65 Examining our Manifest Nature

Spring 2016 - 65 Examining our Manifest Nature

Olaso. So as I was reviewing the next section, that’s coming up immediately in the text, I was struck by the very empirical way or approach that Panchen Rinpoche is taking here. It’s not always the case. I’m somewhat familiar with the kind of Gelugpa literature, Madhyamika and so on. And I’ve often had the impression at least – whether or not it’s true is another question – that it was a very, very cerebral, very intellectual, very conceptual, very analytical, very logical, very philosophical. And there’s nothing wrong with any of that, as there are multiple routes to realizing the same, the same reality, such as Rigpa. Clearly there are multiple routes for realizing emptiness, there’s not just one path. And so there are intellectuals who are just extremely gifted in the philosophical analysis, in working with concepts with that whole approach. And Tsongkhapa just lays out the red carpet for them and said: “If this is your approach, here it is.” And he is truly a consummate master of that. But the approach here taken by Panchen Rinpoche – who is of course, you know, an utterly accomplished scholar in the Gelugpa tradition – in this very concise meditation manual here he’s about to say, and here are the pith instructions. You should always keep your eyes open for that. It’s translated in different ways, of course, but that’s my translation, it’s a fairly common translation.

[01:35] Then, you know, it’s kind of like…, now we’re going right to the core of it. There may be a background, there may be a theoretical context and all of that, but now we’re just going right to the nucleus. And you see pith instruction or however the translator translates it. Then you know, okay this is it. If you don’t like the pith instruction, if it’s not your cup of tea, probably you want to find another, another vehicle, right? If you don’t really care for the Four Noble Truths, it’s not your cup of tea, you probably want to find something outside of Buddhism. It’s probably not what you want, right? Because that’s the Buddhist pith instruction – the Four Noble Truths, right? So what am I getting at here? The next part is really worth memorizing ‘cause it’s really simple. And that is he is going to invite us “from the state of equipoise” – I’ll read it later but I’m paraphrasing closely right now: “From a state of equipoise examine the manifest nature of yourself and in three modalities: How do you exist? How do you appear? and How do you apprehend yourself?” Those three, those three are worth memorizing. There’s really enormous power in these. How do you exist, how do you appear, and how do you apprehend yourself, those three.

[02:37] And he’s not talking about engaging in a thought experiment. [laugh] He’s not talking about philosophy. I mean, again I don’t mean to deprecate philosophy at all, it’s a noble tradition, there are many brilliant minds in the history of philosophy, in the West and in the East. I’m not deprecating that at all. But William James was a philosopher but the type of philosophy that he advocated – which I am enormously enamored by – is radical empiricism. [Coming is] And the phenomenologists Husserl, Heidegger and so forth also really, they’re also very brilliant philosophers, great analytical skills. But they also, they like William James, – but William James in a language I can understand, contrary to Heidegger and Husserl, who’s much more, much more difficult to understand – are going right to the experience, right, and not substituting for experience, concepts, ideas, conceptual constructs, which happens a lot, you know, a great deal.

[03:56] So he says: “From a state of equipoise…” Well, there’s the first point. I mean, this is really now a direct commentary on the text, which we haven’t even read yet, but I want to see that we just, you know, completely fuse our engagement with the text, with the practice, okay? That’s the idea, that’s why I’m giving this front-loading in this section. “From a state of equipoise…” Well, of course he just finished talking about shamatha and completing that job, and so optimally he really does mean “after you’ve achieved shamatha”. And you’re resting there, having identified what he calls the relative nature of your mind. You’re just right there nakedly, resting in your own mind, stripped down to its nucleus, its primal flow of cognizance and luminosity. So you really know your mind conventionally, the flow of consciousness, you really know it, just like eating chocolate and while you’re eating chocolate you know chocolate, you know. And it’s not an abstraction, it’s not a concept, it’s just chocolate, chocolate, chocolate, I know it, I know it, I know it, directly. Well that’s how you know your consciousness. But it’s not just knowing it but you’re also resting there in this superbly fine-tuned equilibrium, it’s called nyam shak, an equal placing of your awareness. I mean, it’s really there – we speak of the ideal of objectivity in science – this is the ideal of objectivity in contemplative inquiry. That you’re balanced, you know. It’s neither relaxed nor excited, it’s just [whistle] there, evenly, ready to, ready to launch. So it is an argument for or, yeah, it’s not an argument like having an argument but it’s an argument for really taking this sequentially, you know? Not just tasting here and tasting there and tasting there. “Oh we’re finished? Okay let’s find the next text.” And then taste here and taste there and taste there. “Oh, let’s find the next text.” And do that.

[05:57] When I was reflecting upon this and just thoughts were coming up, I thought of a story I’ve told many times, so I’ll get the extremely concise version now of Lobsang Tenzin, the monk who had everything taken away from him in Tibet by the Chinese Communists. He was imprisoned, escaped from prison and then escaped from the country and leaving everything behind, his family, possessions, his land, everything behind. And then [he] joined the Indian military, was in the unit, I think, for two furloughs and then got out with no attachment, [laugh] I think, for anything in the world, because he left everything that he loved behind. And he was not old, he was 48 – I think he was 48 at this time – and there was just, there was just one thing, there was only one thing worth living for, and that was Dharma. And this man – who was, certainly was not very educated but he had to be educated enough that he could read – he really had some guts, because he went to the Senior Tutor of the Dalai Lama, Kyabje Yongzin Ling Rinpoche, and asked him for personal guidance, and said: “I want to achieve enlightenment. Would you guide me?” The Senior Tutor – that takes guts to do that, you know, he wasn’t a Tulku or Rinpoche, he was a farmer turned soldier to an ex-soldier who had nothing on his mind besides Dharma. But Yongzin Ling Rinpoche, the senior tutor saw: “Here’s a guy that, you know, if I teach him, he’s gonna follow it.”

[07:24] And so Ling Rinpoche then just taught him Lam Rim step by step – because… I’ve heard this from his own lips, I translated for him a couple of times, Lobsang Tenzin. He taught on precious human [birth], you know, from Lam Rim, from the beginning, but he would spoon feed him. It’s called, it’s the best type of guidance, it’s called myong khrid in Tibetan, experiential guidance, where the person teaching has realization and the person teaching gives you a teaspoon. And says: “Here, try this. Here’s the meditation on the rarity and the great enormous value of a precious human rebirth. Meditate on this until you really get it.” And then he went off to his cave and meditated till he got it. He said: “Okay, [AW sounds like eating] I’m hungry.” And then he would give him the teachings on impermanence and right through, step by step he had nothing else to do, you know. And so step by step he led him right through the Lam Rim [and then into] and then into Vajrayana. And he would just come down, receive the teaching, go practice. And so Ling Rinpoche, drawing from his own enormous erudition, but also as a highly accomplished yogi, and he just led him step by step. It’s called myong khrid, spiritual guidance, where you have the experience, you give guidance step by step to the other one until they have gained the experience, and then you’ll lead them like that. It’s very sequential, nothing rigid about it, it’s like, you know, it’s learning mathematics in stages. You learn arithmetic and then you’ll learn this and this and this. But you don’t do a little bit of algebra and then a differential calculus and then go back and do subtraction and then trigonometry. It actually is very linear, you know, and you do really kind of master one, you master algebra, before you go onto geometry, master geometry before trigonometry, trigonometry before calculus, and, you know, there you go. And that’s really, that’s the nature of the path. So in eight weeks we really can’t do that otherwise we’d just be staying at, you know, very, very elementaries and then, I mean, as some of you I’ll probably never see again. So it’s not very practical in a setting like this. But that is optimal, really, that’s optimal.

