Psychology of Buddhism. Psychological aspects of Buddhism. Choose “I” through meditation

CARL GUSTAV JUNG SHOWED A DEEP INTEREST IN BUDDHISM AND REPEATEDLY POINTED OUT THAT THIS TEACHING IS CHARACTERISTIC WITH SPIRITUAL FEARLESS. ALSO THE SCIENTIST NOTED HOW SIGNIFICANT IS THE ORIENTATION TO INDEPENDENT, INDEPENDENT THINKING FOR BUDDHISM.

PREAMBLE

In modern society, people not only strive to be successful and learn to withstand stress, but also want to develop harmoniously, interact fruitfully with others, become truly mature, bypassing the traps of selfishness, superficial knowledge, “spiritual consumerism” and limited pettiness. Obviously, such self-disclosure is possible only far beyond the boundaries of common trivial concepts, trendy eclectic trainings and prejudices. Therefore, the topic of the connection between Buddhism and psychology is undoubtedly very important and relevant.

Some common features and fundamental differences between Buddhist teachings and basic psychological techniques are touched upon from time to time, both in extensive humanities research and in small popular science articles. However, this topic has key nuance and at the same time the determining factor in its consideration. It lies in the fact that direct and indirect comparison of psychology and the deep foundations of Buddhism did not suddenly and arbitrarily one day become the subject of some entertaining research, but was one of the central academic interests of the outstanding scientist-psychologist of the 20th century, psychiatrist, anthropologist, founder of the school analytical psychology and the theories of archetypes by Carl Gustav Jung. This article contains a few short notes about him and his scientific work in the context of Buddhism. The consultant-commentator of the article, who gives specific recommendations on the use of Buddhist methods in everyday life, is Dr. Matthias Sommerauer (Switzerland), a psychiatrist, psychologist, and practicing Buddhist.

ASPECTS OF JUNGIAN THERAPY: GENERAL AND SPECIFIC

Neuroses, fixations, suppression, conflict between subject and object - Jung studied these particular and yet typical phenomena of the inner life of a person carefully and, if possible, abstractly from the dogmas of classical psychoanalysis, which pretended to be universal, which basically reduced the development and formation of personality to a set of sexual complexes and psychological trauma. At the same time, it was clear that this area - where a person becomes hostage to unconscious impulses, uncontrollable emotions, indecision and repressed anxieties - is an area of ​​​​intense suffering, relief from which is often only temporary or imaginary.

It is noteworthy that Jung associated the search for a genuine solution to the problem, as well as the search for a clear objective criterion of awareness and, subsequently, the achievement of real inner harmony, with overcoming the main distortion in the perception of any situation. This distortion lies in the fact that almost everything and almost always are explained by people exclusively in a subjective way. Such a mechanism - “counting only from oneself” - in an applied sense may be appropriate only in a number of ordinary circumstances; Moreover, in them, as a rule, we do not really feel our responsibility for what is happening and do not particularly carefully monitor our mind, speech and body. In other words, neurotic egoism “works” when we are in our average everyday life, acting mostly mechanically. However, even with minor difficulties - especially in complex multifaceted situations that imply effective involvement - we get lost, become confused and are not even able to rely on intuition (and here our “psychological competence”, contrary to former confidence, can often fail: how Jung himself notes, “most people consider themselves very knowledgeable in psychology for one simple reason: psychology for them comes down to what they know about themselves”).

As a result, according to Jung, the resulting chaos and disunity, as well as all sorts of objects of this or that belief, simply reflect the processes occurring in the mind: “the world itself exists only insofar as we are able to produce a picture of the world.<…>A person must know that the form in which his world or his gods appears to him depends largely on the state of his own mind" (and this, obviously, is quite close to Buddhism, where any external object and everything given in experience and knowledge, - the essence of the manifestation of the capabilities of the mind). Jung compared such a “shift” from a literal fixation on oneself to a loss of awareness with “the panic of savages at the sight of solar eclipse" However, internal discord cannot be eliminated only by rationalization and complete accountability to oneself, since dry excessive rationality and attention to concepts alone leads to inadequate stagnating one-sidedness and a dead end, when “this aspect makes us bureaucrats - and our friends disappear” (Ole Nydahl).

“Buddhism and psychology, on a relative level, do have common goals: to improve people's daily lives. But the Buddha's teaching goes much further and demonstrates that the true essence of the mind is not limited by time, space and habits. No "I" or "super-ego" is real or immutable. However, without yet having the experience of freedom from the illusion of the ego, this knowledge is not easy to accept, especially in difficult situations. Therefore, a certain maturity is required to accept this idea. This does not mean that Buddhist wisdom cannot be applied in psychotherapy. Buddhist truth is not limited to Buddhist practice itself, because it is universal: we are the creators or masters of our lives. Responsibility for it cannot be shifted to God or fate. Previous thoughts, words and actions have determined our present state, and we are constantly sowing the seeds of the future. We all want to be truly happy. The most lasting happiness is Enlightenment, and the Buddha gave methods for achieving it, working with your view and state of mind.”

EGO, CONSCIOUSNESS AND THEIR LIMITS

Ego is one of the basic concepts of psychotherapy and psychology (only the ego-inclusive self acts here as the so-called higher order). In Buddhism, attachment to the ego is considered the result of ignorance and the cause of suffering: without mastering the method of transforming one’s interfering emotions and without having the experience of distance in relation to them, a person, on the contrary, only moves away from understanding the essence of phenomena and plunges into a state of instability, dispersion and anxiety. Jung did not, importantly, identify the ego with the whole personality, but ascribed to it the status of the center of the field of consciousness.

According to Jung, consciousness is not the only support of the ego: on the other hand, it is associated with the three-part unconscious (with memory, with anything involuntarily reproduced and with generally, as Jung believed, contents that cannot be conscious). It is noteworthy that at the same time, according to the scientist, the field of consciousness is capable of unlimited expansion and is theoretically limitless. And here the inconsistency and incompleteness of the psychological approach becomes obvious, according to which the mind can neither describe nor explain what lies beyond its limits. In the Buddha's teaching, in turn, this situation is not seen as finite and static, since “as we approach complete insight into the essence of everything, words suitable only for the expression of concepts increasingly lose precision, while the true experience of the mind is a timeless liberation and omniscience” (Ole Nydahl). “Buddhism views the mind as neither existing nor non-existent - accordingly, the phenomena produced by it are not completely illusory, not completely real” (Kalu Rinpoche). By the way, Jung has repeatedly stated that psychology as a science is devoid of “any metaphysical implications,” and “the result of the development of Western philosophy over the last two centuries has been that the mind has become isolated in its own sphere and has lost its former unity with the Universe.” Thus, the scientist formulated the question of the ultimate awareness and realization of actual human potential in the sphere of the feasible possibility of freedom from stereotypes and the unification of intellectuality and conceptuality with absolute experience.

Consciousness, from Jung's point of view, is something akin to conditioned and, inevitably, limited perception. Depending on the properties and qualities of the individual, consciousness can be more or less deep, but, remaining only within the framework of logic, the intellect cannot actually turn to the state of the perceiving subject - that is, to the mirror itself behind the various pictures in our mind. Considering this question as a classic problem of “thinking about thinking,” Jung appeals to the experience of meditation practice and concludes that the highest manifestation in the “meditating psyche of the yogi” is the understanding that “the Buddha is none other than the meditator himself.” And it is precisely this principle of trust in one’s original Buddha-nature, integral to the mind, the fullness of the awakening of the mind - the principle of Mahamudra (Great Seal) - is one of the central ones in Diamond Way Buddhism: “The purified basis is the mind itself, its unity of clarity and emptiness. The art of purification - Mahamudra, like a diamond, is a great yogic exercise. What needs to be purified are the fleeting illusory obscurations. May we obtain the fruit of purification - a completely pure State of truth! (Third Karmapa). Thus, the original nature of the mind, according to Buddhism, is unchangeable and understandable, and its true properties do not change whether the mind is ignorant or not. The various enlightened states that have replaced confusion are "spheres of activity" various forms primordial awareness" (Shamar Rinpoche).

In Buddhism, the fundamental theme of consciousness is devoid of any simplifications, and to be convinced of this, it is enough to clarify its main provisions. Both aspects of the self - mind and body - are described in the Buddha's teachings as "name" and "form" respectively. The name is 1) basic consciousness (or the consciousness of the universal basis; it takes one rebirth after another and therefore is not an independent phenomenon) and 2) four mental components of the personality (important feelings for us, recognition, mental activity aware of the special signs of objects and consciousness) . Together with the form, they form the so-called five clusters (skandhas), and each of these five psychophysical components of the personality consists of a countless number of facets. Form is 1) the human body, the basis for identification with the “I”; 2) all other forms, thanks to the opposition with which one experiences one’s own personality. It is also important that “the interaction of the most different forms, feelings, methods of recognition, manifestations of mental activity and functions of consciousness<…>do not remain the same for a second, but are in constant change” (Manfred Segers).

Note by Matthias Sommerauer

“The Buddha’s thought about the absence of ego sounds, as it seems at first, very abstract. However, it is quite easy to understand that all our problems are related to the fact that we perceive things personally, because we usually think that literally the whole world is up in arms against us, and we are a victim of circumstances, a target. However, there is a good example with a movie: while watching, we enthusiastically watch how the hero, pursued by bandits and the police, cleverly steals a car and dashes away from the chase. But if we imagine that the hero needed our own car, then completely different impressions will arise in the mind. The one difference between the state of mind when watching and when leaving the cinema is actually relevant to us every day. In the film we do not feel like an object of influence, but in ordinary life - exactly the opposite. This example shows how precious the ego really is and how useful it is to cling to it or try to let go.”

