55 Taking Vipashyana as Hot Chili, Just Enough to Spice our Shamatha Practice a Bit

Olaso. So before we venture into the meditation, I’d like to make a few brief comments, more general, about overall practice here. As I have been meeting with a number of you individually, I often hear you begin by saying this was a really good week, or was a really bad week, you know like that. And it’s very easy, it’s very normal but not helpful, to evaluate the practice in terms of how it’s going. How’s it going? It’s like evaluating your practice on how was the weather last week? [chuckling] You have no control over that. You say I had a really bad week, it was rainy and windy, it was a terrible week. [chuckling, Alan laughs] It’s kind of like that you know. How did it, your practice, go? And then the commentary comes, well my mind was really agitated or I have a lot of excitation coming up or there’s a lot of drowsiness coming up. Or then midweek something happened and it really, really through me off. And then I had some really weird stuff, you know hmm, hmm. And so what you’re describing is all the stuff that happened to you. That’s what I call a hedonic evaluation of your meditative practice.

[01:19] This, it’s, it’s normal, that is completely understandable, and that’s completely counterproductive. Because what happens to you is just beyond your control. You can’t simply decide I’m going to have a good day today, because today I’m going to have a very calm mind all day. See how that works out. You know, it doesn’t work that way, right? And so what I’m suggesting is from now on, when your meeting me now, Glen you know he’s private, he’s probably softer than I am. [laughter] I’m tough. He’s a nice guy. I’m not so nice. I don’t even try, you know. [Alan laughs] Evaluate your practice eudomonically. This is how you should evaluate your practice for your whole life. Some people just are very fortunate. You know, they just have just one wonderful thing happen to them after another. It does happen, there are people like that. They just you know go from Santa Barbara to Tuscany to the coast of Spain [laughing] then they go up to Scotland. You know there are people like that. They just, their lives are just, oh, a bowl of cherries. [din of laughter is louder]

[02:26] Bowl of cherries. There are people like that you know. [Laughing continues] And then there is the rest of you. [explosive laughter]

[03:06] So, if you can evaluate your practice during the next three and a half weeks and you can evaluate your practice from now until enlightenment in terms of whatever life dished up, your health, your mind, your body, your environment, whatever it dished up, evaluate it on how did you respond. Even in these last four and a half weeks you know, you received pretty pretty intense download of information, even when I’m only speaking for an hour here, half an hour in the morning, it’s a lot of download. I mean, I know the way I teach, I’ve been told repeatedly, it’s like trying to drink from a fire hose. [laughter] By the way they’re all going [Alan apes the retreatants] That rings a bell. So that’s it, I mean that’s the breaks, that’s the way it is. I’m not going to try to fix it. But there is a lot of download of information which means you have a lot of, a lot of tools, perspectives, theories, practices, and methods, techniques and so forth that you can use. So I really really very very heartfelt suggestion. That is in you’re evaluating your practice from day to day here and year to year after this retreat, evaluate it always not in terms of what happened to you, but what you brought to the situation.

[04:33] You can say this week, you can start out by saying this week I found my mind was very agitated and this is how I dealt with it. I really broke it up and I tried to diffuse that by going out for a very spacious mindful walking. I diffuse my awareness into the space while maintaining a real presence of mindfulness. I diffuse that with that bundled up that kind of bottled up energy by just walking very mindfully, releasing into the ground. Spend a lot of time in the infirmary, supine position full body awareness releasing and then you can say if that did or did not help. Did or did not help. I’m not saying everything is going to be helpful. I do my best, but you know, whether it’s helpful or not you have to see. But also break it up in terms of the four immeasurables. Not many of you are commenting this week I was really practicing the four immeasurables in these ways and these ways. Shamatha by itself, vipassana by itself, this is very well known, zen by itself, is very well known. It’s not… and Mahamudra and Dzogchen, it’s very well known if you practice these and these alone they can be, they can get quite dry. They can get quite dry you know. Not moist, not sweet, not nurturing, not warm, more just austere, disciplined, grinding away, working hard, you know, it can get that way. Imagine a relationship like that. You know like a romantic relationship, a friendship, where it’s just kind of grinding away. You know. Probably not going to turn out to be a long term relationship, right. So the more you can sweeten it with any way you can. Some people by nature are more devotional, more faith, more devotion, more reverence, and things like that. It’s a boon. Other people less so. But that doesn’t mean they’re worse people it’s just they undoubtedly have other strengths. But one way or another we need to balance. We need to bring the heart, the warmth, the softness, the moisture to the practice any way you can. You know. It’s really important. Right? So that was one point.

[06:35] Now as you know we are now for the next three and a half, three and a half weeks then, for the remainder of this retreat, we’re going to be focusing very much on vipassana and then going right into Mahamudra and Dzogchen. There will be a little bit but not much more instruction on shamatha. I don’t think I’ll probably be returning to the four immeasurables because we have a lot of material to cover here and we’ve done it once it’s on the podcast, you can listen any time or many of you are already familiar. But I would suggest though is that these teachings right from Panchen Rinpoche himself, the teachings from Karma Chagme and so forth, the teachings from Padmasambhava which we’ll return to this afternoon on vipassana. They really are, I have to say they are intended for people who have achieved shamatha. I mean Padmasambhava says in Natural Liberation when he comes to the conclusion of the section on shamatha now stick with this practice until your mind is settled in its natural state and he described what that’s like. He said and now do this until you are finished. And then the very next chapter, oh then he goes into vipassana. So it’s sequential. And he’s saying do this for one day, do this for one day, and so forth. But when he gets to the culmination of shamatha, he’s talking about shamatha without a sign and the culminating phase. He doesn’t say do this for one day or for do it for a week. He just said do this until your mind has settled in its natural state. And if you’re introduced to rigpa prematurely, you’re likely just to turn that into an object of the intellect and become dogmatic. That’s Padmasambhava. Panchen Rinpoche is no different.

[08:08] And so here we are though, it will be very easy, I’ve done this a number of times leading 8 week retreats where we’re always doing shamatha. And warm it up with the four immeasurables. But that’s not what we’re doing here. So what I would suggest is that we’ve really covered the grounds, a nice array of practices, we‘ve done a lot of practice. I think sufficiently for shamatha, what I would suggest is really in terms of you here in full time retreat. And I know some people on full time retreat and listening by podcast. And yeah really continue to emphasize strongly the shamatha. Within shamatha the relaxation, and the inner calm, the composure, the stability. Keep on, you’ve got a pyramid here, keep on laying that foundation. The deeper the relaxation the more durable, sustainable will be the stability. The deeper those two are then you can keep on pushing the limit of vividness and there is no upper limit. There’s no such thing as being too vivid. There is such a thing as being too vivid with insufficient foundation in stability and relaxation. And then you get wired, you get tense, you get hyper, you get exhausted. And then you can easily fall into depression and frustration. Right. And so, I’m not going to be talking a lot more about shamatha. I did a lot. That was like four weeks, lots and lots of shamatha.

