by John Avedon
JA: How do you feel about nuclear energy?
DL: Good. I think it is good.
JA: Why?
DL: Because it helps. If you use it properly, I think so.
JA: You think the benefits outweigh the danger?
DL: Everything is a dependent-arising. You see, whether nuclear power is absolutely of benefit, of course not. But we have a difficult topic. You cannot determine that nuclear energy is bad on the basis of itself alone, because if you do that, then you’ll just be an extremist yourself. If you go to any one extreme, it could be harmful.
JA: What do you think about the broader implications of nuclear power? We’ve tapped the energy in the atom, and with this most fundamental force—nothing less—might well destroy our world. Do you see anything ironic in that?
DL: Again, this just depends on your skill in knowing how to use nuclear energy. For instance, with respect to diet, if you don’t know how to eat properly, you might kill yourself.
JA: Returning to evolution: life has developed from simple to highly sophisticated structures. How do you equate this linear evolution with the Buddhist view of cyclic existence in which beings migrate in an essentially circular pattern through the same basic life-forms?
DL: According to the scriptures I mentioned earlier, we also believe in both a highly developed state, which slowly degenerates, and a primitive one, which evolves. Otherwise, I don’t know. It’s difficult to say. We have to investigate this further. I feel that different things could exist together. What science has found the present nature of evolution to be could be true, and at the same time, another type of evolution could also exist. It’s difficult to say.
JA: Is there a specific point, set down in the scriptures, when time and space will be emptied of all beings?
DL: According to one Buddhist scripture, it is explained this way. If you dig down one thousand yards into the earth and then dig around one thousand square yards and then fill this space with hairs a half-inch long each; if you then throw away one hair every hundred years; when you are done, that will be the length of one intermediate aeon—one of the eighty. So like that.
JA: Does it say how many great aeons there are going to be?
DL: Oh, limitless. There is no limit to the maha or great aeons. The existence of this kind of earth disintegrates, begins to take form, and disintegrates again everywhere in the universe.
JA: So there is no fixed point when samsara, cyclic existence, will cease? It is said, isn’t it, that samsara is beginningless, but it will have an end?
DL: Individually, it can end. Collectively, it is beginningless and endless. If you examine an individual person, there exists the possibility to bring to an end the causes that produce that person’s samsaric existence. Therefore, there will be an end. But now, when we speak of the whole of samsara, then it is difficult to say because it has no limit. So something which is limitless—how can you put a time on it? That’s the problem.
JA: A final question—the life-forms we see around us primarily exist via one of two strategies: the internal conversion of energy by plants and the external collection of nourishment by animals. Do you see any significance to this division?
DL: (Loud laughter) That is difficult. According to Buddhism, there might be a difference based on whether it is a sentient being or not.
JA: Are plants sentient beings? Do they have consciousness?
DL: Generally as a plant, no. But now again, there is a further complication. What is a real plant and what is something animal? That is difficult. These plants around us may be real plants. In that case, we would consider them not to have consciousness. There are some kinds of plants, however, where it is difficult to say if it has consciousness or not. Even if you take the human body, when you break down the cells, I’m not sure which kind don’t have consciousness and which do. According to Buddhist texts, there are about eighty thousand cells with consciousness, eighty thousand sentient beings in the body, including worms. I think it’s impossible for the human body to contain eighty thousand worms, which could be seen with the naked eye, but as I said, everything that moves doesn’t necessarily have consciousness.
Cyclic Existence and Sentient Beings
JA: How do you feel about Buddhism coming to America and the West?
DL: Religion has no boundaries. There are some Westerners who are interested in it, and if it helps them, then that’s sufficient.
JA: What do you think has caused the growing interest in spiritual traditions?
DL: It could be due to materialistic progress, and American culture is a mixture of many cultures. Therefore, Americans are very open to anything. There must be many factors, and there is much competition for jobs and so forth. Thus, people meet with difficulties, and out of that get interested in something serious. They go deeper, you see.