EAST AND WEST: JUNG'S VIEW

In general, regarding the “borrowing” of Eastern spirituality by the West, Jung expressed a certain skepticism: in the absence of attentive “support” and without maintaining a living transmission, meditation and teaching, he believed, could simply turn into exotic psychotechniques that increase confusion. At the same time, Jung recognized the unconditional value of the experience of the East both for all humanity and for the individual: “The East is characterized by religious knowledge and a cognitive religion.<…>The Christian West considers man completely dependent on the mercy of God, or at least on the church as the only earthly means of salvation sanctioned by God. On the contrary, the East stubbornly insists that man is the only reason for his self-improvement.” Regularly returning within the framework of the topic to the problem of ignorance and freedom from ego, Jung notes that it is not difficult for the Eastern mind to imagine its consciousness without the Self, moreover, “in the “highest” state of consciousness the Self disappears altogether.”

The reasons for Jung's very restrained attitude towards the situation of the spread of Buddhism in the West are quite understandable: his era saw several destructive social cataclysms, and the danger of a complete unpredictable change in teachings was extremely great. Moreover, even when Buddhism has come to the West in our days with confidence, one should remember that “one must treat the teachings with care so that they do not lose their true meaning” and make “every conceivable effort to make Buddhism accessible to a wide circle people, and at the same time keep it unchanged. It is not at all easy to transmit it to different cultures, precisely preserving the deep essence” (Hannah Nydahl). Of course, Jung, as an insightful and profound researcher, spoke of the need for a healthy, cautious and respectful attitude towards the spiritual reality and religious experience of others, if only because “religious experience is absolute. He is undeniable. You may say you never had it, but your opponent will say, “Sorry, but I had it.” And that’s how your whole discussion will end.”

Note by Matthias Sommerauer

“As a psychiatrist and psychotherapist working in the socio-cultural context of the West, Buddhist wisdom has given me a clear foundation and guidance. In the practice of psychotherapy, the first (and often the most difficult) step is to take responsibility for your life. Then you need to learn to understand that things never remain the same and that even the greatest misfortune - and happiness too - is temporary. And here there is simply a choice, including between methods: either give energy to everything bad in the past, constantly returning to it and exhausting yourself, or use strength for the present, naturally and calmly staying in it.”

“DANGEROUS METHODS” AND METHODS OF BUDDHISM

In all his works, Jung invariably returns to the need to be as honest with oneself as possible, to try to reveal the productive possibilities of any experience and not to use certain doctrines, systems and teachings only in order to “avoid one’s own dark corners”, since “such an enterprise is completely pointless and it costs nothing." As Jung writes, “we experience a bottomless fear of the enormity of our personal unconscious<…>and the European prefers to advise others what to do, but it never occurs to him that the improvement of the whole begins with himself.”

In Buddhism, there are specific ways of working with the transformation of painful obscurations and prevailing fears, and the necessity of a critical attitude is specified: the Buddha trusted the independence of people, warned his disciples against submissive thoughtless adherence and asked them to always ask questions and check the teachings for personal experience. As a result, it is his persuasiveness that will become an alternative to blind naive faith.

Conclusion by Matthias Sommerauer

“It’s up to us to regularly do something good for our mental health. The simplest “exercise” is to say every day for 3-5 minutes powerful mantra OM MANI PEME HUNG, which stabilizes the mind and dissolves disturbing emotions. I recommend this method to almost all of my patients and clients, they use it and have a truly positive experience. This way, they themselves bring something into the process of their healing (by the way, this can be the beginning of regular Buddhist practice). If you are worried about fears and obsessive thoughts, you can read the mantra OM TARE TUTTARE TURE SOHA. For physical ailments, your own and others, it is good to repeat the mantra of the Buddha of Medicine TEYATA OM BEKANZE BEKANZE MAHA BEKANZE RANDZA SAMUDGATE SOHA.

In essence, “psychotherapy” is just a word that means the ability to see the potential in the most difficult life situations. And this no longer comes down only to psychotherapy, these are deeper things and an experience that is guaranteed to be useful.”

CARL GUSTAV JUNG

Carl Jung was born in 1875 in Switzerland. After graduating from the University of Basel, where he specialized in psychology and psychiatry, Jung moved to Zurich and worked in a hospital for the mentally ill, and in 1907 he published a study on dementia praecox and met Freud. Subsequently, disagreements arose between scientists: Jung did not share Freud's theory that all mental disorders develop due to repressed sexuality. Years of active work with patients and searches are followed by a crisis, but after the release of “ Psychological types» Jung strengthens his position as a scientist and gains international fame. In the 20s, Jung made several long trips to Africa and the Indians of North America, showed interest in the works of medieval alchemists and continued to develop the theory of archetypes and the collective unconscious. At the end of the 1930s. Based on observations of the situation in Europe, Jung addresses the problem mass psychoses. Subsequently, Jung's attention switches to increasingly global problems: overpopulation of the planet, destruction of natural resources, environmental pollution. Together with colleagues - representatives of the natural sciences - Jung studies the properties of “hidden reality”, the role of the observer and the problem of synchrony - conditionally random coincidences in everyday reality, in which “absolute knowledge” itself is revealed. In the last years of his life, Jung worked on an autobiographical book, Memories, Dreams, Reflections, and with his students wrote the work Man and His Symbols, an accessible and fascinating study of the foundations of analytical psychology. Carl Gustav Jung died at his home in Küsnacht in 1961.

Expert comment:
Psychiatrist, psychotherapist, practicing Buddhist Matthias Sommerauer

Translation of comments, text: Anastasia Usacheva

Magazine Buddhism.ru No. 24 (2014)

It is worth acknowledging from the outset that there is no such thing as Buddhist psychology. In the West we can talk about Buddhist ethics, Buddhist philosophy, Buddhist logic, Buddhist epistemology and so on, but the teachings of Buddhism as a whole are a completely holistic tradition. It is, so to speak, one and indivisible: take any aspect of it, and all the others will automatically follow from it. The danger in singling out a particular area of ​​study is that in doing so we tend to miss its connections with other issues or even with the issue from which it originally arose - and this has actually happened at times in the history of what I call Buddhist history. philosophy.

At the same time, of course, the term cannot be completely dismissed if we are simply using it in relation to the teachings of Buddhism about the nature and functioning of the mind, especially as it affects our spiritual life in general and meditation in particular. Buddhist psychology is not just a descriptive science; it has no other purpose than practical use. And its practical benefit is to enable us to understand what is happening in our own mind, to distinguish between useful and valuable mental events and negative or harmful ones, between genuine vision and subjective views. It begins with a key idea: we play a role in creating the world in which we find ourselves, and the only effective way to improve our situation is to take responsibility for it, that is, to take responsibility for our own states of mind.

According to Buddhism, our difficulties originate in our ignorance. Ignorance (avidya in Sanskrit) is traditionally likened to intoxication, while acts of will (samskaras) that arise from ignorance are compared to actions done while intoxicated. Such an understanding of the conditions in which a person lives may seem too gloomy, but it is nothing more than a common sense conclusion. Sometimes we don't realize how much harm we cause just because we don't know what we're doing. We launch some processes, say something, come into contact with people and as a result of this we inevitably create problems. Although we sometimes recognize that our lives are more or less made up of the problems we create in this way, too often we don't even see it as a problem - and that is a problem in itself.

Of course, the question is not to protect ourselves by postponing any action until we achieve Enlightenment: to live, we must act, and therefore we will have to make mistakes. But if we understand what we're doing, we can break down the reactive patterns that cause us to create the same problems over and over again. And the way to break down these reactive patterns that cause us so much suffering is to establish different patterns of thinking, feeling and behaving.

Seeing his difficulties clearly, knowing where to start, a person can perceive the choice before him, which gives him a certain degree of freedom. This is not absolute freedom - we do not choose the starting point - but we are free to choose what we do with a given situation. Where we are is less important than whether we know it or not. Freedom arises from knowing yourself and knowing the possibilities of going beyond the current situation.

However, this freedom has exactly the opposite consequences. The mind is not a thing; it is, as Gunther puts it in his preface to the translation of Mind in Buddhist Psychology, not “a static whole, a pure state or function of consciousness.” It consists solely of its activities. Therefore, it is constantly changing, constantly moving. But he can move either creatively or reactively. Every moment the mind is faced with a choice: whether to repeat old patterns and go in circles or to remake the pattern and create more positive conditions for spiritual growth. Every moment there is the possibility of moving forward, as well as the possibility of simply walking in circles and therefore not really moving anywhere. We are free to develop our awareness on the spiritual path, to seek solutions, and we are also free to fall back into unawareness and stop asking questions. Moreover, states of mind cannot be separated from each other. Painful and harmful states of mind cannot be locked away as long as we cultivate awareness, joy and kindness. Every moment we either stimulate positive states of mind or strengthen negative ones.

If a person makes efforts to develop in a positive direction, his life takes on more serious meaning because the person takes responsibility for it. A person practically understands the necessity of a certain way of life. This is what it means to follow the Buddhist path.

