In Exile From the Land of Snows (71 page)

JA: Where is this fire you’re describing?

DL: It is produced by a person who is capable of cultivating it: fire, water, wind, and so forth. This is similar to a photograph that a person has imprinted with a mental image, which we saw earlier today. This is like that.

JA: So at a certain degree of mental control, physical objects can be manifested?

DL: Yes.

JA: To what purpose?

DL: Just depends on one’s motivation.

JA: I see. I’d like to ask you about something related to this. Since you were a little boy, you’ve been very interested in science. Why?

DL: Why? It is my wish. Well, let’s see. I looked at many pictures, and then from that, I got interested. I had a lot of curiosity as a child. And as you extend the “how’s” back, that’s how you get interested in science.

JA: Looking for a root cause?

DL: If you look for the root cause, then that’s not science. Science comes after the root cause.

JA: Halfway through your life you emerged from a world where there was no technology into the midst of the twentieth century. Which developments or discoveries have interested you most?

DL: Again, today, this scanning machine. That is something special. Body scanning; it takes every centimeter of your body in cross section. Very marvelous.

JA: Why did that one interest you?

DL: Hm? Very beneficial. There’s no need to operate on the person to get the picture.

JA: Some machines seem to cause as much harm as help. How is technology best used?

DL: That depends on motivation. Moderation and kindness. It’ll go all right; that’s it.

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.

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 refuge
¹⁶
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 goodness
¹⁷
are reliable. Since the teachings regarding high status touch on matters that involve very hidden phenomena
¹⁸
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 things at a distance, then one should go for refuge to a vulture. (This is in the root stanzas of the
Pramanavarttika
¹⁹
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 yoga
²⁰
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.