88 Great Equanimity in the light of Dzogchen

88 - Spring 2016 - Great Equanimity in the light of Dzogchen

Olaso.

[0:04] So give us this day our daily parable. We go to the chapter of parables and it’s a very familiar one, but with perhaps an interesting twist. On page 91, the ever so familiar Analogy of Seeing a Rope as a Snake. But from the Dzogchen perspective, it’s interesting. He turns it into simply, yah, into a story. “A man once mistook a multicolored rope, moving back and forth, within a thicket of bushes for a poisonous snake. Concerned that it would bite him and he would be injected with the snake’s poison, he became terribly frightened. This was not a case of visual distortion, for his eyes saw only a multicolored rope, without discerning the blood, mouth, or eyes and so on of a snake. So how did he get confused? He became confused by mentally imputing the multicolored, wriggling, wiggling rope as a snake, even as a poisonous snake, with its harmful qualities, and so on. Then someone else pointed out to him, ‘This is not a snake. It’s a rope,’ and took him by the hand and showed him. In this way, he was freed from his fears about a poisonous snake.” It’s interesting to turn that into a story, this ever so familiar metaphor used in Madhyamaka all the time. But now, “To explain the analogy: At the outset, there was no reason to confuse the rope for a snake.” That is, there was nothing about the rope that was, you know, that called for the imputation of snake. It was just a rope. But moving back and forth within the thicket, obviously moved by the wind.

[1:52] “Likewise, while the ultimate reality of the mind is present as the dharmakaya,” When you think of the ultimate reality of mind, it sounds very esoteric, lofty, transcendent, but all it means really is the actual nature of the mind. It’s just that. They’re just, we have this, you know, this, just that-ness, you know, tathata, just that-ness, just that. Right. [Tibetan word 02:21] in Tibetan or [Tibetan word 02:23]. Just thatness. Or just like thatness. Well this is the just like thatness of the mind. Chittata. It almost like ends with phat, chittata, you know, boom, like that. Dharmata is just thatness of phenomena, which is not something higher or mystical or esoteric. It’s just, if you see it without the overlay of conceptual imputation, and then reification. It’s just that. So something that makes it very … that’s why you keep on saying this kind of strange like, phrases like, it’s just this ordinary consciousness of the present. Right. So, “Likewise, when the ultimate reality of the mind is present as the dharmakaya, you fail to recognize yourself.” Well, it is present, it’s right there hidden in plain sight, you fail to recognize yourself. “In that light, you are carried away by the waves of samsara and experience suffering. Just as he was freed from his fears about a poisonous snake as a result of someone else identifying the rope for him,” Pointing out instructions on the rope. “when a guru shows you the nature of the mind, your own face as the dharmakaya is revealed; and you achieve certain freedom from wandering in samsara. That case of being confused about something for which there was no reason to be confused is said to be ‘adventitious contaminations’ or defilements.”

[3:55] You’ve heard about those, that which adventitiously obscures the brightly shining mind of the substrate, the immutably shining mind of rigpa. “On the contrary” So it’s due to adventitious contamination. “On the contrary, thinking that the mindstream turns bad and experiences suffering – ” So from our perspective, it’s … comes up all the time. I hear it as a Dharma teacher, you know. When did we get into this mess? I look at my mind; it’s all screwed up. I’ve got all this agitation and neuroses and unhappiness and blah, blah, blah. When did that happen? When did it happen? When did it happen? How did my mind get bad? You know, like, fruit that rots in the refrigerator? When did it turn bad? And when did I start experiencing suffering? Who did this to me? You know. Who did this to me? So, “while thinking that the mindstream turns bad and experiences suffering", and there must have been some time back there in the past when it happened, “while ignoring the agent that causes you to wander in samsara, namely the ‘adventitious contaminations,’ this view constitutes a failure to determine the nature of existence of the mind.” You don’t understand the nature of your own mind. “You should earnestly seek out the meaning of this, and with the three parables and their meanings, determine for yourself the manner in which the mind becomes confused.”

[5:31] So there’s a lovely commentary I invite you to read at your leisure by Gyatrul Rinpoche. Quite extensive to this familiar parable.

[5:48] Of course, a little caveat that’s often mentioned in other renditions of this analogy is that when the person out in the bush, out in the brushland, mistakes the coiled rope, or the spotted rope, this striped rope for a snake, it’s often commented that it wasn’t clearly lit, that is, it was kind of dim, like twilight. And because it wasn’t radiantly clear, you know, then in that absence of clarity, then, again it was so interesting the way he nuanced that, it wasn’t that your eyes malfunction, that you had an optical illusion. There was no optical illusion, 2020 vision, no problemo. But bear in mind that your visual perception is, 'Linda, your visual perception conceptual or non-conceptual? [Linda replies: Perception? Non-conceptual]. Non-conceptual, exactly. Your visual perception is always non-conceptual. Even if you’re schizophrenic, it’s still non-conceptual. Right? But in that second instance, that’s why I turned my attention to Linda, in that first instance, it’s perceptual, and in the second instant, the conceptual mind is coming in like a European colonizer. I saw it. It’s mine. Right. It’s exactly what happens, just come, I saw it, it’s mine. And it comes in and takes charge. It reconfigures. It colonizes. It configures. It dominates. In which case now I’m dealing with not Linda, but ‘Linda-me’. Right. ‘Linda-me.’ That is completely configured, imputed, interpreted, and so forth, and then of course reified. Not me. She’s over there. So the culprit here is not individual perception at all. It is always just perception. Start, beginning, middle, and end but there’s this conceptual designation. And this is clearly a false conceptual designation, in the case of the rope and the snake. Because of that ignorance, avidya, the unawareness, the lack of clarity, out of avidya comes moha. Out of lack of clarity, lack of awareness, non-cognizance.

