52 Pointing out the Nature of the Mind

Olaso. So nowadays and for a very long time in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, there have been lamas who give pointing out instructions, explanations, on nature of mind. Nature of mind, big topic, very important topic. But of course the term nature of mind, can refer to multiple dimensions of the mind, it’s not just one thing. So, I’d like to spend, give a little brief introduction here, kind of like the sharp blade, sharp blade, of precise distinctions, because in fact they’re very important, especially in Dzogchen. Dudjom Lingpa, Padmasambhava, makes this emphatically clear that if you conflate multiple dimensions of consciousness you’re really lost. You’re really lost. There’s no path, if you mix them up. If you literally con-fuse them, so this is to de-confuse, to defuse confusion. Nature of mind, nature of mind, let’s go from the coarse to subtle. And all of this is very experiential, ok. So, if we go from coarse to subtle right now we already have minds, so that’s easy, got that. And what is it about our minds that enables them to be minds? I mean the minds do many things, but they don’t do everything all at once. And so what is the common denominator of mind, when you’re sleeping, when you’re dreaming, when you’re waking, when you’re deeply immersed in the conceptual mind, when you maybe slip into a nonconceptual state of consciousness? And the common denominator is consciousness, or ’shes pa’ in Tibetan, [? 01:39] in Sanskrit. And as mentioned before, now repeatedly with quite some detail, the defining characteristics of consciousness, which is the very nucleus of the mind, that which enables mind to be a mind rather than a mere facsimile. Which is what we have brilliantly in computer programs, various types of robot programs and so forth. Those are brilliant facsimiles of mental activity. But they’re like a painting versus the referent of the painting ok. They’re flat, they have no three dimensionality, they have no subjectivity. So the defining characteristics on this coarse level, this immediate level that we can identify today, some of you have already identified is, consciousness. You can identify the nature of consciousness, the nature of mind on this level is, on this immediately accessible level, is luminous and cognizant, or clear and cognizant. And again an extreme brief reminder when you look right into it if you wish to identify it, you’ll see that it is immaterial, it has no material attributes, it can not be measured materially or physically. So clear in that sense, clear or luminous, in the sense of that it is that consciousness which manifests all mode of appearances, all mode and whoever you are. Of course consciousness is not confined to human beings but it is common to all sentient beings, all arhats, all buddhas. And so it is luminous and it is cognizant and we know what that means, right. So that was an introduction to the nature of mind, ok. And when you identify the referents of these terms - clarity-high luminosity and cognizance, when you see them and you see that these facets, these attributes, these qualities of consciousness are present when you’re thinking, when you’re thinking about something, right. When you infer something, they’re there, right. [03:27]

When you’re very angry, your mind is completely convoluted in some mental affliction, they’re there. When the mind is neutral, you’re just taking a sip of water, no attachment, no craving just drinking water. That was the experience of desiring the water, the drinking the water, saturated by luminosity and cognizance. And then of course the whole spectrum of virtuous states of mind, from simply giving a flower, because I’m enjoying doing it, Lynn here’s your flower for today. [laughter] No hard feelings, right. So that was enjoyable. That was a little tiny virtue, little tiny virtue but that was nice, you know, no harm. And so, but from a little thing like that, giving a flower, to the virtues of the omniscient mind, of the buddha mind, they’re all pervaded by [? 04:19] ok that’s a big common denominator. Buddhas, arhats, bodhisattvas, we, hell beings, people who are extremely malevolent and so forth and so on. So there’s that level. We can identify it now and that’s a really big step in the right direction, if you’d like to understand the nature of mind, understand the referents of the terms luminosity and cognizance, good. You’ve now been introduced to nature of mind, right. And bear in mind, that in Tibetan it’s [? 04:47 rigpa- Tibetan]. Rigpa is cognizance, rigpa is awareness. So have you identified rigpa? When you’ve identified, when you’ve seen the referent of the term cognizance. I look over in Anna’s direction, I recognize Anna, we’ve known each other for years. It’s not just an appearance coming, but oh yeah that’s Anna, that’s Anna. I recognize her, okay. That cognizance. The appearance, yeah she looks like a lot of other woman, dark hair, medium height, yeah, you know, a lot like that, very similar. But no one’s like that. No, no, that’s Anna, that’s not anybody else, I know Anna, I’ve known her for years. So that cognizance, when I recognized, the cognizance in my recognition of Anna, am I realizing rigpa? Well, yeah. That’s rigpa, that is cognizance. Have I realized primordial consciousness? Well, we’ll put that on hold for a moment. But have I realized rigpa, yeah that’s exactly the term. That is rigpa, right. But now we have the lake born vajra, by way of Dudjom Lingpa saying, when you’ve settled the mind in its natural state, you’re resting in the substrate consciousness, although other people call it high fallouting things, you know grandiose things, I, Padmasambhava say, you have come to the essential nature of the mind. Essential nature, well you know exactly what that is. This is the substrate consciousness, when you experience it fully, luminously, lucidly, by way of shamatha, it is blissful, luminous and blockage, [laughter] or a suspension of conceptuality. It’s wonderful how your intuition just came right to the right answer. It is that, but it’s more than that. And that is when we, we just don’t have to take the sound bites, we can look into the background, and here’s a crucial element - When you’re resting in the substrate consciousness, you’re resting in a flow of knowing, you’ve not spaced out, it’s not a trance, it’s luminous and it’s knowing. There’s no question about that, otherwise it’s just torpor, just phht, just like that. So, but it’s a non conceptual knowing. That’s why it says non conceptual, right. So it’s knowing but it’s a non conceptual knowing. [07:00]

