53 Pointing out Instructions by Padmasambhava

Olaso. So, I’ve been listening to you in the one on one meetings, some of you found this last week a little bit intense. I don’t know why but? (laughter) And sometimes afflictive uncertainty comes up. Doubts that are not really happy doubts, eager but more bothersome, irritating, unsettling. And of course at times it can seem like there’s an awful lot of download here, a lot of information kind of getting information overwhelmed. Yeah? Gets a bit complicated, five paths, ten bhumis, mahamudra, four yogas, different types of shamatha, whoa. Hard to take in. Hard to assimilate. So I think sometimes it’s good to go back to something really simple. So, I’ve tied mind up into knots. Then I think you need a bit of relief, from me. (laughter) So you’re going to get it. Not for very long. (more laughter) Just 24 minutes. (laughing) Then as Arnold Schwarzenegger said, “I’m back.” But for 24 minutes you get a break. You get a break, okay. Because I thought it would be very nice to invite a guest, a guest, a guest speaker in. Padmasambhava. Right, I thought that would be very nice. Padmasambhava step in, I’ll step out. Padmasambhava step in. I thought it would be very nice to ask Padmasambhava to give us all, to give all of us here, some pointing out instructions.

(01:58) Okay, I think it would be quite nice. Very straight, I asked not too complicated. (laughter) Really straight. Happily he agreed. He always agrees. He always agrees, no matter who’s asking, he always agrees. So that’s what I would like to do. So, if commentary’s needed, maybe not really commentary but context for this pointing out instruction from Padmasambhava, his own words, an English translation. It would be this morning’s talk, okay. This morning’s talk really showing the nature of mind, nature of mind, substrate consciousness, nature of mind, emptiness of mind, nature of mind, rigpa. And that it’s all in the same continuum. And in fact where your ordinary consciousness is, just the ordinary one, you see me right now, that consciousness. Where that one is your substrate consciousness is. It’s not someplace else. And where your ordinary consciousness is that’s where the emptiness of your mind is. The shunya nature of your own mind. The shunya nature of your consciousness, right there it’s not someplace else. It’s not hidden, it’s not a deeper level. It’s right there. Emptiness is form, form is emptiness. Consciousness is emptiness, emptiness is consciousness. Right? And right where your ordinary consciousness is, totally ordinary, nothing special, that’s where rigpa is. So, in looking at one you can be looking at all, right. Then that’s just a matter of how much dust you have on your eyes. How much you can see, yeah. But you are looking in the right place, okay. So what I’d like to do for this session would be for us to go in. I’ll start the timer and quietly if you need a liturgy, use your own liturgy, take refuge, bodhichitta. And then invoke Padmasambhava, Guru Rinpoche, and I would suggest the Lake Born Vajra, just for a very good reason, because the Lake Born Vajra as I’ve just said is the speech emanation. So the Lake Born Vajra is the speech of Padmasambhava. And that’s what I’m going to be reading. I’m going to be reading simply the speech of Padmasambhava. And I’ll not give any commentary. It’s just going to be straight. I think the Tibetan is very straightforward, very clear. So you don’t need to worry about translation whether it’s goofy or not, it’s okay. And so the speech itself, it’s, I’m going to be lending my voice. But that’s insignificant.

(4:28) It could be a woman’s voice, man’s voice, it doesn’t matter. But I’ll just simply try to articulate clearly and not quickly so it doesn’t go by in a blur, right. But the speech itself, it’s Padmasambhava’s speech. Whereas it’s said that you know that it’s all for one, one for all. That where the Buddha’s mind is there is the speech, there is the body. Where the Buddha’s speech is there’s the body, there’s the speech. They’re indivisible body, speech and mind, of a Buddha. You don’t get one without the other two. So where Padmasambhava’s speech is, there is Padmasambhava. There’s Padmasambhava’s mind, there’s Padmasambhava’s body. So that will be our teacher, the speech of Padmasambhava, who is the Lake Born Vajra. That will be the teacher, the pointing out instructions will be, the teacher will be the teaching. And so following refuge in bodhichitta, then I will recite once in Tibetan, and then the English translation, the Seven Line Prayer, the invocation, the invitation for Padmasambhava to come. To be present. If you know it you’re very welcome to recite with me and if you don’t just the Tibetan, just take it in as a blessing but then the English will be perfectly clear. And as I recite that, the Seven Line Prayer, which is tremendous blessing to that, if one is open to it. Then you imagine Guru Rinpoche coming into the space of your mind right, mostly the presence. The visualization is secondary, the sense of presence is primary. And then just rest in simplicity. Complete ease. Because it’s Padmasambhava’s mind by way of his speech, speaking to your Buddha nature. If you say, what’s the audience, who is he speaking to?

(06:10) Is he speaking to your American mind, your German mind? To your female mind, male mind? Old mind, young mind? To your intellect? Some people are smarter than others. Is he speaking to your intellect? No he’s speaking right through those. He’s speaking right to, pointing out instructions are speaking right to rigpa. That’s the intended audience. Right. So you just listen totally at ease. And that doesn’t mean by any means gullible, blind faith, accept everything I’m saying, nothing like that. Just listening with open mind, completely relaxed, let the words come in, and then follow, follow Guru Rinpoche’s instructions, if you’re so inclined. Okay, sound good? Okay it’ll be very simple. So really for this one completely relax. What’s coming here is not going to be tough and difficult and complicated with four of this and ten of that. It’s just very simple, very simple. Okay? So, find a comfortable position. (sounds of retreatants moving)

(07:43) Meditation bell chimes three times.

(08:07) Settling your body, speech and mind in the natural state. Then in your own way, take refuge, Mahayana refuge and arouse Bodhichitta.

(09:31) Then we recite the Seven Line Prayer to invoke the presence, the blessings of Guru Rinpoche, Padmasambhava.

HUNG ORGYEN YUL GYI NUP JANG TSAM
Hung In the northwest frontier of Oddiyana,

PEMA GE SAR DONG PO LA
In the heart of a lotus

YAM TSEN CHOG GI NGÖ DRUP NYEY
Sits the one renowned as Padmasambhava,

PEMA JUNG NEY ZHEY SU DRAK
Who achieved the wondrous supreme siddhi,

KHOR DU KHAN DRO MANG PÖ KOR
And is surrounded by a host of many dakinis.

