LTF 41: The Self Is Merely Labelled on the Aggregates

Here, in the text, although Nagarjuna is explaining a Mahayana path to the king, nevertheless, what we find is that he explains it in a way that is common to the Hinayana presentations. In the Hinayana presentations, they speak about the lack of an impossible soul of persons. This is a very difficult term: gang-zag-gi bdag-med in Tibetan – “no self,” the selflessness of persons. It’s only the Mahayana tenet systems of Indian Buddhism that speak about the selfless of all phenomena (chos-kyi bdag-med). 

The word  “selflessness” is fairly meaningless in English or in any other Western language that we would say it in. The word that they are referring to is “no atman” (bdag-med, Skt. anatman). “Atman” is “soul” in Indian philosophy. So, there is no soul, meaning that there’s no essential, basic thing inside things, primarily inside persons. When we talk about persons, we are talking about any sentient being, any limited being, that can be reborn in any of the six realms, not only human. Then we can speak of an impossible soul with respect to all phenomena. 

In the various Indian tenet systems, we have the two Hinayana systems, Vaibhashika and Sautrantika, and the two Mahayana systems, Chittamatra and Madhyamaka. Within Madhyamaka, we have Svatantrika and Prasangika. In all of these except Prasangika, they present one type of soul that is impossible for persons and a different type of soul that is impossible for all phenomena. In the Mahayana ones, the soul that is impossible for all phenomena is also impossible for persons. So, there are two levels of what’s impossible for persons. But here, Nagarjuna speaks only in terms of what’s impossible for persons, and this is talking about impossible ways of existing. 

We have discussed voidness quite a lot over the years. We have seen that voidness, or emptiness, is an absence; it’s a total absence of a way of existing that is impossible. That can be in reference to persons or to all phenomena, to everything in general. But the big problem is that our minds make things appear as though they exist in these impossible ways. That is due to our habits of perceiving and believing the garbage that our minds project. 

So, what we want to do is to realize that, although our minds make an appearance of things and we perceive the appearance of these things as existing in impossible ways – as if they existed, we could say, with a big solid line around them or encapsulated in plastic and sitting there all by themselves – nevertheless, that appearance doesn’t refer to anything real. In other words, the referent object of that appearance is totally absent; it was never there. It’s not that it went into the other room and that it is not here now: it was never there. That impossible way of existing never existed in the past, doesn’t exist now, and will never exist in the future. 

So, what we need to do with the understanding of voidness is to just cut off, like Manjushri’s sword – a swift, wham! – cut off this belief that we have in this impossible way of existing. When we focus on “there is no such thing,” and we only focus on “there is no such thing” and are totally absorbed on “no such thing,” there is no appearance of this impossible way of existing. We are just thinking, “There isn’t anything like this.” It’s not that we are thinking nothing; we are thinking with understanding, “There is no such thing.” 

The more habituated we are to this, the more we will stop believing in the appearances that our minds make during everyday life. Eventually, by being familiar enough with that state in which we’re focused on “no such thing” and the mind is not making that appearance at that time, our minds won’t make that appearance anymore. At that point, we’ll be able to see how things actually exist. It’s not that nothing exists; it’s just that the impossible ways in which things appear to exist don’t exist. 

And the way that everything does exist is in terms of dependent arising. Things arise dependently, on one level, on causes and conditions, and on another level, on parts. Causes and conditions is only the case with nonstatic phenomena – things that change, that arise based on causes and conditions. Things that arise dependently on their parts – that is in reference to everything, both static and nonstatic. 

Or on the deepest level, everything arises dependently on mental labeling. We have discussed that quite a lot. And what this has to do with is what establishes that something exists. How do we know that something exists? What proves that it exists? We can’t find anything on the side of the object that establishes its existence; there’s nothing from its own side that can establish that. It has to be in relation to a mind; otherwise, we can’t know it. 

And in terms of the relation to the mind, all we can say is that we have various concepts and various words for things. What establishes the existence of something is that there is a word for it; it is what the word refers to and what the concept refers to. But that isn’t all that establishes it. We can say that there is only that, but we also have words like “true existence,” “impossible existence,” “chicken lips,” “turtle hair.” We also have those words. So, just because we have words for things, doesn’t mean that it is a valid concept or a valid label. So, there are many ways of validating the mental labeling. It has to be something that is an adopted convention. The word or concept needs to be not contradicted by a mind that validly sees the conventional truth and not contradicted by a mind that validly sees the deepest truth. 

For many of us, this is just a review. For those for whom this is new, I guess it’s a lot of material all at once! But the main idea here is that our minds project and make things appear in a way that they don’t exist, that’s impossible. What we need to do is to stop believing in that. The way that we stop believing in that is through understanding, through logic, through reason, that what appears to us can’t possibly be true, doesn’t make any sense. 

And although what is appearing is impossible – referring to its way of existing – that doesn’t mean that nothing exists: things do exist. But how do you know that they exist? They exist in terms of what our labels for them refer to, what our concepts and words for them refer to, when they are validly labeled. 

