The Collected Works of Chögyam Trungpa: Volume 4 (45 page)

All those processes—acknowledgments of the higher imaginary buddha as yourself and the higher buddha who comes to you, and so forth—you could say are pure superstition. You have a higher god and that god is related with the imaginary god. You could also say that the imaginary god becomes god in you. Conventional mysticism would find that a highly workable description, extremely good, ideal. That is their idea of what you should try to work with: God is in you and you are the god, as Yogi Bhajan would say.
³

But I’m afraid it’s not as simple as that. You can’t just say god is in you and you are the god, because god is not in you and you are not in the god. You have to make an effort. Those sambhogakaya buddha principles have to be invited, acknowledged, and then finally invited in to your whole being. That is an entirely different situation.

It is entirely different from the child in the home visualizing Santa Claus at Christmastime. The divine Santa Claus approaches you with his reindeer and so forth. Then he dissolves into your father. In turn your father becomes the true Santa Claus, brings presents, and puts them in your stocking. The father—the divine Santa Claus—then drinks the milk and eats the cookies. It’s not as folksy as that, I’m afraid. One could create an American tantra purely by using those images, but that becomes too cheap, a plastic world. Transplanting Mahavairochana [into oneself] is more deadly, more powerful. It is not on the level of a Christmas celebration, as though in the name of a divine Mahavairochana we would put a neon light outside our door. Or maybe we could make a cartoon film of it, or hang out a gigantic balloon in the air, saying “Mahavairochana is coming to town.” One could try all kinds of things, but I don’t think Mahavairochana would quite be amused. Nor would the lineage of gurus of the tantric tradition quite be amused.

There seems to be a need for serious commitment to the whole thing. Maybe I should stop talking at this point and let people ask questions about the whole thing. That might be more helpful. Is there anybody who would like to ask questions about the whole thing?

Student:
Are these visualizations actually things that come into you, or is it that you’re visualizing in terms of art forms? In other words, is it just something you visualize, or are these situations that do happen because of that strategy?

Trungpa Rinpoche:
I think you could say it’s both. There is inspiration connected with these visualizations, but at the same time there is a format of visualization that has occurred culturally. They coincide, they come together.

S:
As to the cultural aspect of these art forms: Are these the forms that the personages you visualize actually take? Do they take that cultural form, or are those just artistic expressions, drawings, representations, in which the colors and designs and textures just convey a taste of those personages?

TR:
Yes, I think that’s it. They are based on experience. Those figures have a crown, a skirt, a shawl, and ornaments, and that’s all. They are not dressed in the [specific] imperial costume of China, nor in that of an Indian raja. They are very simple and straightforward. As far as Indo-European culture goes, they are very workable.

S:
So they transcend culture in a sense, transcend Oriental culture.

TR:
I think so, yes. The style is that of pre-Hindustan culture, before the Mongols invaded India. Those are just images that exist expressing the common idea of the Indo-European ideal of a king. So purely by chance, those visualizations are workable for us: a youthful king wearing a crown and a shawl, maybe a shirt with half sleeves—that’s one of the inconographical forms—and lots of jewels, and a skirt. That’s it. I don’t think that this is particularly problematic. It’s not particularly Oriental. In fact, it’s highly Western. It is like Gandharan art, in which the Buddha’s features are Western. Conveniently for us, this is Indo-European culture. I don’t know what we’ll do when Buddhism goes to Africa, which is maybe an entirely different area. But as far as Indian and European culture goes, there’s no problem with that. There’s no problem visualizing a king of this type. In fact, it’s quite right.

Student:
What’s the relationship between mahamudra and the mandala of the five buddha families?

Trungpa Rinpoche:
The five-buddha mandala is the expression of mahamudra. It is how mahamudra sees the world as the symbolic or real manifestation of sanity. It’s the same thing, in fact. There’s no difference at all. Mahamudra is the eye of wisdom that sees the five buddha principles as its vision.

Student:
Is the god coming into you a confirmation of the fact that you already exist as a god?

