Manjughosa Stuti Sadhana

Manjughosa Stuti Sadhana by Sangharakshita

The Manjughosa Stuti Sadhana

Held at: Padmaloka

Dates: 22nd - 24th October 1977Those Present: Not noted on the tapes but voices recognised by the transcriber include: The Venerable Sangharakshita, Sagaramati, Subhuti, Devamitra, Abhaya, Vimalamitra, Aryamitra, Vajradaka, Asvajit.

Please note that Pali and Sanskrit diacritic marks are not used in most cases in this transcript.

SANGHARAKSHITA: Just a few words about what we're actually going to be doing over the next three days.This morning we're going to study the actual sadhana text, and I hope we can complete the whole of it. We'll be going on until twelve or even twelve thirty with just a little break for a cup of tea or coffee.

Then when we come to the five o clock meditation we'll be doing the mett bh vana as a sort of introduction to the visualisation which we'll be doing after supper starting at eight o clock. We'll be doing a guided visualisation practice, and then with the puja following at nine.

If people want they can sit on after the puja for a further session just individually. We're having the puja at nine to synchronise with the community's puja so that while one set of people is meditating you don't hear another set chanting next door. With luck we shall obviate that.

Then tomorrow in the morning during the study we shall study a chapter, maybe a little more, of the 'Ratnaguna'. Then in the afternoon again the mett bh vana, again in the evening the visualisation practice.

Then the third day the programme will be the same, except that in the evening we shall do the recitation of the stuti and the mantra and the visualisation in the course of the evening meditation and puja. That will be a bit different from the previous two evenings.

So in this way we should have a reasonably sort of basic grounding in the practice as a whole and what it signifies. So this morning we're going to be dealing with the text of the stuti, going through it fairly minutely, if not even word for word.

First of all the title which in English reads, 'A cloud of worship pleasing to the protector Manjusri, (Being) the way to practise profound stuti sadhana of the holy Manjughosa.'

Anything there that anyone feels need explanation or comment? I can think of at least three or four points. __________: What is a stuti sadhana?

S: Stuti is a sort of hymn of praise. I use the word hymn for want of a better one but the essence of stuti is that it praises.

You can have a stuti in praise of a king for instance.

A stuti in praise of a Buddha or Bodhisattva or in Hinduism of a god or goddess. A stuti essentially extols.

It enumerates the positive features or glorious attributes of the object of the stuti.

- 1 - So a sadhana of course is a spiritual practice. A systematic spiritual practice of a devotional cum meditative nature. And a stuti sadhana is a systematic spiritual practice which embodies as its main feature the recitation of a stuti.

Do you get the idea? But the epithet 'profound' is prefixed because you might run away with the wrong idea that just because it was a stuti sadhana it was a quite elementary practice, which in a way it is but this happens to be a profound stuti sadhana.

Profound in meaning, profound in respect of the spiritual realisation to which it conduces. [Pause]

What is the difference between Manjusri and Manjughosa?

S: No difference at all essentially, but iconagraphically there is a difference. Manjusri in a way is the basic original form, the generic form if you like, and iconagraphically he's depicted flanked by two lotuses, on one of which there is a flaming sword, on the other of which there is the book of the Perfection of Wisdom.

Manjughosa is that iconographic form which displays the wielded sword, and the book pressed against the heart, which of course is the form that we are concerned with here.

Vajradaka: Both Manjusri and Manjughosa are mentioned in the title.

S: Yes, 'a cloud of worship pleasing to the protector Manjusri'. The generic form is mentioned first, and then 'The way to practise the profound stuti sadhana of the holy Manjughosa'. That in the actual practice, the form of Manjusri with which one is concerned is the Manjughosa form, i.e. not the basic form with the lotus and book on either side, but the form in which he wields the sword in one hand and presses the book to the heart with the other. Vimalamitra: The form there and the form I've got he's wielding a sword and he's got the book on the end of a lotus. That's something like an in between.

S: I don't know about that. It might even be iconagraphically incorrect. I don't remember a form like that with a particular name. One can look it up in one of the text books, but these are the two most usual forms certainly.

You may remember that Tsongkhapa is regarded as a manifestation of Manjusri and he too is flanked by the two emblems on the two lotuses.

What about this expression 'cloud of worship', Pujamegha? What do you understand by that? This is an Indian, a Sanskrit idiom.

__________: Is it to do with the fact that you burn incense when you worship?

S: No, I don't think it's that, no.

__________: The worship isn't offered (?)......

S: But why a cloud? Why not a flood of worship?

__________: It has the same effect as a cloud. It rains.

S: You could say that. But actually it's a straightforward sort of metaphorical expression. It means an abundance. Just as clouds sort of spread.

You see for instance at the beginning of the rainy season, first of all the sky is clear and then a little cloud comes up, then it grows, it spreads, then eventually the whole sky is filled with cloud.

So a cloud of worship is an abundance of worship that spreads in all directions which constantly expands. This is the idea. [Pause]

- 2 -

Sagaramati: Is there any reason why Manjusri's called a protector? The other bodhisattvas are not usually called protectors, are they?

S: Yes they are. For instance there is the well known group of the three protectors first of all. That is to say Avalokitesvara, Manjusri and Vajrapani.

This is the famous set that you get as a set of three throughout Tibet and Nepal, and there's a set of three because they correspond to three Buddhas, and originally of course there were three Buddhas rather than five.

In Mahayana broadly speaking you get triads of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas.

Again broadly speaking in the Vajrayana you get a fivefold set.

You get pentads.

Or you can have a Buddha and two bodhisattvas.

In a sense the idea being that you have the central form flanked by the two main aspects, as it were.