[09:30] Keep on having that as your main, your main course, that’s what I would suggest. But we will be in the guided meditations from now on going into vipassana, vipassana, vipassana, right, including this afternoon. There’s at least one text by Dudjom Lingpa in which he, when he’s talking about stillness, the gnas cha I often translate it as stability, stillness is actually a bit better. And the vividness or clarity in some occasions I think it’s actually Vajra Essence you can find it for yourself in Stilling the Mind, in my book Stilling the Mind, ah that he draws a correlation between stillness and shamatha and vividness and vipassana, you know. Well, there’s something to be said for that. Can you achieve shamatha with no vividness? Oh no, no way, no, no, no, not possible. But he is making a point. That shamatha means tranquility the emphasis is on stillness, right. You are peacefully still, that’s another translation of zhi gnas, peacefully still. Not still like this, still like this. Release of grasping, loose, relaxed, still. Noise down, signal up you know. And then clarity, well that’s where the real insight comes.

[10:46] And so in the practice we did this morning it’s firmly placed within shamatha without a sign. I’ve taught it many many times and a number of you have received it from me. We’re doing this oscillation right into and watch the words they’re very important. You’re doing the oscillation, the inversion right into your experience of being the subject who is controlling the mind. Who is doing the meditation, the agent. Right. It’s not quite vipassana I’d have to say. Because he doesn’t say go in there and then investigate, analyze, he doesn’t say that. He just says go in there and look. Right. Very much like go into that room and look. See what you see. Okay that’s still shamatha. If I say go into to the room and investigate whether or not there are this that or the other thing. Oh okay now we’re into vipassana territory. He says just look, just look. But it is looking with the question, what do you see? I’m going to relate this to where we’re going very shortly. It’ll be next week I think actually. It will be next week.

[11:45] Panchen Rinpoche going to some classic methods of the gelugpa tradition but firmly rooted in Indian Buddhism. Tsongkhapa didn’t just make this up and Panchen Rinpoche himself cites, Shantideva. Where he says if you don’t see the target you don’t know where to shoot the arrow. And that is when you’re looking for a negation, a simple negation, when you’re looking for emptiness what you don’t what to do which is really frankly it would be foolish to do it is to go into your vipassana practice and say Oh I get it I don’t exist. The very wording itself should show how totally absurd that is. Who just concluded that you don’t exist. If the one who concluded that you don’t exist doesn’t exist, then your conclusion is useless. Because nobody made it. Right? If nobody did it then there is no conclusion which means the conclusion is invalid because nobody made it in the first place. On the other hand if you, on the other hand if somebody did draw that conclusion then the conclusion is false because someone did in fact draw the conclusion that you don’t exist. So that’s foolishness. That’s like saying I know there’s a target out there someplace, I think maybe this direction, and then shooting an arrow ok it doesn’t exist. That’s foolishness.

[13:05] The whole notion of thoughts with no thinker is foolishness because the person who is thinking, oh thoughts have no thinker you know. I think there was you know the Buddha never said people don’t exist. The Buddha did say as he was passing into parinirvana, be a refuge onto yourselves. So if you don’t exist, he just told you to take a refuge in nothing. Which doesn’t make any sense at all. The Buddha did use personal pronouns. People, he, I, you, they, do refer to people, it’s a question of how they exist, how we exist, not whether we exist. Because whether we exist is a silly question. It’s like asking, holding a cellphone in your hand, and saying, do cell phones exist. It’s just as silly as that. But it’s not silly to ask how it exists. Coming back to Shantideva’s point and Tsongkhapa picks up on this with extraordinary precision, like a brain surgeon just with such precision. Identify exactly what is it that doesn’t exist. It’s not you, but what is it that doesn’t exist? And in what manner are we deluded. That is can I have a valid sense of being the person that I am. Sure. I mean the Buddha did. And many enlightened beings, you know, they know who they are. And there’s no reification, there’s no delusion, there’s no ignorance. And there’s no, and their sense of who they are gives rise to no mental afflictions. It’s not rooted in delusion therefore does not give rise to self centered attachment, craving, hostility, and so forth. There is such a thing as having a valid sense of who each of us is as an individual. But then of course if that way we all abided in that, then there would be no need for any teachings on not self, on not self, right.

[14:49] Or the absence of self, not self, my brain is not me. That’s a true statement. And might all the constituents of my body and all the processes of mind are empty of me, in the sense that if you look through them individually or collectively you don’t find an individual, a person, a self, an ego, an identity of an individual anywhere among any of the individual constituents of the body, the processes of the mind, states of consciousness, or all of them as a compound. It’s just nowhere to be found so they’re all empty of me. And moreover I don’t exist outside separate from the composite of my body and mind. But that doesn’t mean I don’t exist. It just means I’m not findable in that way. But what is it exactly that doesn’t exist? It’s not me, somebody’s saying these words, that’s me. You know, raise your hand if you’re speaking. Hey, that. What is it that doesn’t exist? And this is where Tsongkhapa comes in like a brain surgeon. He’s so precise and he says, identify that which is to be refuted. And so we took a step in this following Padmasambhava. We took a step in that direction this morning. You remember my wording, I said as you’re inverting your awareness in upon your experience of being the agent, don’t tell me what you don’t see. I know what you don’t see. I’ve done this. That’s easy, I didn’t find me ohhhh. Whoopee doo. [laughter] Oh oh how smart you. You already knew that before you started. You know come on.

[16:29] So, no, you didn’t find you but the question is, what do you see? Do you come up with just nothing at all? You invert yourself in upon yourself as the agent and you come up with nothing. Really? Who just drew that conclusion? Nobody or somebody? Do you have no sense whatsoever? Of yourself as an agent? Does nothing come up? You draw a complete blank when you think of yourself as a meditator? As a person who’s controlling the mind? Do you have any sense at all of being an agent? And I think you do. What is that sense? What does come to mind when you think, I am controlling my mind? Is there is an agent? Yes, there’s an agent. Just as in the triad of the informata, I hope that’s the right word, that about which we are informed. The flow of information and the one who is informed. The one who is informed or the act, the object of an action, the action itself and the agent of the action. The triad, they all equally exist. And no one of them more than the other. But then none of them exist independently, take away the other two, the one vanishes. Take away any one of the three, the other two vanish. So that was the point.

[17:45] So that was the point of this mornings meditation. It was still right on the cusp of shamatha almost ready to become vipassana and that is when you invert your awareness in upon yourself as the agent, what does come to mind? And when you see what does come to mind, then you may ask the question if you wish and that is, was that me? Was that an agent? Was that a person? Was it an image? If it was an image, was that an image of me? Or of something that wasn’t me? Isn’t me? We often speak of representation, representation. Neuroscientists say that all the time. That neuronal activity is generating representations of such and such. We have vivid imaginations. Neurons don’t develop any, don’t generate any representations at all. They’re chemicals for heaven’s sake. I don’t care how complex they are, they’re not mystical chemicals, they’re not magical chemicals. Neurons are not creating any representations at all, they’re chemicals. They don’t refer to anything, they’re chemicals. It’s almost like somebody being drunk, you know, they’re chemicals. You have to keep on saying, they’re chemicals. Okay electricity, chemicals but that’s all there is there in very complex configurations to be sure. They’re not representing anything. There are no little people inside your brain. No little images of people inside your brain. There are no colors inside your brain. There are no emotions inside your brain. It’s chemicals. [laughing] Electricity. But is this a representation? Now we’re getting some place where there are representations.

