Dzogchen Retreat 2015 - Realising our true nature (part 12)

0:21 Let's go directly to meditation. Please find a comfortable posture. Report an error in the passage at 0:21 Highlight the passage at 0:21

· · · silence, 1 minute

1:16 As always let's begin by settling body, speech and mind in the natural state and spending a couple of minutes in calming the mind with mindfulness of breathing. Report an error in the passage at 1:16 Highlight the passage at 1:16

1:28 Now Report an error in the passage at 1:28 Highlight the passage at 1:28

· · · silence, 2 minutes

3:58 once again let's open the eyes, bring our full awareness to the visual domain, our discerning intelligence to the visual domain and Report an error in the passage at 3:58 Highlight the passage at 3:58

4:12 clearly discern what actually is being presented to our visual awareness in contrast to what we Conceptually project upon the visual field. It Report an error in the passage at 4:12 Highlight the passage at 4:12

4:48 becomes quite evident that what's actually being perceived directly prior to the overlay of concepts consists simply of colors and shapes, even without naming them. The Report an error in the passage at 4:48 Highlight the passage at 4:48

5:06 colors that we see with Report an error in the passage at 5:06 Highlight the passage at 5:06

5:12 discerning intelligence, we should know, we should have total clarity, certainty. These colors that we see, they're not out there in physical space. There are no molecules, atoms, chemicals that have their own color independently. Report an error in the passage at 5:12 Highlight the passage at 5:12

5:28 The molecules are all colorless. They have no appearance. So the colors we see are not out there in physical space in the atoms or the fields, the particles or waves. Report an error in the passage at 5:28 Highlight the passage at 5:28

5:46 The colors we see are not in the photons that move from the physical object to the retina. There are no red photons, yellow photons. And there's no part of the brain, no neuron, dendite, synapse or glial cell that actually turns yellow or red or green. Report an error in the passage at 5:46 Highlight the passage at 5:46

6:03 The colors that we see do not exist in physical space, neither outside the head nor inside the head. That should be clear, which means they are not physical because they have no location in physical space. Report an error in the passage at 6:03 Highlight the passage at 6:03

6:25 With all the senses open, turn your attention over to the auditory field. Sound waves travel through space. Sounds don't. Sounds arise independent upon the auditory cortices. Report an error in the passage at 6:25 Highlight the passage at 6:25

6:39 They're illuminated by consciousness. There are no sounds out there. Sounds do not exist. Out there, sounds don't exist inside the brain either. They don't exist in physical space. They're not physical. Report an error in the passage at 6:39 Highlight the passage at 6:39

6:59 The same is true, of course, of smell, of smells and tastes. They're not in the molecules of the food or the molecules in the air. They don't exist in physical space. Report an error in the passage at 6:59 Highlight the passage at 6:59

7:11 They don't exist independently of consciousness. And Report an error in the passage at 7:11 Highlight the passage at 7:11

7:22 now let's turn the attention to the tactile field, our immediate experience of being embodied, the one physical entity in the universe. That we can experience from the inside out. We can observe, measure, touch other people's bodies outside. But here's the only body that we can know from the inside out as well as touch on the surface. So now examine closely this body from the first person perspective from the inside out and see what arises to your awareness as you examine this body as free as possible from the conceptual overlays, the constructs, the labels, the ideas. Report an error in the passage at 7:22 Highlight the passage at 7:22

8:07 And examine what directly appears to your awareness when you observe the body from the inside out. And Report an error in the passage at 8:07 Highlight the passage at 8:07

· · · silence, 1 minute

8:59 when you're not imagining the body, not reifying the body, but looking at it directly, it may become evident how utterly intangible the body appears to direct perception. This matrix of fluctuations, of sensations, tactical appearances. And none of these, just like colors and sounds, none of these are physical. None of these are composed of atoms or particles or even physical energy. Report an error in the passage at 8:59 Highlight the passage at 8:59

9:33 They don't exist in physical space. They have no physical attributes. They're physically unmeasurable. So Report an error in the passage at 9:33 Highlight the passage at 9:33

