92 Conclusion of Naked Awareness & Pointing-out Instructions from The Vajra Essence

B. Alan Wallace, 22 May 2016

Alan started the session by going directly into meditation, in a practice where we directed our awareness towards the space of our body, the space of our mind and, finally, awareness itself.

Following the meditation, Alan did a quick reflection over the theme of strategy for our path, highlighting as before some of the underlying assumptions behind scientific materialism.

Afterwards we returned to Naked Awareness, and Alan concluded the oral transmission of the text, with a closing section on how to proceed at the time of death, in case our level of realization is not the one we’re currently hoping for. A possible strategy in that situation is to pray in order to be reborn in Sukhavati, a pure land which is outside of the realms of samsara, being a creation of Buddha Amitabha.

In the last part of the afternoon’s teaching, Alan shared the oral transmission for pointing out instructions from Padmasambhava, by way of Dudjom Lingpa, in Alan’s cherished Vajra Essence, that way ending new teachings during this retreat.

The meditation starts at 01:00 - Non meditation.


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

Download (MP3 / 50 MB)

Transcript

​​ 92-2016 – Conclusion of Naked Awareness & Pointing-out Instructions from The Vajra Essence

Olaso. Please find a comfortable position. We’ll go right into meditation.

[00:11] Meditation bell rings.

[00:31] Taking refuge in your own ultimate bodhicitta and arousing the relative bodhicitta as your motivation, settle your body, speech and mind in their natural states.

[02:15] With your awareness resting in its own place, in its own stillness, now direct the light of your awareness to the entire field of your body, the entire somatic field. Let the object of mindfulness be the space of the body or the field of tactile sensations, and whatever sensations arise, whatever feelings arise, of pleasure, of discomfort, or neutrality, and view this space, view the sensations and the tactile feelings as if from afar. So, not closely held, not identifying with them, not cognitively fusing with the space, the sensations, or the feelings.

[03:59] View the space, the tactile sensations and the tactile feelings just as they are, mere appearances arising within space, empty appearances with no owner, devoid of substance, arising from the space, dissolving back into the space.

[04:48] You’re familiar, very familiar with the practice of taking the mind as the path. Now take the body as the path in the same way, the same spirit – whatever arises simply observe its nature, its essential nature. Do take note of the sensations throughout the entire field of the body, correlated with the in and out breath, and breathe egolessly, with not even a hint of control or regulation, really as if you’re having an out of body experience.

[05:44] Observe these mere appearances without imputing labels upon them; observe them non conceptually. And on the subtle plane, this energetic plane, the subtle body, the domain where the vital energies, the channels, the bindus are all present and active, by way of the breathing, let your subtle body settle in its natural state.

[07:54] Remain cognitively engaged but without cognitive fusion with the entire cycle of the breath, the whole body of the breath, and within the whole space of your body. Let this be a full-time job.

[08:52] In order to observe the space of the body and the events taking place within it, sustaining the awareness of the stillness of your own awareness, the stillness in the midst of motion is essential.

[12:16] Then now in a very similar way, take your mind as the path, let your eyes be at least partially open, your gaze vacantly resting in the space in from of you.

[12:34] From the stillness of your awareness, let the light of your awareness illuminate the space of the mind and whatever appearances, whatever feelings, emotions, desires arise within that space, without labeling them, without conceptually imputing them, let then be what they already are, and that is empty appearances rising in space, with no owner.

[13:27] And the central feature of this practice is to observe whatever arises, observe its essential nature, without desire or aversion, without hope or fear, just let it be, with your body as still as a mountain, your awareness as still as space.

[16:35] As Padmasambhava counsels us, view these appearances, these thoughts and images like a shepherd watching his flock, as if from afar. Just the opposite of cognitive fusion, identifying with, getting lost in, these appearances.

[20:17] You have been observing these thoughts and images as if from afar, and now finally for the last few minutes of the session, invert your awareness right in upon the observer that has been observing them from afar, the observer in here, who is quite separate from, distant from, the appearances arising within the field of the body, within the field of the mind. What is the nature of that which is observing? Examine this closely and precisely until a certain clarity arises, until you nail it, until certain knowledge arises.

[21:16] Observe that which is observing. Does it exist? If so, what are its characteristics? If it does not exist, what is it that has drawn that conclusion?

[24:11] Meditation bell rings.

[24:31] Olaso. So I’d like to clarify strategy. We’re coming to an end here, right, winding down, which is really good, being wound rather than being wound up. It’s good to be winding down as we come to the end. And the strategy is here: living in this intellectual environment, whatever one’s specific beliefs, whether one is a devout Christian, or an agnostic, or atheist, Buddhist and so on, what is in the air by way of the media, academia, government policy, and science, of course, is materialism. It’s just everywhere, East and West, Christian countries and not. And the one thing to do about materialism is get over it. You know, it’s like a cold, you don’t debate with it, you just get over it. [Laughs]

[25:29] And not just by getting clubbed over the head with, you know, ridicule materialism, I mean, smart people, many smart people embrace it. But by looking very closely, and we’re using intelligence to see, ‘Does it really stand up to analysis?’ It’s a very simple question. But when you see, ‘What do you people have to say?’ 'Okay, you’re skeptical about religion, join the club, big deal. What is your position?’ Right? ‘What’s your position? You’re not dualist? Fine. Okay, what are you? What is your position?’ I’ve been looking at this for 25 years of petitioners, their actual position is cornflakes. It’s just, there’s no substance to it, it all falls apart. Every single view I’ve seen, I think I’ve seen them all by now. I’ve been paying attention for 25 years. It’s just so flaky, so circular, so utterly unsubstantiated by any kind of empirical evidence. Look, I’m saying that because I’ve been looking for 25 years. To me, it’s just like a joke.

[26:25] But if one wanted to enter this path, one was at any chance of really setting on a path, you can’t bring this one ton of luggage with you, dragging on your heels of materialism. You can’t. That’s kind of really, that’s pulling the boulder with this, with a silk scarf; it ain’t gonna work out, you know. So you have to get over it. And people who don’t get over it, try to secularize Buddhism. Well, good luck with that, you don’t have to secularize Buddhism, you just have your own stuff, which, for marketing purposes, you like to call Buddhism. I don’t know why they call it Buddhism because it’s all their own fabrications. So it’s useless for anybody who is sincerely interested in Buddhism, but it’s more than useless, it’s profoundly misleading. I think it’s fraudulent. So I have no tolerance for that. If people want to follow a secular path, I have total sympathy with that. I just have no sympathy for misrepresentation.

[27:14] So with moving away from that, for that myopia of thinking somehow, everything that exists consists only of material phenomena and their emergent properties, just get over it, because it just has, has no credibility when you really look at it. And so then you have a very good avenue for this, really grounded, no leap of faith at all. It just goes right into the Pali canon. We’re looking at the skandhas, we’re looking at the body, we’re looking at appearances, we’re looking at mental states. And it’s just kind of like, ‘wow, mental states are not physical’, duh. ‘And they don’t emerge from physical’, duh. And so now you’re in kind of really healthy substance dualism. But it’s a little bit more interesting than that. Because again, space is not material, time is not material, information is not material. So to stop at dualism, like Descartes did, is kind of like, ‘Come on, keep moving, keep moving. It’s pluralism. It always has been.’

