75 Cultivating Intelligence in Meditation Practice

B. Alan Wallace, 11 May 2016

Alan says that in the context of shamatha meditation there is a pyramid with the foundation being the ease, relaxation and stillness whereas at the top of the pyramid there is the clarity, vividness and acuity. The practice of vipashyana is all at the top of the pyramid. In practicing vipashyana we are cultivating the psychological factor of prajna, which in Buddhist psychology means discerning intelligence. When prajna is cultivated to its perfection, then it is translated as the perfection of wisdom. As an aside we should understand that intelligence is not by itself virtue. There are four types of intelligence to be cultivated. The first three are sharp, fast and clear intelligences which are part of vipashyana practice and hence explains why it can be demanding. The fourth intelligence is profound intelligence and brings about deep transformation.

The meditation is initially guided on the nature of awareness and appearances, followed by resting in our closest approximation of rigpa.

Following the meditation practice, Alan comments that the stronger and more stable our shamatha practice then the sharper and clearer the vipashyana will be, which will lead to the realisation of emptiness. Alan then resumes the transmission of the Panchen Rinpoche text from verse 35, and makes a number of comments and clarifications assisting our comprehension and enhancing our practice.

Meditation starts at 7:00


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

Download (MP3 / 49 MB)

Transcript

75 - Spring 2016: Cultivating Intelligence in Meditation Practice

Olaso

[00:07] So I’ve been saying for weeks now, that in the context of shamatha, we have this pyramid and there is something sequential about it or hierarchical about it, in the sense of the foundation being the sense of ease, relaxation. You know it’s so well, right, you can predict everything I’m about to say. But that foundation of ease, of looseness or relaxation, just the opposite of being uptight. And then on that basis, the composure, the stillness, the continuity, the quiet, single pointedness. And then on top of the pyramid, the clarity, the vividness, the acuity. Not just within the context of shamatha, right. And then, of course, there’s the synergy among all three, when .. when the wheel of shamatha really gets rolling, and they’re all reinforcing each other. We turn to vipashyana, and it’s very clear, I think, obvious to all of us by now that the practice of vipashyana is all up there on the top of the pyramid, right. It’s all sharp. In fact, there’s four … and in practicing vipashyana, we are actually cultivating, cultivating a psychological factor known as prajna. Prajna. And in Buddhist psychology, when dealing with the 51 mental factors, ‘prajna’ there, simply means discerning intelligence. It’s not, doesn’t have some lofty connotation like wisdom. It’s just discerning intelligence, being sharp. But then when you cultivate it to its perfection, then we translate it as prajna of wisdom.

[01:36] So when intelligence is nurtured, bearing in mind, just a brief tangent here, there is such a thing enormously important actually, that intelligence is not a virtue. [mutterings] It’s not a virtue. It all depends on who are the companions of intelligence. And that is, if the component of intelligence is egotism, arrogance, hatred, then the intelligence is like a mercenary. And it goes fully into the service of mental afflictions. And that’s called [Tibetan] afflictive intelligence. And the better you are at it, the more intelligent you are, the more damage you do, to yourself and to everybody else. So that’s why intelligence is not simply a virtue, because it’s a mercenary. It can be just to make cooler video games, which there’s nothing wrong with that, I suppose, although some are pretty nasty, I guess. But then that would just be ethically neutral intelligence, just perpetuating the same old, just more video games. And then, of course, there’s virtuous, virtuous intelligence. So vipashyana is really all about cultivating intelligence and leading it to wisdom so that it comes to full flower, of course, in the context of virtue, to wisdom, perfection of wisdom. And that may be of interest, just very briefly, that in the cultivation of intelligence, there are four kinds, four kinds. I learnt this a long time ago, when I was in Switzerland. In fact Geshe Rabten gave me a practice that was all about cultivating four types of intelligence. I remember it to this day.

[03:09] And the four types are: Sharp, sharp intelligence. And we say that in English, I think, and other European languages, such and such a person is really sharp. Yeah, I like sharp intelligence. Fast. Some people are really quick, really, really quick, right, nimble, fast. And then the, the next Tibetan word is [Tibetan?? 03:36] pretty much means clear, clear intelligence, lucid. Clear and lucid. Crystal clear. Sometimes when you … if somebody is giving a talk on a very difficult topic, and they say, now ‘Tutto chiaro?’ Is it completely clear? And if you’re intelligent and clear, you say, ‘Yes.’ ‘Sì.’ Right. Because you’ve, it’s just that, it’s just that. I can’t use any more words. It’s just very clear. Third type of intelligence. And you see all those three - quick, sharp, clear - we’re up on the top of the pyramid. And as we are engaging in these vipashyana practices over the last several days, we’re just dancing around on the top of the pyramid. And it’s no wonder if you feel a little bit tense, a bit high strung, a bit tight, as a result of doing that practice. And this is why shamatha comes first. And this is why he said, now, multiple times from the state of equipoise and you’re going to vipashyana. He keeps again and again that this is really a yogi’s route. There are many, many texts by all in all schools of Tibetan Buddhism, and among the great pundits of India, well, they all teach Madhyamaka and they never say that. It just doesn’t come up, ‘And from the state of meditative equipoise…’ So going into all of the philosophical analysis and differences of one school, of another school and so forth and so on, all that has a place.

[04:58] But here he is. This is a short text. I mean, some of Tsongkhapa’s works are massive like 400 pages just unpacking Madhyamaka, let alone the many other great scholars. But this, as we see, he said everything he wanted to say in his root text and commentary, and they’re both very short. This is the yogi’s route. This is the yogi’s route, where instead of spending 10 or 15, 20 years on the debating courtyard and memorizing texts and debating them and studying and learning, you take just enough of theoretical learning to put it right into practice. And it brings about the same result. So the fourth one, though, is profound. Profound intelligence, zapa. And that’s the one that really brings about very deep transformation. To my mind, it’s my interpretation, the first three are kind of preparation for that. Because if you never get to the profound one, then it doesn’t sink in. It’s like, like drip field of water, it doesn’t get down to the deepest roots. It doesn’t transform your way of viewing reality. And if it doesn’t, then it didn’t work. If your perspective on reality doesn’t shift as a result of your hearing, thinking and meditating on emptiness and dependent origination, if it doesn’t shift the way you view yourself, your mind, your body, the environment, other people, it didn’t work, right. Because it is in that shift of view, assuming ume tawa, the middle view, the centrist’s view, the Madhyamaka view, that’s what really brings about very deep change and liberation. So, we’ve had a lot of yam in the afternoons, a lot of yam a lot of kind of pushy, pushy, pushy, you know, as well as intellectually challenging, I think, topics when we’re bringing together quantum cosmology, and so forth and so on. Maybe it’s time to balance out a little bit. So please find a comfortable position, we’ll do something a bit different.

