B. Alan Wallace, 18 Apr 2016
Alan begins by reminding us that in yesterday’s afternoon session we took a roundabout approach of settling the mind in its natural state by first concentrating on the visual, then the auditory and the tactile domains before venturing into the domain of the sixth sense, the space of the mind. Today we will again “walk around the block”, as Alan says, however, not empirically but conceptually. Alan begins by referring once again to the passage of Karma Chagme’s text on shamatha, listing the various extrasensory abilities that can be acquired by a person who has achieved the fourth dhyana, even without realising emptiness. How is it possible that a person who is a metaphysical realist can develop such siddhis? - asks Alan. If, as materialists contend, all is physical, then the account of Karma Chagme is not true. But if one takes the materialist assumption then the so called “placebo effect” (which is in fact a mental effect, the effect of the mind) should not be possible, either. It should be just as impossible as the siddhis. Materialists have no explanation for it whatsoever. Alan calls people who hold such views “flat-minded”. But you can be a metaphysical realist and not be flat-minded - he remarks. To explain how siddhis are possible, Alan turns to two famous Western thinkers: Carl Jung (psychoanalyst) and Wolfgang Pauli (physicist). In their correspondence they explored the mind and body relationship and sought to explain how the mind (which is not physical) interacts with the physical domain. The hypothesis they posited is one of “unus mundus” - an underlying unitary domain of archetypes from which everything emerges. So what we experience - both mental and physical - are displays of this archetypal domain. Alan notes that Wolfgang Pauli was actually so apprehensive of the opinion of his fellow physicists that he allowed for the publication of his correspondence with Carl Jung only after his death. But the theory they proposed was not new. In fact, in Western philosophy, it goes as far back as Pythagoras who also posited the existence of an underlying reality - expressed in mathematical terms - from which the known reality emerges. Pythagoras - Alan reminds us - himself displayed various siddhis and claimed to remember 20 past lives. It is very plausible that Pythagoras learned samadhi from Hindu yogis during his travel to Egypt. Alan hypothesizes that Pythagoras could have reached higher states of samadhi and in this way accessed the form realm which he then described in mathematical terms. The idea of an underlying mathematical reality was also embraced by Plato and passed on through many lineages. The problem for Jung and Pauli was that they had no way of testing their hypothesis. But the Buddhists do. In Buddhism the desire realm arises from the form realm which in turn emerges from the formless realm and one may explore these realms empirically. Alan mentions the concept of “nimittas” which are “signs”, archetypal quintessences existing in the form realm, which one can access through samadhi. There are also the ten “kasinas” (earth, water, fire, air, four colours and space and light) which are objects of advanced dhyana practices described in detail by Buddhaghosa. If one learns how to master these kasinas one may, for example, superimpose the archetype of earth element from the form realm on the water element in our desire realm and in this way walk on water. Hence, by mastering the power of samadhi one can superimpose the archetypes in the form realm on this world to perform the siddhis described in Karma Chagme’s text. This is the explanation. Everything in this world is a projection of the form realm. This is what Alan calls “special theory of ontological relativity”. However, Alan asks an important question: If all elements have archetypal forms - what about the mind? What is the sign of the mind? It is that out of which our mind emerges and manifests itself in the desire realm: the substrate consciousness. All appearances are displays of the substrate consciousness. And one can access it by achieving shamatha. Alan now quotes the Buddha, saying that all phenomena are preceded by the mind. By comprehending the mind all phenomena can be comprehended. When the mind is under control, everything is under control. This sounds like the basis for developing siddhis - comments Alan. And concludes: it is good to learn to master all the kasinas, to undergo all those difficult and time-consuming practices described by Buddhaghosa. But there is a faster way. Dzogchen. So before the meditation Alan appeals: Don’t get distracted - achieve shamatha and realise substrate consciousness! Don’t get distracted - cut through! Don’t get distracted - become a Buddha in this lifetime!
The meditation is on Settling the Mind in its Natural State.
