77 The Four Types of Mindfulness in Taking the Mind as the Path and Vipashyana

B. Alan Wallace, 12 May 2016

We started the session with a quick review of the four types of mindfulness, with Alan mentioning that usually, for the untrained mind, there’s not even the capacity to distinguish between stillness and motion, with cognitive fusion with movements of mind occurring as a most common experience. Alan then did a review of the four types of mindfulness that we will experience as we embark on the practice of taking the mind as the path: (1) single-pointed mindfulness (which allows us to simultaneously be aware of stillness and motion of the movements of the mind, preventing cognitive fusion), (2) manifest mindfulness (where our practice gets simultaneously subtler, and implies less and less effort – stages 4 to 9 of the shamatha path), (3) absence of mindfulness (where we become aware of only the sheer vacuity of the mind, with both the mental factor of mindfulness and the five senses, going dormant) and lastly (4) self-illuminating mindfulness (where we focus awareness on the space of the mind itself, finally identifying the conventional nature of our mind). In the last point mentioned before the meditation, Alan returned to the familiar theme of the three higher trainings (ethics, samadhi and wisdom), with comments elaborating on the fact that each of these really manifests greater benefit when used for the purpose they were originally designed, and by the mentioned sequence.

After the meditation, we returned to the Panchen Lama text, resuming the oral commentary, having covered material from stanza 43 of the follow up section of the text, to stanza 45.

The meditation, which was a vipashyana practice on searching for the true nature of the mind, begins at 40:00


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

Download (MP3 / 52 MB)

Transcript

Spring 2016 - #77 The Four Types of Mindfulness…

Olaso. So let’s start with a very simple question. What’s the difference between resting in awareness of awareness and ascertaining awareness, of course, and ascertaining rigpa, pristine awareness? And the answer is very short and very simple. It all has to do with the presence or absence of grasping. What kind of grasping - dualistic grasping. Where does dualistic grasping come from? From reifying the subject and therefore reifying the object and therefore reifying the separation or difference between subject and object. So, the difference is absolutely real or is seen as such. So, I don’t recall whether I’ve run through the four types of mindfulness that are the landmarks of the path of taking the impure mind onto the path. Also known as settling the mind in its natural state. Have I run through that in this? I didn’t think so. Maybe yes, maybe no. Ok I’m going to do it quickly because it’s good just as a refresher. Very important actually every single step is important, all of this is worth memorizing and totally assimilating. So, prior to the first of the four mindfulnesses, that which cracks open the door, and allows you entrance into the practice without which you have no access, like you just don’t have a ticket. Is the ability to distinguish between stillness and motion. And specifically the stillness of your own awareness and the movements of the mind. Normally, for the totally untrained mind whenever the mind is in motion, awareness is in motion. That is, cognitive fusion pervades everywhere. Whatever comes up, you’re totally fused with it, okay. So welcome to samsara without end, it’s just an ongoing non lucid dream. But we cultivate that ability, again symbolized by the unflickering candle flame of stillness and then noticing, observing, recognizing, the movements of the mind. Not only the images and thoughts but also of course the subjective impulses, the desires, emotions, and so on. So then you’ve cracked open the door and then you enter into the room so to speak with the first type of mindfulness and it’s called single pointed mindfulness. And it’s where, it’s a type of mindfulness simply in which you are simultaneously aware of the stillness of your awareness and the movements of the mind. And that does include the subjective impulses which of course is much harder. But which means when an emotion comes up you’re not caught in its grip. When a thought comes up your awareness is not kidnapped and directed off, propelled off some great forceful almost violent I’m looking for a stronger verb. Propelled or cast off, no there’s another one, I can’t find the word but you know what I mean. That simultaneously you’re aware of the movements, the thoughts, the images, the memories, the fantasies without being hurled. There’s the one I wanted, without your awareness being hurled. If I hurl you off a cliff you have no choice in the mater, right? You just, I have total control of you and I hurl you right?

[03:36] Not a nice thing to do. And that’s what our thoughts and images do, they hurl us off to the referent of the thoughts, memories, fantasies and so forth. And then there’s one, and I like that image a lot, you know for the compulsive aspect, obsessively they arise, compulsively we are hurled, the awareness is hurled off to the referent. And then in terms of the subjective impulses. Paul Ekman has the perfect, the perfect image there, in the grip. That is desires come and we’re in the grip of the desire, we’re in the grip of the emotion. We all know what that feels like. But here, in contrast to that, you’re already taking an enormous step towards freedom, right. And that is awareness remains still, it’s not hurled, and it’s not gripped. And again when I think of gripped, the image really always comes to mind, is that of like a trout or a salmon in the talons of a fish eater, an eagle right. Well, there’s no free will there, somebody’s lunch. And the chances of that fish getting escaping from the talons as the eagle flies away are pretty much zero right. So the first type of mindfulness is single pointed mindfulness indicated by your ability to simultaneously be aware of the stillness of your awareness and the movements of the mind.

[04:56] And you continue, you simply continue and become more familiar with that, and over the course of the time it becomes more and more effortless until you enter into a state of flow in that simultaneity of the awareness of stillness and motion and then we call that manifest mindfulness. You’re in the flow, right, definitely another big step towards freedom. And that really carries you through like stages four, five, six, seven, eight, nine in terms of the stages of shamatha, that will be a real keeper, you’re going to be going flow, flow, flow all the way through. It’s just going to get subtler and more and more effortless. Already in stage four it’s not bad. You have some flow there, right. But then, you know coarse excitation has been cast off, then medium excitation cast off, subtle excitation cast off, it just gets better and better, right.

[05:46] Of course with a lot of bumps, that goes without saying, but then you’re coming right towards the end of the track and you enter into this anomaly and that is the third type of mindfulness being the mindfulness which is the absence of mindfulness. And that’s considering that mindfulness is a mental factor, it belongs to the mind where it’s embedded, the mind that you’ve been using all along from the beginning right on through these first nine stages is been your course mind, your ordinary mind, your woman’s mind, man’s mind and so on. And that one is shutting down, I mean the contents of the mind diminish, diminish, diminish it’s down to an ocean unmoved by waves. It’s getting to be Mount Meru totally still and so the contents of the mind have faded out, your five physical senses have imploded and then you pass through this phase, it’s relativity brief where you’re still wide awake, you’ve not fallen into a trance, you’ve not become into a stupor, you’ve not lost the flow of cognizance, if you have that’s just dullness. You sustain that but you’re not baring anything in mind because all that you are attending to is gone and now there’s just a sheer vacuity so that’s not holding on too much but most importantly the mental factor of mindfulness which belongs to among the fifty one mental factors of your coarse mind, it’s gone dormant. Your coarse mind has now shut down. It’s very much like rebooting, that is you have just shifted your computer to a higher operating system but before you can use that, the old one has to shut down and during the interim your computer doesn’t work. Now It’s not the same as having no computer or a broken computer, it’s in transition but it’s no longer operative in the old operating system and it’s not yet operative in the new operating system but it will be very soon, you have to be just patient. And just cruise on through, very transiently right.