[06:56] [Bell rings.] [Meditation session.]

[07:19] All of this exercise and training cultivation of prajna is finally to unveil that which is already there and never developed. And that is your own pristine awareness. For taking refuge in this ground awareness, with the aspiration to realize who you are, settle your body, speech and mind in their natural states. [Pause].

[10:18] To the best of your ability, relax deeply from your core, and your body, totally loose, relaxed. The breath flowing unimpededly, effortlessly, as if no-one’s at home, as if you were deep asleep. [Pause].

[11:05] So there’s no agent who is breathing. There’s just breathing. Again, as if you’re deep asleep, there’s no-one who’s doing it. [Pause].

[11:33] Let your eyes be gently open, soft, relaxed. Forehead open, no contraction. Evenly rest your awareness in the space in front of you without focusing on any object. [Pause]

[12:29] As you rest quietly, not doing anything, you must be aware of appearances arising. Visual, auditory, and so on. Appearances to the mind as well of course. When the conceptual mind is activated, you’re also aware of objects, things that have attributes. [Pause]

[13:32] And then, of course, you’re aware of being aware. Aware of awareness itself. [Pause] And that’s about it - appearances, objects, awareness. [Pause]

[14:24] Then we pose a very simple question. Do you have the sense of the appearances being over there and your awareness of them being in here? Independent, really resting in the subjective side, and having objects be they appearances or other objects on the objective side. Does that correspond to your experience? Inside and outside, awareness in here, appearances over there? [Pause]

[15:39] And when thoughts arise, thoughts, memories, desires, and so on, do you have a sense of them flowing forth from in here? [Pause] Out into the realm of appearances? [Pause]

[16:28] Then invert your awareness in upon itself with the question. Identify the very nature of the awareness in here, that which is aware of appearances and that which brings forth thoughts and images, desires, emotions. What is the nature of this subjective awareness? Examine it closely. See if you can find it and identify it. [Pause]

[17:27] That which is aware, that which produces thoughts and so on, identify that and not just what flows from that or what appears to that, but identify that. [Pause]

[18:35] And if you can’t find it, if you cannot find that mind in here that is aware and that mind in here from which thoughts flow forth, rest in that not finding, rest in the unfindability of your own mind, the emptiness of your own awareness. [Pause]

[19:52] And just rest. Rest without striving, without desiring, without modifying anything, without doing. Awareness still, unmoving, without direction, wide open. Always fresh, aware of whatever arises without impeding any appearance, including the activities of the mind, concepts, memories, unimpeded. Rest in the stillness of this open awareness, and just be present. [Pause]

[22:06] Abiding by the familiar instructions of resting without distraction, without being carried off by any appearances, and without grasping, without identifying with the mind or any of the activities of the mind.

[22:37] Let’s continue practising now in silence.

[30:57] [Bell rings]. [Meditation session ends]

[31:20] Olaso. So to repeat the very familiar refrain, the stronger your shamatha, the stronger your vipashyana will be. And in terms of the vipashyana the sharper it is, the clearer it is, then the deeper it can be. As you cut through, you pierce the veils of reification of your self, your mind, your awareness as the subject in here. And when there’s some glimmering of insight into the emptiness of subject, then it naturally follows that the objects also must be empty as well. And as the subject is empty, empty of inherent nature and the object is empty of inherent nature, then the reification of, the bifurcation of the subject and object… that, that evaporates. And so in that absence of the dualistic mind, as that evaporates, as if into space, then what was already there may be unveiled, and that of course is rigpa and then you just rest, rest there. It’s called the rigpa [Tibetan 32:19], you’re just resting in rigpa. So, that was our best approximation of that for the time being, right. It’s the ultimate Yin because you’re really not doing anything at all, right. There’s no striving, there’s nothing to accomplish. So we return to the text.

[33:04] So, the last verses that said “informed by scripture and reasoning settle in single pointed equipoise in the state where things do not exist the way they appear, …” that is to say, where you ascertain, where you ascertain the emptiness of things existing as they appear. Alternatively, Chandrakirti pada that is the, the reverend or the revered Chandrakirti, the great Madhyamika master said, “The ultimate reality of the mind … the ultimate reality of the mind variously brings forth the worlds of sentient beings and the physical worlds.”

[33:47] I’m just about positive he says [Tibetan 33:49] Do you have it right in front of you, Anna? [Anna replies, yea.] [Alan repeats Tibetan phrase]. [Anna replies sem nyi]

[33:55] Sem nyi. Oh, that’s good. Contraction of this [Tibetan 33:57] Excellent. Yeah. So, sem nyi. That is exactly my translation of sem nyi. Sem nyii is chittata. Okay, chittata, the ultimate reality of the mind. It’s a very interesting, very subtle, pithy statement. The Tibetans, the word they have translated as ‘brings forth’ is grems pa, grems pa (Wylie). And it’s not skyed pa (Wylie) as in ‘generate’, like, you know, cause and effect and you generate something. But grems pa has a “bringing forth [or displaying or setting out, displaying] the worlds of sentient beings and the physical worlds.” So the world of sentient beings of all kinds, the physical and the container, so to speak, the inanimate, physical worlds emerge forth. They’re not being generated, like with cause and effect, not being generated by the ultimate reality of the mind, but they just, they come forth, they’re displayed, they manifest from this ultimate reality, from mind. Now, in the context of Madhyamika, this would simply be the emptiness of the mind, the shunya nature of the mind. Of course, if we look at the same statement from the perspective of Mahamudra or Dzogchen, then that refers to rigpa, pristine awareness. So it’s very subtle. It is not referring to causality. But if we ask where are all these appearances emerging from? Well, on a relative level, we know this from the earlier, just straightforward shamatha teachings, that all the appearances are arising, that is to your own individual mindstream, arising from your substrate, and you fall asleep, they all dissolve back into the substrate, that’s pretty straightforward. But on the deepest level, all appearances, generally, the worlds, the worlds themselves, the worlds of sentient beings, that is galaxies, planets, and so forth, all of these are brought forth, are displayed from the ultimate reality of the mind. So it’s a, it’s a much larger statement.

[36:03] “Since it is taught that the mind is the root of all physical worlds and their sentient inhabitants …” So again, it looks like we’re definitely going into Chittamatra territory, the mind is primary, everything else is derivative, I mean, the root and the branches. “Since it is taught,” and you’ll find this in the Prajnaparamita, and so forth. “when you cut the root basis of the mind”, and as I think you’re familiar by now, this means cutting the reification of the mind, the grasping to the mind as being really in here, a real subject, or in the Tibetan, [Tibetan 36:35], a real object-haver. Awareness has appearances, awareness has objects, so it’s an object-haver. [That’s how] And we translate that generally as subject.

