The Collected Works of Chögyam Trungpa: Volume 4 (61 page)

A great deal of harm has been done by abusing the repeatable character of these rituals and using the texts indiscriminately, without being aware of the different levels of the symbology. Only when a person has grown up to the point where he no longer confuses a symbol with a sign does he begin to come into real contact with the guru. Only then does the pattern of development available in the tantric tradition, beginning with taking refuge and leading through the various traditional practices and the four empowerments, have the effect of awakening the power that is within us. It makes us more and more alive and brings us to a new perception of our situation in which we see that we are never alone, never isolated ends-in-ourselves.

We see that we are always in a force field, so to speak, in which every act of ours has its effect on others and the whole field constantly has its effect on us. The empowerments introduce us progressively into the dimension of this vision. Once we have glimpsed it, the guru is always present, although he may not be clearly perceived. When one’s vision begins to mature, one perceives the guru as the great challenger in the quest to be true to oneself.

TEN

Questions and Answers: Guenther

Q:
Can you say something about mantra?

G:
The word
mantra
comes from the noun
manas
and the verbal root
tra
(“to protect”), according to the Indian explanation. The full explanation runs as follows:

manastrāṇabhūtatvād mantram ity ucyate

Since it has become a protection of mind, it is called mantra.

Mantra is usually associated with certain syllables or combinations of syllables. It is completely wrong to try to read a meaning into these syllables as with ordinary words. This goes exactly counter to the purpose of mantra, which is to protect the mind from straying away into habitual fictions. These fictions are very much tied up with words. The function of mantra is to preclude the tendency of the mind to, so to speak, flow downward. We are forced here to use this spatial metaphor; we might also speak of the tendency of the mind to glide off into something, or to fall.

We encounter this same metaphor in Western religious thought, where it is said that man is a fallen being. Our mental process tends always to run to the lowest level, just like water. With water rushing downward, once it has reached the bottom, it has lost its potential and there is practically nothing more that can be done. Well, it works the same way with our minds, going off into this system of fictions we have developed.

To give an example of mantra, I might use the word
love
. This word can be used in an everyday way so that it is meaningless or in a way that renders it full of meaning. In the latter case, it keeps something alive; in the former it’s just a piece of dead language. When a young man is courting a girl, he may say “I love you” or address her as “my love.” So saying, he expresses something that no other word could better convey. Sometime later the couple goes to the divorce court, and he says, “Well, my love, let us separate.” In one case, the word
love
is a mantra; in the other case, it’s just an ordinary figure of speech. So there is nothing mysterious about mantras.

Q:
Dr. Guenther, could you give an idea of the sense of the word
svabhava
in
svabhavikakaya;
it seems to be different than elsewhere.

G:
In the term
svabhavikakaya, kaya
is derived from the other terms (dharmakaya, sambhogakaya, nirmanakaya). Then, in order to emphasize that existentially kaya is not dependent upon anything else, you say
svabhava
. Here
svabhava
has a sense something like “self-existing.” The svabhavikakaya is not different therefore from the dharmakaya, being that which is not existentially dependent on anything else. The nirmanakaya and sambhogakaya are, however, dependent on the dharmakaya.

Q:
So it could not be said that the svabhavikakaya is dependent on the dharmakaya.

G:
That’s right. The term
svabhavikakaya
obviously evolved in the clarification of what was meant by dharmakaya. Dharmakaya had two meanings. On the one hand, there is the usual sense in which it is associated with the very nature of buddhahood. On the other hand, it also meant the sum total of all the entities of reality. The latter sense is the early hinayana view of dharmakaya. This is still the meaning it has as late as in the Hua Yen or Avatamsaka school. In later mahayana Buddhism the two senses always go together. Even though they are both dharmakaya, there cannot be two dharmakayas. So we say that the absolute is dharmakaya, and that all things, seen as constituting and representing the absolute, are also dharmakaya. This insight presenting the rapprochement of these two senses of dharmakaya was a contribution of the
Avatamsaka Sutra
. This sutra, incidentally, has never been found in any Sanskrit version.

Q:
Can you explain sambhogakaya?

G: Kaya
refers to the existential fact of being and
sambhoga
to being in communication with dharmakaya. The sambhogakaya is between the dharmakaya and the nirmanakaya. It is dependent upon and in communion with the dharmakaya. It is the level on which, as it is said, the teaching of the Buddha goes on uninterruptedly in that the person tuned in to this level always hears the dharma taught. This is, of course, a figurative way of speaking.

Then from the sambhogakaya there is a further condensation which is the nirmanakaya, in which what was seen or felt on the sambhogakaya level is now made more concrete.
Nirmana
means “to measure out.” On this level, the whole thing is put into a limited framework, which is understandable to us because, of course, our mind works within limitations.

Q:
You’ve spoken quite a bit about the Yogachara. What about the role of the Madhyamaka in the development of tantra?

G:
The philosophical systems that developed in Buddhist India, the Vaibhashikas, the Sautrantikas, and the Yogacharins (the mentalistic trends), were all lumped together in the traditional Tibetan surveys as reductive philosophies. They all try to subsume the whole of reality under particular existents, one under a particular existent of a physical kind, another under a particular existent called “mind.” But in all cases they are reductive systems. Not to say that there wasn’t a progress in the development of these systems.