After the meditation Alan reminds us of the central importance of maintaining continuity of stillness in post-meditation. Avoid cognitive fusion with whatever arises. Avoid the projection of “I” and “mine”. We are seeking to become lucid in our waking state. In a dream, if one is lucid, it is obvious that everything emerges and dissolves back into the substrate consciousness. This can be empirically tested. In an analogous way, all appearances in the waking reality arise from the substrate. So in-between sessions we should maintain this way of viewing reality. Especially in our encounters with other people it is important to keep in mind that whatever we perceive is not separate from us - it is always a “you-me” version, never the person as he or she really is.
The meditation starts at 27:20
Please contribute to make these, and future podcasts freely available.
[00:00] Olaso! I want to jump right in. Yesterday, afternoon as I recall, our approach to setting the mind in its natural state, I said it was like walking around the block, remember? Where we by a process of elimination we brought this quality of awareness, with which I think you are quite familiar now, as the stillness, the clarity, brought that to the visual domain letting the light of that awareness be cast upon the visual domain and getting clear take on that and then the auditory, the tactile. We, generally in the Buddhist discourse to Bahya he overlooked the olfactory and gustatory probably because there wasn’t much there ah, so, just Ok, never mind that. And then going to the sixth one, to the sixth domain, and then and the Buddha said in the cognized “or in the mentally perceived there be just the mentally perceived”. So, this is a kind of very very empirical approach to highlighting the obvious fact, which is entirely overlooked in modern psychology, at least mainstream academic psychology, and that is we’re directly perceiving mental events that contrary with the belief of John Searle and many others: we are able to inspect intro, to observe inwardly and observe, not just think, but observe thoughts. So we did that empirically and now I would like to do and I have to be very concise here. I’d like to cover a lot of territory, before we return to the practice. I would like to now “walk around the block” not empirically as we did yesterday, but rather, conceptually. And we’ll start with a question, because as you can tell, I’m like a dog with a bone and I’m not letting go of this statement from the 100,000 verse prajna paramita that a person who has achieved the fourth dhyana can walk through walls and walk on water and fly and so forth and so on. And saying that this is the shravaka can do this and non Buddhist can do this and so forth. Clearly stating there, as Karma Chagme says that: “You do not have to realize emptiness to have those abilities”. There is no reference to that at all. It’s just the fourth dhyana, right? And so, how on earth could a person, who is a metaphysical realist, because that’s exactly what he is referring to: a person who is still grasping onto the inherent existence of the mind and phenomena and everything else. How could such a person, how is even, I would like to propose, how is it even plausible? Because it seems to be completely impossible that that can be achieved. If it’s true, as the materialist contend, that we are, in fact, living in a purely physical universe and often when they say in natural, give me a natural explanation, they mean a physical explanation, as if nature equals the physical. So, very common belief, not universal, but very very common. If that is the case, and the mind is either an ineffective little fluffy epiphenomenon of matter, or simply a function of matter, or doesn’t exist at all, we’ve heard all of those, those of the three majors options among materialists. If that is the case, then clearly, this account from Karma Chagme, going back to the Prajna Paramita Sutra, and going back to the DighaNikaya of the Buddha’s own teaching in the pali canon: this is completely ridiculous. There is no possible way that can be true. Ok?
[03:28] So, somebody’s profoundly wrong. You cannot be a materialist and, accept any of that. So something is profoundly wrong, correct? But of course if you’re a materialist something else should be totally magical and absolutely impossible. And that is taking a sugar tablet, believing it is going to bring about a specific change in your body, and not just feeling better or worse, but it’s actually going to make your cancer go into remission, it is going to alleviate your symptoms of Parkinson’s, it is going to bring about precisely what you’d expect it to bring about, that’s clearly impossible. So, since it’s impossible, and since it does occur we better call it something that it’s not “placebo effect”. Don’t call it a mental effect because the mind shouldn’t have any effect because the mind either doesn’t exist or it’s just a function of matter.