[07:42] And then the fourth and culminating type of mindfulness is self-illuminating mindfulness where you were just focusing your awareness as usual on the space of the mind and its contents but there were no contents. So you’re just gazing into an open vacuity with nothing there except for the vacuity itself. And then you invert your awareness in upon itself and then you’re home. You’ve now identified the essential nature of your mind or as Panchen Rinpoche says, the relative or conventional nature of your mind. You now know the nature of consciousness, but in the same way as knowing a cup, and that is that won’t free you but you know philosophers and psychologists, neuroscientists and religious people have been pondering, writing about what’s the nature of the soul, what’s the nature of consciousness and they have all kinds of ideas and so forth and you get there and you know.

[8;35] And it’s no more mysterious than recognizing a tomato. Really, you know you go into the grocery market, can you or can you not, can you or can you not, recognize tomatoes when you see them? If you can, then congratulations, you’ve identified the essential nature of tomatoes because you’re not mistaking them for other things that might look like tomatoes. It’s on that level, that consciousness is simply one more natural phenomenon. But if you have not identified it then you’ll just speculate indefinitely. Now the crucial point here, you can’t bring the baggage of your coarse mind down to that level. You can either stay operating in your coarse mind, where you’re all comfortable or in so far as you’re identifying with your coarse mind, die. [laughter] If that’s your basis of designation of you, and for many of us it is a lot of the time. Die, because you are going to lose your basis of designation. As it dissolves, vanishes and you’re rebooting on the third type of mindfulness and then another one comes up. So another basis of designation comes up, this is the substrate consciousness, this is the subtle continuum of mental consciousness. Now that can be your basis of designation of I, right? Now that, again you’re not just abiding, this is so crucially important, you’re not simply abiding in bliss, luminosity and non conceptuality. That’s a very nice place to hang out for a little while. Like it’s a reward, here’s your lollipop. But now that you’re there you’ve got all those five dhyana factors.

[10:18] So get to work, you know, use them for heaven’s sake, single pointed attention right, single pointed attention. Coarse investigation, subtle analysis, a sense of well being and bliss ok. Get going use those but now this type of subtle, coarse investigation and subtle analysis this is operating on another whole plane than your ordinary one up in the coarse mind right. It’s still conceptual so it says non conceptual but as I’ve said so many times it’s not completely nonceptual it just means it’s not coarsely conceptual, totally caught up in language and so forth that you’re used to. Now this turns out to be very important. This is why from the very beginning of settling the mind in its natural state, really with any shamatha practice but so explicitly settling the mind in its natural state, awareness of awareness you want to go into a non conceptual mode, I cannot emphasize this more strongly, you want to go into a non conceptual mode where you’re not cogitating, you’re not figuring it out, any more than when you put a piece of chocolate into your mouth you’re wondering about its chemical composition.

[11:22] Or you’re acting as a chocolate critic and trying to figure out is it Belgian, German, Swiss or heaven forbid English. [laughter] Sorry, but, I have tasted some good, Scottish actually, the Scots know how to make good chocolate. Ok I digress. Don’t go there, just enjoy the chocolate, right if you can. And it’s like that you’re just bringing this straight knowing in that’s not clothed in a normal mode of cogitation and conceptualization. It’s like that minnow, remember? Like the minnow that’s just slipping through the water. And just without disturbing the water, it’s not bringing all the baggage of your ordinary intelligence, language, analytical skills, and so forth. This is working on a subtler level, it’s a higher operating system. And you need to, you don’t get that as a bonus at the end without having it prior to that. You’re cultivating it all the way through. From the first session let’s say in settling the mind in its natural state you’re doing your best approximation of observing the activities of the mind from the perspective of substrate consciousness. You’re not really, but you’re doing your best approximation. And that approximation gets better and better and better until it’s the real thing, right. Now granted you are at the outset observing your mind with your mind, you have no choice. But you are seeking to diminish or put out of work the ordinary activities of your ordinary mind and ascertain from a subtler level and also in a continuous fashion that’s the real deal. So it’s come up earlier in the text this incredibly brilliant text, I mean I’m just enjoying it so much. Because I’ve not looked at it for a long time not even in preparation to this retreat. I just figured I’ll figure it out when I get there. [laughs] But he said whatever appears the conceptual mind apprehends it. Well this is standard Buddhist psychology. And that is we have our five sensory modes, visual, auditory and so forth. They’re non conceptual, there is we have six modes of consciousness, right, and five of them are always non conceptual. Your eye consciousness does not conceive of anything, it does not draw inferences, it does not cogitate. Your auditory consciousness the same, olfactory, gustatory, tactile they’re all perceptual. They’re non conceptual. And then we can ask well then why did he say that everything appears is apprehended with the conceptual mind, by way of concepts. Oh because that’s because in the very first moment, like I just direct my attention to Daniel, in that first moment, like really microseconds, in that first moment, boom, I’m just getting perceptual, like the visual. And right now of course I’m attending to his face, and I’m getting an ongoing flow of nonconceptual visual perception. So what’s the problem? Somebody hitched a ride. [laughter] Not in the very first moment, but ever so quickly right afterwards. Somebody hitched a ride. What is it Brendon? [Brendon’s response is inaudible] Yeah, that’s certainly true but to be a bit more explicit, I’m just going to tell you, because I’m in a hurry. Mental consciousness, that is I’m not just turning my eyeballs towards Daniel, I’m turning my attention to Daniel. So this means that of course my mental awareness, my mental consciousness has hitched a ride, is parasitic on, the visual perception. Well the visual remains nonconceptual, perceptual. If I touched him on the shoulder, tactile remains nonconceptual, right. But it’s got a parasite now. And the parasite is mental consciousness and in the first moment mental consciousness is perceptual the second moment it just kicks into its old habit, it goes to conceptual and it overrides, it overrides. So my awareness, my awareness of Daniel then is the mental awareness overrides, it infiltrates from my perspective and my perspective is mental awareness. So my, even my visual awareness of Daniel’s face then is configured, veiled, screened and so forth by concepts. I’m very familiar with human beings, with human beings with beards. I’ve lived in Germany I’m familiar with German people. And so on, all of that comes all of that is dumped on, right. And so that’s why it’s stated that whenever we turn our attention anywhere it’s always [Alan snaps his fingers] in a finger snap, the conceptual mind comes in and overrides, and so we’re getting everything through that screen.