[8:06] In that field, it’s like a fertile field, fertile field full of fertilizer and moisture and all of that, then out of that amorphous lack of clarity, then comes the moha, the delusion of misapprehending the rope as a snake, designating it as such, reifying it as such. And it’s really like you’ve fallen into, you really have kind of fallen into a type of psychosis, like the boy who thought he was a kernel of corn, me thinking I’m Napoleon and so on. And then you need someone, a spiritual friend, to point out to you that, in fact, it has never been, this is the real point, this is the point strongly emphasized in Dzogchen, that rope has never been a snake. It’s not the rope’s fault. The rope didn’t do it to you. It’s not your eyes’ fault. It has never been a snake. It is not a snake. And therefore all the suffering you’re experiencing, the fear, the adrenaline rush, the panic or maybe looking for a weapon, how can I kill the snake, protect myself, my family, what will my children do if I die from the snake, you know. The whole story, the whole drama. That you have to recognize it was never a snake. There’s nothing about it that is a snake. There’s not one molecule that’s a snake, that it’s completely in your mind. Something you’ve conjured up. And the spiritual friend who has already awakened points out there has never been a snake. The spiritual friend comes out and points out, here’s the Dozgchen perspective. You’ve never been a sentient being, if you’re wondering how did this happen? How did my mind turn bad? How did it get so toxic? How do I get so neurotic? How is it, why’s I’m suffering so much?

[9:48] And the spiritual friend says: Well, you are not a sentient being, you’ve never been a sentient being, you never will be a sentient being. Get over it. And shift your perspective. This is the hyperspace. This is how you zip through the path of accumulation, the path of preparation. Not by slogging away, you can do that, that’s Sutrayana. I am a sentient being, the little engine that could slog in his way up the mountain for one countless aeon. From the beginning of the path of preparation up to the path of seeing, of the path of accumulation, of the path of seeing, that’s a little engine, ‘I am a sentient being, I am a sentient being, I am a sentient being.’ Oh, what a grind. You know. This is why in Dzogchen right from the very beginning, it really struck me about what Geshe Ngawang Dhargyey has taught to me when I was basically in diapers, when I was in Dharamsala. I mean really a baby in dharma. And he said it’s never too soon to start generating bodhichitta. Right, you remember that. Yeah. And it’s so lofty, I mean, it’s so like, 'Woah. I shall achieve enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings, like I’m the Messiah, I’m Maitreya. You know, like, and here you are in diapers, you know, you can hardly know anything, but he knows it’s not too soon. And in Dzogchen tradition, Dzogchen tradition, it’s never too soon, really. Different lamas have different views. Well, this is my view. But this is the view that I’ve received from Gyatrul Rinpoche and other lamas, but above all him. It’s never too soon to be introduced. As long as you won’t screw it up. As long as you won’t misunderstand it, just, just don’t do that. But if you can take it in, it’s never too soon to be introduced to the view. And that’s it. The view, the view, the view, right? Just as long as your mind can hold it. If your mind can’t hold it, okay, then we go back. And then we take it more gradually.

[11:38] So you have no history really of being a sentient being. You think you do, but you have no history. That is, the snake, the rope has never been a snake. When the, you know … if the rope can talk back and say well, and you know, start taking seriously, he thinks I’m a snake, then how did I become a snake? When did I become a snake? I don’t remember, I don’t remember my snake parents. I can’t remember. I suffer amnesia. When was I a snake? You were never a snake. Get over it. So this raises to my mind the very interesting sequence, once again from … actually it’s indirectly from Atisha, back to the speech emanation of Padmasambhava. Very relevant to this. Really core. As we’re slowly getting ready to depart like a flock of doves dispersing to all corners of the globe. These Four Reliances in the Kadampa tradition. Really useful. So I’d like to just run through them very briefly. So the first one, the Four Reliances, the first one is, rely not on the person, rely on the dharma. If that was important 1000 years ago with this old Kadampa tradition, very, very traditional old Tibet, then let’s … it’s more important, it’s more massively more important for us in our society modernity, Eurocentric modernity, which is so much, you know … In America, the self-made man and it goes back to Europe, of course, the Americans, you know, the Anglo Americans, the pale colored pinky, pinky people like me, you know, our ancestors came from Europe, but so much strong emphasis on the individual. Individual, individual, individual. So much idolatry of individuals, you know, in music and politics, and religion, and so forth, and so on. And so and we have a really strong pattern of that, and it goes back for many, many centuries. And then when, you know, Eurocentric individuals like myself when we encounter dharma, it’s very easy to carry that right over. And we meet extraordinary people, I’ve met a number of them, and it’s very easy to lock on.

[13:58] Now I have faith in Buddhadharma. His Holiness Dalai Lama is such an incredible individual, or Kalu Rinpoche or Ling Rinpoche, or Sakya Trichen Rinpoche. You meet these great beings, whoa, I’m a buddhist, I want to follow them wherever you’re going. Take me with you, you know. Emphasis on the individual, individual, individual. It’s v easy to do. And it’s not a bad thing to have tremendous reverence for a great lama, and therefore be inspired to take refuge in the buddha, dharma, and sangha. Gyalwa Karmapa, the 16th Karmapa, inspired so many people in that way. They just were in his presence like Lama Yeshe from Samyeling. He’s now head of Samyeling. It was a person. So I’m not criticizing him at all. He’s a wonderful human being and really yogi. Lama Yeshe, you know. Generally speaking, not just flat buddhadharma, there are two entrances to having very deep faith in dharma, to really set on the path: faith in the Three Jewels and pardon me, I’m just saying what has been said for centuries. The avenue for people of dull faculties is that you have faith in the dharma by way of an individual. And the people, the way of people of sharp faculties is you have faith in the individual by way of the dharma. That’s just what it says, I think there’s something to, and if that sounds like a criticism of Lama Yeshe, well, then you meet him, and you’ll see, there’s just nothing you want criticized there. He’s a superb human being.