[04:20] Therefore, let’s just trick everybody, nobody will notice, and let’s just call it a “placebo effect”. Which of course it’s not. So, the “placebo effect” should be just as impossible as the siddhis, cited in the Prajna Paramita Sutra, but the pharmaceutical industry spends hundreds of millions dollars try to exclude the “placebo effect” so they can sell drugs. Because they can’t sell the “placebo effect”. If they could, it’d be a gold mine. So, I would suggest at this point, a materialistic view is looking rather dim, because it is not explaining and has absolutely no explanation for the “placebo effect”, at all. But keeping close to the bone here, how is it possible? If one is OK, you can’t be a materialist, if you are a materialist, you’re a flat-minder. Ok? A flat- earther, they believe the earth, you know, the water would drip off the edge, you’re flat-minder. You’ve flattened, you’ve taken the steamroller of materialism, materialistic dogma, and you flattened the mind into oblivion. And if you’re a flat minder, placebo effect should be impossible. And, of course, all the siddhis sighted in the Perfection of Wisdom. If you are flat-minder. Ok?
[05:30] Well, you can be a metaphysical realist and not be a flat-minder. The shravaka are, many Hindus are, and so forth and so on. So, how is that possible? So, let’s say you’ve come to your senses you know you’ve come out of this kind of like, datura riddled hallucination of thinking everything is just objective. There is nothing subjective. There is nothing material. So, now let’s keeping on moving. How is it possible? How is it possible? If you do believe that the mind is real, and has causal efficacy, in other words, your notion of nature includes natural mind and natural matter, how is it possible now, how is it plausible, to think of those siddhis actually occurring? And for that, we can go to some of the most brilliant thinkers in the west, as a teaser. I’m gonna cite Carl Jung, I think, well, together with Freud, the most famous psychologists of the 20th century. A brilliant man clearly and he engaged in the correspondence, that went on I think perhaps 20 years, with one of the most brilliant pioneers of quantum mechanics and the Nobel laureate in physics, named Wolfgang Pauli. They had a correspondence the two of them brainstormed together, wouldn’t you like to be in part of that correspondence, and they came up with a theme because they were grappling with this issue. Now, in the 20th century, so quantum mechanics it happened and Carl Jung of course a very innovative thinker, very intuitive thinker and they’re looking at the mind-body relationship, the mind is nonphysical, right? How does this non-physical mind engage with matter like cells, how is that possible? It is the ghost in the machine. How do they actually, how are they not ships missing each other in the night? Passing in the night? How do they interact with which other? And so they posited something and here is what they posited, and I have written about this at length in a number of my books but one of them in particular is Hidden Dimensions. So Wolfgang Pauli and Carl Jung, proposed: mental and material phenomena originate from an integral domain prior to the distinction of mind and matter. The “unus mundus”, this is the term they gave, the “unus mundus”: the unitary domain of archetypes that manifest as configurations of mental and physical phenomena. The existence of this archetypal realm was essential to explain the causal connections that exist between the psyche and the body that would then provide you a basis for understanding the placebo effect, faith healing, which has occurred throughout history and so forth, but then just generally intentions and you know, how our minds interact, influence our body and the body influences the mind. So they came up with this notion of an underlying realm that is purely archetypal and then what we are experiencing here is kind of like a holographic display, or an illusory display of these archetypes and the and these displays of mind and matter to very different domains of reality can causally interact because they stem from the same unitary source: this domain. So, this was their view, they worked on it for a couple of about 20 years, work on quite quite well and I’ve given in the notes here I’ve given the sources where you can check it out for yourself if you are interested. Wolfgang Pauli this brilliant, brilliant quantum physicist was so afraid of his community of physicists that he refused to let their correspondence be published until after he was dead. That was exactly what Copernicus did for the same reason. Copernicus feared excommunication and so did Wolfgang Pauli. From the church, and from the church of scientific materialism. Where you shouldn’t, just shouldn’t think such thoughts. Yeah. I mean that’s literally true. Right?.