For instance you might have Amitabha flanked by Avalokitesvara representing compassion and Mahastamaprapta representing power.

This is a very popular triad in China.

So in the same way you had a triad of bodhisattvas - Avalokitesvara representing compassion, Manjusri representing wisdom, the central one, and

Vajrapani representing power.

So later on the number of Buddhas was, as it were, increased to five, and the two Buddhas who were added - the original ones being Vairocana for the centre, then Amitabha for the West, Akshobya for the East - the two Buddhas who were added, that is to say Amoghasiddhi for the North and Ratnasambhava for the South, are comparatively shadowy figures.

Do you see what I mean? They don't seemto be so fully individualised as the other three. Partly because they aren't so ancient, in a manner of speaking.

In the same way the three bodhisattvas are much more prominent than the five bodhisattvas, who are nathas,that is to say. There are five nathas, just as there were originally three bodhisattvas and three Buddhas,eventually there are five Buddhas and five nathas, but the other two nathas aren't so prominent as these three.

Who are the others anyway? There's Ratnapani for the South and for the north who is the bodhisattva? I think it's Visvapani, but I'm not certain of that.

So you can see that they are much more shadowy figures, aren't they? But what is a protector, Natha? The Buddha is also called natha. In the puja we speak of the protectors, the nathas. It clearly means Buddhas and bodhisattvas.

So even though the most famous set is a set of three, the three nathas, of the three main kulas, it's not an exclusive term. It's usually translated protector, sometimes saviour.

It doesn't seem very Buddhistic at all, does it. Let me give you a few examples of the way in which the word is used. It might throw some light on the meaning.

For instance there's Anathapindaka, the Buddha's famous disciple. Now what does that mean?

__________: The protector of orphans.

S: The protector of orphans.

No, it doesn't actually mean quite that.

Pindaka is one who feeds, one who gives food, one who gives food in balls or food in lumps, because that's how the Indians eat their food, isn't it. They knead it into a lump and then lightly toss it into the mouth.