[19:20] The image that comes to mind, whatever comes to mind, is that a representation of you, is that a depiction, a betrayal, a portrayal of you? It’s getting, it’s right there on the edge ready to practice vipassana. When you can see, how do you conceive of yourself. What comes to mind? What is your lived sense of being someone who gets stuff done? A real go getter, you know, a doer, an agent? An accomplished meditator maybe? Or a novice meditator? So there we are.

[19:54] So okay. We’re going to go into again pointing out instructions from Padmasambhava. This will be from Natural Liberation. It immediately follows his presentation of shamatha without a sign where he says, practice until your mind is settled in its natural state. So you can imagine it’s going to be a very very different exercise once you’ve actually achieved shamatha to do the same technique but having achieved shamatha. But as I’ve said so many times and I’ve always said the same thing, this is not just to be postponed. We don’t postpone vipassana because we haven’t completely achieved shamatha. I’ve thought of one meaningful parallel. And that is, I was told early on by Geshe Ngawang Dhargyey, I always look over at Kathy because we’re old dharma buddies way back. Our beloved teacher and I think I might have mentioned before, I’m quite sure I did, that when I was first learning about bodhichitta, I was just daunted by it. The notion of achieving, I mean I come from a Christian background, imagine a Christian pastor telling you, now, ok, now I want you to draw up the aspiration to become Christ, to become the Messiah. I would definitely pause. [laughter] Am I the one? Am I the one? Am I, are you saying I’m the second coming? Are you? Oh yeah not, oh okay. [chuckling] That would be a very daunting thing to say, but this is, is that anything more daunting than say achieve, aspire to become a perfectly enlightened Buddha for the sake of all sentient beings throughout time and space. I found that daunting. I thought whoa that’s way up there. Give me a little bit, maybe give me a few decades on that one. I’m going to just try to get my act together to be a decent human being. You know.

[21:35] And he, boy he landed on me like a ton of bricks. Very gentle loving ton of bricks, but still a ton of bricks. He said no, it’s never too soon. You’re wrong, it’s never too soon to start developing bodhichitta. Don’t let your life slip by. You could die at any time. I’m, I’m giving commentary here. You can die at any time. It would be such a shame if you’re indeed drawn to this path which of course I was. It would be such a shame, if you died without having even started to develop bodhichitta. It’s never too soon. So don’t think that way. Right. Oh he said many things that made a deep impression on me. And yet there I was still a beginner. You know. No pretending about that. I started generating was that I became a bodhisattva the next day. Not even close. But the idea was there. As his Holiness the Dalai Lama says, when he’s been asked are you a bodhisattva, he says, Oh no, I’m not a bodhisattva, I have no bodhichitta, but I have an aspiration, I have an aspiration to develop bodhichitta. Yeah the Dalai Lama and me basically the same. [laughter] Thank you for the laughter, louder, that’s better, that’s better. That’s what I had back then, is an aspiration to develop bodhichitta. Sure. And His Holiness of course speaking with his perfection of humility, says the same.

[22:51] But in a similar way then, I think it’s very similar. It just struck me this afternoon I think, that in Dudjom Lingpa’s strategy where he says, do the preliminaries, okay done, now, move on. That is you’ve got that, you’ve turned that engine on. Not that you’ve finished with them but you’ve got that rolling right. Your six preliminary practices, whatever, you’ve got that rolling okay. We’re taking care of that, you’ve got that from other sources I’m sure. Because he’s going to go right into Dzogchen quickly. And then he says which is primary? Body, speech, or mind? Nail that. You have to ascertain it. If it takes you twenty years, do it. Really, if you’ve been really immersed completely conditioned to believe in materialism and it takes twenty years, that’s twenty years well spent. Detox program. Rehabilitation. To recover from the indoctrination to in scientific materialism. Because it closes all doors. Frankly, I mean how many different ways would you like to be a robot? Your mind doesn’t exist at all. They have some neuroscientists saying that. Your mind is an epiphenomenon of the brain, but it has no efficacy. So the first one you’re a robot, a mindless robot. Daniel Dennis says that’s what you are, you are a mindless robot made of mindless robots. That’s a choice. You can be have your mind as an epiphenomenon, which means it doesn’t do anything. You’re a robot. Or your mind is in fact equivalent to brain activity, are you [you’re] a robot. So you can have be a robot in any way you like. But you’re still a robot. How exactly do you have a spiritual path if you’re a robot? You know. And this is unavoidable. There’s no wiggle room there.

[24:17] If you’re a materialist then you say you believe that you’re a robot which means then you know, you’re just a mechanism and there’s no Buddha nature there. There’s nothing, you’re an animal. You’re an animal programed to survive and procreate. And not to find truth by the way and now we now know that by mathematical proof. You’re not programed for eudaimonia. You’re not programed to know truth. You’re programed to survive and procreate which means the monks are total losers and so are the nuns. Dropouts. Losers. [mild laughter] And so there we are. So, that’s a disease you have to conquer and then you move on when you see ahhh finally, hallelujah. You know jump on the you know scientific materialists anonymous. As they may it’s a small group but it’s growing. [laughter] A lot of support group. You need a lot of support group to get out of that and not fall off the wagon. But happily we have some neuroscientists, we have some brilliant physicists who are leading the way, showing what it’s like to be detoxified. Right. You work for that and then the very next one is examine the origins, location and destination of your mind. And these are empty, empty, empty. That’s before starts shamatha. To my mind that’s very much like starting to develop bodhichitta. Even when you’re renunciation is just on it’s little baby steps, not much at all. Even then you’re just sitting on the mat already starting to develop bodhichitta. You haven’t even set out on shamatha yet already sow the seeds for vipassana. Sow the seeds for it. So I think he’s sowing the seeds of vipassana and bodhichitta from the beginning and then you get back to the step by step work of the shamatha and so forth in your own path. So, strategy is everything. And Dudjom Lingpa judging by the extraordinary accomplishments of his students, boy he had a strategy, a strategy that worked and then again the prognosis that it’s for the future, very inspiring. I find it enormously inspiring.

[26:22] Okay enough of that. So now let’s just go please find a comfortable posture. Padmasambhava will guide us now in the very first phase of vipassana and as you’re settling I will tell you because I will give a little bit of commentary to this, just try to clarify what he’s saying. But in the section called Engaging in the Search for the Mind, and of course the word mind can refer to many things right. But what I was just in this context what he’s referring to is mind as the subjective agent that is witnessing, that is aware. It’s the noun. Word mind in Sanskrit, Tibetan and so forth is a noun not a verb. It’s not an adjective. It’s a noun. There is something here that is observing, there is an observer. There is an agent, the mind does many things. The mind is very creative, it comes up with all kinds of ideas. Wonderful ideas, terrible ideas. The mind generates ideas, brilliant plans, desires, it generates emotions, it launches armies, it starts wars, it finds cures for terrible diseases. The mind is an enormous agent. It’s the creator of samsara and nirvana. That’s pretty big. Right. What is it that is apprehending? We’re going to call that the mind. What is it that is the agent? What is it that is the observer?