[28:11] But without yet necessarily challenging reification – reification is a tough one. It’s a tough, tough nut to crack. The appearance’s shout at us that everything exists from its own side, they shout at us. So, but at least to have a more flexible, more spacious worldview than somehow reducing your own existence to chemical scum. I’m gonna remember that from Stephen Hawking, ‘to get over that, because it’s so dismally, dismally depressing. And of course, simply stupid. Those two are pretty much a knockout punch.’

[28:41] So to move to this kind of realistic pluralism or pluralistic realism, big step in the right direction. That’s kind of, that is, in fact, where Theravada Buddhism is. And it’s been a lot of benefit there. But then we cross over the watershed over into the Mahayana, and now into the Dzogchen teachings. And then we have this question, all right, ‘Among body, speech and mind, which is primary?’ And then we’re really coming in, not just to mind, and appearances to mind, and space, and information, and time, and so forth. But you’re coming right in the nature of awareness and then it becomes quite clear that all that we have, all that we know, is awareness and appearances arising to awareness. And those appearances have no existence apart from awareness, whereas awareness does have existence independent of appearances. That’s an interesting one.

[29:37] So there’s an asymmetry there. You don’t need to keep on having a target, a target, a target, appearances or objects for awareness to continue to flow. You can withdraw from all appearances and all objects and still there’s one thing that’s primary. So matter may dissolve away and mind may dissolve away, object[s] may dissolve away, appearances may dissolve away. But unless you flat out, fall unconscious, the one thing that doesn’t fall away is the one man standing – gender neutral. The one reality standing is awareness.

[30:11] So then we go from what William James called monism – which is scientific materialism and everything boils down to one kind of entity, matter – to pluralism. And then we come back to Cittamatra, or mind only, or awareness only. We’re back to monism again. Only awareness and the appearances to awareness. And so now all the ontological burden which had been on matter and its emergent properties, everything boils down to, right, and then well, no, it doesn’t. Everything boils down to a plurality of phenomena – of space, time, matter, energy, consciousness, information. And the list goes on and on. There’s more than that, too. So then it gets very kind of more spacious. But then all of those phenomena – space, time, matter, energy, and so forth, what are all of those? Can we sum that up? Yeah, appearances. And appearances to what? Awareness. And appearances have no existence apart from awareness. So we’re back to simplicity, again, from simplicity, a delusional simplicity, to a more spacious pluralism, and then withdrawing into a more profound monism of simplicity into that which is observing.

[31:23] So it’s really Cittamatra now, it’s mind only, all of the ontological weight, all the burden of reality, is no longer on just matter or no longer on a plurality of truly existent phenomena. The whole burden of reality [that wakes], that which makes anything possible, all comes down to awareness, that which is observing, that which is observing. And then you send your smart, your smart missile right in there. [AW imitates the sound of a missile] Empty. Then you’ve entered the path. If you can sustain that with shamatha, then you’ve entered the path. That was it. Right there. Until then, it’s a drumroll, it’s moving towards, moving towards, but there when you realize the emptiness of your own mind, and you can sustain that with shamatha, now you’re on the path. So that’s strategy. So it’s very helpful. It’s not the only strategy. Even within Buddhism, let alone outside of Buddhism, but it’s a strategy. So if you are drawn to, intellectually, existentially, personally drawn to that strategy, go for it. Go for it.

[32:41] So we’ll be turning now to the closing, closing words of Karma Chagmé, in his closing chapter, conclusion. So we’re down at the bottom of page 276. We finished the, we finished all six of those five full practices, plus one. And now, having completed that, what’s left over? One could say, well, that was all. But what’s left over is what if you, you know, looking ahead, looking ahead at the possibility that when you’re actually on your deathbed, or you’re mortally injured, or what have you, but death actually is very imminent, and maybe you haven’t realized as much as you might have aspired to, maybe your life gets cut short, or maybe just goes a bit bumpy or slower than you’re hoping for. Things happen, you know, like those things we can’t control. But when you’re really looking at death, it’s like you can reach out and touch the lord of death. Your death is right there in front of you. And you’re thinking, well, maybe or maybe not, you’ve actually reached the path, and so forth. Looking ahead to that.

[34:11] Well, what will fill your mind now? Well, what fills your mind will that be, Oh, I wish I had progressed faster; Oh, I wish I progressed further; I wish I had realized this, that, the other thing? Will you be looking back on the half empty glass of your life, you know, and with a sense of, oh, dissatisfaction, frustration, unfulfillment? Maybe now you can have some low self esteem, you throw that in as well. Come my practitioner, now you’re going to die. Loser. We could do better than that, okay? And that’s what Karma Chagmé, the great scholar, the great adept is now going to suggest. Okay? How do we avoid that conundrum? It’s not useful. It’s counterproductive.

[34:57] So it’s very interesting his approach here. He said, “It is said that among the Buddhists there is no one but Buddha Shakyamuni. And among the bodhisattvas, there’s no one but the protectors of the three families and that is Avalokiteshvara, Manjushri and Vajrapani, the archetypes, the personification of enlightened wisdom, compassion and power.” So, in terms of real focus during this short historical era, when you want to think of a Buddha, well think of Buddha Shakyamuni, he’s the one that brought this all to us, the bodhisattvas, these three. “Might we become them? [Might we not only take refuge in them, worship them, make prayers of supplication, make offerings to them and so forth, but might we become them?] Do we fear the miseries of samsara?”

[35:44] Now a very interesting twist here. And again, I’ll just interject a story I told before, and looking over at Kathy, very early on when I told Geshe Ngawang Dhargyey, ‘I fear, I fear they - I told them - I’m concerned about, I fear the miseries of, you know, the lower realms and so forth.’ And he said, ‘Oh, no.’ remember? ‘No, you should be willing to go to hell realms. For the sake of sentient beings don’t fear hell, be willing to go there.’ See but he thinks I’m tough. I’m a…, I’m a cupcake. I’m just a little sugar puff [Laughs] compared to my teachers, they were tough. Geshe Rabten when I told him I like these persons. ‘Ah, not, not for you; no friends for you; friends, not friends, not for you.’ I go to His Holiness, self concern others. ‘No, not for you. No self-concern, only concern for others.’ I’m a pussycat compared to my teachers; they were tough. [Laughs] Gyatrul Rinpoche is no less tough. Tougher. The second last time I saw him, I told him, ‘Well, Rinpoche, what would you think, maybe I just stop teaching and just go into, go into a solitary retreat?’ He said, ‘I give you the finger!’ [Laughter] I’m quoting directly. Do you think he’s referring to the middle finger? I think he’s referring to that finger. That’s a much nicer interpretation. It’s open to our interpretation. [Laughter continues]

[37:31] So, “do we fear the miseries of samsara? One who has no qualms or dismay at the prospect of experiencing the miseries of birth and death, many hundreds of millions of times [has no qualms about that, he has enough, Tibetans call it [Tibetan 37:42] strength of the heart, courage, fortitude, that doesn’t fear that prospect. Hundreds of millions of times of taking birth again and again] for the sake of sentient beings. One who just has no qualms or dismay at that prospect, but who attains [bodhicitta, no, attains] spiritual awakening, [enlightenment] while in a state of joy and happiness is called a slothful bodhisattva.” Okay? The phrasing is very interesting. You have no qualms or dismay about just spending hundreds of millions of lifetimes, but you actually achieve enlightenment and a state of joy and happiness. Let’s call it a, a Californian bodhisattva, or slothful bodhisattva, he says. [Laughter] “He is the least among bodhisattvas and the Jina Maitreya is said to be such a one.” [Laughter] I think there’s nothing wrong with our turning out like him. Yeah.