[09:26] But this was, in a way, was very novel, it was brilliant. But it’s not without precedent. If you go back to Pythagoras who was a contemporary of the Buddha, he claimed according to the records we have that he remembered 20 of his past lives, he manifested himself in two different places at one time, he performed other kind of siddhis, according to the ancient documents we have, and he started a community here in Italy, he was from Greece of course, but he started a community here in Italy, that was… I think they would call it a contemplative observatory. (Laughter). Because it wasn’t just a place to think, he gave them real rigorous training for a sustained period. And he traveled at least as far east as Egypt where there were Hindus at that time and I think the chances are very good, I think a very plausible hypothesis, that he learned samadhi from Hindus, probably not from Buddha because the Buddha was way over east and he didn’t get that far, but it looks like he mastered samadhi. And then out of his, I’m going to speculate a little bit, this is not wide vast speculation he achieved very profound samadhi. I think he probably learned it from Indians because they were the masters of it after all, not the Egyptians. And out of that he experientially probed into a domain of reality, another dimension of reality that was pure form. That was purely mathematical and that was his theme, this pure form realm is made up of geometrical archetypal forms and out of that manifest this world. Well the Guru lineage goes from Pythagoras to Socrates, to Plato and Plato’s realm of pure ideas is a derivative from that, that the underlying reality is one of the pure ideas and what we are seeing is the coarse manifestation, the pop-up, the illusory display of an underlying reality.
[11:16] This is not just ancient history. There are a number of very very first rate mathematicians today, I won’t elaborate a lot, but who believe there is an underlying reality that is purely mathematical in nature and that what we are experiencing here with this natural world, with its physical laws that are so precisely mathematical they are precisely mathematical because they are -epiphenomenon, they are emergent effulgences, displays, holographic images of, an underlying reality that is purely mathematical in nature, pure form. Ok?
[11:43] So, this has a long lineage to it. But the problem for Jung and Pauli was… I think they came up with a brilliant theory, I’ve studied it very closely, I’ve spoken at some length with the world expert Harald Atmanspacher, a German physicist, I cited him here so you can check it out, but they had no way of testing it. It is a brilliant theory, but no way of testing it. So, it is kind of been shelved gone into the archives, right? But if you’ve been following closely, and you have some background in Buddhism, the Buddhists do have, going back to the time of the Buddha himself, and going right through the, you know, the whole history of the Theravada Buddhism and so on. There is this theory rooted in much earlier than the Buddha himself of there being a form realm, the rūpadhātu and beyond that the arūpadhātu the formless realm. And all of these had been explored thoroughly by Hindu Yogis prior to the Buddha. And the Buddha explored all of this with those two Samadhi masters that he met up with very shortly after leaving home and then he explored them again later on. So, this is simply how the world is phenomenologically we have the desire realm which we call the physical universe that is permeated by mind or at least where mind is operative. But this is a pop-up, a display of, emergence from, the form realm and the form realm emerges mostly subtly from the formless realm and this can all be empirically explored and has been and you do it with Samadhi.
[13:09] Shamatha crosses over the portal into the form realm, then you can fully achieve first, second, third, fourth dhyana, explore different dimensions of this and so, so citing Buddha’s method for contemplatively exploring the form realm. How you do this: once you’ve settled your mind in its natural state, you may initially gain the experiential access to this realm of pure forms by focusing on the earth element or you may start with any of the other elements of water, fire, air, or space. If you’d like to check this out then there’s a detailed explanation of this, its technology, it is very rigorous, very demanding, of mastering what are called the nimittas of earth, water, fire, air, these four basic elements, the archetypal and they are called the archetypal quintessences of the elements we experience: solidity, moisture, heat and motility but these are all emerging from these archetypes in the form realm.