[36:48] But “when you cut the root basis of the mind, it is unlike cutting other deceptions”. That is, we can reify all kinds, all kinds of things. We do. Elementary particles, galaxies, plants and so forth. But he said this is different. If you cut through the reification of your own mind, something deeper is going on, then cutting through the reification of other things. So [you should ask,] “you should act thus, when you analyze your own mind from within, the previous continuous equipoise, [there it is again] it is not established as any kind of form”. So that’s kind of like a checklist. Okay, clear, got that one. It has no form whatsoever, it doesn’t look like anything, no shape, color, etc. No physical attributes. “So in the absence of it having any form, so it is a clear vacuity, like the sun when it is unobscured by clouds. It [that is your own mind] it gives rise to all kinds of thoughts and memories flowing outwards.” If I were Padmasambhava, I would say, 'Is it like, is it like that or not? Examine your mind. Remember that litany of his? Well, there’s a really good one. ‘If that’s true, then you should see it’s true.’ If it’s not, then okay. Tell us how your experience differs from that. “Unlike a lamp that has been doused, the mind is an uninterrupted stream of clarity and awareness [There they are. The two defining characteristics of consciousness]. that does not cease.”

[38:24] So this sounds extremely reminiscent of the brightly shining mind referred to by the Buddha that is adventitiously, on occasion, veiled by contaminations or defilements and then, on occasion, is not. But whether it’s obscured or not, it’s always there as an uninterrupted stream of clarity and awareness that does not cease. Yet, “to the mind apprehending one’s own mind”, as you invert your awareness right in upon itself, mind looking at mind, the mind that you’re looking at, it seems somehow independent. As if it’s really in here, independent of anything out there, under its own power, so autonomous, which would certainly suggest inherent existence. So he’s saying here pretty obviously that it is all other appearances, people, places and so forth, they appear as if from their own side, independent, under their own power, existing by their own inherent nature. So does the mind appear to itself. “The conceived objects”, that is, all the objects conceived by the mind, “the conceived objects that are grasped as being as they appear”, so there’s reification, “and the mind that grasps objects as they appear”, so the objects and the subject, “the mind that grasps objects as they appear are”, as stated by the protector Shantideva in “The way of the Bodhisattva”, “the so called continua”, that’s the plural of continuum, “so called continua and collections”, like rosaries, armies and so forth “are deceptive.” So I jumped the gun a little bit yesterday giving you the Panchen commentary to that, to that verse. So we don’t need to do it again.

[40:13] But the continua or collections or continuum over time and collection over space. So, a rosary, an army, these are collections over space. They occupy, they have res extensa, they are realities that occupy or that are extended in space. And the point is that a rosary is a single entity, just really briefly here. A rosary. How many rosaries do you have? Well, I have with me two, that is here in Tuscany, two. But each of them has 108 beads. So exactly how did 108 become one? Not mentioning the string and a little top notch. So how did … that’s a whole bunch of things? So why do you say one rosary? When in fact, you have 100, what 110, or 11 separate little units there? So how did one become many? Well, obviously, by conceptual designation. How did a whole bunch of soldiers marching around each of them having their own mindstream, their own bodies, how did they become an army, and so forth. And so these are deceptive. That is, the way they’re apprehended, the way they appear is deceptively misleading. And that’s true not only for … for collection spread out in space, like rosary, armies, and so forth. Or anything else, for example, composed of elementary particles, atoms, molecules, they’re all the same. I mean, it’s the same, same thing. We have this smorge, which has three elements to it, a laptop, cell phone, and the, you know, eyeglass carrier. But the eyeglass carrier, how many do I have in my hand? One, how many atoms do I have in my hand? I can’t even count that high. How do those atoms become one thing? Conceptual designation.

[41:53] “So when we have strung together the individual beads of a rosary”, the rosary, “the so called rosary is just an imputation”. It’s imputing one on many. “And when we’ve collected individuals who bear arms, the so called army is merely nominal, just an imputation.” Of course, that’s usually you don’t find it in … it’s not to be found on any one soldier, or even a whole bunch of soldiers. I mean, any military commander knows, if you just have a whole bunch of soldiers hanging out, there’s not an army. It’s just called a whole bunch of soldiers. You know, that’s not an army. And so “apart from that”, apart from being mere … I’m going to say … I, I have done what Anna suggested for a long time, and I’m going to do it now … it’s … I would prefer to say that the army is merely nominal, that’s fine. And then merely imputed, imputed, that would be more accurate, good translation, imputed or designated, either one is fine. It’s merely nominal. “it’s merely imputed.”

[43:05] Apart from that, apart from their merely nominal status or imputed status, they do not truly exist, they’re not really there, nowhere to be found. “On the basis of scripture and reasoning, that teach this, you should rest in single pointed equipoise with the certainty that the mind does not exist the way it appears.” So this was very, very concise, but he’s just given instructions, pith instructions on realizing the empty nature of your own mind, the unfindability of the mind and that is reminiscent of course of Padmasambhava’s teachings that I cited from “Natural Liberation”, engaging in the search for the mind, and then that not finding the mind, as something that exists by its own characteristics. And as the Perfection of Wisdom in 8000 verses also says, it’s a very, very famous statement. “Mind does not exist as the mind; the nature of the mind is clear light.” I think it’s [Tibetan 44:03]. Think that’s it. I learned that a long time ago. “The mind is not the mind.” [Tibetan 44:11] The mind isn’t the mind. That would probably have to be [Tibetan 44:17], the nature of the mind is clear light. So the mind is an entity, the mind is a subject, something in here, well, unfindable, so the mind does not exist as some subjective entity in here. The nature of it is just sheer luminosity, sheer clear light. This states that no inherently established mind exists. And the nature of the mind is clear light, emptiness. That indivisibility of luminosity and emptiness. Also the Jewel Heap, that’s the Ratnamegha Sutra - Jewel Heap Sutra states: ‘Mind is not seen, was not seen, and will not be seen by any of the Buddhas of the three times.’ And we know what that means, seen as some entity, some object, something, something inherently existent. None of the Buddhas have seen it or will ever see it.

[45:07] Then we return to the Kagyu tradition. Je Marpa. Also Je Marpa states metaphorically that when he has ascertained the ultimate reality of the mind as it is, he got it right. And as it is means [Tibetan 45:23]. And do dagpa means superimposition, what you’re superimposing, projecting, adding on to. You cut that. You peel it off. You just sever it. Anything you’ve projected that wasn’t there, cut that. [Tibetan 45:46] . And then [Tibetan 45:47], so you cut that which is imputed, and then [Tibetan 45:54] anything that would deny what is there you terminate that as well. So you release anything that’s projected. And you cease denying anything that is there. That’s conative intelligence, not cognitive, cognitive. It’s not cognitive hyperactivity, where we’re projecting things on reality and then conflating our projections with reality. And it’s not cognitive deficit. This is my own terminology and this is not cognitive deficit in the sense of not seeing what is there, okay. That pretty much defines seeing reality as it is.

