89 What Do You Want? Be Content or Become a Siddha?

89 - Spring 2016 - What Do You Want? Be Content or Become a Siddha?

Olaso

[0:08] Let’s go directly to the parable for the day. Quite an interesting one. And by the way, just on the translation note, the term that I wasn’t happy with in the translation transforms into, was thinking about that, and in fact, I had thought of a better translation and it hasn’t made its way into print yet. But it can’t be unveiled because it’s just not what the word means in Tibetan, but shifts to, shifts to. That would work. That would be closer. Maybe there’s something better but how would you go from conditioned consciousness … what are the causes and conditions that enable you to make the shift from conditioned consciousness to primordial consciousness? That would be very close. Yeah.

[0:58] Olaso. So let’s go to the next parable. This is on page 93 of Naked Awareness. “Once in the land of India, there was a king who is [was] devoted to Dharma but had a son who was uninterested in spiritual practice. The King summoned an illusionist, and commanded him: ‘Create an illusion as a means of causing this son of mine to be drawn to dharma.’ The illusionists asked: ‘What is the prince attracted to?’ ‘He likes horses,’ the King said. The next morning the illusionist brought a fine horse adorned with a saddle and bridle and asked the prince whether he wanted to buy it. The prince admired it and replied: ‘I do want to buy it. But first, I shall put it through its paces,’ and he mounted the horse. Not being able to control the horse, he rode far away over hill and dale. After coming to a desert region on the shore of the ocean, the horse threw him and then swam into the ocean. There was no way the prince could get back to his homeland, and there was not a single person nearby. When he had fallen into fear and dejection, an old wild haired woman came along and told him that this region was totally uninhabited. ‘Where did you originally come from?’ she asked. And he told her his story. ‘This is the shore of the ocean, and there are no dwellings or inhabitants here,’ she told him. But I have a daughter.” [Laughter].

[2:34] Obviously, there’s no other men around right? I’ve got a daughter. “Would you like to stay with her? Reflecting that even though he was a prince, he had no other option." [Laughter]. Starve to death or go with a daughter, you know. “He moved in with the daughter. After quite some time, the couple had a son and daughter, and eventually the old woman died. And then when they were carrying her corpse into the hills, his wife became overcome with misery at her mother’s death, and leapt into the river.” Committed suicide. “While trying to save her mother, the little daughter also fell into the river, and was swept away by the current. While the prince was thinking how to save her, his young son was carried away by a wolf while he was sleeping. Overcome with grief, the prince wept, beat his chest and pulled out his hair, and in time, he grew old and his hair turned completely white. Then the illusionist dispersed the illusion. The prince then summoned his ministers from every corner of his domain and told them he had an account to tell of his felicities and adversities.” He wanted to tell the whole story about how the horse had taken him away and everything that happened. “His ministers retorted: ‘No felicities or adversities have happened to you. You haven’t moved from your throne! The food that was put before you hasn’t even got cold.’ Despite their response, the prince wouldn’t listen, and insisted on telling his story in detail. When he’d finished, he said, there’s no point in any of this. And he relinquished his kingdom and entered the gateway of dharma.” That’s not maybe quite what his father had in mind. [Laughter].

[4:22] But that’s what happened. Renunciation came. “In this parable, while the prince did not move from his throne, the illusionist confused him by the power of mantras and physical substances, and for a long time he experienced suffering. Likewise, while the ultimate reality of our minds is the Sugatagarbha,” which is one more synonym for our buddha nature, “which does not move away from the nature of the dharmakaya, we fail to recognize our own nature, and by the power of various sins and obscurations we accumulate, we wander in samsara and experience suffering for a long time. Just as the prince did not move from his throne, even while he was entranced by the illusion, even while we wander in the cycle of existence, or just as the prince did not move from his throne, even while he was entranced by the illusion, even while we wander in samsara, the causal Sugatagarbha does not enter into evil.” So that’s really one of my favorite[s]. And one, just one point is that it gets very clear, so it doesn’t need any detailed commentary. But one thing that really leaps out at me that I find very interesting is the illusion, the illusion dispersed. And then the prince was back in the throne room and wanting to tell everything about what happened to him. But clearly, and, of course, nothing had happened to him because he was, he was all caught up in his mind, everybody … the food had just been served, the illusion was produced, he had that whole experience of getting old. The illusion was dispersed and the food hadn’t gotten cold. He’s like, maybe, away for a second. And he wanted to tell the story. What is clear from this is he has, although he had a very clear recollection, when the illusion came to an end, and he felt this complete disillusionment, he clearly has no recollection of when the illusion began. Because he was still convinced it really happened. It really happened. Everybody around him in that pureland knew that none of that had happened. But he had no recollection of the first moment of falling into the illusion. Right.

[6:43] So on that note, let’s draw some parallels. Remember, [governa??] thinking, like thinking about what’s the origin of mind, you remember that? Very useful. [governa??] Thinking. And then there’s vikalpa. That’s ordinary rumination, blah, blah, blah, blah, obsessive compulsive, obsessive compulsive ideation disorder. Excessive, compulsive, delusional. But then also, I think we’ve all experienced that. That’s vikalpa. Remember, remember [palicopater??], remember that, [palicopeta??]. And that’s when it’s kind of like a hyper delusional rumination, where we’re sitting, and then we just … some thought comes up, carries us way. And, if … ah, I’ll go ahead and make up one, okay. If a really attractive man should meet my wife, and she’s a very beautiful woman, she might really get bored of me and I’m away so long. And you know, it’s so boring. I meditate all the time. [Laughter]. She’ld probably … she … he’s really handsome and intelligent. She could probably go for him, and she’ld probably leave me. And she would probably start a new family, they might adopt children. And I’ld[would] be left all alone. And, and you know, and I could do that whole story, and I can start getting really pissed off at her. [Laughter]. I’m so good to you, you know, you’re unfaithful. And you know, really, that’s not the way to treat me. I just feel … [laughter] …like, what, what, what? Alright, that’s a silly example. But I think we’ve all had experiences like that. Or maybe that silly, or even sillier? Well, while we’re caught up in it, we’re taking it very seriously. Right?

