Day Two, Session Two

Question: There are numerous deities to whom one prays with great fervor. What is the relationship between the deities and emptiness? Do they exist only in a relative way?
Answer: Perhaps it important here to give a context to the position of deities in Buddhism as a whole. If one were to look at Buddhism in its general form, the sermons that the Buddha gave in public, according to these teachings there is no reference to any meditational deities or supernatural beings other than worldly devas like Brahma, Indra and so on. In the Mahayana sutras there mention of Bodhisattvas on high levels of realization, some of who are not in a human form.

However it is only when it comes to the discussion of tantric practice is there reference to supernatural beings or divine beings like meditational deities. If one looks at the idea of a meditational deity, tantra and the underlying reasons for it, one finds that one of the principal features of tantra is that in tantra one is engaging in a meditative practice where one’s whole purpose is based on a reflection of emptiness. This is not just of one’s ordinary self but also of one’s own perfected state. In some sense one deliberately adopt and assume an identity which is one’s own perfected state. Focusing on this one develops an identity, a sense of perception directed towards that image while at the same time acknowledging its empty nature.

So there is a discussion of this meditative method called deity yoga where there is a union between meditation of the visualization of the deity and being fully aware of its empty nature. What this implies is that there is no autonomous, independent form of a deity of a particular color, totally independent of the meditator. The implication is that there is no such external, independent deity.

However the meditator as he/she advances along the tantric path and gains progressively higher realizations becoming fully enlightened, in the tantric terminology this experience is described as the practitioner attaining the state of the particular deity. For example if the meditational deity is Manjusri, one can say that the individual meditator has now attained the state of Manjusri.

With regard to such a deity in relation to emptiness, there is no reason why these deities should have a particular relationship with emptiness. As I pointed out earlier when one talks of emptiness, one is talking about a dual perspective of the nature of reality, the ultimate nature and the relative nature. So far as this dual aspect of the levels of reality is concerned, it is universal, common to all phenomena both things and events. As I pointed out earlier as far as emptiness is concerned, it embraces the entire expanse of reality including the Buddha and the state of nirvana.

Question: (Inaudible)
Answer: It is true that when people hear and come into contact with the Buddhist doctrine of no-self for the first time they often react by thinking that Buddhism denies the self and the very existence of the individual. If this is the case then who or what incarnates? This question naturally seems to arise. I would like to point out that personally I feel that so far as the existence of the individual or self is concerned, the fact that there is a being, an individual who creates karma, engages in actions, who faces the consequences of those actions, who perceives things and events, so far as to the existence of that individual being, I don’t think there is any dispute between Buddhists and non-Buddhists. It is a universally accepted by both Buddhists and non-Buddhists that such an individual or being exists.

The dispute really lies on the question of in what manner does that being or self exist. What is the ontological status of that being? In what sense does this self or individual exist? As I pointed out yesterday, Buddhism as a whole rejects the idea that the self or individual is something independent from the mind-body aggregate, the self or being as being something separate from the psychophysical constituents such as the five aggregates. Buddhism rejects an external agent or eternal principle. All the schools of Buddhism deny this sort of a conception of the self or personhood.

Within the various Buddhist schools the highest school of Buddhist philosophical thought even rejects the possibility of identifying the self or the individual with any of its designated bases, be it body, mind or perception. However this highest school of Buddhism also accepts the reality of the individual or being and its continuum. The individual is beginningless and also endless. As far as the continuation of an individual being is concerned, it has come from beginningless time so there is not a denial of such a being or individual in any of the Buddhist schools of thought.

Since the nature of existence of the individual being or person seems to be a very important concern in many spiritual traditions of the world including Buddhism and since there are many possibilities of how to conceive of this person or self, we find in Buddhist philosophical literature discussions of various misconceptions regarding the true identification of the self. For example the Madhyamika literature lists four principal types of misconceptions regarding the identification of the self. The first is to conceive the self as something that is eternal, permanent, unitary and self-governing. This is at quite a gross level of mind. Another misconception identified by Buddhism is one which conceives the self in terms of an agent that is independent from the mind/body composite, something in the mode of a servant and its master. It conceives the relationship between the self and the mind/body aggregate as like the relationship between a master and his servants.