KYED KYI JE SU DAK DRUP KYI
Following in your footsteps, I devote myself to practice.

JIN GYI LAP CHIR SHEK SU SÖL
Please come forth and bestow your blessings.

GURU PEMA SIDDHI HUNG

(10:29) And then in English.

(11:22) And so here are the pointing out instructions from Padmasambhava also known as Orgyen Rinpoche. So, with no commentary:

(11:39) Astonishing, the ongoing cognizance and luminosity called the mind, exists, but does not exist even as a single thing. It arises, for it manifests as samsara and nirvana, and a myriad of joys and sorrows. It is asserted, for it is asserted according to the twelve yanas. It is a label, for it is named in unimaginable ways. Some people call it the ultimate reality of the mind. Some non Buddhists call it the Atman. Sravakas call it the personal identitylessness. The Cittamatrans call it mind, and some people call it the middle way. Some call it the Perfection of Wisdom. Some give it the name Tathagatagarbha. Some give it the name Mahamudra. Some give it the name ordinary consciousness. Some call it the sole bindu. Some give it the name dharmadhatu. And some give it the name the alaya.

(14:16) To introduce this by pointing it out directly, past consciousness has disappeared without a trace. Moreover future realization is unarisen. And in the freshness of its own present unfabricated way of being, there is the ordinary consciousness of the present.

(16:13) When it stares at itself, with this observation there is a vividness in which nothing is seen. Awareness direct, naked, vivid, unestablished, empty, lucid luminosity, unique, non dual luminosity and emptiness.

(18:33) It is not permanent, but unestablished.

(19:14) It is not nihilistic, but radiantly vivid.

(19:58) It is not one, but is manifoldly aware and luminous. It is not manifold, but is indivisibly of one taste.

(21:34) It is none other than this very self awareness.

(22:42) This is a real introduction to the primordial nature of being. And this, the three embodiments of the the Buddhas are indivisibly complete. As utterly unestablished emptiness, it is the dharmakaya.

(24:03) As the clear radiance of emptiness, it is the sambhogakaya. Appearing everywhere without impediment, it is the nirmanakaya. Simple, singularly complete, it is the svabhavakaya. To introduce this by pointing it out forcefully, it is your very own present consciousness.

(26:58) When it is this very unstructured self luminous consciousness, what do you mean, I do not realize the ultimate reality of my mind?

(27:55) There is nothing here to meditate on, so what do you mean, it does not arise due to meditation?

(28:48) When it is just this direct awareness, what do you mean, I do not find my own mind?

(29:20) When it is just this uninterrupted clear awareness, what do you mean, the nature of the mind is not seen?

(29:42) When it is the very thinker of the mind, what do you mean, it is not found by seeking it?

(29:58) When there is nothing at all to do, what do you mean, it does not arise due to activity?

(30:13) When it is enough to leave it in its own unstructured state, what do you mean, it does not remain?

(30:30) When it is enough to let it be without doing anything, what do you mean, I can not do it?

(30:49) When it is unified indivisible clarity awareness and emptiness, what do you mean, it is affirmed and unaffirmed?

(31:09) When it is spontaneously self arisen without causes or conditions, what do you mean, I can’t do it?

(31:24) When the arising and release of thoughts are simultaneous, what do you mean, they do not occur together?

(31:39) When it is this very consciousness of the present, what do you mean, I do not recognize it? (Alan continues, meditation bell sounds in background)

(32:01) The ultimate reality of the mind is certainly empty and without basis. Your mind is intangible like empty space. Is it like that or not? Observe your own mind.

(32:31) Empty and void but not a nihilistic view. Self arisen primordial consciousness is original clear consciousness self arisen and self illuminating. It is like the essence of the sun. Is it like that or not? Observe your own mind.

(33:15) Awareness, primordial consciousness is certainly unceasing. Uninterrupted awareness is like the current of a river, is it like that or not? Observe your own mind.

(33:41) The dispersing thoughts of ideation are certainly not being grasped, this intangible dispersion is like a hazy sky. Is it like that or not? Observe your own mind.

(34:16) Recognize all appearances as self appearing. Self appearing phenomena are like reflections in a mirror. Is it like that or not? Observe your own mind.

(35:08) All signs are certainly released in their own state. Self arising and self releasing, they’re like clouds in the sky. Is it like that or not? Observe your own mind.

(36:10) And let’s bring this session to a close.

(37:31) So, it’s said among the three refuges of Buddha, Dharma and Sangha the most explicit refuge, the one that truly liberates, is the Dharma. And the Buddha in the Pali canon states, one who sees the Dharma, sees the Tathagata, sees the Buddha. One who sees the Dharma sees the Buddha. And of all the myriad siddhis that Buddhism and other contemplative traditions have said to be possible, they say that the greatest siddhi is, sharing the dharma. the Buddha demonstrated many siddhis according to the most ancient accounts we have. But his greatest siddhi was turning the wheel of dharma, because only that liberates the mind. Levitating, all that kind of stuff very entertaining, doesn’t liberate the mind.

(38:33) And after the great Atisha had spent years in Tibet and knew he was about to pass away. He was clearly tremendously loved and respected, like almost inconceivably. And so when it was quite clear that he was soon to leave, his students were very grief stricken and Atisha said, Oh no need to be sad, I’ve shared with you the dharma, such as the Lamp of the Path to Enlightenment, gave them the first lamrim, he gave them the oral lineage of the Seven Point Mind Training, he gave them dharma. He said, I am my teaching, so my body disappears, but you have me. The teachings remain with you, that’s me. And he said and I do actually believe it, that he was speech emanation also, of Padmasambhava. He was his speech. So his body left, okay. His speech still there, speech is still here.