Buddhism is presented as a path or path, but it is only an image. The path is a symbol of the fact that we can change, we can develop. If we know who we are now and who we will become, we can begin to take steps towards making this transition. We have the ability, we have the freedom to perceive our true interests and bring them to life.

According to the Pali expression, we develop the path. He is not something external, something objective. We ourselves are the way. If we think of the path as something external, like a road or path, we can become attached to an unhelpful idea of ​​what kind of spiritual discipline we need to follow it. We do not follow the Buddhist path in the sense that we are led along it like sheep, and we try to get off the path and chew on a thorn or flower on the side of the road.

Of course, there is an objective criterion of development that should be taken into account and acted upon, but the path itself is not somewhere outside, it is inside. The question is not to force yourself to follow a certain path or go in a certain direction. The path simply represents individual solution own problems. If you know and understand your true self, this is the starting point for your own development. The path is you in the process of organizing your states of mind so that growth and development occur in a positive direction.

This recognition and organization of states of mind has become a major concern of many generations of Buddhist scholars. What came to be known as the Abhidharma absorbed the best efforts of some of the most refined minds in Buddhist history over more than a thousand years. Although in some respects it degenerated into scholasticism, the zeal with which these scholars approached their enormous task was largely due to their devotion spiritual path. Their desire to understand the mind and states of mind originated in their devotion to following the teachings of the Buddha. “non-causing evil, achieving good, purifying your mind” - this was their starting point.

But what is mind? How to understand it? This is what they have been trying to figure out for centuries. They weren't just thinking about what in the West we would call psychological health: they were inspired by the Buddha's vision of the infinite, transcendental potential of the human mind. Abhidharma can be described as the all-encompassing science of the mind, although in fact it is impossible to talk about the mind as any other subject of study, because in a sense the studying mind cannot simultaneously be the object of study. As we study the Abhidharma, we must constantly bear this in mind if we want to derive practical benefit from it. It is true that Buddhism turns to observation to establish the truth of its vision of the nature of things, but this method of observation is not like a laboratory experiment, it always remains personal. In the case of Buddhist psychology, it consists of introspection, self-observation - seeing how you yourself react to certain things, for example.

Therefore, although in some sense the Abhidharmikas were Buddhist psychologists, when talking about Buddhist psychology we must beware of the limitations of our understanding of Buddhism. This danger is real for the simple reason that the English language, reflecting the limitations of Western ideas about the mind in general, does not have the words to understand or describe higher states of consciousness (in Sanskrit terms - dhyana). A conscious state of mind in which there is no perception of external things, no senses, no activity of the mind in the ordinary sense, is simply not recognized. Therefore, such states of mind are not included in the definition of the term "psyche" or "mind", and this means that if we talk about Buddhism as a method of psychological development, this automatically assumes that there are no dhyanas in the development of the mind.

Areas of experience that go beyond and beyond the concept that usually covers the “psychological” can be designated by the term “spiritual.” Thus, by "spiritual life" is meant a life aimed at creating skillful states of mind (especially in the sense in which they are represented by dhyanas) to gain the basis of the experience of Enlightenment.

We also need to find a way to point out the difference between states of mind that are achieved temporarily and those the achievement of which constitutes a lasting change. Spiritual states of mind are not necessarily permanent: it is quite clear that one can feel “spiritual” for a moment, and the next moment – ​​far from spiritual. However, it is possible to achieve lasting positive and refined states of mind. At some point, a person acquires such a stable and deep penetration into the nature of reality that he is guaranteed continuous progress towards Enlightenment. In Buddhism, this is traditionally known as Stream Entry, an experience that can be described as transcendental. Therefore, we have three terms - psychological, spiritual and transcendental - to describe the different stages of the development of consciousness. Although the word "psychological" refers to the mind or psyche, and although it is the human mind that in some way experiences dhyana and transcendental Insight, it would be limiting and even a mistake to reduce Buddhism to a method of psychological growth.

In addition to being wary of the use of the term “psychological,” we must also be wary of the word “mind,” which in the context of the Western theistic and even post-theistic tradition is limited in the sense that there is a distinction between the human mind and the “mind of God.” However, according to the Buddha's teachings, there are no limits to the human mind, and there is nothing - at least potentially - beyond it; it has a deep, literally unimaginable meaning. For a Buddhist, the expression “purely human” has no meaning, nor does the idea that one must believe in revelation on the grounds that it comes from a dimension beyond the human mind.

To begin to explore the nature of mind in Buddhist psychology, we need to remind ourselves that mind and mental events are concepts, concepts that can become the basis for comprehending the reality to which they refer. Essentially, concepts arise in two ways. First, the existence of the thing being named can be assumed on the basis of an idea or theory (this is “concept by postulation”). This is the starting point for many Western philosophers, although some - for example, Hume - so to speak, arrive at concepts rather by the second method, which consists in directly naming sensory experience (“concept by intuition”). The concept of mind in Buddhist psychology belongs to this second category. It is derived not by deduction from abstract ideas or general principles, but by induction, from actual experience. Thus, it is not a metaphysical principle (Mind with a capital M, as in the expression “Mind over Matter”); nor does it replace the individual ego, which is perceived as something different from the events of the mind that it “experiences.” In Buddhism, “mind” is perceived in the same way as, for example, we perceive a tree. Just as we sense a collection of sensory data—trunk, branches, leaves—and call them a tree, so we sense various events of the mind and call them “mind.” And just as there is no meaning for the word “tree” beyond what we can personally experience, so there is no meaning, no connotation for the term “mind” beyond what we can personally perceive.

Since the mind in Buddhism relates to what is experienced through direct perception, every statement in this book can be verified through personal experience, provided we are willing to honestly examine our experience. The inner peace, clarity and insight that can be developed through the practice of meditation not only aids in this process of inquiry, but is absolutely essential to it. From a Buddhist point of view, attempting to philosophize or even think clearly without eliminating negative states of mind is a dubious endeavor. No matter what attempts we make to come to a genuine understanding of reality, if we have not paid attention to the state of mind in which we approach the matter, we will inevitably view things in terms of our own grasping, hatred, fear and delusion. Therefore, in Buddhism, philosophy is impossible without meditation. One must rise above limited personal or individual understanding, at least to some extent, and be relatively free from negative states of mind in order to see the truth.

This book has two purposes: to present the picture of the mind and mental events on which Abhidharma scholarship has focused for centuries, and to serve as a practical manual on mental events for meditators, showing them how to recognize the various mental events, which ones need to be eradicated, and which ones. cultivate in order to gain psychological health, spiritual insights and, ultimately, transcendental knowledge.

The first part of the book is necessarily purely theoretical, in which we trace the emergence of the Abhidharma and are introduced to the work "The Necklace of Clear Understanding", to which the rest of the book is a kind of commentary, and then proceed to consider the understanding of the mind and the events of the mind in the Abhidharma. In the second part, we look in detail at the mental events themselves and in the process form a picture of the spiritual life that we need to ensure the development of positive states of mind.

Günter G. W., Kawamura L. S. (trans.). “Mind in Buddhist Psychology: A Translation of Yeshe Gyaltsen's Necklace of Clear Understanding,” Dharma, Berkeley, 1975, p. xvi. Wherever Gunther's name is mentioned, it should be understood that the translation is the work of both scientists.

The term is maggam bhaveti. See Nyanatiloka, "Buddhist Dictionary", Buddhist Publications Society, Candy, 1988, p. 169, “Student Advancement.”

Its essence is that our psyche can only be described in terms of the external world or another consciousness, to which it is by no means identical. An adequate language for describing mental processes remains, strictly speaking, unknown; in fact, the appearance of objectivity is only being created. As a consequence of this supposedly objective description of mental processes, a person has the illusion that his consciousness reflects the external world and that the objects of this world give rise to emotional responses.

But is this really the case? Is it true that when we call someone “loved” or “hated”, “beautiful” or “ugly”, “good” or “bad”, we are talking about these people, and not about their images existing in our minds or in consciousness of another person? Then why is the same person loved in the eyes of one, and hated in the eyes of another? Moreover, the same person can be loved and beautiful for us at one time, and hateful and disgusting at another. And is it the fault of a rope, which we may take for a snake, or a shell, which may seem to us to be a piece of silver, that we do not see them as they really are? Buddhists compared such distorted perception to an eye disease, due to which a person sees non-existent or distorted things, or to the fantastic visions of a sleeping person who only thinks that the objects of his dreams are real.

Consequently, we have no reason to deny that the content of our consciousness is not the objects of the external world themselves, but their images that arise in our consciousness. That is why a person in Buddhism cannot be recognized as the measure of all things, but rather, comparable to a mirror that reflects all things: a clean mirror will reflect them as they really are, and a dirty one will inevitably distort them. From here the interest of Buddhist theorists specifically in consciousness and psyche becomes understandable. The reasons for the development of psychology in ancient India as a person’s theoretical awareness of his thinking and behavior also become clear. In this country, for a long time, not just the psyche as such, but its relationship with the world was described and studied: the sages were interested not in man and the sun, but in a man looking at the sun. And all this was done, we emphasize once again, not out of idle curiosity or abstract cognitive interest, but out of the desire to rebuild the psyche into a “mode of liberation” from the painful samsaric fetters.

And one more important note: the psyche was considered inseparable from both the physiological and mental aspects of a person, i.e. a person was considered as a single psychophysiological integrity, and not static, but dynamic, as a flow-sanatapa of elementary states-dharmas, unfolding in time : They were associated with small periods of time called kshana, “moment.” In brief moments, these states remain one and the same thanks to some internal force, prapti. It keeps in balance both physical characteristics and mental properties, i.e. consciousness, psyche and emotions, and external objects and phenomena, i.e. impressions, memories, imagination, etc. But if the body changes relatively slowly, then the psyche changes instantly.

