LTF 63: 7 Causes for Bodhi; the 14 Unspecified Questions

Now we are in the section that covers practicing the true pathway minds as the cause. That deals with the four noble truths. The true pathway minds refer to the levels of mind that enable us to achieve true stoppings of sufferings and their causes – namely, the five pathway minds. In general, there are five paths by which we progress toward liberation or enlightenment once we’ve either gained an unlabored state of renunciation aiming for liberation as a shravaka or pratyekabuddha or gained an unlabored state of bodhichitta, which is in addition to unlabored renunciation, aiming for enlightenment as bodhisattvas. “Unlabored” means that we don’t have to work ourselves up to that state with a line of reasoning, such as everybody has been my mother, everybody has been kind – this type of line of reasoning. Instead, we are so familiar with that state – here, being either unlabored renunciation or unlabored bodhichitta – that we are able to generate it instantly. So, once we’ve developed that state – sincerely – we develop ourselves further by working toward these spiritual goals in five stages. 

There is the building up pathway of mind (tshogs-lam) where, basically, we build up shamatha, the stilled and settled state of mind, which is free of mental dullness and flightiness of mind. It not only has absorbed concentration, which is free of those two, but also has a sense of fitness that enables the mind and body to stay concentrated as long as we want on anything that we want. That’s a very exhilarating state of both body and mind. 

But we only achieve the building up pathway mind when we have shamatha actually combined with vipashyana. Then we’ve finished that building up pathway state of mind and have the applying pathway of mind (sbyor-lam). In other words, we could have had shamatha before this, before having this unlabored state of renunciation or renunciation and bodhichitta, but it needs to be applied to the four noble truths on the building up pathway of mind.  

Vipashyana is an exceptionally perceptive state of mind that has, in addition to shamatha, a second state of fitness with which the mind is able to analyze and understand anything. When we get that, it’s conceptual. So, now we have to apply that over and over again with the applying state of mind. That’s sometimes called the “path of preparation,” but actually, “applying” is the meaning of the word. We apply this over and over and over again on the four noble truths until our understanding of them becomes non-conceptual. 

With the non-conceptual state of combined shamatha and vipashyana focused on the four noble truths, we gain a seeing pathway of mind (mthong-lam), or a path of seeing, and we become aryas, highly realized beings. It’s only then that we get the true pathway minds. And this is what is being discussed here. 

What we do with these true pathway minds, once we've achieved the seeing pathway mind, is to get rid of the doctrinally based disturbing emotions. These are the ones that are based on having been taught and believing in and having become convinced of a non-Buddhist Indian theory, most specifically about the atman (bdag), or soul, that, from a Buddhist point of view, is impossible – we don’t exist in that way. Such a soul is unaffected by anything, is a monolith with no parts, either the size of the universe or the size of a tiny atom, and can exist totally independently of a body and mind – in other words, of the aggregates – and, so, can, in a sense, come out of a body and mind and then go into another body and mind. So, it doesn’t change (is static and unaffected), and it is a partless, huge or tiny monolith. Such a thing is impossible. Whether it is asserted to have the nature of being aware (that’s the Samkhya position) or the nature of not being aware (the Nyaya position), it has to connect with a brain and a mind in order to know anything. So, both these positions are impossible from a Buddhist point of view and are refuted with a great deal of logic. 

In any case, when we have this seeing pathway of mind, in other words, when we can focus non-conceptually on these four noble truths – both the actual, conventional facts of the four noble truths and the voidness of the four noble truths or the voidness of the mind that understands the four noble truths (there are several ways in which it is explained) – we get rid of the doctrinally based unawareness of how we exist and the doctrinally based emotions that are based on that, such as attachment to our doctrinally based view, anger with anybody who disagrees with it, and so on. 

That’s from a Hinayana point of view, which is that the unawareness is just with respect to how persons exist. From a Mahayana point of view, the unawareness is with respect to how both persons and all phenomena exist – but doctrinally based. 

Alright, that was an awful lot of information. I’m sorry. But that is the background of what’s being discussed here. 

Conceptual Cognition – Cognizing an Object Through the Medium of a Category

So, non-conceptual focus on these things – it’s very difficult to even imagine what that is. If we imagine what it is – that’s conceptual. So, that’s not going to be terribly precise. Remember, when we focus conceptually on something, it is through a category. So, that means that it is not totally vivid. Now, a category would be like with the example of, let’s say, “wall.” “Wall” is a category. So, when we look at this particular thing over here and view it and understand it as a “wall,” then, when we look at that other one over there, we view it also as a “wall.” So, we are able to know what it is and cognize what it is through the medium of a category. 

What really is the category? That’s hard to say. It doesn’t necessarily have an image. It could be a word that’s associated with it, but it doesn’t have to be. When we think of “wall,” we just think, “wall.” Perhaps for some people, the mental image of a wall comes up. That’s not the category; that’s a representation of the category. For other people, maybe it’s just the sound of the word that comes up. “Do you know what a wall is?” “Yes, I know what a wall is.” How do we think that? What’s going on in our minds when we say, “Yes, I know what a wall is”? Anybody? I don’t really know the answer to that one. 

Surely, the dictionary definition of a structure that is between the floor and ceiling and holds up the ceiling doesn’t come directly to our minds when somebody says, “Look at the wall.” But we do know the meaning of it. It is, in a sense, a general word; it’s a category. Whereas, here, when we have non-conceptual cognition, we are focusing on particular items: this wall or that wall. We know what it is. It can’t be that we don’t know what it is. So, we know what it is conventionally, but we are not viewing it through a… I don’t know if there has to be a preconception of what a wall is. We would say preconception, wouldn’t we? Do we have a preconception of what a wall is? Do we have to have a preconception of a wall in order to know that that’s a wall? Well, in terms of mental labeling, sure. 