So one who gives Pinda, one who gives balls of food is one who feeds, who supports, who brings up, but what is Anatha? Anatha is one without a protector, that's the literal meaning. So Anathapindaka is the one who gives food to .. those who are without a protector or a guardian. That is to say especially children who don't have any parents, who don't have any guardians. In other words orphans if you like, though they may not be literally orphans in the sense of their parents being dead. So when you are a child your parent or your lawful guardian is your natha, your support, your protector, your guardian. So that sort of idea is transposed to the spiritual plane. The Buddha is your natha, the bodhisattva is your natha, your protector, your guardian. Almost your refuge. But then again in the Dhammapada where it says, 'Atta no nathi'(?) etc. Where it says the self is the lord of self. The word here which is translated lord or master in English is 'natha'. The self is its own protector, the atta is its own natha. What other natha could there be. You see. So this is the way in which the word is used. So what does it mean when we say that the Buddhas or bodhisattvas are our nathas, our protectors? We recite this every day in the Sevenfold Puja but what do we mean by that, by evoking Buddhas and bodhisattvas as nathas or protectors. What sort of protection are we looking for? What sort of protection do we expect. Do we think about it at all? And the Dhammapada tells us that we're our own protector, so why do we evoke the Buddha as our - 3 - protector or the bodhisattva as our protector? Isn't it contradictory or is it just a simple conflict between Hinayana and Mahayana? If so which is right? Devamitra: You're feeling the protection of the state of mind that the Buddha or bodhisattva symbolises. S: Later on in the course of the sadhana one will see that the bodhisattva is not just a state of mind. Sagaramati: Aren't you trying to be receptive to some influence? S: Ah, you're trying to be receptive to some influence, yes. Which could be regarded, in a manner of speaking, perhaps not speaking very Buddhistically, as some other dimension of your own being. In that sense a state of mind, but not a state of mind in the sense of being just an idea within your present consciousness or an idea even within a slightly higher level of consciousness, or even a very much higher level of consciousness. So one is not invoking protectors for worldly protection or anything like that. We'll be going into that a bit tomorrow morning when we come to the 'Ratnaguna'. You are opening yourself to something spiritual, something transcendental. They're your spiritual protectors in the sense that you can learn from them, be guided by them or inspired by them, influenced by them. But for that to be possible you must be open. So in hailing them as your protectors you are expressing your openness to them, your readiness to receive. Not that remaining as you are you're invoking them to protect you, to grant you the things that you want or help you to get the things that you want in your present state of unenlightened being. So the protector, Manjusri or Manjunatha. Sagaramati: It seems that it's better to see these forces as being real. Some people usually rationalise it and say well it's only an operational concept. S: Yes, right, or just a state of mind in the ordinary sense. 'It's just subjective, there aren't really any buddhas or bodhisattvas, they just personify states of your own mind'. This is true in a way but it's very dangerous to think like that prematurely. It's much better to think that there are bodhisattvas actually out there who are thinking about you and wanting to help you. That in a way is not only more helpful but is actually nearer to the truth, crudely though it may be expressed. It's a bit like what I used to say with regard to animism, that it's nearer the truth to say that everything is alive than to say that everything is dead. Vimalamitra: Is the reason why it's better to think of bodhisattvas as outside yourself to break down the subject/object..... S: Yes, it does eventually have that effect, yes. __________: Whereas the danger is if you think of them as a state of mind you remain subjective. S: Yes you just remain within your own subjectivity. Sagaramati: It must be hard to get a feeling for something you believe is just the state of your mind. S: Yes, that would be a bit of a spiritual gymnastic, yes. The Buddhas and bodhisattvas are out there just as much as Nirvana is out there, and in our present state of consciousness they are all out there, they're not in here. That's only a concept at best. No doubt eventually we will realise that the out there is the in here or that the line of division between them is ultimately unreal, but for the present at least, Nirvana is out there, it's something that we're working towards. Buddhas are out there teaching us from out there, or bodhisattvas are out there helping us from out there etc. No doubt one day that dichotomy will be resolved, but for the time being the - 4 - dichotomy is real and we have to function within that framework. We have to accept the framework in order to deny it eventually. What about the names? Manju-sri, Manju-natha, Manju-ghosa. Do you find any significance in that 'Manju'? __________: It's very soft. S: But do you think it's just an accident that the bodhisattva of Wisdom, so to speak, has this sort of name? It means soft, gentle. So Manjusri is the softly or gently, auspicious one. Manjunatha the softly or gently, protecting one, or the soft, gentle protector. Manjughosa, the one of soft or gentle utterance. Does that suggest anything in particular or is it just fortuitous do you think? __________: Maybe it's because of the level on which it operates, prajna, which is quite subtle and imperceptible. S: Yes. We did touch upon this I believe in the course of the 'Ratnaguna' didn't we. It is something that sort of sidles into the mind. There's no sort of direct frontal attack as it were, though we might speak in those terms. It's as though it comes from one side. You hardly see it coming. It's also a bit like the still small voice as it were. It's very quiet, it's very soft, it's very gentle, but on the other hand it's more powerful than a thunderclap. You could say that the Manjughosa is the nearest you can get to silence without actually being silent. And you remember in the Vimalakirti Sutra, Vimalakirti remains silent, but Manjughosa has the last word before that silence. So it's as near as you can get to silence without being actually silent. It's the last utterance of speech before it disappears entirely. The subtlest possible utterance. If you are to speak at all this is how you speak. If you were to speak any less you would be silent, if you were to speak any more you'd depart from the truth. So it's that - Manju-ghosha - this is what it really conveys or communicates. Sri is also glory. You could look at it in a sort of rather literal way and say that Manjusri is the gentle glory, in the sense of radiance. Manjughosa is the gentle speech, the gentle sound. So you've got both the visual and the oral elements. You could look at it like that. And obviously Manjughosa is the most appropriate because speech, communication, teaching, wisdom, these are all interconnected. It's a little akin, though I don't like to draw too much of a parallel, to the Western conception of Logos. So that Manjughosa is that still small voice that just trembles on the brink of total silence. It's the last whisper that communicates the ultimate wisdom before you merge altogether into the silence of the void. That's one way of looking at it. A rather dualistic way but it does convey something of the meaning of the name Manjughosa. Holy is of course 'Arya'. And what about 'pleasing to the protector Manjusri'? Why should this cloud of worship be pleasing to him? What's the significance of that? Does he require to be pleased? It he liable to get angry if you won't please him, or what? Subhuti: It gives conditions under which he can respond. S: Yes, right. It's a bit like in the course of the Vajrasattva mantra - 'Sutosyo me Bhava Suposyo me Bhava' - be pleased with me, be contented with me. You are trying to establish a harmony between yourself and the particular bodhisattva. You are trying to lessen the gulf between you. It's not that he's a person whom you're trying to placate or rub up the right way as it were. Vimalamitra: It's quite important to have a good relationship with your yidam. S: If you feel that the Buddha is angry with you what does that suggest? - 5 - __________: Authoritarianism. S: But what does it suggest about yourself? [Pause] All right put it nearer home. Supposing you get the feeling that the whole Order is angry with you. What would that suggest about yourself? __________: Guilt. S: Guilt, yes. But why should you feel guilty? __________: You've just go that guilt and you rationalise explanations for it. S: But why do you have the guilt usually? What is guilt? __________: Past conditioning. S: Yes, but not just that. Suppose it's an objective guilt. __________: You think you've done something wrong. S: Yes, you think you've done something wrong, or maybe you have done something wrong. So then you start thinking that everybody's angry with you. ...