[38:47] “To do so eventually we would have to be born in a pure realm. [To be able to follow in the footsteps of Maitreya, we’d have to be born in a pure realm.] Even if we were born, even if we’re born in Potala, pure realm of Avalokiteshvara; Tushita, pure realm of Maitreya; or the glorious copper-colored mountain, of course the pure land of Padmasambhava, there’s no guarantee that we’ll not fall back.” I remember one lama I read about not too long ago. Can’t remember which one, but he was, he was about to die, one yogi anyway. He was about to die and he was looking, anticipating, making prayers to be born in Padmasambhava’s pure land, yeah, the glorious copper-colored mountain. And then his lama told him, [Laughs] I read this, I know it’s a sound source otherwise I wouldn’t remember it. And his lama told him, ‘Don’t bother to pray to be reborn there. If you’re born there, Guru Rinpoche is just going to send you back.’ [Laughter]

[39:52] He’s not gonna punch your ticket. Nope, go back. Not because you’re a reject, but go back and help people, you know. Not that you’re unworthy, because you then don’t even get there, right, if you don’t have the virtue and so on. But they’ll just send you back into service again, right. So even if you’re born in a pure land, you may be sent back, fall back, what have you. “It is said that one cannot take birth in other pure realms, such as Abhirati, until one reaches at least the first ground.”

[40:21] So again, in my, “In my Father’s kingdom, there are many mentions [I mean, it’s similar to the Christian view there] that within the domain of pure realms, there are ones that are very exclusive [so to speak]. The Akanishta, that’s really only for 10th stage aryabodhisattvas. Abhirati [he says right here] is only for those who reached the first aryabodhisattva ground. [That’s pretty high. And so for different ones, they have to have different levels of realization, for them to be viable as a place to be reborn. So Abhirati is one of the five buddhafields of the five buddha families. You won’t be able to take birth there unless you reach at least the first aryabodhisattva bhumi.] So even if one prays, one will not get there for that is analogous to not reaching one’s destination.”

[41:13] “Bodhisattvas who voluntarily serve the needs of sentient beings, do not cringe at the miseries of the cycle of existence. We, on the other hand, … [so now he’s stepping off his dharma throne and coming down to where we live] We, on the other hand, fear the suffering of samsara. So if we wish to attain spiritual awakening, in a state of joy and happiness without experiencing suffering, we should pray to be born in the realm of Sukhavati. If we pray to be born there, except in cases of sins of immediate retribution, and the abandonment of Dharma, our birth there will be due to the power of Amitabha’s prayers.”

[41:54] So, he’s speaking classic Mahayana Buddhism here. There’s nothing like Kagyü or Nyingma, Gelugpa, there’s nothing sectarian here, this is simply what it states in the Mahayana sutras pertaining to Sukhavati. This is why it’s so accessible. But now what was the frying pin there, “Except in cases of sins of immediate retribution, these are killing out of malevolence, intentionally killing your mother, your father, an arhat; malevolently drawing the blood of a buddha, or creating a schism in the ordained sangha - those five. The karma is so heavy, that if you don’t purify it, then you die and you don’t even slip off to the bardo, just the bottom drops out from where you are, and it’s straight down to hell realm. And then if you abandon Dharma, well, you’re not going to be born in Sukhavati, if you’ve abandoned Dharma.”

[42:46] “So apart from those, though, [that’s it] if you’ve not done any of those and [he says here] if you pray to be born in Sukhavati, our birth there will be due to the power of Amitabha’s prayers and neither to grace. [We are reborn if] If we are reborn, there will not have even the slightest suffering, and our joy and happiness will be abundant. We will be able to go miraculously to Abhirati.”

[43:14] So, it would be like having a continent where the customs control in some countries is extremely tough. Like within the EU, like England, man, it’s a pain getting into England. Every time they grill me as if I’m a criminal. Like, ‘What are you coming here for? How do you long staying? You’re working here? [Laughter] Whereas, in Norway, ‘Hello.’ They just, just come right in… It’s so easy. [Laughter continues] I could be a frog, you know, a frog’s plasma. They don’t even look at you. So the thing is, get to Norway first. [Laughter] And from Norway, you might be able to get into Scotland, from Scotland get in England and then that’s a much easier way. But don’t try to get to Norway by way of London. You’ll never get to Norway. It’s something like that. ‘I know what have I spoken.’ America and England, the toughest, you know, customs control. Jeez.

[44:15] So here it is. So if you get to, if you take birth in Sukhavati, then you have a free Eurail pass, something like that. Abhirati, which otherwise you only get in if you have achieved the arya bodhisattva level. You can miraculously just by the power of thought, pum, off to Abhirati; you may go to the glorious copper-colored mountain, to Tushita, you may meet buddhas there and receive the Dharma. So this sounds like, you know, if you take it seriously, a marvelous opportunity.

[44:44] “With unimpeded extrasensory perception and paranormal abilities you will be able to lead those with whom we have a connection out of the intermediate state.” So you don’t just – bear in mind it’s enormously important not to conflate this with just simply a deva realm, where you’re just up there having a great time, you know, a lot of pleasure. It’s just not that at all. If that’s, if that’s what you actually want, and you’re giving lip service to Sukhavati and so forth, you have a lot of virtue but what you really want is just [to] have a really good time, you’ll go off to the deva realm, desire realm, you know. You can’t fool karma just by saying Sukhavati but when what you really want is a really nice deva realm, you know. You’ll get to deva realm and it may be called Sukhavati. Deva realm. And then you just find it’s filled with beautiful women, devas, devis, and handsome men devas and lots of ambrosia and, party, party, party. That’s what you want; that’s what you get.

[45:43] So, but this is interesting, that while dwelling in Sukhavati, you have extrasensory perception and abilities, so you, for those people with whom you have karmic connection. I know this is a very significant issue for a number of you. For those people like mother, relatives, friends, spouses, children and so forth, who may have passed away or are going to be passing away with a strong karmic connection. While dwelling in Sukhavati, you may be able to be, you yourself, without coming out of Sukhavati, you may be able to lead those with whom you have a karmic connection out of the intermediate state. Guide them, manifest, again, like the, a little bit like the moon reflecting itself in water.