Trungpa Rinpoche:
Confirmation doesn’t exist. You don’t have to be confirmed. Because the confirmation “I’m the god and the god is me” doesn’t exist, therefore the god doesn’t exist, and the watcher, which is you, doesn’t exist. So there’s no god and there’s no you. As far as Buddhism is concerned, there’s no god at all. That’s 200 percent sure. There’s no god. God doesn’t exist in Buddhism. And ego doesn’t exist in Buddhism either.

Student:
Who can be a guru?

Trungpa Rinpoche:
Anyone who can reflect you as a mirror does and with whom, at the same time, you have a relationship as a personal friend. If a person is too formal, he cannot be a guru. A very formal person might be all right as the legalized head of your order, like the Pope for the Catholics or the Dalai Lama for the Tibetans. Someone might say, “I belong to this Tibetan sect, therefore the Dalai Lama is my guru.” But basically a guru is someone who cares about you and minds your business, who relates with your basic being.

S:
Would one of the qualities of a guru be that he is a realized being?

TR:
Definitely, yes. And also a lot of it depends on you, on whether you think your guru is your friend. In that case, he could be called a spiritual friend. If you don’t think your guru is your friend, but instead he is a spiritual cop [that is not so good].

Student:
The tantric practice of visualization comes across as a kind of supertechnique as compared to hinayana and mahayana techniques.

Trungpa Rinpoche:
Sure. The vajrayana mentality knows how to work with your basic being. The vajrayana approach is supposedly the highest way there is of relating with your psychology. It is more developed than the hinayana and mahayana. It is the highest, most refined and powerful technique that mankind, or even nonmankind, could ever think of. That’s precisely the point: it’s superfantastic. That’s why it is called the vajrayana, the diamond vehicle, as opposed to just the small or big vehicle. It is a vehicle carved out of diamond.

Student:
Is there any correlation between the five buddha families and the different yanas?

Trungpa Rinpoche:
I don’t think so. All the yanas have a connection with all the five buddha families. The five buddha principles are the inhabitants, and the yanas are different countries—more advanced and less advanced countries.

Student:
I’m not sure how to relate to my basic nature in terms of the five buddha families. When I look at myself, I see not just one of them but parts of all of them. It’s very confusing.

Trungpa Rinpoche:
The important point is to have some kind of trust in your basic nature. Your style is not regarded as a mistake or derived from some original sin of some kind. Your style is pure and obvious. When you doubt your style, you begin to develop another style, which is called an exit. You begin to manifest yourself in a different fashion, to try to shield your own style to make sure it is not discovered by other people.

I think as far as basic nature is concerned, there is no mistake at all. That is where vajra pride comes in. In the vajrayana approach, you are what you are. If you’re passionate, that’s beautiful. If you’re aggressive, that’s beautiful. If you’re ignorant, that’s beautiful. And all the materials and manifestations in you are regarded as in the vajra realm, rather than your being condemned as a failure. The whole thing is really highly workable. That is why it is called the diamond vehicle. Because what goes on in your life is not rejected or selected.

Student:
Is there one way we are, or are we all of those ways?

Trungpa Rinpoche:
Well, one way is the convention. Vajra pride is the one way. Take pride in yourself.

Student:
When you talk about not rejecting what goes on in your life, or when you talk about mahamudra as the world presenting messages or symbols—like when you’re speeding, you get arrested—that just seems like common sense. It just seems like common sense that there are those kinds of messages. So it is not clear what the special quality is of working with those kinds of messages in the vajrayana.

Trungpa Rinpoche:
I don’t see any difference, actually. It’s just pure common sense. But the message that comes out of that should be a firsthand account rather than a secondhand one.

S:
Well, how do the practices you’ve described, such as visualization of Mahavairochana, connect to the common sense of responding to messages in our life?

TR:
The visualization are also common sense. That is the whole point. You are not having a foreign culture imposed on you or awkward ideas presented to you. Even the visualizations themselves are common sense. Yes, that’s true. Because the visualizations have something to do with you. That’s why different aspects of the five buddha principles become your yidams.
⁴
Yid
means “mind,” and
dam
means “trust.” Your mind can trust in certain particular aspects of the five buddha principles. You might be related with vajra Mahavairochana, ratna Mahavairochana, padma Mahavairochana, karma Mahavairochana, or buddha Mahavairochana. You can relate with certain particular principles and visualize them. It is like visualizing yourself. That’s the whole point of the yidam—it means that you have a personal relationship with that principle. Those things are not given out haphazardly, like saying everybody should eat peanut butter and jelly because it’s cheap and good for everybody.

