I guess I have written quite a bit about the so-called Tibetan Book of the Dead. So much so that sometimes I'll think of a new idea during a recitation only to find that I've thought about it before and already written about it.

Something that may really be new is an idea that when doing a recitation, whatever is being recited wouldn't be "heard" in the death betweens like a person sitting next to you hearing you read something. Already I've come across suggestions that in the betweens there aren't barriers of form or language.

Traditionally in Tibet, as I understand, it was ideal if a trained lama did the recitation by the deceased's bedside and it would be recited in Tibetan. But as Tibetan teachings have spread beyond Tibet, ironically spurred by the Red China invasion of Tibet and the ongoing destruction of its culture, there has been recognition that the subtleties of the teachings go beyond "form or language".

Traditionally, these are things that may not have necessarily been considered. But with the spread of Tibetan teachings it's more recognized that the clarity of consciousness in the death betweens transcends language. Language understanding is a trait of concrete human existence, but not of the subtle existence in the betweens as a so-called mental body. And this interpretation is not sourced in the dispersion of Tibetan teachings, but in the work itself.

I'm thinking it's not a matter of language at all. It's not that a recitation can be performed in English and those words can be understood in whatever language the deceased knew. It's not the words that a between being "hears", but impressions, even intentions. It's a mental or emotional communication that is sent as human language, but is "heard" as energy of the intention of the words, not the literal translation of the words.

I don't know what I'm sending out with a recitation of the Tibetan Book of the Dead into an unknown dimension, it might be nothing, it might be fantasy, it might be fiction; or it might just redeem a person that we call a soul.

This idea came about from various specific descriptions of what a between-being may be experiencing, but it's actually a very lightly veiled example of a teaching. I would be wondering why a passage was being presented in this very specific way, clearly a basic teaching.

That led me to think it's not the words that necessarily matter, but reciting the words is sending the teaching as emotion or energy into the unknown and hoping it resonates and leads to something positive. The constant repetition of the deceased's name may attract the consciousness to the recitation, but what's being recited may be received as the deceased's own consciousness, instinct, impression or awareness.

I think maybe the work was composed in a certain culture, whereby the intent was that practitioners could be exposed to the images and guidance as part of practice, and after death when the recitation is done, they would be open to the guidance and recognize the images and remember the teachings and attain liberation.

I think maybe what makes this a sacred work is the template of guidance in the betweens. It doesn't matter that it uses Buddhist/Hindu imagery. If the book is studied and meditated upon, the insights come through and a recitation of it for a between-being may be of benefit.