sixteen, but they are not talking about an eternal state. Remember, the word is “static.” “Static” means that a phenomenon doesn’t change. From the Theravada point of view, once you become an arhat in your lifetime, you achieve nirvana with residue (lhag-bcas-kyi mya-ngan ‘das), and for the rest of that lifetime, you won’t have any more disturbing emotions; you won’t have any more anger, attachment, and so on. And the absence of those things is not going to change. You still have certain aspects of karma that ripen, but then, at the time of death, you achieve the state of nirvana without residue (lhag-med mya-ngan 'das). One interpretation, the mainstream interpretation, is that, at that point, since you no longer have the residue of tainted aggregates left on your mental continuum, the mental continuum ends. So, in that sense, it’s forever. But the main emphasis is not so much on “forever”; the main emphasis is on the fact that that state – that of a no-longer-happening mental continuum – doesn’t change. When we talk about non-static, it means that the thing doesn’t change; it’s not going to come back in your lifetime. Once you achieve arhatship, that’s it. You can’t fall from being an arhat, can you?

Then, the question is: if you talk about things not changing, does Theravada say that absolutely everything changes? I don’t think they do. I haven’t looked specifically in the Abhidharma, but I would be quite sure that they say that space doesn’t change, that space is static. In the Vaibhashikas – here we have a Hinayana school from Sarvastivada – they say that there are three things that are static: 

• Space 
• True cessations (true stoppings), which are not going to change once they are achieved and which are called an “analytical cessation,” an “analytical stopping” 
• Then there is also something called a “non-analytical stopping.” 

There are the different dhyanas that one could achieve a path of seeing with. And if you have  achieved a path of seeing with one of them, then you have a non-analytical stopping of having achieved it by any other means; in other words, you’ve achieved it already. My coming here by car today is a non-analytical stopping of my coming here by the U-Bahn. I’ll never have come here today by the U-Bahn because I came here by car. It will never happen, never be the case, that I came here today by the U-Bahn. It’s finished; that possibility will never happen, and that will not change. These are the three static things in Sarvastivada, the Vaibhashikas. So, I would imagine Theravada has something similar. So, saying that everything changes – that’s referring to the aggregates. 

Participant: Everything in samsara.

Dr. Berzin: Yes, everything changes within samsara.

Participant: It’s not…

Dr. Berzin: Not the Buddha state. However, Buddhas act; they do things. But the state of enlightenment doesn’t deteriorate. It doesn’t change; it always remains the same. 

Participant: But other things about the Buddha are changing.

Dr. Berzin: Other things about a Buddha changes. So, then you have to talk about the Dharmakaya – that doesn’t change, but the form body changes in the sense that it does things. It doesn’t change in its nature, though. That gets into a whole big discussion of whether enlightenment is permanent or impermanent if a Buddha actually does things. Does a Buddha actually do anything? Or is it that a Buddha just sort of sends out enlightening influence (which is there forever) that positively influences those who are receptive, and therefore, a Buddha doesn’t actually do anything? 

Participant: But parinirvana must change when a body dies.

Dr. Berzin: Parinirvana doesn’t change when the body dies. The situation from nirvana with residue to nirvana without residue, according to non-Prasangika (Prasangika has a different understanding of this), is that the situation will change but that that state doesn’t change. That state doesn’t gradually develop into the other stage. With residue doesn’t gradually grow like a plant into without residue. “Static” means it doesn’t change. 

However, something that doesn’t change, of course, can still end. This is not the case with enlightenment, liberation, or these true stoppings, but other static things can end. For example, the voidness of this body will end when this body ends. When the glass breaks, there is no longer a voidness of the glass. There’s a voidness of the past glass but not of the glass because there is no more glass. While it lasts, though, its voidness doesn’t change. It’s a fact; it’s always the case.

Here, we have a fact: no more obscuration. It’s finished. So, where could it come back from? There is no tendency; there is no habit. Can it come from somebody else? This gets into the understanding of true origins. Do true origins come from somebody else – that God plants it in our minds? Or is it something that is self-perpetuating from within the mental continuum so that once the true origin is removed, there is no way that it can come back? These are the things that you explore when you try to understand these sixteen. You have to put the pieces all together. 

Participant: But, still, I want to hear where it came from. Why was it there in the first place?

Dr. Berzin: Why was it there in the first place? It was part of the whole thing. It wasn’t that it wasn’t there and then it came from somewhere else. If it came from somewhere else and that somewhere else is still there, it could, once you have achieved the stopping, come again.

