B. Alan Wallace, 01 May 2016

Alan reminds us the pointing instructions of Padmasambhava when he repeatedly said “observe your mind, observe your mind”. For some people that may be sufficient, for others perhaps just observing the mind is sufficient, but for most of us while we observe this ordinary consciousness of the present, that is what he is referring to, saying this is the same as the Buddha nature, rigpa, this is your ordinary consciousness of the present moment. At the same time it’s perfectly true that we can be aware of being conscious in the present moment and not have realized rigpa, our Buddha Nature. While our Buddha nature is hidden in plain sight, it’s right there where we are looking, because you do not have to look anywhere else, we don’t have to believe anything, we don’t have to add something to it, nevertheless it is hidden in plain sight and then we can ask “what is it that hides it, what is that veils it?” As Alan mentioned before there are cognitive obscurations. Last week Alan referred to cognitive obscurations as the acquired or speculative delusion or ignorance of thinking that only the things that scientists can measure exist, and that’s exactly what materialists believe: that the only things that exist are material phenomena and their emergent properties because that’s exactly what scientists can observe. But then beyond that there is of course conate ignorance, that which we were born with - grasping onto the true existence of everything that we see, everything that we experience, myself, my mind, my body, other people, the environment and everything else, because phenomena appear to us as if they were inherently existent, and then we trust these appearances. Why would reality lie, why wouldn’t it exist that way? Coming back to our own perception, why haven’t we yet realized our own rigpa, our own pristine awareness, really cut through to the ground pristine awareness?

First of all it’s by reifying ourselves. That I am the subject, I’m really in here, I am really someone and then I look outwards upon anything else and everything else, including my mental afflictions, other people, my own body, everything appears as if it’s truly existent and therefore we grasp onto that. We reify subject, we reify object and out of the reification of subject and object then the two appear and are grasped as being entirely separate, inherently separate, each one inherently existent. That’s conate ignorance and we cannot blame anyone for that, we were just simply born with that. And so, in the strategy suggested by Padmasambhava, he takes us through the very coarse, to medium, to subtle objects of meditation within shamatha culminating in shamatha without a sign, resting in awareness itself, inverting, enhancing awareness of awareness, releasing, enhancing, releasing, oscillating, and then we see that as we are controlling the attention, we are doing something, we are not just being, we are doing something, and that is this focusing, this inversion, accentuation of the attention in upon itself and then this release out into space and then seeing that “nobody is making me do this, I chose to do this, I’m continuing to choose to do this, I’m doing it again and again and again, and so I’m the agent, someone is doing that and it’s me.