9:51 all of our perceptions of the so-called physical world consist of appearances which are themselves not physical and have no location in physical space, either inside or outside the body. Report an error in the passage at 9:51 Highlight the passage at 9:51

10:05 And all that we know about the physical universe is by way of these appearances and by way of measurements made with instruments of technology from which we get information. And information is not physical. It does not exist objectively in our computers or any other instrument of technology. Report an error in the passage at 10:05 Highlight the passage at 10:05

10:28 Information doesn't exist intrinsically in the brain. Information exists only relative to consciousness. It's not there in the physical world. Report an error in the passage at 10:28 Highlight the passage at 10:28

10:39 True or false? This is not a brainwashing. It's an investigation. Draw your own conclusions. But Report an error in the passage at 10:39 Highlight the passage at 10:39

11:00 here's the hypothesis that all these appearances to our senses, including, of course, mental perception, all these appearances are non-physical, immaterial, and do not exist in physical space. And the same is true of information. It exists only relative to the mind that understands it. There is no information independently of consciousness or mind. Report an error in the passage at 11:00 Highlight the passage at 11:00

11:23 It does not exist in the physical world and it is not physical. Report an error in the passage at 11:23 Highlight the passage at 11:23

11:48 So the hypothesis here is that all that we know about the physical world comes by way of immaterial, non-physical appearances and information, none of which have any existence whatsoever, independently of the mind. And the very constructs of the physical, matter, energy, space, time, are mental constructs imputed by the mind upon immaterial appearances and information. Report an error in the passage at 11:48 Highlight the passage at 11:48

12:17 And those constructs have no existence apart from the mind. If Report an error in the passage at 12:17 Highlight the passage at 12:17

12:30 these statements are true, the more deeply investigate, the more truer they will appear. If they are false, the more deeply investigate, you'll see that they are false. So investigate. So much hinges upon this. Which is primary, the physical or the mental? Report an error in the passage at 12:30 Highlight the passage at 12:30

· · · silence, 1 minute

13:37 It is by way of the mind that we are aware of all appearances, that we know all information that we know. And there are no appearances or information independent of the mind. It is the mind alone that conceptually designates all objects, space, time, matter, energy, subject, object, mind and matter, all of these, every category, designated, created, imputed by the mind. Report an error in the passage at 13:37 Highlight the passage at 13:37

14:08 Is it true or not that the mind is primary, the mind, the all-creating sovereign? Is it true or not? Report an error in the passage at 14:08 Highlight the passage at 14:08

· · · silence, 1 minute

15:00 So if indeed the mind is primary, it is the mind by which you know everything you know, that you perceive everything you perceive, Report an error in the passage at 15:00 Highlight the passage at 15:00

15:12 that you designate everything that is designated. What is the nature of this mind that creates everything we know, knows and perceives everything we know? What is the nature of this all-creating sovereign? When you think of your mind, and you've been using the term your whole life, my mind. You refer to it, you've thought about it, characterized it, innumerable times. This so-called mind, this which you call your mind, Report an error in the passage at 15:12 Highlight the passage at 15:12

15:49 where does it come from? Where is it coming from right now? This state of mind, the next state of mind, the next. Where are they coming from? Examine closely the origins of your own mind from moment to moment, the origins of every thought, every image that comes up. Where is it coming from? Report an error in the passage at 15:49 Highlight the passage at 15:49

· · · silence, 1 minute

16:42 Many people think the mind comes from the brain. But has anybody ever seen that? Have you ever seen your mind emerge from the brain? Seen a thought, an image, an emotion, or desire emerge from neurons? Has anybody ever seen that? Or is this just a mass superstition? Where's the evidence? But Report an error in the passage at 16:42 Highlight the passage at 16:42

17:06 if not from the brain, then from where? Report an error in the passage at 17:06 Highlight the passage at 17:06

17:34 Where is this mind located? This mind that you use, the mind that torments you, the mind that gives you enjoyment, this mind that is so dominant in your life? Where is it? Is it inside your head? Who's ever found it there? But if it's not inside your head, where is it? Where is it located? Is it located anywhere in physical space, inside or outside your body? Report an error in the passage at 17:34 Highlight the passage at 17:34