So that’s not like our knowing of our ordinary minds. You know when I get angry, I’m working on a mathematics problem or what have you. That’s a knowing that is embedded in conceptuality. Ok fine, call that the coarse mind but now we flip to subtle mind, subtle mind. So it’s knowing now on a subtler dimension, a more primal level. And it’s not conceptual but it is ascertaining, it is discerning, it is imbued with, ready to kick into gear with, the five dhyana factors. Single pointed, able to engage in coarse investigations, subtle analysis, imbued with the sense of well being, and imbued with a sense of joy, or bliss. They’re all right there, right. But now there’s one more final point, here’s the pointing out instructions, okay The pointing out instructions for the essential nature of the mind, the stem mind, the stem consciousness, deeper level, that’s not so obvious on the surface, and that is, and this is right from the Vajra Essence, which is like my bible you know, my beloved bible, the Vajra Essence. And that is, while the substrate consciousness illuminates appearances and knows appearances, it does not enter into appearances. In other words it’s free of cognitive fusion. Not on all levels, but by and large, just like it’s not absolutely non conceptual, remember that. It’s non conceptual but not absolutely non conceptual. And why? Because on a very subtle conceptual mode you can still be preferring and clinging to the qualities of bliss, luminosity, and non conceptuality. And that is a subtle form of conceptualization and a subtle form of mental affliction, very subtle, but there it is. And so the substrate consciousness, but it doesn’t, and on that level, are you entering into the preference for the luminosity, bliss and non conceptuality? Yeah you are. This is really subtle, you know, but yeah, you are. But for everything else, for all the other stuff that is appearing, memories of past lives, or maybe you’re using that mind to investigate the nature of phenomena and so forth, it does not enter into it, it does not cognitively fuse with the coarser level, all that bandwidth of appearances, sensory and so forth when you come out. So that’s pointing out instructions for the substrate consciousness. [09:27]

Now of course the most important pointing instructions are giving instructions on shamatha, so you can follow them and hitch a ride on your mind. Take your mind onto the path, hop into that car and take it all the way to the destination, achieve shamatha, and then you’ll say: Ah this is what he was pointing to. Okay in other words like directions, how do you get from here to Rome? Well you’ll learn the directions and then you set out on the road until you get to Rome and say ’Ah they were good directions.’ So those are the real pointing out instructions for Rome, not just showing a whole bunch of photos, but telling you how to get there. Actually it’s interesting, it’ll be inspiring to see some photos, wow that’s a place worth going. What history is there? What magnificent architecture and so forth and so on. Good, it inspires, makes you want to visit Rome, but what you really need is directions on how to get there, right. So similar. [10:23]