[46:39] So, Marpa says here that when he ascertained the ultimate reality of the mind as it is, his mind in meditation was ablaze with emptiness. And as he says, “I came to the banks of the Ganges River in the east, through the kindness of Je Maitripa, I realized the ground, unborn ultimate reality.” This is, can only be this primordial non duality of Dharmadhatu and primordial consciousness. “My mind was ablaze with emptiness. I saw the primordial nature, reality free of conceptual elaborations.” That’s [Tibetan 47:11] that is, cut away, cut through all the conceptual projections upon reality." Cut through. “I met the three mother buddha bodies face to face.” Buddhabodies - dharmakaya, sambhogakaya, nirmanakaya, face to face. “From then on this man’s conceptual elaborations were severed.” And then Dorje Phagmo Drupa one of the, another of the great very early Kagyu masters, teaches. “Mind is the root, mind is, mind is the root of both samsara and nirvana. Mind is pure suchness from the beginning.” Suchness is a synonym for emptiness. “Since from the beginning it is peaceful and unborn, mind is forever free from the extremes of conceptual elaborations.”

[48:10] So here when he’s referring to mind, obviously not samsaric mind because samsaric mind is not the root of nirvana. Here when he says mind, he’s referring to chittata, the ultimate reality of the mind. It is empty by nature, and it is luminous by nature. It is an indivisibility of emptiness and luminosity. And it’s unborn and transcendently primordially peaceful, never disturbed, never agitated, and forever free. That dimension of awareness is forever free of the extremes of conceptual elaborations, doesn’t fall into them. In brief, it is not as if our spiritual friend is reputed to be omniscient, even though he isn’t. And when he says ‘our spiritual friend’, he’s referring to its root guru, Sangye Yeshe. In reality, Sangye Yeshe knows everything. And I passed on his oral instructions.

[49:04] So he said what he’s done here. I don’t see any grounds for doubting what he just said. And that is he’s passing on an oral transmission here that quite possibly, until he wrote it down, hadn’t been written down. And then he traces Sangye Yeshe, received this from him, and from him goes back on the guru lineage. Very analogous to The Seven Point Mind Training I think we have every reason to believe that The Seven Point Mind Training originated from Atisha. Atisha. But then for generations, I don’t know how many but a number of generations, it was never written down. It was considered between Lamrim, “The Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment”, and The Seven Point Mind Training that the Lamrim was for people of, excuse me, dull faculties, where you take it step by step, and you’re going renunciation, bodhichitta, shamatha, and, and then finally you get to, at the end of the book, then you get emptiness. Right. That’s safe. You won’t fall into nihilism and so forth. But as you, if you have received teachings on The Seven Point Mind Training, he makes a very brief reference to the preliminary practices Four Thoughts that Turn the Mind. And then there’s a verse that’s omitted. I don’t know how it happened. But I saw a very early copy, like a 1000-year old copy of The Seven Point Mind Training, the root verses, and there’s a verse that virtually all of the later versions leave out. And I, being the total shamatha fanatic, I leapt on it, you know, like a dog finding a juicy bone. And it’s just given [Tibetan 50:32] first of all, train in the preliminaries. That was in Tibetan. And then the verse, that’s the line, it’s a very short line that’s almost universally deleted now, I don’t think they intentionally do it, it just get slipped through, was [ Tibetan 50:47], ‘Having achieved stability, let the mystery be revealed, let the secret be revealed.’ And the secret of course is the nature of emptiness, especially the emptiness of your own mind.

[51:00] But [Tibetan 51:01], ‘Having achieved stability’. Gee I, gosh, wonder what would that could mean. [Laughter]. Or maybe Panchen Rinpoche enlightens us, as the later incarnation of Atisha. Of course, he’s saying ‘achieve meditative equipoise, that stability, that stillness, and then having done so, now, let the mystery be revealed.’ And then he goes immediately into vipashyana, right into the teachings of emptiness. So that was like, you know, like a jet that takes off and just goes straight up, you know, not like a big jetliner just slowly taking off, you just goes [phew, makes sound]. That’s what he does in The Seven Point Mind Training. It’s a very fast takeoff, right into ultimate reality. Right? What to do in the meditative state while I am actually on the cushion meditating and what to do in post meditative state. So this is for people of sharp faculties who will not fall into nihilism, and goofy thoughts, and misapprehension, and so forth. And then laying this, bear in mind left hand supporting right hand, right, as the mudra of meditative equipoise. Left hand is wisdom, the right hand is skillful means. The right hand is renunciation and bodhichitta, the left hand wisdom. So he’s really teaching that approach, that the wisdom is supporting, there is the wisdom, as you, as you just initially step into the pool of bodhichitta. You’re cultivating, you’re already cultivating that, with some insight into emptiness, emptiness of self, emptiness of others. So it’s a different strategy, different strategy.

[52:27] So, but then generations later then, Chekawa Geshe wrote down the verses of The Seven Point Mind Training. So he’s often cited as the author of it while he was the scribe of it. He was the one that first put it down in writing. And Panchen Rinpoche, it seemed like he was the scribe, who first wrote down these oral instructions that he received from Sangye Yeshe. So it clearly does imply there was an oral lineage of Mahamudra in the Gelugpa tradition. Sangye Yeshe being a Gelugpa. Because he just said so. So why would he lie? I mean, it would be very nicely … I made, I did all of this by myself, you can give me a big handshake, because I’m so clever. But he said, No, obviously, this comes from Sangye Yeshe. “In brief, as related by my spiritual friend Sangye Yeshe, who truly knows everything, [this in the root text] when you’re fully aware that whatever appears is conceptually apprehended, then the ultimate absolute space of phenomena[ that’s my, that’s my translation of Dharmadhatu] then the ultimate absolute space of phenomena appears without reliance on anything else”. Mine is a more literal translation. "For awareness to enter the nature of this appearance, single pointedly rest in meditative equipoise in that. How wonderful. EMAHO!” Why not speak in English, ‘How wonderful, marvelous, fantastic.’

[53:59] So there’s the root text. Let’s just let Panchen Rinpoche. I won’t interrupt. Panchen Rinpoche is going to give a commentary on his own text. “So whatever appears is conceptually apprehended.” So we like to think, and to some extent, we’re justified in thinking that when I am just resting in awareness, or in the modern vipashyana tradition, just rest in bare attention, you know, non-reactively. And to some extent, of course, you can and that can be very beneficial. That’s why so many people find vipashyana or simple mindfulness meditation helpful. That’s because it is helpful. But if one thinks that just by an act of will, you can simply rest, you can just kind of turn off conceptuality altogether, well, this means you haven’t, you know, you’re still a beginner, you’re not, you really don’t understand the mind. Because whatever appears is conceptually apprehended by the samsaric mind by the non-arya, by the non-arya. Whatever you’re attending to, whether you’re in deep sleep, whether you’re dreaming having a lucid dream, whether you’re in the waking state, whether you’re resting in shamatha, whether you’re resting in the substrate consciousness, or whether you’re engaging in vipashyana practice, whatever appears, the conceptual mind comes in and takes hold. It’s like a Conquistador comes and takes possession. You know, I own that.