(39:37) And then it’s said that Panchen Rinpoche, was an incarnation of (? 39:43 Tibetan name), the one on guru rinpoche’s left, one of his two principal disciples. (? 39:48 Tibetan name) was said to be an emanation of Atisha, same lineage. So, then we can say that Panchen Rinpoche’s speech must be Panchen Rinpoche also. That’s what we have here. So we finish the preliminaries, we’ve finished the shamatha, now we go to the vipassana. We go to his root verse, where Panchen Rinpoche writes, Now the way to introduce the ultimate reality of the mind is as set forth in the oral instructions of my root guru. That was Sangye Yeshe, who is all the gnosis of the Buddhas. It’s a little bit awkward in English, but who is kind of the embodiment of the primordial consciousness or consciousnesses of all the Buddhas. When it comes, bear in mind, when it comes to this dimension of reality, of rigpa, primordial consciousness and it was clear in those pointing out instructions that if you ask well, the primordial consciousness of the Buddhas, of Maitreya, Buddha Shakyamuni, Kashyapa and so forth, the myriad Buddhas is the dharmakaya of the Buddhas. Is that one? Are they all sharing one mind? Is primordial consciousness one and then just all the Buddhas kind of share that community like a commune? Or is there one dharmakaya for each buddha. Each one has his or her own individual one? And the answer is, the question does not compute. (mild laughter) You know either way, it doesn’t work, doesn’t work. The intellect wants to put that which is beyond the intellect into the domain of the intellect.

(41:31) It’s like a conquistador. It wants to go out and gain conquests. It wants to go to the new world and own it. The mind that owns science, the mind intellect owns science quite rightly. Owns science, owns philosophy, owns engineering and technology. Owns, intellect owns a lot of things, yeah. And then the intellect hears about dharmakaya and says I want it. I want to own it. And tries to capture it, tries to box it. To put it into a category, where it feels now I’ve got it, I’ve gotcha. You’re one, you’re one, you’re one. Well maybe not, maybe you’re many. Maybe you’re one and many, maybe you’re neither. And no matter what, it gets rebuffed. Whatever the intellect tries to do with dharmakaya, it gets rebuffed. Whatever comes up however clever it can be. I know you’re one and many, both and neither, how about that, buffed. There’s a bouncer, they’re trying to get into the club of dharmakaya. There’s a bouncer and the bouncer just keeps bouncing you out. The intellect has no access. Awareness does. But intellect does not. So who is the gnosis of all the Buddhas, but while of the very nature his own root guru, Sangye Yeshe, means the very embodiment, the very synthesis of the minds of all the buddhas who is all the gnosis of the buddhas but has taken on the guise of a saffron wearer. Refers to a fully ordained monk. He’s manifesting while he is the mind of all the buddhas, manifesting as a (? 43:14 Tibetan) monk and cleared away the darkness of my mind’s confusion.

(43:17) So there’s his root text, then he gives his own commentary. Knowing other sources is easy and since this promise and that is this promise right now to explicitly go into vipassana within the context of mahamudra. SInce this promise is unlike the earlier one You remember the earlier ones said I’ll give a general presentation. You remember that? Gives a general presentation. Then he went into quite a bit of general presentation of the mahamudra according to vajrayana. Remember? And then he finished with that, went into shamatha and now he’s going back to mahamudra, and within the vipassana context. So this promise is unlike the earlier one, there is no fault such that I would repeat previous explanations. So he says you know don’t get bothered, don’t get upset, if there seems to be some overlap with the references I made earlier to mahamudra in the vajrayana context, from Saraha, and Naropa and so forth and so on, Milarepa. And what I’m about to say here. Because that was general this is specific. So this is not just, not the same. I’m going to do something different here, but don’t be upset, if there’s some overlap. So, I will repeat, there’s no fault such that I will repeat previous explanations. So a piece overlap here showing continuity.

(44:44) Thus here there is one, a general demonstration that distinguishes the way of identifying the ultimate reality of the mind. That’s in square brackets. and secondly a demonstration that summarizes the essence of those discussions. So, he’s going to give the whole thing and then sum it up at the end. Okay. So here in terms of the outline a general demonstration that distinguishes the way of identifying the ultimate reality of the mind. The sanskrit term here, that comes up most frequently is cittata, cittata. It’s worth lingering there just for a moment because you know some clamp is useful. We have this adjective in sanskrit, shunya, shunya it just means empty. That’s all, it just means empty. Like an empty glass, empty, it’s an ordinary word. And then we have shunyata, and that ta on the end, the long a, shunyata, takes that adjective and turns it into an abstract noun. Empti-ness, empti-ness right, very straightforward. That’s I think the best translation for it, it’s exactly what it means, whether you think it’s nihilistic or not. That’s what the word means. So I think it’s just better to translate what it says and then give the meaning of it. Rather than trying to translate the term in some way that you’ve interpreted to be the meaning. And so that’s shunyata. Right.

(46:09) And then we have dharmata, dharmata. Well dharma’s a noun not an adjective. But then dharmata it’s the same thing. It’s taking a noun, it’s an entity, like a glass of water is a dharma. It’s a phenomenon, it’s empty, it’s something that exists. But then the entityness of it, the phenomenon ness of it, what is it that enables it to be there at all? Right. The phenomenoness of it. The entityness, not the specific quality of the glass, okay that’s sure that we can describe. But it’s there. How is it possible that it’s there? Dharmata, the entityness of it. Well, that’s it’s ultimate reality, that is, if it weren’t empty of inherent nature, it couldn’t be there at all. Or if it were you couldn’t see it. And it couldn’t do anything. And it would be unknowable. And therefore wouldn’t be at all. So it’s only because it’s empty that it could be there at all and do anything and can be known. If it were otherwise it would be unknowable in principle and you remember what Heisenberg said about that. If something is unknowable in principle don’t bother to call it existent. It doesn’t mean anything. So the dharmata of the glass, is it’s ultimate nature, the ultimate reality of the glass is its empty nature. And then we have citta. That’s a noun also. It means mind, that’s a pretty good translation. Then we have cittita. So you have got a mind, but how is it possible that you have a mind? What made that possible? Because that’s different than a glass. A glass has, it’s all appearances. There is nothing that it’s like to be a glass, to quote a very good philosopher by the name of Thomas Nagel. It’s not a quote but a very close close paraphrase. That is, you’ll never know what it’s like to be a glass of water, because a glass of water doesn’t know what it’s like to be a glass of water, because it’s not a subject. It’s only appearances, it’s only an object but not a subject, right. But when it comes to mind there is something that it’s like to be a mind.

