WSW 54: May Higher State Beings Attain the Causes for a Form Body

Also, the text is invoking the very strong power that we need, as represented by Yamantaka: the forceful aspect of discriminating awareness or wisdom, which we invoke again from our Buddha-natures in order to be able to have the strength to smash through the self-cherishing attitude and this false concept of a solid “me.” Last time, we were basically praying that everybody be able to overcome the self-cherishing and the grasping for a solid “me,” and, through our success in this practice, “May we then be able to help all beings, liberate all beings.” It spoke about liberating the various beings that have been reborn in the joyless hell realms and now we turn to those who are in the higher type of rebirths as well. This is with verse 102. In the old poetical translation, that would be verse 103, because they’re numbered slightly differently. 

Then may all sentient beings of the three higher rebirths perfect meditation on egolessness. In this way, may they realize the non-self-existence of worldly involvement and freedom as well. May they place concentration on both of these equally, seeing their natures as equally void.

In the literal translation: 

At that time, may all wandering beings in higher status rebirths as well, having meditated supremely on no “true self” (of all things), similar to that regarding the “true self” (of persons), then meditate with absorbed concentration, non-conceptually, on the equal nature of compulsive samsara and tranquil nirvana. And may they recognize themselves as being in this equal nature.

This is a fairly profound verse. It is praying or dedicating the positive force we have from all of this to the beings in the higher rebirth states to be able to meditate properly on voidness, in order to gain liberation and enlightenment, because obviously the beings in the lower realms don’t have the capacity to do that meditation. So, we first hope and pray that those in the worse rebirth states are reborn in the better rebirth states, so that then they have the opportunity to be able to – as we say in the previous verse – develop bodhichitta and then meditate on voidness. What type of meditation are we doing here? It says, “having meditated supremely on no ‘true self’ (of all things), similar to that regarding the ‘true self’ (of persons).” This is very much the Mahayana path and, specifically within Mahayana, it’s the emphasis in the Prasangika assertion that we meditate on the same type of voidness with respect to persons and all things. According to the non- Prasangika views, to gain liberation you also need to understand the voidness of persons – ourselves and others. This is a less sophisticated understanding of voidness, but it sufficient for gaining liberation. Then, to gain enlightenment you need to understand a much more sophisticated, subtle level of voidness which applies to everything – persons and all phenomena. Whereas in Prasangika, even to attain liberation we need to understand the same voidness as we need for attaining enlightenment. 

Let’s look at this Prasangika assertion. What it is saying is that things do not exist in an impossible way. That impossible way would be, first of all, independent of mental labeling. What do we mean by mental labeling? This is not a very easy thing to understand. First of all, what mental labeling is not talking about is that we give a label and then it creates something that didn’t exist there before, so if we didn’t label it, it wouldn’t exist at all. That’s not really what we’re referring to here. What we are referring to is, how do things exist as what they are? In other words, if we talk about a color, how does it exist as a color? What makes it a color? Well, “color” is a mental label, isn’t it? It’s a word, it’s a concept. What makes it a color is what the word “color” refers to. Let me make this a little bit more precise. The exact words in Tibetan are talking about what establishes the existence of something; what establishes it as a color? In other words, what proves that it’s a color? How do you know that it’s a color? This word, “establishes,” is a crucial thing. How do you know that it’s a color? What establishes that it’s a color is the concept “color.” If there weren’t the concept “color,” it couldn’t be a color. A color is not the concept, it’s not a word; a color is what the concept refers to – but there’s a basis for it. The basis for it would be, let’s say, a vibration of light. But even a vibration of light – what is a vibration of light? A vibration of light is, again, what the concept “vibration of light” refers to. It goes on and on and on like that. 

