In Exile From the Land of Snows (73 page)

JA: Are you saying that when these obstructions are overcome space and time are eliminated and that events throughout the universe—past, present, and future—are simultaneously known?

DL: Time and space are relative. They are relative to a particular consciousness. What for us would be a year, for someone who has manifested a subtler consciousness, would be a shorter period of time. Also, it is possible for a person who has obtained great meditative stabilization to transform or change a moment into an aeon or an aeon into a moment—that is, for himself or herself only.

JA: Where is memory stored?

DL: It is not just in the brain. At such times as we are discussing, it is not necessary to have a brain. Consciousness alone can apprehend the past events. It must be with the subtle consciousness. For example, when the subtle mind of clear light
³⁰
manifests at death, the brain is already finished. From the point of view of its cognition, it’s called consciousness, and from the point of view of its engaging, or moving to its object, it’s called inner air or energy. The very subtle air and consciousness are one undifferentiable entity. They are one entity differentiated only for thought or by way of their opposites.

JA: Does this energy-consciousness carry traces of every event? Is this very moment being imprinted onto that?

DL: Yes. If you remember your last lifetime, the brain of that lifetime is no longer around, and this brain is new, right? So the picture can only be imprinted in the consciousness. This is similar to what the president of the University of Virginia described to me concerning the complete change of brain cells every several years.

JA: Is this most subtle energy-mind the final demarcation point between one person and another?

DL: There is a mere “I” that is designated in dependence upon the continuum of consciousness. There are two types of “I” or self: coarser and more subtle. There is the “I” that is designated on the gross mind and body and that which is designated on the subtle mind and energy. When the one is active, the other is not.

JA: Is the “I” associated with the most subtle mind beginninglessly one with it?

DL: The very subtle mind and energy is the base of designation for the subtle “I.” When you speak of designating the “I” to this energy-mind, it’s not necessary that the designator actually be among them. Someone once asked a question of a great
geshé.
He said that if a person was in a house looking at a pillar, that pillar could be designated to exist by thought, and he could understand that, but when no one was in the house, how could the pillar be designated? So the
geshé
said, “Yes, it does seem difficult.” Now, as soon as the questioner left, the
geshé
turned to a friend nearby and said, “Well, this person seems to think that a designating consciousness has to be wrapped around and tied up with every object.” So you see, it means this. The fact that a designated object cannot be found to ultimately exist when sought in analysis means that necessarily the object is just designated by a conceptual consciousness. Now, when you examine whether it is designated by this or that person’s conceptual consciousness, ultimately you won’t find that either. This
constitutes a mode of ultimate analysis of something’s being conceptually designated. You won’t be able to find it. Thus, that things are conceptually designated is also without inherent existence. It’s also empty.

JA: I’m not sure I understand. Is the “I” the subtle mind?

DL: The coarse “I” is designated in dependence on the coarse mind and body. But even when they are not operating, there has to be an “I” designated. That is then designated to the subtle mind and body, which are then present. For instance, a highly developed yogi who is able to manifest a subtler consciousness and at the same time view conventional phenomena, for that person there is an innate sense of “I”—not in the coarser sense, but in a far more subtle sense—designated upon the subtle mind and body. There is nothing else to posit. If either the very subtle mind or energy were posited as the “I” itself, then there would be the fault that is set forth in Nagarjuna’s
Treatise on the Middle Way
, that agent and object would be one, designator and designatee, the appropriator and the appropriated. For instance, when you say “my mind,” the controller or the owner is the “I.” In the case you are describing, the owner and owned would be one—impossible. If you posited one of those as actually being the “I,” this fault would be incurred. Because of this, it’s not the case.

JA: What happens to the most subtle energy-mind when a being becomes enlightened?

DL: The “I” of a Buddha, the self of a Buddha, is this subtle “I.” At the level of Buddhahood there is no coarse wind and mind. All of the five sense activities are done by the subtle energy and consciousness itself. Because that is all there is. It has become an omniscient consciousness. So at the time of the final
vajra
-like meditative stabilization of a learner,
³¹
one passes through in the forward process the four consciousnesses
³²
and then just the mind of clear light is left; one doesn’t manifest ever again the coarser levels of consciousness. Thus, there would only be the subtle “I” which is designated on the subtlest mind. For instance, for Shakyamuni Buddha, who appeared with a coarse mind and body that we could meet with, for him you could posit a coarse “I”—but just the appearance of such.

JA: A final question about memory: a human embryo develops through all the stages of evolution that have led to human beings. Why do you think it has to repeat every stage?

DL: It is due to the five fundamental and five secondary winds or currents of energy, which control the human form. It must have something to do with the actual formation of these winds in the new body, but I do not know this well.

JA: And the memory of those past creations abides in each of these energy currents as they produce the physical forms?

DL: The very subtle wind refers to the very subtle form of the life-bearing wind. The upward-moving wind has a relation with speech, spitting, and so forth. The pervasive wind has a function throughout the body. The fire-accompanying wind has the function of digestion of food and increase of the body’s elements. The downward-voiding wind has to do with the increase, holding, and letting go of seminal fluid, blood, feces, urine, and so forth. I haven’t remembered this well, so take care.
³³

JA: Can you explain why Buddhists believe the mind is beginninglessly ignorant?

DL: There are different types of obscurations. In one way, there are two. The first is an obscuration of not knowing. The second is a case of misconceiving. If you ask from what an obscuration arises, it comes from the continuation of former moments of obscuration. If you seek another explanation, then there would have to be a first moment to obscuration. In this case there would be a contradiction with reasoning. As it says in Aryadeva’s
Four Hundred
, “Though there is no beginning to afflictive emotions, there is an end.” Because ignorant consciousnesses misconceive objects, there is an end to them. They can be stopped by right understanding, but since they are generated as continuations of former moments of that type of consciousness, there is no beginning to them.