(48:12) The mind experiences itself, the glass of water doesn’t, but the mind does. So, how is that possible? That the mind, is a qualitatively and very important way unlike telephone, a glass of water, an elementary particle, a neuron, and so on and so on. What is it that enables a mind to be a mind? Cittata, the mindness of it. The mindness of it. Well, that can of course be interpreted in different ways. But in the Mahamudra and Dzogchen context that’s referring to rigpa. It’s only because the ground state, the womb so to speak or the ground state of your mind is rigpa. That it’s possible for you to have a mind at all. If you didn’t have rigpa you couldn’t have a mind at all. If you’re a semchen, a mind haver, you have to have a Buddha nature, nobody got left out. Because you have a Buddha therefore you’re going to have a mind, right. So, cittita, the ultimate reality of the mind in this context is referring to rigpa, tathagatagarbha, dharmakaya, buddha nature, primordial consciousness. So, This is a general demonstration that distinguishes the way of identifying the ultimate reality of the mind, cittita. It’s sometimes also called (?49:40 Tibetan phrase) I’ve seen that term come up a little bit in this text. (?49:44 Tibetan phrase) well that’s simply the dharmata of the mind. The dharmata of the mind. But the dharmata of the mind is the, dharmata of the citta, is simply the cittita, right. The ultimate reality of the mind is simply citta, dharmata or collapse it, cittita. So we continue.

(50:07) The teacher has said when there is the realization of mind, that is buddha. So buddha is not to be sought elsewhere. Boy he just jumped right into it. Kind of like, what? When there is realization of mind, when you’ve really fathomed it. That mind that you have fathomed, that is Buddha. So you recall his Holiness the Dalai Lama’s comment about the, the difference of perspective on the path on the teachings from Longchenpa, the great Dzogchen master, and Tsongkhapa. And Tsongkhapa is looking upon the path, upon the, looking upon reality while presenting it. It’s not that Longchenpa has a higher or lower realization than Tsongkhapa, that’s certainly absolutely not implied. But the way that Tsongkhapa is extending his gift to humanity, he’s presenting the path as if from the perspective of a sentient being who has a possibility of setting out on the path, realizing the potential that is the Buddha nature, fully manifesting that, following the path, coming to its culmination and then achieving enlightenment. That’s lamrim, that’s classic lamrim. Okay. You have the potential from the very beginning. Get out on the path and that potential becomes more and more and more manifest until it’s fully manifest then you are Samyaksambuddha. (? 51:43 Tibetan phrase) authentically (51:49 Tibetan phrase) manifestly, authentically, perfectly Buddha. (51:56 Tibetan phrase) Each word is really kind of important. Manifestly there is nothing hidden any longer. Authentically, it’s true. Perfectly, nothing left out. Buddha. That’s the culmination of the path.

(52:10) And then Tsongkhapa says for those of you who think you’re sentient beings, here it is, “Set out on the path.” right. And then Longchenpa is addressing those, he’s just talking right to their Buddha nature, say never mind American woman, man, never mind you’re human being, I don’t care. I’m just going to talk right to your Buddha nature. Here’s what it looks like from Buddha mind. To realize who you already are. Right. So complementary perspectives, same reality, complementary perspectives. But here is Panchen Rinpoche the great Gelugpa master, “When there is realization of the mind, when you realize the mind from the perspective of rigpa, that mind you are realizing, that is Buddha. So, Buddha is not to be sought elsewhere. Do not look outside your mind for Buddha.***

(53:04) Saraha says, The ultimate reality of the mind alone is the seat of everything. It’s translated here as mind itself and that’s a nice literal translation. (53:21 Tibetan phrase) can easily be translated, I did for a long time, I’m just not doing it anymore because because it too easily means or can be just kind of casually dismissed as well you know the cup itself, you know. Which just means the cup and the mind it’s the mind itself. That can just mean well you know the mind. But it’s not quite, it doesn’t quite get it. It’s the ultimate reality of the mind.

(53:51) So, The ultimate reality, I mean if you just say the mind itself is alone is the seat of everything and you look inside, yeah I know what the mind itself is, I just looked at it. That’s not the seat of everything. Your woman’s mind, man’s mind that’s not the seat of everything. That’s just your mind. Where this is going down to the depths, the core, the root from which your mind springs. The ultimate reality of the mind alone is the seat of everything. When mundane existence and nirvana are projected, manifest, are displayed, When mundane existence and nirvana are projected and which, the ultimate reality of the mind alone is the seat of everything, whence, I’m sorry, whence, from which mundane existence and nirvana are projected and which bestows all desired results. So that’s some extremely pithy and complete. The ultimate reality of the mind, rigpa, alone is the seat of everything. It is that which projects the whole array, the whole bandwidth of mundane existence which is samsara and nirvana. And while that is the seat of everything that which projects or manifests everything it is also that which bestows all desired results. It’s a wish fulfilling jewel. It’s that which can fulfill your every desire. To the mind like a wish granting jewel I prostrate. So it’s paying homage to your own mind. But not your crummy little ordinary mind. You know with all its mental afflictions, you know I prostrate to my grumpiness and my pettiness and my big ego and so forth, not that. You know, that’s why it’s the ultimate reality of mind. To that I prostrate. That’s Buddha, buddha mind.

(55:47) So, he clearly Panchen Rinpoche clearly is drawing now that he is going into vipassana he is not separated from his earlier commitment that he’s going to be bringing together, uniting the Gelugpa and the Kagyu oral lineages into one. So here he jumps right in. Saraha, you know, the master of masters of Mahamudra. Then he goes to one of the great Tibetan Mahamudra masters, Ling Repa. Also, it’s explained by Ling Repa when you realize the ultimate reality of your own mind, that is Buddha. When you cut false imputations from within that, is fulfillment. This term false imputations, I have to put in false because it’s not, it’s not just imputation it’s (? 56:40 Tibetan phrase) it’s not just (Tibetan phrase) conceptual imputation is (? 56:44 Tibetan). And (Tibetan) is, it is exactly that cognitive hyperactivity disorder business. (?56:51 Tibetan) is exactly that issue of imputing or projecting, projecting something on reality that just wasn’t there. Our psychologists often call it transference right? That happens a lot, that’s (? 57:02 Tibetan). That oh you remind me of my father and I have a lot of problems with my father therefore I have problem with you. That was a real trivialization of it. But this happens all the time. Yeah we know we’re familiar with that. So this (? 57:15 Tibetan) is projecting stuff on reality that is in fact not there in the nature of reality. And one of the core ones, deepest ones is projecting upon reality inherent existence.