In the text, Nagarjuna says in Verse 49,

[49] It has been said that forms are not the self, The self is not the possessor of forms, a self does not abide in forms, and forms do not abide in a self. Like that, understand that the remaining four aggregates are (also) devoid (of an impossible self).

Actually, this and the next verse are the two most difficult verses in the text. It’s basically in these two verses that Nagarjuna just throws at us (at the king) the understanding of voidness. Everything else is much more general. 

What does this refer to? It refers a self or “me.” All these words are synonymous here: a “person,” an “individual,” a “self,” “me,” the conventional “soul,” in fact. All of this is what it’s talking about. That self, or person, or “me,” is something that is related to the aggregates. 

The Five Aggregates

There are five aggregates that make up each moment of our experience. The individual person experiences something moment to moment to moment, and the content of that experience is constantly changing from moment to moment. We have individual mind-streams, or mental continuums, of experience, and if we wanted to make a division scheme for the content of that experience, we could divide them into five groups. These are known as the five aggregates. 

[1] One group would be the aggregate of forms of material, or physical, phenomena that make up any moment of our experience – so, sights, sounds, smells, tastes, and physical sensations. The body is the general container of all of that. In the West, we would add the brain, the nervous system, and all of that – so, the sensorial equipment. 

[2] Then we have an aggregate of consciousness. “Consciousness” here refers to primary consciousness. That is what is aware of, simply, the essential nature of what appears. If we take the analogy of a computer, it would be when there is data in the computer, which after all is just zeros and ones, the primary consciousness would be what knows that data to be, let’s say, an audio file or a graphic file or word file or something like that. It’s just aware of what type of data it is, in other words, what type of form it is. Is it a sight? Is it a sound? Is it a taste? Is it a physical sensation? Is it a thought? So, we have these different types of primary consciousness. 

Participant: Do you think that the raw data is the form? 

Dr. Berzin: Raw data would be like a form – when it’s physical. We are not talking about thoughts. That’s something else.

[3] Then there is what is usually called “recognition.” “Recognition” I prefer to call “distinguishing” ('du-shes). It’s the mental factor that distinguishes some characteristic feature within a sense the field so that we can differentiate, distinguish, one form from another form. If we didn’t have that, what we perceived would just be one, big mass of pixels, for instance, if it’s something that we see. But we can distinguish colored shape of a head from the colored shape of the curtains. We have to be able to distinguish like that; otherwise, there is no way possible to make sense of what we perceive. For example, we distinguish one voice from all the other noises, all the other sounds that we hear. So, there is always a distinguishing. It doesn’t mean we know what the thing is; it just means that we can differentiate it from the background.

[3] Then there is the aggregate of feeling – feeling of a level of happiness, unhappiness, or somewhere exactly in between. That is how we experience each moment. It’s called how we “experience” the ripening of our karma. Based on negative karma, destructive karma, we experience whatever is going on with unhappiness. Based on constructive, or positive, karma, we experience whatever is going on with some level of happiness. It’s what differentiates us from a computer. Computers don’t experience information; they just present information or digest information. But with a mind, one actually experiences things with some level of happiness or unhappiness because of karma. 

[5] The fifth aggregate is everything else that is not in other four. I call it the “aggregate of other affecting variables.” That would include all the emotions (other than feeling levels of happiness), all the various mental factors like concentration, interest, attention… all these sorts of things. And when we speak about emotions, we speak about both the positive ones and the negative ones – so, anger as well as love and patience. 

So, every moment of our experience is made up of a group, a cluster, of one or more elements from each of these five aggregate factors. Those are the aggregates, and they’re changing all the time.

Participant: So, normally it’s understanding?

Dr. Berzin: Understanding would be discriminating awareness, a way of being aware of something. You understand that it is this and not that.

Participant: Isn’t that distinguishing?

Discriminating Awareness versus Distinguishing

Dr. Berzin: Discriminating awareness adds certainty to distinguishing. Now, it starts to become more complex because then you bring conceptual thought into the whole process. With conceptual thought, one perceives things through categories. Remember, conceptual thought is with categories. So, you superimpose a category on what you perceive, and you perceive it through that category. The category could be “wall” or “door” or “Jorge” or “Daniel” It’s category. So, in that sense, we get recognition. In that sense, you get understanding. It’s just a different way of describing the conceptual cognition with certainty. 

Now, your certainty could be correct, or it could be incorrect. If it is really correct and you are really certain about it, then you understand it. If you are able to perceive something through many different categories and perceive how they go together, which is yet another level of category, then we say that you understand it. Then you can bring in the five types of deep awareness that we have studied so much – of equalizing (putting things together), individualizing (seeing things as separate) and so on. These are also forms of…

Participant: [Inaudible]

Dr. Berzin: No. As far as I recall, these five types of deep awareness are a type of primary consciousness. 

Participant: So, that’s not including the category, the aggregate, of everything else?