[16:01] And that screen will because it’s based on past history and so forth. It will highlight something then lead to cognitive deficit in others. Happens all the time alright. The father who cannot see that his daughter is just as capable academically as his sons. Well he can see, but he can’t see. Not because his eyeballs aren’t working. Because his conceptual mind is so ingrained in the notion that well girls can’t do that. Everybody knows that, you know. And so then he can’t see it, you know. Yet his eyesight are perfectly good and he’s very intelligent. But the cognitive blockages. So and of course people commonly report on seeing things they never saw, that never occurred, happens all the time. Hearing things that never occurred and so forth. Why? The conceptual mind jumps in and superimposes. And then you come back, I’m sure I saw this, I’m absolutely sure I saw, you said this, I know you said that. I’m sure, oh you didn’t, okay. Show me the tape recorder, oh I didn’t okay, my mistake. So that’s the point. But now we come back to vipashyana. We’re now raising this to another whole level. And we’re really close to the nucleus, we’ve already bumped into it so let’s not leave too quickly. And that is we settle awareness in its natural state ok, you should be familiar with that. Optimally of course you would have clearly identified the essential nature of your own mind. And it would be like a chemist finding a completely pure strain, of whatever kind of substance he or she is interested in investigating. No alloy, not mixed with anything else, here’s pure smallpox virus. Or here’s pure gold, or here’s pure but it does not mix with anything else and is right there under the microscope. Ok this is one hundred percent what I want to be investigating, without confusing it with anything else, right. Well that’s what you got now. You might, you have a mind that is supple, clear, lucid, non conceptually cognizant, ready to investigate as soon as you wish to, and it’s taking the specimen of awareness got it right under the lens, now you can rest there phenomenologically and then you’re just hanging out in shamatha. Or you can bring out the big guns and the big guns are searching, engaging in the search for the mind, which Padmasambhava taught us earlier, you recall yeah. How many minds are there here, as I’m observing awareness, as I’m observing the observer? How many are there? Two of us in here, there’s more? And is one in nirvana the other in samsara? Is one enlightened, one samsaric? And of course that’s a conversation with dualistic grasping. The sense that as you’re observing your awareness, but I’m going to rephrase that. As you’re now not content simply to experience being aware which heck you can do on the first time, not a big deal. You’re experiencing a verb, experiencing a verb, experiencing a process, not that hard. Are you aware right now whether you’re conscious, yeah got it, you know. The one that really brings out the sharp knife is, “Are you aware of the one who is aware”? The noun or the referent of the noun, the one who is aware. That’s a noun of the observer. The one who is thinking, that’s a noun. The thinker, the noun. The creator, the meditator, the one who’s doing it. Now look at Wendy for example. Wendy looks Wendy and Wendy thinks I’m thinking I’m meditating. So she is designating herself as a person. She’s a person. And she’s designating that when she thinks I am meditating. Well it’s not really her body meditating, the body is just sitting there, right. So what’s meditating? Her mind. On the basis of her mind, the basis of designation of mind, she designates herself. I am meditating. Is Wendy’s mind, Wendy? Nope. Is Wendy’s mind saturated by Wendy? Is there a Wendy in there? Nope! Wendy’s mind is completely empty of Wendy. There’s not even a trace, not even an atom as they say of Wendy in the basis of designation of Wendy. Whether she says I’m tall or she says I’m English or whatever you. There is no Wendy in any of these basis of designation.

[20:14] Designate yourself in any way you like. And you’ll never find any basis of designation that is not empty of you. Shock! But you can’t designate yourself as a meditator unless you have a mind. And the mind is the basis of designation so if we’re really interested in what is meditating I think we maybe just move right through “I”. Because I am meditating only insofar as there is a basis of designation meditating upon which I’m designating myself. So let’s cut out the middleman. And just go right to that which is meditating with no reference to me, no personal pronouns. The mind is meditating or awareness is meditating, you can use those interchangeably in this context, it’s a noun. The one over here, the one over here who appears to be independent and again it’s not indoctrination it’s asking: do you have that sense that in here is something you may call mind, you may call awareness or using that as a basis of designation you may call “me”? But just cut right through to the basis of designation, is there not something here that is meditating? That is thinking? That is observing? That is witnessing? That is simply present. Is there not something here and we can call it mind. And what is that agent, what is the referent of that noun? That seems to be in here and you bring out your sharp knife and you pierce that. You look for the basis of designation of your mind. Now you’ve really got to the core. Now it’s almost game over. If this were a chess game it would be like checkmate in one move. You’re almost finished, you’re almost finished. What’s the basis of designation for mind? If you want to call it your mind, that’s fine. And you identify that and then is that basis of designation empty of mind? Those individual moments of cognition each one unconscious, unconscious, unconscious each two millisecond pulse. Each one is unconscious cluster them and we call it a moment of awareness. But each individual component, just like no soldier is an army, no individual pulse of two milliseconds is actually explicitly conscious. They have to cluster, like you don’t have a whole bunch of armies with one person you have to have at least a few. I mean there has to be quite a few I think to call it an army and not a squad or a platoon or whatever you. An army is kind of like okay, a lot of people, no one of them is and simply having them there scattered across the fields smoking cigars, that’s not an army. You designate army and yet there was nothing there in your basis of designation that is the army, the army is empty. But come to the nucleus when you see the basis of designation for what you conceive of as your mind because bear in mind as soon as you’re looking, the conceptual mind is coming in to help. And to take over frankly, right. Which means it’s going to be designating, which means it will have a basis of designation. And when you look into that which is the basis of designation of mind and you see it’s empty of mind and the mind that you’ve designated of course is a sentient beings’ mind, right? One of those bad ones, delusional ones caught up in mental afflictions, right. It’s the thing, the only thing in fact that makes you a sentient being. Because a buddha could have a body like yours, no big deal, right. But a buddha couldn’t have a mind like yours.

[24:06] A buddha can’t have a samsaric mind. Then it’s put not a buddha. So when you look right in and you have that amazing opening that no mind, the mind is not the mind. The mind is not the basis of designation of mind. [24:35 Tibetan phrase] The mind is not the mind. The nature of mind is clear light. When you see that which you’re designating, the mind, is not a basis of designation, is not the mind or the basis of designation of mind, is not the mind then you see emptiness of mind. And in the shattering of that long standing and deeply habitual reification of mind, and the shattering of that then you may realize emptiness of mind. And I gave the analogy earlier of the four types of mindfulness and that is you have to leave the baggage behind. You can’t bring your coarse mind down there. And you must maintain a flow of cognizance. If you just space out, then ok you’ve dropped the ball. Now on a much higher level, you’ve just come to this “not finding”, but it’s the not finding as in, it’s not to be found, it’s the finding that is not there. That your mind is empty of being a mind. Then you need to rest there and sustain the flow of cognizance and leave your baggage behind and the baggage is all conceptual elaborations. All your categories, all your constructs. [Tibetan phrase 25:54] it says in the Shantideva next chapter, wisdom chapter the ultimate as in the ultimate nature of your own mind, is not an object of the intellect. The intellect would like to swallow it, well the intellect wants to swallow everything, just like the colonial powers in the 18th 19th century just want to swallow the world. They didn’t want anything to be left over they wanted to swallow China and all of southeast Asia and Africa and South America they just wanted to swallow everything, you know. And they did a pretty good job of swallowing everything. And then of course they wound up having major indigestion and threw up a lot afterwards. Tried to swallow more than they could chew. Your intellect is not big enough to swallow this you have to let it rest, you have to let it go. And maintain the flow of cognizance. And then you rest in the emptiness of the mind. Releasing, letting off, like the image that came up I’m just telling you what’s on my teleprompter [laughs] I don’t know anything at all, like I’ve got a really great teleprompter, it’s you know like, the rocketship, that’s already gone up and then it just the fuel in the lower booster is just all that spent it’s done its purpose and so you don’t keep it on out of nostalgia, I’ll miss you, you know. [laughter] No, let it fall off, it’s empty, it’s served its purpose and it just drops away. And then [whooshing sound] and then you take off again. You need to leave the booster rocket of your intellect, you can’t bring it there. It’s spent its fuel. You’ve used your intellect for the best possible purpose in the whole universe. And then it can be used for all kind of things, cellphones, warfare, all kinds of stuff. This is actually the best use of your intellect you can ever put it to. To realize the emptiness of your intellect, the emptiness of your mind, and realizing that, leave your mind behind. Leave your intellect behind, sustain the flow of cognizance which is nothing other than rigpa. Rigpa is cognizance. Sustain that but now free, unhindered, unfettered but any of the conceptual categories of existence non existence birth and cessation, coming and going, one and many, they all just fall away. And it’s just emptiness and your luminous cognizance of emptiness and no duality between the two. And that is no longer shamatha, that’s no longer just awareness of awareness. And that’s what the whole shamatha was about.