Thus, the unit of description of the individual flow of psychic life was dharma; it was also an elementary psychophysical state that had an existential status. This polysemantic term, which has become a central concept in Buddhist religion, psychology and philosophy, goes back to the root dhar-, one of the meanings of which is “to hold”; each dharma seems to hold or bear a characteristic characteristic of it, and “all dharmas are impersonal, impermanent and bear dukkha,” as the canonical Buddhist texts say. The difference between dharma as the teaching of the Buddha and dharma as an element is either expressed grammatically in the texts or can be easily reconstructed from the context.

Following the conclusions of the St. Petersburg school scientists F.I. Shcherbatsky and O.O. Rosenberg, we can say that dharma in Buddhism refers to the elements of all existence. AND the world, and the Buddhist perceives himself in it as a continuous series of dharmas, in which everything exists for only one moment. And being itself is also nothing more than instantaneous change. F.I. Shcherbatskoy likened it to a cinematic picture, and even more so, to a picture flow, since there are no pictures themselves either. But one can perceive the world in this way only with a consciousness cleared of kleshas, ​​which is free from false stereotypes of perception and thinking. That is why Buddhism not only offers an ideal program of actions and behavior leading to nirvana, but also teaches knowledge about the psyche, clouded by kleshas: we need to know both what we need to change in ourselves and why it needs to be changed. Both problems are best solved with the help of dharmas.

Dharmas in Buddhist psychological and philosophical writings have been classified in detail on various grounds. All of them were divided into causally determined and not causally determined. Dharmas of the first type were characterized as impermanent, dependent, born and arising, and therefore associated with suffering and with the law of dependent origination - that chain of causality discussed above, which determines suffering and events leading to the cycle of births and deaths. The continuous flow of precisely these dharmas constituted the mental life of a person immersed in worldly existence.

Dharmas of the second type related to the state of nirvana, and therefore were not causally conditioned, karmically independent and in no way related to the law of pratityasamutpada. Nirvana, “highest”, “unborn”, “uncreated”, “bringing bliss”, etc., is described in different ways in early Buddhist writings, which is explained by the focus of the sermon on a specific addressee, but in all cases its main characteristic is the absence of fundamental properties samsaric existence and, above all, suffering-duhkha and changeability.

The various systems of classification of dharmas developed in Buddhism overlap each other and together exhaust all areas of human experience. All dharmas are divided into five categories and together give a hundred different varieties. All of them are part of the conscious living being. There are detailed numbered lists of them, so that the psyche, described as a set of living processes occurring according to its own laws, is analyzed in Buddhism from the point of view of the analysis and form of these laws, and at the same time a detailed inventory of them is given. But, speaking modern language, there is no subject of these processes. These considerations make it clear why personality in Buddhism could not be considered as a clearly expressed and unique individuality - a concept that we are accustomed to considering as the only possible and correct one and which allows us to be proud of our unique and priceless “I”.

Buddhism and psychology

I want to talk a little about the mixture of Buddhism and psychology, and also a little about the psychology of practitioners in our Community. Many people, when they hear me talk about this topic, immediately think: “Oh, I know who he’s really talking to! He talks about that woman or that man...” Thus, they generally avoid perceiving my words with their hearts. Ninety-nine percent of the time when you think I'm talking about someone else, I'm actually talking about you. This is the defense of your ego, which always avoids the truth about yourself, so that the ego is never damaged. I have seen many practitioners who have spent years in the Community successfully avoiding looking at themselves realistically. And I am sure, even as I write these words, many of you have already read them and said to yourself: “Oh, this is not about me, this is Rinpoche talking about him.” A good awareness practice that people should do is that as soon as the mind jumps to some criticism of another person, one should immediately turn around and apply that judgment to oneself. Instead of continuing with your negative judgments, you could actually develop a little awareness. This is one of the meanings of using the mirror symbol.

In our community there is a tendency to form relationships only with the master. They are eager to be around me, but continue to show a kind of suspicion towards other practitioners, seeing them a bit as "enemies." Many of you may think that you are not like that and, for example, your mind may be making a list of all the friends in the community. I would like you to take the time to take a long, hard look at yourself. This attitude is a very subtle thing that hides in a small corner of your existence. This means that when the lama leaves, it is very difficult for people to actually work together without conflict, because they actually secretly distrust other practitioners. It was always there, but they didn't realize it. These deep hidden feelings form envy and anger. If people were truly present in the mirror state, they would notice this in themselves and recognize it as an obstacle to their personal development and to the development of the community.

There is a belief that I recently heard that I found very interesting. It goes like this: “You teach others best what you most need to learn.” The best way to really learn something is to teach someone else. And very often what you are going to teach or talk about is the very thing that you yourself need to learn. Unfortunately, most teachers, like most people, use this opportunity to be a teacher to separate themselves from others and put on a mask of knowledge, and then they can no longer learn anything from this situation, but can only feel superior. But if you are aware, you can use the opportunity to teach differently to notice what you need to develop and to do it. I remember when I first started teaching Dzogchen how surprised I was to find that the teaching helped powerfully remind me to integrate my practice into my daily life. This is another example of looking in the mirror. It sometimes happens in a community that the longer people study Dzogchen, the more they feel able to evaluate others. In fact, what may be happening is that for the first year or the first two years they feel a little awakened by the teaching and perhaps a little change occurs in them. But immediately after that they accept Dzogchen as a new armor, harden and continue to criticize, condemn or teach others how to live. Then, in fact, they remain unaffected by the teaching, and their lives are as useless as if they had never encountered the dharma. Of course, there is nothing wrong with criticism if it is truly positive and useful. But sometimes, when members of the community get together, they look like a bunch of crotchety old men and women complaining about life and each other. And these are people on the path to realization!

I have often seen so many practitioners dirty-criticize others, often not even present. The practitioner should try to be aware of his actions all the time, only in this way everything can be used for his development. He must be aware of the real content of his harsh criticism of others or his sarcasm or his own anger, for if he wants to develop his anger, he can develop his support for criticism and sarcasm. However, if he wants to reduce his anger, he must use his desire to criticize as an opportunity to look in the mirror at himself and recognize how his anger works. At this moment, he must feel the anger as his own and relax in this feeling, not get caught in it or reject it, and not run from anger by projecting it onto another person. This is one of the ways in which a person should continuously work with himself in Dzogchen. Without this constant reflection, it is almost impossible to reduce the causes of karma.

Sometimes it seems that the members of the community are like a group of children crawling around trying to be first. By repeating that they think what I think, they want some kind of reward from me for being good children. If this is the case, then no one in our community will be able to develop at all the individual courage necessary to become a real practitioner. Ultimately, on the path to realization you must be alone with yourself. I often remember the story of a flock of geese flying south. The lead goose noticed a group of hunters far ahead and quietly said to the goose on the left: “Shhh!...Keep quiet and pass it on.” Instead of quietly passing this phrase on to the next one, the goose began to shout: “Keep quiet and pass it on!” And the next goose did the same, and the next, and the next, until all the geese began screaming at the top of their lungs: “Keep quiet!” And of course, the hunters saw them and shot them all. There is a relationship between teacher and student where the teacher must sometimes criticize the student to help him learn. If this were not the case, then there would be no need to have a teacher, and we could realize ourselves without any help. I recently had an experience with several people in various places in the Community where I criticized a student a little and the student came back to me and said, “I looked in the mirror, but my face is clear.” This was a little sad for me because the ego of such people has become so strong that they will never allow the words of the person they consider as their master to penetrate inside. If you really want to progress on this path, you must strive to find the slightest truth in what the master has said, and then work with that truth in order to reduce the power of the ego. If I tell someone that they are doing something wrong, that means a lot of things, but it certainly isn't an opportunity for people to jump up and immediately start imitating me like a robot and at the same time label that person I was talking about as bad. As I said, practitioners must be courageous and also creative. The robot never does anything wrong, and therefore it never risks the teacher's wrath. However, he can never become realized. If I correct someone in the Community, then this is my function as a master. This does not imply judgments such as that this person is bad or good.

If you want to teach or transmit Dzogchen, you must respect its character, rules, methods and point of view. All this has a basis in history and tradition. If you want to teach and practice psychotherapy, you must, to the best of your ability, acquire the most profound and sound methods available to convey and help people. Or, of course, you could create your own system. However, the roots of therapy and teaching are completely different. They both have functions, but the functions are not the same. Therefore, they cannot be interchanged, just as when cooking food, everything is thrown indiscriminately into one pan: a little therapy, a little teaching, put on the fire, stir and feed it to people as if it were one dish. Along the way, they will both lose their nutritional properties, and of course all the invited guests will have an upset stomach. Why? Because you did not respect the basic properties of the ingredients used. If you want to get real value from a teaching, you must accept it in its entirety. And it seems to me that if you want to get real value out of psychotherapy, you must engage in some real process in the depths of your heart that leads to its goals.

