Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 48-minute session, John Landaw explores how tantric practice transforms our relationship with desire and sense objects. He explains the core principle: while ordinary beings contract around objects and reinforce ego-fixation, tantric practitioners learn to experience pleasure and bliss while maintaining a wisdom understanding of emptiness, resulting in greater openness and awareness. Landaw compares the hinyana approach of renunciation and stepping back from objects with the tantric approach of transforming them, emphasizing that the former foundation is essential—without it, the mind remains too caught to work with desire skillfully. He outlines the four levels of tantra and their specific deity practices (Chenrezig for compassion, Mañjuśrī for wisdom, Tārā for overcoming hindrances), then turns to the highest tantric distinction between mother tantra and father tantra, not based on deity gender but on whether they emphasize clear light or illusory body. He culminates in the Buddhahood ideal: a union where one simultaneously rests in direct perception of emptiness while engaging fully with conventional reality, understanding all experience as reflecting the nature of one’s own mind. The teaching concludes with audience questions ranging from miracle-working and collective karma to the non-dual nature of enlightened consciousness. Designed for practitioners already familiar with Buddhist foundations.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 14 Intro to Tantra Day 3 no date.mp3
UUID: fb77ae2b-e439-429a-aba6-8709e376b73b
Teacher: John Landaw
Collection: Introduction to Tantra (John Landaw)
Date: 1984 (exact day not recorded)
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Words: ~5,238
And so typically what happens here is transformation of the objects indicates that we try to remove from the objects all of our false projections about them as being so solid and self contained, self existent, we see them also in the nature of emptiness, free of all projections. And then from the state of emptiness, they arise again in a very pure form, a very expansive form. And then at different stages of the practice, these transformed offerings are then offered to ourselves. There’s parts of the practice when they’re offered to the guru, they’re offered to the deity existing outside of oneself, and as well offered to oneself. And here, the main point to be made is that we, in our meditation, we enjoy, we take pleasure in the contact with these objects, while at the same time maintaining a wisdom understanding emptiness.
So what’s happening here can be explained maybe by using a kind of a visual example. Usually, when we have an object with a sense, it’s a bit like this. So it’s like a kind of magnetic core, and here’s our attention out here. And there’s the appearance of the object, and our attention narrows onto it. Now in the process of focusing in on it, it seems very exciting, but eventually the mind tends to close down on the object.
And instead of becoming more aware of our surroundings, more aware of ourselves, more aware of reality, our mind tends to collapse in the object, around the object. Now here, what we’re attempting to nourish is a mind which, as it is experiencing the energy of contacting the object, stays fully open. So this tendency of collapsing, or falling into some kind of dullness or unconsciousness, is reversed, and instead, one’s understanding of spaciousness, of emptiness, is increased. So desirable objects which to ordinary beings cause them to contract more around their ego identity, become more fixed and solid and restricted. In tantric practices are used to cultivate the exact opposite behavior, that is, gaining more expansiveness, openness, and so forth.
So instead of being shunned, objects of desire are used to enhance this wisdom emptiness, this all embracing wisdom. So, for instance, in the meditations that we did, whether they’ve been successful a lot or a little or not at all, we can get some sense, for instance, with the nine round breathing and heat and so forth, that it’s possible to gain a sense of pleasure, a sense of bliss, which has an opening out quality to rather than a contractive quality. Something which increases our awareness of reality, than forcing us into the mold of our own ego identity, reinforcing that. And the more we practice something like that, the more we can gain a taste of that experience. So this runs throughout the Tantric practice in which we try to amalgamate an experience of emptiness on one hand, which is this unrestricted wisdom, together with pleasure or bliss.
So very often the tantric path is understood as a path of the union of emptiness and bliss, of voidness and bliss. So the more we understand, the more we get out of our petty identity, the more we understand emptiness, the more blissful the experience. And the more blissful the experience, the more we understand emptiness, not just intellectually, but with our whole being. And then eventually, at the very, you know, culmination of the practice, we’re actually able to arouse that subtle mind, which is both blissful and is the perfect mind for understanding emptiness directly. So in that mind, there is a union of emptiness and bliss experience.