Now, mental labeling. To know from hearing or reading a word what it means – that’s a case of inference. There are three types of inference, inferential understanding. 

• One is based on a line of reasoning – for example, where there is smoke, there is fire. 
• The other is based on convention: when we hear the sound “wall,” we infer that it means what the dictionary says that word means and what we have learned it means. That’s a case of inference. We infer meaning from a word… from a sound, actually, just from a sound. 
• Also, when we hear the sounds of words, we know that word through a category because we understand “wall” regardless of how loud or how soft it’s said and what kind of voice it’s said in – a man’s voice, a woman’s voice, a child’s voice, with an accent, without an accent. We put that all together into the general category of the word “wall,” don’t we? It’s not as if we hear a different word each time.

But here with non-conceptual… and I’m just working this out, thinking about it, as I’m talking because it is very, very hard to understand, really, what in the world a non-conceptual cognition of the four noble truths is. What are these guys or women doing here? What are they realizing? It has to be that they know what they are perceiving – that this is true suffering, this is a true cause of suffering, this is a true stopping, this is a true pathway mind that will lead to that. So, they have to know these four truths, and they have to know the sixteen aspects of them, which gets a little bit more complicated. And they have to know the voidness of them, if we are talking Mahayana as well. But it’s not through a category. So, it’s not with a preconception; it’s not with a universal. They see each one as what it is. 

Anybody have any clue as to what that could actually be like? 

Participant: I think maybe it’s more like an experience. It’s difficult to put it into complete words because then you try to explain through concepts.

Dr. Berzin: Right. Exactly. That’s what I said. And that’s exactly what they say: it’s beyond words. Words are categories – so, that’s conceptual. So, it’s beyond words, but it’s not beyond understanding. I think this is the important point. It’s not some mystical experience that defies or is beyond understanding. There’s understanding. There has to be understanding. 

Concepts without Words

We could have concepts of things even without words. I think so. I don’t know. Concept of what? Like when you’re cooking, what is your taste like when there’s enough salt or not? That’s a concept, isn’t it? It’s a category. Each time you make it, it should taste like “this.” As I say, this is really quite difficult. All we can do is to look at the actual explanations of what non-conceptual means and try to understand that when we see things, although sense perception is non-conceptual, it’s only non-conceptual for a tiny nanosecond and, that immediately, it becomes a mental cognition associated with a concept, with a meaning category. 

I am seeing Mark, and I have a concept and a general category of “Mark.” Every time that I see him, the basis has changed: he has gotten older every time. (Remember Aryadeva: every second we are getting closer to death. Shantideva said something very similar.) So, every time we see somebody, they are different; they have changed. Yet we have a category of “Mark.” I don’t have to actually say the word “Mark” in my head – do I? – in order to know that’s Mark. I might not even remember his name. Sometimes that happens. Especially as we get older, we can’t instantly recall everybody’s name even though we have known them for years. Yet, I know who it is. That’s interesting. Is that conceptual? “I know who that is. I don’t remember the name, but I know who that is.” That is a good example of a concept without words. Isn’t it?

Participant: Is it just another concept like, “It’s the person I know,” instead of “Mark”?

Dr. Berzin: Right. So, you could put it into those words, “it’s the person I know,” as in the general category of “the people I know.” Yes, it could be like that. There are sub-categories and larger categories. So, it could be “human being” as well. It could be “man.” Many types of things. 

Five Types of Deep Awareness – Putting Things Together Non-Conceptually

This becomes an interesting point. Let’s go back to the five types of deep awareness that we haven’t discussed in this course, though many of you are familiar with that from previous courses. There are five kinds of deep awareness. There is one that is like a mirror (me-long lta-bu'i ye-shes, mirror-like deep awareness). It basically just takes in information. So, you take in information – shape, color, sound and these sorts of things. The next one is equalizing (mnyam-nyid ye-shes, equalizing deep awareness), which basically puts the object(s) of cognition into categories. It is not so much putting it into categories… Now, this is interesting because these awarenesses aren’t necessarily conceptual. In fact, they are not conceptual. 

Equalizing awareness puts things together by seeing the similarities between them. Without that, you wouldn’t be able to make sense of anything that you perceive. If I couldn’t see that these two colored shapes in front of me (basically, one just sees colored shapes) are not only human beings (so, I’m putting you two together and not putting you together with the radiator behind you) but that they are also both women… Obviously, if that awareness is not functioning well, I could see you and the radiator behind you just as two objects or something like that. 

In fact, there are many colored shapes that I am viewing here. There is the color of your face, the color of your glasses, the color of your hair… not just the color, the shape – the colored shape of your face, the colored shape of your glasses; your lips are a different colored shape, your hair is a different colored shape, each item of the clothing you’re wearing is a different colored shape. Well, I am putting those things together into an object and, also, not putting them together with the colored shape of the radiator behind you. Obviously, one has to be able to do that. That’s also the mental faculty of distinguishing, the aggregate of distinguishing: differentiating one object from another object. Otherwise, what you have is just an abstract painting of colored shapes. But it’s not an abstract painting of colored shapes. It would be pretty confusing if that’s all that one saw. Then you couldn’t make sense of anything. So, it’s equalizing.

Do Categories Have to Do with Preconception?