So if you think that the Buddha is angry with you what does that tell you about yourself? __________: That you've done something wrong. S: You've done something wrong. If you think the Buddha's pleased with you what does that tell you? [Laughter] __________: You've been a good boy! S: Right, so a cloud of worship pleasing to the protector Manjusri. So the two things go together, that is to say if you are doing puja and you're in a positive mental state and you're meditating, if you then think of Buddhas and bodhisattvas you'll have the feeling as though they're pleased with you and happy with you. The one is the objective correlate of the other. You might even feel the whole world is pleased with you, it's a happy place, people are friendly, they like you, but if you've got something on your mind or if you feel guilty you might feel that the Buddhas and bodhisattvas are not angry - they don't get angry, you know that - but a bit annoyed, a bit aloof, and you might feel that your good friends in the Order etc., aren't very pleased with you or they're looking down on you or something of that sort. But all on account of your unskilful mental attitude or something wrong that you happened to have done. I'm leaving out of consideration the possibility that it's all due to a misunderstanding etc., etc. That will only complicate the issue. But do you see the point I'm making. The cloud of worship pleases Manjusri. It must please him. If you still feel that Manjusri is rather annoyed with you or aloof from you well you're not offering your cloud of worship properly. Maybe you're just going through the whole thing mechanically. I'm sure everybody's had the experience of getting up after a good session of mett bh vana and feeling that the whole world is a much more pleasant place. __________: And the reverse as well. S: And the reverse, yes, but you're not concerned with that, not practically! - 6 - Sagaramati: It does seem a more naive approach. It saves a lot of problems. Not naive but in the sense of not being too cynical and too mental about the whole approach. S: Or not being too anxious. This is what it really boils down to. Being simple in a child like sort of way. [Pause] All right then, so much for the title. Now the text begins with Namo Guru Manjughos ya! Well that's a bit significant isn't it. What have you to say about that or to ask about that? Why is he being addressed as Guru Manjughosa? Why are you saluting him as Guru Manjughosa? Vajradaka: You're just seeing him as one who is imparting truth to you. __________: We said earlier this morning he was outside of ourselves. S: So you could say that Manjughosa is the guru figure among the bodhisattvas, par excellence, which is in a way only to be expected because he is the bodhisattva of wisdom. It's really much more than that, we're saying bodhisattva of wisdom for short, but it's really more than that. It's as though Manjughosa embodies in a really ideal form, the guru principle, the sort of archetypal guru principle, archetypal in a super spiritual or transcendental sense, not just a Jungian sense. __________: But I thought Padmasambhava was the archetypal guru. S: Yes and no. Don't forget that Manjughosa belongs to the Mahayana whereas Padmasambhava belongs much more to the Vajrayana. Padmasambhava is an historical figure. Manjughosa isn't an historical figure. Don't forget the alignment of the three family protectors with the three Buddhas. I pointed out in a lecture that originally you had just the one Buddha, Shakyamuni. Then you had a sort of ideal Buddha, Vairocana, then flanking him you've got your Buddha of compassion and your Buddha of wisdom, that is to say Amitabha and Akshobya, and then you've got the three bodhisattvas corresponding to them, that is to say from left to right or from west to east, Avalokitesvara, Manjusri and Vajrapani. So Manjusri is the bodhisattva of Vairocana. He's in alignment with him. So in the original Buddha it was the wisdom aspect which is prominent. The Buddha is one who gained Enlightenment, Bodhi, and so on. So it's as though Manjusri is the central bodhisattva. That is to say he embodies in bodhisattva form the central Buddha, and the central Buddha is the Buddha of wisdom, of light, of en-light-enment and so on. So in a way Manjusri is the most important of all the bodhisattvas. He occupies this position in the 'Vimalakirti', where he alone dares to go and interview Vimalakirti, the old householder bodhisattva or bodhisattva householder. Vajradaka: So does Vajrapani correlate to Akshobya? S: Yes. Yes, in this system. Vajradaka: And Avalokitesvara to Amitabha. S: That's right, yes. So inasmuch as Manjusri embodies the Buddha in bodhisattva form, as it were, represents the Buddha in bodhisattva form, he's the embodiment of the teaching principle, the principle of communication of truth, and this is where the epithet 'guru' comes in. [Pause] - 7 - So traditionally Manjusri or Manjughosa represents spiritual wisdom as communicated, as taught. Represents also culture because in the Mahayana culture is a medium for the transmission of the Dharma. In fact you could say the transmission of the Dharma is analogous to the transmission of culture. So Manjusri or Manjughosa is the patron of all the different arts and sciences and so on. [Pause] Subhuti: We usually translate 'namo' as homage, I think. Can you say any more about that? S: It's more like salutations. For instance if you meet anyone in India you say 'Namaste' which is from the same root. I don't know what the root of that is. It might be interesting to look it up. In Blakean terms, if anyone is interested - let me get a little word in for Blake - Manjughosa is Urthona Loss but of course raised to a much higher spiritual power as it were. Urthona Loss. Urthona, the Zoa of imagination, and Loss the sort of archetypal artist and seer and visionary. Luvah will give you the spellings. __________: The root is nam. The Sanskrit of namo is nam which literally is to bow. S: To bow. __________: To worship S: Bearing in mind of course that worship isn't quite the loaded word in India that it is in the West. You bow to your parents, you bow to the gods, you bow to your guru, you bow to the earth, etc., etc. Sagaramati: I thought it would be Urizen. Urizen would have been the Blakean character. Not the fallen version of Urizen but the..... S: One could say that too, except that - this goes a little further into Blake - that it seems that even in their unfallen form as the four Zoas of eternity they form a hierarchy, and Urthona is at the top with Luvah next, Urizen third and Tamas right at the bottom. So from that point of view they don't quite work out in this way. But it is true