Participant: But what was it doing there? 

Participant: Let’s say you have a strong glimpse of this side, according to Theravada tradition, and you’re not a stream-enterer yet. You said the understanding is stronger than the non-understanding. How is it, then, that you can go back? 

Dr. Berzin: The question is: When you have a glimpse of these things before you are a stream-enterer in the Theravada path… “stream-enterer” is when you first become an arya, when you first have non-conceptual understanding of all of these. Before that, any understanding you have is conceptual. But why is a conceptual understanding not sufficient? Now, that becomes an interesting question, which is not an easy question. Why do we need a non-conceptual understanding? 

Participant: Is it always non-conceptual?

Dr. Berzin: For a stream-enterer, the understanding is non-conceptual during total absorption. “Conceptual” means that one understands it through a category, in this case, the category of true stopping. So, you are mixing the category together with the actual phenomenon that you are observing. 

Participant: Is it the same as when you have satori?

Dr. Berzin: Satori? Is it the same as satori? “Satori” is a confusing term that is, unfortunately, the Japanese translation of “enlightenment.” However, it doesn’t mean only enlightenment. It is used for both of what are called “flash experiences,” and “stable realizations,” and a stable realization could still be conceptual. The term “satori” is used very often for this flash realization, or flash insight – a little enlightenment or something like that. It’s only in the Japanese Zen tradition, though, that you find a term like that. It’s very confusing. Kensho is the small enlightenment, and satori is used only for actual enlightenment. 

Participant: [Inaudible]

Dr. Berzin: OK. So, then it’s only popular language in which they call satori “the little enlightenment,” and technically, it’s not that. Thank you. I am not that familiar with Japanese Zen.  

So, what did you say? That Suzuki, in his writing, marked the difference between the two but that many other authors don’t differentiate them? Yeah, that was what I was more familiar with. 

OK. So, what we learn from our discussion here is that you really have to chew on these sixteen aspects, and also that they are appropriate topics for one to work on throughout the path in order to really understand them. The first of these forces and powers, which is confident belief, is actually quite essential – to really become convinced that these are true, based on logic and understanding.

Yeah, Marianna?

Participant: What is the difference between the non-conceptual realization of voidness of an arya and that of a Buddha? 

Dr. Berzin: Again, it depends on the school. From the Gelugpa point of view, the voidness is totally the same. In the case of an arya, their total absorption only has the absence of truly established existence. It doesn’t have any appearance of conventional truth because, if the mind at that level made an appearance of conventional truth, it would have to make an appearance of it as truly existent (because an arya still has these cognitive obscurations), and you can’t  directly perceive the absence of truly established existence and an appearance of truly established existence simultaneously. An arya can only perceive the deepest truth in total absorption on voidness.

Buddhas are able to have both appearances simultaneously because they’ve gotten rid of the cognitive obscurations. So, a Buddha can make an appearance of a conventional phenomenon without it appearing truly existent. This is also because a Buddha is with a clear light mind all the time. In tantra, anuttarayoga tantra, the whole point is that any mind grosser than the clear light mind will make appearances of truly established existence. It is only the clear light mind that doesn’t make that appearance, and a Buddha has that all the time. 

In anuttarayoga tantra, when you achieve that clear light mind state, which, in anuttarayoga tantra, is when you become an arya, you can have the two truths simultaneously – you do have the two truths simultaneously, but you can’t maintain it. A Buddha can maintain it all the time. So, in anuttarayoga tantra, that’s the difference between a Buddha and an arya. 

Participant: Is that the only difference?

Dr. Berzin: Well, no. The true stopping of an arya anuttarayoga practitioner is a true stopping of all the emotional obscurations. Those don’t come back. However, they haven’t gotten rid of the cognitive ones. So, when they are not focusing on voidness, there is still an appearance of truly established existence.

There is a difference between what happens with the seeing pathway mind, an accustoming pathway mind and enlightenment. The path of seeing, path of meditation, and path of no-more-learning in sutra and in anuttarayoga tantra are different. Why? Because the clear light mind is involved, which is one of the reasons why anuttarayoga tantra is faster. 

So, there isn’t much of a difference in anuttarayoga tantra between an arya and a Buddha’s understanding. 

Participant: [Inaudible]

Dr. Berzin: Non-conceptual. It’s just that arya can’t maintain it all the time.