[8:32] When that type of daydream occurs, can you remember the first moment? Can you remember the first moment when you quite literally lost your mind? When was the first moment when you slipped into that? And were caught up in it? When you’re sitting watching your breath, for example, and then after some time, you aren’t any longer, [laughs], and you retrospectively note, oh, I’ve been caught up in mind wandering. Can you remember the very first instant when you lost your mind? Right. Either in this exaggerated one, my wife going off and starting a new family, and so forth, or just a little, you know, 10 second jaunt? Can you remember the first instant? And I would suggest you can’t. Because if you could, that first instant would have been lucid, which means you would not have been in mind wandering. You would have just had a thought come up. Hello thought. Goodbye thought. You would have been lucid, you would have recognized the thought as a thought. In which case, you wouldn’t have headed out on your little delusional jaunt because it needed ignorance. It needed unawareness in that first instant for the delusion of falling into that rumination to occur. If you’d had awareness in that first instant, then you know I’m sitting quietly and the thought comes, maybe my wife will meet a very attractive younger man. Hello, goodbye. It’s just a thought. It’s just a thought. So lucid, it comes. Extinguish itself. Not a ripple, right? But if I’m unconscious of that, then I slip into it, I mistake the thought for reality, my attention goes to this very, very attractive younger man. [Laughter]. What would he look like? His name is Roberto by the way. [Laughter].

[10:35] My wife and I have had a joke about this for a long time. Hers is Roberta and mine is Helga. [Laughter]. She’s a 300 pound Swedish masseuse. [Laughter]. And she just gives me the greatest massage. [Laughter]. It’s kind of going back and forth. [Laughs]. It’s a lot of fun actually. So if you can’t remember that first moment in which you were unaware, that first moment, you can’t remember the first moment when you fell into the delusion of mistaking a mental event for reality, you know, an Roberto or whatever. Well, then, if you were unaware in the first moment, then you can never remember what you were unaware of in the first place. Now, that’s just a general statement. If you’re unaware of something, you can’t remember it later. I think it’s a priori right. Now, that’s for every wandering thought, every [kabeta??]. You can’t remember the first moment because you were unaware of the first moment of making that mistake. Because if you’d been aware of making that mistake, you wouldn’t have made the mistake. It would have been like having just a thought coming up and so forth. Now remember, a statement by Verner Heisenberg, but it’s also corroborated by Dharmakirti. When we determine something that … I’ll just go straight down to Dharmakirti. The definition of something that exists is something that is fit to be known. You can say something exists if it’s fit to be known. It’s an interesting and very sophisticated definition. Because it’s … there I heard maybe there may be another planet. I just read that recently in our solar system. There may be. I don’t quite know yet. It’s on that on that edge. But it’s something that is, but it could be known, we don’t know it yet.

[12:42] But of course, you know, they discovered Pluto, just some time decades ago and so forth. So it doesn’t … it does not at all imply that the only things that exist are the ones that are known. But if something is not even fit to be known, then you cannot … there’s no reason to speak of it as existent. Right if it can’t, well, this is Verner Heisenberg exactly. Dharmakirti beat him by 1500 years. Dharmakirti stated that, no, [snaps his finger], Heisenberg stated that was what Dharmakirti said. And Heisenberg said, Let us not attribute reality or existence to that which is unknowable in principle. Let’s not tribute existence to that which is unknowable in principle. And what he’s referring to specifically is when you’re about to make a quantum measurement, prior to the measurement, what’s really there already, unknowable in principle, just as unknowable in principle, because you have to make a measurement, but then as you make a measurement, what you measure arises relative to your system of measurement, not from God’s perspective or Buddha’s perspective, relative to your system of measurement, in response to your questions that you pose. Well, let’s follow the implications. If we’re going to take this seriously. The first moment of your [pate Capita??] is unknowable in principle.

[14:14] Therefore, it doesn’t exist, right? It’s unknowable in principle, that first moment of delusion, unknowable in principle, because you didn’t know it in the first place, you can’t remember what you never knew. You didn’t know when it happened. And since you didn’t know when it happened, you can’t remember what you didn’t know in the first place. Okay, now, let’s take another example.

