Igor Berkhin

Transpersonal Buddhism
Wy is all zis mess about zis Cahruso? Is tehrible,
no voice, no melody.
U heard him sing?
U know Avi? He sang to me.
From Odessa Jewish folklore
In April 2010 I was invited to present at the 17-th International Transpersonal Conference in
Moscow. I didn't really know what this misterious word transpersonal meant, so I made a brief
research first of all about who is who at the field and then I read several books by most prominent
transpersonal figures and also watched some of them on Youtube and other web-resources. I was
surprised to see how much they refer to different Buddhist ideas and, of course, I could be happy
about that. But the bigger surprise was how superficially Buddhist theory and practice was treated
and how many misconceptions and distorted ideas were presented as authentically Buddhist. So
many times I could read a sentence about some idea or experience its author could have saying:
This is what Buddhists call... and then some famous Buddhist term would be mentioned. Usually
wrong way.
In the Conference I could see presenters who were using such sophisticated words like quantum
leap but looked obviously unable to solve even the simplest differential equation. However,
quantum leap sounds nice and mysterious. As well as mandala, dharmakaya, tummo etc. In
general I would characterize the spirit of the Conference as suffocating atmosphere of love and
tolerance lacking driving force of scientific quest. Even evident nonsense and incompetence
tended to be treated in a psychotherapeutic way, without even slightly objecting or disproving,
which was making definitely impossible any fruitful scientific discussion. It is quite understandable
because a conciderable part of the audience as well as quite a few presenters would definitely need
a good deal of psychiatric help but such situation can hardly be called Revolution of Consciousness,
an ambitious slogan the Conference was held under. I would say that in such revolution I would
easily see myself on a reactionist side.
I expected to meet the avant-guard of modern science of consciousness but instead what I
encountered was more similar to a New Age festival adorned with the presence of transpersonal
che-guevaras sharing with the audience their memories about good old days. Even though there
were some exceptions showing a good deal of critical reasoning, openness of mind, and recognizing
limits of one's own competence, still I should admit that in general I was really disappointed. Of
course, it's a fault of my ungrounded expectations, not of a conference as such. Anyway, finally I
pointed out some presenter's incompetence in the field where I have some knowledge, and, of
course, it was later characterized as hostile and personal. Well, it was. But discussion is a great
fun, it's a sport that requires emotions as fuel. There are probably some cultural regulations of how
discussions should be, but being brought up in a quite barbarian culture I love this sport of debate
rough and unprotected. However, afterwards I was proposed by Glenn Hartelius to write a short
paper concerning superficiality of transpersonal studies on traditional spiritual systems and
consequent misrepresentation of the ancient knowledge in the modern context.
Let's see how we learn things. How many books we need to thoroughly study and how many
problems we should solve to feel that we really understand mathematics? How many years we

should speak, read and write to really feel that now we understand a foreign language? How many
years of study and practice we need to be qualified as a therapist? Every skill needs years of
practice and qualified guidance. How it can then be possible that after reading several translations
(sometimes doubtful) and surveys (sometimes superficial) we can already feel being experts in
Buddhist phylosophy and meditation? But it is often the case in modern studies on psychology and
philosophy.
I would like to say that I do not question deep spiritual experiences of certain Western psychologists
and phylosophers and their scientific theories, what I doubt is whether their references to Buddhism
are relevant and correct.
It is very pleasant to say that all great spiritual traditions mean the same. Particularly if we feel
that we perfectly know what they mean. Then all evident differences are just ignored or explained
either as insignificant or politically conditioned. But what is this wisdom worth if its bearer is
conditioned politically? Maybe in transpersonal world such wisdom has its value but in
Buddhism it definitely does not. Why most important Buddhist teachers starting from Buddha
Shakyamuni himself were saying that Buddhadharma has some very special and highly important
wisdom other traditions don't have? Why even within Buddhism there's a meticulous differentiation
of wrong ideas and mistaken meditations that do not allow us to really understand Buddha's
message? Why such important teachers like Nagarjuna or Padmasambhava paid so much attention
to explaining erroneous views of different categories of buddhists themselves? There are very
precise reasons for that. Correct understanding is extremely subtle and intangible and the further
one goes into the depth the clearer become difficulties. The point of precisely studying what is
called wrong views is not denigrating someone else's view but discovering one's own mistakes
that are usually very typical for all people regardless whether they claim to follow Buddhadharma
or not.
Those who are trying to procrust all traditions into one single scheme seem to understand Buddhism
better than Buddha, understand advaita better than Shankaracharya, understand Christianity better
than Jesus Christ. It is very different from what His Holiness the Dalai Lama is doing, for example,
trying not to reconcile different traditions, which is impossible for reconciled traditions can be no
longer concidered traditional, but rather to turn FOLLOWERS of different religions to the common
human experience of compassion thus pacifying aggressiveness of human minds regardless their
religious identity.
So, let's concider some misinterpretations of Buddhist ideas widely spread in transpersonal world.
The most distinctive is probably an attempt to interprete the idea of Universal Consciousness
some sub- or un-conscious mind or spirit common for all beings or at least for all humans in
Buddhist terms. This idea seems to be so dear to transpersonal scholars but it is never found in
buddist texts of any traditions unless in the context of being explicitly denied. This idea contradicts
the buddhist principle of karma (which may be different from the hinduist principle of karma)
because sharing the same consciousness we would all experience the same results coming from
anyone's action. So, it is incorrect to identify alaya-vijnana with Universal Consciousness of
transpersonalists even though this term is sometimes translated this way. Alaya-vijnana is defined as
a storage of all impressions but it is strictly individual, it is not something shared by different
individuals. There's also a meditative experience defined as all is consciousness but it is just a
transient state of deluded mind and not at all One-for-All universal mind. Even though Buddhist
teachers use words like Single Mind or Unique Mind it is just indication that all phenomena
manifesting to our perception are nothing but our own mind, that there's no separation between
observing mind and mind observed, but it has nothing to do with an idea of Cosmic Supermind.
Also the term alaya, the all-ground, which is characteristic not to yogachara phylosophy but to

