The Collected Works of Chögyam Trungpa: Volume 6 (51 page)

The whole thing could become quite workable. In other words, if nirvana exists, samsara exists equally. Are we going to relate with both together, or are we going to consider nirvana alone as workable and samsara as something we have to reject and destroy? This last kind of simple-minded approach is very confusing and, in fact, self-destructive. And that seems to be the point of relating with the mandala principle in terms of whether we have ground to discuss it at all or not. What is the ground? Is the ground solid space, or is the ground space-space?

Student:
I don’t understand what a mandala basically is.

Trungpa Rinpoche:
It is space to create a situation that is based on a territory or boundary. It depends on whether we relate with space as space or space as solid, or with boundary as space or the other way around. That’s how it goes.

Student:
When you speak about the boundary of the mandala, it sounds like you are talking about the boundary of us or the mandala of us. When we go to explore the boundary of the mandala, is that something like exploring our limits?

Trungpa Rinpoche:
That depends on our attitude toward the space, how we see it.

S:
I see it as pretty solid.

TR:
Then the boundary becomes the space, which brings a tremendous struggle.

S:
That comes from separating space and solidity?

TR:
It’s something like the lost-wax method used by craftsmen. We expect the wax will act as the expression rather than what is inside it. It is exactly the same here. Experience becomes very claustrophobic. Naturally. And then it depends on whether we accept the claustrophobia as it is or not.

S:
It becomes claustrophobic in that we are surrounded by a boundary?

TR:
Yes.

S:
What is it as it is?

TR:
Your guess is as good as mine.

S:
Are you describing an energy pattern of some kind?

TR:
Well, obviously, yes. There is energy involved in dealing with the texture of things as they are. But the question is, are we willing to relate with the space, or are we involved with the boundary? Or are we willing to give up the whole trip of boundary and space and provide the basic ground?

S:
Isn’t the space the same as the basic ground?

TR:
It depends on how you look at it.

Student:
Why is the mandala necessary? Can’t we get along just as well without it?

Trungpa Rinpoche:
Sure, we don’t have to have a mandala at all, that’s true. It is unnecessary. But that in itself becomes a mandala.

S:
What does?

TR:
The unnecessariness of it becomes a mandala. I mean, it’s not a conceptual principle, it’s what is. We don’t have to call it a mandala or anything else. But it happens there.

S:
Is it an organizational energy?

TR:
Sure. Anyway, there is some unity there and some pattern in it. The mandala is not important, but the mandala
happens.

S:
Are you saying that when we are relating to space as concrete and trying to eat out from inside the boundary, then we are not seeing the mandala aspect of things; but when we relate to the open, spacious aspect of it, then we begin to relate to it as a mandala?

TR:
It’s up to you, purely up to you. There’s no philosophical definition of it at all. What we are doing here is not trying to get together set patterns and ideas, ideologies or theologies. We are not trying to develop a set idea of what a mandala is or isn’t. We are more trying to relate to what a mandala might be or could be. There is no dogma involved at this point at all. It is more a question of developing a working basis for working together.

S:
Is it a way of looking at the world?

TR:
I suppose you could say that, yes. But it would be more accurate to say it’s a way of seeing it.

S:
Is there both a collective mandala and individual mandalas? So that each of us—

TR:
Definitely, yes. That’s how we perceive the world.

S:
Then our own personal mandala is subject to change as we change our consciousness and our way of seeing it.

TR:
We don’t
change
our consciousness. It’s subject to how our consciousness
grows.

Student:
Could we work on creating a mandala for this seminar group?

Trungpa Rinpoche:
Sure, but you can’t pin down the mandala principle as being this or that. We are discussing a totality in a blade of grass. Where there is grass growing, is that solid grass, or is it hollow grass in the midst of concrete space? Do you see what I mean? Can anyone explain?

S:
It’s like the figure-and-ground relationship. Is the grass the figure and . . . ?

TR:
Yes. Do we describe the grass as outstanding in the midst of space, or do we say that the grass is the space and around the grass is the solidity? Do you see what I mean?

Student:
It is more accurate to describe what is by saying a blade of grass is a hollow thing with solidity all around it? Is that more accurate?

Trungpa Rinpoche:
I think that is more accurate, yes.

Student:
Is it like the difference between simply considering a single thing and considering a total situation of the thing?

Trungpa Rinpoche:
Both amount to the same thing, because they are interdependent. You can’t have just one or the other.

Student:
I don’t understand what you mean by “giving up the trip of space and providing the basic ground.”

Trungpa Rinpoche:
That’s giving up the whole thing with the interdependent elements—whether grass is the space or whether grass is the object.

S:
Giving all that up?

TR:
Giving up that
whole
area. Then there is the possibility of some complete working basis. The tantric tradition on the kriyayoga level talks about preparing the mandala with the five ingredients of a cow.
⁴
The five ingredients are the snot of a cow, shit of a cow, piss of a cow, milk of a cow, and so forth. Clean up the holy ground with those, going beyond discrimination. Clean the ground completely with the five ingredients of a cow, then you can build a mandala on it, or make a sand painting, or just lines. From the tantric point of view, that is the only workable situation—you have destroyed or overcome the hollow space or solid space in order to create the true mandala, the absolute mandala. This is not purely superstition, you know, this kriyayoga idea of the five ingredients of a cow. The cow belongs to the earth. It grazes and sits and shits and eats grass and lives on the land. It has the quality of a sitting bull. And the five ingredients come out of that cow or sitting bull. It’s a tremendously powerful thing to smear it over the whole phenomenal world, the snot and milk and piss and shit and everything. It’s fantastic! It evens out the whole thing. It’s beautiful!