What establishes that something within colors is red or orange or yellow? Well, again, that is the concept or word or label “red,” “orange,” and “yellow,” which for each culture and each individual probably is defined slightly differently. What I consider orange you might consider red; what I consider blue you might consider green. The main point in Prasangika is that not only are things like that, but there’s nothing on the side of the object that, by its own power or in connection with labeling, makes it or establishes what it is. There’s nothing findable on the side of the object – a defining characteristic. What’s a defining characteristic? A defining characteristic, let’s say, “a vibration from this number to that number is orange.” That defining characteristic you can’t find on the side of the object because that also was made up by somebody; it’s a concept. It’s not that on the side of the light there is a little boundary – a little box, a little line – which has the numbers and markings; a boundary that says that, “From here to here, that makes me orange.” Somebody made that convention; it’s a convention that people agreed upon. All the words in the dictionary – these are things that people agree upon, it’s a convention. 

This is especially clear when you think about emotions. What is an emotion? For instance, “courage” or “loyalty.” Everybody has a different experience and even within ourselves, we have a different experience every time we experience something. Within all these various emotions, which are part of our experience (and even then, how do we delineate what’s an emotion, what’s a feeling – even that is just a convention) – what we will call, “Now I’m feeling courage,” “Now I’m feeling loyalty,” “Now I’m feeling anger,” “Now I’m feeling jealousy,” “Now I’m feeling happiness” is just a concept. We have our concept which is usually based a little bit in the dictionary, what we were taught, but for everybody it’s going to be slightly different. That’s what establishes that it’s “courage for us.” That mental labeling establishes that it functions and exists for us as “courage” or “loyalty.” Other people might agree of might not agree. But there’s nothing on the side of emotion; you can’t even find the emotion, it’s so amorphous, it’s so vague. But you can’t say that there’s no emotion. There’s something; conventionally it exists, but it doesn’t exist as some solid thing. Our words imply that things exist in categories, with a big line around them or encapsulated in plastic and they are just sitting there: “courage,” “orange.” But it’s not like that. For instance, “apple:” there are so many individual items that we call “apple.” We don’t have a different word for every single one of them. We use one word: “apple.” So, what’s an apple? It’s hard to say; it’s just a convention that’s made up – that there are many things that people agree fit into the category of “apple.” 

People, animals, all living beings exist like that, and so do all objects and all things. For example, “problem:” “I have a problem in my family.” What’s a problem? What is the problem? Well, “You did this and you did that, and you said this and you said that.” But problem as a thing, with a big plastic coating around it, sitting there, with a big line around it? No. It’s what we have labeled the situation. Conventionally there may be a problem, and it can be very useful for being able to identify that we have to do something to change the situation, but it’s not this monster problem. It’s when you think that it has independent, true existence by itself, by its own power, that the problem becomes a monster – “Oh, I have this horrible problem and it’s going to overwhelm me” – and you get so depressed, as if the problem took on a life of its own. We have this way of referring to the situation and you could label it other things as well: it’s a challenge, it’s an opportunity to purify negative karma – there are so many different things that you can label it. Depending on how you call it and how you conceive of it, your response to it will be very different. 

This is a fundamental approach that’s used in attitude training, lojong – to change negative circumstances into positive ones is basically changing the way that you label it, how you look at it: “I am burning off negative so that bigger obstacles won’t come in the future, so I’m very happy that whatever difficulty I’m having now has happened.” Or we can look at in terms of a tonglen practice: “Now I’m taking it on for everybody, so I welcome it; it gives me an opportunity to overcome self-cherishing.” There are so many different ways that we could label what we experience. Of course, there has to be a certain validity – you can’t just label it anything. “Now I’m experiencing a dog” – well, that’s totally irrelevant to what you’re experiencing, that’s silly. There has to be some sort of established convention and others would have to agree with us that this is appropriate. 