[14:18] You can access this with Samadhi by arranging a practice the Buddha himself taught called ten “kasinas” and a “kasinas” is zepa [?] in Tibetan. Zepa [?] “kasinas” Samadhi. Zepa [?] in the Samadhi a focusing on the Zepa [?] and the Zepa [?] is a universal emblem of Earth, Water, Fire, Air, so, I’m not gonna go into it in detail, I have written about it in Hidden Dimensions, so suffice to say, it is written in great detail and I’m going do extremely concisely, once you achieve Shamatha, you’ve accessed the form realm, then you may identify these archetypes of Earth, Water, Fire, Air, also four colors, and also space and light and for each of these you can find the archetype in the form realm, right? And then as Buddhaghosa describes in great detail. He tells you basically the gymnastic mental training, the Olympic training, to master completely, I mean this like, gymnastics, I look that when 25-30, no 35 years ago, (gosh), I was very young to do this, because it is becoming utterly adroit at method going from the Earth element in the second dhyana to the Water element in the fourth dhyana to this element, and just going back and back is like working out in mental gym and mastering all of these dhyanas. And then when you’ve master all of then you go into Samadhi, and you take, for example, you go into Samadhi and you latch onto and you master, you kind like pulling into the magnetic force with your mind the Earth nimita, the Earth archetype in the form realm. You hold that and then you bring your awareness back to the desire realm and by the power of your Samadhi you superimpose… is like… casting these archetype of Earth element in.. on a body of water, for example, and then you walk on the water. You cast this space, the archetype of space element on a mountain, and you walk through the mountain. You cast the fire element on your own body and you burst into flame, and so forth. And so, I’m calling this a special theory of Ontological Relativity, for a reason, it is not just cute. Special Relativity is a limited vision of relativity because it has to do with only, how to say, constant speed in a straight line. And that was enough, that was amazing and the Mathematics is very simple, it’s algebra. But it blows the mind to see the implications of that. So this is a special theory of ontological relativity that everything we see here seems to be absolutely as it is existing from its own side. In fact, it is a projection. Everything we see in the physical world, exists only relative to form realm. If you master the archetypes in the form realm purely by the power of Samadhi, with no insight of emptiness at all, you learn how master them, then you can superimpose those: you can walk on water, walk through walls, fly through the air, you can just basically with sheer muscle power of Samadhi impose the archetypes of these four elements, including space on this world and then perform what looks like magic. But it is not magic at all. It is relativistic psychology.
[17:50] Because what is being assumed in the modern west since Galileo is: the mind is inert. The mind has no power. We just watch. Like the mind is just flat. And so, if that is your case, then the world seems to be totally physical and if you have any psychological problem, just go to the American Medical Association or the pharmaceutical industry if you have any psychological problem at all, you know what to do about it: go for a drug. Because your mind is just hanging out there as kind of slave of the brain and if you have any psychological problem it’s a brain disorder, so just go to the brain. And that is the working hypotheses of the pharmaceutical industry and a lot of the modern medical system, business I should say, because it is a big business today. But it has a flat minder view of the mind, I mean it’s pathetically superficial and misleading.
[18:45] So, according to traditional Buddhist sources each of the above methods of mastering each of these kasinas, each of these nimitas, of the elements, each of these methods provides experiential access to emblematic representations or archetypes of the whole quality (that is the term kasina) that is you’ve captured the archetype for the whole of solidity throughout the entire universe. The whole of fluidity, the whole of heat, the whole of motility, the whole of space and by drawing there then you can overpower and then as soon as your Samadhi is over then reality snaps back. So, as soon you’ve withdrawn the earth archetype from the body of water then it snaps back and everybody would fall into it.
[19:27] It seems to by if we take a biblical account that you can invite other people into this as well. Like you can walk on the water and then invite a friend of yours like Thomas or whoever, Peter or whoever, your buddies and say ‘come on, walk on water with me’. So, these are the nimitas, these are the signs of the earth element and that is how even if you have no insight into emptiness at all with an enormous amount of work, it is really really hard work of mastering these kasinas. Then you could show these siddhis which is just high tech but kind of like relatively speaking low-tech. Because there is no insight emptiness at all, you’re still reifying everything and still able to do siddhis.