[27:42] What is the subject? Who’s listening. Make it very personal. Who’s listening right now? Who’s watching right now? Who’s about to start the meditation? You are, but you are designated on your mind. If you didn’t have a mind, you couldn’t do any of this stuff. So it’s the mind that’s doing it. And you are designated upon your mind, right. So what’s the nature of that mind? Let’s find it. Okay, that’s what Padmasambhava is going to guide us in. This is going to be a bit strenuous. It’s not easy. And so what I’m suggesting is and I’ve mentioned before, I want to say it again. Don’t push too hard on this one. It’ll be stressful. It’ll be tiring, be fatiguing. It’s not easy. It doesn’t come naturally. We weren’t taught this when we were five years old. Okay. So it’s going to be pushing. It’s going to tighten you up a little bit. Okay for 24 minutes that’s okay. And then throttle back. Throttle back, go for a walk. Or listen to my calm soothing voice for an hour. [laughter] That will set you at ease right? Uh huh, uh huh. Sure. Okay after I’ve finished. Then relax take a walk you know. But come back to your shamatha, assimilate, ground, relax, relax, relax. And then take the vipashyana like hot chili. Don’t have a whole meal of it, you know have your nice vegetables and rice, that’s where your shamatha is. And then just a bit of chili now and then, and spice it up a bit. Okay. Olaso.

[29:36] meditation bell rings three times.

[30:01] With the motivation to dispel all obscurations that veil the original purity of your own pristine awareness, venture into the practice beginning with settling body, speech, and mind in their natural states.

[31:30] For a short time calm the turbulence of the conceptual mind with mindfulness of breathing. Relaxing, releasing deeply with every out breath.

[32:24] And then if you wish in order to receive the greatest possible benefit, the deepest blessings from this guided meditation, focus on the teacher, Padmasambhava himself, as the one who is providing these instructions for he is. It’s just my voice that’s all. So hear Padmasambhava engaging the search for the mind. He begins by stating, perform the Adhisara and the gaze as before. The Adhisara is simply the posture. So, whatever your posture is, shavasana, seven point point posture of Vairocana, perform that and the gaze as before. The gaze is resting your awareness in the space in front of you, eyes gently open. But he continues. Steadily place your mind in the space in front of you and let it be present there.

[33:34] Examine well. What kind of an entity is this, your mind you have placed today? So, what is it that you’ve placed in the present moment? That you’ve placed in the space in front of you? Those are not meaningless words. You knew what to do. So, what is it, that you’ve placed there in the space in front of you? When we say in English put your mind to this. That’s what he’s referring to right here. Put your mind to this, put your mind, place your mind in space. What is it that you’re placing? We call it the mind. Good. What’s the referent of the term? Look to see if the one who is placing the mind and the mind that is being placed, are one, or two.

[35:23] He’s posing a question for which he expects an answer. It’s not enough to say I’m not sure, couldn’t quite tell. No. When you direct your attention, when you place your mind, the attention or the mind that you’ve focused. And you, who have focused directed the mind here or there, are those two? Are they in fact the same? Or are they two? Examine closely, so that if asked, you can give an answer based upon your experience.

[36:43] If there were two, if the mind that you’ve placed and the one who has placed the mind, in fact if they are two, if they are entirely different there would have to be two minds. So one must be in buddhahood while the other roams about in the cycle of existence. Implying here that if you have a mind that is still, well that would be rigpa. It never moves. It’s beyond coming and going whereas the mind that goes here and there, well that would be the samsaric mind. So, do you have two minds? A Buddha mind and a samsaric mind? Is that the case?

[37:49] So, carefully, decisively observe whether they exist as two. Do you have two minds? One being the mover the other one being the moved. One being the agent the other the mind that is acted upon. Is that the case? Observe carefully and decisively until you come to clarity, a decisive insight.

[39:15] Maybe there’s only one mind. So, Padmasambhava continues, if there’s not more than one, is that one, the mind? Observe what is the reality or one could say the referent of the so called mind. When you experience your mind, you use your mind, you think of your mind. What is the referent of the term? Examine closely. And he adds, it is impossible to find it by searching among external objects. So, you know where not to look. Then look where it may be found.

[40:54] Let the one who is pondering what is the mind like, observe that very consciousness and search for it. So, come right in upon the apprehender, the thinker, the agent, the observer. Observe that very consciousness and search for it. Steadily observe the consciousness of the meditator and search for it. Search for that which is conscious, the noun, the subject. Observe, in reality is the so called mind something that exists? Is it really there? And here a brief commentary. If by exist, you mean something that is really there physically, then of course it must have physical attributes. And so he continues: If it does, if it does exist as something that is physically real, if it does, it should have a shape. Physical entities have shape. What sort of a shape does it have. Look nakedly and seek it out.

[43:08] Decisively look to see what sort of shape it has. Whether it is a sphere, a rectangle, a semicircle, or a triangle and so on. If you say it has one at all, if you say it has some kind of shape, show me that shape. If you say there is nothing to show, in other words, if you say the mind has no shape. If you’ve ascertained that, not just simply that you haven’t found the shape. But if you know that it doesn’t have a shape to find, tell me whether it is possible for there to be a real shape that cannot be shown. Could it have a real shape that’s invisible? Identify the emptiness of shape. Or recognize the mind as being devoid of shape.

[44:34] Likewise, let yourself check to see whether it has any color, size, or dimension. So, we’re still considering maybe it’s a physical entity. If so, it should have a shape. If not a shape, a color, a size. It should have some type of spatial dimension. Does it?

[45:07] If you say it has none of those. In other words if you say the mind has no physical attributes. No shape, color, size, dimension, no physical attributes whatsoever. If you say it has none of those, then observe whether it is an emptiness [Alan inhales sharply] that is nothing. Maybe the very notion of mind refers to nothing at all. Maybe it’s empty of all attributes. If it has no physical attributes, maybe it has no other attributes at all. The mind as the observer, that which is conscious. Is it an emptiness that is nothing? Examine, see for yourself.

[46:05] We’ve seen from our readings there are people highly educated intelligent people nowadays that say the mind doesn’t exist. There’s no mind body problem, the mind doesn’t exist. But then Padmasambhava counters, if you say it is an emptiness that is nothing, then how could an emptiness that is nothing know how to meditate? Aren’t you meditating with your mind? How can you meditate with nothing? How could you who are meditting be nothing? What good is it to say you cannot find it? If it is nothing at all what is it that brings forth hatred? Doesn’t your mind produce all kinds of emotions, thoughts, desires, ideas? Including doesn’t your mind bring forth mental afflictions such as hatred? How could something that is nothing be so creative?

[47:28] Is there not someone who thinks the mind has not been found? Look steadily right at that. If you do not discover what it is like, carefully check whether the consciousness that wonders where it is itself, is the mind. If it is what is it like? This consciousness that wonders where it is, what it is, what is that consciousness?