So again, to note the differences, at the earlier so called Hīnayāna stage of practice, things like pleasure and bliss and so forth, because they arise in relationship to an ignorant ego grasping mind, are rightly understood as dangers, because they trap the mind further in its old ingrained habits. But through the process of training the mind and transforming it, then these same pleasures can be used to enhance the experience of reality, the experience of emptiness. Now, we may feel that, well, that last path, that path of Tantra certainly sounds a lot more enjoyable than the first one, so I’ll just skip over Hīnayāna. I’ll skip over that and go right into Tantra, But that would be a very, very big mistake, because the only reason that one can undergo the transformation is because earlier one had practiced a certain level of moderation and control over the body, speech, and mind, over the sense doors, the doors of the senses. In other words, we need a space in which the transformation can take place.
And the space is provided by this attitude of renunciation or definite emergence, where we step back a little bit from that steel trap reaction of object, you know, stimulus response, you know, the way our senses, the way our mind ordinarily runs. So without that so called Hīnayāna training of stepping back to begin with, there’s no way of doing the transformation because our mind remains so glommed onto the object. You know, there’s no possibility of transformation. But if we can train the mind to be able to step back, to understand the fluidity of the situation, the emptiness of the situation, then we’re in a position to affect this kind of tantric transformation. So these vehicles, the Hīnayāna, Mahāyāna, Tantrayāna vehicles, are all, in a sense, one vehicle.
They’re all one progressive practice. And what it’s up to us to do is to study, of course, to practice, of course, you know, in as clear a way as we can, but also to remain reasonable. Because the reason we got on to this whole discussion was because I mentioned that there are four levels of Tantra, and one of the ways of differentiating them is how much pleasure or bliss can be taken into the path and transformed. So we have to be reasonable. At certain stages, we could attempt to take on too much, and that would defeat the purpose of the practice.
In one of Lama’s lectures, spoke about he gave an analogy of a developing country that suddenly imports a lot of industrial goods, you know, and with the idea that this is somehow going to bring happiness to the people. But there is no way for that primitive type of society to absorb those goods and services, and so it just leads to more unrest. And he said this is a really good example of overstepping one’s practice in Tantra, thinking, Okay, now I’m a great Tantric yogi and practitioner, so I can transform all energy, so I’ll, you know, I’ll throw myself right in the midst of the most tantalizing, exciting, desirable types of sense objects imaginable, and take their energy as a spiritual path. Again, that’s just arrogance. One has to be ready.
In the beginning of the practice, typically, one works on the level of visualization and imagination. Starts slowly. Gains an experience of transformation on a very basic level, and then can build up. Eventually, it’s possible to get in touch with the very basic energy systems within the body, and take advantage of their energy, transform their energy. So this seed syllable meditation is just a beginning way of getting contact with this.
You know, we talk about helping light the inner fire and melting the white drops and having them descend. This is the beginning. This is the very beginning of the process in which we’re able to transform these almost energy of nuclear potential, and transforming it into a conscious experience rather than an overwhelming experience. So there are these four levels of Tantra, and the particular practices are named after the particular deity that is the main focus of each practice. So for instance, on the first level, on the Kriyā level, there are practices of Chenrezig, practices of Tārā, and so forth, each one specializing in a particular quality of the enlightened mind that we want to develop.
So for instance, the practice of Chenrezig has to do specifically with the development of compassion. Practice in Mañjuśrī, specifically with the development of wisdom, and so forth. Tārā has a specific relationship with purity and overcoming hindrances to one’s lifespan and to one’s practice. There’s the some are internal mental hindrances, and some are life hindrances, like diseases and things like that. But a lot has to do with just what they call interferences, and these occur, for instance like a lot of times when we start training ourselves in dharma, we discover that we seem to be more susceptible to certain interferences.