So, how does that work non-conceptually? I think it’s just putting things together, but not necessarily into categories. So, maybe categories have something to do with preconceptions, what we would call preconception. You have a preconception of a wall… But then you have to ask, “Do babies, infants, have these conceptual thoughts?” You’d have to say, “Yes.” Do they have a preconception? For instance, they can distinguish between hungry and not hungry. Nobody has to teach a baby that. They can distinguish between light and dark. Can they? I am not quite sure. I think babies can immediately distinguish light and dark. Their vision isn’t clear, but they can distinguish between light and dark, cold and warm. These things they can distinguish. Is it a category? I think you’d have to say, yes, it’s a category. Is it a word? No, certainly not a word. 

So, our understanding of these categories and conceptual thoughts is not so simple, is it? 

Participant: It’s about a feeling.

Dr. Berzin: Feeling hot and cold or hungry and not hungry is certainly based on a physical sensation. What is it they’re perceiving? They are perceiving a physical sensation. Does a baby know it’s hungry or is it just crying because it’s pain, it’s uncomfortable? I don’t know. A baby knows when the mother’s nipple is present. When they have that physical sensation of hunger, they know what to do. And obviously, there must be some internal process that lets them know that if they suck on this, it will remove that physical discomfort. I think this is a concept. 

It’s very interesting. There are different levels of concepts, and these are things that we would develop very much during our lifetimes – like the concepts of words of a language that we have learned or the concepts of our memories. These are all categories. Each time we remember an event, we are basically remembering it through a category that we’ve made out of the event. “When I went on vacation” – that’s a category. 

But there are also subtler conceptual minds, the preconscious, primitive conceptual minds.  They’re described in the highest class of tantra; there are eighty of them, like, for instance, “to suck.” That’s one that a baby would have. That would come, presumably, with being born as a mammal. It isn’t something that is associated with the concept we have of “my house” and this type of thing, which is specific to this lifetime and quite individual. These are more universal. 

There are different levels of non-conceptual as well. I think that, here, it’s just without these grosser ones, like the concepts of words and personal memories. But these eighty subtler ones, I think, are still there. That becomes a very difficult discussion because compassion is one of the eighty – the concept of removing suffering. That is a very, very deep, universal type of thing – that everybody wants to avoid suffering. It’s a general response to any type of situation of suffering, including our own. So, that’s still primitive concept of compassion is there even when we talk about the non-conceptual cognition of something. 

What non-conceptual means in sutra is quite different from what non-conceptual means in highest class of tantra. Then, of course, one gets into a big discussion of what it means to have compassion with the clear light mind, which is the most totally non-conceptual level of mind. But I don’t know about that. There is a Nyingma explanation, but there is no need to go into that. It’s sort of a general thing of the energy going out from the mind that causes the manifestation or emanation of something, which would be, then, to help others.

Anyway, Hinayana aryas have non-conceptual cognition of the four noble truths. That means that each time that they focus on something, it’s not that they think conceptually in terms of the first noble truth, “Oh, I am focusing on suffering, true suffering.” As I say, very difficult to know what non-conceptual cognition of the four noble truths is like.

Non-Conceptual Cognition of the Four Noble Truths Gets Rid of the Two Levels of Unawareness

Anyway, the non-conceptual cognition of the four noble truths and, in Mahayana, the voidness of them as well (we won’t go through it in detail) gets rid of the doctrinally based unawareness, or ignorance, and the disturbing emotions based on that. That’s the seeing pathway mind, a true seeing pathway mind. Then there is the true accustoming pathway mind (sgom-lam), what’s called the “path of meditation.” We accustom ourselves to this understanding, over and over again so that, eventually, we get rid of the automatically arising unawareness and the disturbing emotions that are based on that. 

The automatically arising unawareness about persons is that we and others exist as a self-sufficiently knowable persons or beings, as in “I want you to love me for myself, not for anything about me – not for my good looks, not for my money, not for my intelligence. Just love me for me.” As if there were a “me” that could be loved separately from everything else – which it can’t, obviously. But for many of us, that is a very definite thought. “I want you to pay attention to me.” We don’t think, “I want you to pay attention to the sound of my voice, and based on that, impute a ‘me.’” We certainly don’t think of that. “I want you to pay attention to me – want you to appreciate me, to respect me, to like me,” all these sort of things. So, that is the automatically arising unawareness of how we exist. 

There are all sorts of disturbing emotions that are based on that, obviously. We get angry when the other person doesn’t pay attention to us. We get very attached and desirous – desire for more attention, attached to any attention that we have. Even the dog has that. The dog is very upset if you don’t pay any attention to it. So, that is for gaining liberation by getting rid of the unawareness that’s just with respect to persons. 

Then, we need to get rid of our unawareness of how all phenomena exist in order to gain enlightenment. The different tenets system will have different levels of understanding of what the impossible doctrinally based and the automatically based impossible ways in which we imagine that everything exists are. Anyway, just briefly about this. Obviously, that’s not so much the topic here… explicitly.

The text here is about the true seeing pathway minds – what we need to attain them, what’s involved. This is Verse 106, what’s called the seven-branched causes for a purified state. Purified state – that’s the word bodhi. It means either liberation or enlightenment – liberation as a shravaka or a pratyekabuddha or enlightenment as a bodhisattva. 