[09:24] So he says: “From a state of meditative equipoise…” Well, the real essence of this in this context is what I’ve been emphasizing all the way through: that stillness in the midst of motion. That ability to objectively – that is, without getting caught up, mixed up with and carried away by the contents of the mind – but the ability to maintain your integrity, maintain your poise, maintain your objectivity, your stillness, your clarity, your cognizance in the midst of emotions coming up, and desires, and thoughts, and turbulence, and laxity, and dullness, and all these waves of the mind, all these fluctuations of the mind, and not be caught up and carried away by them, which then you’ve lost your stance, you lost your stance, right? So, this practice that we’re about to do really would be optimal, less wear and tear and more incisive, swift results of gaining certainty, clarity, if you’ve already achieved shamatha, I mean, and that’s just, that’s just the way it is.

[10:41] And one can frankly spend a lot of useless unpleasant time reflecting upon, trying to figure out, ruminating, having uncertainty, struggling, struggling about stages along the path, further than where one is, never come to any real clarity. Because you’re not ready for that yet and it’s not just one person here who has done it, it’s, you know, it’s easy to do. Because we want to figure everything out before we do it, you know. We want to figure out everything all the way through, Madhyamika, Mahamudra, Dzogchen, I haven’t quite figured out Tögal yet. What about that fourth vision in Tögal? How is that different from this? You know, we want to get it all figured out and then what very easily happens after we figured it out is we treat it like a crossword puzzle. Now I’ve got figured out, I figured out Dzogchen but now what about the six, now that I’ve nailed that one, how about the six Dharmas of Naropa? I haven’t quite figured that one out, so please tell me exactly how is the illusory body different, you know. And then we nail that one. And then we go into Kalachakra. What about, what about those six yogas on the stage of completion of Kalachakra? I haven’t quite figured that out, you know. And by the time, you know, we figure all those out, we’ll all be dead [laughter], suffering from malnutrition, because we actually haven’t eaten anything. We’ve just figured everything out and which means we can be very good at explanations. And show all the cross references and this relates to this and then quoting this one and, you know, be a real maestro a while, and meantime you’re dying of malnutrition.

[12:08] So as we turn this awareness inwards from a state of equipoise, we’re asking “How do I exist?” I want to put it in a simple English so not get, you know, into conceptual trips or abstract trips. But “How do I exist? How do I appear? How do I apprehend myself?” Let’s take an analogy here. Imagine you’re a film critic, a good one. And you’re watching a film and familiar actors come on the screen and I would suggest, having no experience being a film critic and having seen some movies, is that as an actor, well-known actor, let’s say, like Robert De Niro, obviously, you know, extremely gifted actor. You see him coming on the screen, performing a certain role and, as a film critic, maybe you’re one of those people, maybe you’re on the committee for the Academy Awards, and here comes an obviously great actor, but is this a truly great performance or is it just one of the other performances he did? Or is this just one of those that just shines, that glows in the dark, that he’s going to be a real candidate, you know, for another Academy Award? Something like that, yeah? And so as you see Robert De Niro then on the screen, performing a certain role, you’ll see on the one hand how does he appear. Well, he’s appearing as this goofy, neurotic, mafia guy, you know, and it’s really a comedy, you’ve seen that one. What was it called?

[13:35] Student: “Analyze This”.

[13:36] “Analyze This”, yeah. Really, quite hilarious, I thought it was hilarious, really hilarious. But he played that role, I mean, to my mind, I’m not a critic but I thought, to perfection. Because he can play anything, obviously. And here he was, he’s on the one hand you kind of take him seriously as a Mafioso bad guy, and on the other hand he’s hilarious, you know, because he’s so screwed up and neurotic. Especially [singing] “I’m so pretty, I’m so pretty”, you know. Hearing a Mafioso don saying that was just really quite priceless. In any case I digress. [laughter]

[14:10] You’re watching the movie and you’re evaluating how is he, how is he – Robert De Niro, the actor – how is he, right? Because whether he gets the nomination or not, how is he? On the other hand, the role he’s playing, what kind of a guy is this that he’s playing? This neurotic Mafioso, you know, this don, who’s, you know, suffering all this guilt and so forth. How does he appear? Those are two different, utterly different questions. Robert De Niro’s not a Mafioso and so forth, and he’s not that neurotic, I don’t think. And so there’s the way he is and the way he is appearing because he’s playing a role. But then there’s your take on it. How are you apprehending this figure who is appearing on the screen now? How are you apprehending that? What’s your take, okay? Those are three different things, right? Important not to conflate them. They are three different things. And as a film critic or evaluator of an actor’s role, you’ll be aware of all three, yeah? So if you’re asked after the film: “Please describe the character that Robert De Niro was playing in this film”, well you could do it in detail, right? “Please tell me what was the quality of Robert De Niro’s performance?” You could tell that in detail. “What was your evaluation of the character? Was it a good screenplay? Was it an interesting character he was playing?” But also: “What was your evaluation of how he performed that role? What was your take as a subjective? What’s your take, right?” So those are three quite distinct, yeah? Okay that’s pretty obvious there.

[15:54] But now, let’s say, you meet somebody, now just ordinary life, you meet somebody. Maybe in a business context and this could turn out to be a long-term business relationship. Three things still occur: as you get to know the person, you get to know how is this person, how is this person really. Because the person may be putting on a show, may be putting on a performance, may be trying to manipulate you in some way. There’s the way the person appears, and then you might find a discrepancy or [dis] disparity between the way the person appears and the way the person is. Maybe the person is really a con artist, or really may be very, very dishonest. But such a good performance, such a schmoozer, you know, really knowing how to, you know, get you to trust him and so forth. And so, but as you get to know you say: “Well, this is the way he appears, but I’ve been watching carefully and this is the way he is.” And sometimes they’re very congruent. When Paul Ekman was observing his Holiness Dalai Lama, in the first Mind and Life meeting that he attended in 2000, he said: “I’ve never seen anybody in my life who’s so transparent where there’s just, there’s just no difference.” It’s just completely transparent as he appears, that’s how he is. And here’s a man who’s studied faces professionally for decades, he’s a world expert on it. So, that kind of thing, yeah? So you get to know a person and you get to know how is the person. But also how does the person appear, how is this person presenting him or herself, right? And then what’s your take, what’s your take on the person, how do you apprehend the person, okay? So I think it’s very important if we can just, if we can really get use, benefit, because this is medicine after all. It’s not just an intellectual exercise or a philosophical quest. This is medicine to cut the root of samsara, right? This is, this is intended, it’s really deep medicine.