(57:29) When we grasp onto the inherent existence of anything, it’s not there. Inherent existence is not there from its own side. But we certainly treat it as if it is. Whether we’re dreaming, as in a non lucid dream or in the waking state. We’re grasping at pretty much everything. Objectively and subjectively as being really there from its own side. That’s (? 57:49 Tibetan). That’s a false superimposition. I think it’s better than imposition, superimposition. Because it’s not simply conceptual designation we’re going to get to that, but that’s perfectly, that conceptual designation is perfectly fine there’s nothing wrong with that. I look over and Mary Kay’s direction and say oh there’s Mary Kay. I just designated, I imputed, oh that’s Mary Kay. That’s not a problem, is not a delusion. If I reify her as existing from her own side okay that’s a problem. But just pointing oh there’s Mary Kay and likewise in the context of a dream, various people arise. And within the context of the dream, like especially a lucid dream where you know what’s going on, within that context, like being in a play, on stage and over there is you know is Frankenstein. Hey Frankenstein, give me a cup of tea, whatever. And you refer to Frankenstein, in the play, that’s fine, just don’t think that that poor actor is actually Frankenstein. You know. But within the context it’s nothing wrong, you’re playing your role and you are this and he is that. Your Jekyll and he’s Hyde and so forth and so on.

(59:04) And so, When you cut false superimpositions from within, that is fulfillment. because then you see reality as it is without all of the gunk that you superimpose upon it. It is from realizing or not realizing the ultimate reality of one’s own mind that the loss and profit that are dichotomized as samsara and nirvana are magnified. That’s a very dense statement. Okay, when we’re enmeshed in samsara, immersed in samsara, there’s a lot of loss, as we know. There is so much tragedy, so much misery, so much suffering and conflict, strife, pain. It’s a lot of loss. You realize nirvana that’s the biggest profit. Immutable bliss, transcendent beyond time, absolutely fulfilling. So those two, the loss associated with samsara, the benefit, the profit, the gain of realizing nirvana all of that hinges on realizing or not realizing the ultimate reality of your own mind. Everything hinges on that. So the mind is central. To realize it or not everything hinges on that.

(1:00:29) In accordance with the meaning of all the holy sutras and tantras, ways of meditating by cutting the root basis of mind, are as follows. So this phrase is not cutting to the root. It’s cutting the root because the root of the mind is the reification of the mind. The root of the mind is like if you have a weed out in your yard and it’s something that’s giving you a lot of trouble. Maybe it’s toxic, who knows, but a weed, let’s say something really toxic. Well, you can’t just snip it off on the top of course. I spent hundreds of hours pulling weeds when I was a kid. You have to get down and pull the whole root up. Or cut it from its root so that root can never grow again. But you have to cut it, you have to cut its root and so that it can never grow again. And so mind as the mind of a sentient being, right, the mind of a sentient being, you need to cut the root of reification. And then that reified, the sense of reified mind of course then dries up. So this is a term that is used a lot, cutting the root of the mind. It’s cutting the reification of the mind. So, the meaning of all the holy sutras and tantras [pretension] ways of meditation by cutting the root basis of mind, are as follows. Some examine from within equipoise okay now this is really loaded, within equipoise I say meditative equipoise, but equipoise is perfectly fine as long as you know what it means and we know exactly what it means because he just spent the last what ten or fifteen pages explaining how to practice and achieve shamatha, culminating in coming to rest in meditative equipoise, right. And recall again at the outset he said there are two approaches. One is to be introduced to the view and on that basis then seek meditation or meditative equipoise. And that’s what very often is done. You know, eight years, six years of masters training, twenty years as a geshe, fifteen - twenty years as a ghenpo and then if you have sufficient motivation and so forth with that really solid basis then you may go off and you know really try to practice shamatha, some people do.

(1:02:42) And then Panchen Rinpoche exactly as I’ve said this a couple times already, in exactly the same theme as Padmasambhava himself says. And then there’s a second approach where you first put in all the effort needed. If it’s long, it’s short, easy, hard whatever it is, you just take on the task of achieving meditative equipoise, you know exactly what that means, achieve shamatha. And then having prepared your mind in that way then you seek on that basis, then you seek out the view. And he’s about to give the view right here. Okay. I can say with complete confidence and utter certainty one can introduce the view, the view of the middle way, that’s coming. The view of Mahamudra, the view of Dzogchen, which is so certainly, I mean it’s kind so obvious how doesn’t even need to be defended. If you approach that, if you that is, you go for teachings on Madhyamaka, Mahamudra, Dzogchen these wisdom teachings, perfection of wisdom, if you, if you go to receive such teachings and you have let’s say a very accomplished teacher pointing out the view, perfection of wisdom, Madhyamaka, Mahamudra, Dzogchen and the mind in which this is being poured, the mind that is attending, receiving, and so forth. If that’s you’re ordinary mind, untrained, dualistic but not only dualistic just completely cluttered, cluttered with obsessive ideation, with the five obscurations, there’s one situation where you’ve just poured the most profound teachings of the view of the nature of reality into that type of vessel.