I do have a sense that I’m doing it and I’m not a robot, and so since we have that, the practice is entirely phenomenological, is not ideology driven, not aimed at getting the right answer, and that is as you are oscillating your attention in that way just look carefully, as you invert, invert more deeply, and see just what is your experience of being that agent. Because that is what is reified, that is where the natural reification comes in, the conate reification comes in: I’m doing this. And this happens of course not only when you are sitting quietly in meditation but also when you are doing anything else. I did that! And what comes to mind when you say, “I did that?” “I did a wonderful job, thank you for congratulating me, I’m so proud. Whenever we say I, I, I, we are taking it very seriously and it is reification. But as long as we are operating within the context of reifying ourselves as the subject we will naturally reify everything else which means we will be always in dualistic grasping and that completely obscures rigpa, because rigpa completely transcends any type of reification, any type of dualistic grasping. There is only one subject that realizes rigpa and that’s rigpa. Nothing else can realize rigpa. Rigpa can realize rigpa but you cannot get it inferentially, or intellectually, you cannot see it with your eyeballs, rigpa only sees rigpa. But the very nature of rigpa transcends dualistic grasping, and so as long as we are enmeshed in dualistic grasping then rigpa cannot see itself from our perspective. Because our perspective is in the clouds and rigpa is in the sun. Following Padmasambhava’s instructions in Natural Liberation, Alan takes one step further in his teachings on shamatha without a sign and that is we are not always doing something, at least not deliberately or consciously, voluntarily, sometimes we are just “being there” we are just quietly observing. We can do that like in the lovely Dzogchen metaphor of “the shepherd watching his flock spread on the plain, seeing them from afar”, or the one in the Mahamudra tradition of “an old man watching other people’s children play”. There is no sense of possessiveness; it’s just a sense of pleasant, serene and totally relaxed presence of an old man watching and enjoying seeing other people’s children play. We are emulating that quality of awareness, of just being present, just observing, when we practice settling the mind in its natural state, but then when we are doing that and we are just quietly resting and watching what is coming up, not reacting, not judging, not modifying, not doing anything, do you then have a sense of being the one who is watching? Do you have the sense as if the thoughts were over yonder when you are watching them, as if from afar, as we are encouraged to do? Do you have the sense of being the one over here, the quiet observer? That’s where Alan will take us in the next session of guided meditation. And when we are just resting there, without doing anything, not even doing the oscillation of the attention, just when you invert your awareness in upon itself see what comes to mind. And the crucial point here is don’t look for what doesn’t come to mind, don’t think you are so clever and come out with the right answer “Oh I looked for myself, I didn’t find it! Was it right?” No, you were not right at all, because that was not the question. The question wasn’t “do you exist as an observer?” Of course you are an observer! As I’m talking, I’m listening, you are listening, and you are an observer. But Alan is not asking that question, is not asking if you are or not a person. Of course you are a person. We are assuming that you are an observer and that’s a meaningful statement, but now when you sense yourself, when you experience yourself as an observer, as you do that what comes to mind? What is your sense of being the observer?

In the guided meditation Alan invites us to Look for the Observer.

After meditation Alan reminds us that in between teaching sessions we have a rich array of practices to avail ourselves of, from the Four Immeasurables, to the Guru Yoga, Bodhicitta, we have an array of shamatha methods and he invites us also to introduce in our practice whatever understanding we have of emptiness, the illusory nature, the dream like nature of phenomena. Alan is like a music teacher and is giving us a broader and broader repertoire of pieces - sometimes jazz, sometimes classical, sometimes heavy metal if you are up to it, which is “cut them off”. Alan then explains a nice parallel between the shamatha methods and the four classical modes of a bodhisattva’s enlightened activities.

Meditation starts at 12:52


Please contribute to make these, and future podcasts freely available.

Download (MP3 / 24 MB)

Transcript

So, you’ll recall from that pointing out instruction from Padmasambhava, where he repeatedly says, “observe your mind, observe your mind”. Sounds very straight forward: If that’s the pointing out instruction, then what do we need all the rest of dharma for? Just observe your mind and we’re finished, you know, if that’s sufficient. And for some people it may be. Who can say? Again, for Bahia one short Dharma talk was sufficient to become an Arhat. For others perhaps just observing the mind is sufficient. Not for me to say. But for most of us, while we do that, we observe this ordinary consciousness of the present, which is what he referred to saying, this is the same as (do you remember?), this is the same as the Tathagatagarbha. This is buddha nature, this is rigpa - your ordinary consciousness of the present moment. At the same time, it’s perfectly obvious too that we can be aware of being conscious in the present moment and not have realized rigpa, our buddha nature, and so on. And so I mentioned before that while it’s hidden in plain sight - it is right there where we’re looking, we don’t have to look anywhere else, we don’t have to believe anything, we don’t have to add something to it, like Buddhism or something like that. Nevertheless, it is hidden in plain sight. And then we can ask, “what it is that hides it? What is it that veils it?” And so I mentioned, well, okay, there are conative obscurations, that is what might prevent you, obstruct you. Conative, we covered that. Attentional, it’s just obviously, that completely throws us off. Cognitive, last week I referred to the acquired or speculative delusion of thinking that only the things that scientists can currently measure, exist. And when put like that the absurdity of it really is absolutely obvious. And that’s exactly what they believe. The materialists believe that, you know, the only things that exist are material phenomena and their emergent properties and oh, by gum that’s exactly what scientists can observe! You know, so it’s, frankly it’s silly, but many people believe in that silliness and so I’ve spent some time trying to clear away that speculative ignorance. And so were finished with that. [02:26]