that in his unfallen form Urizen is the prince of light, intellect. But apparently unfallen intellect is subordinate to unfallen imagination. For Blake it is the imagination which is the true spiritual faculty, not the intellect, even in this unfallen form. Though you might also say - not being quite so cut and dried as that - that in another sense the unfallen intellect coincides with the unfallen imagination. You could say that too. And also Urthona is sort of hidden and mysterious and that ties up a little better with the Buddhist notion of wisdom. Something rather occult in the literal sense, mysterious. But there is a tie up with Urizen inasmuch as there's a tie up with solar symbolism. In the case of Urizen and also in the case of Manjughosa as we shall see, through his connection with Vairocana. Vimalamitra: Why is it that all the bodhisattvas are represented on a moon mat, instead of say as in Padmasambhava a moon mat and a sun mat? S: Usually it's said that the moon mat represents means, the skilful means or compassionate means and the sun mat represents wisdom, but wisdom in its sort of fiery, rather energetic, aspect. So usually peaceful Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, though this isn't universal, are seated simply on the moon mat, and wrathful deities are seated or stand on the sun and moon mat both. Padmasambhava is classified in a way as a wrathful deity on account of his wrathful smile. But whether peaceful or wrathful all the bodhisattvas really embody both aspects. You can't be too literal minded about this. Just as Manjughosa is not the bodhisattva of wisdom, which means he hasn't got any compassion as it were, or that the bodhisattva of compassion hasn't got any wisdom. All the bodhisattvas are every bodhisattva. Every bodhisattva is all the bodhisattvas. But you for the purpose of your own particular practice or in accordance with your own particular outlook, you pay attention to this aspect rather - 8 - than to that. [End of side one side two] Traditionally in India the term 'guru' is explained as the one who gives light. That's not a scientific etymology but it's a popular traditional etymology. So you have the conception of the guru as the giver or the bringer of light, the illuminator. And that also ties up with Manjughosa. __________: So it's as though Manjughosa has more in common with Lucifer. S: Right yes, the ... the unfallen Lucifer of course. Lucifer literally means 'Light Bearer'. So you get the general sort of idea or the feeling as to what Manjughosa represents? In the early days of humanity, the cultural tradition was very important. It was of course an oral tradition. There were no books. Traditions were very carefully preserved. Knowledge was very very important, very precious, sacred, even secret. So the teacher was very important, the guru was very important, the person who handed down to you this precious secret knowledge, as it were, and in those early days there was no distinction between sacred knowledge and profane knowledge. It was all knowledge, it was all useful. So there's something in us which responds to this idea of wisdom and the hander down of the wisdom, the teacher, the guru, that responds very very strongly, and Manjughosa represents this raised from the cultural to a high spiritual and transcendental level. The hander down of light, the communicator of spiritual wisdom, the initiator, etc., etc. Of course in cultural terms, on the cultural level, the guru was usually an old man, wasn't he? The reason for this is obvious. But on the spiritual level, Manjughosa is never represented as an old man. On the contrary he is represented as a sixteen year old youth, because this is the wisdom which is eternally young, it's the wisdom of eternity as it were. It's not the wisdom of a long passage of time. So it's a youthful guru, which in cultural terms is a contradiction in terms. You can't have a youthful guru in say a tribal society. A young man is never listened to and his job is to listen. It's only on the spiritual level that you can have a youthful guru. Because wisdom, true wisdom, Transcendental Wisdom, takes no account of age. All right let's go on then. Whatever intelligent being, being possessed of mind. This will be sem-pa in Tibetan, being endowed with mind. for the sake of acquiring Spotless Wisdom [*Vimala-jnana], When you get in these sort of texts a Sanskrit term with an asterisk immediately before it and the whole within brackets, what does that mean, do you know? __________: (unclear) spotless wisdom? S: No, actually not. What scholars mean by this is... For instance you've got spotless wisdom in Tibetan, just as you have it in English, so the - what shall I say? - assumed original of this or correlate of this in Sanskrit is Vimala-jnana but they don't actually have a Sanskrit text which has Vimala-jnana say, but this is just their hypothetical reconstruction of the Sanskrit, or this is what the Sanskrit would have been had there been a Sanskrit original but so far as they know there isn't. The little asterisk signifies that. But if there wasn't the asterisk it would mean that there was a Sanskrit text in which the expression Vimala-jnana did occur and that that had been translated into the Tibetan. In other words Tibetan sometimes developed its own Buddhist terms in Tibetan which don't have any direct Sanskrit equivalent but they can sometimes construct one, and this is - 9 - what is sometimes done. And of course always a text might turn up which did contain Vimala-jnana. That's what that means. Not to take all that too seriously. which is the root of all the virtues making for obvious advancement, [i.e. birth as man or god], and the true Good, [i.e. Nirvana] The distinction between these two is of course very important, that is to say the distinction between obvious advancement, that is to say a superior position within the Samsara, within the Wheel of Life, and the true good or Nirvana which lies outside the Wheel of Life altogether, which transcends the Samsara entirely. But in what sense does the spotless wisdom make for obvious advancement? Does it necessarily make for obvious advancement? This is sometimes assumed in Buddhist texts, especially Tantric texts, that if you follow the spiritual life, that will be of material advantage to you as well as of spiritual advantage, but is it always necessarily so do you think? What is material advantage anyway? Subhuti: ... satisfy your desires. S: So will the cultivation of Spotless Wisdom enable you to satisfy your desires? Vajradaka: If you haven't got very many desires, yes! S: There's a naive way of looking at this which is merely naive. I think not in very justified way. For