(1:04:31) And then over here you have a vessel that’s been cleaned of all the obscurations of all the five obscurations, it’s supple, it’s buoyant, suffused with a sense of well being, free of laxity, even subtle laxity and excitation, stable, clear, luminous, bright. Pour the same teachings into that mind. There’s just no comparison. This one absorbs it, takes it right in, this one, aye,aye, aye. (laughter) So, so here we are. So, Some examine from within equipoise that his approach, having achieved shamatha, from that perspective, you’re resting there, but you’re not just zoned out in bliss, luminosity, and non conceptually. You’re there with all of the five dhyana factors at your fingertips, you’re ready to investigate. Coarse investigation, subtle analysis. You’re ready to put this mind to work. That was the whole point, not just to have a nice shamatha vacation. And so Some examine from within equipoise whether their own mind is established anywhere outside or inside. Okay so they’re setting to it. They’ve achieved shamatha, they’ve enjoyed it for awhile, and now they really are doing the ontological probe. Phenomenologically they’ve got it nailed, phenomenologically it’s they’re finished. The luminous and cognizant aspects of consciousness that are its defining characteristics, got it. You come down to the stem consciousness down to this blissful, luminous, non conceptual awareness, that is continuous having no beginning or end. You’re just drinking it. I mean you totally get it. But this is all phenomenological. It’s like comparing a grapefruit to an orange. Okay, how are they different and then you describe phenomenologically how a grapefruit is different from an orange, no problem. That’s phenomenological analysis right. Or one vintage of wine versus another vintage of wine. That’s phenomenological [term], those are very important differences. But now he’s going for another question entirely.

(1:06:46) One can say the earlier ones, the (? 1:06:49 Tibetan). How does it appear? What are its manifest phenomenological characteristics? Very important. But now he’s asking a different question. This is now no longer shamatha it is vipassana, he’s asking how. What is the nature of existence of the mind? And now we’re asking, it’s an ontological probe. So, Some examine from within equipoise Now that they’ve got their minds stripped down to its nucleus, down to its nakedness of just this essential nature of the mind, looking at it without any of the adornments, the ornaments, the clothing, the configurations of this mind versus that mind, western, eastern, old, and all that kind of business. Then you just strip it right down okay this is your mind, this is your subtle mind. This is subtle mind. And now you ask of this subtle mind, the referent of that term. You ask whether it is established anywhere outside or inside. Established means being really there. That’s what established means, it’s dupha in Tibetan. Is it established? Is it really there? Is it anywhere outside? Is it outside your body? Outside your brain? Is it outside? Is it something outside? Or is it inside, inside your body? Inside your brain? Inside your frontal cortex? How is it really? Is it established, means really. Is it established anywhere outside or inside? Is it established as arising? Does it truly emerge? Does it truly abide? Is it then present for some period? Does it truly cease? This they examine.

(1:08:31) And when they see that it is not established anywhere, they cut the root basis of the mind. Identify the mind and attain the goal Mahamudra. If you don’t realize Mahamudra without realizing that your mind is not established. It’s not really outside or inside. It doesn’t really arise. It doesn’t really abide and it doesn’t really cease. And when you see that, then in so doing you cut the root basis of the mind. You cut all reification of the mind. You cease grasping to the inherent existence of the mind. You identify the mind as it actually is. Free of the false superimpositions, that we superimpose upon the mind, project upon the mind. You know seeing the mind as it is and you attain the goal of Mahamudra. This is asserted as the meaning of this passage from the doha, the doha, treasure, mahamudra instruction. When sought, no mind or appearance is found. Nor is there anywhere a seeker. For those of you who have had some introduction maybe even quite thorough training in Madhyamaka, this is that (? 1:10:00 Tibetan phrase). If you look for it, it’s not to be found. Whether it’s the mind you look for it, how is it, in and of itself? From its own side really. How is it really? How can it be established? Can you find that mind that is actually the bearer from its own side, by its own nature, of its attributes? Can you find that mind? Can you find it or not? And then appearances, everything, everything from subatomic particles to galaxies to colors and sounds and smells and taste, all appearances. When you seek them out from their own side, those appearances that bear their own attributes, they are the attribute bearers and they bear the attributes that attribute bearer. Which we identify by way of its attributes. Can you find it?

(1:10:53) When sought, no mind or appearance, no subject or object is found. Nor is there anywhere a seeker. So, you as a seeker are looking for mind, you as a seeker for looking for appearances really, how are they really? And then you invert that same search in upon yourself as the seeker and say, can I find myself? And now that’s a shocker? Even you aren’t to be found. The non existent that which is not truly existent, The non existent does not arise or cease at any time. A real mind, a real appearance, a real seeker are non existent. That which is non existent does not arise or cease at any time. So it cannot become something else. If it’s not there in the first place, it’s not going to turn into something else. So it cannot become something else. It is the nature of existence of natural great bliss. Very interesting. It is the nature of existence of natural great bliss. It’s a notion that is I think basically vanished entirely from science. That knowing reality will bring you eudaimonia. If Steven Weinberg is any indicator, and of course he doesn’t speak for all scientists, but he speaks for a lot, when he says and I quoted him earlier, the more you understand the universe the more meaningless it appears. Or that we’re chemical scum and so forth and so on. Not exactly a yippie moment. You know. But that’s because they’ve missed something really important.

(1:12:51) And here, seeking the nature of reality from the inside out rather than the outside in. And then never having an in. Because you insist on looking only at appearances, only at the objective, only objective, only objective. And then you say oh dear oh dear, oh dear it’s all meaningless. You know of course (Alan chuckling) what did you expect? You’re only looking at appearances. You’re only looking at objects as if there’s no such thing as a subject. So of course it’s meaningless. What did you expect? That was a given before you even started looking. You think that’s a discovery? That’s in your methodology. You really expected to find meaning in the orbits of the moons around Jupiter? Or in the atomic weight of helium? You thought that was where you were going to find meaning? Come on, wake up. But here you’re looking from the inside out. From the mind outwards. And when you cannot find, and when you find the unfindability of the inherent nature of your own mind, of yourself, of mind and all appearances, then that is the nature of existence. It is the nature of existence of natural great bliss. Here is this non duality of dharmadhatu which is the nature of existence. And great bliss which is of the very nature of the tatathagharba. And of course they’re non dual. It is the nature of existence of natural great bliss. Great bliss that’s in the nature of nature. The great bliss that is in the very nature of the dharmadhatu. Thus all appearances are the dharma body. Okay he chooses to translate dharmakaya, it’s as good a translation as any, but whenever you see dharma body, I’m not going to change it, but dharma body means dharmakaya. That’s why I don’t translate dharmakaya. Because as he said oh what does in mean, it means dharmakaya. Then I don’t translate it.