JA: Difficulty prompts interest in spiritual growth?
DL: If the mind is very restless, then just to meditate on one point or one subject for a short while will create some calm. In the beginning people became attracted to this kind of thing because it was like going on a mental picnic or vacation. And it was not just Buddhism, but all Eastern religions.
JA: What do you think of cults—people forfeiting their individuality to a religious figurehead or authority?
DL: To answer that, I’ll talk about the Buddhist way of viewing a teacher. The doctrines that Buddha taught were not for the sake of displaying his knowledge to others, but in order to help them. Therefore, no matter what his own thought or realization was, he taught in accordance with the disposition, interest, and so forth of the listener. Those who follow Buddha’s word, in order to determine his final meaning, must make a differentiation between that which is interpretable—as it was spoken for a specific purpose—and that which is definitive or incontrovertibly true. If in differentiating what is interpretable and what is definitive, one had to rely on another scripture, then one would have to rely on a scripture to validate that scripture and a further one to validate the latter. It would then be limitless. Therefore, once one asserts that there is this differentiation, it is necessary to rely on reasoning to implement it. That which is not damaged by reasoning is definitive.
Since this is the case, Buddha set forth the four reliances. Rely not on the person, but on the doctrine. With respect to the doctrine, rely not on the words, but on the meaning. With respect to the meaning, rely not on the interpretable meaning, but on the definitive meaning. With respect to the definitive meaning, one should rely not on comprehension by an ordinary state of consciousness, but on understanding by an exalted wisdom consciousness. Because of this, the reliability of teachings cannot be determined by considering the person who taught them but by investigating the teachings themselves. In sutra, Buddha said, “Monks and scholars should accept my word not out of respect, but upon analyzing it as a goldsmith analyzes gold, through cutting, melting, scraping, and rubbing it.” One doesn’t determine that Buddha is a reliable source of refuge16 by the fact that his body was adorned with major or minor marks, but because his teachings for the achievement of high status and definite goodness17 are reliable. Since the teachings regarding high status touch on matters that involve very hidden phenomena18 and are beyond the ordinary processes of reasoning, it is necessary to examine Buddha’s teachings for the achievement of definite goodness. Specifically, these are the teachings regarding the realization of the wisdom of emptiness. Through determining that they are correct and incontrovertible, one can come to the conclusion that the teachings regarding high status are as well. As Dharmakirti says, a teacher must be one who is skilled in which behavior is to be adopted and which discarded. One cannot accept a teacher because that person performs miracles, has the clairvoyant ability to see things in the distance, or is able to create certain physical emanations. Whether one can see far in the distance or not doesn’t matter. What matters is whether one knows the techniques for achieving happiness—as Dharmakirti says. If it were sufficient to be able to see thin
gs at a distance, then one should go for refuge to a vulture. (This is in the root stanzas of the Pramanavarttika19 itself.) Now, this is all to show that a teacher who explains what is to be adopted and discarded must be fully qualified. Therefore, Buddha set forth in detail the qualifications for many different levels of teachers: within the vinaya or discipline scriptures, within the sutras, and within the various divisions of the tantras. It’s very important before one accepts a teacher to analyze them, to see if he or she has these qualifications. It is particularly important in tantric practice. In one tantra, it says that since there is great danger for both the master and the student, it is necessary to analyze beforehand, even if it takes twelve years to come to a conclusion. Now, if in Buddhism it were sufficient just to have faith, then Buddha would not have needed to set forth such great detail concerning the choice of a teacher. In mantric practice—tantra—guru yoga20 is very important. But even though it is important, it doesn’t operate on the basis of blind faith. It says in the discipline that if a lama teaches contrary to the doctrine, one should object to it. A sutra quoted in Tsongkhapa’s Great Exposition of the Stages on the Path,21 says that one should rely on a lama by agreeing with what is concordant with the doctrine and opposing that which is discordant. This is in a sutra in the Bodhisattva Pitaka. Then with respect to mantra, Ashvaghosha’s Fifty Stanzas on the Guru states that if a lama says something that one cannot accept, one should verbally explain to him why. This describes how one is to rely on a lama within the three vehicles of Buddhism.22 One shouldn’t fall to either of the extremes. As in all practices, after ascertaining the truth with reason, one should then have faith, but that isn’t a blind faith leading you into a chasm. You should examine what the teacher says, accepting what is suitable and rejecting that which is not. This is the general Buddhist procedure, and I agree with it. I follow it.