instance it's often thought in the East that if you do good deeds well they'll ensure you long life, a good rebirth and also help you on your way to Nirvana. But the assumption seems to be that the two never come into conflict, but is that assumption correct? __________: The two what don't come into conflict? S: The obvious advancement and the true Good. For instance just to give an example, all right you practise the sadhana, you practise or develop Spotless Wisdom, which presumably brings you nearer to Nirvana. As a result of your practise of that spotless wisdom you also become more wealthy because you acquire more merit. So you could say well in a way you are gaining in both respects. There is the obvious advancement and there is the coming closer to Nirvana. But supposing that wealth obstructs your spiritual progress, then does it really add up to an obvious advancement? Vajradaka: Need it be taken in such a material way though? S: It is actually, traditionally. Sagaramati: I would take virtues as being that you have a reasonable and intelligent mind and you are fortunate to be born in a situation in which you'll come into contact with the Dharma. S: What it seems to mean really is that for spotless wisdom to be developed or anything transcendental to be developed, you need, practically speaking, a basis in mundane positivity. So it's to that extent that the cultivation of Spotless Wisdom results in both. As a result of cultivating the spotless wisdom you develop those mundane skilful states which are the necessary bases of the transcendental insight, as well as the transcendental insight itself. __________: I've been recently reading 'The Middle Length Sayings' and there's one of those where a king comes and asks the Buddha what in this life have your monks got to show, and the Buddha lists a whole lot of things - they're calm, they're tranquil, they achieve the first dhyana, they achieve the second dhyana; they've got - 10 - all sorts of practical results from their practice. S: Yes, so these would be mundane, just the dhyanas. But perhaps one should see this against the background of later developments in India, especially more popular Tantric developments. The standard, not to say classical, approach was that if you wanted to develop spiritually you had to give up worldly things. It's the old crux or the old conflict. The Tantra in its more popular form, both Buddhist and Hindu, tended to say or seems to say that if you follow the Tantric path there was no such conflict. You could enjoy all the things of the world, in fact better than ever, more than ever. At the same time make spiritual progress, and that a Tantric sadhana gave you both. So clearly this could be exaggerated, but there is an element of truth in it inasmuch as you do need a basis of mundane positivity, that is to say within your own mind, as a basis for the development of the transcendental insight. You don't necessarily of course need worldly goods and pleasures and enjoyments in a lower sense, but this was how many people took it, that the Tantric path didn't require you to give up anything. You could go on enjoying wine, women and song - at the same time make spiritual progress. Taken literally in that sense of course it's a travesty of what the Tantrayana or at least the Vajrayana really teaches, but there's an element of truth in it inasmuch as you do need a basis of that mundane positivity in order to be able to develop the transcendental, but the mundane positivity consists mainly in your own positive mental state via the dhyanas, not in a state of pleasurable satisfaction due to the indulgence of all your worldly desires. You could say that at best the Tantric approach saying 'Oh you don't have to give up anything, you can go on leading a worldly life and at the same time you can make spiritual progress. In fact through the Tantric sadhana you'll have a better worldly life as well as making spiritual progress...' - this is a sort of accommodation to the needs of the beginner you could say, to get him started. It isn't strictly true. Vimalamitra: So this mundane refers really to a spiritual rather than a worldly.... S: Yes it refers to spiritual in the strict sense, inasmuch as spiritual is distinguished from transcendental, yes. But it could easily be misunderstood. Subhuti: It's rather reminiscent of the TM approach. S: Indeed it is, yes. Which is justified up to a point. But sooner or later people begin to see well there is a conflict, at least at the next level, that you can't make actual spiritual progress without giving up or dissociating yourself from certain things of a mundane nature. You can't have all this and heaven too! So Whatever intelligent being, for the sake of acquiring Spotless Wisdom, which is the root of all the virtues making for obvious advancement, [i.e birth as man or god], and the true good, [i.e. Nirvana]... wishes to practise the sadhana of the "Srijnana-Gunaphala .... [-nama] Stuti", composed by the siddhacarya rDo-rje mThon-cha [Vajrayudha] should previously have duly received the Bestowal of Science. I haven't been able to find out anything about this particular Siddhacarya. It seems that he is a Tibetan. He's not mentioned in 'The Blue Annals', so possibly he's a relatively late figure. [Pause] So whoever wishes to practise it, should previously have duly received the bestowal of science. Science here is 'Vidya'. - 11 - for this from a guru in the succession. Vajradaka: Is it an initiation? S: Ah wait a minute, we're going into that. __________: What's the term for 'science'? S: 'Vidya'. 'Vidya' literally means 'knowledge'. We talked about Vidya, didn't we on the 'Mind in Buddhist Psychology' seminar, in connection with 'Avidya' and in connection with what Guenther had to say about what 'Vidya' really meant, which we found quite helpful. 'Vidya' is from a root 'Vid' meaning to know, from which we also get 'Veda' in the sense of the four 'Vedas'. It's sort of spiritual knowledge, you could say. There is a slightly more technical flavour. This is why it's quite appropriately translated as 'science'. It's more like spiritual science. It's something rather precise and specific and not something vaguely or dreamily idealistic. The bestowal of science that is mentioned here is not the - what shall I say? - is not the so-called Tantric initiation in the sense of the 'Wongkur', as it's called in Tibetan, the 'Abhisheka'. It's more like a proper explanation or proper teaching. __________: Can you repeat that. S: Bestowal of science here means not so much the Tantric initiation in the sense of the 'Wongkur' or 'Abhisheka', but something more like a proper explanation of the real meaning of the practice. Tantric initiates, by the way are sometimes known as Vidyadharas - bearers of 'Vidya'. If you like inheritors of Vidya, spiritual science. The word has got quite a different flavour from say 'Bodhi' or 'Prajna' or 'Jnana'. It suggests even something slightly esoteric, or something spell-like. Sometimes 'Avidya' means a spell because it's the secret knowledge about a particular deity, a particular god. It's something also like magical knowledge if you like. 