In the non-Gelug traditions, what they say is that the two truths are inseparable, so, there is no way that you can only cognize voidness. That would imply that it’s a conceptual understanding – that you are just conceiving of it as being separate. But in fact, you always have the two truths inseparably. So, the non-Gelug assertion is that an arya perceives both voidness and an appearance of truly established existence. It’s just that in the total absorption, the voidness is more prominent, and the conventional truth – the truly existent appearance – is less prominent. Then, in the subsequent attainment, or post-meditation, it’s the other way around. So, for these schools, it’s only a Buddha that would have the two simultaneously and equally clear. They explain it that way. 

Participant: But how can we be sure that you can always maintain that? 

Dr. Berzin: I don’t know. I mean, when you become a Buddha, you get rid of these aggregates… I don’t really know. It’s just that we don’t have the merit, the positive force, to be able to maintain it all the time. That’s why we have to have, on the sutra path, yet another unbelievable amount of positive force to be able to maintain it all the time. 

Participant: May I just ask a practical question?

Dr. Berzin: Yes, Mr. Practical. Your questions are usually very practical. 

Participant: How would you classify it if somebody practices the four satipatthanas and they have a direct experience or insight into the three lakshanas – that is, they see things as impermanent, insubstantial, and as dukkha? Then let’s say, for instance, that just by focusing on the sensations and the changing of the sensations, you have like a “direct” experience of it; you have a direct experience of the nature of reality. But according to your definition, that would be still conceptual, yeah?

Dr. Berzin: Now he is asking, in the Theravada path when you do satipatthana meditation, whether you can have a direct – meaning non-conceptual – cognition. When we talk about having a direct perception, does that mean a non-conceptual cognition of the three characteristics of impermanence, suffering, and…

Participant: Anatta.

Dr Berzin: The non-ego, non-true self.

I would recommend, because I don’t have it totally recalled in my mind, the article on my website about the four close placements of mindfulness in Theravada. It’s called The Four Close Placements of Mindfulness in Theravada, in which there are descriptions according to the Thai system. There are various stages of this practice of satipatthana, the four close placements of mindfulness, and through that type of practice, it is possible to achieve, according to that description, a stream-enterer level, which would be non-conceptual. 

We’re talking here about becoming an arya. And it’s not a simple process – not at all. Nevertheless, there is, in Theravada as well, a presentation of these thirty-seven. Now, how that fits in with doing satipatthana all the way to the path of seeing, I don’t know, because it’s particularly a practice in the beginning, on the path of accumulation, this building up pathway mind. That’s where you practice these thirty-seven. However, as I said, there is a different explanation of satipatthana in the Mahayana and Theravada. Look at the article, though; read it again. 

Participant: I read once that the Buddha gave a simile when asked about this question about where all the suffering came from, where it all started. I think he gave the simile that if you are hit by an arrow, you don’t ask who shot it; you just pull it out and try to get better.

Dr. Berzin: That’s true. But here, that’s not quite the point. I mean, that is a valid point that Buddha taught. There is no denying that. However, one has to understand that in this case, nobody shot the arrow. We are not asking, “Did Mr. X or Mr. Y shoot the arrow?” in which case, the answer would be, “It doesn’t matter whether it was X or Y who shot it.” Here, the point is that your question is irrelevant because nobody shot the arrow, so, why worry about the question? 

Participant: So, the arrow is samsara.

Dr. Berzin: The arrow is samsara; it was always there. 

Again, in order to understand all of this, you have to understand the concept of beginningless mind, which is not an easy one. 

Participant: Isn’t the point to shift our attention ton getting rid of the kleshas?

Dr. Berzin: Right. Here, the point is to shift our attention to understanding how to get rid of all the disturbing emotions. That’s true. We have to understand that true origins of suffering are internal to the system. That’s why we have to understand true origins. True origin is not coming from outside. And it’s self-perpetuating; therefore, it has no beginning. To understand true cessation and the true pathway that leads to that cessation, we have to understand true origins. The true origin is not an external thing, one with a beginning. Like the twelve links of dependent arising, it’s not linear.

Participant: Then the arrow is not outside.

Dr. Berzin: The arrow did not come from outside. That’s not the true cause. So, you’re asking why and where true origins come from is part of the process of understanding the second noble truth. 

We learn about the four noble truths quite early in Buddhism, but then we have to go deeper and deeper into it. Why is Buddha famous for teaching the four noble truths? It can’t be because they’re just so simple to understand. He was very profound. 

The Four Aspects of True Stoppings

The four aspects of true stoppings are: 

[1] True stoppings, first of all, are stoppings (‘gog-pa, Skt. nirodha). 