Dr. Berzin: It’s not in the aggregate of everything else, no. 

Participant: And then?

Dr. Berzin: It’s in the aggregate of consciousness. I think there are different opinions on it, but that’s one opinion that I have seen. Another opinion that I have seen is that it can be either a primary consciousness or a mental factor. So, it doesn’t fit exactly into any of the… one category. It could be in either the aggregate of everything else or the aggregate of primary consciousness. For instance, when you are focused on voidness with the dharmadhatu awareness, the awareness of the sphere of reality, it is a primary consciousness. When you are using it just in ordinary perception, it is a mental factor. But there’s a lot of discussion about that. You have different opinions. 

Also, categories are not in the aggregates. Categories are static phenomena; the aggregates are only nonstatic phenomena. Again, pardon us if this is all new to you, but some of us have been studying this for a number of years.

The Self, “Me,” Is Labeled on a Continuum of Moments of Experience, a Continuum of Aggregate Factors

So, we have moments of experience, a continuity of moments of experience. So, what is the person? What is “me”? A person is what is labeled on that continuity. For instance, we have a continuity of similar actions, and to put it all together, we would say there’s a “habit.” Or we have a continuity of minutes, and to put it all together, we say an “hour.” An hour is labeled on that continuity. An hour doesn’t happen the first minute, it doesn’t happen the last minute: an hour is labeled on that whole continuity. So, similarly, “me,” or “person,” is labeled on the continuity of moments of experience that are made up of these five aggregates. So, the question is always asked in the analysis of voidness of a person: what is the relationship between the person and the aggregates, which are what the person is labeled on? 

Maybe we need to pause here. Maybe we should have paused a long time ago to catch up with all of this. 

First of all, to review, voidness refers to impossible ways of existing, to what doesn’t exist at all. The mind makes things appear in a crazy way, but that appearance doesn’t refer to anything real. We know that that’s the case in terms of, for instance, paranoia: the mind makes it appear as though everyone is against us. But that is not the case. The classic example is that you see a striped rope on the ground in the dark, and the mind projects a snake onto it. There is a basis there: the striped rope. But that projection of snake is impossible; it does not refer to anything real, to anything that’s actually there. 

Let’s do that much. What are we talking about when we are talking about voidness? A total absence of an impossible way of existing – for instance, “I am the center of the universe. I am the most important one in the world.” That’s impossible. Nobody is. 

Is there any question on that, on just the general idea of what are we talking about when we talk about voidness? 

There are many different levels of what’s impossible, many different levels of subtlety of what our minds project. And we believe in the impossible things that the mind projects, like “I am the center of the universe.” It seems like that because there is a voice going on in our heads, and we think that that’s a “me” that’s sitting in there. “When I close my eyes, everything goes away. When I open my eyes, there I am.” So, naturally, it feels as though we are the center of the universe. But based on that, we get selfishness; we get desire – I want to get things in order to make myself secure; we want to push away things that we don’t like with repulsion and anger in order to make that so-called solid “me” secure. Then we get all sorts of destructive behavior, and that produces problems. So, the whole point is to get rid of the root of this, which is the belief in this junk that the mind produces, and, even deeper, to get rid of the projection, to get the mind to stop projecting this garbage. 

Now, when we talk about a person, an individual, which is what Nagarjuna is speaking about here, then we have to understand that the person – like me or you (but it’s particularly good to focus on me first) – has some kind of relation to the moments of the person’s experience. And the moments of experience are changing all the time; each moment is different. And each moment of experience is made up of many different parts, which we can divide into the five aggregates. If we want to make it really simple, we can just say the body and the mind. Emotions are there and all sorts of things like that. So, the real question, to put it simply, is, “What is the relationship between me – the person, the individual – and the body and mind?” And we have to differentiate between what the actual relationship is, according to the Buddhist teachings, and what is impossible. 

So, in order to have a foundation of what is possible so that we don’t fall to the extreme of thinking that there is no such thing as me or you or person, Buddhism speaks in terms of mental labeling – that there is a person; there is me. But all you can say is that a person – me – is what the word “me” refers to when it is labeled on that continuity of moments of experience. We put all these moments of experience together and say “me ” – “I am walking,” “I am sitting,” “I am talking,” “I am feeling happy,” “I am not feeling happy.” It’s a way of referring to all of that. And what is the “me”? What establishes that there is such a thing as me? Well, it’s what the word “me” refers to. We can’t actually pinpoint it and find it; it’s not sitting in our heads. It’s not any of these things.

Participant: This is Madhyamaka, no? You can’t say that the basis… so, the basis here would be the experience because you know it’s your experience and not the aggregates. So, the aggregates are not the basis.

Dr. Berzin: Well, if you want to get more technical… I mean, you’re asking, “Are the aggregates the basis of labeling, or is the conventional ‘me’ the basis of labeling?” The conventional “me” is labeled on the aggregates, and the false “me” is projected onto the conventional “me.” 