'Vidya' is sometimes very close to 'Dharani'. 'From a guru in the succession', that is from a guru who has received it from his guru who has received it from his guru and so on. Of course from a purely transcendental point of view there can't be anything handed down or handed on. One must be very clear about this. This in fact is what the 'Diamond Sutra' says, where the Buddha says the Tathagata has nothing to impart. You can think of spiritual transmission by way of the analogy of cultural transmission where something is handed on or handed down. Some piece of ancient law, but you can't really think of a spiritual transmission in that sort of way. As something, whether a doctrine or teaching or even an experience literally handed on, handed down from one person to another all the way down the line. That's only a manner of speaking. There's nothing handed on, nothing handed down. The Zen people make much of this - the 'transmission'. But if they take it literally then they're completely mistaken. It becomes a form of authority. I've got it from my guru, he had it from his guru and back, back, back, back, he had it from the Buddha! You see. So that invests you with a tremendous weight of authority, as it were, which has got nothing to do with spiritual life. It's just a sort of establishing a spiritual legitimacy. Sagaramati: There are occasions when you do that. People who say pick up meditation out of a book and you say well you should really have a teacher.... S: Yes. Sagaramati: Well what would qualify him as a teacher? Well he's got teachers who taught him meditation etc. S: Yes, this is what one says or one may be justified in saying. But you can have a whole series of teachers who have all got it wrong! [Laughter] So that isn't the ultimate reason as it were. We can point to successful results. - 12 - The whole Buddhist tradition can do so, but we must realise that from a spiritual point of view it isn't a question of just handing something on. That can be a sort of vehicle, even a quite appropriate and trustworthy vehicle, but in the last analysis there's nothing which is handed on. It's very difficult to say what that is if it isn't something that is handed on. You could speak of a re-creation of an experience but it's not even that. It is in a way something completely new, something completely novel each time. It's not a thing at all. Even though we speak of say well the Buddha got enlightened and then his disciple got enlightened. In a way it's the same enlightenment but even that is only in a manner of speaking. So it's only in a manner of speaking that the same experience is transmitted. It's equally true to say that their experiences are all completely different. They're all unique. The experience isn't a thing or enlightenment isn't a thing, either of which everybody has in common or which is handed down from one person to another. But we can't help speaking in that sort of way. Only we mustn't be misled by our speaking in this sort of way. __________: In the Tantric lectures series you speak of the transmission from a guru to a disciple as being like an actual charge of energy flowing between them... S: Yes. __________: How does that fit in with what you've been saying about nothing really being transmitted? S: Well what is a charge of electricity? Is there a thing? When the electricity flows. I don't know really anything about electricity but I don't think there's a sort of lump of something which sort of jumps across the gulf from here to there, is there? What happens when electricity is transmitted? Sagaramati: The electrons in the outer shells of the atoms move. S: They do actually move? Sagaramati: Well they say they move. But electricity is what moves them. Without they just... S: Yes, but that in a way doesn't occupy space as it were. So it is a bit like that then. [Laughter] So the experience is of something moving from, as it were, place to place. You can't help experiencing in that way because here are you and there is the guru. You are functioning within the subject-object duality or framework, but in reality that is not what is happening in a way at a deeper level. But you cannot help experiencing it like that and the experience is valid as an experience, yes. Just as you feel or you see or you hear the guru speaking to you. But it goes beyond that. It isn't just speech or it isn't just thought. It isn't even just experience. Then there's that invisible, sort of inaudible element, like the electricity which isn't within space, which makes all the difference and which is the all important thing, and that isn't transmitted. It doesn't need to be transmitted. In a way it's already there. In a way again very much in a manner of speaking. Don't think it's a thing that is already there. __________: It's like the difference between relative and absolute truth. S: Right, yes. And in a sense all truth that can be expressed is relative truth. That was the meaning of Vimalakirti's silence in a way. Anyway let's go on. So Then in a state of powerfully generating the moods of Aversion and Great Compassion, he should start on the sequence of the devotion. - 13 - This is quite important, this generating the moods of aversion and great compassion. The word for aversion is interesting. It's 'nisarana' which is the exact opposite of 'sarana'. It's not Going for Refuge. Not only not Going for Refuge, not just sort of standing still and not Going for Refuge - actually going in the opposite direction and withdrawing. We don't have a proper word for that in English, do we? What's the opposite of a refugee? Who goes in the opposite direction from a refugee? We just haven't got a word really. It's someone who doesn't run to take refuge in something but who runs away from it and doesn't want to take refuge in it. Do you see what I mean? __________: They'd be an exile, could it be that? S: Yes, he's self-exiled. So how does that work out here? We know what is meant by Going for Refuge to the Buddha, don't we? What is Going for Refuge in a very general sort of way, if you go for refuge to something, or you take refuge with something? __________: Support. S: Support, yes. So what do we usually take refuge in? We don't usually take refuge in the Buddha. __________: T.V.