They are stoppings of a portion of true sufferings and true origins such that, because of the opponent forces that were applied, nothing remains on that continuum for there to be a recurrence of that portion of suffering and that portion of the origin. There is nothing left there that could make it come back. So, it’s a true stopping. 

[2] True stoppings are a pacification (zhi-ba Skt. shanta).

They are a pacification in the sense that because the mental continuums on which they occur are totally rid forever of that portion of true suffering and its origins, they’re states of everlasting peace. You’ve achieved a state of pacification, a peaceful state. You no longer have this particular troublemaker. So, it’s a pacifications. That is static: you’re rid of that obscuration forever. 

[3] The third aspect of true stoppings is that it’s a superior state (gya-nom-pa, Skt. pranita). 

These are superior states in that they are both immaculate (which means “clean”); they are parted forever from that portion of obscuration. In addition, they are blissful since they are parted forever from the true sufferings that are brought on by that portion of disturbing emotions and attitudes. It’s blissful. It’s like a relief. I always use the example of taking your tight shoes off at the end of the day. You’re rid of this, and – “ah!” – it’s blissful to be rid of it. 

[4] Then, the fourth aspect of true stoppings is that it is a definite emergence (nges-‘byung, Skt. niḥsaraṇa).

"Emerge” means “come out of” the sufferings of samsara. It’s definite in the sense that you are out forever. 

Those are four aspects of true stoppings. 

Then, true pathway minds, or true paths, refer to the seeing pathway mind, the accustoming pathway mind, and the pathway mind needing no further training (in other words, the paths of seeing, meditation, and no-further-learning, or training). These pathway minds refer to the minds of all aryas, to what’s going on in their minds. 

The pathway minds refer more specifically to minds that have non-conceptual discriminating awareness of these sixteen aspects of the four noble truths. Those are the true pathway minds. There are two aspects to them: they get rid of these obscurations, plus they are rid of them These two aspects are also called “the uninterrupted pathway mind” and “the liberated pathway mind.” The uninterrupted pathway mind acts as the opponent, and the liberated pathway mind is when the mind is free of that portion of obscuration. So, it’s on that mind that you have a stopping – that absence – a true stopping. 

There is a big discussion about whether these true paths are all mental states or whether there is any type of physical aspect to them and so on. Prasangika says they are all shes-pa [need Wylie], ways of knowing something.

The Four Aspects of True Pathway Minds

[1] The first aspect is that it is a pathway mind (lam, Skt. marga). 

True pathway minds, being non-conceptual cognitions of the lack of an impossible soul or of voidness, serve as pathways for advancing from the state of being an ordinary being and achieving the state of an arya and onwards, onwards onto liberation or enlightenment. So, it is a way of understanding that will act as a pathway. It’s not the road itself; it’s the state of mind that acts as a pathway for becoming an arya and then going on to achieve liberation or enlightenment. That’s the first aspect of it.

[2] The second aspect is that it’s an appropriate means (rigs-pa, Skt. nyaya). 

True pathway minds have the discriminating awareness of the first two noble truths that are the appropriate means for getting rid of the disturbing emotions, etc., the first two noble truths. And they are the appropriate opponents that actually get rid of them. So, true pathway minds are appropriate both for being able to do it and for actually doing it, namely, getting rid of it. It’s understood in these two ways, which are differentiated here. 

Participant: What does “appropriate” mean”

Dr. Berzin: It’s appropriate: it’s proper; it fits. 

What would be another example of what “appropriate” means? Dressing warmly is appropriate for the cold weather; it’s the appropriate opponent to prevent getting cold. It can work for that and it does work for that. That’s the distinction of these two aspects. 

[3] The third aspect is that they are a means for actualizations (sgrubs-pa, Skt. pratipatti).

True pathway minds are a means for actualizing the correct non-conceptual realizations in order to actualize the state of an arya and the goal of either liberation or enlightenment. In the Mahayana, it emphasizes that this is a correct realization of the void nature of the mind. So, a true pathway mind is the method for actualizing that correct realization of the void nature of the mind (that it was never stained and so on), and it is what will bring us the actualization of the state of an arya and of liberation and enlightenment.

[4] The last aspect of a true pathway mind is that it’s a means for definite removals (nges-‘byin-pa, Skt. nairyanika). 

True pathway minds are means for definitely removing forever all the obscurations.