But then beyond that then there’s of course connate ignorance, connate - that which we’re born with, and metaphysical realism, a philosophical sound, it’s a very elegant term, but it’s what we’re all born with and that is grasping onto the true existence of everything that we see, everything we experience: myself, my mind, my body, other people in the environment, and everything else. Because phenomenal appear as if they were inherently existent, and then we trust, we trust. Well, “why would reality lie?” or if one of the theist, one might think “Well, why would God lie? God wouldn’t do that to us, would he? That would be so unkind, to trick us”. As a non-theist one might feel, “but, well you know that’s how reality appears, why wouldn’t it exist that way?” Until you subject it to analysis, until you really start exploring, as people like the cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman have done. And now we’re seeing a growing number of really first-rate physicists are cutting through that and saying, “this just doesn’t hold water at all”, and then coming up with the primacy of the role of the observer in the universe. So that’s quite breathtaking. [03:35]

But we come back here just to our own perception let alone what other people believe, and this philosophical system, and that, and that, and so forth, why haven’t we yet, (if we have not) realized our own rigpa, our own pristine awareness? Really cut through to the ground, pristine awareness. And we may be free - relatively free or maybe even completely free of the speculative ignorance of thinking “well, everything is just matter and its derivative properties”, but still, this connate, dualistic grasping. And that dualistic grasping, [nyin zin - Tibetan 04:09] - dualistic grasping is a very straightforward translation - where does this come from? Is by first of all reifying ourselves. That “I am, I am the subject, I’m in here, I’m really in here, I really am someone”, and then I look outwards, upon anything else and everything else, including my mental afflictions, other people and so forth, my own body - everything appears as if it’s truly existent, so then we grasp onto that. So we reify subject, we reify object and now the reification of subject and object, then the two appear and are grasped as being entirely separate, inherently separate, each one inherently existent. [04:50]

Now that’s connate. We can’t blame anybody on that, or for that. We’re just simply born with that. And so in this strategy here, of Padmasambhava, in his warm up in Shamatha, immediately preceding his discussion of Vipashyana, he takes us through the very coarse to medium to subtle objects of meditation within Shamatha, culminating in Shamatha without a sign, resting in awareness itself, inverting, enhancing, the awareness of awareness, releasing, enhancing, releasing, oscillating. And then we see (as we did during the last morning session, as I recall, two days ago) then as we are controlling the attention, doing something, we are doing something, right? We’re not just being there we’re doing something. And that is this focusing, this inversion, this accentuation of the attention inverted in upon itself and then the release, release out into space, and then seeing, “look! Nobody’s making me do this. I choose to do this, I am continuing to choose to do this. I am doing it again and again. So I am an agent, someone’s doing it, and it’s me and I do have a sense that I’m doing it, that I’m not a robot, that I’m not just programmed, that I’m an agent here, I am doing something.” And so, since we have that, the practice was entirely phenomenological. It’s not ideology-driven, it was not aimed at getting the right answer. And that is, “as you’re oscillating the attention in that way, just look carefully as you invert. Invert more deeply and see, just what is your experience of being that agent?" Because that’s what’s reified. That’s where the natural reification comes in, the connate reification comes in. “I’m doing this!”, and that’s of course not just when you’re sitting quietly in meditation, it’s when you’re doing anything else, right? “I’m doing this, I did that”, you know? Somebody says, “oh, who did this?” and “I did that”. And you have a sense. OK, but what comes to mind when you said “I did that”, right? “I’m responsible, I’m sorry, I blew it, I did a terrible job, I’m so sorry, I did a marvelous job, thank you for congratulating me, I’m very proud of my work I did a good job”. Whatever it is, “I, I, I”. We’re taking it very seriously and it is reification. [07:21]

