Tibetan Buddhism and Psychotherapy: Conversations with the Dalai Lama

Part 3 of 4

D. K.: "Do you think that, when it comes to prescribing yogic or tantric type practices to their clients, psychologists would always be limited by virtue of their Western training? For example, a very influential psychologist by the name of Carl Jung once claimed that Westerners couldn't successfully practice yoga because their cultural background was different from Asians. Do you think that maybe different cultures prepare people to be different and therefore different religious techniques are necessary for people in different cultures?'

Dalai Lama: "That is a matter of depth, I think. Up to certain levels there are differences, so according to that, you may need certain new aspects...."

D. K: "A new aspect of a deity, perhaps."

Dalai Lama: "Yes. Once you reach the deeper level, it is the same human mind."

D. K: "Then there's no problem. So, maybe what Carl Jung was talking about is that on the surface people are brought up differently in different cultures; and so on that surface level, a different type of practice might be necessary, or different deity images, but once you get through that level, everyone's the same and the same kind of practice can be followed."

Dalai Lama: "Now you may notice that there are some differences in the Indian mentality and the Tibetan mentality. I think there are some differences. So it seems to me certain books, like Shantideva's work, Bodhisattvacharyavatara [an Indian text elaborating the Buddhist Path, cf. Thabkay and Tulku, 1978], are a way of teaching that is slightly different than the lam rim [a group of Tibetan texts elaborating the Buddhist Path, cf. Dhargye, 1978]. So that is at the initial stage, because of the different mentality and different circumstances [of Indians and Tibetans]. In Tibet, everyone takes for granted that all Tibetans are Buddhists, the whole community is a Buddhist community. India is not like that [nor was it in Shantideva's time, circa 700 AD], so therefore the way of approach at the initial stage is different. Now then, at the second level, the level of tantric practice, then we Tibetans follow exactly the Indian system. So at that level I think there's not much difference."

D. K.: "It's not much different? Well, that makes sense, because the Dharma has gone everyplace in Asia and of course, for example, Chinese are different than Indians who are different than Thais who are different than Tibetans, and so on throughout Asia. But it is good to hear your response to this question because this has been an issue of concern among some Westerners, especially because of the writings of this particular psychologist."

Dalai Lama: "So, at certain stages there are certain differences, so accordingly we need some different aspects. Now I used to say, we may need Western Buddhism, European Buddhism or American Buddhism, so like that."

D. K: "Well, maybe pursuing that line for a moment, I think that this makes a great deal of sense to me, that there is a need for a Western Buddhism, which is slowly seeming to evolve now. Will that evolve out of the hearts of the practitioners in conjunction with the lamas [teachers] that come to the West? Where will the Western Buddhism come from? How long do you think it will take to grow?'

Dalai Lama: "I think the effort of combination is necessary. From the Tibetan side, there is the teaching, sharing experiences. Then from the Western side, mixing together the teaching or the Tibetan experience and their own experience, and putting them together and again, now, it might need some of their own experimenting. Then, these things will not come as a revolution, but come as an evolution."

D. K: "An evolution, slowly."

Dalai Lama: "Yes, without sort of a pre-plan; nobody can make a plan, but these things.... Of course, we need sincere effort, sincere motivation. Then I think that some kind of shape will come."

D. K: "Well, thinking along this line of evolution or development of societies, do you believe that there is any progress in human relations or in human understanding for society as a whole? Not just for individuals, I mean is there social progress, or cultural progress for an entire group of people?"

Dalai Lama: "I think so. And in fact, I think it is necessary. So, in that way we can understand the value of each other. From that we can grow, develop more of a feeling of closeness."

D. K: "So there is a kind of evolution of human consciousness that's going on you think?"

Dalai Lama: "Evolution? I don't know. I think mainly, there is education, through education, through using easier communication. Now for example, very recently, I met one Spanish friend, one Spanish Buddhist. He says that before my visit to Spain, if any Spanish person wore Tibetan monk's dress, people would see that as peculiar. And some may say it's a little crazy. After my visit, because of the television, now my dress has become quite familiar. Now when they see some Spanish Tibetan monk, they say 'Dalai Lama's monk.' So because of the communication, it brings people closer."

D. K: "There is an idea in the West that society as a whole can be characterized as having a certain level of consciousness, and that over the years the level of consciousness of society may grow. If this is correct, do you think that human consciousness is different now than it was, say, five thousand years ago, and, if so, how has it changed?"

As I pursued the question of the evolution of consciousness, His Holiness began to laugh, saying, "I don't know. But then, again, now I believe that the basic human, main consciousness level, is, I think, the same."

D. K: "It's the same now that it was in the past."

Dalai Lama: "Now I think, you see, we may make two categories. One consciousness comes through birth and at that level there may not be differences. There is another kind of consciousness which feeds on outside information. On that level .....

D. K: "So the amount of information that people now have has increased...."

Dalai Lama: "Oh yes."