[14:36] We’ve all had dreams, many dreams. Some of us, many of us, I’m sure here have had dreams, in which you’re non-lucid, non-lucid, non-lucid, and then it becomes lucid. You remember that moment? Not clear. I mean, none of you’ve had this when you become lucid like, Oh, that’s when I became lucid. Or you’ve had a non-lucid, non-lucid dream and then you wake up from the dream. You can remember the end of the dream what was the last frame. What was the last picture? You remember that that’s easy. Now for a non-lucid dream. Who of you can remember the first moment of your non-lucid dream? When did it begin? What did you see? Who were you? Where were you? What was that first moment of the non-lucid dream? And, of course, if you recognize that first moment of the dream, then you’d know it’s a dream. But you didn’t. You were unaware of it being a dream. Therefore, you mistook it for something it wasn’t. And you can’t remember that because you didn’t know it in the first place. So a non-lucid dream, the beginning of a non-lucid dream, is something you don’t know. Didn’t know when it occurred. Don’t remember later, and it’s unknowable in principle, a non-lucid dream what? is now beginningless? It doesn’t mean it went on for eternity. It’s just that … it doesn’t have any knowable beginning. The prince in the story, when was the first moment when he saw the horse? When was the first moment that he slipped into the illusion? He can’t remember it. Can’t remember. The first moment, the first moment of being bewitched by the dream. Can’t remember it. He can’t remember when he was, he was first in that … around the dining table? And then the first moment of seeing the horse? He can’t remember that? Because remembering, no, no, no, I … it really happened. It really happened. So the first moment unknowable in principle, there was no beginning. Now you see where this is going.

[16:49] How do we ever get into this mess of samsara? When did it start? At the Big Bang, or the formation of life on our planet? Or when I was conceived, when our parents conceived me? When did it happen? I can’t remember. And that’s because if there was a first moment I wasn’t there, and you can’t remember what you weren’t aware of in the first place. So it’s an interesting perspective on a problem of logic that began to nag me for a long time and no longer does. And that is when we read throughout buddhist tradition, samsara has no beginning. No beginning. It does have an end, like the end of a non … end of a non-lucid dream, the end of a wandering thought, the end of an illusion. Has an end, possibly, certainly. Certainly it has the possibility of an end. But no beginning, no beginning no beginning, right. And even the Buddha couldn’t identify his first life. He couldn’t. Even the Buddha couldn’t. Not when he was a sentient being and not when he became enlightened later either. But what’s the first moment of samsara? Avidya. Unawareness. What’s the second moment of samsara? Moha. Getting it wrong. You can’t remember something you never knew in the first place. And if it’s unknowable in principle, it doesn’t exist. That is, you cannot attribute existence to it. It neither exists nor not exists. Because you don’t know with certainty that it didn’t, or that it does. It’s undefined. So what concerned me about this whole assertion, which is you know everywhere to be found, is if we take that literally, like, you know, just good old fashioned, linear, rigid, black white thinking, if I’ve literally had in my samsara in my past lives, I’ve literally had an infinite number of past lives. Infinite. One over, you know, infinite. This means I’ve had an infinite number of opportunities to meet spiritual teachers.

[19:10] And people of the calibre of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. And Gyatrul Rinpoche, and … I’ve had an infinite, infinite number of opportunities, even if only one out of a trillion lifetimes. The rest of them I’m just wandering around like a dog, a cat, a hell being, and so forth. But one out of a trillion lifetimes, I’m actually a human being and, well, if it’s, if I’ve had an infinite number and one out of a trillion rebirths, I meet genuine spiritual teachers, then one out of a trillion within an infinity is an infinity. Right? This means I’ve had an infinite number of chances already to reach the path and here I am. So what are my chances now, of now that I found such teachers, a lineage and so forth. What are my chances now? One over infinity. That looks kind of bleak.[Laughs]. At the same time, the notion that okay, well, okay, you’ve just had an awful lot of left … previous lifetimes, you’ve had a trillion and thirteen. Okay, but then what happened in the first one? And who did it? And what happened before that. Was I Samantabhadra for eternity, and then just got bored. Gee, this is kinda weird just hanging out in immutable bliss all the time. Why don’t I become stupid, I’ll become Alan. [Laughs]. Doesn’t make any sense. So the notion of positing a beginning has no foundation in buddhism, but it doesn’t make any sense, the notion that I’ve had an infinite number of chances to encounter dharma, which means I have, and got nowhere. At least, where I am now. [laughs] That doesn’t really make any sense either to me.

[21:06] So maybe it’s simply beyond the scope of the intellect and give it a rest. And then come back to the present moment. And this leads us to the meditation for today on the basis of the four greats. Of course, yesterday being the great equanimity, then coming to this extraordinary resolve. And that is: I shall liberate all sentient beings. To say it’s extraordinary is just way too small an adjective. It’s like, miniscule, it’s like a peanut of an adjective. Considering what you know this resolve is about, I shall liberate from the center of my mandala, I shall liberate all sentient beings from suffering. Irreversibly, and bring each one to a state of immutable and endless well-being. Well, ok that is certainly extraordinary … this is why I was so daunted by bodhichitta when I first was introduced by Geshe Ngawang Dhargyey Ah, really I was given extensive teachings. But there it is, but of course, if we … oh, you know, give us something more than lip service. Then we come to the same issue of strategy. So okay, that was a big, big promise you made. You know, and I gave examples earlier, I’ll give Mary Kay a billion dollars. Oh, good. How are you going to do it? Do you have a billion dollars? No. You have a strategy for getting a billion dollars? Well, if you don’t, then what do you make a promise for. That’s silly. It’s, nothing. Means nothing at all. So if you’re going to make that, and, you know, actually, you take it seriously, then you got to have a strategy, you’ve got to have a clear vision of the path. And it’s not only in general, like, well, there’s the path of accumulation and the path of preparation. And there’s the first bhumi. It’s like, no, actually, on May 20 2016, what’s your strategy for moving from here to there? Today, and over the next week, and over the coming months, and hopefully years and so forth of your life, and beyond this life? But really, for the time being focusing on this life? What’s your strategy? How are you going to make good on that resolve? Or was that just an airy fairy, you know, just making noise? An empty promise.