(1:14:41) Thus all appearances are the dharmakaya. There are no appearances that exist apart Now we’re again going down to the ground. We’re not just talking about mind, substrate consciousness and so forth. We’re going right down to the ultimate ground, nature of existence, the ground of being. And so here now we’ve just gone to the ultimate depths. And he’s saying there are no appearances apart from dharmakaya. No appearances of anything. Let alone pure lands no appearances of samsara either. Nirvana, samsara both. Appearances displays of dharmakaya. That’s all appearances are the dharmakaya. Perfectly obvious if you’re looking from the perspective of dharmakaya. If you’re looking from the perspective of a sentient being, and if you objectify dharmakaya, and call dharmakaya, god, then you have the problem, I think it’s called, what theodicy? Theodicy? The problem is how can an all compassionate god create a universe in which there is so much misery and evil? Theodicy, isn’t it? It’s got a big name, no religious scholar, I guess I’m supposed to be it. (laughter) I think it’s theodicy. It’s been around ever since there’s been. (retreatant speaking in background) Did I get it right? Theodicy, is that the term I’m looking for? Yeah. Okay thank you. Yeah good. Because it’s a theistic term and I’m not really a scholar of any theistic tradition. But it’s a real very real issue. It’s a very important issue. Not at all trivial, nothing to ridicule. There’s nothing ridiculous about it at all. The notion of god as being omnipotent and omnibenevolent which is absolutely core to all the theistic traditions I know of. Certainly of all the Abrahamic traditions.

(1:16:35) So there it is, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. And yet manifestly there is just so much tragedy. There are natural cataclysms, the whole animal realm, they’re just all eating each other. Let alone all the awful things we do. And we are created and we you know often succumb to very evil tendencies and so forth. And how is this possible? And if you objectify and reify god, then you turn to god and say how could you do this? And there is no answer. I mean it’s been asked for centuries and centuries. And I think there’s just you just kind of fall back and stop asking the question. Say mysterious are the ways of the Lord, stop asking the question, you know. And I think from a Buddhist perspective it’s all in the problem of objectifying and reifying the divine. Then you’ve got a problem. It doesn’t mean this is now comprehensible to the intellect, because it’s not. (chuckles) Don’t think this is a quick way out. Now that the intellect can jump on and say now I’ve got the solution. Because he’s still saying all these appearances all these appearances from the hell realms up to the pure land, they’re all appearances of dharmakaya. Okay dharmakaya is not objective and it’s not reified it’s not something other than your own mind, right. It’s not something other than your own mind. And still the question can come in. But then how can dharmakaya which is you know the divine of the divine, the sacred of the sacred, the transcendent of the transcendent, how could that be the root of that which is not just nirvana which I’m very happy with but also the root of samsara, how is that possible? And the answer is, you’ll know when you get there. It is not comprehensible to the intellect. The intellect should kind of, know your place, there are somethings you can know and there are somethings you can’t. But if you’d like to know, it’s not that you can’t, that you as an individual as a sentient being, it’s not that you can’t know, but when can you know.

(1:18:28) So, to give a crude example. When I was in my late 20’s I read Fritjof Capra’s Tao of Physics. And as I mentioned before I loved the physics part of it. I thought this is amazing. I got to the other side, was not very impressed. Because he’s not really a scholar of Eastern, you know, Contemplative Traditions. But he really, I read it actually, I read right through the night. I didn’t sleep, I just read. And as soon as I finished with the physics section and got to the Hindu Buddhism section, then I pretty much lost interest. But boy he got me with, Hello. You know, as they say, in the physics like, I didn’t know that part of physics before. And so I read other books on quantum mechanics, there as a Buddhist monk in a monastery, teaching, translating and so forth. Buddha, Buddha, Buddha dharma. And if at that time in my late 20’s if I said but I really want to understand the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, I’d like to understand the Schroeder wave equation. I’d like to understand how do you go from quantum mechanics to quantum cosmology. I’d like to know what is really meant by the measurement problem. The answer would be this is beyond the scope of your intellect. Hadn’t studied physics for almost 10 years, forgotten most of what I had learned. I hadn’t studied mathematics for 10 years, forgotten most of what I had learned. So, it was inaccessible. If I wanted those answers, the answer would be well it’s not that you’re not smart enough. I’m smart enough, most people are. But you won’t be able to get it. You can read all the books you like. You can watch all the nova programs on quantum mechanics you like, but you’re not going to get it. For that you’re going to really have to hunker down, and go back and get your mathematics in shape. All the way up to and including multivariable calculus. You’re going to have to study quantum, you’re going to have to study Newtonian mechanics, and Maxwellian electromagnetism and you have to study relativity theory and then you could be introduced to the Schrodinger wave equation. Because you actually understand it and then from that platform then you can actually start to understand. Then you could get some satisfying answers. But you can’t, if you don’t do that. You can’t. Okay that’s just one example, there are thousands of examples like that. Right. It’s not that you’re by nature incapable, it’s just that you’ll never get the answer from the vantage point where you are now. It doesn’t matter how bright you are, it doesn’t matter how much you want it, you will not get it. If you don’t have the training, you don’t have the understanding. And that’s it as long as you’re a sentient being as long as you’re viewing your reality from the perspective of a sentient being operating out of your intellect, there is no answer for theodicy, in a theistic tradition. There’s just no answer. You just stop asking the question and have faith. And for this one as well. How is it possible?

(1:21:20) Now here’s a question I hear all the time. If our, if our fundamental nature is Buddha nature, how did we get screwed up? When did it happen and who is responsible? It’s kind of like, basically I want to file a lawsuit and I want to know who is responsible. I know it’s not me, because I didn’t do this, I have no recollection of ever having any choice in the matter. I’m just here thrown in samsara and I don’t like it and I want to know who did it to me. (light laughter) And how did it happen and tell me and make it snappy. You know. How did samsara start? Yes, you can know, but not from your perspective. But this is the big statement, this comes up, boy this comes up, it’s everywhere, it’s unavoidable, it’s kind of like the elephant in the room. All appearances are the dharma body the dharmakaya. So, Also someone seeking the mind do not find it established in any part of their own bodies, from the top of the head to the soles of the feet. You don’t find the mind anywhere. I mean one wouldn’t really expect to see it outside of the body, that would be kind of weird. If you had your body here and it was completely mindless imagine just meat. Meat from the top to the bottom, meat, meat, meat. Like in a butcher shop here’s meat, human meat you know we sell it by the kilo. And the mind is over there, that would be really weird.