Remember the difference between a shravaka and pratyekabuddha. Shravaka is one who is aiming for liberation and listens to the teachings of a Buddha. Shravaka literally means “a listener.” A pratyekabuddha is someone who lives at a time when the teachings of Buddha are not available and who, just based on instincts from previous lives, has some sort of intuitive understanding of the teachings and gains liberation. These are the ones who live in the dark ages. They don’t necessarily live all by themselves, though some do. Those are the two types of practitioners who aim to gain liberation. Those who aim to gain enlightenment are the bodhisattvas. 

So, there are these seven-branched causes for a purified state. They are part of the thirty-seven factors leading to a purified state. We've discussed them before; no need to go through all of them. But the ones that are specific here to the seeing pathway mind are these seven. The ones that are specific to the next one, the accustoming pathway mind, are what are called the “eight noble truths” – we’ll get to that. 

Verse 106 is talking about the essence of the true seeing pathway minds, these seven factors. The verse reads:

[106] Mindfulness, differentiating-awareness of phenomena, perseverance, joy, a sense of fitness, absorbed concentration, and equanimity – these seven are the branch (causes) for a purified state: they’re the network of constructive factors to bring about an attainment of nirvana.

Nirvana, here, refers to either liberation or enlightenment. There are many sub-categories within nirvana, but no need to go into all of that. Let’s look at these seven in this specific context. 

By the way, are there any questions? I have given an awful lot of material here so far today. Anything you want to discuss further about conceptual and non-conceptual cognition? It’s a very difficult topic I must say. 

Participant: Someone who has non-conceptual cognition – what do they respond if you ask them to please explain it.

Dr. Berzin: How do they respond? If they have a sense of modesty… not modesty, but if they are not being pretentious, not being hypocritical, they would explain it up to their level of understanding and not pretend to have realized more than they have. 

But Buddha taught with words. He taught… Well, if you look at the Nirmanakayas, there are Nirmanakayas as artisans, which are forms in which the Buddhas teach with music or gestures and things like that. There are also Nirmanakayas as personages who teach with words. Buddha taught with words. Words are necessary for communication for most people. And words, obviously, are involved with concepts. How else? Hit somebody with a stick, as in certain Zen situations? Well, that is for a specific understanding. That’s not for the whole understanding of the path. When somebody says, “Voidness means that I don’t exist, that you don’t exist, that nobody exists,” and then you hit them: “Well, who experienced that pain?” That’s a Zen method of teaching through a gesture (I guess you would call it), not with words. You don’t teach somebody bodhichitta that way. Depends on what you want to teach them.

Participant: [In German]

Dr. Berzin: Right. There is a koan: “Chenrezig, Avalokisteshvara, has a thousand arms (or a thousand hands). Which is the actual hand?” And you’re supposed to point. But these are words. 

Participant: [In German]

Dr. Berzin: You see that in the Zen method, you can’t actually indicate something with your own words. Yes, but this is exactly what’s said in all systems – that you start with words and concepts and then go to non-conceptual. There are just different ways of doing that. And giving a koan is not the same as hitting somebody with a stick. Is it? 

Participant: [In German] 

Dr. Berzin: Right. The teacher would hit the student with a stick if they keep on coming up with more concepts. 

That is possible. I am sure that’s what is done, but I don’t think that that necessarily would get you to stop making concepts. It could also get you to just become very angry. 

Participant: [In German]

Dr. Berzin: But the thing of using that to demonstrate who it is that feels pain if you think that I don’t exist, that’s quite… You hit the person, and then say, “Who felt the pain? Did you feel it?” Then it is clear.

Participant: [In German]

Dr. Berzin: Right, hitting with a stick is not a method that is applied all the time; it’s just for special circumstances and, I’m sure, also for special students who are ready for that. To just use it as a disciplinary thing when you are not sitting up straight or when you are falling asleep is just punishment for not keeping discipline. That’s a different purpose. 

In any case, we have these seven.

[1] Mindfulness, mindfulness, you remember, is the mental glue that prevents us from forgetting, from letting go of an object. It says here in the explanation in the commentary, “mindfulness enables us to control our disturbing attitudes and emotions. With it, we can focus our minds on the four noble truths and not let it lose its focus by being distracted by other objects.” This is what’s called a “branch cause” for achieving the purified state of liberation or enlightenment. We have to be able to hold onto the understanding of the four noble truths non-conceptually, and that enables us to control the disturbing emotions so that we don’t come under the influence of them. This is the “branch of support,” it’s called, for supporting the seeing pathway mind. That’s how we support it; it’s by keeping this mindfulness. 

[2] The second one is called the “differentiating-awareness of phenomena.” It’s the branch of the essential nature. What is the essential nature of the seeing pathway mind? It differentiates between what is correct and incorrect about all phenomena. In the Mahayana systems, it’s refers to the mom-conceptual cognition of the voidness of the mind that non-conceptually cognizes that lack of an impossible soul of a person and the voidness of the four noble truths themselves. In a Hinayana context, it’s the non-conceptual focus on the lack of the mind existing as the possession of the impossible soul of a person. That’s the essential nature, the essence of the seeing pathway mind. 

[3] Perseverance is the branch that sustains it. The first one, mindfulness, is the support for sustaining our motivation. Perseverance what actually sustains that motivation; it keeps it going. It stabilizes our renunciation or, also, bodhichitta stable. It enables us not to give up but, instead, to carry on until we achieve liberation or enlightenment. That’s very important. When we have this first non-conceptual understanding of the four noble truths, that perseverance – joyful perseverance – enables us to keep on going and not just say, “Well, that’s enough.” We need that because we still have the automatically arising unawareness and the automatically arising disturbing emotions to get rid of.