[46:24] “For countless hundreds of millions of eons. [There’s no time limit there. That is, you don’t have an expiration date when you go to Sukhavati. You’re there for as long as you wish.] There will be no illness, no aging and no death. We will behold the face of Buddha Amitabha and listen to Dharma. [So you get the teaching directly from Amitabha] Incalculable clouds of offerings will be emanated from the palm of our hands, and the offer to the buddhas, thus the qualities of the grounds and paths, the bhumis and the margas will be perfected, and we will become enlightened.” So that’s what he’s referring to ‘achieving spiritual awakening while in a state of joy and happiness’.

[47:04] “So how easy is it to be born there? It is said that if one earnestly prays 10 times, one will take birth there. [So all those practices of Phowa, for which there’s a wide variety, some really demanding, complex visualization and so forth. This one is pretty straightforward: If you earnestly pray 10 times, one will take birth there.] There’s no point in doubting whether or not you’ll be born there. But if you do nurture doubts, [you will be born] you will still be born in that pure land. You’ll be one in a lotus flower, [that’s what they say] but the lotus flower in which you are born will not open for 500 years. [So you’ll be kind of quarantined for 500 years inside a lotus. It could be a lot worse.] [Laughter] It is said, during that time you will experience joy and happiness. [That may be claustrophobic but it will be nice.] And you’ll hear the voice of the Buddha but unfortunately there will be a delay in seeing his face.” I don’t know how one would put up a scientific test. [Laughter] I guess we’ll just have to find out when we’re there.

[48:10] “Therefore without harboring doubts tonight when you’re about to go to sleep, you should dedicate whatever spiritual practice you’ve done today to be reborn there. [If you know them, recite the prayer Fine Conduct, Zongchö Mönlam, the Sukhavati prayer - dechen mönlam, dechen mönlam.] If you do not know them, it is enough to say ‘May I be born in Sukhavati’ [You can handle that. That’s pretty straightforward. And in any language you like, it doesn’t have to be Tibetan, Sanskrit, what have you.] ‘May I be born in Sukhavati’. By so doing, when you die, whether or not you’re able to sustain your spiritual practice or succeed in the practice of transference [Phowa, even if you’re just not up to it, too complicated or maybe you’re whatever, you’re pretty wobbly in your practice, you’re dying after all. Even if you are not able to sustain your spiritual practice, or succeed in the practice of Phowa] or recognize the assemblies of peaceful and wrathful deities in the transitional process of dharmata [or ultimate reality. Even if you can’t do that, can’t can’t can’t], two weeks after your death, you will determine that you’ve died and before the messengers of Yama, the lord of death, arrive, and before the verdict is made concerning your actions and their karmic consequences, with defiled [Defiled means tainted with kind of delusion, like reification] with defiled extrasensory perception, you will be aware of your past and future life and the intermediate states.”

[49:38] “You will be able to demonstrate various paranormal abilities and you will have great freedom to go where you will. At that time, hold Buddha Amitabha in mind and go to Sukhavati. There is no doubt that you will go there simply by thinking of it. That’s called prospective memory. Used a lot in Dream Yoga, it’s used a lot in reference to the bardo, when you’re dying.” So it’s that simple. So in this regard, the Guru Yoga practice taught a couple of days ago, just visualizing Buddha Amitabha in the crown of your head. Real good preparation. But, “We’re creatures of habit. We can be creatures of good habits, which benefits us; creatures of bad habits, which harm us. Here’s a really good habit.”

[50:23] And so there it is, this is one of those things. We don’t have empirical evidence that anything he just said in those last couple of paragraphs is true. Nothing we can point to clearly, it has no really compelling evidence. We don’t have any logical reasoning here. We can take it in context, though, who said this, and he’s not alone. It’s actually the great adepts from all the traditions of Tibetan Buddhism and they’re all rooted in the Mahayana sutras of India, and the great adepts of India – Atisha, Shantideva, and so forth, they all have accepted this. So there is, "It’s the softest type of knowing, [the softest, the least robust] as, in according to Buddhist epistemology, there’s the knowing as in realization by direct perception.” So I look over at David’s shirt and I just see it’s, it’s pink. That’s it, I got it. That’s just direct, right? That’s very robust. Your direct non conceptual realization of emptiness, you nail it, you got it, see it directly, right? That’s the most robust, the Buddha only has that type of knowing, only direct, right? Immediate.

[51:42] “And then there’s the knowing by means of cogent reasoning. [And we know many things by means of logic, by reason. And that’s robust, not as robust as seeing directly, but it’s still robust, it can be transformative.] And then finally, there’s [and it’s an interesting phrase, it’s] knowledge based on authority. And it’s more than mere belief. [Belief is easy. Some people believe in Santa Claus. People believe in all kinds of things for the flimsiest of reasons. So, belief it’s cheap.] But the third type of knowing, is knowing based on authority.” And so I’ve told a number of people I was, I was born in Pasadena. I don’t know where my birth certificate is, but wherever it is, I’m sure that’s what it says on it, right. My parents told me that; they were there. I can be sure my mother was there. [Laughs]

[52:40] But if you asked me, you know, like Trump asking Obama whether he’s an American or whether he’s a Muslim, ‘Can you show me? Alan, show me, prove to me that you’re born in Pasadena.’ I can’t. I can’t show you evidence. I can’t show you reasoning. At all, nothing. I’ve got nothing. Except for, my mom told me. And I consider she’s an authority. And then you might come back to that, ‘How do you know she’s your mom?’ Maybe you were adopted. Maybe there was a big conspiracy around your birth. And you were actually born in Omaha. [Laughs] And you were adopted, because nobody wanted you. What do I say? This, well, I have no reason to believe that’s true. I do have reason to believe that my parents are not liars. They told me I’m born in Pasadena. I was born in Pasadena, get over it. So that’s knowledge based on authority of somebody. But not just anybody. My parents. And my sister was there. She’s my older sister. She knew where I came from, and friends of the family and so forth. So it’s all authority.

[53:51] But who in his right mind would say, if asked, ‘Do you know where you’re born?’ It would say, ‘I don’t know. My mother said this, my father said this, but you never can tell, I don’t know.’ [Laughter] And then somebody says, ‘Well, do you know your name?’ ‘Well, some people call me Alan, others call me Lama, some call me grandpa, some call me idiot. And, ‘I don’t know. I don’t know.’ So you don’t know where you’re born, you don’t know what your name is. ‘Are you a male?’ ‘Well, I could have been, I could have had some, some surgery back, you know, sometime when I don’t remember. I could be transgender. I don’t really, I’m not really sure. [Laughter continues] I’m not sure whether my plumbing down there is mine or actually it was a transplant because you know they can do penis transplants now. There’s a point where this, I’m sure you wanted that data, that data point but it is true. Somebody just had a penis transplant. It wasn’t me though. Take my word for it. Take my word for it. [Laughter] How do I know? I don’t know. I just, I’m just very sure I don’t know. But I know that, that’s not the case.

[55:01] So you see “This knowledge based on authorities is everywhere. [It’s not something Buddhist made up, you know.] There’s all kinds of things that beyond all reasonable doubt, we say, ‘I know this is true.’ And it’s because we’re relying upon people that we really have very good reason to believe, to know what they’re talking about. And so if you study Buddhism seriously, you investigate it, you really become knowledgeable. And you learn about Atisha, Shantideva and Tsongkhapa, and Padmasambhava, and so forth. And Karma Chagmé Rinpoche. You say they say this, and they show their sources. And they’re citing people who have, you know, have remembered their past lives and so forth. Then, if you’ve done that research, then it’s not just belief. You can call it knowledge based on authority”. Right?