So, when I was with Ananda Maitreya in Sri Lanka, 35 years ago. I asked him: how many people nowadays, do you think in Sri Lanka, have actually achieved dhyana? Because nowadays people talk about like doing a weekend or doing it in a month he was not fooled by that he actually you know he was a great sage. And he said, you can count on the fingers of one hand, but he did cite one center, it was in between Colombo and Kandy, he said there were some people there they were doing these kasinas practices 35 years ago, I don’t know if it’s still true, but it was rare.
[20:51] Olaso, so but I said we’d be walking around the block, Ok? So we just walked around the block. To the… instead of going to the visual, the auditory… we walked around the block to the mental, to the kasinas of earth, water, fire, air… those four elements. White, red, yellow, blue the archetypes for the four primary colors and then there is also space and light and the archetypes for each of these. Now we just walked around the block. But now time, since is so short and life is so short. We can ask another question: if earth, water, fire and each of these has its archetypal form its sign, its sign from which it emerges that is it exactly the idea, the archetypes from which it emerges just as Carl Young and Wolfgang Pauli, suggested. Well, what about the mind? And here again, from the Pali canon, Buddha states: In this manner monks the wise, experienced, skillful monk, abides in happiness here and now, and is mindful and introspective, as well. What is the reason for that? Because monks, the wise, experienced, skillful monk, acquires the sign of his own mind.
So what is the sign of the mind? I would suggest that - the sign of the mind is that out of which your mind emerges in this world as a human being in the desire realm. What is it, from which your mind emerges in the formation of you as as fetus in your mother’s womb? What is it from which your mind emerges and manifests in this course level in a course world, the desire realm. (Substrate consciousness). Substrate consciousness. I don’t think it can be anything else. The substrate consciousness is the sign of the mind. And there you dwell in happiness because when you are dwelling in it, it is blissful, luminous and non conceptual.
[23:01] Now, how significant is that? Well, the Buddha states in the first line of Dhammapada, All phenomena are preceded by the mind, Phenomena means all experiences, everything you experience is preceded by the mind. Well, everything you’ve ever experienced in this lifetime was preceded by substrate consciousness. Your continuum of substrate consciousness, issued forth from the mind, you’ve heard that one before, haven’t you? All these appearances are illuminated by, issued forth from the substrate consciousness. and it consists of the mind. All these appearances are none other than the displays of your substrate consciousness on this relative level.
Considering those siddhis though, a final quote, and then we will get to the practice: the Ratnamegha Sutra, which is the Mahayana Sutra here the Buddha states: All phenomena are preceded by the mind. but then he continuous, when the mind is comprehended all phenomena are comprehended. Everything is comprehended. Comprehend the mind, everything is comprehended. By bringing the mind under control all things are brought under control.
[24:10] That sounds like a very direct way to develop siddhis. And so this you recall for those of you who are either attending to or listen to the podcast of a Spacious Path to Freedom, remember the end of vipassana section, where Karma Chagme is saying there are two approaches to realizing emptiness, remember? Remember the drop the tree when you want firewood, you can either cut off all the branches until the tree dries up and then cut it down or you can tap the taproot the whole tree dries up and it is much easier and more direct go for the taproot. He said in a similar way if you want to realize the emptiness of all phenomena, you can go one by one. You can look at atoms and particles and fuels and time and space and plants and animals and so forth and so on, or you can just to go to the taproot: realize the empty nature of the mind and out of that, the empty nature of all phenomena can be easily comprehended. Realize the mind you’ve gone to the essence. Realize the emptiness of the mind you’ve gone to the essence of all phenomena. So, it is Dzogchen… I’m 66 now. My goodness. Yesterday you people celebrated my getting a year older (laughs). Why did you do that? If I were going younger that would be really that… 64! Yeah! I would join in that is a celebration. But you are all getting happy because I’m older. This means that time is really running out and that is this direct route. Just don’t get distracted. So, it is good conceptually to learn about the clunky old fashion classical way of going through all those kasinas and see that is plausible. If you are not a flat minder. But if you are a flat minder, then, I don’t know, you are an idiot. I’m sorry but really, come on, wake up! At least the placebo effect. Don’t call it the placebo effect. But let’s not be distracted because life is really short. Getting shorter all the time. So don’t get distracted just stay focused right on the mind, right on through, like a hot knife through butter. Settle the mind in its natural state, so your mind collapses back into its sign realizes its sign and then don’t get distracted. Realize the ultimate nature of the substrate consciousness. Don’t get distracted, cut through to pristine awareness. Don’t get distracted, become a Buddha in this lifetime. Let’s practice.