17:58 Where is it? Examine closely. Report an error in the passage at 17:58 Highlight the passage at 17:58

· · · silence, 1 minute

18:44 Thoughts and images, desires and emotions come and go. The whole array of mental processes, states of consciousness come and go. Where do they go? When they vanish, where do they go? Every time you fall asleep. Your mind is gone. Where does it go? Examine where thoughts vanish when they fade out. Report an error in the passage at 18:44 Highlight the passage at 18:44

· · · silence, 1 minute

19:49 Do you really have a mind before you think so, before you designate it, before you label it? Is there already something really there that is your mind by its own inherent nature? If there is, you should be able to find it. You should be able to identify where it comes from and where it goes. Where is this truly existent mind? Report an error in the passage at 19:49 Highlight the passage at 19:49

20:15 That has so much power, destructive and constructive. Where is this mind? What is its nature? Is it one or many? Report an error in the passage at 20:15 Highlight the passage at 20:15

20:50 And is there any moment of awareness or any appearance in the mind, such as thoughts and images, that you can say definitively, this is the mind? Report an error in the passage at 20:50 Highlight the passage at 20:50

21:08 Or are they merely qualities of the mind, attributes, aspects? If they're merely aspects of the mind, what is the nature of the mind that has these qualities, this powerful mind? Where is it? Identify it. Does it exist independently of the mere label, my mind? Report an error in the passage at 21:08 Highlight the passage at 21:08

· · · silence, 2 minutes

23:22 And simply release concept of mind. As you impute it, so can you unimpute it. Report an error in the passage at 23:22 Highlight the passage at 23:22

23:39 And rest in awareness with no concepts. Simply experiencing awareness unmediated by anything outside, any concept or label. Just rest in the awareness of awareness. I Report an error in the passage at 23:39 Highlight the passage at 23:39

· · · silence, 2 minutes

25:47 find it interesting since I have Friends in the scientific community in multiple disciplines, I find it very interesting, actually very inspiring, that among those that I know, some directly, some just by correspondence or indirectly by reading their work, that the branch of science where I find the sharpest thinking, the most critical and provocative thinking in this regard, coming not from psychology or neuroscience, although I'm sure many people there I don't know, but actually from physics, from people who have the deepest insight into the nature of physical reality. Report an error in the passage at 25:47 Highlight the passage at 25:47

26:20 People like Andre Linda at Stanford University, an award-winning cosmologist, astrophysicist and others. These are the ones, it's quite interesting, very far removed from neuroscience, philosophy of mind, psychology. These are the ones that are just coming right down and saying, but wait a minute, before we simply continue assuming that consciousness is simply a derivative of a matter in some utterly inexplicable way that nobody has ever explained, but merely believed. Report an error in the passage at 26:20 Highlight the passage at 26:20

26:47 Why don't we come back to experience and note that the first thing is perception, and it's only by way of perception that we know anything, therefore perhaps consciousness is primary and not derivative. And that's from a physicist. It's quite interesting. Andre Linde, L-I-N-D-E, he's one of a number of very, very deep, provocative thinkers in the field of astrophysics, but especially quantum mechanics, quantum cosmology. Report an error in the passage at 26:47 Highlight the passage at 26:47

27:13 Really deep, really very encouraging, inspiring. That maybe once again the physicists will be leading the way to the next big revolution in science that will actually touch every branch of science from physics all the way up through neuroscience and psychology. I think we really are very much poised for a true and massive revolution in the scientific understanding of the existence as a whole in the mind. Report an error in the passage at 27:13 Highlight the passage at 27:13

27:38 We shall see. Maybe we can help. Maybe we can nudge it along a little bit. Get those contemplative observatories up. We need some place to do the research. But now he continues, he continues in this theme. Now this is, he's going, having just made very brief reference to the shamatha practice of settling the mind in its natural state, or shamatha focused on the mind, he's now going right up to his neck, knee deep, up to his neck, whatever, into the vipassanā, vipassanā, investigation, inquiry, scrutiny, examination and analysis of the nature of the mind. And for very good reason, this is classic strategy. Report an error in the passage at 27:38 Highlight the passage at 27:38