So, this is something as long as we are operating within the context of reifying ourselves as the subject, we will naturally reify everything else. Which means that we’ll be involved in dualistic grasping and that can completely obscure rigpa, because rigpa completely transcends any type of reification, and any type of dualistic grasping. There’s only one subject that realizes rigpa. And what is that, Brandon? [Audience member answers] “Rigpa”. Rigpa, you got it. Yeah, there’s only, nothing else can realize rigpa. Rigpa can realize rigpa, but you can’t get it inferentially, you can’t get it with the intellect, you can’t see it with your eyeballs. Rigpa sees rigpa, right? But rigpa is, transcends, by its very nature it transcends dualistic grasping. Rigpa never does that and therefore as long as we are enmeshed in dualist grasping, then rigpa can’t see itself from our perspective, because our perspective is in the clouds and rigpa is in the sun, right? [08:24]

So, we’ll take one step further this morning. Following exactly Padmasambhava’s instructions in his teachings on shamatha without a sign, in natural liberation, and that is we’re not always doing something, at least not deliberately (or consciously or voluntarily), sometimes we’re just being there. We’re just quietly observing. We can do that - one very lovely metaphor from the Mahamudra tradition is… we already had one from the Dzogchen tradition, of the shepherd watching his flock spread out over the plane, seeing them from afar, right? So that was one. There’s the one from the mahamudra tradition and that is of an old man watching other people’s children play. You know, just an old man. You’ve got the picture already. There’s no sense of possessiveness and we imagine the parents are there if there’s any problem the parents are on it. The old man doesn’t have to do anything. The parents might be uneasy if he started doing something, you know, in our modern world. Otherwise, in Tibet they’d never worried about it, but you know for us, but it’s just this kind of pleasant, serene, pleasant, totally relaxed, utterly innocent, an old man enjoying watching children play, you know. But we’re knowing with so, with total relaxation, seeing the children over there, they don’t even notice him and he doesn’t care whether they noticed him or not. He’s just enjoying watching children play. That quality of awareness, of just being present, just observing, okay. We are emulating that when we practise, settle the mind in its natural state, right? But then when we’re doing that - and that’s where we’re going right now - when we’re doing that, you’re just quietly resting there, just watching whatever comes up, but non-reactively, non-judging, not modifying, not, not, not, not. You know, all the “not”s. When you’re not doing anything. “I’m just being here watching”, OK? Do you have a sense of being the one who is watching? Do you have a sense, if the thoughts are over yonder, if you’re watching them as if from afar - as we’re encouraged to do, right? Do you have a sense of your being the one over here, the quiet observer? Just that. And so that’s where we’re going in this session. I will guide it just to keep you on board. But we’ll be inverting then, when we’re just resting without doing anything, without even oscillating the attention hither and yon [yonder]. Just when you invert your awareness in upon itself, what comes to mind? And again, the point is: don’t look for what doesn’t come to mind. Don’t think you’ll be so clever you’ll come up with the right answer, “oh, I looked for myself. I didn’t find it, was that right?” No. Don’t do that, don’t do that. Yes, you’re right. No you’re not. You’re actually not right at all. That wasn’t the question. The question wasn’t, “do you exist as an observer?” That’s not the question. Of course you’re an observer. Of course you are an observer. Of course I’m talking, I’m listening, you’re listening. Yes, you’re an observer. We’re not asking that question, that’s silly, that’s kind of like asking like, “are you a person?” Of course you’re a person. Why should we ask a silly question? This isn’t a silly question. We’re assuming that you are an observer and that’s a meaningful statement. But now when you sense yourself - you experience your sense, yourself - as an observer, as you do that, what comes to mind? What is your sense of being the observer? It’s up close, it’s personal, it’s individual. There’s no right answer except not having any answer or just making something up, simply imagining something, contriving, thinking “Oh, I should be seeing something, OK I’ll see this” Ok, then you’re just fooling around, right. This is radically empirical, to go right into, what is your actual sense of being,the subject who is simply observing? What comes to mind? OK? So let’s do that and see what you see and be prepared to report to Glenn [laughter].[12:39]

[12:44] Meditation begins.