D. K: ". . .but their fundamental consciousness is perhaps the same."

Dalai Lama: "Now here, what would a biologist say? Taking very well educated parents, and children from their cells, do you see some differences in their children?"

D. K: "Yes, you can find variation among individuals. People that have particularly intelligent parents and get a good education seem more intelligent than other people. Although there are oddities where parents don't seem to be intelligent and a brilliant child is produced; that is very hard to explain. But, this particular question is not addressed towards individuals, because that's clearly understood and accepted, but towards society as a whole evolving."

Dalai Lama: "Now I believe that is a definite indication that human intelligence, or human consciousness, depends to a large extent on the human cell. Now the consciousness of five thousand years back, you see, and the consciousness of today, I don't know, I think it will require further investigation. Now not only human beings, but other animals have consciousness. In the basic level, there is similarity between them. As to human beings, there is still more similarity between the earlier human beings and today's human beings."

As His Holiness was not too sanguine about group consciousness evolving, I turned to the development of individual consciousness.

D. K: "There is an idea in the West that there are different kinds of psychological functions, such as perceptual, intellectual, intuitive, or feeling functions. People have wondered if you have to have all these major psychological functions integrated and balanced in order to achieve high levels of consciousness, or could you gain high levels through the development of a single function? For example, a person could have a very highly developed intellectual consciousness but be crippled emotionally; still he or she would have a high level of consciousness, as an intellectual. Or to have high consciousness, do you have to develop all these functions at the same time and be a balanced person?"

Dalai Lama: "From the Buddhist viewpoint there are many different levels. The intelligence, in the ordinary sense, I think that without developing the other factors [you can cultivate it]. But in the higher sense, without the other factors. . .you see, without a good heart [bodhichitta], you may not have great determination. And, without the other understandings, like this shunyata, without these things, you cannot achieve an extraordinary intellectual level."

D. K: "If I understand it, you are suggesting, then, that a person can develop one function very well, but to truly be an extraordinary human being, with an extraordinary consciousness, one must blend them together to get this higher consciousness. Is that correct?"

Dalai Lama: "Yes, precisely."

Earlier in the interview we had talked about the "unconscious" as it is understood in psychoanalytic theory and also about the mental process of "projection" and I had had some trouble getting these concepts across to His Holiness, as there is not an exact equivalent of them in Buddhist psychology. In the context of my previous question about individual development I wanted to return to a discussion of projections, as many therapeutic systems emphasize the importance to the process of development of making the projections conscious and accepting the projected feelings as one's own. As I began to describe projection, His Holiness began to talk about projection as it seemed to be understood in Buddhist psychology.

Dalai Lama: "Yes, well, there are many different meanings that you could have for projection. If you are thinking in terms of the labeling by the mind, then if there is no proper corresponding basis for the labeling, then this is something which is called a fantasy, or which could be called interpolation. For instance, if there is something which is not a living being, or a sentient being, and you label it as a sentient being, this would be an example of that [fantasy], and that would be a distorted cognition.

"Or if you are looking at the continuity of the aggregates [the five skandhas or 'heaps' of functions which additively form a human being] and the sense bases and so on, and the mind is labeling something on them. . .actually the aggregates are impure, but at this moment, in this case, your mind has projected purity on them in order not to have any clinging or aversion for them, to not grasp at them, you deliberately project this. . .that is not a distorted cognition.

"And when you're speaking about things existing in terms. . . inasmuch as they can be mentally labeled, then this is referring to the fact that they don't exist from the power of their own side, but exist in terms of their being labeled by names. When you are speaking about the process of mental labeling, the process of mental labeling is in terms of labeling something, so that actually exists. It's not a matter of saying that it's just a projection of the mind, and the thing itself doesn't exist. It's merely saying that it doesn't exist from its own side, but that it exists merely in terms of being under the power of mental labeling.(4) So that when you have a mind which cognizes or takes that object, this is something which is valid, and it's just speaking about the manner in which the thing exists, which is namely that it exists merely in terms of what can be mentally labeled."

D. K: "I think that of the different kinds of process that you talked about, the first kind is the closest to what psychologists mean by projection, which is a little bit like a type of fantasy in which, what is on the person's own side, but which they are not aware of, they see on the other side, on the other person. Perhaps an example might be helpful. Say, a man is working in an office with a woman co-worker and one day he calls the other woman, the co-worker, by his wife's name. A psychologist might interpret that as the man having similar feelings toward the co-worker as he has toward his wife or as wanting to have a similar kind of relation with his co-worker as he has with his own wife, but the man wouldn't be aware of it. So the key thing is that there are thoughts and feelings and desires that people are not aware of, but which are very functional in their own life, and these are seen as if they belong to the other, are on the other's side. The most important thing is that it's shes bzhin med pa [without full awareness]. When you say 'unconscious,' that's usually the meaning of unconscious."