JA: How can you sincerely go for refuge to either the teacher or the Buddha unless you yourself have already experienced the validity of their teaching?
DL: If one speaks about refuge with valid cognition, then it would be necessary to ascertain nirvana before going for refuge. In order to ascertain both the existence of nirvana and that it is obtainable, it is necessary to realize emptiness. This would be the mode of procedure for one who follows the facts, who has to get down to the facts. However, for other types of people, who mainly follow through faith, there are many different ways in which they generate belief. Thus, even if one had not gotten valid cognition regarding nirvana and its obtainability, at least one would have to have a correct assumption concerning it.
JA: Isn’t it a contradiction to say that the followers of fact have to travel the whole path before taking refuge in the very path they would then have already traveled?
DL: The actualization of nirvana and the ascertainment that it exists are very different. For instance, actually arriving at this place and ascertaining that this place exists are different.
JA: The vast majority of people in the world are not actively engaged in spiritual development. The most important or deepest aspects of their lives are their relationships with others—particularly family members. To what degree do you think these basic relationships serve as a means for human growth? Do they function in their own right to help people evolve?
DL: I don’t know. One kind of love that we possess is the right kind of love. This can extend toward spiritual development. It can be used as the basis for the development of infinite kindness. So from that viewpoint, yes, the family life or family ties can benefit. In human nature, we already have a certain type of kindness. Part of that is reasonable. Now at the same time, this usual kindness that comes with human nature is strongly influenced by attachment. Now that has nothing to do with the spiritual side, and in fact, acts as an obstruction.
JA: Love, based on attachment?
DL: Yes.
JA: Can you talk about the right kind of love?
DL: There are many reasons for it. When you have pity or compassion for a very poor man, at that moment you are showing sympathy because he is poor. That love is based on right reasons. Now, the love toward your wife, your children, or a close friend is love based on an object of attachment. Once your attachment changes, then that kindness no longer exists. The other kind of love is not based on your attachment, but is love—as in this case—because a man is suffering from poverty. So as long as he suffers from poverty, your love will remain.
JA: Are you saying that the correct love is found only in empathy?
DL: Yes. It is similar. The right kind of love will not change according to your emotional feelings toward the object. Love that is connected with attachment will fluctuate very much according to how you look at it.
JA: Buddhists believe that the emotions are obscurations—mental defilements—that should be abandoned. In the West, though, one major criterion for a full life is just how deeply feelings are experienced. If passion is avoided, one feels a person is superficial. On the other hand, people often admire someone who has richly experienced life. Must these two views negate each other?
DL: This is a little complicated. Certain strong emotions come into you because of your attachment. Similarly, strong feelings can even enter into your practice of Dharma or your attitude toward your guru. Although the emotion might seem good, if someone is practicing properly, at a later stage he has to get rid of these feelings.
JA: So there really is no way to equate the two views? What if someone’s friend or parent dies, don’t you think its good for them to feel sad?
DL: At the death of a parent or anyone else, there is a reason for being sad. I don’t find much wrong in this. If something unfortunate happened to your own parents or someone for whom you’ve had much love, there is a good reason to feel sad. Now here, if someone loses their parents and is sad, I think their sadness should be based on reasoning—no more, no less. I think that is correct. No less means he feels very sorry. No more, he accepts it. Now you see, the sadness that is based on strong attachment is bad. Because of that sadness people may even kill themselves. Going to that extent is beyond reason.