[15:23] So, that point, individuals come and go. But when we focus on the individual, make them the primacy, the primary object of our devotion, our refuge and so forth, the chances of reifying the individual are enormous. And we’ve been doing that religiously, forever in the West, reifying the individual. The individual, the individual, and then as soon as we do that, the individual’s radically other than oneself, and so then we’re radically taking refuge outside our own mindstreams, outside our own rigpa, we’ve externalized, objectified rigpa. No wonder Western science is all about objectification. It’s rooted in Christianity. Christianity is rooted in Judaism. Right. And we reify everything. And so in the Buddhadharma following this path, it’s not that we’re not relying on the individual. But compared to the dharma, the dharma is the true refuge, the dharma is the medicine. And the teacher is the doctor, right? The guru is the doctor. So rely not on the individual, rely on the dharma. And so the individual, what we see of the individual, unless you’re clairvoyant, what we see of the individual is the body, right? So there’s the body of the individual, His Holiness Dalai Lama, Gyatrul Rinpoche and so forth. There’s, what we’re seeing is a human body, don’t rely on that human body as your primary reliance, rely upon the dharma. What’s the dharma? That is the dharma is the medicine that is spoken by way of the guru speech, right. And then we go to the dharma, [16:55 Tibetan phrase] – do not rely upon the words; rely upon the meaning. Well, this word [17:00 Tibetan word] in Sanskrit, in Tibetan that we translated well, as meaning, means referent. Referent. Right? So the word house. It’s so simple, you’ve got it. The word house is a word. And then what’s it referring to? An actual house? Okay? So don’t rely on the word house. Well, if you if you need shelter, don’t rely, you know, don’t take shelter under a word. Find the house and take shelter there. And so likewise, there’s dharma.

[17:29] Well, within dharma, there’s words and there’s referent. So some people cling to words. They cling to the catechism, they cling to their liturgies, they cling to words of all kinds. They get really pissed off if anybody insults their words. Whereas the whole point of the dharma, all of the dharma is fingers pointing to a moon. And so take refuge in that which the words of dharma are referring to, without clinging to the words themselves. [17:55 Tibetan]. Third one, [17:58 Tibetan phrase]. And now we’re going deeper. But now we’ve just moved from body to speech, haven’t we? Don’t focus on the body, don’t rely upon the body of the guru, rely upon the speech, which is the dharma, but within the dharma, there are the words but the referent of the words, go for the referent of the words. Okay, now we’re going into referent … we’re going into the real … you know, the reality of it. And then the third one is [18:21 Tibetan phrase]. Do not rely upon the provisional meaning; rely upon the definitive meaning. Provisional meaning is all about context, all about context. Is light a wave or a particle? Well, from this perspective, it’s a particle. From this perspective, it’s a wave. Our world system here from the perspective of the first, second, third, fourth dhyana, this is Mount Meru, surrounded by the four world sectors, and so forth, and then shift back over to ordinary perception with wonderful technology. And then we have the world that we see, you know, that we’ve seen so many times, in person and you know, by way of our physical senses.

[19:01] And so, there are many, many provisional realities. All of science, really all of science virtually, 99% and more is about provisional, provisional. Seeing from this perspective, seeing from this perspective, but then we recall the Kalachakra tantra. It says there is no definitive description of the world. In this wonderful book, I can’t remember the author but it was one of, by one of the great [Jamgon Kyentse, Jamgon Khyentse] Can’t remember, I don’t think it’s quite that. But he wrote a book, it’s still in print on Buddhist cosmology from abhidharma, abhidharma, Kalachakra and Dzogchen. You can find … Myriad Worlds. I think it’s called Myriad Worlds, I think so. [ Myriad Worlds: Buddhist Cosmology in Abhidharma, Kalachakra & Dzogchen, by Jamgon Kontrul Lodro Taye]. In any case, so you have …okay, well, what is the buddhist cosmology? What did the Buddha say? What’s really, if they don’t like modern scientific view of your modern cosmology, and then you find, well, in abhidharma, it says this. On the other hand, in the Kalachakra tradition, it says this. They’re not the same. On the other hand in Dzogchen it says, they’re not the same either. And so then … you, buddhists, can’t get your act together, right? I mean, tell us what you really mean. And the answer is there is no definitive description. This is exactly what Stephen Hawking said. What John Wheeler said. There is no definitive description of what the world is out like out there, prior to and independent of any system of measurement. There’s no history of the universe, there is no other way that the universe is now or will be, because every description of the universe is always provisional. It’s relative to your cognitive frame of reference, your system of measurement, the questions you’re asking, and the way you conceptually make sense of the information and the measurements that you make. So that’s all provisional. The Four Noble Truths are provisional. The 12 links of dependent origination are provisional. The teachings on karma are provisional. All the teachings of the dharma are provisional except …, except… [audience member speaks up: Wisdom Perfection]. Perfection of Wisdom. Yeah, that is not incorrect. And I’ll just make it … but you’re not incorrect.

[21:04] It is exactly right, the Perfection of Wisdom. What is that? The teachings on emptiness. The teachings on emptiness are the … those are the only teachings that are not provisional, that do not depend on this cognitive frame of reference, maybe a hell being, a preta, a deva, fourth jhana, ordinary, buddha, sentient being. I just covered a big bandwidth there, right? All these cognitive frame of references including the Buddha’s own cognitive frame of reference, right, they’re all relative to the cognitive frame of reference, right. Even the Buddha’s. The Buddha is also empty. The reality that Buddha views is also empty of inherent nature. The one invariant across all conceivable cognitive frames of reference is the emptiness of inherent nature of all phenomena. Right? So we go deeper. That’s the one that is always true from any every perspective. We may or may not know it, but that’s the breaks. But that is true. Then the final one is the most intriguing one. All right, [22:13 Tibetan phrase] – Do not rely upon, do not place your full commitment to the provisional teaching but to the definitive. And then [22:28 Tibetan phrase] – Do not rely upon conditioned consciousness; rely upon primordial consciousness. That one’s often kind of vague. When I first learned it, I didn’t have a clear understanding of it at all. Conditioned consciousness. That’s one of the six … it’s one of the five skandhas. It’s the fifth skandha. We have five sensory modes, we have the mental mode. These are conditioned, they arise in dependence on cause and conditions. It includes the substrate consciousness. That’s also conditioned consciousness.