[28:30] So final point before we go to the meditation, I front loaded it a lot. This really struck me strongly this afternoon. And that is when we’re just taking our first steps into dharma, and almost certainly unless we have very superficial motivation, the first step is driven because we’re suffering, not because we’re having such a good time and we think dharma will be even more fun. [laughter] People who think that get disillusioned really really quickly, right. As one old friend of mine he asked me years and years ago, Alan, Why are you practicing dharma? Why are you devoting your whole life to dharma? And I started to give him a nice dharma talk and he just shut me down. And so I gave him another dharma talk, you know, my favorite hits in buddha dharma, you know like four noble truths, [29:25 inaudible?] he shut me down, he shut me down twice. So then I figured ok, you tell me. And then he did, because there was nothing else to do. And he got it, alright! Not that I was bored, there was just nothing else to do. Because nothing else, everything else is hopeless. Put it that way, that was quite simple, for me it was pretty straightforward at the age of twenty one. Everything else was hopeless. No hope. So you either commit suicide, good luck with that or there’s dharma. [laughter] And happily I encountered, you know, dharma.

[30:13] Ah, so when you take your first step, you’re doing it because your mind is all screwed up. And you’re suffering. And I have a very strong connection here that if you really want to see results and you see them quickly and you know that your practice of dharma is really really helping you, among the three kinds of training of ethics, samadhi and wisdom the one that will help you more than anything else is ethics. It’s non violence and benevolence. That will help you more than shamatha or anything else, much more than vipassana, you know. It will help you much much more. Don’t meditate for a single moment I don’t care, but just cut out all violence of body speech and mind. And view yourself and all sentient beings with benevolence and that will just transform you. It will give you so much sense of ease, greater sense of well being, peace, harmony. People will, you know. you’ll still get flack from other people and situations, adversity will still arise but you will suffer so much less, you know, even if you never meditate for a moment. Now on that basis if you’d like to find an even deeper sense of well being, and inwardly within your own mind, tapping into this kind of genuine unhappiness, you know that is not triggered by some adversity here or there, if you’d like to now say ok that is a really good start. And you’d like to experience a deeper sense of well being, and a deeper freedom from suffering. Between shamatha and vipassana or samadhi and wisdom my very strong conviction is samadhi is going to be more helpful. If you have to choose samadhi, mental balance, exceptional sanity. Rather than having some keen insight a little fleeting insight into emptiness or this or that or non self or whatever, or quantum cosmology or whatever. Those will be very entertaining and give you some really cool memories.

[32:18] I’ve seen this many many times of people given almost no effort no real cultivation of shamatha really developing that whole skill set, and practicing zen or vajrayana or dzogchen or this or that. And the mind is still very neurotic. I’ve seen it many many times. Uptight, neurotic, egotistical, jealous, all the crap and yet they can tell about some really splendid experiences they’ve had. And the really educated ones can give you a super duper talk on Madhyamaka or vipassana or zen or dogen and so forth and so on, still neurotic, still neurotic. So the way to make your mind exceptionally sane, supple, malleable, balanced, free of five obscurations well vipassana wasn’t designed to do that. And it doesn’t do it very well. And just practicing shamatha was not designed to make you less violent and more benevolent. It wasn’t designed to do that, that’s at a more basic level. Right? And so let ethics do what ethics is really good at and let the cultivation of samadhi which includes all four types of mental balances, conative, attentional, cognitive, and emotional let that do its work, it’s much better at it than dzogchen, or vajrayogini, or mahamudra or chan and so forth. It’s just, that was designed to do that. Those practices are really effective, at doing that, much more than more advanced practices. And much more than simply hanging out in ethics. On that level with shamatha, let’s imagine you have achieved shamatha ok so wow you’ve really made some real strides in the second of the three trainings, training in samadhi, training in exceptional mental balance. And imagine that you’re really on a track to you know just been [exhales] just profoundly intuitively drawn to realizing rigpa, buddha nature, whether through chan, zen, vajrayana, mahamudra, dzogchen what have you.

[34:23] But let’s imagine that’s your aspiration. That’s what has really captured you. You want to realize rigpa. If you have a solid foundation in ethics and you’ve achieved shamatha then there are two options here, and that is one is vipassana and the other one is just simply sitting in open presence. [?34:36 Tibetan], you know having heard about the view, having some introduction to the view, Dzogchen view for example. And then having hearing that then just sitting in open presence, like that. And never mind vipassana, it’s such a hassle. Just I like to rest here. That or vipassana? Which one is going to be more effective? It’s vipassana. It’s vipassana. Because if you have not done the work of vipassana, if you’ve not penetrated into the reification of the observer, awareness itself as that which is observing, that which is thinking, that which is the mind. If you’ve not penetrated into the emptiness of that, if there is still an unchallenged reification of the observer, the mind, then there is an unchallenged reification of objects because that comes with the territory. Which means there is an unchallenged reification of the bifurcation of subject and object, dualistic grasping has not been touched. It’s gone a bit softer because you’ve achieved shamatha, but you’ve not stepped one step onto the path yet. And so if you just skip that because vipassana is such a hassle, it’s so annoying and stressful, and exasperating and you’re no good at it. And you say boy I’m good at shamatha, and I think I can be pretty darn good at sitting, well you’re sitting on your own tomb. Because there’s the concrete between you and rigpa. And the concrete is the reification, the crusty gnarly reification of your mind. And just sitting there hoping it’s going to go away by itself, not likely.