[55:15] It’s not voluntary. If it were voluntary, we could just stop you know, like, stop it. But it doesn’t work that way. Even when you’ve achieved shamatha, it’s still imbued with a subtle flow. A murmuring, a murmuring of subtle conceptuality, a subtle bifurcation of subject-object, a subtle grasping to ‘I like that bliss, luminosity, and nonconceptuality.’ The mental afflictions don’t arise, mental afflictions do not arise. They’re like, they’re like fleas. They carry the bubonic plague. And let’s say the bubonic plague, let’s say the bubonic plague is like … mental afflictions. Well, the bubonic plague couldn’t spread without the fleas. They didn’t get, they didn’t get the bubonic plague. But if you don’t have fleas, then they don’t get, and then of course, their host was rats. Mental afflictions, like the bubonic plague, except for they are much more destructive, they kill far more people than bubonic plague did. Mental afflictions, they can’t get around, they can’t operate, without being hosted by, without being parasitic on conceptual mind. Mental afflictions don’t take root in a purely non-conceptual mind. That doesn’t mean the conceptual mind is bad. It can be you know, we’re generating bodhichitta with the conceptual mind, people come up with masterpieces of art, of music, architecture, and so forth with the conceptual mind. It is not bad, any more than fleas are bad. You know, they’re just fleas, they’re just insects. But there is the point, whatever appears is conceptually apprehended.

[56:50] Some years ago, I listened to a very eminent cognitive psychologist, and her name is Anne Treisman, at Princeton University. And I’m quite … I can’t say this with total certainty, but almost certainty. When the question came up in Buddhism, we speak of perceptual modes of awareness and then conceptual modes of awareness. And the perceptual, perceptual are non conceptual, [Tibetan 57:14], and it’s said it’s not conceptual. And then we have the conceptual. And so we have these two modes. It’s very widely acknowledged and studied in Buddhist psychology. And she was asked about this. And she said, Well, from our perspective, all your modes of apprehension, everything you’re aware of, they’re all saturated by conceptualization. And therefore, she said, whatever you’re experiencing, therefore, I mean, it’s not quite this simple but everything you’re experiencing is illusory. That’s what she said, everything you’re experiencing is like an optical illusion, you’re not seeing reality as it is. And everything you’re seeing is filtered, filtered, configured by concepts.

[57:56] Well, that’s what he just said 400 years ago, that even when you’re resting in something that relatively feels like, it’s experienced, as non conceptual, there’s a subtle strain of conceptuality and of course, sometimes, we’re completely overwhelmed by the concepts. We get totally involved, enmeshed like a fly in a spider’s web, totally enmeshed in our concepts. And then we can go for sort of fantasizing into the projections of, you know, just getting caught up in our imagination and cognitive hyperactivity disorder. So he says, whatever appears is conceptually apprehended. The appearances are not conceptual, but our apprehension of them is filtered by concepts. And bear in mind concept doesn’t necessarily mean you don’t have to have language. There are concepts that articulate themselves in language. But there are subtle levels of, it’s called mentation actually - manas: there are subtle levels of mentation or activity of the mind that are non conceptual on the coarse level, but we still distinguish, that is, it’s not coarse conceptualization.

[59:06] So moving on, He’s just saying “this conceptualization that permeates all of our experience [as long as you’re an ordinary being, a non arya] when you are aware that whatever appears is merely imputed by thought, [when you see that] the ultimate absolute space of phenomena appears as a mental object, without depending on other conditions.” And you enter it, if your mind, your awareness of it merges, as they say, when you’re meditating on emptiness it’s like pouring a glass of water into another glass of water and it merges this is non duality of the luminosity of your awareness and the emptiness of Dharmadhatu. As Chandrakirti states, ‘Conventional truth is a method; ultimate truth emerges from that method.’ It’s a much closer translation of what the Tibetans said. So, “when you’re engaging in investigation”, examining how do phenomena appear? How do you apprehend them? Do you reify them? How do they exist from their own side or merely as something imputed? That whole method, that mode of inquiry, which is conventional, it’s relative, that’s the method, and “as a result of devoting yourself to that method, then ultimate truth [shunyata] emerges”. It manifests. It becomes clear. “Awareness enters into this appearance [the appearance of Dharmadhatu] and upon single pointedly uniting ultimate reality [I really change this around a lot. I think this is closer] Awareness enters into this appearance [okay, like one glass of water poured into another] and upon single pointedly uniting ultimate reality [that’s Dharmadhatu], the object of the mind, [that’s what you’re attending to] with subjective consciousness, there is meditative equipoise.” Meditative equipoise is in that evenness, that balance of uniting, bringing together and indivisibly merging ultimate reality of dharmata with the mind that realizes it. “How wonderful.” So that’s his commentary to the preceding verse.

[1:01:13] In accordance with the meaning of the final two lines, for awareness to enter the nature of appearance, of this appearance single pointedly rest in meditative equipoise and that. How wonderful. For that, in accordance with that, so Pha Dampa Sangye says, Dampa Sangye says, ‘Whirl the spear of awareness within emptiness.’ The view, O Dingripas, is unobstructed. This and other sayings make the same point. And I’m just about positive that’s not in the root text. Really doesn’t look like and so I just have that as a separate line [and smal,l in smaller letters, this and other sayings making the same point. They come to, they converge on the same, making the same point. “The virtues of equipoise on Mahamudra [the virtues of resting in meditative equipoise in Mahamudra] should be dedicated to unexcelled awakening.” So now we’re coming to the close here. It’ll take him a while. We see we still have 12 pages, but we’re coming now to dedication of merit, I mean he just covered the practice, including culminating in the realization of the emptiness of your own mind and its non-duality with dharmadhatu. So “the virtues of equipoise on Mahamudra should be dedicated to unexcelled awakening”.

[1:02:29] In the root text, the passage “from among the three divisions” - preparation, the actual session and post meditation, that’s going back of course to stanza nine, [this] the root text teaches this directly. So there are three aspects to the practice and to the text - preparation, actual session and then post meditation. So now we’re here in the post meditative state. So when to apply, “when to apply the way of following up is implicit but unclear. In fact, it is to be applied at this juncture in order to delineate boundaries.” From here on out, I set forth what is in the root text. So we finished the main practice and now we’re in the concluding phase of dedicating merit, which is as important, of course, as the initial motivation. Afterward, after you’ve been resting in meditative equipoise, non-dually experiencing, or you’re not yet non dually experiencing or uniting your experience of Dharmadhatu and your own awareness afterward the positive karma that has arisen from meditating on Mahamudra, together with this sea of virtues collected in the three times should be dedicated to the great unexcelled awakening. So dedicate your merit. It is fitting that this be applied.