28:19 In Mahamudra and Dzogchen, other strategies are to throw the net very wide, like Nagarjuna does in his multiple texts, of investigating the manner of all kinds of phenomena. Report an error in the passage at 28:19 Highlight the passage at 28:19

28:31 But in the Mahamudra and Dzogchen, they say, yeah, that's all worthwhile, all very meaningful, but why don't we start from the center and go out? Why don't we examine the ontological status, the actual nature of existence of the mind, and maybe by gaining insight there, there will be a, how do you say, A repercussion, there will be implications flowing out that relates to all objects of the mind. So the mind first. Let's investigate the mind. Report an error in the passage at 28:31 Highlight the passage at 28:31

28:57 So he says, investigate the mind as the agent that conjures up all kinds of thoughts. So isn't it true? Where do your thoughts come from? And here's a very interesting point. It's a very important point. It's classic prasangaka. And this is a Dzogchen text and absolutely in accordance with prasangaka. That when we speak of the mind, Mind, mind, mind, or consciousness awareness, in this type of analysis, it's not a matter of, well, tell me, what do you Buddhists mean by the mind? Report an error in the passage at 28:57 Highlight the passage at 28:57

29:25 I want to know, I should be investigating. Tell me, what's the mind? Give me your Buddhist definition. I mean, you're free to do that, but that's not the strategy. That's not the strategy at all. Report an error in the passage at 29:25 Highlight the passage at 29:25

29:35 Classic prasangaka, going back to Chantakirti, is never mind what the Buddhists think about the mind. Buddhist definitions, and they're bound to be multiple ones, you know, with some variation. Or the word is used in different ways. That's certainly true, as it is in English. Mind your head. So we use the word in different ways. That's fine. That's how language works. Report an error in the passage at 29:35 Highlight the passage at 29:35

29:54 But when they're doing this type of investigation, they're really telling us, when he says so-called mind, he says not what the Buddhists call mind, but what you call mind. When you think you have a mind. When you think you're tortured by your mind or you're enjoying your mind, you're using your mind, your mind is clear, it's joyful, it's depressed, it's inspired, it's scattered, it's dull. Report an error in the passage at 29:54 Highlight the passage at 29:54

30:14 We use all these words describing our own minds. Good. So what's the reference of the term? As you're using it with respect to yourself. When you think you have a mind, that's fine. But don't ask somebody else's definition. Look in your own experience and how you use words. In other words, totally a naturalistic approach. Report an error in the passage at 30:14 Highlight the passage at 30:14

30:32 And that means if there are 50 people in the room, 50 people have somewhat different ideas. That's fine. But the point is here, if we just say, jump to, cut to the chase, where are we going here? The point is to realize the empty nature of the mind. But not the empty nature of somebody else's mind or a Buddhist mind. But when we so closely identify with our minds, many of us, I say including myself, identify more strongly with my mind than my body. Report an error in the passage at 30:32 Highlight the passage at 30:32

30:58 I think a lot of us do. And certainly when it comes to our feelings, you know, the issue earlier, would you rather be beautiful and miserable or joyful and ugly? I find that a pretty easy decision. Report an error in the passage at 30:58 Highlight the passage at 30:58

31:09 Because I'm not looking at myself, other people have to, that's your problem. I can't see myself, my hands are just kind of old and wrinkly, but I can live with that. But if the rest of it is incredibly ugly, well then you have to look at it, your problem, blink, you know, put on blinders. I don't have to look at it. And monks make a big habit of not looking into mirrors. Report an error in the passage at 31:09 Highlight the passage at 31:09

31:29 When I went to this monastery in Singapore, there wasn't a mirror in my room. And I shaved, so I said, give me a little mirror, just because I want to kind of look decent when I come out. But it was for the sake of others, not that I care, because I don't see my beard, or lack thereof. So in any case, the point here is this so-called mind. Do you think? Report an error in the passage at 31:29 Highlight the passage at 31:29