You may recall that aphorism from the Dzogchen tradition, the distinction between Buddhas and sentient beings or unenlightened beings is that Buddhas know who they are and unelightened sentient beings do not. So with the aspiration to know who we are, in order to be perfectly awakened for the sake of all sentient beings, let’s venture into this practice settling body, speech and mind in their natural state.

[15:24] For a short time calm the turbulence of the discursive mind with mindfulness of breathing, relaxing deeply, releasing, letting go with every out breath.

[17:44] Then let your eyes be gently open, evenly rest your awareness in the space in front of you with no object and without doing anything, without meditating on anything.

[18:49] As William James stated - for the moment what we attend to is reality. So insofar as we’re focusing our attention on objects, be they mental or sensory, physical, that’s what’s real to us. And it tends to be all bound up in dualistic grasping and reification. Now release all objectification, release all interest in objects of the mind, appearances to the mind, and simply rest, in the present, maintaining this mindful presence, without distraction, without grasping. And what is left when your attention is not diverted to any objects of the mind or appearances to the mind, what’s left? What are you still aware of? Let that become real for you.

[21:18] The experience of being aware, or awareness itself is likely to arise more vividly so that you can identify awareness more easily when you’re not distracted away by other things. Being aware of the ongoing wakefulness, the clarity of your awareness, the ongoing flow of knowing. But now look more deeply inside, do you have a sense of being the one who is aware of being aware? The one who is aware, the subject. Examine closely, as you invert your awareness right inwards, upon your experience of being the observer, the one who is aware, examine closely what comes to mind, what is your sense of being the subject? As you do so does the issue of gender come up? Do you have an experience of yourself being a female or a male observer? Of being old or young? Of one ethnicity or another? Examine closely.

[24:16] Does any image of your body come up? An image of your face for example? Examine closely. If you start feeling a bit tight, relax, release. And simply sustain, very gently, the ongoing flow of awareness of awareness as you release outwards into space. Then when you’re a bit refreshed, then look again.

[25:44] If some appearance comes to mind, any kind of appearance, observe that appearance and then look more deeply, penetrate through another layer and examine - what is it? Who is it that is aware of that appearance? Penetrate more deeply.

[26:50] And when you probe inwardly in this way, if no appearance comes to mind, nothing, then examine closely what is it, who is it that is experiencing that absence of appearances, who observes that? And probe more deeply.

[27:28] And relax when you feel the need to relax. Release your awareness into space. Sustaining the flow of awareness of awareness.

[28:16] Release your awareness into space with no object, no target, no referent outside of awareness itself.

[29:19] And when you once again feel refreshed, and invert your awareness in upon your experience of being the observer, examine closely, do you see more or less than when you simply released your awareness into space with no object? Or do you see the same? Is there no difference? Examine closely.

[31:04] If an appearance does arise ask yourself - is this an appearance of me? Is this a representation of me? Or is this simply an empty appearance that has no referent at all? Examine closely. Or perhaps it’s an appearance that does have a referent, maybe it refers to something else. Examine closely.

[32.23] And finally, upon your most careful scrutiny as you observe your awareness, as you direct your awareness in upon your sense of being the observer, if in fact you have no sense of being an observer, examine closely. What came to that conclusion? Whose observation was that? And look more deeply.

[34:34] Then rest again, releasing your awareness into space, into an open expanse, devoid of any object or target.

[35:27] And then simply rest. Rest your awareness right where it is without releasing it outwards or inverting it inwards. Rest right where you are. Doing nothing. Being aware of being aware.

Bell : [36:51]

[37:08] meditation ends.