So those are the pointing out instructions but now to make that practical right now, especially in these practices, these shamatha practices, the settling the mind in its natural state, the awareness of awareness, especially the awareness of awareness, which is so direct. We’re seeking to emulate, to approximate in the very first session, our closest approximation of viewing awareness from the perspective of substrate consciousness. From the very first session of settling the mind in its natural state, we’re doing our very best to approximate viewing the activities, the movements, the appearances, the thoughts and images arising in the space of the mind, from the perspective of substrate consciousness, illuminating, knowing them, but not getting caught up in them. Without distraction, without grasping, without the grasping, without the identification with, without the cognitive fusion with. So when you’ve understood the instructions well, let’s say on settling the mind in its natural state, what’s the quality of awareness? There it is, the unflickering candle flame. What’s the nature of that awareness? And can you simultaneously rest in that stillness while observing the movements of the mind without cognitively fusing with them? That’s pointing out instructions, that’s pointing out instructions to the essential nature of the mind. On the deeper level, right. Pointing out instructions, the nature of mind, nature of mind. And now we have two and those are really quite different. They’re not the same, because simply the luminosity, cognizance, that pervades everything. Cognizant fusion, hatred, bigotry, bliss, compassion, everything, it’s everywhere. This one oh this is subtler, this is subtler, this is primal, this is the ground of your samsara, right. And then we have the pointing out instructions. Oh and by the way is that rigpa, of course it’s awareness, of course it’s awareness, it’s subtle awareness. It’s substrate consciousness. And then we have the pointing out instructions. Pointing out the view. Introducing the Dzogchen view, in the Dzogchen context. Introducing the Dzogchen view, introducing pointing out rigpa as in, of course, pointing out primordial consciousness. Dharmakaya, buddha nature, sugatagarbha, pristine awareness, pointing that out, the ground pristine awareness, but pointing that out, ok. Well then there are pointing out instructions for that. And in the Dzogchen tradition for which I am most familiar, the, of course there are different ways of doing so, there’s no question. Some of them non verbal, some of them purely symbolic. So there are many ways, but the classic way is giving teachings that clearly, that the words themselves, are like a knife drawing a sharp distinction between what’s the difference between, for example, mind and dharmakaya. What’s the difference between substrate consciousness and rigpa, pristine awareness. You get it conceptually, right. You get it conceptually, and now from my own fuzzy understanding you hear the, you hear the, or conditioned consciousness, vijnana, conditioned consciousness and primordial consciousness, there’s a big one. Padmasambhava is absolutely brilliant on this point in the Vajra Essence. And you listen to the account, the explanation of conditioned consciousness, vijnana, the sixth mode of consciousness, right, mental consciousness. You listen to account, you listen to the words and then you take them, they are the finger pointing to the moon and you take them to see if you can find the referent in your own experience. Can you identify what has just been explained to you within a paragraph or two, what is the nature of conditioned consciousness within the five skandhas, the sixth mode of consciousness? What is the nature of that? And I am not describing it now, I’m just saying it can be done, very briefly. And then you look into it and think got it, yeah I know exactly what you are referring to. I know the taste of lemonade, you know, yes I know exactly what you’re referring to, got it. And then ok so far so good, then, he then says now in contrast to that, here’s where the sharp knife comes in, here’s the nature of primordial consciousness. I’m not going to give that right now, but he gives that pointing out instruction. So you’ve already identified one and then you set that aside because we’re not going to be, the next part is not that. Primordial consciousness is not conditioned consciousness, they are not the same. So he said that and then you get the pointing out instructions for rigpa or primordial consciousness and the words come in, the finger’s pointing to the moon, and then you look right there. And if the pointing out instructions are effective, you see what’s left once you’ve bracketed conditioned consciousness, bracketed mind, bracketed substrate consciousness got it, got it, got it. [15:44]