Participant: But you first said it’s labeled on the continuity of the moments of experience. 

Dr. Berzin: “Experience” is a general way of referring to the aggregates. Our experience is made up the aggregates. The aggregates are just a division scheme of moments of experience. 

Participant: Each moment is made up of these five aggregates.

Dr. Berzin: Right. Made up of a different combination of things from within these five groups.

Participant: So, according to the different schools, different divisions of the aggregates were the basis, no?

Dr. Berzin: Everybody agrees that there are the five aggregates, and everybody agrees that the self is imputed on them. Everybody agrees with that within Buddhism. So, then the question is, “What is the impossible thing that the mind projects onto them?” The impossible thing that the mind projects on it could be something that is doctrinally based. In other words, you learned from one of the non-Buddhist Indian schools that you had a soul and that the soul is like this. And you believe in that because you were taught that. It isn’t something that comes automatically; you have to be taught that. There are similar types of beliefs taught by Western religions. Then, because you believe in that, you perceive your experience in terms of that doctrinally based soul. So, first you have to understand that that’s impossible; it doesn’t refer to anything real. 

But then there is an automatically arising impossible soul… a concept of an impossible soul. It automatically arises; nobody has to teach you. Even dogs have it. So, that’s deeper. Then you have to understand, recognize, what that is and get rid of that. And then there are deeper and deeper levels.

Participant: I am a bit confused about the self and “me.”

Dr. Berzin: The self and “me” are the same. OK? Let’s digest that for a moment.

Analyzing a Moment of Experience

We have to realize that a moment of experience arises dependently on parts; it’s made up of parts. And each of those parts is dependent on causes and conditions. So, nothing is solid here at all. For instance, what is the experience of this moment (if you were to analyze the experience of this moment)? What’s going on? 

In this moment, for example, there are these colored shapes that I am perceiving. Alright? These colored shapes are arising dependent on the fact that all of you have come here, the fact that I am wearing my glasses, the fact that I was born with eyes, the fact that there is light in the room, the fact that… there are so many things that it is dependent on. And there is visual consciousness – the electronic and chemical impulses that are going into my brain. 

Also, what’s involved is my whole body, the whole system of the body to perceive things. And the primary consciousness is deciphering all those electrical impulses as sight; it’s not deciphering them as sound (after all, it’s just firing of neurons in the brain, different parts of the brain). So, it’s sight; it’s seeing. 

And there is distinguishing. I am distinguishing this colored shape from the colored shape of the wall. And there is a feeling of happiness because here are all my friends. And various other emotions are there like generosity (of trying to explain something), patience, and mental factors like interest and concentration. All these things are there. That’s what’s making up this moment. 

If you start to analyze it, it is just a moment of experience. And each of those things arises dependently on causes and conditions. Why do I experience seeing you with happiness? Well, it’s because we have a history, blah, blah, blah. It’s also because of various karmic reasons that, in this particular moment, I am experiencing happiness and not experiencing sadness or depression at seeing you. You could still be my friends, and I could still feel sad because of this or that. 

I have concentration as part of this moment of experience. That’s arisen from the fact that I have had enough sleep, I drank a strong cup of tea before I came to class, I am accustomed to concentrating… the stimulus of being a teacher, so, I have to concentrate. 

So, every little part is dependent on causes and conditions. There’s nothing solid there at all existing all by itself, is there? And each moment of the experience of being here is going to change; it’s going to be different – what you’re looking at, the sounds you are hearing, the level of interest, level of concentration, level of understanding. Each moment is different. And yet, throughout all of this, you’d have to say, “I am sitting here,” wouldn’t you? You’d have to say, “I am listening. I am speaking.” You’d have to say that. 

So, what is that “me” that is sitting here and listening throughout the whole sequence, throughout the whole hour and the half? All you can say is that, well, we put the label, the word, “me” on this continuity of moments of experience and say “me.” 

So, here is where the projection comes in. It’s just merely that, Buddhism would say. It is merely that; it’s nothing else. But now, because of our ignorance of how the self exists, the mind makes that “me” appear as though it is, for instance, static, that it never changes throughout that whole hour and half – that it’s the same “me.” Well, in a sense, it is the continuity of a “me,” but is it totally static, something that has never changed? But it feels like that. It feels like that. You go to sleep at night, and when you wake up in the morning, you think, “Here I am again – same me.” And if you think in terms of the same “me” and no change, it becomes very difficult to accept old age. It becomes very difficult… you know, “that’s not me,” we think, “The ‘me’ should be eternally young and healthy.” This is what we are talking about here. So, let’s think about that for a moment. 

OK. Any questions on that? 

The First Level of the Impossible “Me” – Doctrinally Based Views of the Self in Buddhist and Non-Buddhist Systems

Now, what is the impossible “me”? The impossible “me,” the first level of it, would be the doctrinally based one. The doctrinally based one is based on learning a doctrine, some sort of view, which traditionally, would be an Indian, non-Buddhist system. There’s a list of six of them. And in the next verse, we get, in very brief form, some reference to some of those views, which we went into in quite a lot of detail when we studied Shantideva’s text. 