[4] Joy, the fourth one, is the branch of the benefit that we gain. The benefit that we gain from this is that it brings ease to the mind by making it continually happy. While we are focused on all of this, the mind is very happy. It’s a type of joy that we get from being rid of some aspect of unawareness or disturbing emotions. I always try to explain this like the joy that we feel of relief when we take our shoes off at the end of the day, and our feet are hot and tired. So, it’s a joy that’s associated basically with a release.

[5] Then a sense of fitness, the fifth one, is the branch with which we don’t develop anymore doctrinally based disturbing emotions since it removes all mental and physical discomfort and makes our minds flexible and blissful. It prepares a ground that is free of the doctrinally based disturbing emotions so that we don’t develop them ever again and can go on to remove the automatically arising ones. What does that mean? We have a sense of fitness. It’s an exhilarating sense. The mind can focus on anything and understand anything. So, it’s flexible. And it’s very exhilarating; it’s very blissful. And because the mind feels so great being free of all the doctrinally based disturbing emotions, we don’t develop them again. They are finished; they are never going to come back. And it’s in a state from which we can then go on to the next step. If we have this sense of fitness, then we feel, “OK, I have done this much, and I am fit to go on and do more.” So that’s important here. I think that’s the point of it. 

[6] Sixth one is absorbed concentration. It’s in the branch with which there are no more doctrinally based disturbing emotions. They will no longer arise, so it enables us to fulfill all our wishes by developing enlightening qualities. Absorbed concentration, by the way, is the word samadhi (which is used in very general context in all Indian systems). The mind is totally focused, totally concentrated… no more disturbing emotions. So, we are rid of all the stuff that we had been taught and believed in but that was just incorrect or confusing. Now, with that concentration, we can develop all different types of enlightening qualities. So that’s absorbed concentration.

[7] Seventh is equanimity. That’s the branch with which the disturbing emotions no longer arise. It enables us to adopt what is to be practiced and to avoid what is to be abandoned. Equanimity means that we don’t have certain prejudices that we had learned before. I think we have to understand this in terms of doctrinally based things – for example, washing ourselves in the Ganges River will wash away all our negative karma, and if we don’t do that, things will be very difficult. This type of thing. We have equanimity toward that – “OK, that was what I thought before, but I see that that’s not really the way to get rid of my negative potentials and forces.” So, it enables us to really adopt what is to be practiced and to avoid what really needs to be rejected. So, there is a certain amount of balance here with equanimity – no preconceptions, no “I like this, I like that, and I don’t like that,” based on having been taught that or based on just our own samsaric things. We have to have equanimity toward our old habits, whether they were doctrinally based or not, when they are negative habits or unhelpful habits. Don’t we? Especially, here, when they are based on some belief system that we have understood is not the deepest truth. 

These are the seven: 

• Mindfulness gives us the support for sustaining the path. 
• Differentiating-awareness of phenomena is the actual essence of this pathway mind and is the support to sustain this state of mind. 
• Perseverance is what actually allows us to sustain the motivation, to keep going. 
• Joy makes it easier to do. 
• A sense of fitness – we are going to go on to the next steps. 
• Absorbed concentration is what allows us to develop further qualities. 
• Equanimity toward our previous un-useful habits and preconceptions allows us to really know now what we need to do and what we need to reject. 

These are what we gain and what we work with, with this seeing pathway mind. 

Any questions? There are a lot of lists like this, but this is one of them. 

Then Nagarjuna sets up in the next verse, according to the outline, a brief introduction to the discriminating awareness that’s needed here.

[107] Without discriminating awareness, there can be no mental stability; and without mental stability, as well, there can be no discriminating awareness. But, anyone having both of them will be able to make the ocean of (their) compulsive existence like (a puddle in) the hoof print of an ox.

This is an image that I am sure must have come from a sutra. The ocean of samsara seems unbelievably big. But when you have both shamatha and vipashyana, the ocean of samsara becomes only as big as a puddle in the hoof print of an ox. Nice image. This just emphasizes that we really need to maintain that discriminating awareness and mental stability (mental stability is the word dhyana). Without that discriminating awareness, we can’t really have mental stability. What does that mean? 

Discriminating awareness allows us to see the nature of reality – here, in the most general terms, the nature of how we exist. If we are thinking about a big, solid “me,” then we come under the influence of expectations and hopes – “Oh, I hope I can meditate really well,” me, me, me. Or worries – “I won’t be able to do it properly.” We have mental wandering. We get tired – “Oh, I am so tired; I can’t do this.” This type of thing. If we understand with discriminating awareness how we exist, then we are free of all of that, and it helps us to gain the mental stability. 

And without mental stability, there can be no discriminating awareness, of course. If we don’t have concentration, we’ll never be able to develop that discriminating awareness. So, the two of them support each other. The more that we have of one, the more we have of the other. Each one is necessary for the other, and each one helps us to produce the other. So, they are mutually supportive. 

On a deeper level, we can understand discriminating awareness here to refer to vipashyana and mental stability to shamatha. 

The next verse is what we need to give up and not focus on.

[108] (Buddha,) the Kinsman of the Sun, (that’s just an epithet of Buddha) has declared that there are fourteen (questions for which) he wouldn’t specify (an answer) to the world. Whatever they are, don’t think about them. A mind (that’s concerned) about them isn’t one that can pacify (suffering).

That is a very good point about these unanswered questions (“unspecified,” literally, is the term that is used for them). Buddha didn’t specify an answer, didn’t say this or that. The reason is that worrying about them won’t bring liberation; it won’t get rid of suffering. So, they’re not things to focus on. 