[23:16] So what’s the strategy? What do you plan to do with the rest of your life and beyond? But just for starters, the rest of your life. And it comes back to the … you know, the early early teachings on lamrim. I have really been reflecting long and hard in a very personal way, not this abstract list of 18, 18 qualities, ten endowments and 8 leisures, but making it very personal in this life, in the year 2016. What is the value, and literally what is the value of the path that we’ve encountered, for example, in this retreat, and you should look at the material. Its Panche Rinpoche, its Karma Chagme, it’s Padmasambhava. That path made so clear by them. We’ve encountered this path. We know that they’re qualified teachers to guide us along the path. At least, it’s quite evident to me. We know that we have leisure, we know we have opportunity. And what value is that? If you put a price tag on how much would that be, how much is that worth? In the big picture, especially. So the value, what’s the value of this opportunity to actually set out on a path of irreversibility, and then how rare is it? How rare is it? To encounter such a dharma, encounter such teachers, spiritual friends, and so forth? How rare? You know, 7 billion human beings, let alone animals and all the other creatures in the universe. But as a human being on this planet, how rare is that, to encounter that? So you know, just good to like that wish fulfilling jewel as my old friend [Tony ?] said, you know. It’s like one of those ancient … in the ancient lore, a mariner setting out to the ocean, and just sailing and you know, looking for a wish-fulfilling gem, and sailing and sailing, sailing. And then finally, after years of searching in the depths of the ocean, maybe, you know, maybe casting his net hoping to bring up a wish fulfilling jewel. And finally he brings one up.

[25:22] And he recognizes it, gosh, 10, 20, 30 years of looking, I found a wish-fulfilling jewel and he looks at it, he recognizes it, it’s the real thing. I can direct any wish and it will come true. This is fantastic. And then looking and clearly recognizing it, throws it over his shoulder and says, I hope I find another one. That will be pretty silly. To think, well, yeah, this was really great, we found a path. But gosh, I’m so busy, I have a lot of things to do. So many demands on my time and I have to get this done and this done. And one of these days, I’d like to get into retreat, if it turns out, maybe not. But I’d like to. There’ll be a lot of problems with my family if I did that. I wouldn’t want that. But you know, one of these days, I really … probably not in this lifetime. But maybe in a future lifetime. I’ll just throw away this one [laughter] and hope for the best in the future. So what’s the strategy? So I went out into the jungle yesterday, University of Pisa. I had two very gracious hosts. One is a professor of information engineering. And that’s basically computer science, information technology. The other one, very gracious, very open. And then the other one who I got to know a little bit, I never met him before, was a neuroscientist. And so and I was asked to give a rather bold presentation. I gave him the choice. I can give a very mild one. I know how to be meek and mild if people want. I’m not very good at it, [laughter] but I know how to do it. [Laughter]. And they say go for gold. No, go for the bold and go for the bold.

[27:04] So I gave my talk a radically empirical approach to the study of consciousness and showed how scientific materialism has basically thwarted any real progress in understanding the nature of consciousness. It doesn’t even … it hasn’t even come up with a viable scientific theory of the relationship between mind and brain. All the ever circular arguments and lack of empirical evidence. They’ve kept us completely in the dark, regarding the actual nature of consciousness, right. And then I went on to suggest well that outside of our culture, Eurocentric culture, the Indians long before the Buddha developed a particular type of technology called samadhi. They’ve developed it, we haven’t. But they’ve excelled at for 4000 years. And the Buddhist tradition is one of those that is, you know, made tremendous strides there. And on the basis of this, they’ve used this introspective awareness, which had been completely discarded in modern academic psychology and neuroscience. They’ve used this and refined it to extraordinary degrees, so that you can deeply explore your own psyche, the coarse level, and that could have many pragmatic values of finding what are the true causes of suffering and happiness in your mind stream. They’ve penetrated through that to the substrate consciousness, and found this to be the actual repository of memories, including from past lives. And this is a testable hypothesis. And then the great ones in multiple traditions have penetrated to that to a timeless non-local, a-temporal dimension of consciousness that’s right on the foundations of existence itself. [Laughter]. This was in about an hour and a half. And then I went in, went on to cite Andrei Linde, and John Wheeler, and Anton Zeilinger, showing that in the most cutting edge mainstream a brilliant physicist, creme de la creme, they’re coming up with very similar statements. Right. That consciousness may be really fundamental to the universe, that it boils down to information and not just matter or energy.

[28:56] And ended on the note that here in Tuscany, where we are, you know, in the land of the Renaissance, Leo … there was behind me a mural with Leonardo da Vinci and Galileo. And I said, this is the home of the Renaissance. This is the home of the scientific revolution, where better to have the first revolution in the mind sciences than in Tuscany. And where better to have a renaissance of contemplative inquiry than in Tuscany. And then I gave a specific project of having scientists, neuroscience psychologists, gathered together with contemplatives, have long term training, and lead 10, 20 people to achieve shamatha, all under controlled conditions, with scientific monitoring all the way through. And then if it showed that people having achieved shamatha had extraordinary memories of early childhood, which can all be monitored scientifically, then if they actually have alleged recall of past life memories, that too could be studied scientifically in a controlled experiment, and that might catalyze a scientific revolution.