A third misconception is where the self is conceived as part of the designated basis, self as ultimately identifiable either as the collective of the five aggregates or one of the individual five aggregates. The fourth which is the subtlest form of misconception is to conceive the self as having some sort of intrinsic identity that is not derived from the aggregates but rather has an intrinsic reality. Out of these four misconceptions, the first two are considered to be more gross conceptions of the self and these are more intellectually based misconceptions of the identity of the self. These two result from philosophical speculation and therefore are not found in persons who are not philosophically trained or in animals. They are not instinctual or innate feelings. However the last two forms of the misconception of the self are said to be innate and deeply ingrained in all of us.

Question: Over the next few days we will be required to have some imagination. As I am someone not familiar with imagination but clearly familiar with illusion, please explain the difference?
Answer: According to one scripture it is said that apart from highly realized and spiritually evolved beings on the levels of Arya bhumis in meditative equipoise totally focused on emptiness, all other beings are always at some level of illusion. The reason for this is because ordinary sentient beings always have a perception of some form of intrinsic reality, some form of objective experience.

So although as I pointed out earlier, in ordinary states of consciousness one is always at some level of illusion, however within the illusions there are differences. Some forms of illusion although they are illusions from the perspective of emptiness, however they can have beneficial effects. They can be beneficial in bringing about certain desired state of mind within one. Therefore these types of illusions are deliberately cultivated and enhanced in one so that one can achieve the desired beneficial effects. Some types of illusions need to be eliminated from one’s mind and so on.

To go back to the questioner’s own concerns, over the next few days during the initiation one will be performing visualizations but on the part of the initiates what is of most importance is to continually keep in mind one’s understanding of emptiness. One combines this understanding of emptiness with a strong feeling of altruism, a strong feeling of bodhicitta. Maintaining and cultivating these two factors is of most importance in an initiation.

Question: Does anything permanent exist?
Answer: There is a slight semantic problem here. When we use the terms permanence and impermanence in the Buddhist context, the way it is understood in Buddhist philosophy, they are defined in terms of whether or not the phenomenon in question is a product of causes and conditions; whether it is a composite or a non-composite. All things and events which are composite, i.e. products of causes and conditions, are said to be impermanent, transient and changeable. All phenomena, which are not subject to causes and conditions, are said to be permanent. So this is the basic definition.

So according to this definition let’s take the example of a vase or pot. The pot is impermanent but the emptiness of the pot or vase would be permanent. But in some sense one can say that the emptiness of the pot is not permanent because if the object (the pot) on which the emptiness is qualified no longer exists then its emptiness no longer exists either. The standard example found in Buddhist philosophical literature is that of space. Buddhists define space as the mere absence of obstructive quality. One can say that space is permanent and eternal. Similarly one aspect of a human being is that it is not a horse. This “non-horseness” quality is said to be permanent but it is a quality of a human being by the fact that a human being is not a horse.

Question: You spoke of human intelligence as in some sense as the foundation of civilization. This would seem to imply that you believe that the mind has played a more important role in human evolution than the heart. Is it therefore that the reasoning faculty is to be valued over and above that of the creative, intuitive faculties?
Answer: To respond to the last part of the question first, it is difficult for me to say that there is a difference between the English definition of the term intelligence and the Tibetan equivalent sherab. However my premise for stating that it is the faculty of human intelligence which is the foundation of human civilization is the following. If we compare humans to other species, we know that there are other life forms on the planet who have had millions of years of evolution. So far as the fundamental instinct for seeking happiness and avoiding suffering is concerned, I would say that humans as well as other species are equal in having this instinctual sort of drive or aspiration.

Similarly based on this drive both humans and other species seek ways and means to fulfill that aspiration, to avoid suffering and to bring about happiness. However we wouldn’t call the simple processes of survival and reproduction civilization. We would call the evolutionary process of human progress civilization because there we see the very direct role played by the factor of intelligence, which is not found in the historical evolution of other species. This is the main premise on which I base my idea.

For example one principal difference between humans and other species is that some marine biologists believe that whales may have a fundamental language; they can communicate with each other. But I would conjecture that in terms of the range and scope of such a language there wouldn’t be differences in the same species of whales from different parts of the world divided by geography.

This is not the case with human beings. Human beings of course have the natural capacity for communication and develop language. But human beings by using their intelligence have developed a multiplicity and diversity of languages. Though all individuals have this capacity biologically speaking different environments and geographical locations has given rise to the diversity and multiplicity of languages which appear in some cases to be independent of each other.