[23:00] But do not rely fundamentally, absolutely, finally, on conditioned consciousness. Rely upon [23:11 Tibetan] upon primordial consciousness. Well, of course, that’s rigpa. Then how can you rely upon something you aren’t aware of? Well, Rigpa is not like some treasure you’ve never found that’s just laying useless in a box some place, for which you get no benefit whatsoever. Every metaphor, every analogy has to break down at some point. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be an analogy. It would be it, right? And so rigpa’s not like that. It’s not like something inert lying under a pillow waiting for you to make devotions and offerings and so forth to. It’s not like that. It’s already active. It’s already active. It’s always been active. It’s always been present. But not just sitting there like, you know, slumbering. Vidya is always vidya. Awareness is always awareness. Vidya is never avidya. Awareness never is unawareness; otherwise it wouldn’t be awareness. So awareness is always aware. It’s aware right now. But awareness isn’t just a mindless, luminous presence. It’s always creative. These creative effulgences. That’s its nature. So if you wonder why you’re … why is your mind so distracted? Why is your mind so distracted? Practising so many years. Brandon, what’s wrong with you people. Brandon, Amy, such slowpokes. Unbelievable. Still mind going, blah, blah, blah, blah. After nine years you think getting it you know, [dusting??] a little ever, ever ready little bunny of … energizer bunny ever stop talking? You know. And you know why? Because your rigpa doesn’t stop talking. Every distracted thought you ever have is nothing other than a display of rigpa. So why do you want it to shut up? You want to anesthetize your rigpa, you want to make it go to sleep? Be quiet. Put him down. I’m putting my rigpa to sleep. Give him a shot.

[25:13] So intuition. It’s vague. It’s a cool term. Vague term, sometimes ridiculed, sometimes worshiped. Not clearly defined. But we all I think most of us, I think probably everybody in the room, probably everybody listening, you don’t think it’s a ridiculous term, a term with no referent. Intuition, and yet very hard to define. Because we know if it’s just guessing, well, then just call it guessing. If it’s a hunch, call it a hunch, you know. If it’s a belief, a desire, call it belief or desire, we don’t need another term. If there’s not something distinctive about intuition. Intuition. I have no special access to the real meaning of intuition. It’s whatever people say it means. But I will define it as a way of knowing that is not clearly simply an observation of evident phenomena. Right? Not that, like knowing the color of someone’s shirt or shawl. And it’s not something that we know by logical reasoning, by inference, drawing on our intelligence, maybe people, some people have very high IQ so they, or they can know things that other people can’t figure out. It’s neither that. It’s kind of knowing that is not simply perceptual to seeing, because it’s right there in your face. And not something that you’re figuring out. A type of knowing that’s more primal, deeper, mysterious in its source, but sometimes can give rise to strong certainty, and actually is a form of knowing. But of course, if that’s intuition, if it is actually a mode of knowing, it’s very easily confused, with hunches, predilections, wishes, biases, prejudices, expectation, and so on, and so on.

[27:10] So a scientific materialist will say; Well, you know, we’ve seen the evidence for reincarnation and so forth. But my strong intuition is people having false memories. You know, I just sent to Claudio, and to Sangay an interesting, short file today. Quite recent evidence for reincarnation. I won’t go into it right now. But there’s the evidence. There’s plenty of it out there. But this was an interesting file my wife just sent me today. And here’s one case where some child had a past life recall and had 50 data points, got 50 data points correct, when checked with relatives and so forth. 50. And then a research in London, the headquarters of materialistic skepticism, which means materialistic dogmatism, a researcher there allegedly doing research on this said, ‘well, my strong feeling is that these all consists of false memories.’ 50 data points, really good false memories, very impressive. [Laughs]. One of these days everybody’s going to be laughing. You know, but that would be his intuition. He’s saying, ‘I don’t know that, but…’ And I’ve heard this so many times, although we don’t know this, beyond all reasonable doubt, all you buddhists are wrong. [Laughs]. He’s saying basically that, you know. Beyond all reasonable doubt because they’re so profoundly committed to their own worldview. It’s understandable. You know, I’m pretty committed to mine. So, intuitions are very easily mistaken for things that are not intuition. Rigpa is very easily mistaken for things that are not rigpa, as we’ve seen from the great master Dudjom Lingpa and so forth. So I want to end on this note, we’re going to go a little bit late today.

[28:52] This is very important, isn’t it? To distinguish between conditioned consciousness with which we’re very familiar, all six modes, sensory, and then the mental, which is quite interesting. What is the distinction between conditioned consciousness vijnana, and then primordial consciousness jñana. Well, we have a special guest, because I don’t know, I’m Alan Wallace, I don’t know squat. But we’ll invite in the Lakeborn Vajra, from The Vajra Essence, who will clarify this point, I think quite definitively. So are you ready? Here’s pointing out instructions from the Lakeborn Vajra, Vajra Essence. “O Vajra of Pristine Awareness,” So this is so interesting. Among this entourage of archetypal bodhisattvas, in this vision, he’s just going … he’s just speaking right to Pristine Awareness. Okay. This is very cool. “O Vajra of Pristine Awareness, if you do not know how to distinguish between conditioned consciousness and primordial consciousness, you may think that conditioned consciousness is primordial consciousness, and consequently circle about in delusion. So learn how to distinguish between them!” Here he goes. “Conditioned consciousness is the naturally present radiance and clarity of the unimpeded objects that emerge in the expanse of mentation,” Mentation is how we’re differentiating and making sense of the world, “… which, in this expansive mentation, which, when they enter the sense doors,…” when these objects enter the sense doors, by way of mentation, which identifies them, "… they are bound by self grasping.” They’re bound by reification.

[30:30] “When looking out through the sense doors, that which appears as seeing, hearing, feeling, experiencing, and contacting, external sensory appearances is called conditioned consciousness.” So the point of pointing out instructions is, those are the words, find the referent in your own experience. The words are just pointing to something that is happening right in your continuum right now. And get a lock like, you know, like a fighter pilot in a dogfight with a jet in front of him. And [makes a sound], you know, the lock, and then you pull the trigger and send the missile. That’s getting it. That’s ascertainment. Get a lock on it. Right. Get a lock on it. Have you identified the referent of conditioned consciousness? [makes a sound]. That’s what you have to do. If not, right now, then re-do it again. Do it until you get it. But then what’s left over? Is that all there is to you? Alright, so now we go on. “Insofar as conditioned consciousness individually apprehends and recognizes names and things, and arouses the closely held” that is we strongly identify with, “the closely held feelings of pleasure, pain, and indifference, all things appear to be separate and distinct.” So just take this as pointing out instructions right now, can you as I’m reading these words, can you identify the referent of these words in your experience right now?