[37:14] Olaso.So for those of us here in retreat in Tuscany, as well as those listening by the Podcast, in between sessions we now have a rich array of practices to avail ourselves of. From the four immeasurables and so on, that whole side there, the guru yoga, the bodhichitta, very rich. We have an array of shamatha methods, including this one right here. Also, introducing whatever understanding we have of emptiness, the illusory nature, the dream like nature of phenomena, we can tap into those. So I’m like a music teacher. I’m just giving you a broader and broader repertoire of pieces and genres of music. Sometimes jazz, sometimes classical, sometimes if you’re up to it, heavy metal [laughter]. I’m never up to that, but you might be. You know what heavy metal is, "cut them off, cut them off as soon as they come” [laughter]. It’s ferocious. [38:19]

In fact, I’ll share something with you very briefly from Daniel, I thought it was a very nice insight (our Daniel right here), and that is, there are four (classically this is through all of inter-Tibetan Mahayana Buddhism), there are four modes of enlightened activity, that Bodhisattvas, Arya Bodhisattvas, Buddhas, may all (and they do) avail themselves of as the situation arises. And they’re color-coded. I’ve mentioned them many times, but the first one is “Pacifying”, pacifying. There’s disturbance, there’s trouble, whether it’s inwards or whether it’s outwards. And so we respond in a way that is very saintly, you know, it corresponds to kind of the Western theistic notions of what saints do. Saints are peaceful. We think of Saint Francis of Assisi - peaceful. He wasn’t always peaceful, but we like to think of him as peaceful. But peaceful. And that’s wonderful. The color, like the color of the garb of nurses in many cases, of doctors. Peaceful, pacifying, soothing, healing. And so in this regard among the array of shamatha practices we have, mindfulness of breathing is exactly that. It’s soothing, it’s gentle, it’s calming, it’s healing, it’s sweet, you know like a very loving nurse. So there’s one. [39:34]

And then we turn to the “Settling the Mind In its Natural State”, and of all of the shamatha methods, this one is just kind of ripe. Ripe with insights that are just bound to arise, as you’re tending so closely to whatever arises in the space of the mind, you’re just bound to have some insight about you know, what’s coming up, how does mind operate, what is the mind, what is the mind. And so, that approach one could say, you know, I think you know, meaningfully, “well, this is like the second type of bodhisattva activity, color-coded as yellow or gold and enriching, enriching”. So, as a bodhisattva activity it may be enriching others with knowledge, with skills, with education, with wealth, and so forth, but enriching, enhancing the abundance of the person in question. And certainly a practice of settling the mind is, is, increases our abundance of insight into the nature of mind. Dispels a lot of confusion and obscurations, false assumptions, and so on. Very, very powerful. Very useful. And it is enriching. [40:37]

And then when we’re simply resting in awareness, powerfully actually, there has to be some gravitas there, some power to remain like a lighthouse out on a rocky crag in the midst of the ocean when there’s a howling, howling winds, hurricanes, and tempests, and so forth. It has to have a lot of power, a lot of strength. It has to be well, has a solid foundation when, you know, howling winds are coming and vast like, 20-30 foot waves are crashing against it. It has to have a lot of power to do that. And so you need to in a way, overpower. The third type of bodhisattva activity is overpowering. I think it’s my best translation, I’ve thought of. Not necessarily conquering, but it is overpowering what comes up without violence, but you do overpower it. And so as you’re being buffeted by the winds of memories and thoughts and sensory stimuli and so forth, you overpower them not by getting out there and tackling them and doing something with them, but just by stay, stay firm. Stay firm like that lighthouse. Stay firm and you overpower them. They crash on the shores of your awareness and then they just wash away. They self arise, they self release and you are steadfast, you are powerful, you’re holding your own ground like a mighty warrior just standing there impervious to the assaults of your mental afflictions, memories, emotions, and so on and so on. It’s powerful. Red-coated, right? [42:04]