Having set that aside, is there anything else that corresponds to this pointing out instruction? There’s the finger, can you find the moon? And then if you identify that, then you’ve really recognized rigpa. So all of that, those three, each one different. It’s really, really important. One can add a fourth and that is where the [? 16:18 Tibetan joo ney doh sung] the vipashyana practice of investigating optimally, really optimally, this is how it should be done. After you’ve already achieved shamatha by way of settling the mind in its natural state, or awareness of awareness, this is bona fide, authentic, five star Mahamudra Dzogchen approach. You’ve done it, you’ve finished the job, what needed to be done, you’ve done it. And now you get pointing instructions to the emptiness of inherent nature of the mind, the ultimate reality of the mind. Which is referring to its sunya nature, which is taught in the prajna paramita, the Madhyamaka and so forth. And on that platform of having identified the essential nature of your mind, so it’s right there in the palm of your hand, the substrate consciousness, you just, you just know it, you know. You know it perfectly I mean you got it, totally got it, Ok now that you’ve got it. Now how does it exist? It does exist. We’re not going to refute that, we’re not going to back off from that. Yes you found the essential nature of the mind but how is it [?17:23 Tibetan] what is its mode of existence? What’s the nature of its existence? How is it present? Does it exist by its own inherent nature? Is it really there independently by its own inherent nature? Independent of any conceptual designation, or not? And you investigate. How does it arise? How is it present? How does it disappear? And if you’ve achieved shamatha and you’re resting in that and you take out this nice clean specimen. You know like in a chemistry lab. You get this is pure zinc or this is just a virus and nothing else, just a pure specimen, uncluttered, unadorned, unmixed up with anything else like ethnicity and gender and culture and blah blah blah blah. Never mind that, what I want to find out is not whether Alan Wallace’s mind is inherently existent. It’s kind of like, who really cares? There won’t even be such a thing as Alan Wallace’s mind in a short time. So with something that transient. It’s important, but how important? And how important is it to you? Alan Wallace’s mind is inherently existent or not ? I mean really what’ the big deal, right? It’s a short story. It wasn’t here seventy years ago, it won’t be here seventy years from now, in all likelihood. But, when we take off the clothing, the configuration, of this person, this personal history, this species, specificity and so forth. Take off that clothing, just throw that out and put it in the cupboard. That’s not really important here. What’s really important is when we strip down to its nucleus, what does continue from lifetime to lifetime? What does continue and defines me as a sentient being, right? Not this body. I could have a much better body I could be born as a deva, much nicer. The bodies come and go, speech comes and go, minds come and go, good mind, bad mind so forth and so on. But here’s the keeper and this is what, Sem Chen [Tibetan for mind possessor/haver] at root I’m a mind haver. That’s a sentient being. I’m a mind haver. What kind of a mind do I have? Hmmm, a sentient being’s mind. Mind prone to klesha and karma. That defines me as a sentient being. There’s the real question. If you’re interested in Vajrayana, interested in Mahamudra and Dzogchen, you’ve got to know on that level when you’re stripped down to your, you’re down to the buff. You’re naked, mentally you’re naked. This is the keeper, this is what carries on and this from every lifetime to lifetime. Always defines you again and again as a sentient being. This is the key point. Is that dimension of consciousness inherently existent or not? If it is you’ll always be a sentient being and the answer is to make the best of it. [20:10]

If it’s not , whoa, that changes everything. Just like, this is enormous, if there’s no substrate consciousness, your consciousness really is simply emerging from complex neuronal activity, ok. Ok, that’s what a lot of people think. In which case let’s just recalibrate everything here. Let’s adjust our worldview, our values, our way of life, in the sense that everything that matters to me personally is going to be terminated at any time. Steve Jobs, I saw in an interview with Steve Jobs, he said there was a point at which he really got mortality. And from that point on, his own mortality, and that he could die at any time, he discovered this, it was an interview in 1995. He was only forty years old. Yeah forty years old and it was before then that he said, I really got it, the issue of mortality. And so in light of that, that I could die, and of course he did die, relatively young, 2011. In light of mortality, what now is worthwhile? And he, I’m diverging, but I found this so interesting. When he was 23 he was worth a million dollars, as they like to say. That is his net worth financially was a million. This was when apple just started off, when he was 24 he was worth 10 million, when he was 25 he was worth a hundred million. And he said it had almost no impact on him. He didn’t care. He said it’s nice to have enough money. It’s nice to have money, you can invest it, you can do cool things with it, but he said, I just didn’t care. For me all that really mattered was the product. That’s what really mattered and in his view because, he didn’t, I don’t believe he had any notion of continuity of consciousness from life after life. It wasn’t the money, it wasn’t the prestige, it wasn’t the power. It was, he had a passion for creating good products. That’s all that really mattered. Everything was for that. And there was a notion of service that, let’s bring something good to humanity that has taste and style and he did and yes I am a Mac addict. I like the products, I don’t take refuge in them, but you know there we are.