S: Yes, right. In what sense can it be said that we take refuge in them? We're running away from something. Maybe we're running away from ourselves. We're taking refuge in something else. As you say taking refuge in TV, taking refuge in sport, taking refuge in sex, etc., etc. You bury yourself in those things. So we usually take refuge in the world. So when we Go for Refuge to the Three Jewels we completely reverse this. So usually we go for refuge to the world but we are not to take refuge in the world. We are to withdraw from the world. We're to have an anti refuge with regard to the world, and this ... the world, and this is 'nisarana'. It's not just aversion but it's withdrawal, disentanglement, disengagement. But on the other hand the Great Compassion. The first is supposed to represent the Hinayana attitude, the second is supposed to represent the Mahayana attitude, and both of these are exemplified in a work of Tsong Kha Pa. There are some famous verses here which we did on a study retreat. I'll read these two verses. One represents the 'nisarana' and the other represents the Great Compassion. Tsong Kha Pa says, "When you do not for an instant wish the pleasures of samsara, and day and night remain intent on liberation, you have then produced renunciation." Here it's translated renunciation - aversion, nisarana. It's a bit like in the positive nidanas, nibbida, the nivrid, the disentanglement, the disengagement, the withdrawal. Then. "Renunciation, without pure Bodhi mind does not bring forth the perfect bliss of unsurpassed Enlightenment. Therefore bodhisattvas generate excellent Bodhi mind." In other words bodhicitta. So both are necessary according to Tsong Kha Pa. The disengagement from samsara and the commitment to the ultimate, enlightenment, not for one's own sake only but for the sake of all, i.e. out of compassion. So on the one hand there must be renunciation, on the other hand there must be compassion. There must be disengagement, there must be compassionate commitment. So what are the two dangers if you try to have the one without the other. Supposing you try to cultivate nisarana or even do cultivate it but without cultivating - 14 - compassion, what is likely to be the result? __________: You dry up. __________: (unclear) S: You may just have a cynical attitude towards the world. You may actually hate the world and hate people, which means of course you're still bound by them. Suppose you try to develop a Great Compassion without disentangling yourself from the world, then what is likely to happen? Well you're just cultivating attachment and calling it Great Compassion. Devamitra: Presumably it's like someone who's merely a mundane philanthropist. S: Right that too, yes. So both of these are very important. This is a basic feature of Tibetan Buddhist teaching, especially the teaching of the Gelugpas and Tsong Kha Pa. The need to develop this attitude of 'nisarana', of not going for refuge to worldly things, and the attitude of Great Compassion. You notice it said Great Compassion and not compassion. What's the difference? Sagaramati: One has Sunyata.... S: Yes, it's a..... __________: Does it refer to the Bodhicitta? S: It does in a way, yes. The compassion which is a component of the Bodhicitta is the Great Compassion. That is to say the compassion which is born of the initial realisation of voidness. Vajradaka: (unclear) compassion (unclear) of the Four Brahma Viharas. S: Right! Yes, exactly, which is the compassion of the positive, mundane mental attitude. __________: Could you just say a bit more. I've never heard that distinction before. S: Ah. In the course of the four Brahma Viharas you develop Mett and then you develop Karun . Here your state is positive but it's mundane in the sense it is not conjoined with wisdom and therefore can be lost. But in the case of the Great Compassion of the Bodhisattva, his compassion springs from his realisation of voidness, and it's a sort of emotional aspect of his transcendental experience. It can't be lost because it's grounded in wisdom. So this is the difference between Karun and Mah Karun . Mr.Chen used to say that Mah Karun is that Karun which has been purified in the fires of Sunyat . That used to be his expression. __________: Would the move from the Brahma Viharas to the Great Compassion be the arising of the Bodhicitta? S: Well you could make the transition by developing wisdom, by developing vipassana. If for instance you were to do the meditation on death or the meditation on the twelve nidanas, and to the extent that you develop wisdom or insight, your mett and karun are transformed in Mah Maitri and Mah Karuna. In other words it's the distinction between the kindness of a basically egoistic person and the kindness of a non-egoistic person. You can be, as it were, kind as a result of your attachment and your desire to get on well with people or your fear of hurting them, you'll be kind. But when you have the Great Compassion you are kind, as it were, because you no longer feel - at least don't feel so strongly - the difference between yourself and others. [Pause] - 15 - __________: Before we go on Bhante, can I just go back a bit to this thing about bestowal of science. Is this a bestowal of science and what exactly does that involve? S: Yes you could take this explanation itself as a bestowal of science, though when we actually do it and one is actually led through the practice, then this is a bestowal of science in a more effective sort of way. Sagaramati: What you said about the mett , I've always had a bit of difficulty with that in the sense you're developing mett but it's almost in the back of your mind I'm aware that this is quite mundane, it's not real mett . I thought that normal human kindness, you could say, ego-based human kindness, wasn't mett , it was just kindness. But mett was something quite distinct from normal human kindness. S: I think it is distinct, but it still isn't transcendental. It's much more highly developed, it's much purer. There is attachment there but it isn't a gross attachment. Especially if say there's no sexual attachment there, but it can still be mundane even though the sexual element is not there because sexual distinction doesn't operate in the Brahmalokas or the higher dhyanas, but they're still quite mundane. One could, if one wanted to be metaphysical, say that in the heart even of mundane mett , there is a spark of non egoity, inasmuch as all being are fundamentally Buddhas, but I think it would be very unwise from a purely pragmatic point of view, to stress that too much, because people are only too ready to see their quite mundane attitudes and emotions as spiritual, even transcendental things. [Pause] Anyway we'll just do this little introductory paragraph and then we'll pause for a cup of tea or coffee. So This in turn, that is to say the devotion, the sadhana, comprises preparation, main matter, conclusion, [defined respectively, for practices so arranged, as cittotp da, that is to say the development of the Chitta, the development of the Bodhicitta. an lamba, which means support. The main practice being your support, And parin ma]. or the turning over. The dedication of merits. So we'll be going through these one by one in a few minutes' time. Subhuti: What about Srijnana Gunaphala? S: I don't know anything about him. I assume that the stuti was composed by an Indian teacher called Srijnana Gunaphala and that that stuti was incorporated in, or arranged as, a sadhana, by the Tibetan teacher rDo-rje mTshon-cha. This is my assumption, but I've not been able to find out anything about either of these. On the other hand Srijnana Gunaphala may not be the name of an original Indian teacher but simply the title of the stuti, and the stuti might have been actually composed by that Tibetan teacher. That is possible, but certainly the material is thoroughly traditional. Vajradaka: Is it part of systematic teaching? (unclear) for when you receive the Vidya. Is it systematically - 16 - after the attainment... For example did you have that prior to going through the stuti with the teacher, is it all worked out? S: No, it isn't very systematic in that sort of way, no. One of the features of Tantric practice, in a way, though only in a way, isn't systematic. You don't necessarily get a higher initiation because you're more highly developed or a lower one because you're less developed. You may get a higher initiation because you're less developed and you need an extra charge, as it were. The Tantra doesn't work in the way that maybe the Hinayana and the Mahayana work. You could say it tends to follow the path of irregular steps quite a lot. I'll check whether I have among my notes any details about the lineage of this practice. I might have. [Tea Break and end of tape one] Tape two Vajradaka: One feels that (unclear) Buddhas, could you say that it means that subjectively you have a good conscience? S: Yes you could very much, yes, but a good conscience in, as it were, the objective sense, not merely that you're keeping your super-ego happy. __________: Could you give examples of the difference? S: Well I distinguish say sometimes between subjective guilt or neurotic guilt and objective guilt. There's been a bit of misunderstanding in the movement vis a vis this distinction because we have, quite rightly, criticised the feelings of guilt with which people have been left on account of their Christian upbringing, but some people have misunderstood that to mean, misunderstood that critique to mean, that you shouldn't ever feel guilty, but in fact that is not so at all ...