And then finally we have this method, when I gave my war talk, my war-room talk. Well that’s - within Shamatha, that’s very much… it’s, it’s ferocity. And among the methods we’ve been introduced to that are authentic methods taught by the greatest masters like Maitripa, Panchen Rinpoche, and so on… Padmasambhava. This is where, as soon as they come up you just cut them right off. It’s like it’s kind of ferocious, even pop your head up [sound effect], decapitate your head off [sound effect] like that, you know? Kind of fierce. It’s kind of a fierceness there. Of course there’s, nobody suffers. We’re not directing that to any sentient being, not even to a gnat, not even to an ant. There’s no ferocity directed towards any sentient being. There’s no ferocity directed towards yourself! We’re not being ferocious to ourselves as if we are in need of punishment or something like that, no! The ferocity is like, kind of just two things that have no feelings anyway, just you know, to appearances. So be ferocious to these empty appearances, vanquish them. When Milarepa was meditating after his guru had given him everything he needed, he was often in solitude, meditating, meditating. He had these mara, some kind of really malevolent Mara was assaulting him and I think Milarepa- I can’t remember the story in all it’s exactitude or precision but, I think he tried practicing Bodhichitta and “oh, may you be well and happy” and the marauders used to come like [Sound effect] you know, just harassing him, so that didn’t work [laughs]. Ok then he went for emptiness, “oh, it’s just an empty appearance”, but still as an empty appearance the mara was still assaulting him. Just wouldn’t go away and finally, Milarepa said, “BASTA! [ENOUGH!]” or something like that in Tibetan, and he just arose as a wrathful manifestation and scared the crap out of the Maras and they didn’t come back anymore. “BASTA!” [sound effect] you know, and that did it, that worked. There’s a time for that. There’s a time for ferocity, right? And so that just cutting them off as soon as they arise, that’s kind of ferocious. But then no malevolence, no hatred, no harm at all. Not even a possibility of harm. It’s just cutting off vacuous thoughts, emotions, desires, and so forth, as they arise. So it’s kind of nice. Thank you, Daniel. That’s kind of cool. I think it’s cool. [44:32]

But we also just step back for a moment and, I think start growing up - I mean all of us, and I’m including myself of course. But we do have kind of a limited, a limited notion of spirituality, of sanctity, of holiness in the west that, as I mentioned a couple times I think already, when the Pope, so rightly, when somebody pulled him down, wouldn’t let go of him, pulled him down on top of a cripple in a wheelchair, the pope showed a bit of ferocity. I don’t know exactly what he said, they didn’t say. But he showed some sternness, you know. And he probably said “stop that!” Something like that. He didn’t harm anybody, but he let, very clearly, “This is absolutely inappropriate! Stop it right now!” You know, something of that sort. He would’ve said it in Spanish, it wasn’t recorded. Yay Pope! You don’t just say, “oh, bless you dear child would you please let go of me, you just pulled me on top of a cripple, and it’s…” blah blah blah, no! So I think we have to expand our awareness, the bandwidth of what is enlightened activity. And it includes, in my perspective - now this is just my own subjective evaluation - I think it’s kind of like there’s a sequence there. If you can deal with the issue with compassion, with pacifying - excellent. Good first choice. If that’s not sufficient then you might try enriching, and maybe that’s necessary if pacifying isn’t sufficient. If enriching isn’t sufficient, you might need to overpower, no harm, but overpower. And if even that’s not sufficient, then it’s ferocity. But all with the same motivation. When governments and so forth invert that, they go for ferocity first, they go for overpowering, bullying first, they go for enriching, “let us share our knowledge with you, oh primitive people. We will enlighten you, we will educate you, because you’re so primitive, we have nothing to learn from you, of course, but we will share our wealth of knowledge. In fact we will share our civilization since you don’t have one.” Has anybody ever done that before, you know? It’s kind of obnoxious, you know, it’s called colonialism, imperialism, and so forth. It still happens. It still happens a lot. The first thing is just pacifying, pacifying, calming. If that’s not sufficient then ratchet it up as needed, but always with the same motivation.

Olaso! That’s enough for now. Let’s continue practicing. We have lots to do. [47:21]

Transcribed by Tasha S.

Revised by Cheri Langston

Final edition by Rafael Carlos Giusti

Discussion

Ask questions about this lecture on the Buddhism Stack Exchange or the Students of Alan Wallace Facebook Group. Please include this lecture’s URL when you post.