Dharma practitioners typically are disturbed by things, get disturbed by things, things that tend to interfere with their practice. Some of them are internal, and some of them can even be external, the forms of annoying people who come in and annoy them and interfere with the practice. So things like White Tārā and so forth give us a certain it’s almost like a protective shield against those types of interferences, so that the Dharma practice can actually be cultivated. So eventually, on the highest level of tantra, there is yet another division which is talked about, and this is the division into mother tantra and father tantra. Now, some people think that if the deity is female, then it’s a mother tantra, if the deity is male, it’s a father tantra, but that’s not the distinction at all.
There are cases, for instance, of male deities who are actually classified as Mother Tantra, so that’s not where the distinction is being made. Distinction is being made as to whether the practice is emphasizing the clear light, or whether it’s emphasizing the so called illusory body. If it emphasizes the clear light, then it’s Mother Tantra, and if it emphasizes the illusory body, then it’s Father Tantra. Now, all Tantric practices contain elements of both clear light and illusory body, But certain Tantras emphasize one more than the other, and that’s where the distinction comes. But eventually there has to be a union of clear light and illusory body.
Now, clear light, we have already an inkling of what that means, and this is the very subtlest level of consciousness. What we get to, for instance, in the death evolution meditation, through channeling the wind into the central space. The illusory body is like the dream body. It’s the way the clear light mind manifests itself in the form of a deity, of the meditation of deity that one’s practicing. So in one’s practice, there is practice goes over many stages, and in certain parts, the main emphasis is on inducing the clear light experience.
At other points, from that, the illusory body is attained. And then eventually there’s a union where one has attained this so called illusory body, and at the same time is maintaining the experience of clear light. So eventually there’s a union. And when this union is perfected, then one has attained enlightenment. And we can understand that by realizing what makes a Buddha, what makes an enlightened being so different from all other beings.
And here, remember earlier we were talking about ārya beings as beings who have an insight into reality and insight into emptiness? Well, are beings who, when they’re in their meditative state of meditative absorption, and they’re ridding themselves of of wrong views, let’s say concerning themselves, they achieve a direct insight into emptiness, into the complete absence of all those wrong views, And to their mind, all that appears is this emptiness, this lack of wrong view, just as a clear vacuity. Then, when their meditation finishes and they arise from meditation, then all ordinary conventional appearances appear to their mind once again. And through the force of past habit, they appear as if they were concrete individual entities, each having their own specific nature, their own specific self contained quality. Now, in emptiness meditation, this being understands that that type of appearance is false.
Things don’t possess, and they don’t exist from their own side as such solid concrete entities. But when the emptiness meditation is finished, these things reappear that way. They appear again that way, falsely. But the meditator no longer believes in their false appearance, is no longer misled by them. It’s it’s similar to a person who is out in the desert and sees a mirage and mistakes it for water and runs up to it and discovers there’s no water there and realizes, oh, it’s only a mirage, then goes back to the original point and turns on and looks.
Now the second time the person looks, all of the conditions are still there for the mirage to appear, But the person no longer gets thirsty, you know, and develops this anxiety or this wish to run-in the direction of the mirage because he realizes it’s only mirage, it’s not water. So similarly, for an Ārya being, when in meditation, there’s a direct seeing of the way things exist, empty of all projections, self existence, and so forth. Then outside of meditation, things appear in their ordinary, concrete, self existent way, but the person is no longer misled by those appearances. But they still appear that way. And so the spiritual path from then on is a matter of training more and more in this emptiness meditation.
Meditation. And eventually a point is reached when, with one mind, at one time, we understand emptiness, we understand the way things exist, and at the same time, things appear to us. Ordinary conventional objects continue to appear, and we can use them and manipulate them. In other words, there’s the possibility of action interaction. Ordinarily, when we’re just meditating on emptiness, there’s no possibility to do anything, because nothing is appearing to mind except this emptiness, this vacuity, this lack of incorrect views.
And the time for action is when things appear, but we look at them as illusions. So up until the time of enlightenment, these two attitudes, these two realizations have to alternate with each other. Either we’re engrossed in the experience of emptiness on one hand, or we’re dealing with illusory type objects on the other. The state of Buddhahood is unique in that with one mind continuously, an enlightened being is both dealing with the ordinary objects of life, and at the same time seeing directly their underlying empty nature, their lack of false all the false projections that are normally projected onto these things. Well, initially, what becomes different is that the mind is no longer shaken by these objects.