[22:22] So I diverged a little bit. But as this issue, so he, within a secular, kind of materialistic context found something that was meaningful to him within the framework of this life, produce good products. Well he certainly did. He was amazing guy, right. Pretty good job for a materialist, pretty good job. Yeah produce a lot of good products, helped many many people, I mean tens of millions right. But if there is continuity from lifetime to lifetime, you know reboot, you just upgraded to a new operating system. Really, everything changes, if it’s true. Everything changes, your worldview changes, your view of the entire universe changes, if this is true for every sentient being. Your values have to change otherwise you’re just really really stupid. You know you must, and with your worldview and your values changing you’ve got to change your way of life. That’s just common sense. So that’s enormous. That’s why I think it’s so enormously important to get clarity, to gain understanding, insight and know what is true. Not as a Buddhist truth or a Hindu truth, just what is true true,right. And I think now with this coming together of scientific and contemplative modes of inquiry, we can not only, I think there’s a potential within my lifetime, if I don’t die soon, for this not only to be ascertained, which it has been ascertained thousands of times, Hindus, Buddhist, Taoists, Christians and so forth it’s old news but it’s not public. By the non religious people, it’s considered to be a religious belief, which means throw it in the trash bin. Whereas scientific truths are not considered to be truths just for scientists. I mean you’d really have to be quite ignorant to think that. No, happily this monumental successes of science, scientific truths are in the public domain and if you’re well informed you know, well this is consensually true. There’s a lot of truth here. And you can be pro science, anti science, but if you do investigate this method of inquiry and the peer review and all of that, you know oh boy if you ignore this you really are quite ignorant, right. So there’s one of them. It changes everything if there’s continuity of consciousness. And that’s why I found it so inspiring this interview with Donald Hoffman. He didn’t go into anything like reincarnation, anything like that. But just that as a very well informed, astute, mainstream neuroscientist that he was just discarding like old dirty clothes, the reductionistic, materialistic reduction of mind to brain. And brought in this breathtaking view, informed by cutting edge physics, which almost all of neuroscience isn’t. It’s informed by 19th century physics, you know. I found that enormously encouraging. But similarly here’s another game changer. And that is, if it’s true, that this subtle continuum of consciousness, the one that’s a keeper, that you can’t get rid of. If that is not inherently existent, if you’re not inherently a sentient being, which does imply a certain degree of immutability, no upward mobility, you know, if it’s really true. If it turns out that that is just empty of inherent nature, is true I’m a sentient being only relative to a conceptual framework, that just changes everything, you know. It means my world, and not only I, but of course everybody else, oh and everything, the entire universe. Ohh that makes the earlier revolution look like peanuts, now everything’s different, the entire universe does not exist of these separate independent units. This is a participatory universe, everything changes, worldview, values way of life, everything changes. All right that’s a game changer. You’ve just upped your operating system to a very higher level. [26:28]