[1:03:50] So now here’s a synthesis of how to continue practicing in the post meditative state after you have arisen from the equipoise of resting in Mahamudra. How to unmistakenly ascertain the generic idea of the object of negation when you return to meditative equipoise. And how to dispel other qualms regarding both meditative equipoise and the post meditative state. So I changed a lot there, you can see. So he’s “dedicated merit” Well, that was when you come to the conclusion of your meditative equipoise, sitting on the cushion, doing the formal practice, dedicate the merit. But now of course, maintain the continuity of your practice in between sessions. And so that’s what he’s describing here. Here is the synthesis of how to practise in the post meditative state, when you’ve arisen from equipoise on Mahamudra, maintaining the flow of awareness. How to unmistakenly ascertain the generic idea of the object of negation when you return to meditative equipoise, how do you come back in again, and how to dispel other qualms regarding meditative equipoise and the post meditative state. So you’re not conflating the two. You want to be very clear on that.

[1:05:00] So, the root text teaches thus, “Once you familiarize yourself in that way, whatever appears as objects of the six types of consciousness, precisely realize how they appear [So that is that very, very familiar strategy, right? How they appear] and their way of existence will nakedly and vividly arise. Identifying whatever arises is the crucial point of the view.” So he makes it very simple. The vipashyana, it can be extremely complex, bringing in a whole host of the types of logical analyses. He keeps it simple as is very much in the spirit of Mahamudra. So, see how they appear and see how they exist, that will nakedly arise, you’ll see their purely [imputational] imputed way of existence, you’ll see what’s designated upon appearances, and you will see that they don’t exist without that designation. And therefore, they have to be empty. That is, they’re not there from their own side, they’re not there in the very nature of appearances themselves. “And identify whatever arises, appearances, objects”, and I could say the manner in which they arise which is to say the manner in which they are apprehended is the crucial point of the view. “In short, whatever appears whether your own mind or something else, do not reify it.” Okay, now, this is now between … during the post meditative state.

[1:06:58] And you can do that, you can follow his instructions, that is, if and only if you recognize when you’re reifying, and you recognize when you’re not reifying. And you know that you’re not doing it homogeneously. And that key point this morning, really practical, very short. But when you see that your mind is now [in the] in the thralls of or in the grip of mental affliction, I would suggest you just assume, as a working hypothesis, reification must be active, what am I reifying? and then observe how you are reifying, whatever has triggered the mental affliction and is bending you out of shape. So when you see that you do it and then you don’t do it, just like the brightly shining mind is obscured and then not obscured, it’s not equally obscured, it’s not always under the clouds. It’s clear and then it’s not clear, we reify and then we don’t reify. So then you really need to identify this is vipashyana in practice during the post meditative state. Recognize when you do reify, and then stop doing it. And that is when you recognize that you are reifying, when you recognize that, then you can recognize that that what you reify does not exist from its own side. That’s a delusional way of apprehending it.

[1:08:17] And when you see that you’re deluded, when you non-deludedly recognize that you’re deluded, then you can stop being deluded, you can stop acting in a deluded way, and you can actually stop reifying. It is an act of will. But if and only if you recognize it, when it occurs and recognize you don’t need to do it, then you have a choice. Ascertain its manner of existence. That’s the first, the first line in Atisha’s Seven Point Mind Training - after achieving shamatha, [Tibetan 1:08:51] view phenomena as if they were dreams, appearing to exist from their own side and then not. They don’t exist in that fashion. And therefore don’t reify them. Don’t, don’t reify them as if they did. So ascertain this manner of existence and sustain that continually. Okay, that’s a tall order. But that’s what he’s suggesting. That’s what you should do. Now, of course, if you’ve achieved shamatha, that becomes quite practical. If you don’t, well, you’re gonna have a lot of mind wandering and so forth. It’ll break it up a lot. But that’s what he’s, that’s what he’s suggesting here. This is the … you arise from the space-like meditative equipoise. And in the post meditative state, you attend to the dreamlike or the illusory, the illusion-like nature of appearances, that they appear in a manner in which they don’t exist. Sustain that continually. Well, you can’t do that of course, if you’ve not developed a high degree of shamatha. You can’t do anything continually.

[1:09:53] “Knowing this, the natures of all the phenomena of samsara and nirvana are united as one” So then you see that the natures of all phenomena of every kind whatsoever, they’re all united as one, in the sense they’re all equally empty of inherent nature. Your guru, the Dharma, Buddha, pure lands, everything. So there’s the root text, and then the commentary. Thus "after familiarizing yourself with meditative equipoise [like that], in post meditation, you should, through detailed and discriminating examination [I would probably say discerning, discriminating sounds kind of nasty. It’s not wrong, but I just prefer] through precise and discerning examination, well realize the way anything [such as form and so forth] that appears as an object of the six types of consciousness appears [such as to the eye and so forth]. So recognize how they appear. [Back to that theme. Recognize the mode of appearance, recognize the incongruity, incompatibility between how things appear, how they exist.] By analyzing in that way [and bear in mind, you’re using, using both of the two out of five of the jhana factors here, like very sharp knives; if you’ve achieved shamatha, you would have all the five jhana factors right at your fingertips. And this is coarse investigation and precise analysis. And he’s using that, again, it’s not just sitting there being blissful.

[1:11:38] “By analyzing in that way, although they appear to be truly existent, appearing like something unreal and hollow, like a dream, a mirage, or a reflection of the moon on water, their manner of existence as dependently related events, bearing no independent essence, appears nakedly and vividly.” I’ll read that again, because I changed a lot. “By analyzing in that way, although they appear to be truly existent, appearing like something unreal and hollow like a dream, a mirage, or a reflection of the moon on water, their manner of existence as dependently related events”, how do they exist? Well they exist as dependent related events or some people say dependent arisings, “bearing no independent existence, that manner in which they exist appears nakedly and vividly.” So now you’re really there at ‘form is emptiness, emptiness is form’, you see them as non-dual. “On that basis, your ascertainment of ultimate reality grows greater.” For as Je Maitri Yogi says, ‘Identification of whatever appears is the crucial point of the view.’