As His Holiness once said in response to complaints about the explanations of Mount Meru, the four continents and all of that, he said that Buddha didn’t come to teach us geography. That wasn’t his main mission: to teach geography. It was to teach us the way to overcome suffering. This was the understanding of geography of the people at the time, so there was no point in contradicting that. 

In any case, fourteen questions for which Buddha didn’t specify an answer – there is a Mahayana version, and it’s based on, or very similar to, the Hinayana version. I have both here (this is basically from an article from my website.) 

The Mahayana Version

First of all, the first twelve in the Mahayana version deal with questions concerning the self, the atman, the “me,” and the universe. The reason that Buddha didn’t answer these was not only because worrying about them will not bring liberation but also because they’re based on believing that there is a truly existent soul, a “me,” an atman, and a truly existent, solidly existent universe. It is like asking, “Does the son of the woman who can’t have children have blond hair or dark hair?” It is ridiculous to ask that question because what you are asking about doesn’t exist. This is the point here. If Buddha had answered, “Yes, the child of the barren woman has dark-colored hair,” they would get completely the wrong idea, so better not to answer at all. To just say, “Your question is stupid,” obviously, was not a very appropriate answer either. So, Buddha just didn’t answer. 

So, these are with reference to the atman and the universe. Buddha didn’t answer when they asked if either was:

[1] Eternal – From a Buddhist point of view, the individual self and the universe do have no beginning and no end. But in terms of a truly existent one, to ask, “Is it eternal?” doesn’t make any sense. 

[2] Not eternal – People would think that because they undergo gross impermanence at the time of the destruction. The general Indian idea is that universes come to an end; they go through kaliyuga and this type of thing, and then they’re finished. That would be the extreme of not eternal. 

[3] Both – in the sense that some beings and their environments, like the Creator Brahma and his heaven, are eternal while everything else, such as the creations of Brahma, are not eternal and end at the time of their destruction, at the end of the kaliyuga. There is that question – “Is Brahma and the Brahma world eternal, but our world and us beings are not eternal?” So, that he didn’t answer.

[4)] Neither (neither eternal nor not eternal) – if the atman and the universe were truly existent and neither eternal nor non-eternal, it would have to exist in some transcend way beyond both. Since that is impossible, Buddha didn’t answer. 

Then the next set of four deals with the “I,” or the self, and the universe, the atman and the universe. Are they: 

[5] Finite 

[6] Infinite 

[7] Both finite and infinite 

[8] Neither?

None of them make sense. 

Here I have it written, and I must say I can’t recall exactly the text that I got all of this out of (it probably was from Abhisamayalankara), but the explanation of both being finite and infinite is that “limited beings, or sentient beings, are infinite in number, but the universe is finite in size.” Buddhism doesn’t say that limited beings are infinite; they say that there is a finite number of limited beings. Otherwise, it would be impossible for everybody to become enlightened. But here, in the explanation, it says, “Truly existent beings are infinite number of them, but the universe is finite in size.” That must be one of the non-Buddhist beliefs. I would imagine. I’d have to do much more research to figure out which one it specifically is. The universe would be finite in size because they would believe that it’s created by Brahma.  

And limited beings being infinite in number – if you have a spiritual path that’s not really concerned with helping to lead others to liberation and that believes that everybody has to figure it out for themselves, there is no problem with there being an infinite number of beings. Is there? It’s very difficult. To say, “I am going to liberate every being,” but they are infinite in number… you could never liberate an infinite number. That becomes a problem: there will always be more. 

Participant: [Inaudible]

Dr. Berzin: If you have infinite time? You still wouldn’t finish liberating them, would you? Come on, you’re the scientist. Infinite is a difficult concept. 

In any case, if you think in terms of finite or infinite in number and size, and you think of beings or the universe as solidly existent, anything that you ask about them isn’t going to make any sense. 

The next question: Does the “I,” or the self, of a Buddha: 

[9] Continue to exist after death 

[10] Not continue after death 

[11] Both, in the sense that the body does not continue but the life-force does 

[12] Neither? 

Obviously, there are some Hinayana systems that say when a Buddha dies, parinirvana doesn’t continue to exist. There are others that say that it does continue to exist – forever. But if you ask that in terms of a truly existent Buddha, then it doesn’t make any sense. 

This is interesting. It’s very interesting because what it indicates, of course, is different from what I and most teachers teach. What it indicates is that to deal with these issues of how many sentient beings there are, what happens to a Buddha after he or she dies, and all these things are really only issues that you should deal with once you have some understanding of voidness. That’s what it implies, doesn’t it? If you don’t understand that – if you are thinking in terms of solid existence – and you discuss these issues, people are going to get the wrong idea. 

Well, I don’t know of anybody who avoids talking about these issues until the students understand voidness. But that’s the implication here. Therefore, I think that what one can at least do when discussing some of these issues – like, what’s eternal, what’s impermanent, what lasts, what doesn’t last, what happens to a Buddha, what happens to an arhat, for that matter, a liberated being – is to introduce the discussion with a little bit about voidness and to explain that we are not talking about truly existent, solidly existent things. I think that’s a minimum of what one can do when approaching these types of issues. Otherwise, people get the wrong ideas. You follow?

Then, as said it says in the explanation, it’s like asking, “Does turtle hair last forever or only a limited time?” Does a turtle always have hair, or does it lose its hair? This is a silly question. The problem is that if Buddha said that these things are eternal, people would fall to the extreme of eternalism – that these solid things are forever. And if he said that they are not eternal, they could fall to the extreme of nihilism – that these things don’t exist at all.

