Aro - The Vehicles

As you get to understand Buddhism better, you will come to understand what a beautiful geometry it makes. The ways in which every vehicle is a re-statement of the other vehicles has a grace and perfection that is a continual source of delight

The word vehicle (thegpa/yana) means a stream of Buddhism that has a distinct base, path, and fruit. A vehicle is an entire system unto itself. A vehicle cannot be dependent upon anything. For a spiritual path to be called a vehicle—from the Dzogchen point of view—a practitioner has to be able to begin with the theory and practises of that vehicle. It can never be said that ‘one cannot practise Tantra or Dzogchen unless the previous vehicles have been practised – whatever the experience level of the individual’. To say this is to say that Dzogchen is not a vehicle.

In the two older Sarma (New Translation) Schools—Sakya and Kagyüd—they speak of Hinayana, Mahayana and Vajrayana. This system of classification is one that accords with the historical development of Buddhism. In the Gélug School they speak of Hinayana and Mahayana as being the vehicles of Buddhism. They then divide the Mahayana into ‘exoteric Mahayana’ and ‘esoteric Mahayana’. Naturally from the perspective of dividing the teachings into Hinayana and the two categories of Mahayana, Vajrayana is not an independent vehicle. This is the reason for making such a division. Dividing in this way is a method of establishing that exoteric Mahayana must be practised first. There is nothing erroneous in this system, but it cannot in itself refute the valid existence of other stratifications of the teachings. If one establishes Hinayana, Mahayana, and Vajrayana as vehicles, then obviously it becomes possible to begin with Vajrayana—because within that system of stratification, Vajrayana is a vehicle. And if Vajrayana is a vehicle one can begin with Vajrayana—that is the meaning of the word vehicle according to Dzogchen.

We hope you all grasp this point. If we say that Vajrayana is a vehicle, and that you can all begin with Vajrayana, this does not mean that Ngakpa Chögyam and Khandro Déchen deny the validity of beginning with Mahayana. It does not mean that the inconsequential eccentric yogi and yogini deny the right of Gélugs to say that you cannot start with Vajrayana—as long as such a statement is made within the context of the Hinayana and the exoteric and esoteric categories of Mahayana. It is a statement for a Gélug audience—not for a Nyingma audience or for an audience of the Kagyüd or Sakya Schools.

There is a contradiction here, but that is not a problem because we are discussing method. Whenever method is discussed, it must be understood that methods are multifarious and sometimes conflict with each other. The vehicle systems are methods of approaching the body of teaching that is called Buddhism.

When you understand the vehicles, you realise just how perfectly interpenetrating they are. At a certain point it becomes hard to divide them, and you realise that they are all reflections of the same reality. The word ‘chö’ or ‘Dharma’ means ‘as it is’. So these teachings are all ways of coming to understand, and integrate with, reality as it is. As soon as any level of teaching is described as being a vehicle, it means that it is recognised as having a base, a path, and a fruit. In the Nyingma tradition we speak of the six levels of Vajrayana, which comprise the three {glos outer Tantras} (Krya Tantra, Upa or Carya Tantra, and Yoga Tantra), and the three inner Tantras (Mahayoga, Anuyoga and Atiyoga). This is the commonly understood way of viewing the vehicles, and fits in with the ninefold classification of the yanas that exists in the Nyingma School.

We do not teach from the three outer Tantras, because the Aro gTér is composed entirely of inner Tantra. Of the inner Tantra practices, the Aro gTér is mainly from the Atiyoga (Dzogchen) section, less from the Anuyoga section, and a little from the Mahayoga section. The style or language of the teachings of the Aro gTér is Dzogchen. This means that even when Anuyoga and Mahayoga are spoken of, they are spoken of from the perspective of, and in the language of, Dzogchen.