[55:52] “If you’ve not done that, you may simply have belief. And that could be enough. If you have just enough belief that you do it, [right] you do it..” Okay. Ten times sounds pretty easy to me, I’ll do 10 times, you know, and I need to do that when I fall asleep. Okay, what the heck? Why not? Small investment, potential big profit, you know. Why not? It could be true, it might be true. Not quite sure, do it. The worst that will happen is you wind up in a lotus for 500 years. [Laughter] Worst things could happen. [Loud laughter] And it sounded quite nice. I mean, you know, hanging out on a lotus, your own little private meditation hall. Because they say you’re quite happy there. So, “there is no doubt that you’ll go there simply by thinking of it. [So why not? That’s what I would suggest. The alternative is, just dedicate all your merit. And follow that.” You know, to fortunate rebirth, and so forth.

[57:00] “Try hard not to forget the meaning of Dharma you’ve received now. [He’s now, he’s really, I think, my sense, speaking to us from his heart to this, this gathering of monks, nuns, laypeople. Who knows how many people were there, it was 30 days of teaching. You call me a fire hydrant. This is like Niagara. Because he gave this book and all of A Spacious Path to Freedom, and it would be another book of the same size just on the preliminary practices. This would have been a three-volume set. The first would be all on preliminary practice, this one big book – Gyatrul Rinpoche didn’t teach me that. And then A Spacious Path to Freedom, pretty good-sized book, then the appendix. That’s this book. He taught all of that in 30 days. So you think I’m tough. I’m, I’m a drip, drip, drippy faucet [AW makes the sound of dripping] compared to him. He’s not me, he’s Niagara. He did that in 30 days. And then he says, “Try hard not to forget the meaning of the Dharma you’ve received.” You’ve just, you know, been sitting under Niagara Falls going [AW makes fun with a wide open mouth]. And don’t forget what you’ve just swallowed!

[58:05] Everyone can certainly practice this for this is an unsophisticated discussion of Dharma. If you want a sophisticated look at Nagarjuna, the commentaries of Nagarjuna. That’s sophisticated. I’m serious. That is, that’s heavy lifting. This is the essence of the Buddha’s words. The sutras, the tantras, the New Translation school, the Old Translation school, and the treasure teachings, the Terma teachings. Oh, now in this one-month teaching, we have well completed 18 primary Dharma sessions. That was the first volume that he never translated; the second volume, A Spacious Path to Freedom. And the third volume, this 12 supplementary Dharma sessions. That’s this book. So we’re done. We’re finished. And then he dedicates merit.

[58:54] “May there be the good fortune of Acharya, Padmasambhava. May there be the good fortune of the great compassionate ones. May there be the good fortune of the ocean of viras. May there be the good fortune of the ocean of dakinis. May there be the good fortune of the ocean of oath-bound protectors, the dharmapalas. And then make extensive prayers of dedication, utter verses of good fortune, scatter grain from your hands.” This concludes this Dharma session and he ends with his colophon.

[59:29] “Amazing. This is a synthesis of the meaning of all the sutras and tantras of the New and Old Translation schools. The new is the Mahamudra [because he said this whole thing was about the union of Mahamudra and Dzogchen.] The Mahamudra was firmly embedded in the New Translation schools, above all the Kagyü tradition, [new translation, right] but then Dzogchen, of course, stems from the Old Translation schools, Nyingma.

[59:52] So “This is the synthesis of the meanings of all the sutras and tantras of the New and Old Translation schools. This is the synthesis of the blessings of the New and Old Translations and the treasure teaching; this is the synthesis of practices of all the essential instructions on Mahamudra and Dzogchen. This is the synthesis of citations from the entire ocean of the sutras and tantras. [And, I must say, he showed his tremendous erudition by citing sutras and tantras. It seems like that at least by the dozens and dozens, if not by the scores and scores of many, many, many.] This is the synthesis of the contemplations of all the vidyadharas and siddhas; this is the synthesis of practices of all superior and inferior people; this is the synthesis of all philosophical systems surpassing them all. Although this is…” In ‘surpassing them all’, he’s referring to Vaibhashika, Sautrantrika, Cittamatra and Madhyamaka. But then when you go to Mahamudra and Dzogchen, it doesn’t disengage from the Madhyamaka, but in terms of skillful means and the teachings on buddha nature, it does in fact surpass the Madhyamaka by itself.

[1:01:01] “Although [there is this] this is the secret mantrayana, these are teachings that help everyone.” And I did find it very interesting when Gyatrul Rinpoche was teaching this – he’s a very traditional lama, very, very traditional and a close disciple of Kyabje Dudjom Rinpoche and two other of the embodiments, the incarnations of Dudjom Lingpa. And when he was giving these teachings, A Spacious Path to Freedom, and this, all of it, he did not grant an empowerment that people were required to attend or receive. And he gave them freely. He said, ‘anyone who has faith in the teachings and the wish to put them into practice, everyone is welcome’. And he’s a lineage holder of this tradition, this bail tradition, this union of Mahamudra and Dzogchen. And so when Karma Chagmé Rinpoche said these are teachings that help everyone, he shows the non exclusive ambience or attitude around these teachings. It’s very generous, very open.

[1:02:13] “Due to the power of the compassion of Avalokiteshvara this has been well compiled by Raga Asya [that’s Karma Chagmé Rinpoche’s personal name], the contemplative of the Great Compassionate One, during these degenerate times. Bikshu Tsundu has written it down, and whatever inconsistencies, mistakes or flaws, there may be in this, I confess them to the assembly of deities of the three roots – the guru, the yidam, the khadroma [the dakini]. By the virtue of this composition, may I, the scribe, [So now the person who has written this obviously is Bikshu Tsundo – Tsundo, by the way, means virya, enthusiasm] By the virtue of this composition, may I, the scribe, and everyone who has found a connection with these teachings enjoy longevity and good health in this life. And may our experiential realizations increase.”

[1:03.07] “When the time comes to move on from this life, may we be miraculously born in the realm of Sukhavati, without any other lifetime coming in between. Then may we…” And ‘miraculously’ means spontaneously, that is not from a womb, not from an egg and so forth, not from the four modes of rebirth in samsara. Because Sukhavati is not in samsara. It’s not within the six realms of existence. It’s not a deva realm. Not anything else. It’s an environment simply created by the mind, it’s like a visualization of Amitabha. And so ‘miraculously’ means you just, you just spontaneously emerge there. So may this occur without any other lifetime coming in between, so directly from this lifetime to that.

[1:03:58] “Then may we please the protector Amitabha by making offerings and in that corporeal existence, may we, that if we’re embodied, embodied, may we manifestly become enlightened. Once we become perfectly enlightened, may we emanate to fulfill the needs of the world for as long as space endures. As for the qualities of each emanation, may we have might like a billion vajrapanies, supreme wisdom like a billion manjushris, paranormal abilities like a billion padmasambhavas and the unified capacity to fulfill the needs of the world like a billion avalokiteshvaras.”