31:50 That your mind conjures up all kinds of thoughts. Do you think your mind is out of control? Do you think your mind is hopeless or strong or bright or creative or whatever? Do you think? What is this mind that you think does these various things, such as conjuring up all kinds of thoughts? Where are your thoughts? Report an error in the passage at 31:50 Highlight the passage at 31:50

32:07 Aren't your thoughts in your mind? What produces your thoughts? Isn't it your mind that comes up with all these thoughts, ideas? Something came to mind? I had a bright idea, my mind came up with this idea. Oh, I'm plagued by these memories that keep on coming to mind. That mind, the mind that you're familiar with, that you designate, that's part of your vocabulary and your conceptual understanding of what's going on and who are you. Report an error in the passage at 32:07 Highlight the passage at 32:07

32:30 So investigate the mind as the agent, that which conjures up all kinds of thoughts. Seeking out, what is this powerful entity? Seeking out, does it have a shape? Now conceptually you'll just whip through this like a hot knife through butter. You'll know all the answers. But when he asks, does it have shape, color and form, he really is asking because those questions make sense if and only if the mind is something physical. Report an error in the passage at 32:30 Highlight the passage at 32:30

32:57 And so if the mind is physical, then it should have a shape. If the mind is physical, it should have a color, something you can see, and it should have some kind of a form. If the mind is physical, well if it's not, if the mind has no shape, color or form, that should pretty well slam dunk it as not being physical in nature. Report an error in the passage at 32:57 Highlight the passage at 32:57

33:15 Now there are many things that don't have shape, color and form and they do exist, like justice. Who denies that there's justice? Or that justice was not served. Justice was served. There's beauty in that painting. There's no beauty in that smudge on the wall. Beauty exists. Report an error in the passage at 33:15 Highlight the passage at 33:15

33:33 A bhaktata many people regard as beautiful, but it doesn't have really a form or shape or a color. So it's not to say that anything that exists must have a shape, form or color, but it is to say if it's physical, if it's made of stuff, then it should have a shape, a form, and if you look at it, it would probably have a color as well. Report an error in the passage at 33:33 Highlight the passage at 33:33

33:50 So is the mind physical? But then it's, again, investigate this mind, the agent that conjures up thoughts, investigate it as well as its source. Where does it come from? Its beginning and end? And whether it really exists or is totally non-existent. Report an error in the passage at 33:50 Highlight the passage at 33:50

34:11 So this is very much Dzogchen Madhyamaka strategy. It's a little bit different than the Tsongkhapa. And yet people like this only, this Dalai Lama and a number of other very fine Galupa scholars see this as utterly complimentary. Report an error in the passage at 34:11 Highlight the passage at 34:11

34:25 But it's a different approach. It's worth lingering here a couple of minutes. There's the question. This mind, this mind that does stuff. In other words, if something does something, that's about as real as anything needs to be. If I throw a piece of paper at you, which I'm going to do. There's a piece of paper. I'm not throwing a bottle. If I throw a piece of paper at you, I got you. Report an error in the passage at 34:25 Highlight the passage at 34:25

34:49 That did something. I knew it wouldn't harm. That's why I threw that, not that. But that did something. You can throw it back. Let's see what happens. You throw it back. Oh, good. Good, good. It did something to me too. Flipped up. I got it. So that's about as real as it gets, isn't it? Report an error in the passage at 34:49 Highlight the passage at 34:49

35:05 It does stuff. It influences. I influence it. Watch. And it influences me. That's it. That's it. If something has causal efficacy, then what do you want? Does it exist or not? Yeah, it does stuff. So that's a very practical definition of something being, you know, causal efficacious. Then take it seriously. If something has no causal efficacy, then you don't have to worry about it. Report an error in the passage at 35:05 Highlight the passage at 35:05

35:27 No fight, flight, no desire, no nothing. Just don't worry about it. It doesn't do anything. It doesn't influence. It's not influenced. Then we can relax. But as soon as something influences, then have to take it seriously. So anybody who thinks, oh, it's not real, it's only in your mind, should maybe take another look at your mind. Because thoughts are about as real as anything else, and everybody who's paying attention knows that. Report an error in the passage at 35:27 Highlight the passage at 35:27