When we’re talking about voidness, what we’re talking about is an absence of this impossible way of existing – that something is establishing itself by itself, by its own self-nature. Sometimes that’s translated as “inherently,” as if there were something inside the object that established it as courage or orange or something like that. The problem is that because of our habits of viewing the whole world in this impossible way and believing that it’s true – that’s why it’s called true existence, because we believe it’s true – our mind projects this onto everything. It appears as though everything exist with a big line around it as “this person,” “that person.” “It appears like that. What actually is that referring to? When you make that person into a thing, then you think, “Oh, Silvia’s such a bad girl, she didn’t come last week, she doesn’t love me, she doesn’t like me, there’s something wrong with my teaching,” so we get angry. Or, “She went to another teacher” – then you get jealous. You’re making a thing, as if something established as Silvia existed from her own side, all by herself.

What actually is there? There is a continuum, continuity, of moment-to-moment experiences – personal, subjective experiences – what she’s experiencing, what she’s doing, made up of seeing things and hearing things and saying things and moving her hands and her legs and doing different things, with all sorts of emotions and feelings and other things going on with it. All of that is influenced by everything else that’s going on in her life and all the people that she knows and knew – we can bring in past lives as well – and to put that all together, we refer to all of it as “Silvia.” That’s valid – that is her name, and it does refer to somebody. But there’s nothing solid there, making this into a solid person that then I can be angry with or feel jealous about or desire for or whatever. That means that people, persons – including animals and so on – exist devoid of, without, this impossible way – just the same as objects, just the same as situations. Nothing exists in this impossible way. 

If you can understand that, then there is no basis for self-cherishing because you understand, well, what am I? There’s this continuum from beginningless time with all sorts of karmic influences and moment-to-moment experiences and so on. There’s nothing solid there. It’s only when we make it into something solid – and unfortunately it feels like that, if feels as though there’s a solid “me:” “They didn’t call me,” “They don’t love me,” “They didn’t come to class, poor me” – that you get into trouble, you get suffering. What often is the case – what usually is the case – is we think we are the center of the universe. That might sound a little bit smug but it’s not, if you think about it. We tend to think that I am the most important thing in everybody else’s life. You don’t think that the other person might have all sorts of other people that are part of their lives and sorts of other things that they have to do and all sorts of other obligations and so on; the only thing that matters is, “They didn’t come to my class” or “They didn’t call me” – what they did to me. That’s the only thing that we think matter. Why? Because we think we’re the center of the universe, we’re the only one that’s important. But the existence of everybody is dependent on a million other things that are going on in their life. However, when our mind projects this – and it projects this all the time – and we believe in it because it seems like that – it feels as though this is true – then that’s the basis for self-cherishing, that’s the basis for all the disturbing emotions: anger, jealousy, desire, attachment, greed, arrogance, indecisiveness. “What should I do? Should I wear a yellow shirt or a blue shirt? What should I order?” “Me, me, me” – as though it really is so important. It’s all revolving around “me.” “What should I watch on the television that will be entertaining?” – entertaining to this “me.” 

We do make a choice, but the point is not to make such a big deal out of it. You choose something. You don’t like it? You choose something else. It’s the worry that’s the problem here. Indecisiveness: the back and forth, “Should I do this, should I do that, I don’t know what to do, blah blah blah.” Sometimes of course decisions are difficult, when we’re talking about important decisions. But then you go and analyze: what do I want to do, what do I feel like doing, what do I need to do? What about the other people that are involved in the decision? You analyze. What’s the reason I feel like this? Is it just because of desire? “I want to go on a diet, I need to go on a diet, but I feel like eating a whole bar of chocolate.” Well, why do I feel like eating the chocolate? Because of greed, desire. Why do I want to stay on my diet? What do I need to stay on a diet? Because I’m overweight and have high blood pressure and so on, so for health. So, the reason for wanting and needing to stay on the diet is a more valid reason than the reason for eating the chocolate. Then you just need to do it – that’s the point, you need the strength to follow what is the logical decision. Walk past the store that sells the chocolate; don’t buy and don’t have it in the house. That’s the only way: don’t have it in the house. 