dzogchen, is used not in universal but in individual sense. When we say we discover the all-ground
(tib. kun-gzhi) of all dharmas, dharmas should be understood not as objectively existing phenomena
of the outer world but as qualia, events of our experience. In buddhism, what is common or shared
is not consciousness, mind or spirit, but what is called karmic vision which refers to the fact that
even though having individual minds we have coherent perception of the Sun, mountains, sounds of
music and voice, smells etc.
Here I'd like to add a personal observation about the idea of common or universal sub- or unconscious. Unlike buddhism where knowledge manifests individually according to one's unique
situation, in both Judeo-Christian and Vedic cultures there's an idea that all knowledge is contained
in the Book. This Book is one and the same for everyone. So, virtually everyone can have an access
to the Book and extract certain knowledge from this common source. The idea of common sub- or
un-conscious has exactly the same structure. This idea is used for explaining why a person in
transpersonal states can discover a knowledge that doesn't have evident physical sources and seems
coming from someone else's mind. Even though between two individuals separated both in time and
space there can be a transfer of knowledge, the very idea of common mind doesn't stand Occam's
razor. Much better and simpler model can be internet: even though internet looks like single
database accessible for all, in fact, it is a network of separate data-storages and every single datum
is stored not in internet as a whole but on an individual server or computer. And each datum can be
transferred from one storage to another only if there's a precise connection between them that
includes both physical link and compatible software. And this model pretty much corresponds to the
buddhist idea of karmic connection between individuals. This connection can be established
through certain coincidence and without such connection any transfer of knowledge between two
individuals, whether it's conscious, subconscious, or unconscious, is not possible.
Even buddhas do not share the same mind. Although dharmakaya is explained as an enlightened
mind which is the same for all buddhas, but sameness here means that its potential qualifications are
equal for all buddhas and doesn't mean that buddhas have just one single dharmakaya for all of
them.
Non-duality is also very often mentioned in transpersonal discourse. But there are so many different
kinds of meditative and cognitive non-dual experiences that are not the same. Many experiences
that do not explicitly involve feeling of subject and object being separate entities, in real sense, can
be just transient states of deluded mind. An emptiness where the separation between subject and
object is not felt or thought is NOT yet non-dual dharmakaya. Non-duality of absolute truth and
relative truth explained in sutras is completely different, for example, from non-duality of five
wisdoms and eight consciousnesses explained in higher tantras or from non-duality of calm state
and movement explained in dzogchen.
A profound treaty on different kinds of non-duality in both Indian and Chinese mahayana, in
vajrayana higher tantras, and also in dzogchen-atiyoga can be found in bSam-gtan Mig-sgron (Light
for the Eyes of Contemplation), an encyclopaedic work from the 9-th century AD presenting major
Buddhist traditions practiced in Tibet at that time, written by gNubs-chen Sangs-rgyas Ye-shes, a
brilliant scholar and very important dzogchen master.
Mandalas and deities. Starting from C.G.Jung there's a tendency to interprete images of Tibetan
Vajrayana as archetypal, that is extracted from somehow inherited content of collective
unconscious. In general it is very easy to understand why Jung's interpretations of Tibetan
Buddhism were erroneous: he had no access to authentic sources. What was available at that time
were just romantic fantasies by W.Y.Ewans-Wentz and still bigger fantasies coming from
theosophical circles.