[1:04:34] “May the continuum of teachings of these instructions and their oral transmission and the stream of meditative accomplishment, experience and realization increase, and for 600 years [very interesting], for 600 years may they never degenerate, but grow and flourish.” Very interesting he would say that – 600 years. So this was written in the 17th century, 18th, 90th, 20th, 21st. So hopefully another 200 years if his very dedication comes true. That could be.

[1:05:11] “May the oceanic assembly oath-bound protectors, including Ekajati and Mahakala, increase this Dharma and make it flourish, protect those who practice this. May the oceanic display assembly of wealth deities, including Vaishravana, provide the necessities of life for those who practice this. May the assemblies of the 12 thritas, the 13 brother sylvan gods, the 21 pasakas, and local gods increase this Dharma and help it flourish.” So a myriad of beings, invisible, may they, just asking them to support people, support everyone who wants to devote themselves to this practice.

[1:05:50] “Do not transgress your earlier oath and samaya. [I think he’s referring to these beings who are oath bound who have promised to protect the Dharma and those who are practicing it. He said, he’s kind of admonishing them, ‘Don’t break your oath, don’t break your samaya. You promised to protect Dharma practitioners, do it.’] With regard to teaching, attending and meditating on this Dharma, if there are any enemies, obstructive forces or false guides who create interferences, and anyone who adulterates this with their own fabrications, punish them immediately and severely. Does the power of the ocean [So in other words, we don’t need to. Just leave it in the hands of the higher-ups.] Does the power of the ocean of oath-bound protectors exist or not? At that time [Aha, so he’s really addressing them. You can say, ‘Okay, you guys, do you have power or not?] At that time, I shall watch [want to see whether you live up to your oath.] So bear that point in mind.”

[1:06:54] “In these instructions, do blessings exist or not? Practice as you were taught in the treatises and this will be evident. Is this compatible with the meaning of the sutras and tantras or not? Look extensively into the New and Old Translations, and the treasure teachings, look in terms of the practice of the stages of generation and completion. A few friends who are prejudiced and have partial knowledge might possibly disparage this, but I have no remorse, for the sutras and tantras are my witness. May the glory of good fortune shine on and may this be an ornament for the world. Mangalam.”

[1:07:29] And that was all the colophon, or concluding verses, by the scribe who wrote down the teachings of Karma Chagmé Rinpoche. It’s very interesting; that implies that Karma Chagmé Rinpoche was giving this orally. And somebody was just kind of writing it all down as he went.

[1:07:48] It has happened. He said, just a little bit of chitchat, but when I was a graduate student, I was reading about Thomas Aquinas. And he would write like four or five, six books at a time. But he would have a whole set of scribes, not just one. He’d be in a room with like five or six scribes, he’d go to the first one and then he’d orally tell him what to write down. And while he’s writing, go to the second one, the second book he’s writing simultaneously, and tell him the next paragraph. He’d go to the third, give him … the fourth, fifth, however many and then he’d come back, ‘You’ve finished? Okay, here’s your second paragraph.’ He’d be writing six books at a time. Some people have big minds, bigger than we can imagine. He was one – Thomas Aquinas, very brilliant. Olaso.

[1:08:34] So I think, yeah, we’re finished. Naked Awareness. But we’re not out of time. And I wanted to share something very precious from Dudjom Lingpa, that is, from Padmasambhava, from the Vajra Essence. A bit of pointing out instructions could be helpful. So we had a little taste of this earlier, when there’s one section where he’s like, like a surgeon coming in and making very precise incisions, and the one we looked at previously was the very sharp, clear, incisive distinction between conditioned consciousness and primordial consciousness. We have that, right. You can always refer to that; very good to do so. There’s more. There are a number of distinctions that he drew as Padmasambhava, conveying this clarity by way of Dudjom Lingpa. And here’s one I thought I would share with you this afternoon. It’ll be in this, will be the last transmission. That is, I can’t give this unless I received it. This is the oral transmission and the commentary on a very vital point from the Vajra Essence. So listen well.

[1:09:54] “If you do not know how to distinguish between the mind and pristine awareness, you will confuse the mind for pristine awareness, which will unfortunately lead to obstacles to achieving the state of liberation. [So, know how to distinguish them.] As for the mind, there are, first of all, the deluded mind that clings to appearances, [‘clings to’ means attachment, aversion, reification, the whole nine yards. The first kind, deluded mind that clings to appearances first.] Secondly, the mind that seeks the path by way of negation and affirmation. [This is to be done, not to be done, to be embraced, to be abandoned. That’s the second, the mind that seeks the path by way of negation and affirmation.] And third, the mind that takes consciousness as the path.”

[1:10:49] So we have these three. Now, he’s going to unpack each of these three, and then we’ll go on to pristine awareness. Clear, yeah? I think, perfectly clear. So, “First of all, the deluded mind that clings to appearances is the ordinary mind of sentient beings, who do not seek the path and who do not see an entrance to the authentic path”. So that’s probably pretty safe to say, most people. They’re not, they’re not seeking a path, except the path to maybe have a happy life. The strategy being get a good job, find the right partner, have a healthy family, have a good house, life insurance, and so forth. But the notion of seeking spiritual doesn’t even come to mind. If you say, ‘Are you seeking a path?’, they will, ‘What, do you think I want to go to Florence? What do you, what are you talking about? What path?’

[1:11:43] “And they do not see an entrance to an authentic path. [The very notion of ‘authentic path’ doesn’t mean anything. At all. So there are people like that. They’re deluded. It’s a deluded mind. Because they want happiness but they don’t know the true causes of happiness, so they are not cultivating them; they want to be free of suffering but they don’t know the true causes of suffering, so they’re not giving effort there. By and large, they probably don’t even regard mental afflictions as mental afflictions. So such people are clearly objects of compassion.” So that’s the first one. Then we move on.

[1:12:19] “The mind that seeks the path [So I think you all resonate with that, otherwise you probably wouldn’t be here.] The mind that seeks the path is said to take the mind as its path. [Or take the mind onto the path, my later translation.] For in this case, the mind observes the mind. Thoughts are observed with the conceptual mind.” So, this is certainly how it is when you first start doing the practice, you’re not really viewing it from pristine awareness, or even from the substrate consciousness. It’s one part of the mind observing another part of the mind; it’s in the mix? Right? That’s how it is. If you’re observing thoughts with the conceptual mind, that’s the way it is. But then gradually, gradually, gradually, your observation of thoughts, images, and so forth, becomes less and less conceptual. But when you start, it’s the mind observing the mind by observing thoughts with a conceptual mind.

[1:13:10] “And you seek the path of merely arousing pleasure and pain through intellectual fabrications, doing stuff with your mind.” ‘What can I do?’ ‘Oh, I had a really bad day, I should probably practice the Four Immeasurables.’ ‘Oh, I had a bad day, I should probably go to the infirmary.’ ‘Oh, I had a bad day. I think I’m gonna go for a walk.’ ‘I had a bad day. I want to watch television.’ You know. [Laughter] Gotcha! Arousing pleasure in being through intellectual fabrication, I mean, the stuff you do with your mind and the acceptance and rejection of virtue and vice, so it’s good. I mean, that’s good, accept virtue, reject vice. So there is the mind. That too is mind. And then we have the third one.