35:47 And only people who are absolutely fixated on the external deny the efficacy of mental phenomena. Which is completely, I can't say insane, it's just kind of a severe cognitive deficit of not seeing that which is blatantly obvious. That is our thoughts, our hopes, the desires, fears, dreams, purely subjective, non-physical events are as efficacious as a piece of paper, as efficacious as an atomic bomb. Report an error in the passage at 35:47 Highlight the passage at 35:47

36:13 Neither one, one is more destructive, you can decide which, but neither one is any more real than the other. And so if this mind is then to be real, if it... It has causal efficacy. It's kind of like, let's accept that fact. The mind has causal efficacy. It does stuff. It influences stuff. And it is influenced. Drink a quart of vodka, see whether that influences your mind. I think you probably got that one figured out. So it's influenced and it influences. Report an error in the passage at 36:13 Highlight the passage at 36:13

36:44 And so, this is the question. Does it really exist? Now, he put the word really for a very good reason there. Does it really exist? Report an error in the passage at 36:44 Highlight the passage at 36:44

36:57 And what he means by that is what we normally mean in the modern world. Is it really there? Is it really there from its own side? I mean, really, not just something you imagine or designate or impute or label, not just nominal. Is it really there? Like a piece of paper that you throw. I mean, you can think this is a bird, you can call it a butterfly, you can call it anything you like. Report an error in the passage at 36:57 Highlight the passage at 36:57

37:18 But still, bang, when I throw it, it has an impact. So call it to what you will. Isn't there something real there? It seems like it, because you can throw it through the air. How can you throw a concept through the air? Report an error in the passage at 37:18 Highlight the passage at 37:18

37:30 So isn't that real? And if that's real, is the mind real? Is it really there? If it's really there, you should be able to find it when you really investigate it, when you look for it. Is it really there? In other words, is it inherently existent? Is it really there when you scrutinize, examine, really probe into it? Is it really there prior to an independent conceptual designation? Report an error in the passage at 37:30 Highlight the passage at 37:30

37:53 Is it really there? And the many, many people would think quite... Intelligently, understandably, that if something's not really there, then it's not there at all. It's either really there or not at all, right? Just that. And many, many thinkers, scientists, philosophers will say, but yeah, but that's what we mean. If it's not really there, it's not there. Period. Report an error in the passage at 37:53 Highlight the passage at 37:53

38:19 Really there means there. Not. And so, does the mind fall into one of those categories? Is the mind really there? Then you should be able to find it. It makes sense. If it's really there, find it, for heaven's sakes. And if you can't find it, doesn't that mean it's totally not there? I mean, not at all. Non-existent. Totally, absolutely, inherently non-existent. And so this is a very interesting play. And that is to really examine, can you find it? Report an error in the passage at 38:19 Highlight the passage at 38:19

38:53 Can you find it? Its origin, its location, its destination. Can you find that which bears the attributes of your mind? That's the one. The mind has many attributes, many qualities. That's a true statement. If the mind is really there, then you should be able to find that which bears those attributes. That which is conjuring the thoughts. Report an error in the passage at 38:53 Highlight the passage at 38:53

39:13 The great magician, the great sorcerer, the great entity that's spewing out these thoughts and emotions and so forth. To be able to find it, if it's there, then you should be able to get to it. Probe deeply enough and you should hit it. Like an arrow striking a target. Gotcha! That which is producing thoughts, that which is clear, that which is non-physical, that which one, that one, that one. If it's really there, you should be able to find it. Report an error in the passage at 39:13 Highlight the passage at 39:13

39:38 And if you can't, then you may very understandably come to the conclusion, as some people have, such as Michio Kaku, oh, it's not there. Such as Michael Graziano and a number of others, Daniel Denny. Hey, look in the brain. That's the only place they'd look. I mean, why? Look in the spleen, the kidney caps? Where else would you look for the mind? It's either the brain or nowhere, right? If you're a scientist and all you know how to do is look outside, then you say, you know what? Report an error in the passage at 39:38 Highlight the passage at 39:38