[18:04] And so… then we can ask, all right? So we have the film critic, we have getting to know a person, these three modes of observation or inquiry hold valid, and then we can ask: Well, can you observe yourself just in daily life, just from day to day, can you observe yourself? Ah, for example when you look in the mirror, can you observe yourself? Of course you can. But is that the only time you can observe yourself? Observe, I don’t mean just visual, I mean can you be aware of yourself? And then take note of, you know, really watch, observe, ah, not only when you’re in the mirror but can you observe yourself when you’re not looking in the mirror? I think the answer is quite clearly, yeah. Are you aware of how you, how do you appear, how do you appear to yourself? Just like the other two cases these are coming right into the nucleus. How do you appear to yourself, okay? And then how do you exist? How do you appear to yourself, as you see yourself in situation, to situation, to situation? How do you appear? Right? You appear in a certain way to other people and probably different ways to different people. How do you appear to yourself? Right? And then how are you? How do you exist? As you observe yourself, how are you actually? How do you exist? And then what’s your appraisal? What’s your take? What’s your evaluation of the kind of person you are? Do you like this person? Dislike? You know, find agreeable, pleasant, find virtuous, non-virtuous, interesting, boring, noble, crude? What’s your take? Now we can do this as we observe ourselves in different situations, right, and in encountering different kind[s] of people, we kind of get to know who we are, what kind of person we are. How are you when you deal with, deal with really aggressive people or very condescending people, very selfish people? How are you? How are you when people praise you or maybe they show a lot of admiration? How are you then? How are you when people ignore you? How are, etcetera etcetera? How are you? How do you appear and what’s your take? How do you apprehend yourself? So we can say that and we can even be more self-aware. But then can we also do the same? How are you? How do you appear? How do you apprehend yourself? Can we do this also when we are sitting quietly in meditation and really not doing much at all?

[20:52] In fact, I would suggest here that the optimal platform is one you’re familiar with by now: settle your mind in its natural state. And from that stillness, that kind of objectivity, that doesn’t have a whole lot of personality [laughter], right, from a perspective that doesn’t have much personality at all, hardly even has any gender, is not really old or young, not really smarter or not smart, just there, watch the show. Watch the show of the activities of your mind. And can you observe yourself in that context? My answer is yes. Can you observe how you’re appearing as you’re just settling the mind in its natural state, but free flow. This is where it turns out to be really important not editing, not shutting down, not antidoteing, not remedying, not fixing, not suppressing. Free flow, right? Just whatever comes up and it could be memories and passions and desires and emotions and feelings and speculations and virtues and non-virtues and coarse and subtle and pleasant and unpleasant. Open that Pandora’s box and let you pop out in your myriad manifestations, because it’s not just going to be the same, right? Any more than if you were married, you know, your spouse doesn’t always appear in the same way. The longer you know, you’re applying more faces, more faces. And so similarly here, rest in the stillness of your awareness and then watch as you observe yourself, as you observe yourself, as you’re aware of yourself, taking note of yourself. How are you present? How do you appear? And how do you apprehend yourself? So that’s the practice, okay? Good.

[22:49] So but now it becomes really, really obvious, doesn’t it? The more you’ve really cultivated the ability of the shamatha practice, of settling the mind in its natural state, or taking the mind onto the path, the more effective, the more, how do you say, less wear and tear, less stressful this practice will be. Because if you keep on and you’re trying to do this, and then every three or four seconds you’re carried away, caught up in cognitive fusion there, and cognitive fusion there, after a while well, it’s not much fun, you know, and Dharma goes a lot, well, a lot better if you enjoy it. It’s not much fun, if you’re kind of basically, it’s like trying to play a piano piece that just way up, way over your head and you hear yourself play and you grimace [laughter] and you’re wondering why I’m trying, why am I trying to play this piece? it’s just, I’m just stumbling all the way through it. Better chopsticks well done than Liszt done poorly, right? [laughter] That was a big spectrum, by the way. So always comes back to shamatha, to create your basis, that’s your telescope, that’s your stability, that’s your clarity and your ability to continue in the practice without seizing up, without getting tired, without getting exhausted and drained. So I frontloaded a lot, so now I won’t need to speak much at all.

[24:05] Please find a comfortable position, it’s vipashyana time.

[24:40] This is the kind of thing in an optimal setting, that is, if we were just all lifelong yogis living in a contemplative observatory. This is exactly the place where you would do it for some days and then you would come in and you would be expected to report. And you meet with your teacher whoever it may be. And the teacher would say: “It’s not time for you to ask questions, [laughter] it’s time for me to ask questions. [laughter continue] When you observe yourself, how do you exist? How do you appear? How do you apprehend? Speak.” Like talking to a dog. “Speak, arf-arf, say something.” [laughter] And if you have nothing to say, then you may as well leave, ‘cause we’re here to make observations and report and then through the reporting and then getting feedback. That’s frankly a lot faster than just trying to do it on your own. As I know from my training in Buddhist school of dialectics you can study, and Glen knows this, you can study texts on Sautantrika, Yogachara, you can study and think about it. But I can tell you, because I’ve done both. Doing that, on the one hand just studying and hearing teachings and thinking about them and so forth, on the one hand, on the other hand taking a text, memorizing at verbatim, which we all did, and then getting instruction on it for a short time and then spending five hours for every hour of instruction, attending five hours a day out on the debating courtyard. Well, there’s no comparison because that’s where your understanding really becomes public and you’re [clap] going away at it, you know [finger snap]. And taking different positions, and sometimes taking position and defending it, and the next session then you’re [a clap], you’re the one standing, clap, [finger snap] you’re clapping your hands and analyzing another person, deconstructing, you’re trying to demolish it if you can, and the next time you’re going back and forth. There’s no comparison.

[27:03] Some people have enough, so much horsepower, they can do that on their own. Frankly, in my experience, not many people do. Because when you’re, when you’re spending five hours a day and you’re facing somebody who’s looking down on you and clapping his hands really loudly, you can’t fall asleep and you can’t get very distracted, because they, they’re standing right in front of you and say [clap]: [27:09 Tibetan?]. You can’t say “What?” [laughter] “Oh, I had a distracting thought, I was suffering from laxity for a moment.” “What?” “Stop it!” [laughter] Something like that. So we don’t have the time but of course I will expect you to report in detail to Glen. [laughter] We’re doing as well as we can, yeah, given the limited time we have two and a half weeks let’s get cracking.

[27:39] The bell rings three times.

[28:09] With the joyful thought that the practice of vipashyana, the rigorous investigation in the nature of reality, may actually yield truths, yield real realization, yield realizations that set us free, that cut through the suffering, with such a vision, such an aspiration, settle your body, speech and mind in the natural state, prepare yourself, settle in a dynamic equilibrium of body, speech and mind.

[30:16] And you come to the culmination of this settling, like a skier poised for a downhill run, ready to launch, poised in equilibrium, relaxed, still and vivid, awareness resting in its own place.

[30:48] Then enter the main practice, the preliminary phase of the main practice and that is to observe the space of the mind and whatever arises within it. Stabilize there for a short time, sustaining the flow of mindfulness without distraction, without grasping.