We need to appreciate that Buddhism is an Indian philosophy. So, there are certain characteristics of a self, or person, that Buddhism and all these different schools of Hinduism (we use the term very loosely) and Jainism accept. Everybody agrees, Buddhism as well, that the self is eternal – no beginning and no end; it goes on forever. There is some modification of that in Hinayana, which says that with parinirvana – what you achieve when you die after you’ve achieved liberation – the continuity of the self ends. But when I’ve discussed this with a very highly respected Theravada master in Thailand, he said that, actually, what that means (the way they understand it) is that the continuity of the samsaric self ends, which would fit in more with the Mahayana view. In any case, it goes on forever. The mental continuum goes on forever even after we are enlightened – no beginning, no creation – and the self is eternal. Buddhism accepts that. 

Also, except for one of the Indian schools, everybody, both the Buddhists and the non-Buddhists, believe in karma – that from one lifetime to another lifetime, what you experience is influenced by the positive and negative things you have done. Everybody agrees on that. 

Also, what is very interesting is this concept of person being the size of the universe, mind being the size of the universe. I’ve always found that a little bit strange in Buddhism, I must say. In many of the Hindu schools, not all of them, they say that atman is Brahma and that you are one with the whole universe. Then you think, “Well, Buddhism doesn’t possibly agree with anything like that.” But then, you look at the description of what the mind of a Buddha is. It says that the mind of a Buddha is omniscient. The mind of a Buddha knows everything, the whole universe, and wherever the mind is, the energy winds that support the mind (this tantra explanation) also are. Therefore, the energy winds of a Buddha’s mind pervade the whole universe, which is why a Buddha can appear everywhere and anywhere in multiple forms at the same and at all times. So, as strange as that might seem, that is accepted in Buddhism. It’s a hard one to work with, I must say. But one shouldn’t think that Buddhism is so totally different from Hinduism; it’s just a matter of how they understand the mind of a Buddha that pervades the whole universe – what are the other characteristics of the self whose mind, when enlightened, pervades the whole universe?

Dharma-Lite Versus Real Thing Dharma

Participant: That’s where some unorthodox teachers come in and say, “Well, you don’t want to differentiate the text too much, but we can go further than that.” No?

Dr. Berzin: I don’t understand what you’re referring to.

Participant: What’s the name of this teacher that doesn’t, for example, believe in reincarnation? He gave a talk here, like three years ago.

Dr. Berzin: Are you talking about Stephen Bachelor? Are you talking about Buddhism without Beliefs?

Participant: Yes.

Dr. Berzin: Well, this is what I call Dharma-lite, which is what you have when you eliminate the concept of rebirth from Buddhism and the discussion of the hells and all these other realms and so on.

Participant: Except he doesn’t always, so he’s approaching Buddhism as an agnostic.

Dr. Berzin: Right.

Participant: [Inaudible]

Dr. Berzin: Well, that is much fairer to Steve Bachelor’s view. He is coming from a Zen background as well with profound doubts, always doubting – so, saying that he doesn’t know and that we can’t know; therefore, let’s see what we have even without that. But I would still call that Dharma–lite, which is not taking into consideration the fact that rebirth and these different realms are what Buddhism teaches. If you want to study so-called Real Thing Buddhism, there it is – rebirth is in Buddhism. So, maybe, it’s a matter of thinking, “I can’t understand it now, but it’s something that I’ll try to understand because, obviously, from the Buddhist point of view, it is true. I don’t understand it, but Buddha and the various masters said it was true.” 

So, this is the difference, one of the differences, I make between Dharma-lite and Real Thing Dharma. And I’ve always said that Dharma-lite is OK. There is nothing wrong with it, but don’t call it the real thing. It’s not the real thing.

Participant: [In German]

Dr. Berzin: She is saying that from the point of view of practice, it doesn’t make a difference. I would say that it does make a difference with certain practices, particularly in terms of the structure of lam-rim. If we are talking in terms of… 

Participant: [Inaudible]

Dr. Berzin: No. Motivation is there. Motivation is a very important part of every single practice. What are the graded levels of motivations? They have to do with improving future lives, thinking of liberation… 

What is liberation? Liberation is not some psychological get-rid-of-your-hang-ups-and-problems of this lifetime. And it’s not liberation merely from the first two forms of suffering – gross suffering and the suffering of change, the so-called mundane happiness that doesn’t last. It’s liberation from the all-pervasive suffering of samsara. That continuing rebirth, uncontrollably continuing rebirth, is the basis for the first two sufferings, for all the ups and downs. 

Why Is Belief in Rebirth Important?

Now, if you don’t take rebirth seriously, you certainly can’t aim to improve future rebirths and to continue having precious human lives. You can’t possibly be aiming for liberation from rebirth if you don’t believe in rebirth. You also can’t possibly believe in enlightenment so that you can bring everybody else out of rebirth. And you can’t possibly practice tantra in which you are practicing to transform the whole process of death, bardo, and rebirth. 