[31:55] Regarding these names and things, words and their referents, which arouse you to find “…all things appear to be separate and distinct. They", these things that appear to be separate and distinct, “are given individual names, and things are apprehended as being distinct. This acts as the basis, from which emerge thoughts of attachment to your own side and aversion to the other’s side.” This relates to our topic this morning of equanimity. “The good is apprehended as being good and is made into an object of hope, thus proliferating thoughts of yearning. The bad is apprehended as being bad, and this serves as a basis from which various thoughts of anxiety arise. What is called mentation …" manas in Sanskrit or yid in Tibetan, “What is called mentation manifests…” This is the activation of the making sense of, which rides on the wave of consciousness. “What is called mentation manifests as the consciousness of appearances, it turns into appearing objects, …” it’s, there’s that cognitive fusion. The mentation, Oh, Linda’s over there. There she is. My whole mentation about Linda is now projected, and the awareness fuses. Oh, she’s over there. “… it turns into appearing objects, and it causes appearances to be made manifest. From the very moment that a thought and subject arise, what is called mind merges non-dually with appearances and vanishes.” I think he just gave the history of modern science because we have serious people, intelligent people, well informed scientists like Michio Kaku saying, mind doesn’t exist. And I’m sure if I met Michael Graziano at Princeton, he’s no dullard, he’s a university professor at a great university, and he says, ‘consciousness doesn’t exist.’ And then Daniel Dennett, very, very bright philosopher. He didn’t get his prominence by being stupid. And he’s very, very prominent. He said, appearances don’t exist. Qualia didn’t exist.

[34:06] If these people were idiots or deranged or mentally impaired, this would not be interesting. Now that we just have compassion for such people, but these are not people like that at all. But they’re riding a current, like surfers riding a 400 year wave. “From the mere very moment that a thought and subject arise, what is called mind merges non-dually with appearances and vanishes.” And you think really, that you’re living in a world where mind doesn’t exist. Or where it’s just an emergent property of matter. It’s insignificant, it’s trivial, it’s an epiphenomenon. It doesn’t do anything. Because matter alone, appearances, objective reality alone is real. There’s nothing other than objective reality. And if you doubt that anybody thinks that, pick up any text on cosmology you like on the history of the universe. Go back to Stephen Hawking. Short history of the universe. Find if there’s any reference to the emergence of mind and consciousness there, I dare ya. Mind merges and disappears into the object. This is from the mid … this is 150 years ago, The Vajra Essence. Exactly when Thomas Huxley was starting the church of scientific materialism and succeeded so fabulously. And letting materialism dominate science and science now dominating so much of the planet, but with, of course, this violent, violent reaction from religion, engendering basically religious fundamentalism, and then the fundamentalists scorn science, and then the scientists see how stupid religion looks, and then they scorn religion, and then we have this big tension between stupid science and stupid religion. And everybody’s mind has been lost. They’ve all become mindless, as whether religious fundamentalists or scientific materialism, which is just another form of religious fundamentalism. “The mind merges non-dually with appearances and vanishes.” So interesting. That was just a commentary on the history of science.

[36:03] Okay, that’s conditioned consciousness. Primordial consciousness, okay. You’ve got a lock on conditioned consciousness. What’s left over? Is anything else going on in your continuum right now? Here’s the pointing out instructions. “Primordial consciousness is the natural glow of the ground, and it expresses itself as the five facets of primordial consciousness. Specifically, in the manifest state of the ground, great primordial consciousness, which has been forever present, abides as the aspect of lucidity and clarity, like the dawn breaking and the sun rising. It is not blank like an unimpeded darkness that knows nothing. All appearances are naturally present, without arising or ceasing. Just as heat is naturally present in the nature of fire, moisture is present in the nature of water, and coolness is present in the nature of wind, due to the unimpeded power in the nature of primordial consciousness, there is total knowledge and total awareness of all phenomena, without its ever merging with or entering into objects. Primordial consciousness is self emergent, naturally clear, and free of outer and inner obscuration; it is the all pervasive, radiant, clear infinity of space, free of contamination. What are the causes and conditions by which conditioned consciousness is transformed into primordial consciousness?” And … I’m not happy with the translation. But it’s really subtle, transformed I mean … I take a piece of clay and transform it into a pot, right. We do that all the time. Transform, transform, it’s not that.

[38:00] Any more than there was a time in which the rope transformed into a snake. There was no such time. But what were the causes and conditions? Because after all we are, insofar as we’re operating out of conditioned consciousness, we are seeing things that way. This is not something that doesn’t exist at all. There is relative truth, conventional reality. The notion that we’re sentient beings is not like thinking I’m a kangaroo, which has no truth at all. This is a truth. It’s a conventional truth, right? A truth that obscures a deeper truth? How did this truth that obscures a deeper truth … how did this come about? So, how did the shift of perspective from primordial consciousness … what are the causes … no, what are the causes and conditions by which … I have to read it. “What are the causes and conditions by which conditioned consciousness is transformed into primordial consciousness?" When I first read it, I thought he meant the opposite. But no. Here we are, with our locus in our conditioned consciousness, feeling like we really are sentient beings, how can this conditioned consciousness transform into primordial consciousness? Well, with that translation it’s like, here we got a rope. No, here we got a snake. How can we get the snake to transform into a rope? Well, you can’t because … you can’t. Right? Because there is no snake. Right? How can we shift the perspective? It’s really hard to find the English, isn’t it? But I think you’re getting the meaning. What are the causes and conditions? What can we do such that conditioned consciousness is transformed into primordial consciousness? Well, it doesn’t mean transform. It means how can we shift the perspective from being locked into the perspective of conditioned consciousness to shifting over to the perspective of primordial consciousness and seeing conditioned consciousness as nothing other than an effulgence of primordial consciousness.