JA: So that is what should be abandoned?
DL: Yes.
JA: Can you discuss dreams: what type of mental phenomena are they?
DL: There are techniques for causing dreams to become nonmistaken as to the ultimate nature of reality. Otherwise dreams, though there are unusual ones, are of little value in developing the mind.
JA: Is it just because the mind is so restless that even when the body sleeps, it continues to function?
DL: When one is sleeping without dreams—in a dreamless state—there is less conceptuality. When dreams appear, one generates desire, hatred, and so forth; and then of course, there is a lot of conceptuality. A dream consciousness is easier to change or transform. The experience of pleasure and pain in it can influence the same experience by a coarser consciousness when awake. Because a dream consciousness is more subtle than a waking consciousness, it is more effective. But now, a special dream body occurs when the coarse body is actually left. There are cases of this due to one’s former actions or karma, like a gift at birth, a talent. These people can experience what is actually going on at this time externally—beyond their bodies. There are also cases of people who train in making use of the special dream body. Not to lose time in their religious practice, they often spread the pages of a book out before going to sleep. During sleep they then depart from their bodies and spend that time reading. The pages would be separated before because the dream body is incapable of moving coarse physical matter.
JA: Can you elucidate the Buddhist view of the various states within cyclic existence: life, death, and rebirth?
DL: There are four states. The birth state is said to be momentary, just at the point of conception. The next moment is the beginning of the prior time state, ranging from when the coarse body starts to form until death. Then during the death state, even though it is taking place within the old body, the relationship of su
pport and supporter of consciousness abiding in the body has been severed. At the point of death, the relationship of consciousness supported by a physical base takes place only on the subtlest level. At this point, individual consciousness is conjoined with the subtlest inner energy or “air,” as it says. For one who is going to pass through the intermediate or bardo states, as soon as the death state stops, the intermediate state begins. In the intermediate states although one doesn’t have a gross physical body, one does have a form—achieved through the interaction of inner air and consciousness. It is grosser than the most subtle body, but more subtle than the usual physical one we see.
JA: Does this have a shape?
DL: Oh yes. It will have the shape of the being that one will be reborn as. There are systems, however, which say that for the first half of the period of the intermediate state, the bardo body has the form of the past life, and for the next half, that of the life to come. Every seven days there is a small death that takes place to the bardo body. With seven such deaths occurring every seven days, it is possible to remain in the intermediate state for up to seven weeks, but no more. By that time one will definitely take rebirth. Beings in the intermediate state are like gods or spirits in that they do not have a gross physical body susceptible to many limitations. They can’t be seen by ordinary sight. Among all those who do not have gross bodies—not just bardo dwellers—there are many different types: gods, demigods, spirits, etc. As in human society there are those who have no contact with Buddhist practice, those who have a little contact, some more, some less. The oracles,23 generally speaking, are people like us, within cyclic existence. Such beings as Chenrezi among the society of gods are persons who have already obtained enlightenment. Now there are many different types of Chenrezis. The compassion of all Buddhas in general, its manifestation in form, is called Chenrezi. Thus, this type of Chenrezi is not an individual being. However, just as Shakyamuni is a specific person, there is also a Chenrezi who is a specific person. Also, there are people like us who might take Chenrezi as a special deity. When that person becomes enlightened, he or she will appear in the form of Chenrezi. Because the person at the time of the stage of generation in Highest Yoga Tantra24 generated his or her self as such, he is designated with the name Chenrezi. However, they don’t have to continue appearing just as Chenrezi. Simultaneously, they may appear in many different ways. From a Buddha’s own point of view one can only say that a Form Body is a final or highest Form Body25 One cannot say that inwardly it is one way or another. It appears simultaneously in many different forms in accordance with the needs of the trainees26 and in dependence upon that Buddha’s former wishes and prayers. Therefore, one Buddha would appear automatically and at the same time in the aspect of Chenrezi, Manjushri, Maitreya,27 and so forth, according to the needs of the trainee.