[30:43] And then I said, ‘Thank you.’ [Laughter]. Right. We had a few witnesses and I’m not making this up. And had an interesting exchange about deep sleep with one of the neuroscientists, and they look forward to more conversation, I think it was very cordial. It was open, mutual interest, about, you know, what’s the brain doing in deep sleep and whether there is some subliminal level of consciousness or there’s no consciousness. He proposed that there’s no consciousness, zero, destroyed, demolished, in deep sleep. And I gave three reasons why I, as I respect, I respectfully disagree, here are my reasons, we had to cut it short, just because we could have dominated the whole rest of the time with his … interesting exchange. It was enjoyable. It was respectful. But that went for a little time. And then an elderly professor with a strong smell of alcohol on his breath, who was there as a substitute for somebody they really wanted, asked me about the viability of robots and artificial intelligence actually being conscious and having feelings. He seemed to be quite keen on that notion. And I demolished that notion. And I said, it’s pretty much science fiction. You know, it’s really good science fiction movies, Her, and Transcendence, and so forth. A lot of fun science fiction, but it’s just science fiction. And then he turned to my slides, all of my presentation, and said, ‘everything you said was science fiction.’ Yeah. And that kind of oh, woa, kind of threw me like, oh, you people are still alive. And then he went on to say that, over the last 4000 years, basically, he said, all the progress humanity’s made has been made by Europeans. That it’s all science, all the benefits we have of science, of technology, of medicine, all the progress has been made by Europeans. And what do you got to show for those 4000 years? What do you’ve got to show? Nothing? You’ve got science fiction, we have science, you have nothing; we have everything. And that was pretty much an end to the conversation. Correct? That’s a pretty good appraisal? So such people are there, they’re. And then so that kind of like, okay, I’ve heard this one before. Close minded, ethnocentric, ignorant, arrogance. Pretty much sums it up from my perspective. And then when I was leaving a very gracious young woman who was the administrator for the department asked me to sign a form because they gave me a little compensation for doing my song and dance, and, but she spoke when we’re away from everybody else. Because she works in that department. She said: ‘I’m so grateful to, for your words, and your comments on consciousness and so forth. Because I’ve had experiences that are very resonant with what you’re talking about. And now you’re showing me that I’m not crazy.’

[32:53] Clearly for her to say that the environment in which she was living was: ‘You’re crazy. Don’t talk about it. You’re a witch. Don’t talk about it, or we’ll ex-communicate you.’ One of the … one of the neuro, I think, it was the neuroscientist who said, if there’s a neuroscientist that agrees with you, that questions it, he will lose his job. Actually said that, right? Did you hear it? Oh, I did. You didn’t get it either. Oh, but you just were speaking across to me. When a neuroscientist accepts that, he’s going to lose his job. That’s what he said. And so I just looked at this. And he just, you know, I’ve encountered this a lot. I’ve lectured at Caltech. Oh, it was much worse there. There was nobody who had an open mind and so forth. But it really is an environment of fear. If you have any exceptional, I mean, it just struck me really strongly, the witch hunting craze, right at that time, the early 17th century, if a woman especially has some unusual ability, premonitions, healing abilities, any kind of psychic abilities at all. If you talk about it, you’re going to get burned at the stake. They’re going to be tortured to death, you know. Well, happily, they don’t do that. They just call you crazy. I was thinking of myself when I was 20, 21 when I was at University of California, Santa Barbara. And I just looked at my future that was laid out before me and I said, just, there’s nothing there. You know, the standard kind of 1950s style. Here’s the success track, and I knew I could do it. It was all laid out. And I looked at it and it’s just empty. What do you think would have happened if I had gone to a psychiatrist and said I’m looking at my whole life and I see nothing. It’s a barren wasteland. And I feel no enthusiasm. What would they have done to me?

[34:46] Antidepressants, drugs, there’s something seriously wrong with you, really, we’ll give you, well, we’re gonna give you drugs. Maybe I don’t know at least anti-depressant. Maybe anti-psychotic because you’re really out there. You know. What’s that? I was a witch. Right. When I was in Russia in 1985, we went to an underground peace delegation, I was a monk at the time, took off my robes. I was with Christians and Hindu and so forth, underground peace delegation to Soviet Union. Soviet Union. And so we showed up incognito, coming down from Finland on a train. And then it got to what was then Leningrad. And a little group of underground, literally it sounds like a James Bond with no guns, an underground group of Russian, Russian buddhists learned that I was coming. I wasn’t famous or anything, they just somehow found [out]. And so they met with me, one of them now is kind of the premier buddhist in the whole country, at least into academia, really good guy, very solid. But he was underground. And there was one guy from Mongolia, that was one Russian woman from Moscow, small group. But they had to be very secretive, because what they were doing meeting and you know, and they were translating buddhist texts into Russian. All illegal. It was an illegal organization. And one of them was a fellow named Constantine. Constantine. And he told me that well, ‘you know, some years ago, I let it be known that I believe in reincarnation. And the authorities learned that I believed that, and they immediately took me in as insane. And they put me in an insane asylum.’ Because he believed in reincarnation.' And so I hung out in an insane asylum. And then they found that, although I’m crazy, I’m harmless. And so instead of keeping me in the insane asylum, they gave me a lifelong stipend.' That you’re a harmless, crazy person. And so he said, ‘it worked out quite well for me.’ [Laughter].