[1:13:56] “As for the mind that takes consciousness as the path, the experience of unimpeded ordinary consciousness, which is the ground of the mind [which refers to what? Tanya? Substrate consciousness, you betcha. Exactly.], the experience of unimpeded ordinary consciousness, which is the ground of the mind, is not the realization of the view. [Now, this is right towards the end of the text on Dzogchen. So we know the view is view of Dzogchen.] As the result of such practice, outer appearances are reduced to an ethically neutral state. [You see them as simply appearances as appearances. But that’s it, no, no pure vision, no, just that.] So, outer appearances are taken to be a reduced ethically neutral state. And since these appearances are taking to be real, [You come out of meditation, and you engage with all the appearances, you, you haven’t come out of your old rut, you reify everything as we do. And so] since these appearances are taken to be real, reification is not counteracted.”

[1:14:57] So if your practice is just awareness of awareness or shamatha without a sign, whatever arises – appearances, thoughts, and images, that you just simply see them as ethically neutral, you come out of meditation, you see all the appearances, the environment, and so forth, you see them as ethically neutral, they’re just, they are what they are. But then since you’ve not even begun to counteract reification, it isn’t counteracted. So, clearly this is mind. That’s outwardly. Inwardly your own body appears to be ethically neutral. Just sensations arising, they’re not virtuous not non virtuous, they are just neutral. So, the fixation of reifying the body is not counteracted.

[1:15:41] “And since both outer and inner appearances are taken to be ethically neutral and autonomous, you do not transcend the mind. So this …” And so a way to transcend the mind is rigpa, of course. “So this is too called mind. It’s rarified. It’s subtle. This resting in awareness of awareness, just resting there.”

[1:16:01] “But if that’s all you’ve ascertained, [it’s just this unimpeded flow of consciousness. If that’s it] even if this were called pristine awareness,” even if you say, ‘Okay, I’m dwelling in rigpa’, and a lot of people do that. And I think that’s been true for a long time and it’s true now. People get some pointing out instructions, perhaps, and then rest, just being aware of being aware. And then come out and say, ‘What are you doing?’ ‘I was resting in rigpa.’ It’s very, very common, among Tibetans and Westerns. ‘What are you doing?’ ‘I was doing nothing. I was just resting in rigpa.’ They’re resting in consciousness. And he’ll explain why.

[1:16:36] So, “even if this were called pristine awareness, like giving a boy’s name to an unborn fetus,” This is before they had what kind of scan? [Student answers: Ultrasound] Ultrasound? Yeah, before they had ultrasound. Before then, I mean, now, of course, people will know quite soon what the gender of your unborn baby is. But that’s very recent. This is 19th century, no ultrasound in Tibet. So before the baby’s born, you don’t have a clue whether it’s a boy or girl. So when you don’t have a clue, then to already call it a boy is premature. You have no basis for making that, right. And so this is premature, you’re resting in rigpa, you’re resting in basically just the flow of consciousness, mental awareness, and then you call it rigpa. It’s premature, you’re not there yet. Hold off a bit. Don’t be premature.

[1:17:31] “…don’t cultivate an illusion of knowledge.” Because that’s exactly what this is. And it’s the worst. I just hammered all the time when it comes to the modern cognitive sciences. You people are pretending to know what you don’t know, why don’t you stop doing that and just acknowledge ignorance. That’s a very fertile ground for actually gaining some insight. But when you pretend it as if you already know, like John Searle saying, ‘Every educated person already knows, there’s no mystery, we already know the mind is what the brain does.’ Well, you’re just saying that, but in fact you don’t know that at all. But he’s persuading people to stop asking the question. And then you do and then you never get out of your ignorance, because you are under the illusion of knowledge. That happens in science. It’s endemic in the cognitive sciences. It happens in Dharma. It’s endemic in Dharma as well, it’s very, very common, you know. So he’s referring here to an illusion of knowledge.

[1:18:26] So, “even if this were called pristine awareness, like giving a boy’s name to an unborn fetus, that characteristic of ascertaining pristine awareness in itself would not have been realized. [You haven’t arrived there yet, so don’t prematurely give that label, that lofty label, undeservedly.] Unawareness [ma rigpa, not rigpa], unawareness is failing to realize samsara and nirvana as Great Emptiness. If you haven’t yet realized the emptiness of all of samsara and nirvana, and you’re resting in awareness, you are resting in unawareness.” Not rigpa, you are resting in not rigpa. You’re not resting in rigpa. This is really clear, there’s no interpretation in what I’m saying. I’m saying what he’s saying, just making it more emphatic. And that is, if you’ve not realized the emptiness of all phenomena, and you’re simply resting in awareness, great. You’re resting in the substrate consciousness at best, or simply the continuum of conditioned consciousness.

[1:19:30] So, “Unawareness is failing to realize samsara and nirvana as Great Emptiness.” The terms awareness and unawareness, rigpa and ma rigpa, are known conventionally. How do you determine the distinction between the two? By way of their respective functions. If you’re resting in ma rigpa, in the sense of being unaware of the empty nature of all phenomena, such as the soon as you come out of meditation, you reify everything, and you’re probably reifying awareness while you’re resting there, then that has the function of perpetuating your samsara forever. If you’re resting in rigpa, as in pristine awareness, as in realizing the emptiness of all phenomena, and realizing it from the perspective of rigpa, that liberates you. So that’s a big distinction. And that is a distinction. It’s a functional distinction. It’s not just ideological or dogmatic or concepts of words. It says, ‘One does this and the one does that. This doesn’t liberate you ever, and this liberates you very quickly. Therefore, this is called unawareness; that’s called awareness.’ Very clear, yeah, completely pragmatic. So that’s mind, three levels, right. So you all have this. I’ve already said it to Claude and to Sangay, so you can review this. It’s really worth reviewing, as I said this is the last thing I’m offering you in terms of oral transmission for this retreat. So we’re ending on a very clear note, I think.

[1:20:52] And now rigpa. “Pristine awareness first establishes everything included in the phenomenal world of samsara and nirvana as emptiness. [That’s the critical point. If you’ve not realized that, you’re not resting in rigpa. And you can practice chö cha, letting be, open monitoring, open presence, ah, for eternity; you’re just sitting there in the jacuzzi of your mind, you know. And you’re calling yourself a Dzogchen practitioner and saying you’re resting in rigpa. Well, he just, this is Padmasambhava. So if you find a better authority, you know, go for that one. This is good enough for me.] The reflections of the planets and stars in the ocean have no existence apart from the ocean, yet they are of the same nature as the displays of the ocean. Likewise, rainbows in the sky have no existence apart from the sky, yet those appearances are of the same nature as the displays of the sky. In the same manner, pristine awareness is actualized. By correctly recognizing that, things appear, even though nothing exists from the side of the appearances. And that all appearances of the physical world and their sentient inhabitants have no existence apart from the Ground Sugathagarba, while those appearances are of the same nature as the displays of the Ground Sugathagarba.”