Student:
In your lineage, are those practices, those visualizations, considered transmissions from the teachers to students, or can one read about them in books and practice from that?

Trungpa Rinpoche:
You can’t get it from books. It might be written about in books, but books are just menus. You can’t get a good meal just by reading the menu. You have to relate with the chef. We are the chefs. You can’t get a good [spiritual] meal out of a pamphlet.

S:
So when you speak here about those visualizations, are you giving a transmission to the group about how to do it?

TR:
I’m presenting my point of view. There are already things happening in America relating to this material. A lot of visualizations and ideas have already been shared and publicized. So I’m just presenting what I have to say as guidelines. We are all working toward the same goal. At the same time, however, I’m giving a warning. I’m saying that the food could be poisonous if you don’t relate with it properly.

Also what I’m doing here is presenting these ideas as appetizers, not to convert you, so that you become Tibetan Buddhists, but there is that possibility if you would like to get into this thing. It is a highly beautiful, fantastic trip. Better than any other trip you have ever gone through. This is a triples trip, and a sensible and a good one as well.

Yes, I’m the chef.

Student:
How do the visualizations relate to craziness?

Trungpa Rinpoche:
They are related because the visualizations are crazy too. They are outrageous.

Student:
Is a visualization a visual experience or a heart experience?

Trungpa Rinpoche:
A heart experience. If you relate with visualizations as technicolor visual things, that’s a problem. You might end up being Rudra. Or a superape, as we mentioned earlier. If you relate to the visualization as just a sense of inspiration that you have, that is when you are first getting a heart experience altogether.

Student:
Are the buddha families complementary? Particularly, if you are thinking of connecting with someone as a marriage partner or a lover, should the partner be the same type or a different type?

Trungpa Rinpoche:
It’s like the four seasons. Summer does not get married to winter without going through autumn. The same thing applies here. Autumn would prefer to get married to winter, and winter would like to marry spring. And so forth. It’s an organic situation.

Student:
How do the five aspects of buddha nature relate to ego?

Trungpa Rinpoche:
That’s the whole point. Those buddha principles are ego’s style as well as transcending ego. They are not just higher goals. They are something we can work with while we are here.

EIGHT

Anuttarayoga

T
HE NEXT YANA
is the yogayana, which our time does not permit us to go into in great detail. The view of the yogayana is quite similar to that of the preceding yana, upayogayana. The sense of the practice is also fairly similar, but the relationship to the deity is more direct. There is more sense of union with the divine element—the meaning of
yoga
is “union.”

At this point I would like primarily to discuss
anuttarayoga
[which emerges as the supreme level at this point]. It goes beyond the perspective on reality of the kriyayogayana—purity—and that of the upayogayana, which is a sense of bringing action and experience together, as well as beyond the sense of union with the deity of the yogayana. The Tibetan for
anuttara
is
la-me
, which literally means “none higher.”
La
means “higher,” and
me
means “not”; so there is nothing higher than this. Anuttara is the highest experience that one can ever relate with. There is a sense of personal involvement. The experience of tantra is extremely personal, rather than purely philosophical, spiritual, or religious. In general, there is really a definite sense of something personal. The reason that anuttarayoga is regarded as the highest of all is that the sense that everything is the mind’s creation, a mental projection, is dropped. From the point of view of anuttara, everything is what is, rather than purely the consequence of certain causal characteristics based on purity or impurity. As far as anuttara is concerned, there is no notion of causal characteristics, or chain reactions, or ecological consequences. Things are based on
as-it-is
. The chain reactions have their own basic nature; even the results of the chain reactions are as they are, and that is what you relate to, so you don’t have origins or results or fruition of things at all. Things are cut-and-dried, so to speak. Things are straightforward, definitely straightforward—direct and precise.