Question: If it is necessary for a person practicing meditation to have a teacher to orient and guide them, how does one know that one has met with an appropriate master?
Answer: First of all we be clear on what is meant by meditation practice. In some forms of meditation practice such as the one I described earlier, developing the single-pointedness of mind focused on consciousness, in such a practice I feel it is possible that one can pursue the practice by reading on one’s own without seeking guidance from a guru. It is possible to make progress simply by reading, developing one’s understanding and practicing.

However if one wishes to engage in more advanced religious practices then of course it is very beneficial to have a guru. Now as to the question of how does one know that one has met the right guru or is qualified, one reads in the biographies of the great masters of the past that when a spiritual trainee has met the guru with a karmic connection with the trainee, there are instances of very moving experiences. They feel immediately drawn to the guru, deeply inspired. They feel in some sense a deep spiritual experience with them. So the indications could be finding someone most inspiring, someone whose teachings affects you most and so on. These may be indications.

However as to the point of whether or not the person is qualified to be a guru, first of all it is important on one’s part to be familiar with what are the standard requirements on the part of a teacher. What are the basic, minimum qualifications that someone must possess in order to be a spiritual teacher? These one can read from texts. Once one is familiar with these qualifications then use that standard to judge the person to whom one is considering as taking up as one’s teacher. Not only test this once or twice but for a long time examine the person and his or her behavior. It is through such examination that one can make a decision whether that person is qualified or not.

Question: For what karmic reasons was it decided to hold the Kalachakra initiation in Barcelona?
Answer: Unfortunately as far as the answer to that question is concerned, until one becomes fully enlightened there is no hope to understand. Of course one can guess, one can speculate, one can rationalize but so far as to the detailed understanding of the various connections of karma that led to the holding of Kalachakra here is concerned. Until one has eliminated all obstructions to knowledge in one’s mind, one can not possible realize it. It is for this reason that in the Buddhist scriptures it is said that so far as understanding the minute details of the workings of karma is concerned, it can only be known by a fully enlightened mind.

Question: What is the position of women in Buddhism?
Answer: When we think about the position of Buddhism about the question of gender as a whole it is important to bear in mind that there are various perspectives within Buddhism itself. One perspective is that of monasticism and as far as this perspective is concerned although in terms of opportunity, there is equal opportunity for men and women for full ordination. However in terms of seniority a fully ordained monk is considered in some sense higher than the fully ordained nun. So from a feminist point of view of course this reflects a bias based on gender. Of course there have been complaints about this but as I pointed out earlier, as far as the opportunities are concerned, there is an equal opportunity.

Being mindful of this bias—and one could say male domination—in the practice of monasticism of the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, I have wanted to convene a meeting attended by various members of the Sangha. I want the meeting held soon having representation from countries like Thailand, Sri Lanka and so on. Unfortunately although we have been able to collect papers for various would-be participants we have not been able to hold the meeting and look at these issues. Of course there is quite diversity, some are orthodox and some are quite progressive and liberal. However I’m very committed to the idea of a meeting so that some of these customs which reflect gender distinctions can be corrected. One of my reasons for advocating and pointing out the need to reassess some of the aspects of monasticism and the monastic tradition is based on the fundamental standpoint of Tibetan Buddhism as a whole. Since Tibetan Buddhism perceives itself as a complete form of Buddhism embracing not just monastic practice but also general Mahayana Buddhism and esoteric, tantric Buddhism, the standpoint is that from within the precepts of Vinaya, Mahayana and Vajrayana if there are any conflicts or contradictions, then it is the higher precepts such as the Mahayana and Vajrayana which need to take precedence and modification is to be made in the lower precepts. This is my premise from which I am arguing that there is a need to modify some aspects of the monastic tradition.

In the general Mahayana Buddhism, from this perspective there are certain aspects of thought where there appears to be a gender distinction. For example in Mahayana Buddhism in the sutra tradition the bodhisattva who is at the point of becoming fully enlightened, a characteristic used to describe them is that they are male. Similarly in the first three levels of tantra again in the practices and beliefs are certain instances of gender distinction.

However from the standpoint of Highest Yoga tantra which is considered by the Tibetan Buddhist tradition as being the apex of Buddhist practice and tradition, there is no bias what so ever. Not only both male and female can become fully enlightened in both forms of gender, but also during initiation or in sadhanas there is the need for representation from both male and female deities. Similarly in Highest Yoga tantra there seems to be a greater emphasis placed on respecting women. For example in the tantric vows, one of the root precepts is not to disparage women. The disparagement of women is considered to be an infraction of one of the root precepts. So there is a greater sensitivity to the position of women. Also according to Highest Yoga tantra both in male and female forms can practitioners attain full enlightenment within their current lifetime.