This is the very important point here that’s stated just in a very simple line here: “having meditated supremely on no ‘true self’ (of all things), similar to that regarding the ‘true self’ (of persons).” In other words, no true self or true identity or true existence of all things. That was quite a big piece, what I just explained and don’t expect that you can understand that so instantly and so easily. It’s very deep and profound and even if you have a little bit of understanding of it, the real thing is to be able to remember it and apply it in situations in which you’re having emotional difficulty, like when you feel emotionally hurt. These are very good times to try to apply this. Who is the “me” that is hurt and who is the person who hurt me? Those are the times when you need this type of analysis and you don’t wait until you are a wreck, in a completely horrible situation emotionally; you try to catch it early. This is the thing: remind yourself over and over again – this is what mindfulness means. We talk about mindfulness in Buddhism – it’s the mental glue, to hold on to understanding, to remember. The word “mindfulness” is the same word as the word “remember.” Remember it, don’t forget it, hold on. That’s what we need to do, and you have to remember to remember it.

That’s why the training in concentration is necessary and the basis for that is the training in discipline – to be able to actually do it. You know it’s beneficial and you do it, whether you feel like doing it or not. That’s a very important point: whether you feel like it or not, you do it. Why? Because you know that in applying the understanding of voidness, you will eliminate your suffering – and you want to eliminate that suffering. We don’t want to suffer; we don’t want to be unhappy. Let’s say in a relationship, you have a difficulty: “This person hurt me” – “me,” “that person” – you’re making a big deal out of it. I want to keep the discipline of remembering the understanding of voidness here, because I know that if I lose it, I’m going to say something really stupid to this person and make it even worse. I really don’t want to make it worse; it’s bad enough the way it is. So, we need discipline, motivation. We’re speaking about a very low level of spiritual motivation here – just to avoid the suffering – let alone “I want to be of benefit to this person.” How can I be of benefit if I’m completely upset and feel hurt? There’s no way. It’s motivation that helps us to apply the discipline, so we remain mindful and remember this understanding. It takes a long time to understand it; it’s not simple. The only way to understand it is to analyze different situations according to this understanding and see how it is true in different situations. You have to apply it: use it to understand the situation, try to see the situation in this way or that way. 

You can apply the understanding in a very verbal type of way for those who are very verbal. Or you can represent this understanding by a feeling and the feeling is a lack of solidity: everything is very unsolid and it’s just your mind that’s putting together all this field into solid objects, like putting it into a children’s coloring book and putting a black line around things. If you can recognize that the way your mind projects onto the universe is like making it into a children’s coloring book and dissolve that with a feeling, that can work. 

Then we go on in the text. In the verse, it says: “having meditated supremely on no ‘true self’ (of all things), similar to that regarding the ‘true self’ (of persons), then meditate with absorbed concentration, non-conceptually, on the equal nature of compulsive samsara and tranquil nirvana.” What we need to understand is that the nature of samsaric existence – that’s our compulsive existence, unending rebirth; uncontrollable rebirth with all the sufferings and all the things that are part of that – and the nature of continuing in a nirvanic state – which is free from all this – are both equally devoid of true existence. They have an equal nature, and we want to try to focus on this non-conceptually. What does that mean? “Non-conceptually” means not through a category. Conceptual thinking is through categories. Categories could be a word, but it doesn’t have to be a word; it’s a general category. Take the category of, for instance, “apple.” You look at something and you think “apple;” you don’t have to say the word “apple.” It’s a category, a general thing. That’s what we mean by category. Here, what we want to overcome is focusing on voidness through the medium of the categories “voidness.” When you focus conceptually on something, you make it into a thing, because you’re thinking about in terms of that category, you mix it together with the category. Conceptual thought is always with a projection of true existence – that something actually exists inside this box, given the name of a category. “Here’s the box of apples” – and I look at this object and I see it as fitting into the box of apples. Or I see it as fitting into the box of “courage” or “loyalty” or “red” or “orange.” It’s a category.