I'm not against psychotherapy at all. It can bring real benefits. However, it is similar to modern medicine (I am not against medicine at all, as you all know, and believe that we should use everything that is available in the modern world, but see it for what it is). Psychotherapy is like a pill or medicine for a specific illness, but like medicine, it cannot heal the soul. It can only treat local diseases. People should turn to it when they need it and if they really need it. For me, the idea common in the West that psychotherapy is for everyone is wrong. It's like putting everyone through chemotherapy, whether they have cancer or not. And if you have cancer, you should try to find a truly qualified doctor. The same applies to therapy.

I don't agree with the idea that is often thrown around that anyone can become a therapist. I feel that even in psychotherapy, you have to be highly educated and try to work on some really sound grounds. Otherwise, you will do more harm than good to the person and create a lot of confusion in his mind. This does not mean that only the most traditional schools are necessarily correct and useful. Some very unconventional approaches may also work well. However, it seems impossible that one person could study the human psyche for one or two years, or even four years, as often happens in the West, and then set up shop to help people, taking a little from one school and a little from that. Psychotherapists must be very serious about their work as they deal with the depths of another person's being.

But psychotherapy and dharma do not have the same goal and the same path. Doing one thing can help the other, just as anything positive you do will generally enhance other aspects of your life. The purpose of psychotherapy is mainly to improve a person's ability to function on earth as such and throughout his life: to help a person in his work, in his relationships with his children, in other relationships and in general to purify a person's relationship with his family, mother and father. Dharma is for your final realization, forever, for all your lives. It concerns the purification of all your spiritual karma, not only during this life and not only in connection with the initial psychological situation of the relationship with your mother and father. This is a practice that goes beyond psychology. What is beyond psychology? State of contemplation. By entering contemplation, we enter the universal reality beyond samsara. In this state, the cycle of hopes and fears of human life becomes unimportant compared to the bliss and timeless vastness of reality. So dharma is meant to help the individual go beyond samsara. Whereas therapy is to help a person function better in samsara. And to confuse these two principles implies that dharma lacks methods to actually help a person. It's as if you could say that the dharma needs some improvements, so that if I add a little psychotherapy to it, it really becomes something powerful. However, dharma is a holistic path.

The teachings continued for a thousand years and were transmitted in a precise manner that never changed. When there was no psychotherapy yet, for example, the teachings still helped people achieve enlightenment and realize the rainbow body. Psychotherapy is a relatively new invention for humanity. There are now hundreds of different types of therapy and new shoots are sprouting every day. It seems to me that several types of therapy are also dying every day. If we allowed the teaching to go on like this, mixing and changing every day, within a hundred years the teaching would be completely diluted, and now people would not be able to find the real essence of dharma. Then the dharma would also go away. I have said many times that the teaching must be practiced in a precise way. This does not mean that because Westerners are more familiar with psychotherapy, they should study the dharma more psychologically or in some way mixed with psychotherapy. It's like saying to a person who wants to learn to fly, “Oh, you know how to walk. So if I show you a few more examples of walking, then you can understand how to fly.” This is obviously absurd, and thus will never get off the ground.

Today, many people in psychology are starting to say that the five buddha families are associated with blocking the five negative emotions. Therefore, they feel that they can somehow use psychology to work with the forms of deities. First of all, it is very clear that the term “emotional block” does not exist in Buddhism. This is a term invented in psychology. Secondly, as we know, there are no such things as spirits or deities in psychology (in fact, I believe that many non-Buddhist psychologists would be very upset by the idea of ​​linking the two, since they view psychology as a science and Buddhism as a religion ). Various tantras give precise ways of working with the five families with precise methods and descriptions. These things are not something that can be invented or changed at any moment as the creation of a new hybrid of psychology and Buddhism.

People should always remember that there is a difference in the point of view of Dzogchen and therapy. The focus of Dzogchen is on man's essential enlightened nature, which is somehow obscured from himself, and which he must reveal again. In the enlightened state, the state of contemplation that we try to remember and remain in, there is no difference between good and evil, pain or pleasure. All things are simply forms of existence, an example of our essential ability to manifest. Like a mirror whose nature is to reflect everything without judgment, differences in form are exactly the same. This is not a fantasy or an idyllic world, but the actual nature of reality. If a person has some experience of the state of contemplation, he will quickly understand that I am talking to himself. Therefore, it is not just a turn of phrase to say that we are all Buddhas, enlightened beings. We are like that, we have simply lost our presence in this knowledge.

Although very difficult to generalize, this seems very different from a psychology perspective. The main emphasis in psychological work is on the patient's illness and on human social illnesses in general. This is of course necessary for a while. If a person is sick and the doctor is going to help cure this disease, he should emphasize the pain. But sometimes, as I have observed, this leads people to develop their ability to evaluate others and themselves in a negative way. There may be a tendency to view differences between people as illnesses. Instead of allowing human life to have many different manifestations and forms, psychotherapy has a tendency to consider one type as healthy and the rest as unhealthy. If a person gets stuck in psychotherapy, the whole world can become a scene of neurosis for him, and every person will be perceived as sick in one way or another.

Even if this were true, it is not time to call it a day. Neuroses and illnesses are only a small part of the potential manifestations of human existence. In each of us there is and always will be illness and suffering, yet at the same time there is also a state of enlightenment. Moreover, without the perspective of teachings that have shown that everything is an illusion, people often believe that their perceptions of their own and others' illnesses are real and concrete. Sometimes people can become very attached to their pain or become masters at blaming, knowing more and more who is causing that suffering. Thus showing little real change in their actions. One of the dangers of psychotherapy is that it can develop the human ability to separate ourselves and see things in a dualistic way: subject-object, good-bad, right-wrong. However, I do not blame psychotherapy in general, since human nature in general has these tendencies, and many practitioners continue to exhibit these things without the help of any psychotherapy.

Of course, patients and practitioners alike are capable of being conditioned by their past karma. I can give small example, which is actually very common. I had a student who followed the teachings for many years and was a very diligent practitioner. Early in her life, her father died and left her in the arms of her working mother. As an adult, she had many relationships, and because she was attractive, men were easily attracted to her. Many years have passed and she is now forty. Over the years, she told me many times that her heart wanted long-term love relationship and possibly children. However, she also told me quite clearly that after her father died when she was little, she was never able to do this because she could not really trust men. She told me this herself. She had never been to therapy and was in fact completely against the idea. Now that she was older, she had definitely decided that all her relationships would end badly, and that it was best to remain single for the rest of her life. Of course, there is nothing wrong with being alone if that is your true desire, but here we are talking about a person who is completely conditioned by her past and is aware that she is conditioned, and has ultimately chosen to accept her conditioning as real and inevitable . No matter how difficult it may be, the practitioner should always try to discover the absolute unreality of all things: thoughts, feelings, past events. And in this way you learn to free yourself from illusions, from reality and rigidity of mind, which are always an obstacle to development on the path.

But in Dzogchen you try to look in the mirror again, see your abilities and weaknesses, and strive to free yourself by whatever method is necessary that suits your particular conditions. These may be dharma or non-dharma methods, but one must always remember that the method is secondary to the purpose of entering into and remaining in the state of contemplation.

This brings me to mention one of the greatest differences between the perspectives of traditional therapy and Buddhism in general. In psychotherapy the ego is seen as having a function, and when it acts in a healthy way, is essential for the flourishing and life of human beings. All practices and philosophies in dharma are aimed at dissolving the ego. The ego is the main obstacle to the state of contemplation and enlightenment. This is a force that creates the illusion of separateness of subject and object and hides the real unity of all nature. (Some Buddhist therapists might say that in order to give up the ego, you must first work to strengthen and create a healthy ego. You need to have something solid and clearly defined before you can accept its abandonment. This is quite fair.)

However, I do not really intend to make a comparison between psychology and Buddhism. This would require endless discussions and is actually a different and difficult topic. I just want to point out very few things to help people understand and reflect on the uniqueness of these two forms. From what I know, psychology and psychotherapy can of course be very helpful depending on the circumstances. It is possible that for people with difficult emotional problems, therapy is necessary or helpful before they can even have the presence to begin meditation or even to continue meditation. It may also be that psychotherapy is needed to resolve energetic imbalances that are associated with deep and difficult emotional problems. Therefore, for many people, therapy can be something like preliminary purification practices for entering the path of dharma. This I can only guess from what people have told me about their personal experiences. It is difficult for me to judge precisely, since I have not had direct experience of any type of therapy and very likely will not.

I have often heard the question raised: “Aren’t people different in the modern world? Maybe they need psychology, while the Tibetans, who are simpler people, do not need it? I think volumes could be written on this topic. For now I would just mention a few things. I feel that human beings everywhere are indeed fundamentally the same. But of course, they are caused by different things. Tibetans who grew up in the West will act and think like Westerners, and the reverse is also true. In ancient Tibet, most people were poor and illiterate, and very few people were educated and knowledgeable. They lived in a non-technological world, and outside of it they developed a religion whose purpose was to lead the individual out of the endless cycle of pain and suffering that they believed life was. Unlike the Judeo-Christian tradition, this religion was not based on belief in God, but on belief in the divine potential of every human being. Next to this was the belief in various protectors and spirits associated with the natural elements and the earth. This religion can be very simply divided into two categories. The first aspect of religion is based on faith, devotion and simple prayers for uneducated people. The second part of this religion contains a more complex philosophy and a series of methods and paths that require greater development of mental abilities. This is for the few individuals who have developed their minds sufficiently to be able to work directly with the mind. Perhaps it is precisely because the Tibetans did not develop along a technological path that they never had the illusion that man could dominate the elements or the cosmos. All spirituality, whether educated or uneducated, was aimed at a new unity of the individual with the cosmos and work with these forces. Recently in history, the Western world began to develop along the scientific technological path, and from this came the belief in the primacy of cause and effect in this new complex modern world. For people like us who live in the modern world, it is possible to use psychology and sociology to help our overall understanding of ourselves and the environment without confusing or confusing it with teachings.