Approaches to the Vehicles

It should be understood that many approaches to the subject of the vehicles are possible. It is not only possible to speak from the perspective of each one of the vehicles; but it is also possible to speak in the language of each of the vehicles, about each of the other vehicles. Given that there are nine vehicles, this gives eighty-one possible permutations of presenting the teachings of Buddhism. We cannot say that we are equipped to give teachings in each of these styles. We can only present these teachings according to our understanding of the three inner Tantras. However it would certainly be within the capacity of an enlightened being to speak fluently according to each of the eighty-one styles of presentation. In fact, it would be true to say that a realised being would be able to communicate limitlessly. From the perspective of the non-dual state, there is no limit to styles of presentation.

As you get to understand Buddhism better, you will come to understand what a beautiful geometry it makes. Every aspect of Buddhism is intimately functionally interrelated with every other aspect of Buddhism. The ways in which every vehicle is a re-statement of the other vehicles has a grace and perfection that is a continual source of delight. When you look at Sutra, you can find Dzogchen there. When you look at Dzogchen you can find Sutra. We begin by showing you all how the vehicles are different, but in the end, you will gradually approach the understanding in which they are all the same. They are unified in the non-dual realisation of Ekayana.

So, in consideration of our discussion thus far, what characterises the teaching which Aro students receive? The emphasis is individual. The emphasis is always individual, because the primary initiative of any Dzogchen teaching rests on the condition of the individual. The primary consideration with any teaching we give is the perspective of Dzogchen. The perspective of Dzogchen always addresses the individual, in his or her situation. That is fundamental. This is why there is no group dogma within Aro. Some people find this hard to understand. Some people have a great need for group dogma, and such people become highly irritated to discover that the only dogma is kindness and awareness. The non-dogma of kindness and awareness leaves no ground for anal-retentive manipulation. One can always build some kind of image out of following codified group dogmas, and those who wish to use the teaching as a means of enhancing self-image will always be drawn to group dogmas that present authenticity in terms of medieval cultural perspectives—rather than authentic inner practice. When teachings and teacher are validated according to such perspectives, there is always room to twist and turn according personal self-advancement—or the hope of it. We have seen many Western people engage in the custom of ‘spiritual social climbing’, and we have always determined that this would never happen within Aro.

Vehicles and Presentation of Teachings within the Aro gTér

It is essential to distinguish between Tantra and Dzogchen in terms of where emphasis is placed.

It is important to understand this, because teachings that you receive from other Lamas (or that you may read in books) may well conflict with this view. This is because many teachers proceed from the perspective of Mahayoga. The view from the perspective of Mahayoga, or from the three outer Tantras, may well emphasise the practice of chanting—but in Anuyoga, you will rarely find this. The Mahayoga view became quite predominant at about the time of Jig’mèd Lingpa, and now this view represents the dominant style of practice within the Nyingma School. In the teaching of Atiyoga (Dzogchen) you will not find this at all.

The Aro gTér is always taught from the perspective of Dzogchen. This means that whatever the method of practice, it is never taught as a daily commitment. This does not mean that there is not a deep commitment to practice, or even that formal practice should not be part of your daily life; but it does mean that there is no rule. Rules, from the perspective of Dzogchen, are artificial. One can apply them as methods, and one may even adhere to them for years or even lives—but they are not ultimate.

Hinayana Sutra

In terms of Hinayana Sutra we teach refuge. This is how we maintain our commitments to all the Buddhist teachers with whom we have had the privilege to have studied. We stress refuge according to the basic principle of remembering to rely on the teachings rather than on other forms on refuge. From this point of view we would say that refuge in the Buddhist teachings should come before refuge in counselling, aroma therapy, psychotherapy, Mafia agreements, flower arrangements, litigation, or popular opinion. Whatever it is in which you take refuge before the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha—is your main refuge. There is no particular problem with this—it is simply a matter of self-selection. If you take refuge in Buddhism, you are a Buddhist. If you take refuge in therapy you are a therapee.

In order to understand the vehicles accurately, it is vital to understand how motivation is harnessed within each of the vehicles. Motivation at the level of Hinayana is concerned with linearity—the will toward one’s own enlightenment. Because it is a matter of will and individuated effort, the practitioner has to be held in the spiritually astringent geometry of the Vinaya—the monastic vows. Without the Vinaya the practitioner’s willpower would be too fragile a catalyst to be operative in terms of maintaining the practice.