[32:04] And now from this stillness and this clarity, this discerning cognizance letting the mind go into free flow, observe how you appear to yourself, as memories come up, as emotions come up, desires, thoughts come up, imaginations come up, and you as the agent come up together with them. Observe how you appear, in one scene after another. How do you exist? And how do you apprehend yourself? In what manner?

[33:25] So arouse your attention as we’ve done so frequently, arousing and releasing, this time arouse into vipashyana, active inquiry. And when you begin to tire, release back into shamatha. And arouse into vipashyana when you’re rested, and release back into shamatha.

[33:58] But like a person who set out on an expedition, exploring unknown lands, be prepared to report to yourself afterwards and perhaps to another spiritual friend: What did you see? How do you exist? As you examined yourself, how do you appear? What are the ways in which you appear and what are the ways in which you apprehend yourself? And be prepared to articulate, it’s a crucial element of the practice. We’ll continue practicing now for a while in silence.

[51:53] The bell rings three times.

[52:22] So this is a practice, obviously, that is very well worthwhile to take on the road and that is between sessions. It’s a bit tame, pretty much, when we’re just sitting quietly, being observing what comes up, when we’re out engaging with the reality around us, during the retreat, for people listening by podcast as you engage with reality, wherever you are, and for those of us here, in three weeks when we’re somewhere else, then to see as we go to the airport, we’re going here, we’re going there, to see, to continue this vipashyana practice. That’s where it really gets real, it starts to become very meaningful. So now we pick up with the root text, as I said. From within the foregoing equipoise – okay, you know that even “from the foregoing equipoise”, you know that it means exactly, the foregoing achievement of shamatha, what you’ve actualized, realized, relative nature of your mind – From within the foregoing equipoise, you should, like a minnow swimming in limpid water without disturbing it. Limpid means clear and transparent, brightly, brightly lit. So just slipping through, right? No perturbation, no waves, no stirring up silt and dirt and so forth, just slipping through. This is the subtlety of your awareness, that you just let it slip through and observe what’s arising in the space of the mind. Like a minnow – is a very small fish – swimming in limpid water without disturbing it, analyze wisely with subtle awareness, the manifest nature of the one who meditates. Manifest nature, I have explained how that’s different from the essential nature; with subtle awareness, well your coarse awareness is what you, what you’re using in your ordinary, you know, with the coarse mind, when you’ve not achieved shamatha. And so he’s saying, you know, when he says equipoise and he says subtle awareness, is this direct reference to having fully achieved shamatha, and using that as your basis for venturing into vipashyana, which is really the way should be done optimally.

[54:32] So when Gen Lamrimpa was leading a one-year shamatha retreat in 1988, well it’s just shamatha all the way through. He wasn’t peppering it with a bit of vipashyana and stage of generation and must be some tummo. It was just “Let’s do shamatha” and that’s what we did for a year. So thus without wavering, so here’s his commentary. That was the root text and here’s his commentary to its own text, thus without wavering in the slightest… So not even subtle excitation. without wavering in the slightest from the previous equipoise that is settle, settled single-pointedly in serene concentration – that’s the samadhi of shamatha – as for example a minnow swims without disturbance in the midst of a lake full of limpid water. From within that equipoise, you should analyze the subtle consciousness with subtle consciousness. And that’s what’s, you know, that’s what your coarse mind is dissolved into. So with that subtle stream now, what’s happening here – this is very important – is when you achieve shamatha, for a while, just like, it’s you know, a distant analogy, but like the Buddha having achieved enlightenment and then simply dwelling in that enlightenment for forty nine days, before setting out, you know, walking to Sarnath. Okay, there’s on the top of the mountain, way down towards the…, in the foothills of the mountain. When you achieve shamatha, there’s certainly nothing wrong with enjoying it for a while, you know, forty-nine days might be a bit much but at least, you know, for a few days, just enjoy resting, resting in that bliss, luminosity, non-conceptuality, you know. Give yourself a little pat on the back and then, but don’t hang out too long, don’t get addicted to it.

[56:09] But then you go back into shamatha and then you’re resting there for a while and then you turn on the switch. Bear in mind the real point of achieving shamatha was not bliss, luminosity, non-conceptuality. If you want bliss, there are drugs for that; if you want luminosity, there are drugs for that; if you want non-conceptuality, a sharp blow to the frontal cortex will do it. [laughter] There are various ways of getting non-conceptuality, general anesthesia, etc. So if that’s all you want, there are much, much easier ways of getting it, right? Those are very nice, in fact they’re very meaningful, but the real point of that is you now have the five dhyana factors at your fingertips, the five obscurations are subdued, your mind is supple, it’s clear, it’s light buoyant and ready to be put to work. So you’re resting there for a short time in the substrate consciousness and then from that equipoise you activate your mind, you activate it. So you don’t simply rest in the substrate consciousness aware of the substrate, you activate it, you turn it on and then you start engaging in the investigation. So, from that, from within that equipoise you just analyze with subtle consciousness, the manifest nature of the individual or I who meditates in concentration. You can imagine, this would be very, very different if you’ve achieved shamatha. If you’re already finished. And there you are in this… like in Carnegie Hall, like in a room with perfect acoustics and it’s pin-drop silent, right? Something like that – pin-drop silent – that you’re in a space that’s non-conceptual and it got great acoustics. Your clarity is just blazing, and now you’re going to examine carefully the I who meditates, the I who is the meditator, the I who is resting there. You’re going to investigate that.

[57:58] And now in these three ways: you’re going to analyze with subtle consciousness the manifest, that is, what is evident but you can examine, nature of the individual or I who meditates in concentration. And how do you analyze? You analyze its way of existing, its way of appearing to the intellect or to your mind, and its way of being grasped or apprehended. Analyze all this subtly and astutely, with precise and discriminating mind. Well, again, if you’ve achieved shamatha that will be a very different experience than probably the one you just had. When you analyze, thus, you see [that] the way of abiding of an individual, how the individual is present, the way of existence, the way of appearance, the way of abiding, so it’s gnas lugs [Tibetan ? gnas tsul 58:47], the way of abiding of an individual, an “I”, a person, and so forth. you see that the way of abiding, how phenomena are present, how you are present, but then more generally the way of abiding, the way of presence, the way of existence of all phenomena. You will see, when you analyze this, that the way of existence of all phenomena is merely nominal, merely conceptually imputed, merely designated, as a snake is imputed on a stripe rope or a person is imputed on a cairn or a pile of sticks. Boy, you really jumped to the end there – he gave you the beginning, he gave the end, okay? But this said, this is what you see, so it’s clearly leading the witness. But if you can come to that conclusion, not just indoctrinate yourself or memorize the right answer. If you can see that, well, you will be very grateful that he guided you to that insight, because it turns out to be an enormously liberating insight, and not just getting the right answer, the correct answer from the Madhyamika perspective.

[59:48] So you’ll see that the “I” is merely nominal. It’s just a name, it’s simply something conceptually designated. And as a snake is designated, imputed on the stripe rope, that is, where the stripe rope is there is no snake whatsoever, but you impute it on it. The stripe rope is the basis of your false designation of it being a snake. Or a cairn or a pile of sticks, so a pile of rocks or a scarecrow or whatever and then looking upon that and then mistaking that for a person. So here it might be helpful to draw the distinction I’ve seen very, very clearly articulated in Dzogchen teachings on vipashyana, and yeah, pretty especially vipashyana, nature of emptiness. And that is there are many, many references to the appearances to the five senses, the appearances of five senses and objects: it’s nama and yul, so there are the appearances and then the objects, right?