Then there were the last two questions. Are the body and the life-force: 

[13] The same entity, the same essential thing 

[14] Totally separate and different entities? 

That is the same issue as asking if the truly existent “me” and the truly existent aggregates (here, the body and the life-force) are the same or totally different. Neither is possible.

The Theravada Version

In the Theravada tradition, we have something similar. Actually, I think it was you, Rainer, and Renata who helped me to locate these in the Theravada text, in the Pali canon. In the Sutta of the Shorter Instructions to Malunkya (Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta), which is in the Middle Length Sayings (the Majjhima Nikaya), we find this list. In this version, the monk Malunkyaputta was continuously distracted by metaphysical speculation in his meditation. To turn him back to his intensive meditation practice, Buddha remained silent when Malunkyaputta asked these questions. 

This is the original or earliest statement of these things. The guy was distracted, and this fits with the explanation that dealing with these questions won’t lead to liberation. And it’s very nice the way Nagarjuna’s presentation fits very well with this Pali sutta because he said, “Whatever they are, don’t think about them. A mind (that’s concerned) about them isn’t one that can pacify (suffering).” 

It really is interesting. Although Nagarjuna is considered the earliest Mahayana formulator, so much of what he says here is so similar to what you find in the early Hinayana canon, whether it’s Pali or Sarvastivada. Who knows what he had access to at that time in that part of India. I am not quite sure. But in any case, that’s the context. 

So, the questions that Malunkyaputta asked are: 

• Is the universe eternal? 
• Is the universe not eternal? 
• Is the universe finite? 
• Is the universe infinite? 
• After death, does a Buddha continue to exist? 
• After death, does a Buddha not continue to exist? 
• After death, does a Buddha both continue to exist and not continue to exist? 
• After death, does the Buddha neither continue to exist nor not to exist? 
• Are the body and the self the same entity? 
• Are the body and the self totally separate and different entities? 

The Mahayana list is a little bit more elaborate, but it’s talking basically about the same things. So, instead of asking whether just the universe is eternal or not eternal, it’s asking whether the universe and the self are eternal, not eternal, both, or neither. The Mahayana just has it a little bit more elaborate.

Any thoughts about that? Any questions? Of course, I won’t answer them; I’ll remain silent. [Laughter]

Then the text goes on, in the next four verses, to explain the twelve links of dependent arising. This is the explanation, according to the commentary, of the antidote, what we really need to understand in order to get rid of the doctrinally based unawareness of how a person, the self, exists. The twelve links of dependent arising are basically a scheme for understanding how rebirth works. If we understand how rebirth works, then we understand that samsaric rebirth basically arises dependently on the misconception of how the self exists. 

We talk about the first link of dependent arising. First link is unawareness. And unawareness is specifically about the unawareness of how persons exist because this explanation of the twelve links and all of this has to be something that both Hinayana and Mahayana accept. So, it’s about how persons exist, not necessarily about how all phenomena exist. It covers both the doctrinally based unawareness and the automatically arising awareness. With the seeing pathway mind, we get rid of the doctrinally based one, but we are not free of samsara. So, we have to get rid of the automatically arising one as well. 

We only have fifteen minutes left in the class and, obviously, we will not get through all the twelve links of dependent arising. So, we can start the discussion and break it fairly soon. Or if you have any questions or things you would like to discuss, we can leave this discussion to start next time. 

What Is the Difference between Shravakas and Pratyekabuddhas?

Yes, Mark.

Participant: I would like to ask a question about the pratyekabuddhas. I don’t see the real difference between a pratyekabuddha and an arhat. Does a pratyekabuddha have much more power, and he’s training for a longer time than an arhat, and he is more intelligent, or he has better potential, whatever… 

Dr. Berzin: Wait a second. You are asking about the difference between a pratyekabuddha and an arhat. An arhat is a liberated being. You can be a shravaka arhat or pratyekabuddha arhat, so your question doesn’t make any sense.

Participant: The shravaka and the pratyekabuddha.

Dr. Berzin: OK, the difference between a shravaka and pratyekabuddha? As I said, the difference between them is whether or not you listen to the teachings of Buddha. It could be when a Buddha is around and the teachings are available. A shravaka relies on a teacher in that lifetime. Pratyekabuddhas don’t because teachings aren’t available, so they rely only on their instincts. 

Now, when it comes to the understanding that they have – this is explained differently in the different tenet systems and also in the different Tibetan traditions. I have this on my website. I must confess I can’t just recite it like that, but in the website, there is an article of all the different positions. One that I remember is that shravakas understand just the voidness of the self. This would be within the Chittamatra and Svatantrika point of view, which says that the understanding of each of these three classes of beings, shravaka, pratyekabuddha, and bodhisattva, are different. So, a shravaka has just the voidness of the self as is explained in these systems. A pratyekabuddha has the Chittamantra understanding of the voidness of phenomena, and a bodhisattva has the Svatantrika-Madhayamaka understanding. If I remember correctly, that’s one possible explanation of the differences. But as I say, there are many variants to that.

And do they have more powers? Yes. Do they have to build up positive force over a different period of time? Yes. The exact numbers – you’ll have to look at my website. 

Participant: Another question that comes to me is that when they are more… the pratyekabuddhas have better potential and they have the same goal to achieve.

Dr. Berzin: What do you mean they have a better potential? The pratyekabuddhas, you say, have a better potential, and the shravakas and pratyekas are aiming for the same goal.

Participant: I heard they are more intelligent.