Of course, words and concepts are very useful and necessary for communication – otherwise you can’t communicate – so you don’t want to throw them all away. We have to use them; the point is to understand that language doesn’t imply the way that the universe actually exists, in all these little boxes of words like in the dictionary. It’s not how the universe exists; it’s just a convenient way of communicating, otherwise we can’t communicate. If you can’t communicate, you can’t teach and help – explain things to others – so we need to communicate. But to non-conceptually focus on it is to just, in a sense, see it in a bare way, in a naked way, not through the filter of a category. What that would actually be like is very hard to imagine, because it’s not just simply avoiding saying the word “voidness” in our head; even if you don’t have anything verbal going on in your head, it still is usually conceptual. “I see you” and “I see you as Silvia” – well, I have a concept of Silvia, the category “Silvia;” each time that I see you, there’s the category “Silvia” – who am I seeing? It goes into the box of “seeing Silvia.” There’s a category there. I don’t to say the word “Silvia,” I don’t have to think the word “Silvia” – that’s conceptual, that’s through a concept, through a category. 

If I saw you without that, would I still know that you’re Silvia? Yes, but I wouldn’t have a fixed image of who Silvia is: “Ah, I know Silvia! Silvia’s like this and this and this and that.” It wouldn’t be with fixed characteristics, but I would know who you are; I’d know what your name is; I’d know your history because I know you personally. It’s very delicate and not so easy to understand, especially when it refers to focusing on voidness non-conceptually. But that’s what we need to do in order to really cut through all the disturbing emotions and confusion. You’re able to just perceive it, that this is the way things are. That’s not easy at all; if you get that, you are an arya, as it’s called – a highly realized being. But even with a conceptual understanding you can make progress. It’s like thinking, “Now I’m going to meditate on voidness.” Well, if you do it like that, you have a concept of voidness. “Now I’m going to meditate on voidness” – it’s a thing, so I’m going to mediate on it. “Now I’m going to meditate on bodhichitta,” “Now I’m going to go to the kitchen” – it’s a concept, it’s conceptual. It doesn’t have to be verbal. This is a big mistake that many people make: they think that conceptual means verbal. It doesn’t have to be words, not at all. It’s ideas, feelings – all of that is concepts – which are useful, but we have to get over them. 

It says here: “meditate with absorbed concentration” – that means totally focused on it; no mental wandering, no dullness – “non-conceptually,” so non-conceptual absorbed concentration on voidness: if you’re really focused on that, sunk into it completely, then there’s no appearance of anything. The mind doesn’t make any appearance of true existence, because when you’re focused on voidness; what you’re focusing on is “no such thing.” We are focusing on the fact that there is no such thing as this impossible way of existing. How do you focus on that? That’s not so easy. We can understand it a little bit like if you are looking for chocolate in the house and you look in the refrigerator and you look in the closet and you look everywhere and there is no chocolate. How do you focus on “there is no chocolate?” There is none. If you really focus deeply on “there is none,” then nothing appears in your mind. It’s not that I’m thinking of a nothing; it’s just that there is none. You may still see the floor or the wall, but you’re not focusing on that. The more you’re absorbed in “there is none,” the less prominent the vision of the floor is going to be in front of your eyes. In total absorption, you don’t even see the floor. 

There is no such things as this impossible way of existing. There is no such thing; things don’t exist like that. There is no solid “you” who hurt “me” – “You cruel person.” There is no solid “me” – “Oh poor me, you don’t love me. Nobody loves me, poor me. I’m the loser.” You don’t exist like that. What we’re saying here is that this way of existing – there’s no such thing. We don’t exist like that. We thought that this person was prince of princess charming on the white horse and eventually you have to realize that not only is this person not the prince of the princess, but there is no such thing. It’s hard to accept that I have been banging my head against the wall trying to find a prince or princess on a white horse. It’s hard to accept that there is no such thing. It is futile trying to find someone like that, so forget it. Nobody is like that. That’s what we’re focusing on here: there is no such way of existing like that; it’s impossible. Total absorption on that, non-conceptually – not through a category of “there is no such thing.” 