The earliest, the Vaibhashikas, assumed mind and mental events, chitta and chaitta. Wherever there is mind there are also mental events. The Sautrantikas challenged this, showing that the mind
is
the mental events, so that there was no reason for this double principle. So they simplified it to saying a cognitive event was just mind. Still the Sautrantikas continued to speak of external objects corresponding to the objective pole of our cognitive experience, even though they regarded these external objects as only hypothetical causes of our cognitive experience. But further investigation showed that there was very little reason for assuming realities outside our experiencing of them. The realist formula would be
x = x + n
, where
x
is mind or experience and
n
is external realities. Now this is a nonsensical formula unless
n
= 0, which the realist will not accept. So if we analyze the situation in this mathematical form, the realist hasn’t got a leg to stand on.

The uncertainty over the status of
n
(external reality) had already been initiated by the Sautrantikas. Then the Yogacharins drew the logical conclusion that there is only
x
, which
appears
as
x
+
n
. In reducing the whole epistemological formula to mind or experience alone, the Yogacharins still held on to this
x
. This is exactly what the Madhyamaka critique of the Yogacharins undermined, showing, in effect, that holding to the principle of mind was still reducing reality to some particular existent.

So, for the subsequent development of tantra, the Yogacharins and Madhyamikas were of equal importance. The Yogacharins with their principle of mind provided something to deal with. After all, you must have something in hand to deal with. The Madhyamikas contributed the insight that one cannot believe in this what-you-have-in-hand as an ultimate answer. This criticism of the reductionist tendency which had characterized all previous Buddhist philosophy was a very important one indeed.

Q:
Is dharmadhatu in the vajrayana connected with the skandhas?

G:
The skandhas are subdivisions of the dharmadhatu. This has always been accepted by all schools. Since the earliest times there has never been the slightest disagreement over the division that was made into the skandhas, the dhatus, and the ayatanas, all of which together compose the dharmadhatu. The schools differed only over the logical status of these elements.

The earliest classification was made by the Vaibhashikas in the
Abhidharmakosha
. All the following schools adopted this classification. Even the Yogacharins, who would accept only mind as ultimate took it up; in fact they divided it up even more intricately than their predecessors.

As the first to attempt a systematization of what had been given by Buddha in the sutras, the Vaibhashikas based themselves on the Abhidarma-pitaka, which itself originated from certain word lists. These word lists seem to have come about when, after the Buddha had died, his followers wanted to set up some kind of easy reference to the body of his teachings. It was to be something like an index. This began as word lists, almost like sets of synonyms and antonyms. In this way Buddha’s followers began to organize the teaching. They would approach the whole of reality from the point of view of a single category they had under examination.

For instance, considering impermanence, they noted that there were certain things that were impermanent and other phenomena to which the term impermanence did not apply. Thus they came to make a great division between that which is impermanent and that which is permanent. Everything in the transitory category were particular existents, divided into physical, mental, and others which were neither physical nor mental. Particular existents which were neither physical nor mental were, for example, attainment, aging, or letters. Words are made up of letters—are these letters physical or mental? On the permanent side of this great division of reality was
akasha
, usually translated as space. We must be clear that in Buddhist philosophy the notion of space never indicates mathematical or locational space. It is more like life space or lived space. This space is irreducible and not transitory; it is there as long as one is alive (and after that, one can enunciate no philosophical theories).

This great division into permanent and impermanent was adopted by later schools, but the way of looking at it was subject to continual criticism and revision. Vasubandhu, for instance, criticized some of the earlier statements from the Sautrantika point of view. Some of the criticisms were quite simple and purely linguistic. The Vaibhashikas had said, “The eye sees.” This seems legitimate; probably none of us can find any reason to object to such a formulation. But the Sautrantikas said, “No,
we
see
with
our eyes.” The Sautrantikas began criticizing the Vaibhashikas in this manner.

Eventually they wanted to know exactly what was meant by what they themselves were saying. This led them into a thorough analysis of perception. They became quite involved in what differentiated veridical from delusive perceptual situations. What could the criteria be? They found that the inquiry can be shifted from one level of absoluteness relativity to another and that what was veridical on one level might be delusive on another. In this way the epistemological inquiry was greatly expanded. The Sautrantikas tried to keep their criteria consonant with common sense; but in the analysis of perception, common sense is not a very reliable touchstone. Thus there was room for the Yogacharins to come in, make their critique, and draw their conclusions.

But the Yogacharins’ view, for all its sophistication in relation to the earlier schools, remained naive. In dealing with mind, they concretized and affirmed it as a particular existent. The odd thing is that when we make positive statements, we exclude. If we want to be inclusive, we must make negative statements; we must continuously say “not this, not that.” If I say “horse,” I exclude everything that isn’t a horse. But certainly there are also cows. So in affirming as ultimate a particular existent we fall into this trap. This is precisely the point at which the idea of shunyata as openness enters. Shunyata is an absolutely positive term in a negative form.

Q:
Could you give an idea of the significance of
dakini?

G:
The Tibetan word is
khandroma
(
mkha’ ’gro ma
). Literally it means “walking over space.” Again here, space, akasha, refers not to mathematical or locational space but to life space. “Walking over” signifies a kind of appreciation. This appreciation of space is inspiration, which is depicted symbolically in female form. This inspiration is the dakini; it is the inspiration of the openness of the space. The rich symbolism of the dance of the dakinis indicates that the inspiration of openness comes not in one form but many. This dance, a series of graceful movements, also expresses the fact that each moment is a new situation. The pattern changes constantly and each moment presents a new occasion for appreciation, a new sense of significance.

Q:
What is
lalita?

G:
Lalita is the graceful movement of the dance. There is never a state of rest.
Lalita
also has a strong connotation of beauty. Beauty here is not different from the valuable; and the valuable is not different from what it is. When we try to catch it or grasp it, it is destroyed.