[1:00:50] So I’ll speak just briefly here from the Dzogchen perspective. It’s certainly very relevant to this, even though it slows us down in getting through the text. The appearances are just… they’re just happening, they’re just arising, right, it’s just… they’re just coming up. Their colors, their sounds or shapes “in the seen, let to be just the seen”. That’s what you’re seeing, just the appearances arising, appearances not as anything else, just… And they’re nameless, the appearances don’t name themselves, there are no names, there are no concepts in appearances, there are no concepts in color, shape, smell, sound, taste, and so forth, there are no concepts, there are no labels, there are no ideas. They are just what they are. And of course, being what they are, they are just appearances, which means there’s nothing more to them. So being just an appearance, that means, they are empty appearances, which is to say they’re empty of anything else, they’re not stuffed with something else like something substantial, real and inherently existent, right? So they are appearances – that stroke me as, again, I was just kind of sitting quietly before coming here, this marvelous phrase, I think it’s actually the most memorable or one of the most memorable in Lerab Lingpa’s quintessential pith instruction on settling the mind in its natural state. Right towards the end he says: “Now when you become…” – I’m paraphrasing closely – he said: “When you become well familiar or well familiarized with this practice, you will have a non-conceptual certainty that nothing can harm in within the context of observing your mind”, right? “You’ll have a non-conceptual certainty that nothing can harm your mind whether or not thoughts have ceased.” It’s a very interesting phrase because he’s saying thoughts may still arise but you have a non-conceptual awareness of the thoughts, which implies, of course, no cognitive fusion, right? So you think, think thoughts, like I gaze at Paola. Paola is simply appearing to me but there’s no fusion. I’m just non-conceptually, I can be aware of the appearance of Paola. Similarly, I could be non-conceptually aware of the appearances, the thoughts, the images, memories, fantasies, desires, emotions, intentions and so on, and you do have the possibility of having that non-conceptual awareness of them.

[1:02:56] But in that – and it was just a straight shamatha practice, it’s not a vipashyana practice but it’s the, to my mind, it’s the most insight-rich approach to shamatha that I know of. I’ll put it that way. That “in the seen…” – and you’re doing exactly what Buddha told Bahiya to do: “In the mentally perceived let there be just the mentally perceived”, right? And so you’re seeing all these things coming up, you’re not cognitively fusing with them, you’re not imputing, projecting labels, associations, thoughts, and so forth and so on, you’re not reifying them, you’re just seeing appearances as appearances. And in so doing, you see them as empty, and seeing them as empty, you know intuitively or non-conceptually it doesn’t matter what comes up. It can be Godzilla, it can be Jesus, it can be anything. I just had a big spectrum there, you know, but it can be anything, something most benign and magnificent and sacred to the most disgusting and terrible and horrendous, and it doesn’t matter. None of them have any capacity to harm you any more than if you see a good movie or bad movie, you know, a comedy or a horror movie. Those appearances on the screen, they’re just appearances on the screen, right. So those are appearances on the basis… but then – and the Dzogchen literature says – they are appearances to the five senses, and of course to the sixth. And then there are objects, then there are objects. And the objects are those things that the mind designates, imputes upon the basis of appearances, right?

[1:04:38] So I see… Where is Mary Kay? She was there, she was [laughter]… there’s a vacuum, there’s… I’m seeing an emptiness of Mary Kay, okay? [laughter continues] Kind of getting used to it. There’s this… an appearance there as I gaze over. Now Mary Kay’s, you know, being the tricky person she is, she confuses me. And now, there’s the appearance of Mary Kay, now she’s gone again. The appearance, and on the basis of that appearance, as I look, she’s, you know, about 15 feet away. On the basis of that, and it’s: “Oh, there she is, there she is”, right? Just an appearance. The appearance doesn’t have Mary Kay built into it, doesn’t have any label, any name or anything, anything of the sort, doesn’t have “person” built into it. The appearance – just an appearance. But on the basis of that appearance then we say: “Where’s Mary Kay? And Mary Kay is an object now, an object of my mind. And Mary Kay does have a name. In fact, she is a name. But she’s not in the nature of appearance and therefore she’s not out there. She’s not out there to be found and that’s why. It sounds retrospectively like “Why did you even look?”, you know, when you see how she appears, how she exists and how you apprehend. When you see that, when you’ve really really inspected that, maybe more than one session, maybe for a year, then you’ll see [that] Mary Kay as an object. Not simply an appearance, an empty appearance just arising, but as an object, a person over there. And then I’m pointing my finger very deliberately: a person over there, right? Well, she’s Mary Kay. She’s a person that my mind has designated on the basis of appearances. Which means, if I should examine the appearances, the appearance of her body, all the body parts, all the processes of her mind and I’m looking for – it’s almost like a joke, like you already know the answer – you really think Mary Kay is going to be found among her body parts? or her mental processes? or do you think she’s kind of existing maybe in the neighborhood, you know, hanging out in the proximity of her body and mind? The whole thing kind of looks like: “You knew the answer already”, right? If you designated her, if she doesn’t exist independently of that designation, then of course she’s not to be found there and she’s not going to be found in your mind either. Mary Kay is not to be found in my mind. She’s a person, she’s not a figment of my imagination, so she’s not going to be found over here. She’s not going to be found in between, she’s not going to be found in the appearances over there.

[1:07:17] She’s an object and that goes for every other object in the universe. From elementary particles up to galaxies and so on, the objects are those things that we designate on the basis of appearances. Appearances are empty, the appearances are empty of real objectivity, of “there’s something being really there”. A rainbow is a classic example, one of the 10 that the Buddha often gave. You look at the rainbow, you can photograph it and all of that. It has causal efficacy, it makes you smile, is a beautiful rainbow and there it is. And yet, it’s nothing more than an appearance, nothing more than an appearance. You know, that it doesn’t exist. If everybody around you closes their eyes. It’s not there, right? It’s not there in the nature of the photon, it’s not out there in space. Some just even though the camera lens says it is, in fact it’s not. Otherwise you could see it from multiple angles. From the bottom up, from the back, from the side. Would not be interesting to photograph a rainbow from the side to see a narrow sliver. Well of course it never happens because it’s not there, right? And so this is a useful distinction. When we find objects from elementary particles but also objects that are subjective and that is an emotion – impatience, that’s an object. We can observe it, right? It’s something we designate upon appearances but it’s not the same as the appearances. So this goes objectively as well as subjectively. As soon as we’ve designated an object whether it’s out there or it’s in here, it’s designated on the basis of appearances and the appearances are empty of that designated object.