Of course if one thinks about it, definitely it makes sense because in Highest Yoga tantra the main emphasis is placed on understanding the subtle nature of mind and body. So far as the gender distinction is concerned the distinctions between men and women are only physiologic and are relevant only at the gross bodily level. Whereas in the Highest Yoga tantra where one is involved in practices aimed at and developing perfecting the subtle level of physiologic energies, the channels and so on. At this level gender distinctions make no sense, as it has no relevance what so ever. Therefore Highest Yoga tantra makes no distinction between male and female practitioners as far as the potential for attaining full enlightenment in this lifetime is concerned.

Question: Because the Buddhist deities are so strange; many colors, arms, several heads, how can an intelligent person regard these as anything other than superstitions?
Answer: You are quite right. Unless one is fully aware of the underlying philosophy of tantra and also the whole model process of procedure on the tantric path, the way in which various techniques are used to enhance the psychological and physiological aspects of the practitioner, these deities seem rather weird. In some sense they can be seen as mere products of imagination or superstition.

However when a practitioner who is mindful of the deeper significance and symbolism of the various aspects of these deities as well as their mandalas and so on, engages in the practice of tantra related to a particular meditational deity, what seems to be true is that within that practitioner’s mind a positive transformation occurs. The practitioner is able to enhance their compassion, tolerance, awareness, insight and so on. So this indicates that when these practices are engaged in with full knowledge of the symbolism and its significance, it does have certain power.

Question: You have said in a book that mental suffering is worse than physical suffering. What do you think of Western psychiatric methods? How can one help others with great mental suffering? What can these people do for themselves to get out of their difficulties?
Answer: Generally speaking various forms of therapeutic practices which have evolved in the West over the last several decades in psychiatry, as these practices have naturally evolved as a response to coping and dealing with emotional problems, in general they are very beneficial. I must admit that I have not studied any of them so I can not claim any deep familiarity with any of these practices. I don’t have much to say either than making this general point.

As to the last two questions, when one deals with how best to help people with psychological and emotional problems, what is most important is to be very sensitive to the context and how each individual case differs from another. One has to take into account the person’s background particularly the person’s spiritual inclinations, whether or not the person is a believer, whether or not rebirth figures into their world view and so on. It is important to be sensitive to that aspect of the individual so that one is in a better position to help them overcome their problems.

First of all when practicing Buddhists think about happiness and the wellbeing of sentient beings, one attempts to embrace within one’s aspiration for happiness all sentient beings. There is an all-inclusiveness, all-encompassing aspect to one’s aspiration to seek happiness. Secondly there is the idea that one has had beginningless lifetimes and this current life is not the only one. So when one has such a world-view where the interconnectedness of all sentient beings is accepted, where one’s aspiration for the happiness of others is part of one’s outlook, where one’s outlook is not confined to this as the only life then when one has such a perspective a particular suffering which may be very real, intense or acute however within such a perspective, this suffering is seen as part of a wider context. One does not see it in isolation so that one does not feel to be in a fix where one feels that this is everything; everything is at stake as far as one’s own well-being is concerned, a make or break situation. This sort of anxiety, this acute sense of suffering is lessened, the sting is taken out.

Similarly with the idea of karma, the idea of rebirth, recognizing the destructive nature of karma and the delusions and recognizing the basic unsatisfactory nature of existence, all of these considerations play an important role in assisting the practitioner to cope with adverse circumstances and situations. As explained earlier as a result of one’s deepened understanding of the transient nature of existence, the impermanent nature of existence, one realizes that one's very existence is in some sense the product of karma and delusions. Delusions have their root in fundamental ignorance, avidya. This fundamental ignorance is a state of misconception, a totally distorted state of mind where one misapprehends the nature of reality. One apprehends things and events as well as one’s own self as possessing a form of intrinsic existence or intrinsic identity. One then clings to one’s self-existence or own-being.