So, for Jung, for example, any concentrical combination of a circle and a square (or a cross) was
already a mandala. This has nothing to do with what mandala means in vajrayana. In Tibetan,
mandala (dkyil-'khor) is explained as an environment or dimension (lit. circumference, 'khor)
having a center (dkyil). Geometrical reference is purely metaphoric, mandala is no more round than
horizon or celestial dome, it is infinite and limitless but structured by it's center. And the center is
marked with a seed syllable representing the sound, specific for this mandala. Even though the
attention of Western psychologists is attracted to the geometry of mandala, the more important
aspect of mandala is the sound. Another name for vajrayana is mantrayana and mantra means
sound. Sound cannot be located but it has its medium and the medium is structured by the sound.
So, the most appropriate example from Western culture could be a Borgesian allegory of Pascal's
sphere, a sphere with its circumference being nowhere and its center being everywhere.
When the sound unfolds it takes a form of a deity. But the main aspect of a deity is again not its
geometry but its emptiness, its unsubstantiality and illusoriness. This is always the main message of
the deity and its mandala, particularly in lower or outer tantras. Through the example of mandala, a
practitioner can directly understand non-duality of absolute and relative which roughly means that
things (or we can rather say qualia) can appear and function being substantially non-existent. And
this understanding is to be applied for all other experiences we can have.
Are mandalas with their deities a part of Tibetan culture? It's something interesting. Originally
mandalas with their sounds and forms of deities appeared in India, not in Tibet. Every tantric
system has its precise origin related first of all to some individual buddha (who could live in a
completely different time and place and can be concidered legendary) and to some historical
buddhist mahasiddha, a practitioner who had sufficient capacities to contact the wisdom of this
buddha and to introduce to human world a method for obtaining his wisdom. And all the aspects of
such method were supposed to be secret and could be revealed only through the process of initiation
that implies transformation of all individual aspects of a student. An initiate has a commitment not
to disclose to outsiders anything related to the initiation: forms of the mandala and the deity, ritual
objects like a vajra, a bell, or even a rosary, and most of all the sound of the mantra. This secrecy is
very important for the practice to be effective because all processes of tantric practice are extremely
sensitive for others' attention. But of course, many practitioners both in India and Tibet didn't keep
this secrecy. Particularly in Tibet where tantric teaching became very popular and where a
conciderable number of Tibetans were receiving initiations at least in a simplified form, not for
really practicing them but as a kind of religious blessing. In this way these images and sounds
became part of Tibetan culture. So, it can be roughly said (just to give a general idea) that for each
mandala or mantra there can be two presentations that appear identical: one is authentic, received
through the process of proper initiation, and this is not a public domain being restricted only to
those who really practice such method, and the other is a part of popular religious culture having
traces of tantric practice without being such. This is a public domain, this is a part of Tibetan (and
now also Western) culture, but it's spiritual value is completely different. As soon as any mantra is
pronounced or figure of a deity is explained outside of the context of tantric transmission, it
immediately becomes a public domain and is no longer a method of vajrayana practice. As my
Teacher Chogyal Namkhai Norbu is joking, you can find a parrot pecking insects while reciting
famous six-sillable mantra of the buddha of compassion. So, originally tantric images after entering
public domain become just ordinary popular mythology. They can become an object of
anthropological studies but these studies will establish not so much about original tantric practices.
Saying briefly, all images of vajrayana are not something automatically inherited by someone born
in Tibetan culture. They do not exist in an individual mind-stream before being implanted there
through the process of initiation (not necessarily during present life-time). That's why they do not
belong to the domain of collective psyche, collective unconscious, collective spirit etc. (without
discussing whether such collective things are something more than abstract ideas).