Buddhism generally doesn’t describe what’s seen, because until one has the experience, if we were to know, words don’t carry the description, and if we put into words, then again, we make that concrete. But when people have tentatively used words to describe the appearance, then things show their interrelated nature more obviously. At the moment, everything that we see seems very concrete and separate, one to another. Things appear as if they were nouns, you know, solid, separate nouns, known by their separate names. We don’t see things as processes or verbs.
We have to think quite a while to see their interaction, to understand their interaction. Usually our understanding is quite intellectual. But when this false view of separate, concrete, unrelated self identity is removed, then there is this direct appreciation of the interrelatedness of everything, not merely as an intellectual idea but as an experience. So it’s something like that. In fact, a lot of people get turned on to, let’s say, the spiritual path of Buddhism by certain artificial experiences, like drug experiences, during which the mind gets a glimpse of the interrelatedness of things, and then realizing that it’s not enough just to get a glimpse and that there’s many negativities to the drug experience, and that it, in a sense, gives a vision but then reduces the ability of gaining that vision.
Then people turn to something, to teachings in which the same process is described very eloquently, and then gives a meditative path on how to actually come into terms with that reality. So there’s an enormous number of people, in fact, especially in the sixties and seventies, who turned on to Buddhism precisely for this point, is that it’s one of the few systems that gives such a systematic description of what people only, you know, view briefly in these, you know, in these state in these drug states, and yet can be experienced with total clarity to a meditative state, without having any of the dull side effects of the drug experience. So it has something to do with interrelatedness, and also something to do not only with the interrelatedness of objects with each other, but of objects with one’s own mind. Since we tend to view ourselves often as an unrelated observer of our environment, and we tend not to take into account that we are part of that environment, and that our own perceptions and our own conceptions are subtly changing the whole nature of that interrelationship. So with the correct view of emptiness, our own connection with these things is strengthened.
So typically in Tantric practice one is not only generating an image of oneself as the deity, but together with that one is also generating a vision of the mandala. Many people have heard of that the mandala, the environment. So in tantric practices, in higher tantric practices, is a there are meditations from one’s mind as the deity, appears the environment. And so the environment is understood as a reflection of one’s mind. And then with that environment, a certain relationship relationship is set up.
And we can understand that in fact the same thing is true, you know, in this ordinary environment, the transformation that takes place. So there’s a certain interrelatedness thing. Well, just take a very simple example. With our ordinary perception, like if we look at physical objects, there’s glass that we place on the the rug. The glass seems a very self contained object on the rug, you know.
But in fact, science shows us that if we were to observe what’s going on here, you know, all of this that seems so solid and self existent are all wave patterns of energy. And there are certain points in which the wave pattern of the so called rug and that of the glass are interpenetrating each other. Ordinarily, we’re not aware of that. We’re not even aware of it when it takes place on the grosser level. But as the more and more we remove the veils of overcoming our vision, the more we can appreciate this.
Now it’s not somewhat important to appreciate it in terms of the relation of one physical object to another physical object, but it’s very important to realize that in terms of relationship between our mind and the reality we find ourselves in, you know. Like usually, we think we come into a place, and we find a place good or bad, you know, just to speak very simply. You know? I like this place. I don’t like this place.
Why do I like it? Because it’s a nice place. So we have this vision of a self existent nice environment. It’s only nice because of some relationship it has with our mind. And it’s only ugly and uncomfortable because of some relationship it has with our mind.
So if we’re able to transform our mind, we’re actually able to transform our experience with these objects rather than think we’re hopeless or helpless, make these better, you know, and we’re swayed by the self existing environment. In fact, it’s just the other way around. The environment takes its qualities from the nature of our mind. So for instance, it’s said that when a person attains enlightenment, then he or she achieves the pure land of the Buddha, a Buddha field. But that Buddha field exists for the Buddha’s mind.