[48:38] If it is, if it is there, what is it like? If it exists, there must be a substance and a color, but are they forthcoming? Do you see something that is the mind? If it does not exist you would be like an unconscious corpse. If you truly have no mind. But isn’t there someone who thinks? What is it that thinks? What is that mind that thinks?

[49:37] Thus within the parameters of existence and non existence, decisively observe how it is. Is the mind existent or non existent? In that way draw your awareness in and direct it. Due to differences in intellect, some may report that they find nothing within the parameters of existence and non existence. That is they can’t place the mind either way. They can’t decisively say it does exist, they can’t decisively say it doesn’t exist, they just find it doesn’t fit. For such people let them carefully examine the mind that thinks nothing is found. Examine the mind that can’t place whether the mind is existent or non existent, examine that mind that drew that conclusion.

[51:07] Is there something that is steady or still? Is there a clarity? Is there a still clarity? Examine. If they report that there is a stillness, that is shamatha. So that is not the mind. Seek out awareness and come up with its nature. If they say it is an emptiness that is one aspect, so let them seek out awareness. If they say there is a consciousness that is sort of stationary and sort of clear but inexpressable, they’ve identified it a little bit. So they should come to certainty and identify it.

[52:32] As soon as there is some glimmering of insight, some break through. Rest there, dwell in that seeing. Rest there, fuse whatever degree of shamatha you have with whatever degree of vipassana arises and rest there.

[53:36] Meditation bell rings three times.

[54:31] In that practice there’s not much in the way of sense of ease and relaxation [laughter] or stillness. He keeps on just hammering you with one question after another, each one designed to make you more uncomfortable from the last one. So it’s not big on relaxation, and it’s not big on stillness, but it’s very big on vividness. High resolution sharp, acute, piercing, penetrating, it’s definitely over in the clarity aspect. Right. The more shamatha you have the smoother this is. The less shamatha, this is all abrasive and lots and lots of wear and tear, exhausting I know, I know. But we don’t want to be complacent and just oh that was too difficult let’s just practice shamatha. No, this is a hot chili pepper, spice it up a bit.

[55:19] I can tell you a little bit what he’s doing. You notice what he didn’t do. We can spend, we can spend the whole hour just discussing what did and didn’t happen there. In terms of his instruction. What he didn’t say is identify the object to be negated and now apply analysis to it. He didn’t do that at all, there’s no reference. I’ve never seen in any presentation of vipassana within the Mahamudra and Dzogchen tradition where they do what Tsongkhapa does. And that is first of all identify the object of negation and then apply logical analysis to it. I’ve never seen them do that. At the same time, these are not traditions that are failures and Padmasambhava and then Tsongkhapa himself said after receiving teachings on Dzogchen, these have no excess, no deficiency, and they are perfect as they are. They’re complete. It’s hard to say, for Tsongkhapa it’s hard, it’s hard to imagine higher praise than that. Nothing excessive, nothing deficient, complete. There’s nothing more to say. He didn’t really need to teach Dzogchen it was being covered it was being done well. He went on and did what he did spectacularly which was not simply doing Dzogchen. It was another track, another avenue, which also proved to be magnificently effective and for people who really practice, it still is.

[56:34] So, it’s not doing that. And as I’ve said I’ve never seen it. Maybe it is someplace but on all the translations I’ve received for vipassana the pith instructions on shamatha, vipassana and trekcho and thogyal, I’ve never seen it. But here’s a central theme that you find everywhere especially in Dzogchen and I think it’s equally in Mahamudra, I just haven’t studied as much or practiced or received teachings as much. And that is the, the eight extremes of conceptual elaboration. Eight extremes of conceptual constructs. Exist or. Exist, Not Exist. Born, does it, is it born, does it cease? Is it one, or is it many? Does it come or does it go? And when it comes to rigpa, none of the above. It does not fit into rigpa as pristine awareness, primordial consciousness. You cannot, the intellect wants to devour it and say I’ve got a, I’ve got a box for you, here someplace. I have many boxes, but I have big boxes. To be or not to be. To exist or not to exist, that’s a big box. Okay rigpa step up front which are you? He tried that. If you exist, the mind that mind, but now we know what he’s talking about. Not thoughts, images, mental space yeah yeah yeah, yeah. No, the mind that’s observing, the mind that’s the agent. That one. The subject in here, right. Coming up with all these thoughts and so forth. He said exactly what he’s referring to. If it exists you’ll be able to identify it. Don’t say it exists, but oh I can’t see it. That’s just, that’s nothing, gibberish. Don’t say it exists, oh but it has no characteristics. Don’t say it exists, oh but no one can see it. Pointless, useless speech.

[58:25] If it exists, good, point it out. Tell me its characteristics. This mind that is observing, this mind, this agent, this entity, this noun in here that’s coming up with all these thoughts. Don’t just tell me it’s clear and luminous, or clear and cognizant. Tell me when you’ve seen it. It, the noun, the agent, the mind, consciousness itself, tell me what is it. As it’s standing there on its own. Identify it. Have characteristics, good what are they. If you say it doesn’t exist because you can’t find it, what is it that just didn’t find it. Right. And then find that which didn’t find. Because something just came to the conclusion, don’t tell me that nothing came to the conclusion the mind can’t be found, ‘cause nothing can’t find anything ‘cause it doesn’t exist. Something that exists must have found that the mind is unfindable. If your head is not dizzy yet, I’ll speak a little bit more. [laughter] And so he’s battering you. He’s really battering you. He intends to do that. Battering you between the walls of existence and non existence and bear in mind not some Buddhist definition. He’s not trying to indoctrinate you into some Buddhist worldview with Buddhist terminology and so forth. No what you mean by exist. And what do you mean by non existence. And what you mean by mind. Don’t tell us of the Buddhist definition of mind. Don’t recite definitions you’ve learned in your you know study program.

[59:51] When you think mind. When you think my mind, my mind generates. Is it just luminosity and cognizance that’s generating hatred? That’s pretty lame. Why would luminosity and cognizance generate hatred? That’s a non fit. You’ve got to come up with better than that. I use memorize that one. What is this that is coming up with so many ideas, and thoughts and images and joys and sorrows, hopes and fears and so forth? What is it? If it exists you should be able to find it. If you can’t find it then what is it that can’t find it? And you get battered between existence and non existence. All right. But before that he asked okay, I mean it was cunning, devious, but now put your mind to this. Put your mind to this. We say that in English, yeah. And I think probably in other languages, something very similar. Direct your attention here. Put your mind to this. Put your mind to this. Oh yeah I’ll do that. Okay, there’s Claudio, I’ll put my mind to Claudio. I’m now directing my mind, I’m, directing, my mind, to Claudio. That’s perfectly good English, right? It’s like pointing my finger. Here’s my finger I’m going to point it. Claudio. I directed my finger. Describe my finger, does it exist? Yeah it’s right there I got it. [chuckling] You know, that was easy.