[40:07] Words are really subtle and the translation can be improved. But what are the causes and conditions? “They are accurately knowing how thoughts of the phenomena of samsara and nirvana emerge — including the eight aggregates of conditioned consciousness” So that’s the six plus alaya-vijnana and klishtamanas, afflictive mentation. So, how is it these emerge? How do the eight aggregates of conditioned consciousness and sensory appearances, that which appears to the sensory consciousness, how do they emerge? That’s one, “…and realizing the manner in which they are naturally perfect as displays of the kayas …” dharmakaya, etc., “and facets of primordial consciousness in the nature of ultimate reality.” So, if you want something to do, that’s what you do. You need to accurately know that. “Then, from the time that you identify dharmakaya, pristine awareness that is present in the ground, your conditioned consciousness is transmuted into displays of primordial consciousness.” That’s what it seems like. It seems like they were just kind of yucky, poisonous, and so forth. They were never yucky, poisonous but now, phew! They’re no longer yucky and poisonous, right? It seems like they transformed, of course they didn’t do anything. The rope didn’t do something. You’ve just shifted your perspective. And now it seems like from your perspective, oh, they transformed into that. Oh, this the rope just press this … the rope … no, the snake just transformed into a rope. Wow, magical snake. Okay. “Then, regarding conditioned consciousness, by the illusory display of concepts of the self alone, primordial consciousness takes on the guise of conditioned consciousness,” Like the old man who forgot who he was, like the prince who got mesmerized by the spectacle, thought he was a vagabond.

[42:14] “Primordial consciousness takes on the guise of conditioned consciousness, like a pile of stones being mistaken for a man.” Or Chenrezig looking like a bald Tibetan whose English is not that great. “The transformation of this into primordial consciousness is like” recognizing the transformation of this into primordial consciousness, shifting your axis. So viewing reality from that perspective. “…is like recognizing a scarecrow for what it is, instead of seeing it as a man. In this way, the correct realization of the mode of being of conditioned consciousness, the correct realization of the mode of being of conditioned consciousness transforms it into primordial consciousness.” If you can find a better word, I really invite you. I’m not satisfied. Because without this whole commentary, it would be really misleading. Right? So you find a better word, let me know. We’ll probably have a third edition of this come out and we can fix it. “It is not that conditioned consciousness must vanish into absolute space.” That is, that it has to be deconstructed so that it’s not there at all. Absolute space is emptiness, shunyata. "It is not that conditioned consciousness must vanish into absolute space and primordial consciousness must arise from somewhere else. Instead, know that it just seems that way because of the functions of self-grasping and identitylessness.” Of the pairing of reification and then the absence of reification. “Conditioned…” and now we conclude, but I have to give you more today since I won’t be in this afternoon. So this should keep you busy for a day, yah?

[44:10] “Conditioned consciousness is what makes the first moment of knowledge emerge in the aspect of the object,” The first moment of knowledge or the first moment of knowing probably would be better. “Conditioned consciousness, is what makes the first moment of knowing emerge in the aspect of the object, just as various images of planets and stars emerge in the ocean. What arises is closely held by conceptual consciousness;” ‘Closely held’ whenever you see that means you’re identifying the cognitive fusion. The identification with whatever arises is closely held by conceptual consciousness. That’s the European colonizer.”… it is bound by reification and you thereby become deluded.” So if you want to know: What’s the origin of samsara? How did this all begin? He just told you, but it’s not in the past, it’s not 13 point billion, some 13 billion years ago. It’s every moment. That’s when samsara begins. Because we don’t actually have any history as sentient beings. We don’t really have any history of sentient beings. The notion that we do is an illusion concocted by deluded mind that reifies time, reifies itself, and then wonders what’s my history. Right. View yourself from the perspective of rigpa and you were never a sentient being, you are not now a sentient being and you never will be. So you have no history of being a sentient being or how you first became a sentient being. Any more than the rope has a history.

[45:53] Tell me when did you first become a snake? Last sentence. I’ll read that again. “What arises is closely held by conceptual consciousness; it is bound by reification, and then you thereby become deluded. Knowledge of the reasons for this brings you to primordial consciousness.” So now many of you are familiar with the Four Reliances. That fills out the last one, I think, quite royally. So my privilege really is to pass it on. That’s all I did. I can read well, so that’s good. Olaso. So time for great equanimity.

[46:52] I don’t want to forget this later, a very minor point. Since, you know, the afternoon’s schedule is a bit shifted. If I could, I think the first one, Michelle? Where’s Michelle? Michelle, you come in first, don’t you? Good. So Michelle at 1.15 I said, and then Beatta, we’d just like to switch if you can come in. She comes in 1.15. You come in at 1.35. [Michelle replies]. Yo, I wanted to shift between you and Paolo. You already did that. Something’s happening [here]. What it is ain’t exactly clear. [Sings]. Stop children what’s that sound, everyone look what’s going down Yes, I am a hippie if you had any doubt about it. [Sings].

[47:36] [Bell rings]. [Meditation in session].

[47:59] With refuge in bodhichitta, settle your body, speech, and mind in a state of equilibrium. The great balance.

[48:54] And let your awareness like a gymnast come to rest in stillness in the present moment hovering between the two imaginary extremes of the future that has not yet come and the past that is no longer. [Pause]. Rest in the immediacy of the present moment. Which never lasts long enough to grasp. [Pause]. Still and clear. Not leaning over into dukkha or into hedonia. Resting there on the zero point, neither positive nor negative.

[50:56] As Karme Chagme advised us yesterday so bluntly, be quiet. Be still and just rest, sustaining the flow of mindfulness. [Pause]. And from this perspective, from the perspective of this brightly shining mind, pose the question: why couldn’t all sentient beings abide in equanimity? Free of attachment to the near and aversion to the far.

[52:21] And since we’re speaking now from the view, from the Dzogchen view, let’s interpret the near as what is so obvious, so imminent in our face: samsara, suffering, appearances, dualistic grasping, attachment to samsara. Why couldn’t all sentient beings be free of attachment to that which is near, that which is familiar, familiar sense of identity, appearances, the object, the world, and aversion to the, that which is far. There is a resistance to the unknown. It’s scary. It seems like it might be annihilation. [Pause]. Beyond. Alien. Other. [Pause]. Or we can switch it right around from the perspective of rigpa, it’s nirvana that is near. An intense, powerful temptation to cling to and abide in nirvana, primordial peace, stillness, and an aversion to the chaos, the noise, the busy-ness, the activities, the comings and goings of samsara. [Pause]. Such an enormous temptation, the final temptation to turn your back on the world of samsara and retreat into the glorious solitude of nirvana. But these are all the extremes from the perspective of rigpa, which views all of reality as samsara and nirvana as being of equal purity. Why couldn’t all sentient beings abide in even mindedness, balance, equilibrium, free of attachment to the near and aversion to the far.