So if into this group of people a fully enlightened Buddha were to appear, then what we refer to as this room, part of the seminary that we may like or may not like, to the Buddha that is part of his Buddha field is seen in that enlightened way. And by seeing it that way, then the Buddha becomes a much more effective figure in being able to benefit others, as well as experiencing happiness from his own side. Very much that. It’s very much that. It’s like it’s again, you know, it’s this thing that we have this extraordinary potential, you know, nuclear battery in here.
And we’re running on a very, low wattage only because all the energy that’s generated is shunted into the short circuit system of me, and not even any realistic vision of me, but a very distorted vision of me, very distorted, you know, only taking into account a tiny fraction of all of the mental and physical attributes that are there, and just selecting a few and saying that’s me, that’s who I am. So all of that energy gets short circuited around that, and we’re trying to break that, free that energy, in which case then the true kind of communication, interrelationship can actually take place. And then that’s why a lot of in the history of all great spiritual figures, there are miracles. Now miracles are just uses of energy which are unexplained if we accept things on face value, that things are solid, solid, independent, unrelated things, then, you know, relationships across space and movements and so forth are deemed miraculous because we wonder, well, how’d they do that, you know? How could that happen?
But once the full potential of the mind is released, then it’s as if the universe just becomes one’s playground That mind is the basic energy, and all that matter is, just a slower, you know, very slowed down version of material energy. By placing the mind into that system with control, you can easily manipulate the universe instead of being manipulated by it. So it’s very much it’s very much what you describe, describe, from what I understand. And so these so called miraculous powers that think of whether it’s walking on water or creating emanations or plucking things out of space is just, in a sense, just a demonstration that here is a person who has gained such control over the mind that it automatically gains control over the elements. So from the point of view of the person, nothing miraculous is happening at all.
But to us, who are still vibrating at this low level, it seems very miraculous indeed. So when you’re saying Jesus did with the loaves and the fishes. Yeah. I don’t know so much about Jesus, except what’s written, but from, you know, these people who are following these paths of spiritual development from Tibet, all the same things are described at length among the powers demonstrated by these yogis. The ability to levitate, walk on water, make transformations, change one thing to another, We’re all demonstrations of this ability, once the mind is under control, to affect some change in the outer environment.
How I mean, I think you’re talking about a thousand years ago or a hundred years ago? No, it still happens. Control over weather, for instance, is one example. That’s one example. Well, you see what’s tricky, Dalai Lama was once telling jokes about this thing, because he says, is that in most traditions such miraculous powers to display such miraculous powers, has to be for the very, very good reason.
That just to display them just because you have them is considered wrong, it’s not on all, it’s not something to do. And I remember saying to Geshe, or hearing someone say to Geshe Thubten Gyatso, you know, why if the Lamas have such mental control, why don’t they demonstrate it by control of the phenomenon, by doing miracles? And he kind of had a very disgusted look on his face when he said, you know, it wouldn’t help. People’s minds are so solid, it wouldn’t help. And I disagreed, I thought, you know, I’d love to see it.
It made a great difference to me. And then I started hearing stories about people who had relations with gurus, and the gurus did display things, incredible things, you know, things that couldn’t be explained away except by superior mental power. The kind of stories I’d be jealous on hearing, I wish I saw that, or I wish I did that, you know. And yet, when you check up what happened to those disciples who saw it, there was no change in their spiritual practice. Matter of fact, very often they just left the practice altogether.
It didn’t encourage them to follow the spiritual path with any more perseverance or devotion, you know, and so it didn’t have any purpose. But look at the goodness a teacher could do if he came and broke the drought each year. Well, first of all, that has a lot to do with the karma of the beings there. I mean, it was already said that the power of the Buddha of an enlightened being is equal to the power of the people, so there has to be some receptivity there for any change to take place. And plus, sometimes they do do that.