[1:12:52] That’s very, very empirical. Not really a head trip at all. Theory just enough. But I think it’s crucial here, that he says, he said, way back, way back when, weeks ago, he said there are two approaches, two legitimate approaches. And one is, first you really immerse yourself through hearing, thinking and meditation on the view, especially hearing and thinking, and that can take years of hearing and thinking and debating and memorizing and analyzing, investigating the great treatises on Madhyamika and maybe get your PhD or your Acharya, or Khenpo, or Geshe degree. And then you go off and into, you cultivate the meditative state of shamatha. There’s one way. In which case you’re gonna have a lot of groundwork to be done. There’s a lot of theory to really immerse oneself and sharpen your fast, sharp, clear and profound intelligence. So you’re just sharpening your knives all the way through that. And then coming very well prepared in terms of theory, then you immerse yourself in meditative equipoise. And you proceed further. If you were taking that approach, this would probably be a 500 page text, because he’s spent a lot of time laying out the subtleties of the MadhyamIka view. But this is, this text presents pith instructions. And of course, it’s highlighting the alternative route of practising and achieving shamatha first, which, of course, seems to be, have been, according to Tsongkhapa, it was very rare back then. And according to Dudjom Lingpa, Padmasambhava, it’s very rare in the 19th century. And that was before the genocide and the, you know, the catastrophe in Tibet. So it seems pretty reasonable to expect that there are relatively few people who are following this route nowadays. And my very passionate conviction is, there should be more. So knowing thus how to practise. Let’s see. So.

[1:15:01] “Once you’ve arisen from that”, there we go, so there we go, is simply, is like … now … Oh, what more, can wait at the top? Now what, what more is there … what need is there of more? Are we finished yet? And he says, well, “well, let me summarize briefly. For those of us commoners,” The term is [Tibetan 1:15:20] and it’s ‘those who are looking this way on the near side’, so what’s over here is samsara and what’s over there is nirvana. It’s kind of cute. But the aryas see over there, they’re seeing the reality that is veiled by relative truth. … and so that’s, you know, the transcendent. Where for those of us who have not ascertained the transcendent, then we’re stuck in here, in relative truth, in samsara. And so we’re, so I chose his translation, commoners. Actually, I think he said …what does he … he doesn’t say commoner, what did he say here? Roger? [someone replies]. This side of things, yeah. Well, it’s literally true, but we wouldn’t have a clue what he’s talking about, but [Tibetan 1:16:03] is referring to those who have not yet seen ultimate reality, emptiness. So but on another occasion, in this translation he refers to them as commoners, refers to us as commoners, just you know, waddling around in samsara. “For those of us, commoners, that is precisely the way this or that subject, one’s own mind and so forth appears, that is the mode of appearance of the object of negation.” So for us, ordinary folks, put it that way, it’s just the way that things appear that is to be refuted. And whether it’s our minds, object, appearances, and so forth, they all appear as if from their own side by their own inherent nature, really there. And that’s precisely what is to be negated, through incisive piercing, penetrative insight. So “thus without fixating on or reifying that appearing object” And fixating on, that’s, that’s my translation here of [Tibetan 1:17:10], which could be manifesting [Tibetan 1:17:10] fixating, I think it’s pretty good. Fixating. Well, this is exactly what happens whenever we experience the mental afflictions of craving or of hostility, we fixate, we get fixated, you know

[1:17:24] Paul Ekman calls that slipping into a refractory period, some of you might remember that. It’s a very cool term. Straight psychology. But well, we just slip into a mode where we just can’t see out of that particular mode. If we develop some real contempt for another person, then all we can see of that person is that person’s contemptible qualities, and if the person has any other qualities, they’re just invisible, we just can’t see them. Other people who don’t loathe or have contempt for the person might see them perfectly well, and just say, what’s wrong with you? You have this kind of monocular vision, like you can only see this aspect of this person? What’s wrong with you? And the answer is, well, you’re in a refractory period. And likewise, when you become infatuated with someone, whether it’s a political figure, romantic, or whatever, and not only a person but a thing, a car, what have you, whenever there’s an infatuation, all we can see is the positive. We accentuate, we fixate, and of course, very often think I gotta have it, gotta have it.

[1:18:17] And so that’s the fixation. Generally falls into those two camps of craving or hostility. So without fixating on or reifying, well, that’s what the delusion comes in. So the fixating would be kind of indicative, I think, of the craving and hostility, and the reifying is pointing right to delusion. So “without fixating on or reifying that appearing object, you must ascertain that his way of existing is simply its lack of existing as it appears”, that’s very simply stated. That’s emptiness. It doesn’t exist at it appears [as it appears]. So this is where the practice of bare attention shows its severe limitations. And that is, if one is quite well - let’s just be gentle here - in an uninformed way, equating vipashyana with mindfulness, false, equating mindfulness with bare attention, wildly false, and then just resting in kind of open awareness or bare attention or choiceless awareness, and thinking you’re practising vipashyana, well, you’re just false, false, false and a whole stack of false, falsehoods. But if you think that’s sufficient, well, again, you may be exceptional, like Bahya, who can say? But if you’re not like Bahya, you’re resting there, simply attending to appearances at face value. Right? You’re just seeing appearances and the appearances lie. They’re very… it’s not just what you’re piling on to them.

[1:19:45] Even without conceptually reifying them, they already appear as if they’re appearing from their own side. And they will continue to do so until you’re an eighth-stage arya bodhisattva. That’s, that’s when you begin to start removing that veil, that cognitive obscuration of the appearance of things as if from their own side. That’s way so far down the path, can’t even imagine that far. Even an arhat, even an arhat, according to MadhyamIka, even an arhat, a person who’s now totally free, still sees things as if they exist from their own side. That’s how they appear to him or her. Doesn’t grasp on to them as such. But still appearances lie. Right. And it’s only when you’re on the eighth bhumi, you’re kind of coming around the finish line, that only then do you begin through your practice, to erode, to evaporate, dispel that cognitive obscuration of appearances, manifesting as if from their own side.

[1:20:42] So that’s so far up the road, you know. And so for ordinary people like us, like ourselves, commoners, ordinary folk - that’s maybe a nice word for it, whatever we’re attending to appears in a way that it doesn’t exist. And if you’re without using any kind of critical acumen, any kind of discernment, investigation, analysis, none of that, because it’s exhausting, and you just say, no, no, I’m just gonna practice vipashyana. So many people think this, - the, the propaganda has been extremely effective -that vipashyana is just being here and now, just, just, now I’m practising vipashyana, just being aware of whatever’s coming up. Well, you’re aware of delusional appearances. And you’re just resting there in delusional appearances of your own mind, of your own identity, and of the phenomena, and you’re just resting there. Aahh. If I’m not a marmot yet, I’m definitely on that track. [Laughter]. You know, it’s the crudest facsimile of resting in rigpa because you hadn’t even started. You’re taking like, it’d be like a little kid, like a five year old watching Nova, where Greene, what’s his first name? [Someone says, Brian] The physicist. Brian Greene. Imagine a little like five-year old watching Brian Greene explaining string theory. Aahh. [Makes expression]. [Laughs]. Do I get my doctorate now. Aahh. Totally clueless. So, but people like to think that they’re very advanced, they like to think they’re practising the highest. So they get a weekend introduction to Dzogchen and they become Dzogchen practitioners. Maybe they are. Probably not.