[1:22:17] That’s an enormous sentence. I’m going to read it one more time. Because he’s showing the two step, that is you must realize all appearances of samsara and nirvana, all of them equally, empty of inherent nature. But in addition to that, you will see, you see, you observe that they have no existence apart from the Ground Sugathagarba, which means that, of course, all of these are equally, whether it’s the most tremendous evil in the world, the most intense pain or anguish in the world, or the most sublime virtue and bliss in the world. All of it, equally, has no existence apart from the Sugathagarba. They are all equally displays of Sugathagarba. And that’s evident only from the perspective of rigpa. To try to imagine that, to rationalize that, to believe that from a relative perspective of mind, it’s just to tie your mind into knots. You’re not going to get there with evidence and you’re not going to get there with reasoning. Don’t even try. It makes sense only from the perspective of rigpa. So don’t try to nail it before you get there, you won’t; you’ll just be like having a nail gun and putting into forehead. Just give you a headache. So I’ll just read that one once again, a big sentence.

[1:23:43] “In the same manner, pristine awareness is actualized by correctly recognizing that things appear even though nothing exists from the side of appearances, and that all appearances of the physical world and their sentient inhabitants have no existence apart from the Ground Sugathagarba; while those appearances are of the same nature as the displays of the Ground Sugatagarbha. Like the dawn breaking in the sky without need for meditation [once you’re resting in rigpa, without need for meditation, without need of doing anything] Like the dawn breaking in the sky [without you’re doing anything about it, you don’t need to help it, right] Like the dawn breaking in the sky without need for meditation, you comprehend samsara and nirvana as being totally subsumed within great enlightenment.” Having no existence outside of dharmakaya.

[1:24:32] “Without need for investigation, there is your own awareness [without grasping] that all of samsara and nirvana is like the reflection of the planets and stars in the ocean; without need for modification, there is natural liberation in the absolute space of the ground, the great purity and equality of samsara and nirvana; without need for objectification, there is a spacious dissolution into the great expanse with no object, obstruction or intentionality. In this way you experience and gain mastery over the inexhaustible ornamental wheels of the enlightened body, speech, mind, qualities and activities of the jinas and jinaputras of the three times.” You can master the enlightenment itself with all of its qualities.

[1:25:21] “Ultimately, simply by identifying the dharmakaya, pristine awareness that is present in the ground, you gain power over the life force of samsara and nirvana. This is not a discussion of receiving empowerment through such things as water and symbolic pictures that are used as methods to awaken the mind. Rather, you know you’ve obtained the empowerment of the jinas and jinaputras and the oral transmissions of all the writings that emerge from primordial consciousness, pristine awareness. Thus, you’ve already simultaneously obtained all empowerments and oral transmissions, therefore recognize the importance of not mistaking the mind for pristine awareness.”

[1:26:11] So in essence, that last paragraph is saying, if you’re dwelling in rigpa, then you receive all the empowerments and oral transmissions from rigpa itself. Rigpa after all is the source of all the empowerments and oral transmissions and you’re tapping into the source. So that’s, there’s an ultimate self empowerment. Ok, one final thing and we’ll call it, an afternoon, we’ll call it a retreat in terms of fresh teaching. One final distinction and from your marga batin, the proponent of path, this is spot on.

[1:26:46] “O Vajra Pristine Awareness, if you do not know how to distinguish between what is and what is not the path, there is a danger that you may be led astray to what is not the path and unfortunately not actualize the genuine path. So learn how to distinguish between them. The path of the Perfection of Wisdom consists of correctly realizing the view, the essential point of emptiness, and simply taking this knowledge as the path.” So first you take the mind as the path. And then you take the view, the view of emptiness as your path. That’s the strategy, the next, the next leg of the journey, the next stage on the path. And it’s actually the commencement of actual path, ok.

[1:27:32] “Once you’ve realized the meaning of great emptiness, you know the nature of the whole of samsara and nirvana and the path, and you experience absolute space. [That’s dharmadhatu] This is called pristine awareness of the Great Perfection. The lucid clear ground free of contamination is taken as the path. If you take consciousness as the path, [we’re back now to the mind, remember? Taking consciousness as the path.] If on the contrary, you take consciousness as the path, you’re taking aspects of consciousness as the path. If you take the displays of the ground, the purity and equality of samsara and nirvana as the path, this is taking the essential nature as the path; this is called the authentic path.” So one is kind of a dead end if you just stop there. This is the authentic path.

[1:28:23] “What is called ‘viewing discursive thoughts with discursive thoughts’, [Remember? We’re back into that second mode of mind, observing the mind with the mind, discursive thoughts with discursive thoughts.] What is called ‘viewing discursive thoughts with discursive thoughts’ is not the path. With respect to discursive thoughts, you may engage in such evaluations as denying and affirming and adopting the good and rejecting the bad, and finally regard merely unstructured consciousness as the ultimate view and meditation.”

[1:28:52] ‘Unstructured consciousness’ in this context means what? Diogo, in this context, what is ‘unstructured consciousness’? [No answer] I’ll read it again. Because it’s good to have, put one person on the spot. If you get a wrong answer, I don’t care. But then I’m inviting everybody to, okay, now, what’s your answer?

[1:29:14] “With respect to discursive thoughts, you may engage in such evaluations as denying and affirming, adopting the good and rejecting the bad, and finally, regard merely unstructured consciousness as the ultimate view and meditation.” What’s that referring to, Carina? Unstructured consciousness. [Carina answers - inaudible] Yeah, substrate consciousness. Yeah. By this context, as I said so many times, that could mean a lot of things. It could be dharmakaya, it could be a lot of things, but not here. By context, you know, it can only refer to your heavily crystallized psyche, or coarse mind, having dissolved into the relatively unstructured state, whether it’s not human, male, female has no ethnicity and so forth. It’s melted, quasi melted into the substrate consciousness.

[1:30:00] So, “You may think, you finally may regard unstructured merely” And he said merely, you know, okay, merely means a lot; nobody ever says merely rigpa, right. [Laughter] So you finally, when you come to the conclusion, maybe you, you know, you’ve settled the mind in its natural state, eureka, it’s blissful, it’s luminous and non-conceptual; dharmakaya I have arrived, ‘thank you’. You plant your stake. I’m a vidyadhara, okay. You may regard this, substrate consciousness as the ultimate view and meditation. But that is not the path.

[1:30:32] “Even if you take the creative expressions of the mind, [now the effulgences of substrate consciousness] even if you take the creative expression of the mind and the essential nature of the mind as the path, [essential nature of the mind is substrate consciousness] since the mind is the basis of delusion, [This is the ground state of samsara; not the ground state of samsara and nirvana, it’s just the ground state of samsara, right.] since the mind is the basis of delusion, you will certainly not transcend the three realms.” So that is not the path and I don’t know how he could have said that more clearly. So there we are. Emaho. Enjoy your evening, and I’ll see you tomorrow morning.

Transcribed by Sueli Martinez

Revised by Shirley Soh

Final edition by Rafael C. Giusti

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.