There is clearly a big difference between Westerners and people who live and grew up in less educated countries like Tibet. The first thing I noticed was that Westerners, thrown into a high-speed world of increasing gratification, seem to have very short attention spans. They seem to generally strive for some amazing result immediately, and if they don't get it, they quickly become resentful or move on to other things. Often they want the result to come from outside. They want a master to help them, show them, heal them, and essentially make them enlightened with the snap of their fingers. So I think it is much easier for people to accept many modern therapists because the conditions allow them to be much more passive when the doctor devotes regular hours to them for their benefit. (There are also other types of therapy based on achieving rapid emotional release that can satisfy the longing for movement and change, whether it can be sustained or not). This is completely different from the Dzogchen path, where all realization is based on practice that you do alone in your daily life or in retreat. Moreover, although it is quite clear to me that a person can become realized at any moment if he can simply awaken to his own essential enlightened nature, this usually does not happen. People must devote years and years to slowly clearing away layers of obscurations and negative karma. As I have said many times, most people who achieved realization in Tibet spent their lives devoting themselves to practice and meditation, often retreating into caves. Although in Dzogchen you do not have to spend your life in retreat, you must still dedicate your life to the practice for the sake of results.

After all, it is very difficult to essentially change human beings by any method, and the nature of karma is a bit like glue. Its purpose is to remain stuck to human skin. Sometimes I wonder if Westerners have the maturity and tenacity to follow the path long enough and firmly enough to achieve profound results. What can happen to a person if he mixes teaching with psychotherapy, and then teaches it to other people. What problems will this person have with the dharmapalas? This is difficult to judge guaranteed, but it is best to judge it in terms of what will happen when he teaches something that is wrong and it spreads to other people and may even remain for other generations. This means that it may cause many people to misunderstand, possibly for a long time. It can cause continued suffering for others. This is heavy karma. Again, I repeat that this does not mean that you cannot use psychotherapy in your daily life. You can use it, but you should also know the essential difference between the two. On the path of Dzogchen you must use everything to help your personal realization, but do not be confused, this does not mean that Dzogchen needs psychotherapy to be complete. On the contrary, Dzogchen does not reject or accept anything in life, but does everything through contemplation.

Now, it seems to me that despite everything I've already said, there will be some people who will read this article and gleefully think: “Oh, look, even though he didn't say it outright, Norbu Rimpoche is actually against psychotherapy . I've always disliked therapy, and now I have an excuse. All the other people in the community who are doing therapy will now really understand this.” Of course, I didn't say that, and also people who are against psychotherapy should realize why they are against it. There is no pro or con in Dzogchen. And if you find yourself rejecting something, you need to realize that this is also a form of anger, and that the roots of anger are in attachment. People in the community who have decided that they do not like psychotherapy need to ask themselves what they are attached to, what they are afraid of losing. These are probably the very people who would receive greatest benefit from psychotherapy.

This would be a way of working on oneself on the path of Dzogchen. This requires enormous self-responsibility and awareness, because Dzogchen is the path of liberation. However, freedom does not mean a license, like a license to destroy something. In freedom there is also order. When a person is really developed, deep freedom is within him, then he automatically respects the integrity of other things. Dzogchen is considered the highest teaching precisely because it completely openly offers all the deepest techniques of realization. However, a diamond placed on the hand of a blind or stupid person has no value. Dzogchen requires that a person receiving this vast knowledge must be sufficiently high level to know the value of what is offered to him and to cope with the real freedom that this implies. This freedom implies that you have the power to do anything to free yourself and help others do the same, or to destroy yourself, your teacher and the teachings themselves.

Using everything to develop our awareness and to reduce the obstacles of negative karma, we must always maintain the unique unity of the jewel that is the teaching. If we do not protect the teaching as a whole, what can we offer children and their children? What a huge opportunity for realization will disappear from the earth.

(Reprinted from: Buddhism and Psychology
by Chogyal Namkhai Norbu, Shang Shung Edizioni)
Translation: Yuri Nevzgoda

Today I was asked to talk about “Why Buddhism?” This is of course a valid question, especially in the West: why do we need Buddhism if we have our own religions?

When talking about Buddhism, I think it is very important to understand that it has many aspects: they can be described as Buddhist science, psychology and religion:

• Buddhist science studies logic, ways of understanding phenomena and the view of reality - how the universe came into being and so on, that is, the relationship between mind and matter. It deals with scientific topics and Buddhism has a lot to offer here.
• Buddhist psychology discusses various emotional states, especially disturbing emotions that bring us a lot of unhappiness (anger, envy, greed, etc.). Buddhism has a huge variety of methods for dealing with problems that arise from such emotions.
• The Buddhist religion, on the other hand, is associated with various ritual issues, prayers and themes such as rebirth. This is also a very rich area.

So, asking the question: “Why Buddhism? Why is Buddhism needed in the modern Western world? – I think we should consider Buddhist science and psychology. If people are interested in the more religious aspects of Buddhism, very good. However, in general, once you have been raised in one religion, it is not so easy to change it. For most people, this creates an internal contradiction - a conflict of loyalties, which particularly leads to problems at the time of death: you are confused about what to really believe.

As Westerners who have grown up in Western traditions and are drawn to the religious aspects of Buddhism, we need to be careful because there may be additional problems: for example, we become superstitious and expect miracles from Buddhist rituals. Therefore, it is much better and wiser to at least initially focus on Buddhist science and psychology, which can be integrated with Western culture without contradiction. Let's look at some of the aspects of Buddhist science and psychology.

Buddhist science Arrow down Arrow up

Logics

Logic is a very significant component of Buddhist training. It is studied from a debate perspective. What is the purpose of the debate? It's not about defeating your opponent or proving him wrong. Rather, their meaning is that one participant defends himself - expresses a certain position regarding one of the Buddhist teachings, a certain understanding of it, and the other challenges this point of view, checking how consistent the opponent is in his understanding. If you believe something, there is a logical conclusion to it. If the conclusion is absurd and makes no sense, then there is something wrong with your understanding. This is very important because when trying to deeply understand simple truths about reality, say impermanence, we must think deeply about it and make it part of our worldview - this is called meditation.

It is very important for the peace of our mind to understand that everything changes from moment to moment. For example, you buy a new computer and in the end it breaks, and you get upset: “Why did it break?” But if you think logically, the reason it broke is because it was made in the first place. It was assembled from many parts, different parts were connected to each other, which means it is a very fragile mechanism, which, of course, must break one day.

Even when we meet someone and form a close friendship or partnership, it will eventually end. Why did they stop? Why did we break up? We broke up because we met. The circumstances and conditions of my life and the life of the other person changed every moment after our meeting. Friendship depends on all this: if the circumstances that supported the friendship in the beginning are no longer there, it ends. That's why latest event, which looks like the reason for the breakup - say, an argument - is simply a circumstance of ending a friendship. If it weren't for him, there would be something else. However, the real reason it ended is that it began.

It’s the same with life (this is the Buddhist attitude towards death): why do we die? Because they were born. Illness or accident are merely the circumstances of death. If you are born, you will die - it’s simple, that’s reality. These are the themes of Buddhist science, and it is all logical. In a debate, your understanding of this issue will be tested by another person, trying to find flaws in your evidence:

• You can say, “If I hadn’t eaten that or gone to that place, I wouldn’t have died.”
• Then your opponent might respond, “Yes, but something else would have happened. Because if you are born, you will die."

This is how, through logic and debate, we come to a confident understanding, free from doubt (“Is it this way or that?”). Our understanding becomes very solid and stable, and any meditation or other practice becomes much more effective. Such discussions, debates, logic are extremely useful for each of us in any situation. Often our thinking is very unclear and we do not care about the consequences of our actions or way of thinking. If we learn to think logically, there will be much less trouble in our lives. This is one aspect of Buddhist science.

Reality

We have already discussed one point about reality: impermanence. Everything changes from moment to moment, each moment approaching its end. This is the reality. This applies to our age. We may think, “I’m getting older every day,” and then, “Well, okay.” But how many of us think every day: “I am getting closer to death. This is reality". However, if we realize this - every day death is getting closer, it can happen at any moment (and this is true) - we no longer waste time. We don't put things off until tomorrow over and over again, but use our lives as wisely as we can. And the most sensible thing is to benefit others. This is reality. It helps a lot to think, “What would I do if this was my last day? How would I use it in a meaningful way?” After all, we never know which day is the last. We might get hit by a car when we leave this room. The goal here is not to upset us, but to get us to use our time more meaningfully.

Let's take another example related to reality. Imagine you are stuck in an elevator with ten people. The power went out, so you were stuck together for the whole day. How would you behave with each other? If you start quarreling, arguing and so on, it will be hell. Helping each other, being friendly and kind is the only way to survive, since you are in the same situation together. This is logical and reasonable, isn't it? Now let's extend this approach to the entire planet: The Earth is like a big elevator in which we are stuck together. If everyone is quarreling and fighting with each other, it is painful for everyone, so the only way to survive is to be friendly, kind and help each other. After all, we are all here together, in the same situation. We breathe the same air, use the ocean, water, and land together. We're all in the same elevator. This is reality and logic.