Student:
Is the ground the middle path?

Trungpa Rinpoche:
No, I wouldn’t even say it is the middle path. There’s nothing middle about it. It’s
the
ground that does not allow any compromise. It’s not in the middle—it’s
the
ground. It has nothing to do with the middle at all.

S:
Could it be just not dwelling on anything?

TR:
I suppose you could say that, but let me explain about mandala principle as a whole. It is part of the tantric situation, the tantric approach. We are not discussing Madhyamaka or the shunyata principle.
⁵
We are discussing the basic existence of things as they are—how we survive, how we live. So the whole thing becomes less philosophical. There’s no middle path involved. There’s a total path. This is an absolutely heavy-handed approach to things as they are. There’s no middle way at all. It’s heavy-handed.

Student:
It seems that we haven’t even approached the Madhyamaka level properly. How can we work with what you are talking about now without distorting it?

Trungpa Rinpoche:
We can do so theoretically, but from the point of view of actual practice, we should sit and meditate and work on ourselves in a basic fashion. What we are discussing is the possible chaos that might happen, the orderly chaos that might happen as we go along the path. This seminar could be regarded as a warning session. Somebody who hasn’t yet learned how to drive can still study the highway codes and how to relate with motorcars. It is possible that chaos, orderly chaos, might happen in our situation. In that regard, I personally feel that I can trust the American audience composed of those who are on the path or might be on the path. I feel brave enough to tell them what the path is all about. I feel that I can relate with them and explain all the possibilities of order and chaos. I feel telling them about it might create some awakeness on the path. It’s a situation of preparing the whole ground rather than purely a matter of immediate instruction. You have to commit yourself to the path and surrender yourself to it. You have to take refuge, become a refugee, to begin with—give up everything. Then you have to be willing to take the responsibility of a bodhisattva.
⁶
Then after that, you can receive the tantric teachings. But that seems to be a long way off as far as we are concerned. Nevertheless, it is worth discussing the possibility of these situations occurring for all of us.

Student:
Does the basic ground come about when you somehow forget about the “this” and the “that,” the discrimination? Is that what you are implying?

Trungpa Rinpoche:
Yes.

S:
And this is experiential, not just intellectual.

TR:
Yes.

S:
How do you know when you have experienced it?

TR:
It’s purely up to you.

S:
It seems to me there could be some self-deception.

TR:
If you are experiencing things completely and totally, that means that you have worn out your reference point. That is a total experience.

S:
Worn out your reference point?

TR:
As though you are completely dead, or at least dying. You have no way of referring to anything alive, you are actually dying. It’s very solid and very simple.

Student:
It seems to me that the most difficult thing to do is to get over a sense of separation. Isn’t that what this is about? Interdependence depends on separation, and if you could give that up, then you could relate to a totality. But how does one do that?

Trungpa Rinpoche:
You don’t have to know how to do it. It just happens. There is no special care or “idiot compassion” from the teacher or the teaching. You simply have to work it out. You have to acknowledge that you are a lonely person, a person alone, treading on the path.

S:
But doesn’t the sense of aloneness or loneliness contradict the idea of totality?

TR:
Absolutely not. If you realize that you are a lonely person, then you feel the totality of the whole space in which you are lonely or alone. It amounts to the same thing, absolutely the same thing. You can’t feel alone unless you feel the totality of the whole thing. There is no help coming from anywhere at all. You have to make your own individual journey, which is purely based on you. That goes without saying.

S:
That’s not the same thing as ordinary loneliness then.

TR:
There is no such thing as ordinary loneliness. Loneliness is one thing—there is always space.

We are going to introduce discussion groups tomorrow, which could be extraordinarily important at this point. They will provide an opportunity for people to relate with each other and to express their chaos and confusion in terms of the mandala principle. They will be able to open themselves and discuss their ideas.

The situation we have is that our philosophers and yogis are at war. The yogis think the philosophers are bullshitting, and the philosophers think the yogis are bullshitting. As a result, at this point we are unable to establish a total living teaching, which would mean not rejecting either of those. So what we are trying to do is establish some link between the two, so that the approaches of both philosophers and yogis could both be regarded as valid. Some technical or intellectual understanding is important, and your experiential situation is also important. Working those two together is extraordinarily possible.

The expectation is that eventually I won’t have to give any more seminars. You will be able to help yourselves. Not only that, but you will be able to develop American Buddhism, to teach other people, to teach the rest of the world. In fact, you will be able to go back to the Tibetans or the Indians and teach them what their earlier understanding was all about and work with them.

As far as I personally am concerned, I have tremendous trust in your participation in this work, and it means a lot to me that finally we are able to work together on the basic sanity level, that we are able to set up some solid ground enabling you to help your whole world, not purely in terms of religion but also in terms of concrete living situations.

Participation in the discussion groups tomorrow will be an expression of acceptance that we are going to work together, as opposed to your simply being here to pick up something, some spark of knowledge, and take it back home and maybe write a fat book on it. The situation doesn’t work that way. It very much needs sharing. So please take part in the discussion groups and also the meditation practice with our community here; that is also part of the seminar. It is very important to give in to the irritations and frustrations that take place in meditation practice. Thank you very much and welcome everybody.