[27:11] [The bell rings three times].
This chapter on shamatha that we are, very slowly exploring, we recall as the chapter from the text, which is the commentary to the root text called “Buddhahood in the Palm of the Hand”. Following this path of Dzogchen, it really seems like Buddhahood, perfect awakening is within reach if we keep very straight, very focused. And all is focused on the essential, one thing before everything else: wake up. For the sake of all sentient beings, wake up. With this motivation let’s settle body, speech, and mind in the natural state.
[29:55] Count just ten breaths, one succinct count at the end of each inhalation and between counts let your mind be as silent and continuously attentive as possible.
[31:38] Let your eyes be at least partially opened gently, softly opened. All the muscles around the eyes soft and relaxed. Your gaze vacant without focusing visually on anything. Let your awareness continue to rest right where it is. Familiarize yourself with this mode of awareness simply at rest but clear and discerning, still and bright. Hovering without grasping in the present moment, without drifting off in the memories of the past or anticipation of the future.
[32:34] Silently knowing… And for those of you who are new to this practice and for whom the space of the mind is an elusive concept. You may not be quite sure what to look at or where it is or how big it is.
Forty years ago Geshe Rabten suggested the technique: which is friendly, user-friendly, an entrance into the practice, and that is simply generate a thought, any thought will do, the one he suggested, I suggest, the thought: ‘this is the mind’. Generate this thought slowly, syllable by syllable. As you do so, focus your attention on the thought arising: ‘this is the mind’. And when the thought comes to the end, keep your attention right where it was, because that thought was occurring in the space of the mind. Wherever mental events occur: that is where the space of the mind is. So generate the thought again, when you come to the end, keep your attention focused right where that thought disappeared. Relaxed breathing effortlessly but keep your attention focused right there. You dropped your anchor in the space of your mind and observe the next thought that arises by itself.
[36:12] As soon as your attention becomes diffuse, vague, spaced out, you may generate a thought again. You can crystalize your attention with any other discursive thought. When the next thought arises spontaneously, sustain the stillness of your awareness, gently, softly, observe whatever comes to mind and simply observe the nature of that phenomenon without going into the story, the drama, the referent to the thoughts. Just observe what arises here and now in the space of the mind and let it be, without seeking to modify it in any way.
[38:44] Alternatively you can generate a mental image. Image of a piece of fruit, your home, anything at all that doesn’t arouse craving or aversion. Generate the mental image, focus on it, let it fade out and keep your attention fixed right there in that domain. Ready to observe the next thought or image that arises of its own accord all the while to the best your ability sustain the ongoing flow of the stillness of your awareness.
[42:00] Clearly there’s flexibility here, you may on occasion while sustaining the stillness of your awareness take a keen interest in the space of the mind. Examining its nature. Take a keen interest in the various types of phenomena that arises within the space. Observing how they arise, how they are present, how they vanish. So, at times the primary focus of your attention maybe really on the mind itself, observing it as over the course of time of intense sustained practice, you see it fade away, subside, all these appearances vanishing into the substrate. And all the subjective impulses vanishing into the substrate consciousness, you may find it very interesting and focus on it intensely but you may on other occasions, sit back a bit and rest primarily in the sheer knowing, this immediate experience of being conscious and let only your peripheral awareness illuminate the space of the mind whatever is going on in that domain while you remain seated on your throne, awareness resting in its own place. There is a spectrum there, a continuum, it is your choice.
[44:05] How far out you wish to extend your awareness to the space of the mind and its contents. Or how much you want to simply stay at home. You can experiment do so and let’s continue practicing in silence.
[51:26] Meditation bell rings three times.