Dalai Lama: "So it seems you can divide this into two types. In both cases, there is no intention, but in one case, deep down, there is some feeling, some attachment. Due to that, you see, unintentionally that wife's name was spoken. The second case is without any feeling towards that person, but, instead he was just thinking about his own wife and somehow expressed his wife's name. In the second one, there is no feeling deep down, no feeling, that's simply a mistake. But then in the first case we have bag chags, an action taken on the basis of bag chags, [i.e.] instinct or propensity. Now, an Arhat is a person who has already eliminated the nyon mongs, the disturbing attitudes or delusions [of everyday consciousness]. That category is no more, those delusions have been eliminated, but, the bag chags, the propensities or instincts for them is still there.... Due to that bag chags, some verbal action or physical action arises unintentionally, still arises unintentionally."

D. K: "Is there a difference between the propensities that come from the experiences of this life and the propensities that come from the experiences of many lives and is there a difference in the way that they would be projected onto other people?"

Dalai Lama: "I don't know, I have no idea. I wonder if there is actually a difference in the level of the potency of the potential that's laid down in this life and which is a fresh one, and one that's laid down in the previous life and would be an old one, I wonder if really there could be any difference in its potency from age."

Laughingly, His Holiness said, "At least for me. I don't know. I have no knowledge, I really can't discuss. But, now, there are different kinds of bag chags. For example, take a pot which held something with a strong odor. Now because the actual substance is already taken out, under no circumstances. . . such as you see, with onion, or something like that. . .under no circumstances will the odor formed within that pot ever come out. The smell remains there because of the previous material. That is what we call the pure potency or potential, or bag chags. Now on that level, you see, there is a difference between yesterday's bag chags or a bag chags from 1,000 years back. Whether there are differences in terms of strength, I don't know. At that level, I don't know. Now there is another meaning of bag chags. Today, this moment, there are four of us here. Nobody seems to feel anger, but at the moment each of us does have anger; the anger remains as a bag chags."

D. K: "'Latent' I think we would say."

Dalai Lama: "In a little while, say, someone kicks you, then immediately your anger comes out. So you see, now, that kind of bag chags is not mere instinct, but the substance is there. It does not appear, but is real. A potential thing which grows."

D. K: "The anger is dormant, it is in 'seed' form, and some situations bring it forward."

Dalai Lama: "Now at that level, time makes a difference."

D. K: "It makes a difference how you work with those two kinds?"

Dalai Lama: "Whatever is closest will be the strongest. Yesterday's bag chags is much stronger than last year's bag chags."

D. K: "Right, so then would a different technique have to be employed to transform the more recent bag chags versus the older ones from previous lives, because the more recent is more potent, or could the same technique be used?"

Dalai Lama: "Could you make that clearer? What do you mean by 'transform'?"

D. K: "Say, if one is feeling some anger at this moment and one wants to change that anger into a positive feeling toward the person one was feeling anger toward, a certain technique perhaps could be used to change the anger into a positive feeling. Would that be the same technique as would be used if one was feeling anger as a result of past experiences, from these past bag chags? Would a different technique have to be used to transform the anger resulting from old experiences versus transforming the anger resulting from the current situation?"

Dalai Lama: "I don't think so."

D. K: "The same thing? Same technique?"

Dalai Lama: "I think so. As far as a difference in terms of strength of what you're dealing with, the contemporary, the closer is stronger, more fresh."

D. K: "But fundamentally, the same technique can be used for both."

Dalai Lama: "Yes."

D. K: "O.K. Sometimes it seems that when lames give guidance to their disciples, they ignore the problems of this life and concentrate on problems of humans in general. Would it be advisable for psychologists to do the same thing, rather than dealing with the specific problems of the person in this life? Would it be better for them, in dealing with their different patients, to concentrate on the human condition or the problems of life in general and not focus on specific problems resulting from specific situations?"

Dalai Lama: "You have to go into detail in each particular case. That is much more effective. Then in the meantime, if you also deal with what is general, then the person feels that his or her problem is not something unusual, for his or her case particularly."

D. K: "O.K. Are there real differences between men and women which are significant enough to require different spiritual training or traditions? For example, some have said that men and women have different bodily energies which require that they have different yoga practices. Are there psychological differences which require different kinds of practice?"

Dalai Lama: "From the Buddhist viewpoint, in terms of tantric practice, I don't think so, I don't think there are any differences. Now, as to actual physical differences, now for example, when you visualize the deities, then that has nothing to do with actual physicality. First you imagine the shunyata and the understanding of the shunyata, then that wisdom [of shunyata] is transformed into the particular deity forms. So whether they are female or male, the wisdom [which is their source] is the same (cf. Tsong-ka-pa, 1977, p. 63).

"Now, another example, let's say while you visualize yourself as a female deity, that there is a particular reason or a special reason or special requirement to transform yourself into a male deity, then there are some techniques...."

D. K.: "But basically there's no reason to believe that men and women have to follow different kinds of spiritual techniques?"

Dalai Lama: "No."

***********************************

From interviews conducted on June 16 and 30, 1983. Published in the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 1984. Copyright 1984, Transpersonal Institute