[36:50] So it really, really struck me in conclusion that there are many scientists, many materialists, they just don’t believe in logic at all. Because I think what I gave was logical. I mean, it was just straight chop, chop, chop, logic. And then chop, chop, chop, asked for an open mind, let’s study something you care about, let’s study attention, let’s push it to the limit, and see what we see. And at least for this person with alcohol on his breath, it made no impression at all. Whereas he’s got all the technology. So look what we’ve done, look what we’ve done. You know, technology. Look at this. Agriculture and so forth. I reminded him that the 20th century was the most catastrophic century in history, in terms of environmental degradation, man’s inhumanity to man, wiping out of other species, the wars we waged, it was the worst and it was also the greatest history, greatest century in history for science, growth of knowledge and technology, and the worst for humanity. I mean, really, you know, the worst of times and the best of times, because I appreciate science. I think you all know that. But what we did in the 20th century was so unbelievably ghastly. In terms of impact on the environment, we all know about the Second World War, the First World War, the wiping out of species and so forth and said this, they’re using your science and technology to wipe out the civilization and wipe out the planet. Don’t you maybe want to nuance your statement a little bit, that we are the heroes, we are the heroes and no other civilization has anything at all. What he did wasn’t interested in that. So but we don’t really as buddhists, when we’re in that kind of setting, what do you say? Well, but we buddhists are really happy. [Laughs]. It doesn’t have a whole lot of clout. Well, we’ve got ecstasy and we’ve got psilocybin, and what do you got, you know. It’s kind of like we can do it with drugs, you do it with meditation, tomatoes, tomatoes, you know, they’re all brain states, after all. And it really struck me.

[38:46] His Holiness said years ago, maybe 10, 20 years ago, he was speaking to his fellow Tibetan monks in particular, you know, professionals, people devoting their whole life to dharma and he told them years ago, some of you should really accomplish shamatha and be able to display some siddhis. He told them years ago. Maybe somebody has done it, but they’re certainly not showing anything. And I haven’t heard about it. I haven’t heard anything about it. And now for years, I don’t know how many, exactly 5, 6, 7 years, His Holiness all over the world in Estonia, in Australia, in Tibetan settlement in India, in Washington DC, Australia, all over the world. He travels phenomenally. He’s been saying again and again and again. Hey, it’s really time, some of you should really practice and achieve shamatha. He’s been saying this very publicly. People listen to him. You know, he’s been saying that. So I rejoice in that. I don’t see anything happening. Maybe it’s happening and it’s invisible. I don’t see anything happening. People doing three year retreats, doing lamrim, teaching, writing, debating. I don’t see it happening. He’s been saying it again and again and again. And I don’t see it happening.

[40:10] And then I think, final point before I go to meditation, in, according to classic buddhist teachings, where these anomalous ones, the shravakas, the shravakas, are very straightforward, they want to find their own liberation, they follow the Buddha, they achieve liberation and get out. That’s simple, very linear, very straightforward. Bodhisattva path we’re quite familiar with it. And then those odd ones in between, they’re kind of like neither fish nor fowl. They’re not shravakas, but they’re not bodhisattvas, these pratyekabuddhas, and their resolve that what defines them as pratyekabuddhas, such as they’re following that path and then become pratyekabuddhas is their promise and widely thought it was important, I don’t really know. But their resolve for the pratyekabuddhas is they resolve to achieve their own individual liberation, because it’s not buddhahood, their own individual liberation as pratyekabuddha. In times when, in those eras of history, from one … from the time of one Buddha to the next. Well, the teachings of Maitreya, for example, he will not appear until the teachings of the Buddha Shakyamuni, the last Buddha, have completely vanished without trace. There’ll be no records, no nothing, the word buddhadharma doesn’t mean anything. It’ll just be an absolute dark age for dharma, for buddhadharma. Nothing, right. And then out of that zero, then Maitreya will appear, he’ll turn the wheel of dharma, engage in the 12 classical deeds of al Buddha, turn the wheel of dharma and the next cycle will begin. But this means and this is classic buddhism is that there are these long dark eras when there’s just no buddhadharma anywhere to be found. And pratyekabuddhas make the resolve that in the lifetime in which I achieve, come to the culmination of the path and achieve liberation, I resolve for that to occur in a time when there’s no buddhadharma. It’s absolutely barbaric, savage, Dark Age completely, and I’m going to achieve it on my own. In that lifetime. On my own. I will have no teacher because there won’t be any teachers.

[42:12] But when it’s the darkest of the dark, I will achieve liberation as a pratyekabuddha. But because the times will be so primitive, so dark, so degenerate, that if you should teach four noble truths, people just [makes a sound], just throw it out. What’s that? you know, blah, blah, blah. You know. You can’t get through to them with words, or with logic or reasoning or teachings, they’re not interested, just not interested. But you can make an impression, you can make some imprint. Sow some seed by manifesting siddhis. Use miraculous powers of siddhi, they’re not miraculous, but you know, use your siddhis based upon very deep samadhi and so forth. And demonstrate them to people. That’s not logic. And one of the the classic ones for the pratyekabuddhas, that apparently is very difficult to do. But they commonly cite … well, this is one of the siddhis. It’s really high tech siddhi. Because you have to, you have to hold in working memory more than one of the elements: earth water, fire. Here’s the siddhi. See how hard it would be for you. Okay, first of all, levitate. Stay there in midair. And now while holding that, let flame burst from the top of your body like a bonfire going, [makes sound], big, big bonfire from the top of your body, and from the bottom of your body have, let rain fall. Okay, so, all of that simultaneously. I tried that, it’s very hard. [Laughter]. I’m sorry, I didn’t want to get your expectations up but I failed completely, in fact, I’m … trying. No, it didn’t work, you know.