These four aspects of the true pathway minds refer more specifically either (1) to the understanding of no impossible self (if we take the Hinayana point of view) or the understanding of voidness (if we take the Mahayana point of view). And we have to be convinced that that understanding is (2) the appropriate means for getting rid of the first two noble truths; (3) that it is the appropriate method – that it actually fits with the true origins and their suffering and will actually bring liberation and enlightenment; and (4) that it is a means for a definite removal, a removal forever. 

This obviously requires a great deal of understanding – how it is that the understanding of voidness actually gets rid of the disturbing emotions, how it actually gets rid of the whole mechanism of the twelve links of dependent arising. And you have to be convinced that it does; otherwise, why would you bother to try to achieve it? 

So, these are the sixteen aspects of the four noble truths. One works with them. Also, if you really want to have a firm refuge, a safe direction, you basically need to be convinced of these sixteen. Additionally, to have compassion, proper Buddhist compassion, you need to be convinced of these sixteen. 

Compassion in Buddhism is not simply wishing others well because they are suffering. His Holiness explained that in Prague last week. There are three types of compassion. there is the compassion that you have for your loved ones, which, basically, is based on attachment. That’s not stable. Then, there is the compassion based on pity; you see these suffering beings, and you basically look down on them and say, “Poor things,” and there is some arrogance behind that. That type of compassion is also not stable. 

What is a stable type of compassion is what His Holiness is calling “humanistic compassion,” which is His Holiness’s term for compassion that is based on logic – namely, that we are all human beings, all living beings; everybody wants to be happy, and nobody wants to be unhappy. Everybody is equal in that respect. It’s just simply on that basis, which is similar to what Shantideva says about suffering – that it needs to be removed not because it belongs to me or you but just because it hurts. Compassion based on that is the proper Buddhist compassion. And it’s not just Buddhist compassion; this is humanistic compassion. It doesn’t have to be based on any religion. It doesn’t have to be based on any belief system. It is just purely logical and reasonable.

Participant: Can animals have some compassion?

Dr. Berzin: They would have the first type of compassion, compassion for their loved ones. 

Participant: The last one not?

Dr. Berzin: Probably not. A dog could be trained to take care of somebody. But, usually, if they help somebody, it’s out of loyalty and a bit of attachment. 

Participant: Not from logical reasoning. 

Dr. Berzin: Not from logical reasoning.

So, let me get back to my point before I forget why I brought this up…

Participant: [In German]

Dr. Berzin: Right. In the animal world, there is cooperation. This gets into another point. His Holiness says that logically based compassion is something that is supported by biology. For instance, all the systems within the body cooperate with each other; otherwise, your body wouldn’t work. Within the animal kingdom, ant colonies and bee swarms, for example, naturally cooperate. And there is a natural feeling of closeness that a baby has for its mother, and a mother has for the baby – just based on biology. So, that’s there. A baby will show closeness to whoever takes care of it and comforts it. It doesn’t matter who that person actually is.

Participant: I just read an article, which is just really an abstract, about how they located areas for empathy in the brain. 

Dr. Berzin: Right. There’s also a hormone that is produced when a mother gives birth to a baby… What is it called?

Participant: Oxytocin.

Dr. Berzin: Oxcytocin. 

But, before I forget the point of why I brought compassion up, let me add that for compassion to really be Buddhist compassion in the full sense, it has to be not just this humanistic one, which could be accepted by all religions (so, it becomes a basis, actually, for religious harmony); it has to be based on the understanding that it is possible for others to become free of their suffering. It’s not just a nice wish. So, that implies an understanding of the four noble truths. There is a realistic understanding of how others could become free of their suffering and what they would need to do to become free of their suffering… and not just on a superficial level. Then, it’s real Buddhist compassion. 

Take a few moments to reflect on this, and then we will end. Then, next week I’d like to get into the sixteen distorted ways of understanding these four noble truths because these are things that we really need to work with – things like believing that our suffering has no cause, that it comes from God, that it can come back again, and so on. We have sixteen such wrong views, and the sixteen correct aspects will get rid of these sixteen wrong views. OK? These are very fundamental. Let’s reflect for a few moments, and then we will end.

I am reminded that in Uttaratantra (The Furthest Everlasting Stream), by Maitreya, the text on Buddha-nature, it speaks of the fact that liberation and enlightenment don’t come from outside; they come from within. In other words, that fits in with this very well – that the origin, the true origin of the sufferings, is internal, self-perpetuating, and the removal of the suffering and its causes is something that has to occur on the internal level. It’s not that somebody can come and give it to you. Just as nobody can come and give you the suffering to start with, nobody can come from outside and give you liberation. The process of eliminating this self-perpetuating aspect from within ourselves is an internal one. 