Dr. Berzin: Are they more intelligent? I don’t know. I have never heard of that difference between them. They just live in different circumstances. 

Participant: They are able to do much more positive imprints to… We had it in German, so it’s a bit…

Dr. Berzin: You had an explanation within the context of Abhisamayalankara? 

Participant: No, it was in the Hinayana systems. It was, I think, Sautrantikas or Vaibashikas

Dr. Berzin: In Abhidharmakosha? Vaibhashika? 

Participant: Yes, I think so.

Dr. Berzin: Please bear in mind that each tenet system is going to have a different explanation, and the Tibetan traditions of each of these tenet systems will have a different explanation. I really don’t remember what Abhidharmakosha says about that.

But I believe that pratyekabuddhas have to build up much more positive force. If you think about it logically, if you have to rely totally on your intuition, from instinct, to figure out all the teachings and to come up with the correct answers – and you have nobody to check with – that requires a tremendous amount of positive force and, probably, intelligence. Buddhism wouldn’t explain it as good luck that you come up with a right answer. 

You see it nowadays. People don’t have any teachings, and just thinking on their own, they come up with the strangest ideas and think that’s Buddhism. They come up with all sorts of practices to do that are not necessarily going to bring them any realization. They even think that they have realization. So, these pratyekabuddhas who actually succeed – they’re quite amazing. 

Participant: That makes much more sense when there are different circumstances. I always thought, why they don’t take the short cut.

Dr. Berzin: Oh, no. It’s not that the shravakas and pratyekabuddhas live at the same time. It’s not that there’s a choice: “Am I going to follow a shravaka path, a pratyekabuddha path or a bodhisattva path?” That’s not the case. Basically, we have a choice between a shravaka path and a bodhisattva path – unless we live isolated, deep in the jungle or in the wastes of Antarctica and have no contact with anybody. 

Bodhisattvas also, I would think, would need other beings who are suffering in order to develop compassion. That they need. 

Do You Need the Example of a Buddha in Order to Aim to Become a Buddha?

But that’s an interesting question, one that you could speculate about: could you become a bodhisattva at a time when there are no Buddhas? I don’t think you could. I am not quite sure of that. But wouldn’t you need an example of a Buddha in order to aim to become a Buddha? You could think to get rid of all suffering. That you could think because you experience the suffering. But to have any concept of what a Buddha is in order to aim to become a Buddha – that’s hard to say. But then the question is: how did Buddha Shakyamuni develop it? Therefore, the Mahayana says, “Well, Buddha became enlightened ages ago, and there were other Buddhas around. And the present incarnation is just demonstrating how to do it.” But obviously, these aren’t easy questions.

Yeah, Karsten?

Participant: I wonder if you have the same problem with the pratyekabuddhas because they also don’t have any example of a Buddha.

Dr. Berzin: The pratyekabuddhas lived ages ago, and they got teachings then, you could say… Maybe that’s the Hinayana solution, but I have never seen the Hinayana solution to that. How did Buddha figure it out? Was it based on past lifetimes? In all the Jataka tales, Buddha was always studying with non-Buddhist teachers. Was he ever studying with Buddhist teachers? Was he ever a disciple of the previous Buddha, Buddha Kashyapa? 

Participant: The story also says that he met Dipankara.

Dr. Berzin: Dipankara, the first Buddha? 

Participant: Yes, then he has…

Dr. Berzin: Then he developed bodhichitta?

Participant: He also developed the wish to become a Buddha.

Dr. Berzin: That’s bodhichitta. Whether it’s called that or not doesn’t matter. 

Participant: Dipankara said he would come as Buddha Shakyamuni.

Dr. Berzin: OK. That’s in one of the Jatakas?

OK. Renata points out that in one of the Jatakas (I really am not so familiar with all of them) that in a previous lifetime, Buddha was born at the time of Dipankara, the first Buddha of this particular eon – doesn’t mean the first ever. At that time, Buddha, the being who became Shakyamuni Buddha, developed the wish to become a Buddha. So, he developed bodhichitta then. 

Yes, there has to be a time when he developed bodhichitta for the first time. So, then he was functioning almost like a pratyekabuddha, except his aim was not liberation; instead, it was for enlightenment. 

Participant: I read that it was prophesized to him several times by several Buddhas. It’s in the Sanghata Sutra. It’s written that he met the Buddha called so-and-so and that that Buddha told him. It’s about one and a half pages.

Dr. Berzin: Right. In the Sanghata Sutra, which is a Mahayana sutra, it says that in previous lives, the being who became Shakyamuni Buddha met various other Buddhas who prophesized that he would become a Buddha in a future life. That doesn’t mean that he necessarily developed bodhichitta at that time. That’s a prophecy. That’s slightly different. 

Was Buddha a limited being at that time? Or was he already a Buddha and they were just saying when he’ll manifest.

Participant: No, he was still a limited being. And it’s also written that he met the Buddha Dipankara.

Dr. Berzin: Right. It also says in the sutra he met Buddha Dipankara and developed bodhichitta at the time. OK, there is a common ground here between the Hinayana text… I think that the Jataka tales must be in all the traditions, not just Theravada. Sarvastivada as well, it was very common for there to be previous life accounts of the Buddha… and also in this Mahayana Sanghata Sutra. 

Good. Well, that brings us to the end of the class. Next time we will get into the discussion of the twelve links. We won’t have class for the next two weeks since I’ll be in Hamburg. There’s a bhikshuni conference and then His Holiness’s teachings. But we will meet after two weeks.