Once one realizes this then one understands that it is only by seeing through the illusion of this ignorant mind, in other words it is only by developing an insight into the nature of the emptiness of self-existence that one learns that true liberation can take place. In some sense the process of unwinding begins with insight into the realization of selflessness. It is because of this Buddha taught the third characteristic of suffering which is selflessness, no self or no-soul. When one understands the inter-relationship between impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and selflessness in such a manner that what one realizes is that the first two characteristics, impermanence and unsatisfactoriness, give rise to an insight into the suffering nature of one’s existence. One’s very existence is ultimately unsatisfactory; it is ultimately deluded. By then reflecting on the third characteristic, the characteristic of selflessness, one receives a vision of a new alternative, an alternative way of existing. Therefore this gives rise to hope that there is a way out. Otherwise if one’s understanding of existence is confined only to the first two characteristics, impermanence and unsatisfactoriness then it could lead to a loss of hope, a sense of discouragement. A sense of hopelessness, thinking that one’s existence is only suffering but the characteristic of selflessness shows one the way out. In some sense it points one towards the way of freedom. So it is through this way that one begins to develop a genuine sense and genuine aspiration to seek freedom from suffering.

When the entire teachings of the Four Noble Truths are summarized one can understand it within the formula of the Four Seals of Buddhism. First is that all composite phenomena are impermanent or transient. This points towards the first characteristic of suffering which is that all things and events are transient, impermanent or subject to change. The second principle or seal states that all contaminated phenomena are unsatisfactory and this points towards the second characteristic, which is the underlying unsatisfactory nature of existence itself. As I pointed out earlier this insight is gained on the basis of understanding that one’s very existence is in some sense a product of karma and delusion. The third seal states that all phenomena are empty and absent of all self-existence. This points towards the hope that I spoke of earlier, pointing a way out, showing one an alternative way of existence by pointing out the doctrine of selflessness. It is through the realization of selflessness, through generating the insight into the selfless nature of things and events that one can ultimately attain a state of freedom, a state beyond sorrow or nirvana. Therefore the fourth seal is that nirvana or cessation is true peace.

In brief all that I have said over the last two days points towards this simple statement that for a practicing Buddhist, what is the ultimate aspiration? The ultimate aspiration is the attainment of nirvana, freedom from suffering, the state beyond sorrow. It is towards this aim that a practicing Buddhist would employ the faculty of intelligence and generate insight and understanding of the Four Noble Truths, the inter-relationship between the Four Noble Truths and their underlying causal principle. To reach that understanding one needs to understand the Two Truths. So it is through the understanding and developing insight into the Four Noble Truths and the Two Truths while at the same time bringing about internal transformation that the practicing Buddhist seeks to fulfill the ultimate aspiration which is to attain nirvana or the freedom from suffering.

As I pointed out earlier the ultimate aspiration or aim is to attain nirvana, the freedom from suffering. However when we talk about the freedom from suffering and the freedom from cyclic existence, we are talking of a manner of existence which is cyclical, situated within a cycle. The very concept of a wheel or cycle entails beginninglessness. One can not state that any certain point on the circle is where the circle begins. The idea of a circle or wheel is that there is an infinity, one can keep going around and around. In the idea of the samsaric cycle, the cycle of existence as I pointed out earlier, even when one is experiencing the consequences of an action, which one has done in the past, one has many instances of a sense of I or of ego arising. This gives rise to emotional responses which then lead to positive or negative actions. This leads to further consequences so there is an interlinked chain in the cycle so that even when one cycle is not completed, the seeds for other cycles are being planted. So there is a vicious kind of a cycle going around and around all of the time.

In an ultimate sense there is no real beginning because although ignorance is seen as the first of the twelve links of dependent arising, ignorance itself comes from another factor and so on and so forth. However when one tries to understand the very process or mechanism which leads any individual to take rebirth in samsara and which allows the individual to put an end to the whole cycle, one has to try and understand in a manageable way. Therefore one takes a starting point and the fundamental ignorance is seen as the starting point. Just as ignorance leads to volitional action and then on to consciousness and so on and so forth, similarly when the practitioner embarks on the path, the task of putting an end to the cycle, it is only be ending or cutting the earlier link that the connections with the subsequent link is severed. By putting an end to ignorance, one puts an end to volitional action. By putting an end to volitional action, one puts an end to consciousness and so on and so forth.

Within the idea of the wheel of life one can understand both the process through which one exists in samsara and also one can appreciate the possibility of a reversal of the cycle. One thus puts an end to the rotation of the cycle. Let’s meditate for four to five minutes reflecting upon what we have discussed about the Four Noble Truths.

(End of Day 2)