[1:01:08] In a similar way I’m directing my mind to Claudio, right. It’s perfectly good English. But what is it you’ve directed? You just directed your mind. Good what is it? What is it that got directed? What’s that entity? The object of your action. And, oh by the way, who did it? And are there two things, I mean I’m not the same as my finger. I’ve got that one figured out. Am I my finger? Nope. That was easy. Am I the same as the finger? Nope. Am I separate? Yep. Okay we’re finished with that one. Mind, you have two? Or is it a mindless one who directed the mind? How would that work? You must have a mind that directed your mind right? But then did it direct itself? Is it one? But what does that mean and why would it direct itself? Just do it. But no, I will direct, doesn’t this make sense, doesn’t this feel like I’m going to now focus my attention on Claudio. I’m going to direct my mind at Claudio. That means we really have a sense of that, I’m going to do. Oh I lost it, then my mind became distracted but I found it and I directed my mind to Claudio again. Oh but then I lost it, then my mind became dull, oh but then it, I cleared, I cleared, it, up again. I refreshed it. Refresh, restore, retain and I got it back on target.

[1:02:29] Oh then it got distracted, but then I relaxed, released, returned. I did it again, I fixed that mind, that dog gone mind like you know an untrained puppy. But I’m training it. Who’s training it? Do you have two minds the trainer and the trainee? If there are two why not just throw out the trainee because the trainer sounds like he’s already got his act together. [light laughter] That would be the Buddha right. The Buddha that’s training the unruly mind of your samsaric mind. But in that case why not just jettison one and say I don’t need you I’m already a Buddha. I’m abiding in Buddhahood. I’m still. I’ve got my act together. It’s the mind that’s got the problem. You know, the samsaric mind. Why not just throw that one out? But maybe I’ve two minds. How does that work out? Do you really have two minds, is there one that directs and the one that is the directee? Two? Maybe there’s just one.

[1:03:23] But then why do you say, I’m going to direct my mind? That doesn’t make any sense, if I and the mind that I’m directing are the same thing. It’s going to like, that’s not good English. And it’s also not what we feel like. Oh I got so exasperated, [?1:03:37 unclear] how many times have I heard this? OH Alan this, this week my mind was really agitated, [soft chuckling] gee I’m so surprised! [laughter] How could that happen? [laughing] You’ve been here already four weeks and your mind is still agitated? I’m so disappointed in you. [laughter] Your mind. Are you as agitated as your mind? Or are you less agitated? [continued laughter] When you say my mind was really agitated, are you agitated? Or is it just your mind that’s agitated? How many are, might there be a third one in there too? [laughter] If you have two there could be three after, you know. [continued laughter] There’s no telling.

[1:04:23] So, are you one or many? Are you one or more than one? Right? The mind, the mind, is it one or is it more than one? And he beats you up. He batters you against the walls of one, and more than one. One and more than one. Which makes you feel more uncomfortable? And what he’s getting at here, kind of obviously, is the mind is not really existent or really non existent. And the mind is not really one and it’s not really two. And it doesn’t really arise and it doesn’t really go. That’s where the origin and destination comes in. It doesn’t really arise. And it doesn’t really go. And it doesn’t really come. And it doesn’t really go.

[1:05:19] And so he’s trying to bring you to an awareness of the mind such that your very awareness of the mind is transcending all of those fundamental conceptual constructs. That you’re actually viewing your mind from the perspective of rigpa and seeing your mind as empty of being really born or really ceasing, really being one or many, really existing or really not existing, really coming or really going. Seeing the mind as empty of all of that and you’re viewing your mind from a perspective that is primordially free and transcends all of those constructs. That was in one guided meditation. That’s biting off a lot, yeah? Padmasambhava.

[1:06:06] Olaso. Back to his later incarnation, Panchen Rinpoche. So, we have and see how this all completely dovetails in. I just thought though very helpful to give just some practical on the cushion guidance and what better than rather than my making up something why not just quote Padmasambhava himself, with hopefully a little bit of commentary that was hopefully clarifying it doesn’t just clutter up Padmasambhava’s words. But you see how perfectly this dovetails with the proceeding quote which I’ll read now very quickly from Chagme Rinpoche. The nature of one’s own existence, the nature of existence of one’s own mind is the seed of all. The minds of all the conquerors and their children primordially appear without variation as gnosis, the dharmakaya. It is not material, it is clear by its own nature. Bear in mind that is one of the meanings of clear, clear of materiality, empty of materiality. Unestablished as a thing, it is empty of color and dimension. There’s no physical attributes. And again for some that maybe just be enough right there. If they’re really ripe, they’re more like Bahia, they hear, that could be it. They could realize right there the emptiness of mind. Or they could even realize the emptiness of mind from the perspective of rigpa. This statement should be kept in mind. says Panchen Rinpoche.

[1:07:40] And three still others by pursuing, by neither pursuing past cognitions and these are states of consciousness, he translates shepe as cognition. I’m just going to leave it. But his, what he translates as cognition I and most people translate it as consciousness. It’s not wrong, he’s a fine translator. By neither pursuing past cognitions nor anticipating future cognitions but settling naturally in the fresh uncontrived cognition of the present. or again consciousness of the present, this is all very familiar I presume. Directly see the bare essence of the mind. Its essential nature. At that time they cut the root of mind and recognize mind. They cut the root of mind, they cut the reification of mind and they recognize the mind as it actually is. Saraha says, Settle gently on the fresh uncontrived mind. Settle gently, again we refer you know when the investigation is finished then you just settle gently on the fresh, always fresh, unprecedented, naked, uncontrived, means unmodified, unconfigured, mind just resting in its own natural state. And it’s the great adept, the great siddha, Lingrepa says, When you are settled in fresh, in fresh uncontrived state, uncontrived, unmodified, unadulterated, unconfigured, when you settle in the fresh uncontrived state, realization occurs. When you maintain realization like a flowing river fulfilment occurs. Abandoning all reference points and signs be always in equipoise oh yogi.

[1:09:30] Really classic Mahamudra instructions. Others say whatever aspects of such objects as form, sound, and so forth arise in the mind. And whatever thoughts, of virtue and non virtue, or good and bad arise, closely observe their essential nature. Without acting in the least to terminate or affirm them. And they will disappear on their own. The theme again for all of these appearances, thoughts, virtuous, non virtuous, good and bad, and so forth, the theme here is they simply, they rang shar, they arise of themselves and as they do so you simply observe their essential nature that is just what is there without going into the elaborations, the referents, the story line, the associations, the concepts, and the labels, all the clothing, just observe right there, its essential nature without acting, without doing anything, without terminating them, without affirming them, you’re just there. And they will disappear on their own. Rang shar, rang grol_ they arise by themselves, they’re released by themselves. Which means they bring no benefit and they bring no harm. And that means whatever mental affliction arises, whatever, however the mental afflictions arise, manifest as thoughts, as desires, and so forth. If you’re observing them in that way the mental affliction whatever it may be, lust, hatred, whatever it may be, it arises by itself then just disappears by itself. Which means it’s not even a mental affliction. Something that does not afflict, is not an affliction. That’s simple, if it doesn’t afflict, it’s not an affliction. Right? That’s how it doesn’t afflict, by not identifying with it, not reifying it, not terminating it, not affirming it. It will disappear on its own.