I mean, who’s to say that the world isn’t a nuclear war already if it weren’t for the positive effect of gurus? And when Lama Yeshe and Geshe Lhundrup went to Chenrezig, they did break a long drought, a long standing drought, by doing certain practices, and there was a drought in California that was partially broken by certain practices that done. But you can’t overwhelm the karma of a nation by good intentions. I’m sure there’s attempts to do. The possible light is the net of the impossible.
But anyway, all of this takes place within a context. So if the context is the mind which is already gripped with strong jealousies and fears and doubts and stuff like that, then Buddha can come and perform all the miracles in the world, and it’s not going to affect that self created reality, because we hold on to our habits so strongly. Whether or not the display of these miraculous powers means something to people, you know, it’s really kind of a delicate situation. It can’t be used to just overwhelm suddenly transform people, because it just doesn’t work that way. But anyway, it does indicate that there is that the power of the mind is the predominant power, Whereas we often think that our mind is conditioned by external events, this is only so when we give up our essential nature.
But when we get in touch with our essential nature, then the formula reverses itself, and the mind then becomes the determining factor. In fact, even in ordinary situations, the mind is the determining factor, but to see how that works, you have to look over a long period of time. Reason why a person is finding him or herself in a really difficult situation is because the causes for that were created in previous lifetimes, and now the mind is finding itself reaping that fruit. It’s as if we create a particular house for ourselves by our actions, by our attitudes, and then we have to go live in it. So even the existence of that house, that environment, was really in our own creation, either our own creation as individuals, or in addition to that, our create what they call, what they call collective karma, the things that we do as groups.
I am not in the minds, all the same. Well, that goes back to what Brent said before. The dharmakaya aspect of the enlightened minds all share the same experience, so there’s no way of differentiating the dharmakaya of one Buddha’s mind from the dharmakaya of another. But Buddhists also, like individuals, maintain individual streams of consciousness, manifesting various rupakaya forms, the formed bodies. These these have different lines.
But the dharmakaya experience is one. Once the drop of ego is dissolved, it has to become a drop in the ocean, and you can’t be descended from any other people. Well, that is like the dharmakaya experience, the undifferentiated experience. But from that undifferentiated experience of dharmakaya, of merely being a mind which is pervasive with everything that is, then out of the compassionate motivation to be of benefit, then manifestations come. And those manifestations, you know, the manifestations of one Buddha, the manifestation of the other, they follow separate lines of evolution.
When every sentient being has become one, can they all become one? Yeah. Certainly in their understanding, they will become one. Typically, in Buddhism, there is a certain refraining from expressions like becoming one, all is one. Not so much that there’s an objection to it, that there’s something wrong with it, but that this itself can set up mental image, which then we grasp onto.
So we reify. So typically, Buddhism, instead of making statements like that, they make statements like non-dual or not two. It was an intellectual question. As opposed to saying one, you know. In other words, the emphasis is more on removing the wrong view than saying the right view, which because it’s words, and because words, you know, have that false quality to them, then the mind thinks, oh, then that’s the way it is.
It’s this way. And that just becomes another limited idea. So usually things are expressed more in negative terms of not this and not that, as opposed to it’s like that. So you usually don’t get such clear answers to questions like that because they refrain from saying things which could be taken. Okay.
I think that’s it for that. After a break for the final session this morning before lunch, I was thinking of having a final meditation session, and then have, you know, then over lunch, it can be any kind of discussion that we want on anything. Is that acceptable to people, that kind of way of proceeding, or would people be happier in having discussion and question answer in the next hour instead? Or would it be sufficient to do what we’ve done so far and then just have lunch and speak with discussion? I’d be happy to do what people like.
Maybe just go through people one by one and say what they like to do. Phil? I’ll go to the discussion on some of them. Can’t meditate. But what’s the choice again?
Is it meditation and then discussion or vice versa? No. If we we do meditation, then whatever discussion we have will be, like, at lunchtime. I prefer meditation. Meditation.
The one little fear I have about more discussion and questions is that it’s really possible for them to be kind of there, you know, in areas in which, from my side, I don’t really have the answers anyway, so it’s not so helpful. And even if I did, it’s questionable how helpful they would be, you know? So if the discussion