[43:56] But when people see that, according to buddhist lore and that is not just some Tibetan make-believe stuff, you know. If it’s make-believe, it’s right in the Pali Canon, you know. It’s right there in the core teaching. When … in these really primitive times when people you know these primitive people in the Dark Ages see that, they say, Whoa! What’s up, dude? How do you do that? You know. And then they can give them a little bit teaching, but they have to knock their block off first. They have to blow their minds first, to catch their attention, that maybe this person knows something they don’t. Because they’re so arrogant, so close-minded, so dogmatic, then unless you just hit them in the face with a wet fish. [Laugher]. Or better, levitate, let your body burst into fire and shower rain. They won’t listen to anything … they won’t even hear you. Right. You have to just blow them away, to catch their attention and arouse their interest. And then maybe you can sow a seed of dharma. You have to blow them away first. You’re putting all the things together, yeah. Atisha said, 'You can’t develop these paranormal abilities without shamatha. Therefore, strive in shamatha. Because with the shamatha, and with the paranormal abilities, you can develop on the basis of having achieving shamatha then you can accrue more merit, you can do greater benefit in one day than in 100 lifetimes. So, so what’s your strategy? What’s your values? What do you want to do with the rest of your life? Want to be an accountant? Or do you want to be a siddha? Do you want to do the plan you had yesterday? Or, would you like to do everything you possibly can to becoming a siddha and start a revolution and start a renaissance for the benefit of all sentient beings.

[45:58] Because I think it’s quite clear there was no in my mind or in my mouth or anywhere, any harm to anybody. I have no ill will to this guy, you know, saying these silly things. I’ve heard it so many times before. And it’s just … the conversation dries up. Because after a while, there’s nothing to say. He’s going to be where he is. He’s not going to budge me. And oh, gosh, I feel you know. He’s just not gonna budge me at all. Tibetans give an analogy of taking a silk scarf and try to pull a boulder with a silk scarf. But people are completely embedded in kind of close minded dogmatism. Especially with such arrogance that we alone we have the only path. Trying to budge is like trying to pull a great big boulder with a silk scarf, you know. Give it a rest. Give it a rest. And this morning, I did a wee bit of research on the internet, so easy to do these days. Just asking about fundamentalism, Christian fundamentalism in particular. It’s not just being dogmatic. There’ve been dogmatic Christians forever. There’ve been dogmatic Buddhists and scientists, and Hindus and Muslims. There’s nothing new about that. But Christian fundamentalism as such, you know. The term has a specific meaning of every word in the Bible is literal and creation really took place in six days and everything is right there. God said exactly what he meant. Any guesses when that emerged? Late 19th century, exactly at the time, and I think in response to in part scientific materialism. You know, that came in the 1860s, with Thomas Huxley. It’s a real institutionalized, dogmatic, closed minded evangelical we have the only way of science and everything is just matter. And in the 1870s, 1880s, comes this big movement of Christian fundamentalism. We have the only way in all our statements in our book are absolutely literally so forth.

[47:51] Closed-minded blockheaded, literal stupidity, arouses close-minded blockheaded stupidity. And then each one looks at the other like they’re aliens, like the scientists quite rightly look at gosh, religion. Look, it’s stupid. It’s just stupid. These people are so ignorant. Let’s just start laughing. And then we get Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris and [one…]. And Daniel Dennett, just scoffing and ridiculing and snorting and showing all the possible contempt they can for religion as a whole. It’s such an easy target. And then the fundamentalists come around and just laugh, it’s like, well, they just ignore science. Whatever you scientists do, trivial. You don’t know what you’re doing. God knows what [is] happening. You don’t know anything. Evolution, blah, blah, blah. You know, just throw it all out. So then they just have mutual scorn, mutual contempt. Because religion is now saturated by no, some types of religion, are saturated by fundamentalism. And science is saturated by materialism and other kind of fundamentalism. And they just both look at each other like they completely stupid. And then they just go farther and farther apart until they break into open warfare, as Stalin did against religious people in the Soviet Union, as Mao Zedong did with religious people all over China. Open warfare, exterminate them, wipe them out. One more religious war. And then ISIS comes back and said, Oh, yeah, We’ll wipe you out first. And then the other ones come back. Nope, we’re gonna wipe you out. Nope, we’re gonna wipe you out first. So we’ve got to have some alternative here. Yeah, really. And I think it’s going to be back to experience. Coming back to Buddha nature. But with pure motivation and with wisdom, if we can show that through this contemplative path, it’s not just talk.

[49:44] But we’re tapping deep wellsprings of compassion, of genuine happiness of wisdom, modes of clairvoyance, remote viewing, and so forth. Recalling past lives, knowing other people’s minds, their thoughts and so forth, as well as various types of paranormal abilities. Then, like the pratyekabuddhas in the Dark Ages, if you actually show that, then people say, What? How did you do that? You know. So what’s your strategy? What’s your strategy? What is of greatest value? In terms of what you have the values of the opportunity before you right now and the rarity? What are you going to do with it? And that brings us to the meditation. We should have a little bit of guidance very little. We’re all here for our, with our own vision. So, let’s practise.

[50:41] Bell rings. Meditation in session.