[51:52] Olaso. So for our post-meditative practice to maintain this continuity, certainly a central theme will be to maintain the continuity of the stillness of awareness, as much as possible. Doing whatever you need to do: washing, brushing your teeth, and so forth and so on. But maintaining it in the midst of all of that. That stillness to avoid the cognitive fusion of looking upon anything in the environment including the environment of our own bodies as in the environment of the mind as I and mine. Just resting in that stillness there is no projection of I and mine. But also just be aware of appearances arising that is when we are doing this practice we are attending to the space of the mind we’re seeing simply appearances arising and they have no substance they’re just like rainbows, they are just appearances like in a dream. We are in fact, of course, seeking to become lucid with respect to our mind in the waking state. That is the nature of this practice. But not just on the cushion, because right now as we are attending to all these visual appearances, auditory and so forth and so on, all these appearances are stemming from the same source, right? Whether it’s dream appearances of colors, shapes, sounds and so forth. Where are they? Where are they located? Where are they coming from? Where are they dissolving into? The substrate. Right? Which is perfectly obvious when you are lucid in a dream and then you let it fade away. You just see it. You see all those appearances, they were there and then you just see them fade right into the substrate that’s all that’s left. As you see your dream, your dreaming mind that is the mind of the dreamed persona could be another gender, it could be older or younger than you in this, you know, in the awakening state. And you can see how the mind of the dream persona dissolves into the substrate consciousness. You can see it. And then we come, if you’re lucid in the dreamless sleep and you come emerging into a dream lucidly, then you can see how your mind of the dreamed persona, the person in the dream, is emerging from the substrate consciousness and you can see how all the appearances in the dream are emerging from the substrate. you can see it. It is empirical. Total observation.
[54:06] But in an analogous way, not identical but analogous way, all these appearances here. All these appearances, arising from the substrate. All of them. All the five sensory. The mental, all arising from the substrate, when we fall deep sleep tonight they’re going to all dissolve back into the substrate. So this is the waking dream. At nighttime we have the night time dreams. And to maintain, insofar as you can fill this with understanding with insight, not just belief and not a just slogan, or like, whatever… but to maintain this awareness, this way of viewing reality, that all these appearances that I’m experiencing, they are not out there, at all. Out there as in some place in physical space. They appear to be, but they’re not, that is an illusion, it’s misleading and all these appearances right now, all appearing in the space of my own mind, space of awareness. Sustain that, then you note whoever you encounter like people for example, you’re never encountering someone separate from yourself, that is, is not to say if I die and other people survive, of course, separate. If other people die, I can survive, of course, separate, we know that. But in terms of my perception of you, visual perception, I hear you speak, auditory perception but also very importantly, my mental sense of what kind of person you are, anybody stranger on the street, people I’ve known for 40 years, how you’re appearing to me: sensorially as well as mentally, I’m never getting you as an independent entity. I never leap the fence outside the bubble of my mind. It is always you/me, you/me, you/me, you/me, he/me, she/me, you/me, we/me. But no matter what “me” is always part of an equation. As long as we are operating out of coarse mind. And all, I’m always getting the Alan Wallace version. And that is not “you”, because you are not the Alan Wallace version. Better not be. But I’m always getting the Alan Wallace version, but that Alan Wallace version you have seen through my prism has no existence independently my prism, you do: I die, you’re still there. But you/me: doesn’t. You die when I die. The “you/me” dies when I die. Right? So, if we ever get upset at anybody, you might want to just check: who are you really upset at? The “you” or the “me”? [laughter] Because I find people out there that I have the most difficult with, you know, as strong resistance whatever, those are the people who appear to me to embody my own qualities that I most dislike, I can’t stand those people [laughter]. Enjoy your day.
Transcribed by Lucas Eduardo de Oliveira
Revised by Rafael Carlos Giusti
Final edition by Kriss Kringle Sprinkle
Ask questions about this lecture on the Buddhism Stack Exchange or the Students of Alan Wallace Facebook Group. Please include this lecture’s URL when you post.
RSS