[36:28] That’s why Panchen Rinpoche, that’s why Dudjom Lingpa, that’s why these great masters are teaching vipassana, vipassana, vipassana. To break it up, like an ice flow. Break it up. Shatter it. Drop that coke bottle until it shatters. The reification of subject shatters. The reification of object then shatters. The bifurcation of the two shatters. It shatters, slip into this non conceptual mode of cognizance resting with your fusion of shamatha vipassana in the emptiness of your own mind. And now between you and rigpa there’s like a paper wall, like in a Japanese house. There’s still a wall. That is there’s not enough to realize the emptiness of your mind, that doesn’t by itself guarantee that you’ll cut through to rigpa. But between you and rigpa is a paper wall. Right, and all you need then is pointing out instructions. And that wall is ripped. So there’s a sequence. Let’s ethics do its work. Let shamatha do its work. Because they each do their own work better than anything else. Let vipassana do its work. Shamatha doesn’t do it well. Rigpa doesn’t do it, stage of generation and completion don’t do it well. If you’ve not practiced vipassana good luck with your stage of generation practice. You’re just doing like you know, cops and robbers or playing dolls, you know. I’m Manjusri, you want to be Tara? Let’s play, you know. [laughter] In fact, [Alan lowers his voice] let’s get it on, [laughter continues] you know then you have all this malarkey, all this tantric bullshit. It just gives rise to confusion, more confusion, more confusion, while carrying the banner, I’m a vajrayana practitioner. Or I’m a dzogchen meditator. You know, big deal!

[38:28] So there it is. Let each one do its work. And in that in that interface between ethics, samadhi, and then we have vipassana, in that interface between vipassana and then cutting through to pristine awareness. That’s where you can bring in some auxiliary troops, that may serve you extremely well. And that’s stage of generation and completion. Absolutely indispensable? No. Enormously helpful for many many practitioners? Yep, yep, let them do their work. Because the stage of generation and completion based upon, pure ethics, bodhisattva precepts, shamatha, and vipassana now you can be a bonafide vajrayana practitioner. And it can actually do the work for which it was designed, right. And that is soften everything up. That is the stage of generation and the multiple stages of completion all designed for the fourth empowerment, the name empowerment, the word empowerment. And that’s Mahamudra, that’s Dzogchen. Right. So let each phase do its work and you can actually come to full awakening. Buddhahood in the palm of the hand. Skip any of those stages, well, see how that turns out. Let’s practice.

[39:48] Meditation bell rings three times.

[40:21] The difference between Buddhas’ and sentient beings is that Buddhas know who they are and sentient beings do not. So, with the aspiration to know who you have always been, from your very ground, settle your body, speech, and mind in their natural state.

[42:58] Let your awareness come to rest at ease free of grasping but sustaining all importantly, sustaining the non conceptual flow of cognizance.

[43:31] With no interest in the appearances or objects arising to the mind, single pointedly focus your awareness in the flow of cognizance of being aware, the process, awareness happening, awareness aware of awareness happening.

[44:24] It’s okay that thoughts come up, that’s what they do. Let them arise, let them arise of their own accord, self arising without intervention, without blocking them or perpetuating them. Let them release themselves with no ripples, with no repercussions, with no wavering of this unflickering candle flame of your own awareness.

[46:09] Then examine your own experience very carefully. Don’t slip into a conceptual mode, philosophical, analytical mode, but rather one of precise observation. As you’re resting in that flow of being aware of being aware of being aware, is there a sense? This is not a rhetorical question and there is no right answer except for what you actually observe. Is there a sense, of a subject, someone, something, call it you, call it your mind, the basis of designation of you? That is the one in here that is aware of awareness, the referent of the noun, mind. This word means something to you. You’ve used it many many times. There’s no question that you have a mind. There’s no question that you’re using it to meditate. So, now examine very closely what is the basis of designation of this noun. The mind that is observing. The mind that brings forth thoughts. If the conceptual mind that identifies mind and that said it is a certainty that the conceptual mind designates “mind” upon a basis of designation. What is that basis of designation?

[49:28] Search for the mind that is the subject, that is in here observing and see if you can find it as it exists from its own side, really in here. Search carefully so that upon the conclusion of your search you’ll not simply conclude I don’t know or couldn’t find it. Search until you make a discovery. If you can find it, identify it.

[50:59] And if you search so carefully and with such thoroughness using the powers of coarse examination and subtle analysis which will be there waiting for you and upon the achievement of shamatha, but you can already utilize them. If upon thorough and precise analysis, investigation, searching, if you don’t merely intellectually conclude but you empirically discover there is no mind in here to be found sustain the cognizance of the unfindability of the mind, the emptiness of the mind. Rest there non conceptually in this space like meditative equipoise, free of all conceptual elaborations and to facilitate that I will now stop speaking. Let’s continue in silence.

[01:03:48] Meditation bell rings three times.

[01:04:12] So let’s seamlessly segue from the meditation back to the text. Panchen Rinpoche in his commentary just on root text, writes: Well when you are in equipoise, ultimate reality, do dependently arisen phenomena appear as just nominal, as mere imputations? When you’re resting there in meditation in that space like awareness, space like meditative equipoise, the reply is expressed thusly, he goes right back to his own root text, And thus within the proper equipoise on ultimately reality, you are free from the extremes of conceptual elaborations, of samsara and nirvana, such as existence, non existence and so forth. So the very notion of conventional reality, names, labels, conceptual categories, they’re not there at all, when you’re simply resting there, you’re resting free of the extremes of conceptual elaboration, which means all constructs, all conceptual categories, all names, all words, including the very distinction between samsara and nirvana. You’re free. You’ve gotten as they say, “Give me some space”. And you’ve got some space.

[01:05:35] The exalted Mila, as in Milarepa, says in this regard. So here he is tapping right into the Kagyu, Mahamudra tradition, the lineage, the exalted Mila says, Where ultimate truth holds sway, there is no buddhahood separate from obstructions. So there’s no division, there’s no distinction, again as in names, categories, buddhahood and samsara. Buddhahood and obstructions, there is no buddhahood separate from obstructions. There is no meditator, no object of meditation. No stages to be traversed or signs of the path. There are no resultant buddha bodies, as in dharmakaya, sambhogakaya, and nirmanakaya, or gnosis as in primordial consciousness. There are no categories at all, therefore there is no nirvana. Everything is merely imputed by names and words. That’s for those people who are not in meditative equipoise. That’s their problem. But you’ve transcended as you’re resting there non conceptually in meditative equipoise, you’re not conceptually imputing everything, anything. The three worlds, animate and inanimate, the three worlds are form, formless, or desire, form, and formless realms. Or alternatively the world’s below, the worlds on the surface of the earth and above. So there are nagas below for example, there are fish below, there are all of us land creatures, and then there are those in the sky. The three worlds animate and inanimate from the beginning do not exist so there is no arising. So this will be reminiscent of the heart sutra. And that is relative to emptiness there is no suffering, no causes of suffering, no liberation, no path and so forth. There’s no attainment, no non attainment.

[01:0710] So he goes on and he’s making the same point from the beginning these three worlds do not exist so there is no arising, there is no basis, there is no connate, as in connate mental afflictions and so forth. There is no action or ripening of action. Therefore not even the name of samsara exists. The final reality appears like that. Because that’s where you rest. It is said the perfection of wisdom cannot be expressed by speech or thought. And it’s by its very nature is ineffable and inconceivable. It’s not just that you’re not articulate enough and even if you were speaking with someone, even if you have achieved the perfection of wisdom, gained such profound insight, and you’re speaking with someone else with profound insight, speaking out of your intellect to another person’s intellect you still can’t do it, okay. That is just by its very nature transcends all conceptual elaborations whether in the mind or articulated through speech.