[1:08:53] I introduced earlier the distinction between basis of designation and designated object. Here’s a crucial point, if you miss this one you’ll miss everything. And that is, whatever you’ve identified as the basis of designation, like Ann Marie’s face for example, the appearance of Ann Marie’s face, whenever you identify something as the basis of designation for the object that you’ve designated upon it, that which you’ve identified as the basis of designation wasn’t already the basis of designation. It wasn’t inherently, by its own nature, the basis of designation for what you’ve designated upon it. It’s the basis of designation only because you’ve designated something on it, but it’s not objectively even a basis of designation. It’s just an appearance and appearances have no names. Which means, in fact, appearances are – and this comes up in Cittamatra Mind Only School a lot – appearances are ineffable, appearances are ineffable. And that is, if you’re talking to someone, for example, I mean, it’s kind of obvious, I’ll be really short. But imagine you’re tasting chocolate and it’s right in your mouth; you know exactly what it is and you want to now explain the nature of the taste you’re experiencing right now to a person who’s never experienced anything sweet. [laughter] So you don’t even know how to start, and they … imagine they’ve memorized every dictionary on the planet, they know all the definitions, right? You can’t even start. It’s “I’m sorry, but I’ve had this ineffable, inconceivable experience, that I will call the taste of chocolate but you’ll have no idea what I’m talking about.” But you might, if you like, check out its chemical composition but it won’t give you even a hint of what it’s like, not even a taste of a taste. The appearances have no names, objects do, because we designated them. And that’s for everything, elementary particles, galaxies, the sun, moon, asteroids and everything else.

[1:11:10] Okay, we have to get through this text [laughter]. The sutra says: It appears – it appears, it, yourself, you, the individual, you’re examining here – It appears just as does a Gandharva city – a city, let’s say, of leprechauns, of fairies, something like that. Something very elusive, something not objectively real. That city exists in none of the ten directions, is not really anywhere, not truly located anywhere, in other words, that city is merely nominal. Thus is this realm seen by the sugata. So that is the domain of reality seen by a Buddha. We should see things as the Tatagatha does. That would be a good idea. [laughter] Good. And in, are you taking, really taking that to heart in a very practical way. Very practical and I mentioned before now very briefly. But when you’re settling the mind in its natural state, you’re observing all the stuff coming up, including mental afflictions and nagging thoughts and memories and blah blah, all that kind of stuff. Insofar as possible, seek to view them as if from the Buddha mind, as if the mind viewing them was the Buddha mind, which is non-dual from your own awareness. And how would the Buddha perceive? The Buddha really sitting right where you are. How would the Buddha perceive your own mental afflictions, your thoughts, memories, emotions and so forth? Well, just for starters, of course the Buddha is not going to be harmed by them. Impossible! The Buddha will see them discerningly, utterly untouched by them, without reification and yet see them as they are.

[1:12:50] Thus when we are mistaken, when we are unmistaken, when we are unmistaken, this is not only for the self but for all phenomena – All phenomena should appear as mere names – all those objects that we have designated should appear as mere names. This is how they should appear to us, if we’re seeing things as they are. All phenomena should appear… How do they appear? They should appear as mere names, with merely imputed existence, knowing perfectly well there, they weren’t already there. They weren’t … that’s not how they were from their own side. It’s imputed. When they do not appear thus, when we see them in another way, namely as if they appear as if they really do exist from their own side, when they do not appear thus, we are possessed by the demon of ignorance. And the way they exist appears mistakenly. In other words, their mode of existence and their mode of appearances are contrary to each other, like a liar who appears to be very, very honest and yet is completely dishonest. So the way they exist appears mistakenly and by fixating on that, we collect karma. Fixating on that, well that means of course reification. So thus we fixate on that, we reify that, then we collect karma. That’s when the big karma engine starts rolling and, by the power of this karma, we wander in samsara and experience various sufferings. So he just gave the mechanics of all of samsara right there.

[1:14:23] Now when the essence is nakedly revealed – how they actually exist is nakedly seen, directly seen – then such a way of appearing and such a way of fixation are asserted respectively as the appearance of the object of negation. The object of negation, of course, is something that doesn’t exist but we apprehend that, something that doesn’t exist but appears to. And the object of negation is something that doesn’t exist but we apprehend it as existing. So then such a way of appearing and such a way of fixation are asserted respectively as the appearance of the object of negation, its way of appearing as truly established – that means truly existent – and the way of grasping at true existence or the way of fixation. Thus for us ordinary individuals – that is, non-aryas – the object of negation has no other way of appearing to reasoning apart from the way present appearances arise. That is, the object of negation really appears to be there from its own side, that’s how things appear. Because all cognitions in the mind stream of an ordinary individual are contaminated by ignorance. It gets right there into the mode of appearances themselves, so any object that appears, appears as truly existent. This is very very dense but he is clear. Thus based on the ascertainment that persons and phenomena exist merely imputedly, when ascertains accordingly that the root of samsara is our way of grasping at “I” – that is connate grasping at “I”:, we’re born with it, not something we learned – for based on such a realization, one is able to thoroughly ascertain our way of apprehending the subtle object of negation.

[1:16:18] So it’s often said the first step to insight is to see how ignorant you are or how confused, that’s the first big step. The first big step in shamatha is [to] recognize how chaotic your mind is. There are parallels all over the place. Here in this setting out on this path of vipashyana, the first great milestone is to recognize how phenomena such as yourself appear in a way that is deceptive, misleading. And how you grasp to them in a, in a false way, a mistaken way, grasp to them as if they really exist, independently of your conceptual designation, independently of your names. That in fact even though they were already just waiting for a name and happens to be a German name, a French or Italian, doesn’t matter, they really are already and they’re just waiting for the right thing, you know. That would be the inherent existence of something. It’s already there, independent of, irrelevant to your conceptual designation of it.

[1:17:30] Thus the omniscient Je, Je Tsongkhapa, stated this in many ways. For example, and here’s a quote from him: There is the demonstration that all phenomena exist imputedly – that’s how things actually are – and opposite to that or contrary to that, the way of identifying the object of negation. So it’s really seeing reality just like you can be in an non-lucid dream and then shift your perspective and view the same dream from a lucid perspective, same phenomena, but of course they’re entirely different viewed from this perspective and that perspective. This one’s delusional – you think everybody’s really out there – and here you’ve shifted over to lucid and you see all the same appearances but now you’re not delusional. So in a similar fashion, you can view phenomena, you can see them, view them as existing imputedly, you can see how they are there, how their mode of existence is one that exists only, that it exists only relative to the way they are imputed. You can see that. Or then you can fall back into non-lucidity and you can be, how do you say, just seeing the objects of negation as something that’s real, okay, grasping onto it is real.

[1:18:35] With regard to these ways, some of those reputed as lordly scholars, who claim to be guides for many sentient beings, are ambiguous in their writings. So not all of the great scholars of Tibet or India had really seen this point. Only those holy ones who have made practice, essential, have sufficient greatness of mind to be reliable. So it’s not enough just to study the text to be really clever and logical and so forth. And in fact I’ve seen this, I’ve seen this because I studied quite a bit of philosophy when I was at Stanford and then I’ve known a lot of very fine scholars in the Tibetan tradition. And there’s some commonality there for those scholars who really don’t spend much time practicing, I mean, like no meditation, but they’re studying and memorizing, teaching and debating and studying, meditating and reciting, and teaching, and so forth. And philosophers in Western academia, I mean, it’s kind of the same, pretty much. They’re studying and they write and they research and they debate and they write critiques of others and they get critiqued themselves. It’s very similar, but they’re philosophizing. And I’ve noted a common, a common characteristic: lung, [laughter] stressed out. I’ve seen this a lot among intellectuals, you know. This is what they’re doing, this is their bread and butter, this is how they make a living. They make a living stressing themselves out with their intellect, you know. It’s all there at the top of the pyramid. It’s all exercise of the clarity, the vividness, the acuity, the sharpness.