[51:16] If we are to follow this path, of course, the way to set out on the journey is by taking refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha; ultimately taking refuge in our own buddha nature. And from this ultimate bodhichitta, arousing relative bodhichitta as a motivation for engaging in the practice, and then settling body, speech, and mind in their natural states.

[53:12] In the beginning and the middle and the end, rest your awareness in its own place, holding its own ground. That stillness in the midst of motion. Nirvana, your best facsimile of nirvana in the midst of samsara, free of grasping, utterly at ease, naturally clear and bright, discerning. Rest your awareness and its own nature.

[54:29] Then let the light of your awareness illuminate the world around you. And by way of all of your sixth sense doors. Everyone, all the 7 billion human beings, all the other species, going about their business, each one without exception, every day, every moment of waking experience seeking to be free of suffering. Wishing to find happiness exactly as we do. [Pause]. And if your vision is broader then include all the realms of existence, all sentient beings, each one again wishing always to be free of suffering and to find happiness.

[55:25] But so burdened by ignorance and delusion, craving and hostility, while seeking for freedom from suffering, hastening after the causes of suffering, [pause], while wishing to find happiness, destroying the causes of their own happiness as if they were their foes, oh, compassion.

[56:11] Dissolve your ordinary sense of identity, your sense of your own body, your mind dissolve it all into emptiness. [Pause]. That emptiness that is non-dual from dharmakaya.

[56:58] Out of emptiness arise in your ordinary form, but an empty form, a radiant luminous form, a pure form, hollow, empty of substance, appearing but not really there.

[57:22] And in the heart of your own buddha nature, this inexhaustible source of light. [Pause]. Again turn your attention, let the light of your awareness illuminate the world around you and all the sentient inhabitants.

[57:56] With the awareness that happiness has no owner, suffering has no owner. [Pause]. From a perspective of non-local awareness. [Pause]. If you will arouse the aspiration and the resolve as you will for yourself. May I be free of all suffering and its causes. May I find genuine, enduring, ultimate well-being in this non-duality of self and others, arouse this pledge, this promise, resolve regarding all sentient beings. I shall free us all, and bring all to a state of perfect awakening. [Pause].

[59:48] And then consider individually with you in the center of your mandala, with your life before you, guided by your choices, your values, your decisions. [Pause]. What’s your plan? What’s your path, your strategy for carrying through with this resolve, [pause], and then whatever your plan is, however you envision your path from here, [pause], to the fulfillment of that resolve, [pause], it may be quite clear you need some help. From the vantage point of the view as a sentient being setting out on a path, it’s going to be tough all by yourself. Not very feasible.

[1:01:36] Then we call for blessings, supplicating the gurus, the yidams, all the enlightened ones. Bless me. May you all bless me to enable me to carry through with this resolve. Imagine the joy and delight of your gurus of the enlightened ones, the dharmapalas, imagine their joy of this noble aspiration, this pledge you’ve made, with each in-breath as you’ve done before. Imagine showers of blessing flowing in upon you from all sides, feeling your body, speech, and mind to saturation. With every out-breath, imagine this light flowing forth in all directions. And imagine this light taking on forms, the light taking on forms and fulfilling the resolve. Meeting the needs of sentient beings, guiding each one out of suffering and its causes, to genuine happiness and its causes. Breathe in, breathe out as you arouse and sustain this extraordinary resolve. Let’s practise for a while in silence.

[1:13:01] And release all appearances and aspirations. Rest in your ground.

[1:14:38] Bell rings. Meditation session ends.

[1:14:58] Olaso. So today is Friday. Of course. Tomorrow is our day off, so anybody who wants to, of course, at nine o’clock, we’ll be departing for the land for hopefully the nucleus of a revolution, we’ll see. And then at 4.30, I’m giving a talk at the Institute, so it’ll be a full day. But I would invite you, starting tomorrow, to feel free to talk. We’re clearly winding down. So time, this has always been from the very beginning, this has been a balance between 50 people or so here being in each of you and your solitary retreat in your own place, sitting your own schedule, doing your own practice. So it’s always been a solitary retreat. Right. And it’s also been a group retreat, where we’re here to help each other, support each other in practice, and we’ve done so. So I’m very happy. Coming to an end I really just want to express my appreciation and gratitude, the way you’ve all treated each other, you’re engaging with the staff, when Filippo, the director of the Institute, drove me to the university yesterday, we’re having a pleasant conversation and he said, Alan, I want to tell you something very sad. He said, ‘Yeah, we’re so sorry to see you all go. [laughter]. We don’t want you to go.’ And so this is of course, enormously gratifying. And not unexpected. But so now over the next .. what with Saturday, kind of a day off Sunday, and then Monday our final day, I invite you between sessions, if you’d like to speak, speak, you know, time to emphasize more that we’re here on the same ship, setting out on the voyage together. Get to know each other better. You may want to some of you maybe many of you may want to get in touch. Have this virtual Sangha. So that would be my suggestion.

[1:16:54] But for today, [laughter], oh, oh, oh, why not try? Can you do a one day retreat, I know it’s long …having like 16 hours. But if you can do a one day retreat, and really, really practise, maintain silence, just a one day retreat, that will be good, and carry through whatever you had in mind in that session, start today. Okay. And speaking only when really necessary. It’s never been absolute. But pretty much just [in Tibetan …]. His Holiness Dalai Lama in a previous incarnation, give up all attachment to this life and let your mind become dharma. I’ve nothing to add to that except, enjoy your day.

Transcribed by Shirley Soh

Revised by Kriss Sprinkle

Final edition 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.