Mahayana Sutra

In terms of Mahayana Sutra we teach kindness. This is how we maintain our commitments to all the Lamas of the Nyingma, Kagyüd, Sakya, Gélug, and Bön Schools from whom we have had the privilege of receiving teachings. From this point of view we would say kindness should come before the need to cling to self-cherishing concepts. There is no particular esoteric difficulty in looking after one’s own welfare—that is simply what everybody in the world does, and no special teacher is required for this practice (it is simply a matter of putting yourself first, and always making sure that you get the best for yourself, a matter of self-selection). Kindness should come before indulging in modes of behaviour that override the needs of others in favour fulfilling one’s own needs. Kindness should be the means by which one assesses one’s behaviour. Kindness should come before obeying the dictates of one’s anger or bitterness in relation to others.

Motivation at the level of Mahayana is concerned with laterality, with active compassion—the emotive dynamic that is unable to proceed according to the solitary linearity of personal realisation. The Mahayana practitioner is fuelled by the situation of everyone and everything everywhere. He or she taps into the totality of experience, and is therefore held in the magnanimously interpenetrating geometry of reality. The Mahayana practitioner may maintain the Vinaya, but he or she utilises it as a guide rather than as a self-imposed constraint. Compassion is far stronger than will and the linearity of individuated effort, and so the practitioner does not have to be held as rigidly in terms of specific disciplines.

We may not speak a great deal about bodhicitta, but this does not mean that we do not regard it as absolutely fundamental. We assume that all apprentices regard kindness as fundamental in interpersonal relationships—not such bogus concepts as ‘being real’ ‘being true to oneself’ ‘being honest about one’s feelings’ ‘cutting through people’s bullshit’ ‘being direct’ et cetera. We have always had to point out that ‘being real’ is achieved through practice, not by vomiting one’s subjectivity over others. Motivation is therefore absolutely crucial. What does it really mean merely to be forthright with one’s subjectivity? What actual value is there in pitting your subjectivity against the subjectivity of another person? Naturally we can discuss differences with vajra brothers and sisters, and naturally such discussions do not always reach a point of resolution. That is not really important or consequential. What is important is that we remember that the discussion of differences is, at best, the friendly exploration of each other’s transient subjectivity.

Vajrayana: The Practice and ‘Sense of Tantra’

In terms of Tantra, we teach the importance of practising the view of Tantra. Tantra means thread or continuity and is related to Sanskrit terms that deal with weaving. In this context, Tantra refers to a practice and a view in which emptiness and form are the warp and weft of reality. Emptiness is seen as being the medium of continuity. The practice of Tantra, as you know, includes the methods of envisionment and awareness-spell. In one sense when we use the word Tantra, we are referring to the classification of practice that relates to the principle of transformation. But the word Tantra can be used in a variety of ways, and we think it would be useful at this point to clarify the ways in which the word is used.

Tantra is part of Dorje Thegpa, or Vajrayana. The word dorje (rDo-rJe) is translated in many different ways. ‘rDo’ means ‘stone’, and ‘rJe’ means ‘lord’, and together the word refers to the lord of stones – the diamond. The diamond has certain qualities. It is the hardest substance, and the substance that will cut all other substances. This carries the sense of indestructibility. Usually when we translate this word, the word that we use is ‘indestructibility’. When we talk about the vajra nature, we mean the indestructible lucid lucent emptiness, which is the ground of our being.

The idea of indestructibility is vital when we consider Vajrayana. It means that the dynamic tension of our situation is itself indestructible—we are where we are. We cannot snap our fingers and change location to a place where ‘everything is all right’. We cannot wake up and find that it was all a bad dream. We cannot suddenly be someone different. We cannot escape from the pleasure or pain of the moment. We can only wriggle like worms on hooks, or we can be practitioners. Vajrayana is somewhat blunt about that. From the Vajrayana perspective, you can either be a practitioner or not. Whether we are wriggling worms, or the fish who is biting at the worms, is irrelevant. Maybe we are the fish thrashing on the end of the line, drowning in the air, or maybe we are the anglers trying to reduce blood-pressure by taking up a ‘peaceful sport’ but having heart attacks anyway. It is irrelevant. It is not the pain or the pleasure that make the practitioner. The practitioner does not become involved with trying to escape pain at all cost. The practitioner may fight for his or her life, but not in desperation. Vajrayana means indestructibility. The worm on the end of the line has to dance rather than wriggle. So does the fish, and so does the angler with cardiac failure.