So, sure, you could practice love and compassion. You could practice concentration and all of that, and you could deal with psychological problems in this lifetime. But that is not the Real Thing Buddhism. That reduces Buddhism to a form of psychotherapy, which can be useful, but that’s not full Buddhist path.

Participant: But when you understand emptiness, does it make any difference then?

Dr. Berzin: If you understand voidness? Yes, it does. It makes a difference in terms of…

Participant: For the understanding of voidness.

Dr. Berzin: For the understanding of voidness, the understanding of rebirth is, I think, quite essential. The reason for that is cause and effect in terms of karma. Karma makes no sense if you don’t believe in past lives. Why would a great practitioner, a monk rinpoche in Tibet who’s never done anything harmful in his life, end up in a Chinese concentration camp and be tortured? It doesn’t make any sense in terms of cause and effect if you limit the period of time to this lifetime alone. And just in general, to think in terms of the continuity of mind – if you don’t believe in rebirth, where does it come from if it doesn’t come from a previous moment of its continuity? So, it really messes up your whole understanding of cause and effect if you don’t think in terms of rebirth and the voidness of cause and effect. 

Participant: But there is also the possibility that it doesn’t have a sense. You can’t say it must have a sense.

Dr. Berzin: What has a sense?

Participant: There’s concentration camp, that…

Dr. Berzin: If you say that there is no sense to the person ending up in a concentration camp, then you’re saying that there is no such thing as cause and effect – that things happen for no reason at all, or just bad luck. 

Participant: [In German]

Dr. Berzin: So, I would agree. Let me translate what you said. Roughly, it’s that if we reduce things to cause and effect just in terms of what we did in past lives, it becomes much too simplistic, and it doesn’t help us. 

However, we are not saying that what happens to us is simply caused by what we did in our past lives. That is much too simplistic because there are countless other causes involved. There are historical forces, what everybody else did, how the universe itself had evolved, the karma of everybody else who was involved in building the concentration camp and the invasion of Tibet. There’s also the karma of everybody else who was involved in the historical forces that brought that all about, and the economic forces…. There are a million causes and conditions for any one thing that happens to us. So, it is not a simplistic thing. Just to say that because I was a bad girl or a bad boy in my past lifetime I ended up in a concentration camp is too simplistic. That’s very true. 

And how does that help us? It helps us not to solidify the situation of being in the concentration camp and not to put the blame on me – “I am such a bad person” – or on the people who run the concentration camp, but to see that it all arises from causes and conditions. 

The way that you label something affects the way you experience it. So, then you apply lojong (the mind training, or attitude training) and change the negative circumstance into a positive circumstance. Most of these lamas had all their practices memorized. So, even if they were in solitary confinement, they used the time as a retreat and did meditation all the time. So, they suffered far less than someone who had nothing to do except feel sorry for themselves and get angry. So, understanding even just cause and effect on a larger level helps to de-solidify what we are experiencing. 

Somebody did something to me that I don’t like, so I get angry at them. Well, if I understand that they acted like that because, hey, they have a life, and there are a million other things happening in their life that affects why they acted like this – they have parents, they have people at work and all these other people who also have their whole lives – then, I can understand that all of the interactions of all these causal factors, which have resulted in this person acting in this way, not to mention those from my whole background, have, in a sense, affected the way I responded to this person. So, if I see that person’s behavior in this much, much broader context, then I don’t get angry. What is there to get angry at? There is no focal object left for the anger.

Participant: Yeah, but still, you don’t need to be convinced about future and former lives.

Dr. Berzin: So, you’re saying, if you can defuse the anger just within the context of this lifetime, wouldn’t that be sufficient? Well, it may work pretty well. I am not saying that it would be useless; it could work pretty well. But if you really wanted to go further, you’d have to see it on a larger scale. 

Participant: What about a two-day old baby that dies in pain?

Participant: Well, also here. There are many causes and conditions. It’s not without anything.

Dr. Berzin: That is a very good example. What about a baby that dies in childbirth or dies a day after it’s born? Well, you can say there are all the causal factors for that in terms of the hospital and the health and stuff like that. But still, in the end, you’re wondering, “Why did it happen to my baby?” So, was it just the bad luck of this baby that it happened to be born at that time in the hospital, or what? In other words, for most… for many situations, you need some additional factors of previous lives.

Participant: But you can explain a death of a baby, no? There is an epidemic, or there is something from the mother – the mother was freaking out or something like this. It’s not coming out of nothing.

Dr. Berzin: So, yes, you can explain the death of the baby as having to do with the mother being an alcoholic or there being an epidemic and things like that. But that doesn’t always give a satisfactory answer. There are many people involved. Anyway, let’s not get…

Participant: [In German]

Dr. Berzin: So, at our level, you are saying, it is very hard to be convinced of anything in terms of rebirth or karma because it is something that we just believe, like you just believe that what happened was God’s will, or you just believe that it was from the previous lives. Like that, we can’t be sure of it. Yes, that’s true. But there are a lot of things that don’t make a lot of sense without a previous life explanation. 