[1:22:26] So thus “without fixating on or reifying that appearing object”, which we do all the time. And we have to cut that. That’s an old habit. We have to sever that habit. It does not come easily. That’s where ethics, samadhi and wisdom come in. Or “without fixating on or reifying that appearing object, you must ascertain that its way of existing is simply its lack of existing as it appears”. And you’re not going to get that by just staring at it, and maintaining a moment to moment non-judgmental awareness. You’re not even close, you haven’t even started. “Such meditative equipoise is like space. Open, expansive, with no object.” So you’re resting in space-like meditative equipoise. “Once you have arisen from that,” and I change this translation a lot “once you have arisen from that, when you observe whatever remains in the absence of true existence," So you’re seeking to sustain your awareness of the emptiness of phenomena, as you get off your cushion, walkabout, have a cup of tea or whatever. “When you observe whatever remains in the absence of true existence, you should always maintain your realization by applying the yogas of post meditation, in which things appear unmistakenly as dependent related events that are merely nominal, brought about by mere imputation. [So] Even though to your awareness they’re appearing as if they’re inherently existent, with the eye of wisdom you must see them as empty.” You maintain your realization by applying the the yogas of post meditation, not just being aware of the appearances and by applying the yoga of post meditative state, sustaining that flow of insight, then you see things unmistakenly, as dependent related events, not inherently existent. And those dependently related events in those three ways, explained earlier. You see that the way of existing of phenomena is merely nominal, and depends for their, they depend for their very existence upon imputation.

[1:24:36] “Knowing thus how to practise during meditative equipoise and in the post meditative state, rest in equipoise by indivisibly unifying the ultimate nature of all phenomena of samsara and nirvana as the mere absence of true existence.” So that, that equality of seeing all phenomena of samsara and nirvana as being equal in the sense of being, just realizing emptiness as the mere absence of true existence. Seeing this is the ultimate mode of existence, the ultimate nature of all phenomena. “During the post meditative state, you must familiarize yourself with uniting the relative natures of phenomena as being mere appearances like illusions.” So, when you’re in the meditative state, you’re just resting in that space-like awareness, realizing the emptiness of all phenomena. So emphasis on the kind of the ontological emphasis of how do they exist, that empty of inherent nature, then you emerge from meditation into the post meditative state. And now phenomenologically, as you must engage with and be aware of the myriad appearances arising, the many objects that populate the world around you. Then you must see them as being mere appearances. Mere appearances mean empty of inherent nature, like illusions that appear to be there and have causal efficacy. But they’re not really there. Also, as stated by Aryadeva, the viewer of one entity is explained as the viewer of all. The emptiness of one is the emptiness of all.

[1:26:24] So it’s that theme. If you realize the emptiness of one, you’ve realized the emptiness of all. And that’s where we will pause. Covered a bit of territory today. We still have another 10 pages to go. Okay. So there a’re your marching orders. The army of vipashyana practitioners. But also now that we’re well into vipashyana territory, which is way up there in the top of the pyramid - clarity, vividness, acuity, I know very well that it can be a bit stressful, a bit tight, a bit exhausting. Don’t overdo it. If you’d achieved shamatha, then I would say just go for it, you know. [laughs] Because you’re not going to get stressed out. The base of the pyramid is so strong, you just keep on cutting, cutting, cutting through, making quick work of it. As Geshe Ngawang Dhargey said,‘if you’ve achieved shamatha, vipashyana is easy. If you haven’t, or the less you have, the harder is the vipashyana.’ So in the theme of just being kind to yourself and allowing yourself to still enjoy the practice, and you can’t do that, I think, if you’re just hitting a wall of frustration and feeling you’re just not up to it, it’s not going well. Then keep on coming back to, you can always throttle back, and just come back to any mode of the shamatha that you like. Just keep on cultivating more and more deeply this sense of ease, the inner calm, the composure. But also you can leap ahead once in a while. And that’s what we did in the last session. Because that was our best approximation of just resting in rigpa. Okay. And it’s not foolish. I think it’s not misguided. And I do not think that wonderful teachers like Tsoknyi Rinpoche and Mingyur Rinpoche, Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche and many others, giving weekend, weekend or week-long and so forth, introductions to Dzogchen. I do not think that they are misleading people. I’ve heard [??] that I have never heard him say anything that I thought, Oh, no. I think it’s wonderful. It’s wonderful, to inspire people, to give them a taste. You know. And so this gives a little taste of … Alright, let’s just do our best approximation. Like when you’re resting in awareness of awareness, as a method, you’re doing your best approximation of simply resting in the substrate consciousness, right, taking the fruition as the path. Well, that’s a kind of poor approximation, but for the time being, it’s as well as you can do. So be happy with that.

[1:28:50] And likewise, you know, from now on, when the spirit moves you, when you feel like it, then do a little bit of investigation, like seeing, you know, the searching for the mind, and not finding it. Not finding that which is observing, you know, that entity in there the real subject, and then that not finding, then the claustrophobia of reifying ourselves in our own minds, the kind of alienation, frankly, there is an alienation of that, if I truly exist over here, by my own inherent nature, then I am alienated from everything else, which is radically other. Right. And so this is freeing. It’s liberating. Very relaxing. Just to cut through that, say, ‘Oh, what a relief.’ What a relief that was just always so claustrophobic and tight and bound up, knotted up, oh it doesn’t even exist, what a relief. And then resting there, just then rest in not doing. There’s no expectation, no striving, no anticipation. Just rest there. And that’s where profound intelligence arises. You get there by means of the fast, the sharp, and the clear. Where you [wind] wind up is profound, profound wisdom, and that’s where the profundity arises in that finally that not doing. But that assumes you’ve done the hard work: the shamatha, the vipashyana, investigation. And it’s so tempting, I totally understand. I mean there’s nothing difficult about this. Why people would just like to skip all the difficulty of shamatha, all the dredging of the psyche and all that. And fretting, Oh, I’m not progressing very fast. That’s also so not what I want to do. And vipashyana, oh what a headache. Can I skip that too? [Laughter]. Just be, the power of now, just, just be … Oh, that’s what I used to do when I was 20. I like that and even without the marijuana, it’s still cool.

[Laughter]. Natural high. [Laughs]. Okay, dude, and dudesses. See you later. Have a good night.

Transcribed by Shirley Soh

Revised by Sueli Martinez

Final edition by Kriss Sprinkle

Transcript formatted and posted on the website of the course 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.