Besides, we have so many fantasies and projections. We imagine that we, those around us, and the world exist in various impossible ways. We project this, and it seems to us that phenomena exist this way. But this does not correspond to reality. These are just our fantasies and projections.

For example, it seems to me that I can act in a certain way and there will be no consequences. Therefore: “I can not study, be lazy, and this will not affect my life in any way. I will still be successful." Or: “I may be late or say something rude to you without consequences.” Many people treat others as if they don't really have feelings. They never think that their words can cause pain to another person. Therefore: “I may be late, it doesn’t matter.” This is not reality, but a projection of our fantasy of cause and effect. In reality, all people have feelings just like me. My words and actions towards you will affect your feelings, just as your behavior and statements towards me will affect mine. This is reality, right? The better we understand and remember this, the more attentive we are to others. We care about how we impact others and change our behavior accordingly.

Or I can imagine that I exist independently of everyone else. This also has nothing to do with reality. Convinced of this, I think: “Everything should always be my way. I'm the most important. That’s why in a restaurant they have to serve me first.” And when something doesn’t turn out our way, we get very upset and angry. But the problem, of course, is that everyone considers themselves the most important and does not agree that the most important is anyone else. That is, this is our projection, fantasy, and not reality. Nobody is the center of the universe. The most important person does not exist. We are all the same in that everyone wants to be liked and does not want to be disliked. Not only me, but all the people in the restaurant are waiting for their dish. At a doctor’s appointment, everyone waits their turn, not just me. Everyone is equal. Again, this is reality.

Buddhist and Western Science

Cognizing reality and changing your behavior in accordance with it is one of the components of Buddhist science. There are, of course, other aspects of reality teachings. It is very interesting that Western scientists find many of the claims of Buddhist science to be true: a different way of looking at things that they had not previously considered.

For example, in Western science there is a law of conservation of matter and energy: matter and energy are only transformed, they can neither be created nor destroyed. If we reason in this way, it follows that there is neither beginning nor end. When we think about the Big Bang, it may seem like it came out of nowhere, started out of nothing. But from a Buddhist point of view, something existed before the Big Bang. Buddhism does not argue with the opinion that our universe began with the Big Bang, but countless universes existed before it and will exist after it. Western science is also gradually beginning to reason in this way. Moreover, from a Western scientific point of view, this is logical. We are back to logic again. If you believe that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but only transformed, it is a logical contradiction to say, “But it began with the Big Bang.” Here is a clear example of Buddhist logic and debate being applied to the perspective of Western science.

The connection between mind and matter is one of the most important statements of Buddhist science. Mind and matter are interconnected. The mind cannot be reduced solely to the brain or to a chemical process. You see, when you use the word "mind", you usually think of it as an object, but this is different from the Buddhist understanding, which talks about mental activity, that is, cognition. Mental activity, that is, the cognition of phenomena, can be described as a chemical or electrical process in the brain, or from the point of view of cognition. When we talk about mind, we mean the latter.

Medical scientists are finding that the Buddhist understanding is correct: our state of mind and our perception of life affect our physical health. This means if our mind is peaceful and we are internally calm, that is, free from constant worries, complaints, negative and pessimistic thinking. Such negative thoughts are harmful to your health. While optimism, kindness, caring for others, friendliness, peace strengthen the immune system and promote good health. Medical scientists are doing this research in centers all over the world, and they have found that the Buddhist point of view is correct and the state of the mind affects the body, that is, matter. Now in the West there are many programs that use what is known as “mindfulness” meditation to cope with pain and to help those who are faced with stress, pain and difficult situations. Its essence is to focus on breathing: it helps to remain calm. In a way, it connects us to the physical element of the earth, and we are no longer so depressed, thinking, “Me, me, me. My pain. My anxiety,” and: “I’m so upset.” It is calming and very helpful in dealing with pain. That is, to benefit from such methods, it is not at all necessary to profess the Buddhist religion. This is what Buddhist science is all about.

Buddhist psychology Arrow down Arrow up

Buddhist psychology studies how we experience phenomena. In other words, it is the science of knowledge (there is no clear distinction between Buddhist psychology and science). Two topics in Buddhist psychology: how we understand phenomena (cognitive science) and how to deal with emotional difficulties.

Ways of knowing phenomena

The most important thing is to recognize the differences between reliable and unreliable ways of understanding, or knowing, phenomena. Buddhism has a lot to say about this. A reliable way of knowing can be defined as accurate and confident. Accurate means true, corresponding to reality: it can be confirmed by others. Confident means that we are completely convinced of it. It is not a state of mind where we think, “Maybe this is this way, maybe that’s another way. I don’t know exactly.”

What are the reliable ways of knowing phenomena? There is so-called naked perception: we see, hear, smell, taste and feel physical sensations (this also happens in our dreams, but then it is mental perception). If we see someone, we need it to be authentic. This is not always reliable: “I thought I saw something there, but I’m not entirely sure”; “I thought I saw you in the crowd, but I'm not quite sure. I thought I saw you, but in fact it was someone else”; “I thought you said that, but perhaps I was mistaken and heard incorrectly.” It's not authentic, is it? There is no precision or certainty in this.

Distortion has many causes. For example, I take off my glasses and see only blurry spots in front of me. But you don't exist as a blur, do you? This is perceived distortedly because there is something wrong with my eyes. If I were to ask another person, “Do you see the spot over there?” – he would answer no. That way I would know it was a mistake. So now we are talking about accurate and confident perception, and we have naked perception.

Inferential cognition is also reliable. But it is reliable, if not inaccurate. This is a conclusion, a reasoning. A classic example: “If there is smoke there, then there is fire.” In the distance on the mountain we see smoke from a chimney. Our perception is reliable: we see smoke, so we can assume that there is fire, although we do not see the fire itself. If there is smoke, there must be fire. This is authentic.

But some phenomena cannot be known even with the help of logic, for example, the name of the person living in that house. For such cases, you need a reliable source of information. This is also one of the types of conclusions: that person is a reliable source of information, therefore, he is telling the truth. The best example on this topic is: “When is my birthday?” It is impossible to know your birthday on your own. We can only find out from a reliable source of information: ask the mother or check the birth record.

There are many types of conclusions. There are conclusions based on well-known conventions. You hear a sound: how do you know it is a word? How do you know its meaning? When you think about it, it's an absolutely amazing process. In essence, we simply hear sounds, but, knowing certain conventions, we conclude that the sound we hear is the sound of a word, and we conclude that it has a certain meaning. Of course, this needs to be checked, because sometimes a person says one thing, but we think that he means something completely different.

This is the science of knowledge as an aspect of Buddhist psychology. We have to check: “I conclude that when you say this, you mean this. True or false? We often don't understand what others mean, do we? A person says: “I love you” - and we think that he has sexual interest, although he meant something completely different. A wrong conclusion can lead to many misunderstandings. So, if the conclusion is reliable, it is accurate and confident.

Assumption is unreliable: "I'm guessing that's what you mean, but I'm not sure." A guess is essentially a guess: “I think this is what you mean.” It may be right or wrong, but it is uncertain: “I think you mean this.” This is a guess, we are not sure.

When our idea of ​​something is completely wrong, it is distorted knowledge. This is absolutely not what the person meant.

This is how cognition works, and Buddhism pays great attention to this. Regardless of our culture, it is very useful to understand whether our way of knowing is right or wrong. If we are still not sure, we need to realize it and try to correct it by exploring reality again. So it's useful for everyone. Buddhist religion and rituals are not needed here.

Disturbing emotions

Another important topic in Buddhist psychology relates to emotions. We experience both positive and negative emotions. Negative emotions are disturbing and disturb the peace of mind. We are talking about feelings such as anger. Disturbing emotions are defined as states of mind that, when they appear, cause us to lose peace of mind and self-control: we become a little upset or nervous. So, when we are angry, our energy is disturbed: you can feel it. We say and do things that we may later regret, we simply act compulsively (ed. note: under the influence of an obsessive urge).

In Buddhism we hear a lot about karma. By karma we mean precisely this kind of compulsive behavior based on a previous habit. Therefore, when strong attachment, desire or greed arises, we are also restless. We get upset because we want to have something and we don't have self-control, like a chocolate bar that I just have to eat.

These are disturbing emotions. But, on the other hand, there are also positive ones. Buddhism does not advocate getting rid of all emotions. There are such feelings as love - the desire for others to be happy and have the reasons for happiness, regardless of their actions, their attitude towards me or towards my loved ones. There is compassion - the desire for others to be free from suffering and its causes. There is patience, respect - there are also a lot of positive emotions. We must learn to discern which of our emotions and actions are constructive and which are destructive. Buddhism not only has a wide variety of teachings about what emotional states there are that allow you to recognize them, but also many methods that help you get rid of disturbing states of mind.

Remember we talked about delusions and projections that have no relation to reality? One of the most noticeable is how we exist. I have already mentioned in a simple form: that we consider ourselves the most important, that we exist firmly and independently, that everything should always be our way and everyone should like us. It is interesting to consider the following: “Even Buddha was not liked by everyone. Why should I expect everyone to like me?” It is very useful to remember this.

We think like this: “I am a solid object in my head, the owner of the voice that sounds in it, which worries: “What should I do? What do people think of me?’” It’s as if there’s a little “I” sitting in my head with a screen on which all the information appears, and speakers connected to the senses, and makes the body move, say: “Now I’ll do it. Now I’ll say this.” This is a disturbing delusion about ourselves. How do we know it's disturbing? Because we all feel insecure. In this way of thinking there is insecurity and concern about oneself: “What do people think of me?” - and so on.