[1:20:09] Oh this philosopher is so sharp! Oh this debater, this Geshe is so sharp! That’s good, nothing wrong with that. That’s the tip of the pyramid, they’re exercising at the tip of the pyramid. Do they have any stability underneath that? Do they have a sense of ease? And the answer is some of them do. Kyabje Yonzin Ling Rinpoche was like, he was like a, like a Buddha, he’s just so firm, so solid, so relaxed, so deep; Kyabje Trijan Rinpoche is the same. Geshe Narwang Dharghey certainly had a lot of, so much energy, but also, boy, when he showed his shamatha and he sat for three hours, like a stone Buddha, you can’t fake that. Nobody can fake that. So this is why Geshe Rabten said when he was telling me his life story, because he was an outstanding debater, he was really, really first-rate. But he said, you know, a lot of the, a lot of the debaters in the sole Geshe Training Program, they’re out on the debating courtyard. In Tibet, they’re like, debate like eight hours a day. We [had] only five hours a day in India. And then they’d come back and they’d study and study and study and memorize more text and study, study and then back to the debate and they’d lose some debates and they’d get said: “Okay, I know I’m going to win that debate next time.” And they go back and forth between debating and then studying the text, memorizing and debating. And that would be all it, and then they could get a very high degree as a Geshe. He said well, that’s a straight ticket to getting lung. He didn’t say that but it is, lung, just getting totally stressed out, high-strung, irritable, edgy and frankly not very happy. I can’t remember… I’m just trying to think how many really happy Western philosophers do, I know. [laughter] Cheerful, happy-go, lucky, light-hearted, hmm. They’re not known for that, you know. And he said the proper way and he was teaching me this just before I launched into the education program myself. “Go out on the debating courtyard, you debate, you try to win the debate, of course, do your very best and then you come back right from the debating courtyard and go back to meditation. Whatever you learned on the debating courtyard, put right into practice. And then study, prepare for the next and then go out and debate and then right back to practice, apply it in meditation.

[1:22:30] And then he did that. He spent 19 years getting his Geshe degree and then after a little bit of supplementary study after that, off to retreat for six years, living in a cowshed. So he really walked the walk. So, as Khedrup Norsang Gyatso says: “The constellations of arrogant scholars trailing the mighty sun of the excellent mind” – he is referring to Lobsang Drakpa, who is Tsongkhapa – “say that things truly exist by their own characteristics and intrinsic nature. Through their own minds settled awareness seeing the meaning of negating objects of negation, bound by conventional words.That is asserted to be the great Madhyamika, free of extremes." So, these people, you know, they may study a lot, they may think they’re followers of Tsongkhapa, yeah, but they just didn’t get it at all. In fact I’ve heard a number of Geshes say that when, you know, when you enter the Geshe training, the first philosophical system you really learn and master is Sautrantika. It’s very smart and it’s metaphysical realism all the way through. It is kind of like the Buddhist correlate to Newtonian mechanics. It’s very useful, very practical, very sensible and saturated by metaphysical realism, right? And that’s how you cut your teeth, that’s how you start. That’s the first one you master. And I’ve heard some Geshes say, you know, a lot of people follow the Geshe training they never really get beyond that. They study Chittamatra, Madhyamika and so forth, but in fact then, in terms of the way they’re viewing reality, they never really get beyond that. I think it’s probably true, I mean, it’s told [to] me by Geshes. And so that’s what he’s referring to here. Whereas in contrast through your own mind settled awareness – now we again, unavoidably, we’re coming back to shamatha – through this, seeing the meaning of negating objects of negation, bound by conventional words. What does it mean to see the object of negation, that is the imputed object, the object that appears to exist by its own nature and then to refute that. That is asserted to be the great Madhyamika free of extremes.

[1:24:31] Like some dream form, a illusory horse or cow – like an apparition – appearances do not exist in the slightest, other than as appearances in the mind. So this phrase, that’s straight Gelugpa talk. But the phrase that comes up a lot in Nyingma or Dzogchen literature is [1:24:50 Tibetan ?]. “While not existent, they still appear.” And they just say flat-out, not existent but they appear. And generally this is ordinary vernacular. If we’re, if we’re seeing something, we think it might be a hallucination, like a mirage for example, or something else. We may think: “It’s… ok, is that really there?” “Is it, may be something in my eye, I mean, is it really there?” That happens, yeah? Then often we’ll go out and want to touch it. And if we can touch it, oh it’s really there, it’s really there. As if touch is somehow indicating objective reality, you know. But that’s what we mean that is “Is it really there?” “Does it exist?” By and large, for the person who is unconsciously and uncritically a metaphysical realist, to exist means to really exist, and to really exist means to exist by its own nature. So this is why in Dzogchen, in this kind of ontological shock therapy, let’s say, it doesn’t exist. Phenomenon, you don’t exist. Your mind doesn’t exist but you still appear.

[1:26:21] One other point that came up to my mind as I was meditating before coming here, I think it useful, and that is in this phenomenological analysis that we did. How do you, as you examine yourself, how do you, how are you present, how are you there, how do you appear, how are you apprehended. We’re really trying to understand exactly what he said “the manifest nature of ourselves through careful phenomenological investigation”, right? Not thinking about analyzing and doing some conceptual trip, but actually observing very closely, like the film critic who’s not just caught up in his thoughts, thinking about all the other films he’s seen Robert De Niro in, and how was Billy Crystal in this and what’s the dynamic. He’s not doing that, he’s really watching the show very carefully, right? Radically empirically and then he’ll draw his conclusions later. But as we do so, then we really do get very familiar with the phenomenological nature of ourselves – how are we, how do we appear, how do we apprehend ourselves. These are insights, right? We come to know on that relative level: Who am I? How do I perceive myself? How do I appear to myself? And there’s a lot of truth in that, and they say exactly a kunzop, kunzop gyi denpa, a fully obscuring truth. It is a truth, it is a reality. We’re not observing things that don’t exist, our manifest nature, you, do you see a man or a woman, you know. But how do you apprehend and so forth and so on, these are truths these are worth investigating.