Of course, unfortunately, it is not always that painful or that pleasurable (let us not forget that it can be intensely pleasurable) but we can always have the sense in which life can be lived with fantastic aplomb. Vajrayana means indestructibility. So Vajrayana means that we can dance; in fact, it means that we recognise the fact that dance simply happens. We dance or get danced. Life is either delicious or it’s delicious. Vajrayana means indestructibility. Life is either hard or it’s hard. The only choice is the acknowledgement that there is no choice. Vajrayana means indestructibility. We can be Padmasambhava or Yeshé Tsogyel experiencing what we experience; or we can be victims of circumstances. Vajrayana means indestructibility. To recognise that indestructible emptiness is the thread of continuity which exists throughout the fabric of our experience, is to be free to let the texture of reality be what it is.

Dorje is also translated as ‘adamantine’, or ‘thunderbolt’. Vajrayana could be translated as ‘the thunderbolt path’. We quite like the image of the thunderbolt, because it conveys the idea of a massive voltage that cuts through everything. Whenever we talk about Vajrayana we talk about ‘riding the energy of duality’, or of ‘grasping the bare electrical cables of existence and non-existence’. Whenever we talk about Vajrayana, the language gets electrical; it gets powerful, sharp, vivid, complex, and somewhat boundless. These are the qualities of Vajrayana.

Motivation at the level of Vajrayana is devotion to the vajra master—the surgically flamboyant abandonment to the energy of ambivalence in terms of relating directly to the enlightened state. The Lama becomes the colour and shape of every perspective, and one’s Hinayana linearity and Mahayana laterality are turned inside-out. Active-compassion and drive still function, but they function within the kyil’khor of the Lama. The Tantric practitioner is therefore held within the explosive technicolour geometry of the dual/non-dual dance of relationship with the Lama. The rôle of the Vajra Master is to transcend subjective-objective polarity and provide a non-dual ‘pole’ in terms of a reality that has nothing to do with any conventional rationale. This is pertinent in terms of working with motivation.

Vajrayana: Dzogchen

Many people have become keen on receiving Dzogchen teachings. We feel most happy that these teachings have become more readily available, but we feel that it is a shame that people become lost and almost terminally bewildered within the limitlessness of its view. Dzogchen, when misunderstood, can simply nurture the modern Western disease of ‘ultimatism’. The symptoms of ‘ultimatism’ are lack of connection with lineage and disassociation with the power of the tradition. When these problems of lack of passion-in-view are experienced, we spiritually starve to death. So, it is vital that the views of Dzogchen and Tantra inspire and ignite the spaciousness and passion of the path. If we neglect the view of Tantra, we lose the immense richness that exists in experiencing our own lives. The fire and ice of our existence are a tremendous source of energy in entering the electricity of the view. This is why we emphasise practising the view of Tantra.

Many Western Buddhists we have met seem to approach Dzogchen in particular as a means of personal realisation. Their motivation often seems to be the acquisition of special experiences.

If we approach Dzogchen or Tantra without a highly developed value for kindness (and without the strong wish to liberate everyone and everything everywhere from self-defeating cycles of dualism) what we are practising cannot be called either Dzogchen or Tantra—it is merely a prosaic form of Hinayana. If, what is more, our practice of this prosaic form of Hinayana is without discipline and impeccable benevolence—then what we are practising cannot even be called Hinayana. We will merely have distorted Dzogchen and Tantra into a series of New Age techniques. Buddhism is a compassionate system at all levels—even though the word compassion (chang-chub-sem) has a wide spectrum of meaning. Although we continually stress that each vehicle has its unique base and path, it should be understood that the bases and paths of Dzogchen and Tantra contain the motivational qualities of the Sutric bases and paths.