Moving on, this is verse, in the literal translation, 104:

If we practice these methods, we shall soon overcome our true enemies: selfish concern and self-love. If we practice these methods, we shall overcome also false concepts of ego we hold to be real. Thus, by joint meditation on egolessness and on nondual wisdom of voidness and bliss, how can anyone not gain the causes to win a Buddha’s physical body and its fruit, Buddhahood?

What the verse says literally, verse 103: 

If we’ve done like that, this enemy will be destroyed. If we’ve done like that, the concept (of it) will be destroyed. Having meditated on no “true self,” with non-conceptual deep awareness, how could we not have attained the causes for the effect: a Buddha’s Form Body?

If we’ve meditated on voidness, then this enemy – self-cherishing, grasping for a self – will be destroyed, because we understand how the self exists and how everybody else exists. If we’ve done like that, the concept will be destroyed of projecting a truly existent self. Remember, the first two big part of the text talked about self-cherishing – the enemy, the butcher that’s slaughtering my chance for liberation; and then the concept of that – what’s discussed in the second big part of the text – of a truly existent “me.” 

“Having meditated on no “true self,” with non-conceptual deep awareness” – what we were talking about, this non-conceptual understanding – “how could we not have attained the causes for the effect: a Buddha’s Form Body?” In other words, in order achieve enlightenment, we need to build up a tremendous amount of positive force and deep awareness – the so-called two collections, merit and wisdom. Meditating like this, how could we have gotten to this point in which we can get non-conceptual cognition of voidness? You can just sit down and do it; in order to achieve that, we would have had to have built up a tremendous amount of positive force, or merit, in order to be able to break through the mental blocks to get this non-conceptual understanding. In doing that, we will have to build up the causes for a Buddha’s Form Body. You can only get this non-conceptual understanding on the basis of one zillion eons, one countless number of eons of positive force. That’s starting to build up the causes for the Form Body. 

This is one way of understanding. I’m not explaining it on the tantra level; on the tantra level, you can also speak in terms of blissful mind getting the deep understanding – if you’ve done it with a blissful mind, the blissful mind is a cause for the Form Body of a Buddha – but that gets into a whole other level of complicated discussion and explanation which maybe we don’t need here. This is emphasizing then the really strong, deep need for understanding voidness, and this is the really important thing that will overcome self-cherishing and this false concept of a solid “me.” In the earlier part of the text, we saw how much trouble both the self-cherishing attitude and the grasping for a solid “me” have caused us. 

We’ve tried to overcome it with tonglen, but tonglen is not going to overcome it completely. It’s going to weaken it, of course, but then the final death blow to these false concepts and these false beliefs in ourselves and the selfishness in ourselves will only come with the understanding of voidness – non-conceptually. We’ll only be able to get that if we build up a tremendous amount of positive force or merit, by actually helping others; meditating on bodhichitta; being a kind person; meditating on love – and not just meditating on it, which means to build it up as a habit, but actually practicing it, acting in a loving way. What is love? Love is the wish for others to be happy and to have the causes of happiness. If somebody has success, we don’t feel jealous; we rejoice, we feel happy because you wanted them to be happy. This person found a boyfriend or a girlfriend – not me; well, may they be happy, I’m happy that they found somebody. I’m not jealous, “poor me.” We’re talking about a very highly developed sense here, but this is what we’re aiming for. The verses in Shantideva’s Engaging in Bodhisattva Behavior are very helpful for that. 

I think that we need to end here, with the dedication. We think whatever understanding, whatever positive force has come from this, may it go deeper and deeper and act as a cause for reaching enlightenment for the benefit of all.