We have such projections not only about ourselves, but also about everything around us. We see various objects and exaggerate their good qualities and even project on them virtues that do not exist. When we fall in love, we think: “This is the most beautiful person in the world,” and generally do not notice the shortcomings that he or she may have. “This is the most beautiful and desirable person I have ever met.” If we have not become close, a passionate desire appears: “I want him to be my partner, my friend.” When we became friends with him, attachment arises (we don’t want to let him go) and greed (we want him to devote more and more time to us).

It's a disturbing state of mind, isn't it? We need to see the reality: everyone has their own strengths and weaknesses. Often we think: “I am the most important person. So, I'm the only one in your life. You have to give me all your time,” and that’s completely unrealistic. We completely forget that in the life of a friend or partner there are not only us, but also other people, other things that he is involved in. That's why we get angry and feel insecure. And if he doesn’t call us, we exaggerate the problem, not wanting to see anything good in our relationship with this person. We get angry, want to stop treating us like this and shout: “Why didn’t you call me? Why didn’t you come?” At the heart of this is the idea that there is a small self; that I should always get what I want; I must be the most important; and the impossible: I must be the only person in the life of another.

Buddhism offers a very clear analysis of why we get upset, what is wrong with our thinking and feeling. Our mind makes things look a certain way and we believe it to be true - that's the problem. And there are various methods to, figuratively speaking, puncture the ball of our imagination. It may seem to me that I am the only one who exists: after all, when I close my eyes, I don’t see anyone else, but the voice in my head is still there. But this is stupid. This is not reality and has nothing to do with it. When I close my eyes, you do not cease to exist. Here are the basics of Buddhist psychology.

Developing Love and Compassion

Now about love and compassion. Buddhism has many methods for developing these qualities, and everyone can benefit from them (again, you don't have to follow the religious aspects of Buddhism to do this). Love and compassion are based on the fact that everyone is equal: everyone wants to be happy and no one wants to be unhappy. Everyone likes to be happy. Nobody likes to be unhappy. We are all equal.

We are all interconnected. My life depends entirely on the kindness and work of others. Let's think about the people who grow our food, transport it and bring it to stores. Other people build roads and make trucks to transport food. Where does the metal come from? Someone has to mine it in a mine to make a truck. What about rubber for tires? Where did she come from? There are so many people working in this production too. What about fuel and dinosaurs, whose bodies, having decomposed, turned into oil? Thinking this way, we see that everyone is interconnected and dependent on each other. From a global economic perspective, this is even more obvious.

Then, based on the understanding that everyone is equal and dependent on each other, we think like this: “Whatever problems arise, they need to be resolved.” Because, as one great Buddhist master from India said: “Problems and suffering have no owner. Suffering must be eliminated not because it is my suffering or your suffering. They must be eliminated simply because they cause pain.” Therefore, the problem, for example, with the environment is not mine or yours, but a common one: it has no owner. It should be solved simply because it is a problem that creates difficulties for everyone. This is how we develop love and compassion, using a method that has nothing to do with religion and is based solely on logic and reality.

Video: Mingyur Rinpoche - “Buddhism and the Western Science of Mind”

Buddhist religion Arrow down Arrow up

So if we ask, “Why Buddhism?” – Buddhism has components that are valuable for our Western world: scientific and psychological. Some of us Westerners may also find the religious aspects helpful: rituals, teachings about rebirth, prayers, and so on. But as I said, it is very important to carefully examine why we are attracted to them. Maybe we're just fascinated by their exoticism? Or are we looking for miracles? Perhaps this is a sign of protest against our parents and traditions? Or because it’s fashionable now and practicing Buddhism is, as they say, cool? These reasons are temporary and unstable, therefore insufficient. If we are attracted to the religious side of Buddhism and find it useful for ourselves (it helps us to be a kinder and more compassionate person), and it complements its scientific and psychological aspects - it is very important that it complements them, and does not replace them - if we see all these characteristics in religious aspects, then everything is fine.

This is how we separate Buddhist science, psychology and religion.

Questions about the mind and rebirth Arrow down Arrow up

When we talk about rebirth, we use the concept of “mind.” How does it coincide with the idea of ​​the soul?

When we discuss rebirth, we talk about the mind. How does this coincide with the concept of “soul”? We must define what the words “mind” and “soul” mean to us.

Rebirth is about flow, continuity. Just as matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but only transformed, our personal subjective mental activity cannot be created or destroyed. It is illogical to say that it began from nothing. And if each moment of the mental stream gives rise to the next, it is illogical to think that it will simply end and turn into nothing. Of course, mental activity always has a physical basis, but it can be at the level of extremely subtle energy: it is not necessarily a gross body with a brain. In this way, the flow of personal subjective mental activity passes from life to life and even continues into Buddhahood. It can appear at different levels - very subtle or very gross - and continues continuously, from moment to moment.

As for the soul, this is, of course, a Western word. Different languages, including Western ones, have words for mind, spirit and soul. They are not identical to each other, even in Western languages, and different religions have different definitions of what the soul is. Additionally, in Western religions there is a connection between the soul and God. In Indians they talk about “atman”, and ideas about it also differ. Therefore, it is difficult to talk about the word “soul” in general.

It is much easier to discuss the concept of "I": what is "I"? Each of us has a “I” or personality, but we project onto it ways of being that do not correspond to reality. It’s as if there is, like a suitcase on a conveyor belt, some solid “I” that goes through this whole life and also into the next. It’s very interesting: you look at a photograph of yourself as a child and say, “That’s me.” What is there from this “I”? Every cell of the body has changed. Our children's way of thinking and learning is completely different from today's. And yet we say, “This is me.” What is “I”? This is the word that denotes all the changing moments of our lives. None of these photos are “me.” But this word refers to something that exists on the basis of all these moment-to-moment changing moments of my life.

I usually use the example of a movie like Star Wars. What is Star Wars? We say, “I saw Star Wars,” but is it possible to see the whole movie at the same time? No. If you take any of the film frames, is this Star Wars? In general, yes. This is one of those Star Wars moments. Star Wars is not the same as every frame of a movie. Star Wars is not just the name Star Wars. The title refers to the film - there is such a movie "Star Wars", it exists, but you cannot find it anywhere - not in a piece of plastic from which the film is made, not in any of the scenes. It exists as changing from moment to moment.

This is similar to "I" or "personality". There is the word "I". It refers to something: I am sitting here; I'm doing it; I'm talking to you. However, it is not identical with the mind, the body, or any of its moments. But we can label the self based on the continuums of body and mind. It's not you". It changes from moment to moment, and it is not stable at all. Would you call it a soul? What would you call it?

What term did Shakyamuni Buddha use in Sanskrit or Pali to refer to this phenomenon?

Buddha used the term "anata" in Pali and in Sanskrit "anatman", that is, "not atman", which is taught by other schools of Indian philosophy. They argue that the atman is something unchangeable (it never changes, and nothing can affect it), does not consist of parts (that is, it is either the size of the universe, since it is identical to Brahma, the entire Universe, or the atman is the smallest spark of life) and after liberation can exist separately from the body and mind.

According to some Indian philosophical systems, atman has consciousness, as stated in the Samkya school. And in the Nyaya school they say that he has no consciousness. Those who believe that consciousness exists say that it resides in the body and uses the brain. Those who believe that the atman has no consciousness say that the atman enters the body and consciousness simply arises from the physical basis of the body.

Speaking about the absence of atman, the Buddha refuted these points of view. He meant that there is no such atman as the mentioned schools define and claim. Atman and personality exist, but in a different way - in the form of the so-called “conventional self” or “conventional atman”.

If someone believes in rebirth and says that he will be born again, how confident can he be that all the properties and all the information stored in the consciousness will pass on to the next life?

First of all, Buddhism states that rebirth is beginningless: it has no beginning. This means that we have habits and instincts from countless lifetimes. And depending on numerous conditions, only some of these instincts and predispositions will manifest themselves in a particular life. It is certain that even if we are once again given such a rare and precious human life, not all of our instincts and knowledge from the immediately preceding life will be able to manifest itself in the next. A lot depends on our thoughts and state of mind at the time of death. What exactly will manifest itself is influenced by many things: all circumstances and conditions next life, which are not limited to our family - famine or war may happen in the country.

It is very important that we place more emphasis on positive rather than negative thinking and behavior in our lives, and die with a calm, peaceful mind, positive thoughts and the intention of being able to continue on our spiritual path.

Positive Power Dedication Arrow down Arrow up

I guess we'll end here. We think: May all the understanding and positive power that comes from this become ever deeper.

This may sound like a Buddhist religion, but at the same time it is quite scientific. If we have a pleasant meeting, a meaningful and positive conversation and it ends in a phone call, all the energy is completely lost. We completely forgot about the good conversation we were having before. But if we end the conversation with the thought, “May this have a positive effect on me,” then the good feeling and understanding will stay with us and help us in life. So we end our discussion this way. It is very useful to end any positive interaction with people this way.

Video: Dr. Alan Wallace - "Why Study Buddhism?"
To enable subtitles, click on the “Subtitles” icon in the lower right corner of the video window. To change the subtitle language, click on the “Settings” icon, select “Subtitles” and the desired language.