JA: Why is the mind not intrinsically enlightened?

DL: Once it has defilements—is together with defilements—it’s impossible that it was previously without them. Still, because the basic entity of the mind is always unfabricated and clear, it is indeed thoroughly good. Therefore, it is called thoroughly good:
Samantabhadra.
³⁴
It would contradict reasoning to propound that the mind is first pure and then later became adventitiously defiled. Thus, it can only be said that from the very start the mind is defiled.

JA: Why is the enlightened nature just a seed? Why is it not thoroughly developed?

DL: Because it is a seed its fruition is yet to occur. The fact that any consciousness is established as having a nature of mere illumination and knowing, and that that factor is capable of turning into enlightenment, is designated with the name “seed.” There is nothing more than that. If there was, you’d have to say that a God created it. Then you would have to explore the nature of God: investigate whether the nature of God had a beginning or an end. There are many such investigations in the ninth chapter of Shantideva’s
Engaging in the Bodhisattva’s Deeds
as well as Dharmakirti’s
Commentary on Dignaga’s “Compendium on Valid Cognition.”
I am not criticizing those who assert a creator God. I am explaining the Buddhist viewpoint. If there are many internal contradictions in a doctrine, revealed by reasoning, then one should drop that doctrine and choose one that doesn’t have such discrepancies. As it says in the fourth reliance, rely not on knowledge but on exalted wisdom. There are many phenomena that are not understood until one advances in mental development. There are many unusual phenomena that we cannot explain now with this type of consciousness.

JA: Can you explain how the other mental afflictions come out of innate ignorance?

DL: As I said, there are two types of ignorance. The first is a mere obscuration with respect to the status of phenomena. The other is ignorance that misconceives the nature of phenomena. The latter one conceives that phenomena inherently exist, which they don’t. Within this misconception of inherent existence, there are again two types: conceptions of persons as inherently existent and conceptions of other phenomena as also such. This division is made by way of a consideration of users of objects and objects used. Within the conception of persons as inherently existent, there are cases of conceiving both one’s own self and other selves to truly exist. Viewing the transitory collection of body and mind as a real “I” is a case of viewing your own self as inherently existent. With respect to this view, there are two further types. One is a conception that observes the transitory collection, which gives rise to the thought of “I” and conceives it to inherently exist. Another observes “mine” and conceives it to exist in the same way. Now, first of all, one generates a conception of the inherent existence of those phenomena—the mental and physical aggregates—that serve as the basis of designation of the “I.” After that thought, the “I” which is designated in dependence on mind and body is conceived to exist in its own right. Then, with that view of the transitory as the cause, one conceives “mine” to inherently exist. As Chandrakirti
³⁵
says, “Initially there is attachment to the ‘I’—a self—and then attachment to mine.” Once there is the class of self, there
is the class of other. Once these two classes are distinguished, one becomes desirously attached to the class of self and hateful toward the class of other. From this, are generated all the other problems. For instance, due to the view of the transitory as an “I” which is inherently existent, one generates pride in oneself as superior to others. Then, even afflicted doubt—since it’s a case of emphasizing the “I” that might not believe in something (the final reason being that “I don’t believe in such and such”)—depends on this. And jealousy. Also, extreme views are induced by this view of the “I” as inherently existent: views of permanence and views of annihilation. For example, believing that former and later births don’t exist or believing that once there is a self that this self will exist forever. So first a phenomenon appears to inherently exist, and when it does, its qualities of good, bad, and whatever also appear to exist in this way. The mind then assents to that appearance. Since this is an appearance based on a superimposition of goodness and of badness—beyond that which is actually there—one’s mind falls into extreme conceptions of genuine goodness and badness and the operation of improper attitudes, which, in turn, generate the afflictive emotions.

JA: Could you describe the two truths: ultimate and conventional. What are they and how do they work?

DL: This is important. Take the table as an example. If one searches for the object designated—the table itself—it can’t be found. If one divides up the parts of the table in terms of directions or divides up its qualities or substances, then one can’t find a whole that is the table. Indeed, to our minds there is a distinction between whole and parts such that when they appear to us, there seems to be a whole separate from parts—parts separate from whole. In reality, however, there isn’t. Now, when one searches in this way, one will not find the table. This nonfinding, though, does not mean that the table doesn’t exist. We’re using it, right? But if we search for it, we can’t find it. So there are two types of modes of being of the table. One is the positing of the table by a mind that doesn’t analyze and is just involved in the conventionality. That sort of table is found by that sort of mind. However, if you take the table as the object, if you are not satisfied with just this which you put your hand on but search to discover what it actually is among the parts—whether this is it or that is it—then there isn’t anything that can be found to be it. Why is there this nonfinding of the table? It’s because the table is something that is such that if analytically sought, it can’t be found. Now what does the mind searching to find the table among its parts discover? It finds just that nonfinding of the table. This nonfinding itself is a quality of the table, its substratum or base. This nonfinding is the final nature of
the table. Something more subtle does not exist. Thus, this is the ultimate or final mode of establishment of the table. Now, this mode of being is sought with respect to the table as the base or substratum. Therefore, this nonfinding is the actual mode of being of the table. Thus, with respect to the one basis, the table, there are two natures: one that is found by a nonanalytical mind and one that is found by the analytical mind. With respect to one base, then, there is an object found by a consciousness distinguishing the ultimate and an object found by a consciousness distinguishing the conventional.
³⁶
Thus it is said: “Form is emptiness. Emptiness is form.” Now these two are mutually exclusive. The two truths are one entity but are mutually exclusive.