[1:11:43] Following that, after a thought, whatever thought, image, whatever once it has disappeared on its own following that settle, settle yourself in that clear vacuity, wakefulness, in which there is no identifiable entity. The term wakefulness is a nice term. I know some of you are struggling when dealing with the defining characteristics of consciousness. Cognizance, you’ve got it. Right. You got that one. But then luminosity kind of, but I don’t see anything bright. I don’t see anything shiny. I don’t, I don’t see anything luminous. It’s just wakefulness. In the vernacular, bright eyed and bushy tailed. We say in American English, bright eyed and bushy tailed, right. That’s clarity. I woke up this morning feel, I woke up this morning feeling bright eyed and bushy tailed. I may be as dumb as a doorknob but I was pretty clear. [laughter] What’s happening? What, what, I’m totally confused but I’m here, wherever that is. [laughter continues] That’s clear. Not a whole lot of cognizance going on. Kind of like you know, retarded chipmunk. Now clarity is totally clear, right. You’ve got it. Retarded chipmunk on steroids that’s clarity, that’s wakefulness, that’s clarity.

[1:13:20] So you’re resting there in that sheer clarity, that sheer vacuity. Wakefulness in which there is no identifiable entity. There is no subject, no entity, no thingness. Seeing thus is realizing ultimate reality and recognizing the essential nature of mind. Okay we are now in vipassana territory. So, we’re moving beyond the mere phenomenal, phenomenal nature of mind, we’re going into its emptiness which is not separate from luminosity. It is explained in Tilopa’s Mother Ganges, if you want to realize reality that transcends the intellect, devoid of activity, then cut the root of your own mind and rest in bare awareness. The water polluted by thoughts will turn lucid. Don’t terminate or affirm appearances, but rest as you are. When you do not reject or accept, that is Mahamudra.

[1:14:28] So, methodologically this sounds an awful lot like the preceding, you know, like watching the raven fly from the ship, watching it come back, alight back on the ship once again. But this is not just more shamatha. This is now vipassana territory. He’s made that very clear by context. So, when you’re resting in this way, you’re resting in insight. You’re resting in insight. Exactly following the type of meditation we just did. That was heavy duty, that was heavy lifting there. Right? Does the mind, the agent, that which is observing exist or not exist, is it one or many, that’s heavy lifting. And then some insight arises where you’re shifting your perspective, something that was not clear becomes clear. And then you rest in this. Shamatha, there’s no, there’s no shamatha view. There’s no such thing, shamatha view. Just do the practice. It’s a method. Right. But there is the view of the middle way, umapa [Tibetan], the Madhyamaka view, that’s a view. That the mind is not non existent, and then conventionally speaking it does arise in manner of dependent origination. Right.

[1:15:46] So, but here this is Tsongkhapa’s strength, his magnificent strength. Because Tsongkhapa never says the mind doesn’t exist. He’s always saying find the target. Find the, that which is to be refuted and like doing brain surgery, cut that out and leave the rest intact. Don’t refute your mind, refute the object of the mind that reifies the mind. That sees the mind, grasps the mind, apprehends the mind as inherently existent. See the object of that mind, that delusional mind and see that as non existent. Right. It’s not the strategy of Padmasambhava, it’s not, it’s a different method. They’re equally good methods, I mean they work. That’s the only thing that matters. They work. This is not finding the object to be negated. It’s going in and seeing does it fit? Does it really exist or not exist? Is it really one? Is it really more than one? And seeing no, no, no, it’s still a simple negation. It doesn’t really exist, it doesn’t really not exist. It’s not really one, it’s not really many. That’s a simple negation. Right? And it cuts through in this way, different strategy. But it’s one that’s worked, that’s all that to me, I mean like a doctor, all I care is does the medicine work or not? This works. It’s been around for more than a thousand years.

[1:17:07] Also, many others say whatever kinds of thoughts arise, should be suppressed without being allowed to disappear on their own. So here clearly is another strategy. This is like the vipassana counterpart right, to the duel between the swordsman and the archer. But this is now vipassana. So there’s parallels here. Right. But we know we are in vipassana territory now. So others say whatever kind of thoughts [arise], suppress them, cut them off, terminate them without even giving them the chance to disappear on their own. Terminate before they have that chance. Then when they are allowed to arise back up First you terminate them but of course they are not going to stay down, another one is going to crop up. First you see it as you terminate them. Then when they are allowed to arise back up, they release themselves. So it’s getting the hang of it, saying this is something I can do. One thought after another comes up, I can behead them one by one. I can terminate them, decapitate them one by one [Alan makes chopping sounds] like that with my sword. I can do that. And there is kind of a vacuity afterwards. And then you see. Ahh! But I don’t have to. Because they decapitate themselves. They arise by themselves. They release by themselves. So I don’t need to get out my sword, I can just watch them die a natural death. That’s what he is saying here. Then when they are allowed to arise back up, they release themselves. That is the simultaneity of arising and releasing.

[1:18:44] They self arise, they self release and it’s just [Alan snaps fingers] like that, simultaneity. As one is arising another one’s releasing. No effort, no modification, nothing to do. It happens all by itself. Thus there are as many dharma bodies, there are as many dharmakayas, as there are thoughts. Because they say every single thought, this is classic Vajrayana, but this is classic Mahamudra, that the thoughts themselves are not other than dharmakaya. In stage of generation practice you imagine that. Right. You visualize that, imagine that, you view thoughts first of all, just go back to stage of generation practice. If you have not seen, if you don’t have some pretty clear insight that the thoughts are not inherently existent, if you don’t have that then, if you’re thinking of them as being dharmakaya, I’m sorry that’s just stupid. You have like a thought of malevolence or pettiness or greed or self centeredness arising and you’re viewing it as being really by its own nature unafflictive mind state and then you call that a dharmakaya, oh that’s insulting to the Buddha. That’s like dharmakaya, you’re as crappy as my worse thoughts. Who wants to achieve dharmakaya? You know. That’s silly. This is why insight into emptiness is an absolute prerequisite for stage of generation practice. You have to see, you have to have some strong conviction not just a belief or an intellectual stance, that all of these events arising in the mind, virtuous, non virtuous and so forth, they’re all empty of inherent nature.

[1:20:26] They have no identity of their own. They don’t define themselves. They are empty and therefore if I wish, it is my choice, I, it is legitimate now that I know that they are empty and now that I know, I have some strong intuitive sense, they’re actually arising from rigpa and not from any other source. Then I can if I wish, this is my choice, I can view them as dharmakaya, expressions, effulgences, creative, creative displays of dharmakaya. And they are from that perspective. But if you’re reifying them from the perspective of a deluded sentient being, this is just flat out stupid. It’s just silly. Worse than a waste of time, it’s self delusion. So, There are as many dharmakayas as there are thoughts, each one is an expression of dharmakaya viewed from the perspective of rigpa. viewed from the perspective of dualistic grasping of a sentient being they’re not dharmakaya, they’re just that which is to be abandoned.