40:06 It's above your neck. Not below. There's a lot of stuff interesting, but that's just not interesting if you're looking for the mind. And so if the mind's there, it's got to be in the brain. And then they go in there and they go in there, I'm seeing chemicals, I'm seeing electricity, I'm not seeing mine. Mine doesn't exist. And that's a conclusion by a number of people now. Report an error in the passage at 40:06 Highlight the passage at 40:06

40:25 Insane people, people who publish in scientific papers. I'm not sure those are mutually exclusive, but one understands. If you're convinced that the whole universe consists only of the physical, there's only one possible place the mind could be. It's got to be in the brain, and if you look in there, it's just nowhere to be found. Report an error in the passage at 40:25 Highlight the passage at 40:25

40:47 Then there's a whole school of philosophy. It's called the limit of materialism. Patricia Churchland, her husband Paul, and so forth. Subjective experience doesn't exist. Report an error in the passage at 40:47 Highlight the passage at 40:47

40:57 Nowhere to be found in the physical world. And after all, we know the world's only physical. And so there's a whole school of philosophy that says that subjective experience doesn't exist. Report an error in the passage at 40:57 Highlight the passage at 40:57

41:07 And it's said that Paul Churchland, when he carries, this was 20 years ago, that when he carried around a photo of his wife in his wallet, he carried around a brain scan. Report an error in the passage at 41:07 Highlight the passage at 41:07

41:17 Yeah, he carried around a brain scan, an MRI scan of his wife's brain, because he wanted to keep it real, you know. Report an error in the passage at 41:17 Highlight the passage at 41:17

41:26 Isn't she cute? She's my sweetheart. Especially in front of the cortex. It was love at first sight. I saw the cortex. Then I knew, I mean, she's mine forever. She's a soulmate. And her temporal lobes, they're awfully cute. Report an error in the passage at 41:26 Highlight the passage at 41:26

41:42 So, if you're in that mindset, this all makes very good sense. And she actually won a MacArthur Award, which is a genius award. To get a genius for saying your mind doesn't exist. Report an error in the passage at 41:42 Highlight the passage at 41:42

41:54 Now, the ones who gave her the award, do they have minds or not? know. Report an error in the passage at 41:54 Highlight the passage at 41:54

41:59 If they do, then why would they give her a genius award? And if they don't, how could they give an award at all? I don't know. So in any case, this is an interesting kind of bouncing off of walls. Does it really exist? Then find it. If you can't find it, then it's non-existent. But if it's non-existent, how can it do stuff? How can something non-existent have any causal efficacy at all? Report an error in the passage at 41:59 Highlight the passage at 41:59

42:22 Because it doesn't exist. It can't have causal efficacy. Something that doesn't exist. Like the 1,300-pound gorilla in the middle of the room that's right there in the middle of the room doesn't do anything because it's not there. So something that doesn't exist can't do anything. Report an error in the passage at 42:22 Highlight the passage at 42:22

42:40 But if it does something, then it should be really there. But if it's not really there, and so what you do is you kind of bounce off the extremes until you find that what's left over is the middle way. It's not inherently existent. It's not really there. But it's not totally non-existent either. So like what I said about awareness of awareness, if you're not doing it incorrectly, you're doing it correctly. The middle way is if you're not on an extreme, if you've not fallen to extreme of reification or the extreme of nihilism, then what's left over is the middle way. Report an error in the passage at 42:40 Highlight the passage at 42:40

43:13 It's elegant, it's subtle and it's liberating. And that's the strategy here. Very concise. Examine whether it really exists or is totally non-existent. And then he gives away the plot. By doing so, once you've determined with confidence that it cannot be established in any way at all, either as really existent or as totally non-existent, then you've entered the middle way. Report an error in the passage at 43:13 Highlight the passage at 43:13

43:39 You've entered the path. Congratulations. You've now graduated from shamatha and you're now in the first class of vipassanā. You've actually found a path. Now, no longer be said, you've not moved one hair's breadth on the path. With shamatha alone? Yep. Got nowhere. But shamatha with this, oh, now you're on your way somewhere and it's called liberation. Very condensed. