The Collected Works of Chögyam Trungpa: Volume 4 (63 page)

G:
It is close in some ways, but one should not directly equate the two. Jung comes quite close with certain of the archetypes, but being in the Western tradition, he falls into the idea that there is a someone, an entity, to whom the archetypes are related. This is where Jung was tied down by his Aristotelianism. I do not mean to demean Aristotelianism—after all, it is one of the finest systems produced by Western thought—but it definitely has its shortcomings.

To be more precise, Aristotle spoke of the psyche as an object of investigation. With this approach, we are already in a framework which presumes the division between subject and object. In this framework subject and object, rather than being complementary, different aspects of the same unity, are separate entities which are opposed to each other. The word “object” means “thrown against.” The Indian terms do not have this dualistic character. The Indians spoke of the “apprehendable” and the “apprehender,” which are very much on the same level, aspects of the same process. There cannot be one without the other.

Q:
Is the process described through which the original split between the transcendental ego and the empirical ego takes place?

G:
To try to put it on the level of ordinary experience, it seems to be similar to the process in which a person, feeling himself handicapped, frustrated, incomplete, projects the idea of what he would wish to be the case as his real self. This would be the projection of the transcendental ego. Strangely enough, in the Kantian tradition, this transcendental ego was viewed as something that the person never could reach; he was more or less condemned to the level of incomplete or inauthentic experience. It was only to the extent that he was able to submit himself to the dictates of the transcendental ego that he became a human being. Kant’s very high conception of freedom, as modern philosophy developed, ceased to be attended to and developed, involving as it did this total submission to a fiction.

According to the Nyingmapa tradition of Tibetan Buddhism, when this split occurs, there is just the basic unknowing, avidya (
ma rig pa
in Tibetan) which is taken as the transcendental self by the empirical self. The empirical self, feeling incomplete or frustrated, mistakes the unknowing for its authentic self. The very clearly thought-out Nyingmapa analysis thus contains an implicit critique of the egoistic philosophy which actually glorifies this unknowing as the ultimate self. According to this analysis, once the positing of the transcendental self occurs, all the further processes of experience involving bodily awareness, etc., are related to this fictitious center.

Q:
Can you relate tantra to advaitism?

G:
The term
advaita
, as we use it, stems from Shankara’s Vedanta. The Buddhists never used this term, but used rather the term
advaya
.
Advaya
means “not two”;
advaita
means “one without a second.” The conception of “one without a second” puts us at once into the realm of dualistic fictions. Rather than remaining in immediate experience, with the idea of “one,” we posit a definite object. This would then necessarily be over against a definite subject, which is the implication Shankara wanted to deny with the “without a second.” By saying “not-two” you remain on solid ground, because “not-two” does not mean “one.” That conclusion does not follow.

In the works of Saraha and other Buddhist teachers, it is said that it is impossible to say “one” without prejudgment of experience. But Shankara and his followers were forced by the scriptural authority of the Vedas to posit this One and so were then forced to add the idea “without a second.” What they wanted to say was that only atman is real. Now the logic of their position should force them to then say that everything else is unreal. But Shankara himself is not clear on this point. He reintroduced the idea of illusion which had previously been rejected by him. Now if only atman is real, then even illusion apart from it is impossible. But he was forced into a philosophical position which, if it were to be expressed in a mathematical formula, would make absolute nonsense. So intellectually, in this way, it could be said that the Vedanta is nonsense. But it had tremendous impact; and, as we know, the intellect is not everything. But as the Madhyamaka analysis showed, the Vedanta formula simply does not hold water. And Shankara himself, as I said, was not completely clear on this point.

In translating Buddhist texts, it is necessary to take great care with the word
illusion
. Sometimes it appears in what is almost an apodictic or judgmental sense. This happens especially in poetry, where one cannot destroy the pattern of the flow of words to make specific philosophical qualifications. But the basic Buddhist position concerning illusion, as prose works are careful to point out, is not the apodictic statement made by the followers of Shankara that the world
is
illusion. The Buddhist position is that the world may be
like
an illusion. There is a huge logical difference between saying the world
is
an illusion and saying the world may be
like
an illusion. The Buddhist position suspends judgment.

So while it has been suggested that Shankara was a crypto-Buddhist, because, in fact, he took over almost the entire epistemological and metaphysical conception of the Buddhists, there remains this very crucial difference.

ELEVEN

Questions and Answers: Rinpoche

Q:
What is abhisheka?

R:
The literal meaning of
abhisheka
is “anointment.” Etymologically it means “sprinkle and pour.” It is a sort of emergence into validity, the confirmation of your existence as a valid person as a result of having acknowledged your basic makeup as it is. But abhisheka cannot take place unless the student’s training has brought him to a full understanding of the surrendering which is involved in it. He has related his body with the ground by prostrating. He has repeated over and over again the formula: “I take refuge in the Buddha; I take refuge in the dharma; I take refuge in the sangha.” He has taken refuge in the Buddha as an example; taken refuge in the dharma as the path; taken refuge in the sangha as his companionship on the path. In that way he has accepted the whole universe as part of his security, warded off the paranoia that comes from the situation of maintaining the ego. In that way he has prepared the space of abhisheka. Having prepared the space, he can relax; he can afford to relax.

Then, the abhisheka takes place as the meeting of two minds. The guru identifies himself with the deity of a particular mandala and encourages the student to do the same. Then the student is crowned and enthroned with all the attributes of that particular symbolism. For instance, the particular deity in question might hold a bell and a vajra in his hands. The guru gives the student a bell and a vajra in order to help him identify himself with the deity. This is the development of what is known in tantric language as vajra pride, indestructible pride. You develop this because you
are
the deity. You have been acknowledged as such by your colleague. He also has accepted you—you are sharing the same space together, so to speak.