[1:21:28] As Guru Shang, another great Kagyupa Master in the Tibetan tradition as he instructs, When thoughts suddenly emerge from the state of resting in the present they are just resting in the present and then phoo, out comes a thought, you’ve seen that. Do not think that they are something other than the clear light of dharmakaya. And it would seem not to view them from the ordinary, reifying, dualistic samsaric mind. Seek to view them from a deeper perspective. from rigpa, your best approximation, that’s all. It’s not a yes or no, just like you know rigpa through three layers of clouds, we’ve been through that. So your best approximation, see if you can view them as just clear light, clear light, dharmakaya. Therefore the projection of thoughts is emptiness, projecting from emptiness. Thoughts are empty, emptiness is thoughts. Dharmakaya projecting dharmakaya. Union projecting union. Okay. So that was his overall presentation drawing very strongly, quite uniformly on the Mahamudra literature, the Mahamudra lineage. None of that was Gelugpa, that was straight Saraha, and great Kagyupa masters from the past. And now he’s going to summarize.

[1:22:57] It says in the questions of Aria Rasvabhala so among the Mahayana sutras, Those who do [need some water] Those who do not know the way of emptiness, peace, and non arising wander in samsaras realms. One who has compassion, effects their entry into truth, through hundreds of methods and reasons. So, he’s simply showing there are many many avenues to realizing emptiness. They’re certainly sounded from that you know those direct quotes from Donald Hoffman this morning, if one had studied Madhyamaka extensively and then you heard those words from a Madhyamaka master it might go down quite smoothly. Well that was an interesting way of expressing emptiness, yeah you know. As far as I know he did that just straight cognitive science. As far as I know, I haven’t heard any indication otherwise. If he did that would be cool, but if he didn’t that would be cool. It’s like Anton Zeilinger when he was describing how when you look for elementary particles from their own side you don’t find them. And the Dalai Lama was astonished and so forth, well he hadn’t done some quantum mechanics then said oh my gosh I’m so confused, let’s see what Nagarjuna says. He just did straight quantum mechanics. Right. And then comes up with that. And here’s Donald Hoffman, outstanding cognitive scientist who happily knows something about and clearly more than something about the insights of modern physics, 20th century physics. Pretty impressive.

[1:24:50] It’s not impressive if somebody like Glenn or me or MaryKay or others or you know anybody here, Beatha), it’s not really so impressive if some of us have gained some insight into emptiness. I mean we’re being trained, we have all literature, we have all guidance we have all, so ok we’re good soldiers. You know. But if you have no access, none of the wisdom of the Buddhadharma of Nagarjuna and so forth. No Mahamudra, no Dzogchen, no Zen, no Chan, no nothing of this and you gain some insight into emptiness, purely something outside the context of any spiritual tradition, l find that very impressive. Really impressive, I mean Namo, Sadhu, Sadhu, Sadhu. Anton Zeilinger boy came over deep respect for him. And I wrote to Donald Hoffman this morning, I have no idea whether he’ll respond but what the heck. I won’t have my feelings hurt, he’s busy I’m sure. But I wrote to him just to express my appreciation for his words, his insight. The only neuroscientist I know who’s really publicly with clarity, with incisiveness cited, modern cutting edge physics and related this to modern cognitive science. That’s pretty impressive, if he’s the first one, kudos! I just wanted to congratulate him, if that’s all it is, that’s fine. And I also wrote to Thomas Hertog this morning, [laughter] and I said if you don’t know about Donald Hoffman you might want to check out his interview. Because he’s drawing on your work. You know. And if that’s all that happens is those two guys get to know each other and they ignore this you know, this California hippie Buddhist, I don’t mind. It’s ok. No big deal. So a little tiny bit more, yeah?

[1:26:40] Oh yeah. So a little bit more. This states the above statement, the above verse, This states that those who do not know the profound way of emptiness and lack of self, are wanderers in the realms of samsara. And for the sake of freeing those samsaric wanderers from samsara the teacher that is the Buddha, who possesses great compassion effects their entry onto the path to realization of lack of self through hundreds of methods for realizing lack of self and arguments that establish lack of self taught directly and by the lineage. So who knows there could have been some great bodhisattvas, or even emanations of the Buddha who manifested as physicists. Why not? Or as cognitive scientists. Why not? If they saw it was helpful. Certainly in the Mahayana tradition my own teachers have been saying ah there are definitely great beings bodhisattvas and so forth manifesting as Theravada teachers. [? unclear 1:27:51] bodhisattvas they saw that as the best way to be of service. And other ones maybe a scientist or architects or so forth. There’s no manifestation that a bodhisattva would not in principle take, anything that can be helpful. A tiny bit more.

[1:27:52] As Shantideva says here in the 9th chapter, the wisdom chapter, right at the beginning of the chapter he says, All these limbs that is all the preceding chapters on generosity, ethics, patience, enthusiasm, meditation, all these limbs of practice were taught for the sake of wisdom. The first five perfections were all taught for the sake of the sixth one. I’ve sounded that before. And yo Atisha says, All the eighty four thousand aggregates of the dharma Did he say heaps? I really don’t like heaps, did he say heaps? Heaps, yeah. Heap of dharma, sounds like something you put in a dumpster. We’ve got a heap of dharma what can, where can I dump it? I don’t really care for heaps so much. Aggregates is better. Or collections is fine. All the eighty four thousand aggregates of dharma have been taught, that have been taught are for arriving at this ultimate reality. It’s all for the sake of wisdom. Because only wisdom liberates. Also the eighty four thousand heaps or aggregates I’m going to say, aggregates again, all the eighty four thousand aggregates of dharma taught by the conqueror were taught to establish methods whereby disciples can in the end realize ultimate reality or lack of self by direct perception. The whole idea is you transcend the intellect and you gain this immediate non conceptual conceptually unmediated non dual realization of dharmata, of emptiness, of dharmadhatu. One more and then we’ll finish.

[1:29:22] As for the realization of lack of self by direct perception having previously established lack of self through hearing and reflection So that’s where you get to, you’re introduced to the view by way of hearing the teachings, and then you check out, you analyze, you investigate until you come to clarity, whether the view is authentic, whether it’s not authentic. If it turns out to be authentic, it stands up to your most rigorous analysis, then you meditate. That is you assimilate the view and you view reality from that perspective. You view reality as being inherently empty of inherent nature, as empty appearances arising. Further by meditating only on serenity only on shamatha, if that’s all you do you’ll be like an extremist. So somebody outside the buddhist fold, an extremist unable to abandon all mental afflictions. So that’s been known since the time of the Buddha. The king of concentration That is Samadhiraja Sutra states, a great Mahayana sutra states Although the worldly cultivate samadhi they will not destroy perceptions of the self. Perception here means misperceptions, misapprehensions they will not destroy them, they will not overcome the delusions pertaining to self because they are afflicted they will be disturbed, like Udra Kamaputra cultivating samadhi. And he was one of the two teachers that taught Gautama samadhi when he left the palace. So if that’s all you’ve done, if it’s only samadhi, okay enjoy a nice long stay in samsara, because you are not going anywhere. So there we are.

[1:31:01] Olaso. Will that keep you busy for a day? Yeah enough? Very good. Olaso, enjoy your weekend.

Transcribed by KrissKringle Sprinkle

Revised by Rafael Carlos Giusti

Final edition 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.