[01:08:18] And as the scholar adept, the pundit siddha [?name] teaches, Worldly appearances are self releasing like illusions or dreams. They’re gone, they simply have no footing when you’re resting in meditative equipoise.

[01:08:32] Well if that is so, so now he’s just kind of focused in, if that’s what it’s like insofar as words can point to, that which is inexpressible, what about then the rest of reality that is the world we’re you know, the world we’re living in? Well if that is so then our actions and their results and so forth utterly non existent since they have no footing, they have no place when you’re resting simply in the emptiness of the mind. Does that mean then that they don’t exist at all? They’re utterly non existent. It is said that although they do not exist ultimately, which means they do not exist really or inherently, their non existence is not utterly settled. That is you don’t just settle there and don’t think now I’ve got it, they don’t exist at all. Since action and its result and so forth very much exist. And then Roger Jackson quite helpfully put in conventionally, that is on a relative level.

[01:09:29] I’ll pause there that phrase which is just leaping to mind today, ah, very very important and it comes, the phrase comes from my gelugpa training and that is when you want to engage meaningfully with the world around you, with other sentient beings, if you want to meaningfully cultivate the four immeasurables for example, or the four greats, or you would like to provide some service, you just want to engage, maybe you’d like to, you know, act on behalf of the environment, to preserve the environment and so forth. If you wish to meaningfully engage with the world around you, including other sentient beings of course, then the phrase that comes up is, [?01:10:02 Tibetan] don’t investigate, don’t analyze. What this means is do not engage in ontological investigation. Because if I’m cultivating loving kindness, for a person like Francesca, if I cultivate loving kindness and then as I’m doing this I say why don’t we really get it on, and I’ll apply some ultimate analysis here, ok Francesca I want to develop loving kindness for you, but by the way are you your body? No. Are you your mind? No. Are you the combination of both? Are you either one? Do you exist separately? And then suddenly I’m kind of looking into empty space, where [did] Francesca go? I was meditating on someone a moment ago, now she’s not there. She’s merely has only nominal existence, she’s only conventionally existent. It’s hard to develop anything really deeply from the heart from someone who has only nominal existence, right.

[01:10:55] Or moreover if you’re focusing right into the emptiness and that’s the real point here. If you’re really doing that ontological probe then you’re going right into the nature of the individual and you’re coming up with emptiness. You never feel empathy, or loving kindness, or compassion for emptiness. The sheer absence of inherent existence of anything, people or anybody else it’s not going to happen. So there is a point when you suspend ontological analysis because that will always lead to the same place. It will always lead to emptiness. It will always going to lead to space like meditative equipoise, where there’s no Francesca, no non Francesca, no human beings, and no non human beings, no conceptual categories whatsoever. So there’s no object of loving kindness when you’re resting in space like meditative equipoise. But as he’s making here so clear with very few words, this does not negate, that is, this profound insight you’re having and dwelling in, while in spacelike meditative equipoise does not negate, the world around you which is filled with causal patterns, actions and their consequences, the laws of nature, physics, biology, chemistry and so forth. And human suffering and mental afflictions and striving on the path and so forth and so on, it doesn’t negate that.

[01:12:12] And so, insofar as you want to engage with this phenomenal world then do bring your intelligence to bear, engage in phenomenological investigation. So if a person is behaving in a very unwholesome way, well then examine what are the causes and conditions. What gave rise to this? You know, and then understand it. And then also as we attend to, as I highlighted quite in some length earlier and now to be brief, but when we’re attending to, what is the object, what is, where is that dimension of Francesca that anyone can see if they can see this deeply. That is lovable and always lovable, whatever mood she’s in, whatever behavior she’s conducting that’s always there, right, without going to the emptiness of Francesca, because that’s not lovable at all. It’s a sheer absence, a simple negation right. So on a conventional level, that relative level which is not negated by the emptiness of Francesca.

[01:13:16] Where is that? On the surface level we have Francesca being very friendly but maybe not always friendly, very wholesome, but not always. Very appealing but sometimes probably unappealing, if you’re like me I don’t quite know, but you know, it’s like that. But not always manifesting lovable qualities, there are some people I imagine do, I’m not one of them. But if Francesca’s like me then not all is lovable in terms of how we’re appearing, appearing, appearing, what’s always there? Well, that brightly shining mind, luminous, pure, the source of your yearning that is relative level. That which keeps you moving, seeking, seeking, seeking, wanting to find happiness, wanting to be free of suffering, saturated by loving kindness, that’s always lovable if you could see it. If you could just have xray vision and see right through the veneers of the gender, the age, ethnicity, the personal history, the degree of mental affliction she does or does not have. If you could just see through all of that. Like with, you know, yogic x ray vision, then you would see something that is just an ongoing stream, of someone who is truly lovable. And that’s the basis of designation. That brightly shining mind is not a person, but you say I’m very happy to designate Francesca on that. Because then she is always lovable. And everybody is. Mao Tse Tung, Hitler, Mussolini, Donald Trump, maybe I should quite not put them in the same under, you know(laughter) Putin, me, you know, all of us on, all of us on that level, all of us, equally lovable? You know, the greatest villains of history, their brightly shining mind were still brightly shining, which is just heavily obscured, you know. And for all of us to varying extents, gets obscured but it doesn’t go out. It’s not like dousing a lamp, you remember? Not like that. Always there.

[1:15:12] So there we go. But that’s on the conventional level, but it’s a really good basis of designation. It’s a valid basis of designation. It’s also valid to say Francesca is tall. Ok but don’t get a whole lot of mileage out of that, a whole lot of benefit. It’s perfectly valid. She’s tall, what’s the basis of designation, tall body ok. So there we are so let’s move on then. But ever so important to see that neither of these two truths negates the other. Obscures, overwhelms the other. So he continues in his root text; Yet when you arise from that state arise from that spacelike meditative equipoise, and analyze now you’re investigating not how phenomena don’t exist, but how do they exist. Right, because he just said all of these very much exist, actions you know, actions and their results and so forth. When you arise from that state and analyze simply due to nominal imputation by the power of nominal or conceptual designation dependently arisen events including actions and agents undeniably appear naturally like a dream or mirage. The moon in water or an illusion. and it’s very important to recognize all of those have causal efficacy. Dreams influence your brain, they influence your mood, your emotions, they influence your body when you wake up, you can still have repercussions from the dream preceding, whether it was a magnificent lucid dream or whether it was a horrific nightmare. Dreams have causal efficacy that people that appear in the dreams, those people that appear in the dreams, and what they do to you, they have causal efficacy. Right? And they don’t exist, [laughs] they’re not there. They’re empty appearances. But they can make you miserable. They can terrify you. Or you can have a vision of the Buddha giving you oral transmission, you know, and bliss you out, and maybe even give pointing out instructions. I knew one fellow who was in the dream, was actually quite good at lucid dreaming. And he was just having a non lucid dream and he bumped into someone. I can’t remember who was. And the person just looked at him and said you know this is a dream. He became lucid. [laughs] Cool, you should have people like that pop into your dream more (? inaudible) [often].