(1:22:46) Well, how far away is it? (laughter) And how is the connection? Do you have wires? Is this sent by electromagnetic really you know by sending, you know by sending electromagnetic impulses? That would just be weird, really, really weird if the mind were outside of the body. But if it’s inside the body then we want to know where, right. And of course in the 21st century I don’t have to worry about that, it’s got to be in the brain. Must be in the frontal cortex. Maybe the hippocampus, maybe the amygdala, maybe, maybe it’s in specific kind of complex configuration of neurons. It’s got to be there someplace. But of course you never find it. All you have is speculations. So, Some do not find it established in any part of their own bodies from the top of the head to the soles of the feet. And seeing that it is nowhere established as a material entity With color, shape and so forth like neurons have color when you look at them. You can photograph them, they have color they certainly have shape, and so forth, they have charge, they have molecular constitution, they send out electric impulses and so forth. They have all kinds of material attributes. Neurons do, dendrites, synapses, and so forth. But it’s nowhere established, the mind is nowhere established as a mental entity. There’s simply no evidence that any of those material entities singularly or collectively are equivalent to the mind. There is no evidence whatsoever. And when you look at the mind none of the arrows point to neurons as being that’s what it really is. So it is nowhere established as a material entity with color, shape and so forth, so when this happens they see the ultimate reality of the mind and so forth. So this is the avenue for some. This I would say with a lot of confidence, there are those who are very gifted, you just have to bear in mind there’s a big bandwidth of people who are more giftedless. Bearing in mind that Gautama when he was a youngster just sat under that rose apple tree on a hot afternoon and just slipped right into the first dhyana.

(1:24:40) Nine stages and brrip, and then there he was you know. And then it came and then it vanished like a rainbow. But he did slip into it. Well he was extremely ripe. But then what was really telling was when he sought out first teacher, second teacher of samadhi, he just completely stunned them with the rapidity with which he achieved their states of realization. Probably took them years, one can imagine. And him took probably a matter of days or weeks. So they were absolutely astonished, you know. Clearly he was a prodigy. So there are people who are so gifted that they may seek something like they may seek out the mind, see that it’s not in the body, it’s not, it has no material qualities, and just by realizing this non materiality that may be enough to launch them into direct realization of the ultimate reality of the mind. That could be enough, for some people. Not for everybody, I mean a lot of us know the mind is not material, it doesn’t look material, we can’t measure it materially, so I got it figured out okay. But then okay I got it, I totally got it, nothing can persuade me otherwise really. But does that mean I’ve realized rigpa? No. It just means you’ve realized the non materiality of the mind. But for some that will be sufficient for them to cut right through. Right. Here’s another example. Oh, composite phenomena are impermanent. They arise and fall from moment to moment, composite phenomenon, of all kinds, mind, atoms, and so forth and so on. They causally interact with each other. They arise in dependence upon cause and conditions. All pretty straight forward right. There are some people who when they pick up the thread of that, they pick up the scent of that, how composite phenomenon, including themselves, their minds, their bodies, the physical universe. When they fathom this composite nature, this conditioned nature, impermanent nature, how phenomena arise in dependence upon cause and conditions and in turn influence other cause and conditions other phenomenon. That realization right there is sufficient for them to realize emptiness of all phenomenon. Because they have realized their insight is so deep into pratiyasamaphada, dependent origination, they don’t need anything more. It’s called the king of reasoning.

(1:26:57) The king of reasoning, if you really fathom, this is where the great hope for science is. And in fact I think it’s already coming to fruition. That if you push hard enough in straight science, no Buddhism, no religion, no dharma, no nothing, just straight physics, starting Galileo and coming right through to John Wheeler, Stephen Hawking, Andrei Linde and so forth. Just push hard enough, penetrate deeply enough using your own strategies and observing how phenomena exist, their manner of dependent origination. And you may realize emptiness. Without ever knowing who Nagarjuna is or perfection of wisdom, teachings on emptiness and so forth and so on. Because you don’t have to look to Buddhism to realize the nature of dependent arising. If you really fathom it, then out of that comes all of these phenomena are empty of inherent nature and they do not exist independently of the observer, you know as already happening, it’s quite exciting. I’ll share some really good news I got just recently. Somebody sent me a link. Thank you. Her name is Jungsen, she’s a nun. She sent me a really good link. I’ll share it with you soon. But there’s the point. So, for some people just realizing the immateriality of the mind, that is sufficient. They cut right through to rigpa. Others realize just how phenomena are impermanent and they cut right through. If it’s impermanent it must be empty of inherent nature. Because they see if things did exist by their own inherent nature they would be immutable. And they just see that like plain as day. It’s impermanent therefore it can’t really be there from its own side. Because if it were, it would be immutable. I’m finished. That would be cool wouldn’t it. If you’re not gifted yet, keep practicing, and that’s how you become gifted. It’s true, that’s the only way you [become] gifted is by practicing a lot.

(1:28:50) One more, Jang Rinpoche another great Mahamudra master ofTibet. Jang Rinpoche, The nature of existence of one’s own mind is the seed of all. The minds of all the conquerors and their children, all the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas primordially appear without variation. Primordially appear from that perspective, primordially appear without variation no differentiation, high, low, etc. Primordially appear without variation as gnosis, the dharmakaya. When the minds of all sentient beings, the minds of all the buddhas, all the bodhisattvas when you see them, you see they are nothing other than dharmakaya. It, the nature of your own mind is not material, It is clear by its own nature. Clear light nature of mind, clear of materiality. It has both meanings. Unestablished as a thing. It is empty of color and dimension. This statement should be kept in mind. Until tomorrow. Whew. Cool. Namo. Namo, namo, namo, namo. Fantastic, Pema hum. So good, so good.

Transcribed by KrissKringle Sprinkle

Revised by Rafael Carlos Giusti

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.