I always look in terms of my own experience – that there is absolutely zero in my family background and my social background that would indicate such an intensive interest in Buddhism, Dharma and so on from a very early age. Where in the world did that come from? And as I travel around the world and teach, I’ve come across four fourteen- or fifteen-year-olds who were intensely interested in Dharma, who came to Dharma centers and try to practice, and who ask the most intelligent questions. Where is that coming from? And I learn about them; I find out what their backgrounds are. And there is nothing in their backgrounds that would turn them to Buddhism. In my day, there weren’t even Dharma centers. There wasn’t anything. So, where is this coming from? And why, when I went to India, did everything fall into place within one week,?

Participant: [In German]

Dr. Berzin: She is saying that Buddha said in a sutra that one shouldn’t look in terms of “who was I in the past life; who will I be in a future life,” and so on but that one should look just in terms of suffering now, not in the past and future. 

Certainly, one would say (Tibetan would agree as well) that it doesn’t matter who you specifically were in your past life or will be in your future life. That’s not so interesting. But to speak from my own, personal experience, to have had an explanation that says that I must have been involved with this in a previous lifetime, gave me the confidence to pursue it – that I am not some weirdo, crazy person. I may be a weirdo, crazy person, but I pursued Buddhism. The interest emerged when I was thirteen. 

So, sure, you deal with your present situation. You don’t have to look at the specifics of the past. But I think it was Atisha who said, “If you want to understand your past lives, just look at your state of mind now. If you want to understand your future lives, look at the way you are acting and speaking now.” You get a general idea of what’s going to affect the future. The way that my mind works, what am I interested in, what my habits are, and so on – that gives some reflection on my past lives. I think it’s a very complex mixture here.

Participant: Also, I think there is a difference. If you believe that what happens to you is due to a kind of wrathful God or something – that “because I was bad” he punishes you – or if you believe in karma, there is a difference. Because if you believe in karma, I think, you are more in contact with yourself. But if you believe in a God, and you believe, “OK, this is punishment; he gave it to me” – that actually could even help you to improve yourself. Maybe it’s to say, “OK, next time, I’ll do it better” or something.

Dr. Berzin: Karsten makes a very good point, which is that we need to find an explanation for what we experience in life. So, if we say that it was sent to us by God or sent to us by the economic forces in a Marxist sense, or whatever, there is nothing that we can do. But the Buddhist position is that our previous karma is one of the factors that affects how we experience things, what we experience. 

Karma Affects Not Only What We Experience but Also How We Experience What We Experience

Remember, karma affects not only what we experience, it also affects how we experience what we experience. Am I happy/am I unhappy? Why does my happiness and unhappiness go up and down? How do you explain that? That’s very difficult to explain. “Why do I feel unhappy now? Everything is going well in my life, and I feel unhappy.” “Why do I feel happy?” There is some explanation.

If we believe in karma, in past lives, it puts the responsibility on ourselves. It’s not just saying that what I did in the past has determined what I am – that I was a bad boy or bad girl, and I feel guilty, so now I’m being punished. It means that what we will experience in the future…. OK, I am responsible for what I experience. This is the main thrust: I am responsible. It’s no help to blame it on somebody else. So, if I want to affect how I will experience the future and what I will experience, I have to change – dependent on my attitude, dependent on my beliefs, dependent on my behavior, basically. And of course, what I experience doesn’t exist in a vacuum because it’s going to be affected by everybody else (because we don’t live by ourselves) and what they do. 

Participant: Hell, for me, is not there.

Dr. Berzin: Well, there is a “me.” This is the whole point: there is a conventional “me.” But it doesn’t exist in an impossible way, which would be to be isolated from everything else – as if everything depended on what I do. 

Participant: [In German]

The Illusion of Being in Control Versus Taking Responsibility

Dr. Berzin: Right. Well, this is what I said as well. I said that. It is an illusion to think that everything is totally in my hands, that it’s totally up to me what happens in the universe. Of course, it’s not. This is the illusion that so many people have – being in control. “I want to be in control of what happens to me. I want to be in control of my life. Alles muss in Ordnung sein (everything must be in order). Alles klar (everything clear), controlled, in order. I know the rules. I know what is going to happen. That way, I can feel secure.” Well, this is a total illusion. Total illusion. There is no way that you could be in control. 

It’s not that there is some solid “me” that freaks out because we have no control. It’s not that either. The whole basis of it – thinking that there’s a solid “me” that could be either in control or out of control – is false. There is no solid “me” like that. There are just moments of experience. Moments of experience – one moment after another – which are dependent on a million, zillion parts and causes and, on a deeper level, on the conceptual framework with which we experience that experience. What’s your conceptual framework? That’s what mental labeling is dealing with. That affects how we experience things. 