[1:17:30] So, you might just bump into somebody who help you become lucid. That person then had causal efficacy. That tripped you over from non lucidity to lucidity. That is something. That something really happened. That has a real impact. All right, so dreams have causal efficacy, mirages you can photograph them and so forth. And the moon in water you can read a newspaper by it. If it’s a full moon and big print and then illusions, like I put on the website the notes for this retreat. A very cool link that Mary Kay sent me of this fellow, you know, with an avatar and the holographic projections. If you saw it, it’s quite cool. And these appearances, including having a conversation with a man from NASA, was elsewhere of course, and having a conversation going back and forth, back and forth. One is a holographic image and the other is dreamlike. We call him a person, right. But one empty appearance having a conversation with another appearance and they both influence each other. Very important. That holographic image wasn’t really there of course, and yet it is influencing things. And is influenced by the speaker, they had a conversation back and forth. So this is very cool.

[1:18:47] Jmila as in J Milarepa also states, so now he’s coming back. Having referred to the complete trans conceptuality of resting in spacelike equipoise and then he comes back to conventional reality; Emma like, Emma oh my goodness, Emma oh my goodness, if there were no sentient beings whence would come the Buddhas of the three times? Where would they come from? Since a result without a cause is impossible, in the realm of conventional truth, everything in the realm of samsara and nirvana exists. So said the sage. Existence, the appearance of entities, and non existence the ultimate reality that is emptiness these too have natures that are inseparable and of a single taste. So ultimate reality, reality of reality, so different and yet of the same nature, they are not two entities slapped together. They’re not two different domains, types of reality. But one can say they are rather the same reality. Form is emptiness, emptiness is form. From this perspective you see it as form, from this perspective you see it as emptiness. So the distinction of our own awareness, oh he really cuts to the core. So the distinction of our own awareness, and others awareness does not exist all is vast and unified. So suffering has no owner, virtuousness has no owner, awareness has no owner. It suffices then to say that entities way of existing how do they exist, we know how they appear, they appear, they lie, they appear in a manner in which they don’t exist, but entities way of existing is to exist as merely nominal, merely imputed, for the supreme arya, Nagarjuna Pada, the Reverend of the venerable.

[1:20:46] Nagarjuna states; [Alan speaks to someone in the retreat] I just dropped something here. Everything well? Okay.

[1:20:53] states as Nagarjuna states; Because physical things are merely nominal, this entry, this has a big wallop, Because physical things are merely nominal, space also is merely nominal. So we tend to think of space, physical space, as really out there of course. How long does it take to send a rocket to the nearest possibly habitable planet? Forty light years away, right. Merely forty light but it’s millions of years, it seems like that’s a lot of real space out there, real space, you know. And he’s saying well no, time is conceptually designated with no conceptual designation time is oh frozen, remember? Without introducing the subject, without introducing the observer, and I think there is a complete common ground between this particular interpretation of quantum mechanics namely quantum cosmology. Without introducing the observer, with this clock and the clock says now, you look at the clock and it says now, and relative to now you have past and relative to now you have future and now the universe from that perspective unfolds. Time is conceptually designated, no conceptual designation, no time. That’s why when you’re resting non conceptually in emptiness you’re resting in the domain that is timeless. When you’re resting in rigpa, which means you’re also resting in the realization of emptiness, it’s in the fourth time. It’s not in past, present or future, it’s not even in the present. It’s in the fourth time. There’s no conceptual designation therefore there’s no conceptual designation of time. And there is no time from that perspective and there is no space.

[1:22:33] Thus the final significance of the Mahamudra view as described by the arya father, Nagarjuna, and his spiritual son, Arya Deva, the final significance of the Mahamudra view and he’s fusing this entirely with Madhyamaka which is just well said. Was clearly explained by saying imputed existence just nominal. That is this whole phenomenal world from the higgs-boson up to galactic clusters and so on, they do exist relative to the cognitive frame of reference to which they’ve been identified. And they exist as something merely conceptually imputed or designated, their status is nominal. So I wonder if the large hadron supercollider would still get its funding if everybody’s persuaded that everything that’s just been discovering exist only as names. No wonder there is such resistance to challenging metaphysical realism. There is enormous invested interest in maintaining the status quo, very profitable.

[1:22:34] For example one must acknowledge so here’s a simple point, for example or as an analogy really one must acknowledge that there really are pillars inside a house with four pillars because it has four pillars. That’s what we say. A house with the roof held up by four pillars. It has pillars because it has four pillars on the house, I mean come like, come on let’s get real. Pillar the term generically is a universal, that is pillar applies to every pillar. There’s a skinny one, there’s a pillar, but there’s a fat one, there’s a pillar. Some are made of stone, some are made of wood, some are made of clay but pillar is universal. It applies to anything that is a pillar. That corresponds to our agreed conceptually agreed upon definition of pillar. It could be a pile of rocks, it could be a person hold up the roof stand really tall. Don’t move because the roof is going to collapse if you move. I’ve just designated you as a pillar. Good. if you’re performing the function of a pillar then be a pillar.

[1:24:33] So pillar is a universal that pervades each of the four pillars. That is it is applicable to each of them. What then is the definitional basis of the substance universal. This is technical talk don’t worry about it too much. Definitional basis, that is what is being defined, what is the basis that you’re defining of the substance universal pillar. When you search none of the four pillars is individually suitable as the definitional basis, that is from its own side. In their basis of designation you don’t find a pillar, nor are the four collectively its definitional basis. Now you can virtually read here basis of designation. So they are not, their basis of designation individually not there, collectively not there, nor is its definitional basis a cause shown to be anything other than just the four individually and collectively. He is making the same points but how do you say, more philosophically here. I’m just going to move through it. Thus the substance universal pillar that is inside the pillars is a mere nominal designation, pillar on the four pillars. [laughter] If you haven’t gotten it yet, then just stop. If you search from something apart from what is sufficiently described as a mere nominal imputation, you’re looking for the real pillar, it is not found. So all phenomena equally are to be described as imputed existence just nominal. And as I was just reading this on my teleprompter came a very vivid memory of the when I was receiving the autobiography of Geshe Rabten, and I would hike up to his little cow shed up in the mountains, and he got as he was coming to the conclusion of his life story and he finished his training as a geshe, he graduated with highest honors, and then went off and lived in this cow shed and he was, you know, superbly trained in Madhyamaka and an outstanding debater, really quite renowned. And so there he was rather than debating or heading a monastery doing any kind of stuff that would have given him big reputation he told me he would be sitting in his cabin and there was a pillar, just basically a tree stump, holding up the roof for which the rafters were branches and the roof was slate from a nearby slate mine, just across the way, very much like this [Alan refers to the Lama Tzong Khapa Institute] a slate mine just across the way, but it was donkeys, donkeys that would carry these big bags. In any case his roof, his very heavy roof, it’s made of these very very heavy beautiful grey slates is all being held up to the rafters. And then a pillar, and he’s be sitting on his meditation cushion attending to that pillar, and analyzing the pillar to see whether it was really there from its own side, right. And he said, and I can almost quote him verbatim, it’s there in the book on the life and teaching of Geshe Rabten, which is now out of print but they came over with a new version I don’t care for that much. But he said, “As I was meditating on that,” he said “well I think I would stop there, because if I went on and told you what I experienced, you would think I was completely crazy.” And then he just dropped it.