[1:27:50] But when all is said and done, when you kind of come to some firm conclusion, some clear insights, “this is how I exist, this is how I appear, this is how I apprehend myself”, that self that you’ve just been describing, which does exist, it fully obscures a deeper reality, as does relative truth altogether. So astronomers, physicists, scientists of all sorts, they have done such a marvelous job. I really have only praise for just the enormous amount of knowledge, insights they’ve provided over the last especially 400 years, in terms of this phenomenal world around us, galaxies, from elemental particles, the whole thing. It’s an amazing body of knowledge, really very impressive, and so much rigor and integrity and precision. It’s very very impressive. And so, then they describe the world, you know, in their many books and documentaries and science programs, and so forth. And all of that reality they’re describing and doing so well at, all of that, is obscuring a deeper reality, yeah. And that’s Nirvana, Dharmadhatu. Our ordinary sense of self, when clearly recognized – just like scientists may have a very clear understanding of many things, of botany, of cell formation, and so forth and so on, and gaining insight into that – it’s obscuring a deeper sense of identity. And that’s Rigpa. We got it right, you know, when you carefully analyze how do you exist, how do you appear, how do you apprehend yourself, it’s good. But there are a lot of valid insights to be gained there. And all of that which you’ve gained insight into is obscuring your own nature, obscuring the possibility of seeing your own face as Dharmakaya.

[1:29:26] So to simply see it is good but what we tend to do is we reify everything we touch. So the scientist reifies – and it’s quite natural, they do what we do – they reify the world that they’ve understood as being absolutely out there, as we tend to reify whatever we perceive, including even a very clear sense of who we are. We tend to reify that. And so, just the perception of us, ourselves, on this relative level, just that is already obscuring a deeper reality. When we reify it, it’s like burying somebody and then pouring concrete on top. We’ve already buried them in the dirt of conventional reality and then we pour concrete on top of it. And that’s reification. And then you sit on top of that dried concrete. And you rest in Open Presence. [laughter] Good luck. That you’ll actually penetrate through the concrete and the dirt to, you know, hidden reality of your own identity as a Buddha.

[1:30:55] Like some dream form or illusory horse or cow, appearances do not exist in the slightest other than appearances in the mind. Bear in mind you are in the center of your mandala. From the peak of being, the peak of conditioned existence [1:31:03 Tibetan ?] , the highest, the most subtle realm or state of existence in the formless realm, all the way to hell, all the way down to the deepest, if sentient beings do not negate a subtle object of negation, if they do not see that which is to be negated, and that is the reified object of any sort, from hell to the highest summit of the conditioned existence, that. So if sentient beings do not negate a subtle object of negation that is imputed by discrimination of individual conventionalities, It’s difficult talk, but if you don’t negate that, then, however much they may examine, however much they may know about the conventional reality of yourself or atoms or galaxies, whatever, if they don’t recognize what is to be refuted, and that is the inherent nature of the phenomenon under investigation, however much they may examine and however much they may know about the mind or evolution, or evolution of the cosmos and so forth, [how much] however much they examine, they do not, in the slightest, transcend a trivial view and are slain by the self.

[1:32:27] Trivial as in…, I think I want to say superficial, no as trivial, I can’t remember the Tibetan… You don’t have a read on hand, do you, Anna? Tibetan… probably [1:32:28 ?]. To see it immediately… Trivial or superficial will be fine. And they’re slain by the self, of course the self is self-grasping, reification of the self – slain. So that’s under analysis if in the mind that conceives an individual or person or I, the individual and so forth exist as they appear. If that were the case, it would not be suitable for them to exist other than as truly existent. This is just, I don’t know, philosophical phrasing. That is: If they exist as they appear, then that would imply that they do truly exist, they’re inherently existent. Because they appear to be inherently existent, they will be in agreement between how they appear and how they exist. If they in fact exist as they appear and the appearance is delusive then they must truly exist. Thus an individual does not exist as it appears. An individual does not exist and now it goes into some of the parts-hold analysis, classic. And you see this right there in the Pali Canon, it’s all the way through from Pali Canon and the Perfection of Wisdom and in the Dzogchen literature. You’ll find this exactly the same analysis in the Vajra Essence, going through the different parts of the body. It’s the same thing as you find in the Pali Canon. It’s interesting to see just really common ground.

[1:33:33] So here he goes: An individual does not exist as it appears, it appears as inherently existent, that’s not how it exists. An individual does not exist as body and mind taken singly. You’re not your body, so that’s refuted all the materialists, and you’re not your mind, that refuted all the philosophical idealists, you’re not either one of them individually. An individual does not exist as body and mind taken together, you’re not simply the composite of the two. An individual does not exist as the six elements taken singly, earth, water, fire, air, space and consciousness – you’re not any one of those six elements. an individual does not exist as the six elements taken together, You’re not simply a composite, an alloy of all of them together. an individual does not exist other than as the six elements. If you take the six elements, and really that’s inclusive, there’s the four elements, the five elements, earth, water, fire, air, space, that covers your body and then consciousness, why, that takes care of your mind. And so, if you take all the elements of your body and then consciousness and then set all those aside and then look for yourself – the individual outside that system – no but you’re not going to find it.

[1:34:47] But again this is, this is all so obvious if you do see how phenomena come into existence by the power of conceptual designation. It’s like my mathematics friend who saw the four, who saw my 30 pages of equations and said: “But Alan, I saw this was, where this was going on the first page”, you know. Good. He was a really good mathematician, I’m really dopey, I mean slow, you know. And now I’m not even that, slower, I’m actually stationary. [laughter] Right? But it’s being able to see, you know, see the implications, cut right through it. So there it is. So in teaching that, ok we’ll just read this, in teaching that, the unexcelled guardian Nagarjuna himself says: “An individual is not earth, is not water, is not fire, is not air, is not space, is not consciousness, is not all of them.” So none of them individually is not all of them collectively. ”Where, then, apart from these is the individual?” So instead of analyzing the self in terms of the five skandhas, he does in terms of the six elements. Can you find yourself in earth, water, fire, air or space, or in consciousness? Anyone in any one, any one of those categories can you find yourself? You put all those categories together now, can you find yourself? You set all those categories aside and now look for yourself outside of them, can you find yourself now? And there you go. You’ve just found the lack of objective existence of yourself. And I mustn’t deprive you of your dinner any longer.

[1:36:17] But the next phrase I won’t read it right now, but this from the Shantideva’s Bodhicaryavatara, this is classic, it’s everywhere. It’s there in the Pali Canon, it’s here and so that’s classic Theravada or Pali Canon. Here we have it in classic Mahayana and you find exactly the same analysis in the Dzogchen literature, like Düdjom Lingpa’s Vajra Essence and so forth, they’re exactly the same. And it’s interesting they say it because, you know, I think for us at least if you’re anything like me, as soon as you’ve read teeth, hair, you’re bored. [laughter] Like you really need to go on, I do. I really need to know about snot and phlegm and lymph and pus. [laughter] I got it from teeth, you know, like you got me at teeth. I know I’m not teeth and that pretty much, the dominoes have fallen all the way to my toenails. Got it. But they insist on taking you to this guided tour [laughter continues] through every single body part, just to make sure that you don’t still think you’re hidden in some nook or cranny, you know. “Oh, you found me!” “I was in the gallbladder” [laughter] Uh -uh! You’re not there either! Or “I was in the frontal cortex” or “I was in the midsection of the brain, that’s correlated with consciousness.” Oohhh! Oohhh! [laughter] Not there either! Olaso. Enjoy your evening.

Transcribed by Sueli Martinez

Revised by Annette Dorfman

Final Edition by Rafael Carlos Giusti

Discussion

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