Graphic representations of the mandala refer to the structure of our energy- or vajra-body: system of
pranas, chakras, channels and bindus (Tib. thig-le). This system underlies the material level of
human organism and serves as a support for the mind as well as a media between mind and physical
body. It can be put into the category of unconscious because usually we are not aware of it, but in
the same way unconscious can be applied to our internal organs like liver or brain we are usually
not aware of. And again it refers to our individual being, not to collective psyche. The structure of
vajra-body is described slightly differently in different tantras because it is not something definitely
established and depends upon performed practice. Still the basic structure is more or less the same
in all buddhist tantras and this common structure is quite different from the famous Hindu
presentation of sushumna channel and its seven chakras. Unlike graduality of Hindu chakras,
vajrayana chakras have nothing to do with an idea of gradual evolution of consciousness presented
by the ascend of Kundalini through chakras. This idea is very popular in transpersonal psychology,
but in vajrayana it would be ridiculous to say that the psychic processes related to upper chakras are
more spiritually evolved than those of lower chakras.
Tummo or psychic heat. Another example of how traditional knowledge can be easily misinterpreted
by modern scholars. There are many researches on what is called tummo in Tibetan buddhism.
There are many experiments both with Tibetan monks and western enthusiasts concentrated on
overcoming cold. Usually it's concidered the main goal of this practice probably due to the
understanding that Tibet is a cold place. But this approach completely ignores the fact that the
practice of tummo originally appeared in India where the very idea of overcoming cold looks totally
ridiculous. The essence of tummo can be rather explained as developing very strong sensation of
bliss both in mind and body, which is not an ordinary pleasure but something that cannot be
concretely identified and grasped as an object of attachment. But when I asked one Russian
researcher of applying breathing techniques for developing cold resistance why he is calling that
tummo while traditionally tummo means something completely different, he answered that what he
studies is transpersonal tummo. And really, I had nothing to answer.
One more popular subject of psychological speculations is The Tibetan Book of the Dead. First of
all it's very title is already totally misleading being influenced by the ideas derived from The
Egyptian Book of the Dead. Even though the original translation into English was made by a
Tibetan lama, the editor of this book was highly incompetent in the subject and very much
influenced by theosophy (I cannot say that everything in this edition is wrong, but without being
already familiar with the subject it is impossible to see where is the original and where is the
editor). This work became a source of inspiration for Jung who developed further interpretations
adding German romanticism and freudism. And then it went ahead in the West with each new
interpreter adding something new: neo-vedanta, quantum physics, neurophysiology etc. It reminds
me of an old Soviet joke referring to the times when any access to the Western culture was strictly
limited for us, so I can't help sharing it. I don't know if the content is politically correct according to
modern standards but it's a part of my cultural heritage.
French style sex: Jaques and Lucille are making love in bed. German style sex: fat Hans is peeping
through the keyhole at Jaques and Lucille making love in bed. Italian style sex: director Cesare is
shooting a movie about fat Hans peeping through the keyhole at Jaques and Lucille making love in
bed. Russian style sex: on a communist meeting engineer Petrov is publicly critisized for having
secretly watched a movie by director Cesare about fat Hans peeping through the keyhole at Jaques
and Lucille making love in bed.
To refute step by step various misinterpretations of Bardo Thodol (Liberation through Hearing in an
Intermediate State, the actual title of the book) is no more fruiful than refuting childish believes
about Santa-Claus or about babies being brought by a stork, so I'd like just to briefly mention that

Bardo Thodol is not really about what an average person experiences between death and new
rebirth, it is a set of instructions for a practitioner of anuyoga (the highest among all Buddhist
tantric systems) or dzogchen-atiyoga (which is not a tantric system). The instructions from Bardo
Thodol can be useful and relevant not for someone who was a Tibetan, not even for someone who
was formally initiated into vajrayana, but only for very experienced practitioners who already have
been very much familiar with the ultimate meaning of vajrayana and particularly dzogchen. Due to
the shock caused by strong sufferings of the physical death, a practitioner can be easily distracted
from his knowledge and then might need an assistance from his root guru or experienced fellowpractitioner. It is ridiculous to say, for example, that an average person after death has a chance to
experience dharmakaya: there's no such chance unless one didn't have precise knowledge of
dharmakaya while still being alive. Even though this text became a part of Tibetan funeral culture
in most cases its reading for a diseased makes no or almost no effect on postmortal adventures of
this dead person.
In general, transpersonal psychology seems to make stress mainly on states of consciousness and
their transformative effect on psyche and behaviour whereas in all buddhist traditions cognitive
aspect of mind is of utmost importance. A state of consciousness can have completely different
value depending on what is cognized while being in this state. And such cognitive differences which
are so crucial for buddhism are mostly ingnored by many transpersonal researchers both prominent
and average, and this is a base for misinterpreting buddhist concepts and methods.
So, I hope that these clumsy notes of such lazy idler like me can be useful for those who are
interested to discover their own misconceptions regarding buddhism and particularly vajrayana. Of
course, for acquiring correct knowledge it is necessary to find a qualified teacher and not just rely
on books. I'm grateful to Glenn Hartelius for asking me to write this paper because for me it's a big
fun and pleasure.

Recommended reading
- The Supreme Source, The Kunjed Gyalpo, The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde, Chgyal
Namkhai Norbu, Adriano Clemente, Snow Lion Publications, Ithaca, New York, USA
- Namkhai Norbu, Il Libro Tibetano dei Morti, Newton Compton Editori, 1983 (English edition will
be coming out soon)
- On Birth, Life and Death, Chgyal Namkhai Norbu, Shang Shung Edizioni, Arcidosso, Italy, 2006
- Man-ngag lTa-ba'i phreng-ba (Upadesha the Garland of Views), Padmasambhava
- bSam-gtan Mig-sgron (Light for the Eyes of Contemplation), gNubs-chen Sangs-rgyas Ye-shes
- Brahmajala-sutta and many other suttas from the Pali Tipitaka (various translations can be easily
found in internet)
- The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra (particularly chapter 45), Translated into English by Kosho
Yamamoto, 1973, Edited and revised by Dr. Tony Page, 2007