So that’s nature of mind. So we have the conventional, luminous and cognizant, we have the substrate consciousness, we talked about that, we have the empty nature of mind that is not inherently existent, that’s a game changer. That’s nature of mind. That’s not the same as either of the first two, right, different. And then we have rigpa that’s not the same as emptiness of mind. Emptiness of mind is just empty of inherent nature. Rigpa it’s dharmakaya for heaven’s sakes, right. And if this is who you really are as Gyatrul Rinpoche said “the difference between sentient beings and buddhas are, the difference is buddha’s know who they are and sentient beings don’t.” if that’s the case, oh boy that’s another game changer. That’s enormous, now Dzogchen just makes total sense, it’s kind of like nothing else makes sense. I mean nothing else faces that reality fully as Dzogchen and Mahamudra. So that’s nature of mind, all clear? Yeah, so just the luminous and cognizance, the substrate consciousness, emptiness of inherent nature of mind, and rigpa. All under the umbrella of nature of mind. So from day one when we receive some pointing out instructions maybe what you get from that, is you really do get a taste, of the luminosity of your own awareness, the clear light luminous nature of your own awareness. And you do get an immediate taste of just that sheer raw congnizance, rigpa awareness, knowing, and you get it. In other words you’ve just identified, you’ve had pointed out to you and you have identified the most superficial level, but that doesn’t mean meaningless, that doesn’t mean trivial, it just means that which is most easily accessible, right. At that time can you say - have you realized rigpa? You know like if the teacher was a Dzogchen teacher, a Dzogchen lama. Have you realized rigpa? And Sogyal Rinpoche, this is a nice term, I haven’t used before I don’t think it’s in a classic text but we don’t need to confine ourselves to classic, he said you’ve realized baby rigpa. Baby rigpa. [laughter] Rigpa in diapers. I like that. I think it’s cool, there’s no suggestion there that you become a vidyadhara, you know, or you’ve just had a weekend of pointing instructions with Sogyal Rinpoche. Does he or anybody else think - Oh good weekend, I’ve become a vidyadhara! Maybe somebody thinks that and maybe for somebody it’s true, who’s it for me to say. But that’s not what he says and generally of course that’s not true. But does this mean that this was misleading? That oh if you think you’ve realized rigpa, that was misleading? How on earth are you going to go to a weekend retreat with no dharma background, get pointing out instructions and realize rigpa? What if you have realized the luminous and cognizant nature of your own awareness? That cognizant is called rigpa, baby rigpa why not? I know I’m not going to debate that, or the way I just put it which is just tomatos or tomatoes just a different way of saying the same thing, realized on the most superficial level. Have you realized rigpa? Yeah it’s called cognizance, yes I have. Is that rigpa, is that RIGPA? [Alan use a bass voice] The vidyadharas all speak in a very low voice, is that RIGPA? Is it identical? No it’s not identical, of course not, of course not. Is it something else? Is it looking at a flagpole instead of a donut? They’re entirely different, right. No it’s not like that. You’re looking right at it when you look right at the cognizance of your own awareness. You’re looking right at rigpa. You’re looking right at dharmakaya. Are you seeing it without mediation? Probably not unless you’re an incredible prodigy. But you’re looking right at it? Yes it’s the same word for a reason. Tibetans could have made up other words they were not shy about that but they use the same word for the most superficial level as the deepest level. There has to be a reason for that, likewise consciousness. ? Gian in sanskrit, consciousness, just means consciousness it’s identical to rigpa. Oh Tibetans translate that also as, they translate it as shepa which is consciousness they also translate as yeshe, which is primordial consciousness. [31:12]

One word gets two totally different meanings. But they’re not absolutely separate, right. So when you realize the rigpa on the superficial level you realize rigpa in substrate consciousness, you realize the emptiness of your own mind, the empty nature of consciousness and you are aware of that, you’ve realized rigpa because that with which with you are realizing the empty nature of your own mind is rigpa. And when you have, when rigpa identifies itself, primordial consciousness, buddha nature identifies itself, that is rigpa. So for the most superficial one, the initial one is like looking at the moon through three layers of clouds. But you have looked through the ornamentation of the human mind, male, female, ethnicity and all that, you’ve looked through that, you’ve seen something more fundamental. That I’m not a man all the way through, right. I’m not an American down to my ground, I’m not 66 years old down to my ground, that’s all secondary, that’s fluff, right. Here’s what I am, ok this is more my nucleus, right. This is what keeps - luminous and cognizant. And then that particular mode of substrate, what’s it feel like, what’s it feel like? Well the substrate consciousness that’s deeper. You have to actually get there to realize the substrate consciousness. So you’ve peeled away one level. And then we have reification, reification grasping onto the true existence, that’s not challenged when you’re resting in substrate consciousness. That’s also a veil, peel that away another layer of clouds vanishes and you’ve ascertained the empty nature of your own consciousness. But you still have a sense of being a conventional, a conditioned consciousness, peel that away. Release the grasping, the identification with the cognitive fusion, with conditioned consciousness which is empty of inherent nature, but still conditioned consciousness, release the identification with that - rigpa. You realize rigpa from the beginning through three layers of clouds, substrate consciousness through two layers of clouds, realize emptiness of your mind through one layer of cloud, cut through even the relative nature of your own empty mind to buddha nature.There’s the cloud, there’s the moon with no clouds, oh yeah. Totally clear? [laughter] ok good. One session, you figure it out. [more laughter]

[33:55] Meditation is silent not recorded.

[33:56] Olaso. So throughout the course of the day as much as you can sustain an ongoing flow of awareness of the sheer luminosity and cognizance of your own awareness. That will be a fast track to Dzogchen. Keep it simple. See you later.

Transcribed by KrissKringle Sprinkle

Revised by Cheri Langston

Final edition by Rafael Carlos Giusti

Discussion

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.