[55:42] And when you see that we’ve never really been sentient beings. There was no time when we became, we are not now, we will never become. And perhaps that answers the question. There is no good reason. No good reason for identifying the rope as a snake. No good reason why we cannot realize who we really are and thereby find perfect balance. So, with this realization, arouse the aspiration, if you will, maybe it be so. May we all abide in such equanimity, free of attachment to the near and aversion to the far.

[57:24] And from this perspective, the view of the great perfection, the view of yourself in the center of your mandala, viewing all sentient beings of the six realms all round about you. This awareness of yours, this awareness is the all creating sovereign, that which creates the whole of samsara and nirvana. So it’s quite right that you take responsibility for being in the center. And from this perspective, arouse, if you will, the aspiration, but then beyond the aspiration do the resolve, the pledge: I shall bring all sentient beings to such equanimity.

[58:53] And then as we move freely back and forth between two valid ways of viewing reality, the perspective of ourselves as being sentient beings is not devoid of truth. The perspective of ourselves as being buddha is the deepest truth. Moving freely back and forth. Shifting our perspective on the one truth, the relative and the ultimate perspectives.

[59:38] From that oscillation, we see the need to receive blessing that we can manifestly carry through with this resolve to its culmination. In Tibetan [59:55 Tibetan phrase] May the gurus and the deities bless me to enable me to do so. And as we’ve done for the preceding three greats, with each inhalation, visualizing yourself in your pure form, it may if you wish be archetypal, imagining yourself in the form of Vajrayogini or Avalokiteshvara. A yidam of your choice. That’s why it’s called chosen deity. Or you may if you wish, if you prefer, visualize yourself in your ordinary form, but empty, empty appearances, hollow, translucent, radiant, glowing, pure appearances view. And from that vantage point, put the nucleus of light at your heart with each in-breath, imagine drawing in the light of all the enlightened ones, converging in upon your body. With every out-breath, breathe out the light of equanimity, breathe out the light of the one taste of samsara and nirvana. With every out-breath, imagine bringing each sentient being to this sublime vision of the original purity of all of samsara and nirvana equally, bringing each one to perfect awakening. Let’s continue practicing for a while in silence.

[1:11:00] Release all movements, rest in primordial stillness.

[1:11:36] [Bell rings]. [Meditation session ends].

[1:12:16] So I’ve rather mentioned in the past, that is insofar as you shift, shift perspective, from the single-minded absolute focus on the pursuit of hedonia and more generally the eight mundane concerns to the focus on eudaimonia, the prioritization of eudaimonia, not the pursuit of it but the cultivating of it. The more you do that, it’s not binary. It’s not you’re good or bad. It’s a completely smooth spectrum. From some people, I think, who do a pretty good approximation of absolute fixation on hedonia. Some people are doing a pretty good job of that. And there are others, like those represented behind me who do a spectacular job of absolute samadhi, on the cultivation of eudaimonia for themselves and others, right. And then there’s all the rest of us in between. You know. Really it’s quite clear, nobody listening by podcast, or anybody here would be in really fantastic samadhi in hedonia. Otherwise, you have no use for anything I’m saying. [Laughs]. Or being here. And for heaven’s sakes, you know, watching your breath for six hours a day. Like what a waste of time. That’s not going to get you more money or power or fame. It’s going to be useless. So it’s a smooth spectrum. And bodhicitta of course is the culmination of the aspiration there, but I’ve mentioned many times that the more that you reset your navigation charts, that you move from self-centered aspirations to the aspiration of bodhichitta, then, or simply, you don’t have to be a great sage. So this is actually very important. You don’t have to be a great bodhisattva. You don’t have to be some noble being. You don’t have to be a mahasattva. You can be as ordinary as I still am. But I certainly was when I was 20. I was a bright college kid. That’s what I can say. Really.

[1:14:23] If you knew me back then you would agree with me. I was bright, pretty smart college kid who got really sick and tired of the whole system. That’s it. You know, that’s what I got. I just laid my cards on the table. That’s it. There was really it’s it. But I did have this aspiration. You know, to dharma, when I was out there on my hitchhiking ride from Bergen to Oslo, you know. I look back and boy, there’s just nothing special there at all. Nothing, no, just it was authentic. That’s all. And then out of the blue then dharmadhatu produced the buddhist monk who picked me up in his van VW, you know. Reality rose up to meet me, right. I mean, like, hello, you’re not alone here, you have some help. If you’re looking for help, just get your motivation straight and watch what happens next. I go down to Güttingen I need to study ecology and philosophy. They had no ecology. Philosophy was barren, from my perspective. But there was a Tibetan lama who had just recently been appointed by the Dalai Lama. I became his only student. Shall I tell you the rest of my story? It just kind of like, keeps on happening. But I want to emphasize, please take me seriously, I’m not bullshitting you. Really ordinary. Nothing extraordinarily, a big tulku business, nothing like that at all. But sincere. That’s all. That’s all. Okay. But just time and time again, a rough haul, three types hepatitis, and blah, blah, blah, blah, not easy. But in all the important aspects eudaimonically just day after day, year after year, right to the present day, today, I get to go to university of Pisa. Reality rising up, okay.