Participant: And  we are not in control of anything. So, we have to let it be what it is. 

Dr. Berzin: If we are not in control of things, do we need to just let things be what they are?

It’s not that we are passive observers of the universe and of life. It’s not like there is a solid “me” who can just sit back in the back of our heads and let things happen. We are active within the context of understanding what is realistic. I can give advice to my child; I don’t just sit there and let the child do all sorts of crazy things. I can give advice. Doesn’t mean the child is going to follow the advice. But we do something.

Participant: And we have the part of responsibility.

Dr. Berzin: We have responsibility, but we are not God. 

Participant: Could you maybe say that, for the very present moment, you can only act to (what do you call this?) contribute factors and that, for the long run, you can actually plant seeds for the real causes?

Dr. Berzin: Yes, at the moment, what we can do is to contribute causes for what happens. We can contribute. But a bucket is filled by many, many drops. Then you have to see, what is the “me” that’s capable of contributing, of course. One has to avoid the two extremes (always in Buddhism – middle path) – that I am the sole one responsible for the whole universe or that I am a nothing, that there is nothing I can do (then you are the victim, in a sense). 

The same thing goes with bodhichitta: “I take responsibility to help bring everybody to enlightenment.” Well, that could be an enormous ego trip. “I am going to do it.” Sure, you want the courage. You want the courage that “I am going to do it by myself.” Shantideva even says that. “I’m going to do it myself. I don’t care if nobody else helps. I am going to do it. I take responsibility.” But that doesn’t mean that you think that you really will be able to do it totally by yourself. Also, it’s going to depend on all the other people and what they do. And it’s certainly dependent on the fact that there were various masters and so on in the past who taught so that I learned something.

Participant: Actually, I thought it would mean that one Buddha would be enough. 

Dr. Berzin: Right. That would mean that one Buddha would be enough… and why didn’t he finish the job when he was around? Right. So, one has to be careful not to inflate the bodhisattva path and bodhichitta. Don’t make it into an ego trip. Be realistic. How can I actually help somebody? It’s very, very difficult. This is why we need to become enlightened. 

Buddha’s mind encompasses everything, as we said. It’s difficult to understand, but what that means is that the mind of a Buddha encompasses all the causes, everything from beginningless time – all the different factors that are causing what’s happening and that are affecting what is happening to this person and that person and that person. And a Buddha knows that if he adds something into this by doing something, by teaching this person something, what the effect will be based on all the other factors that are interacting with it. It’s unbelievable to have that scope of mind. That’s what a Buddha is. 

That’s why you have to get your mind to stop making these appearances of solid existence. Stop… I always use that image of a periscope. Stop looking through the periscope, seeing things with lines around them. It’s just this and that. You have to see things without those lines so that you can see the interaction of absolutely everything. That’s only possible when the mind stops projecting appearances of solid existence – of anything. Then you see the interaction of everything; then you know cause and effect fully. That’s why they say only Buddha can understand karma fully. Then you know how to teach; you know what is going to be the most effective thing for each individual person at each individual moment of their progress. 

Participant: But still, it is also dependent on the person because even a very limited person can see… like a mother can see when the children run into danger or run into a catastrophe. You can see very clearly that it is going the bad way, and you can try to stop it. You can tell the children. And sometimes it works, but there are times when it doesn’t work. So, it also depends on this other person.

Dr. Berzin: Exactly. That’s what exactly I was saying. A mother can sometimes warn a child, “don’t play with matches,” and the mother can actually save the child if the child starts to set something on fire. Sure, the mother can do all of that. But there is no guarantee that the child will stop playing with matches. So, it depends also on the child and on the influence of other children on the child and the influence of television and all these sorts of things. 

Also, it would be dependent on the child’s destructive habits, which you’d have to attribute to previous lives. Why are some children sadistic and some children are very kind? Why are some children from very, very early age, absolutely repulsed to the idea of eating meat and others can’t eat enough of it? Where is that coming from? The child who’s repulsed by meat can grow up in a family that eats a lot of meat. Where is it coming from? Certainly, they don’t learn that on television.

Participant: [Inaudible]

Dr. Berzin: That I didn’t understand. What did you say? 

[Brief discussion about the meaning of the word.]

Dr. Berzin: A rebellion?

Participant: The child is against what the parents are doing.

Dr. Berzin: Yeah, but you can see this in four-year olds. Four-year olds aren’t going to be rebellious teenager. 

Participant: Four-year olds are very rebellious. 

Dr. Berzin: They are rebellious by not doing what you tell them to do, that’s for sure, but not in the same way as a teenager. That’s different.

We are nearly at the end of the class. And this verse is obviously going to take us some time. But it’s good that we discuss these things. We’ve dealt with this type of topic many times before, and the more that we deal with it, hopefully, the more understanding we’ll get. So, let’s just spend another minute or two trying to reflect on what we’ve discussed.