OK. I don’t know if this is the actual compassion that Jesus taught, but what about the compassion that someone who goes to church (and who thinks that they have the true religion) might have for others who don’t come to church? I suppose that one could make a parallel here with a Buddhist practitioner who says, “I understand the four noble truths, and here are the people who don’t understand it. If they came to Buddhism and understood it, the source of their problem is what Buddhism says,” as opposed to a Christian saying that the source of their problem is that they don’t accept Jesus Christ or a Muslim saying that they don’t accept Allah, etc. I think the main thing that you have to watch out for is whether or not you have arrogance – that you look down on the other person, saying, “The poor thing,” and “I’m so much better.”

Participant: [Inaudible]

Dr. Berzin: Right. But this gets into a misunderstanding, into one of the wrong views concerning the true pathway – that you think that a pathway that actually won’t bring liberation will bring liberation. 

Participant: Well, what specifies this as Buddhist?

Dr. Berzin: The point that is not so much that there is a pathway to get out of suffering but what the Buddhists say the pathway is. Other religions may have similar types of things, which I imagine they would. You see, the issue here… It’s very good that you bring this up because, in a few weeks, I have to go to Glasgow and participate in an interfaith convention with a Muslim leader about the differences and common ground between Buddhism and Islam. What I was thinking of speaking about was this compassion. 

Now, this humanistic compassion that His Holiness speaks about could be supported by any religion. It could be supported by a Christian who says, “This is a source of suffering, and this is the way out.” It could be supported by a Buddhist. It could be supported by a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu, or whoever. The important thing, as His Holiness says, is not to mix it with the second type of compassion, which is with arrogance, because that is not stable. The other person – they’re not a rock; they can feel our arrogance. 

Participant: I don’t think it’s necessarily because you’re arrogant that you say, “Oh, these poor things.” If you’re a nun and think, “Oh, these poor, suffering people. I wish that they didn’t suffer,” and you care for the sick or care for the dying… 

Dr. Berzin: Well, yes. When Christian nuns say, “Oh, these poor things; they’re suffering,” and they sincerely help them, their saying “poor thing” is not the example of arrogance. We are talking about an example of arrogance. There is such a thing a arrogance – “You poor thing; you haven’t…” I used the words “you poor thing.” But don’t get caught on “you poor thing.” What I’m talking about, what His Holiness is talking about, is compassion mixed with arrogance. There is such a phenomenon. 

Participant: Yes, definitely.

Dr. Berzin: I’m not saying, and His Holiness isn’t saying, that Christians are like that. Certainly not. Buddhists could be like that. Anybody could be like that. 

Participant: I also think it might be like that. But if somebody is really into Christianity and really feels relief when they go to church and really thinks that this would be worthwhile for others to have – this could be a way of compassion.

Dr. Berzin: You’re saying that if somebody is convinced that their religion, whether it is Buddhism, Christianity or whatever, is the true path and that it will actually help others, they can have compassion based on that. Well, yes. Then there’s the discussion of what’s the true path? 

Participant: It would be quite natural that you are convinced that your path is the best.

Dr. Berzin: Of course. Otherwise, you wouldn’t follow it. That’s why one wants to avoid religious discussions about which path is more valid. His Holiness always says that different paths suit different people. There is no need for everybody to have the same thing. But is there a common basis for religious harmony? His Holiness’s points out humanistic compassion – human values – as being the common basis that everybody can agree on. His Holiness didn’t go into detail at all about what it would look like if the different religions supported this and what would happen with their beliefs because he also says that this is a basis for nonbelievers as well – those who don’t believe anything, who don’t have any religious beliefs.

Participant: There is a good book from His Holiness. In German, it’s Das Buch der Menschlichkeit.

Dr. Berzin: Right, The Book of Mankind, or humanity. I forgot what it’s called in English. 

Participant: In the  book, the Dalai Lama talks about how you can give people help, advice, and things without any religion.

Dr. Berzin: Right. His Holiness is always saying that in this book – that you can give people help and assistance without any religion. Well, then the question is how you get religions to support that. 

Participant: In the book, he says that religions are necessary but that, sometimes, religions are misunderstood because the basis of religion is to help humans, people, every living being to become happy.

Dr. Berzin: Right. So, when religion doesn’t support everybody becoming happy, it is not really following its basic beliefs.