[1:27:31] Now I’m going to move through this one quickly as well, because we just don’t need to get bogged down, please don’t agonize over this. There is a qualm, this is a qualm that is a scholars qualm. And if you’re not a scholar, then you don’t need this qualm. [laughter] And if you are a scholar, and you have a qualm, then it has to be clarified. But if you don’t have a qualm then it doesn’t have to be clarified, so it’s your choice. But if you have a qualm already then he is going to help you. “There is a qualm that must be clarified. Some earlier and later writers connected with prasangika schools say all cognition of ordinary individuals are mistaken cognitions. That is you’re deluded all the time. And for that reason any and all appearances that arise in the minds of ordinary individuals arise and appear as inherently existent. Okay well you’ve heard that before. Everything appears in a way it isn’t. You apprehend them in a way they are not. Therefore you’re deluded. Everything at all time, the svatantrika assertion. Okay there are two sub schools of Madhyamaka, prasangika which is widely regarded as the ultimate one, certainly the one Panchen Rinpoche embraces as the deepest interpretation of the Madhyamaka view and then there is the svatantrika, the runner up. “The svatantrika assertion that the object of negation is apprehended as having a truly existent way of appearing, that is other than its present way of appearing. Does not enable us to say what that. Does not enable us to say that what appears in the minds of ordinary individuals like us does not exist as it appears. So it is erroneous.” That should be just transparently clear, so I’m just going to move right on. [laughter] And you can read that over and over again until it becomes clear if you need that.

[1:29:23] He’s going to clarify a little bit more. “Thus svatantrika scholars who assert that form and so forth do exist, by virtue of their appearance to an undamaged mind” that is one that is not distorted, is not sick, you’re not hallucinating whatever you. So “do assert that form and so forth do exist by virtue of their appearance to an undamaged mind should think well about how Sri Shanta Kirti, the great advocate of the prasangika, refuted this assertion. Indeed to the sense cognitions of commoners” remember not aryas, “the five types of objects appear to be established self sufficiently.” Okay we’ve heard that before they appear to be existing from their own side. “Even though they are not established on their own.” If you try to find them on their own, you can’t find them. “Thus those cognitions are mistaken.” Fair enough. “When one applies inferential authority to the point of view in which appearances of the five objects exist by way of their own characteristics. Then it is valid to describe them as conventions. This must be understood.” I can spend a lot of time on that but I’m not sure it would be really worth the time. I think we can just move on because this the whole text is so wonderfully empirical. But he is a great scholar and he very rightly assumes many of the people reading this text over the last four hundred years are also very well versed scholars. And this could clarify some serious qualms for them. It’s that scalpel identifying the difference in understanding of object of negation from the prasangika perspective and the svatantrika Madhyamaka. Okay, it’s subtle I think I could expand it somewhat I’m just not going to now. The Geshe here could definitely do that superbly. I don’t even know who they are but any well trained Geshe can nail that one.

[1:31:03] So, “Also many thing that it is said that the truly existent person, that the truly existent person, not the person as such” so kind of like a conceptual construct, a truly existent person not me or not Michelle or not Lynn because you know, the truly existent person concocts something they call the truly existent person, “not the person as such is negated. So while in equipoise they keep inside” they keep aside, they set aside, I could say, they set aside this whole person, the person they actually feel themselves to be and try to negate a truly existent person created by the mind.” So they create a straw man and then refute the straw man and they come out unscathed. Well what was the point of that? Clever, clever, clever. This is completely unacceptable because it entails the extreme of permanence. You just, you haven’t really gotten out of the bog of substantialism, metaphysical realism, you’re still resting in the ordinary sense of I am, and then concocting a straw man and then defeating that with logic. Although there’s much more to discuss I fear to write to much. So that must suffice. [laughter] phew we’re out of that thicket. Again Glen I think could explain a lot of these things probably better than I. I’ve just given him a big burden. Don’t hassle him too much.

[1:32:25] So, “Showing the way to manifest the excellent path free of extremes, free of the extremes of externalism, that’s metaphysical realism, and nihilism, nothing exists at all, by meditating thusly the root text says; When the empty is not abstracted by appearances. The emptiness of inherent nature is not overwhelmed or obstructed by appearances arising. And appearances are not terminated, they’re not negated, I meant to say negated. [Alan makes correction on laptop] And appearances are not negated by the empty. So you not, so just that it’s clear. Then you actualize then you actualize the excellent path where emptiness and dependent arising have a single meaning. In accordance with this in accord with this the omniscient sage Tsongkhapa says, there’s a very famous quote from him “as for the belief the undeceiving dependent appearances and the empty or emptiness are two separate things. It’s very easy to reify both. As long as they appear individually, that is when you are immersed in emptiness you’re totally out of touch with phenomena and when you are really focused on phenomena you’re totally out of touch with emptiness as if they’re incompatible. As long as they appear sequentially or individually as something quite separate the sages meaning still will not be realized. You haven’t gotten the point yet. When without alternation you simultaneously see, you simultaneously simply see dependently related events as non deceptive and destroy all manner of grasping at objects of determinate cognition in other words you destroy all reification, then your examination of the view will be complete. So to rephrase that just a little bit, when your very insight into the very nature of phenomenon as being dependently related events immediately points to the emptiness of inherent nature.

[1:34:26] And your insight into the emptiness of phenomena immediately points to there being there arising as dependently related events, now you’ve got the point. Because now you’ve seen them non dually, seeing the same reality from two complementary perspectives. Then your examination of the view will be complete. Then you’ve got it. And it just occurred to me as I was reading it my teleprompter gave me another little cool little thing, Stillness and motion, emptiness is by nature primordially still, it doesn’t come and go, it’s not arising and passing it’s not going anywhere. Emptiness by nature still is primordially still. Phenomena, form and so forth always on the move, always changing. So simultaneously resting in the awareness of the stillness of emptiness and seeing the movements as being nothing other than manifestations of emerging from emptiness. That just raised that whole issue of stillness and motion to a whole other level. Which is to say the middle way. That’s the middle way view. Get that one and you’re very close to Mahamudra very close to Dzogchen. So alas it is dinner time. Enjoy your dinner, see you tomorrow.

Transcribed by KrissKringle Sprinkle

Revised by Rafael Carlos Giusti

Final edition by Rafael Carlos Giusti

Discussion

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