[1:16:10] So this is why Atisha says there in the seven-point mind training, that ‘be always of good cheer.’ If you’re really practising, if you’re really immersing yourself in transmuting, or taking onto the path, all felicity, which is not that easy, because we tend to fixate on. Fixate. We just want more of it. And taking onto the path adversity, and we don’t want to, we just want it to go away. But if we mature as dharma practitioners, and really get into the flow, for example, the seven-point mind training, and he says, ‘always be of good cheer.’ From the perspective of yourself in the center of your mandala, whatever arises welcome it. Welcome it also, in the sense that maybe it’s a challenge to do something very constructive, to bring about meaningful change in the world. Because bear in mind as you look in all directions around you, it’s just an ocean of motherly sentient beings, and they’re floundering in an ocean of suffering. So this is not an invitation to apathy. Not when there’s so much suffering, which is as real as real can possibly be for those who are experiencing it. Talk about dharmadhatu, pristine awareness, and so forth. The words do not compute, they have no referent, as far as most sentient beings are concerned. Talk about suffering, everybody relates to that, everybody knows what you’re talking about. You know, just find the translation, there’s a word for it. Any language. I’ll bet you there’s no language that doesn’t have a word like pain, suffering, grief, misery, and so forth. I bet they’ve all got them. And if you could speak crickettese?, and dog, doggese and cat, cattese, and so forth, they’ve got their own, you know, however, they can certainly know, they know what you’re talking about. All sentient beings, right? So I’ve mentioned that that was all repetition. So pardon me, I’ve just wasted your time.

[1:17:52] Reality rising up to meet us, step by step, day by day. But for that to happen, and here’s the crucial point of equanimity, I’m weaving, is, as we wish for reality to rise up to meet us, so that we continue on our way, you know, on the path, we need to rise up to meet reality. It’s reciprocal. It’s not just yeah I cultivated bodhichitta. So now, now what? It’s from moment to moment, as we wish for reality to rise up to meet us. From day to day, moment to moment, year to year, right. Lifetime to lifetime. For that to occur and not simply to be experiencing the results of previous karma, which is a great big mindless machine. There’s no compassion in karma. If you do something really rotten, what comes back will be really rotten. Karma is not friendly. It’s not user friendly. It’s just, it’s like the laws of nature. It’s like, it’s just, it is … it is a law of nature. If you pour DDT into the water system, don’t expect the birds to flourish. Don’t expect you to flourish over the long term. What goes around comes around and it’s heartless, it’s merciless. There’s no compassion in the laws of karma. There’s no compassion in the laws of physics, chemistry, or biology. It’s just what happens. What happens from that samsaric perspective. And now shift the perspective on the same reality, except the snake and the rope are not the same. Well, yes, they are. No, they’re not. Yes, well, yes, no, they …yes, they are. No, they aren’t. So it’s all a matter of shifting perspective, right. So how then? Very practically speaking, this has to be practical to have a strategy and not just cool words. How can we rise up to meet reality? It’s a dance. It’s a reciprocity there. How can we do that? What’s the strategy? What’s the method? I can tell you. Equanimity.

[1:19:58] Insofar as you can to your best approximation, rest in the view. The view of Dzogchen. That whatever is arising to you from moment to moment, day and night, dreaming state, waking state, at all times, it’s all flowing in upon you with every moment. The blessings of all the buddhas, reality is rising to meet you at all times. It doesn’t stop when you get bad, when you get neurotic, and so forth. Reality. Blessings of the Buddha are relentless. Right? They’re infinite and they’re relentless, they never stop, they never pause, they never get exhausted. We do. But the blessings of the Buddha or simply call it reality, dharmadhatu, is always arising. So if you want something really practical, have to keep you busy for the rest of the day. Whenever anything happens, I just said something big. From the center of your mandala, and for you, now the wording is very important, if you see a … like, I was walking down the street or the road there on my daily walk, and I saw a tall fellow just standing there. And I might rescue it . And he was watching a snake. He was watching. I think, my perception was he was watching the snake to see that a car wouldn’t drive over it. Because I think the snake may have been injured, it wasn’t moving much. So maybe it’s been a bit injured. Right. So he was watching to make sure it wouldn’t be hurt, more that was my perception. I don’t know it was, that’s what’s my perception, right? So there are times for spontaneous activity. Right. For the sake of others, for sure. And there’s times for spontaneous activity for yourself. I said, you know, when stuff comes up, if there’s a hedonic way to deal with it. If you have a cold, don’t be shy about taking cold medication. Don’t just say I’m sure the Buddha will just drop something in my hand.

[1:21:58] Buy some cold medicine, you know. But the point here, I want to make something really practical. But the wording is so important. From your perspective in the center of your mandala, with respect to your own self-interest, your own well-being, whatever comes up, be loose, don’t reify. And how do you know? I can tell you. You’re ready? Oral transmission. Pith instruction. Oh, no. [Laughter]. Crap. Oow, that’s American. Oow. We can do a facial expression. [Laughter]. You don’t have the view. Whenever that comes up mentally, verbally, or aww, that’s when you’ve lost the view. You’ve now seen the bad as inherently bad. And you, oh, no, and the Buddha was saying, 'Oh, we just dished you a pretty…, Oh no, from a hedonic perspective. Oh no. And the buddhas have to say, okay, wait till you are back on track. Be like the Dalai … be like Yeshe Dhonden, the Tibetan Dalai Lama’s physician for 18 years. Looking out on the landscape, he said, I can transform everything into medicine. Anything you give to me, from the natural habitat, natural landscape, give me anything I’ll turn it into medicine, right. So lojong is Dzogchen for kindergarteners. Master lojong, good old fashioned Sutrayana, master lojong, 7-point mind training, eight versus of the mind, 7-point mind training is hard to match. Master that one, oh, you’re ready to graduate into Dzogchen territory.

[1:24:08] But watch that. Whenever you grimace, whenever you start to complain about yourself for yourself. 5000 Syrian refugees living in these refugee camps desperately trying to get across the Mediterranean, as you know, to Greece, to Italy, to anywhere they can possibly get to, just to have a bit of safety and a bit of peace. What we all want, right? That’s not okay for them. That’s not okay for them. But it’s good that we know about it. Their travails. That’s good for us. That’s part of our good, our great perfection to know of the suffering of the others because it opens the heart. Oh yah.

[1:24:53] So that’ll keep you busy for 24 hours. Good. Enjoy your day.

Transcribed by Shirley Soh.

Revised by Kriss Sprinkle

Final edition by Sueli Martinez

Transcript formatted and posted on the website of the course by Rafael C. 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.