Q:
Do the various yanas and vehicles intermingle? Are they all part of the vajrayana?

R:
It seems that basically the whole practice is part of the vajrayana, because you cannot have discontinuity in your practice. You start on the rudimentary level of samsaric ego and use that as the foundation of tantra; then you have the path, then the fruition. But unless you begin with some stuff, something, no matter how apparently crude it is, the process cannot take place. Because you begin with something, that starting point or stepping-stone is on the continuity of your path.

Still, however, as I see it, Westerners are largely unprepared for the practices of the vajrayana at this point, because they have not yet assimilated the basic understanding of Buddhism. In general they do not even have the beginning notions of suffering as explained by the four noble truths. So at this point, the introduction of Buddhism into the West has to be very much on the hinayana level. People have to relate with the pain of sitting down and meditating and churning out all kinds of material from their minds. This is the truth of suffering, that you are still questioning whether or not the world is the ultimate truth. If the world is the truth, then is pain the truth or is pleasure the truth? People first have to sort out these questions through the use of beginner’s practices.

Hopefully, in the next twenty to thirty years vajrayana principles dealing with the creation of mandalas and identification with deities can be properly introduced. At this point it would be extremely premature. As Professor Guenther said, tantra has been misunderstood from the beginning. So this fundamental misunderstanding has to be corrected first. Having been corrected, then you begin to feel something, then you begin to chew it, swallow it; then you begin to digest it. This whole process will take quite a bit of time.

Q:
Can you say something about experiencing deities?

R:
Different types of mandalas with different types of deities exist in the iconographical symbolism of tantra. They are associated with all kinds of psychological states. When a person is involved with this symbolism, there is no problem in identifying himself with such deities. There are many different kinds. There is the father tantra, the mother tantra, and the nondual tantra. There is symbolism relating to the five buddha families: the family of anger, the family of pride, the family of passion, the family of envy, and the family of ignorance. When a person has prepared the ground and is able to relax, then he is able to see the highlights of his basic being in terms of these five energies. These energies are not regarded as bad, such that you have to abandon them. Rather, you begin to respect these seeds that you have in yourself. You begin to relate with them as all kinds of deities that are part of your nature. In other words they constitute a psychological picture of you. All this requires a long process.

Q:
Could you explain the difference between vajra pride and spiritual pride based on ego? I see numbers of young people involved with spirituality who just seem to be swollen with self-righteousness.

R:
Well that seems to be a crucial point. It is the difference, speaking in terms of tantric practice, between the actual faith of identifying with a certain aspect of oneself as a deity and just relating with those deities as one’s dream of the future, what one would like to be. Actually, the two situations are very close in some sense because even in the first case one would like to attain enlightenment. Now here the possibility is presented of relating with an enlightened being, or better, of identifying with the enlightened attitude. This brings it home to one that there is such a thing as enlightenment and that, therefore, one can afford to give up one’s clingings and graspings. There could quite easily be quite a thin line between this situation and just considering self-righteously that one is already there.

I think ego’s version of spiritual pride is based on blind faith, or what is colloquially known as a “love and light trip.” This is having blind faith that since one would like to be thus-and-such, one already is. In this way one could become Rudra, achieve Rudrahood. On the other hand, vajra pride comes from facing the reality of one’s nature. It is not a question of becoming what one would like to be, but rather of bringing one’s actual energies to full blossom. The confused ego pride is the indulgence of wishful thinking; it is trying to become something else, rather than being willing to be what one is.

Q:
Can you relate the tendency to speed from one thing to the next to the fixity that is central to ego?

R:
Fixation could be said to be self-consciousness, which is related with dwelling on something or, in other words, perching on something. That is, you are afraid that you are not secure in your seat, therefore you have to grasp on to something, perch on something. It is something like a bird perching in a tree: the wind might blow the tree, so the bird has to hold on. This perching process, this holding-on-to-something process goes on all the time. It is not at all restricted to conscious action, but it goes on inadvertently as well. If the bird falls asleep in the tree, it still perches, still holds on. Like the bird, you develop that extraordinary talent to be able to perch in your sleep. The speed comes in when you are looking constantly for something to perch on, or you feel you have to keep up with something in order to maintain your perch. Speed is the same idea as samsara, going around and around chasing one’s own tail. In order to grasp, in order to perch, in order to dwell on something, you need speed to catch up with yourself. So, strangely enough, in regard to ego’s game, speed and fixity seem to be complementary.

Q:
Is dwelling connected with the lack of perception of impermanence?

R:
Yes, that could be said. In Buddhism there is tremendous stress laid on understanding the notion of impermanence. To realize impermanence is to realize that death is taking place constantly and birth is taking place constantly; so there really is nothing fixed. If one begins to realize this and does not push against the natural course of events, it is no longer necessary to re-create samsara at every moment. Samsara, or the samsaric mentality, is based on solidifying your existence, making yourself permanent, everlasting. In order to do that, since there actually is nothing to grasp on to or sit on, you have to re-create the grasping, the perching, the speeding constantly.

Q:
What is the difference between prajna and jnana?

R:
Prajna is precision. It is often symbolized as the sword of Manjushri, which severs the root of duality. It is the precision or sharpness of intelligence that cuts off the samsaric flow, severs the aorta of samsara. It is a process of creating chaos in the smooth circulation of maintaining the ego or samsaric mind. This is still a direction, an experience, a learning process, till trying to get at something.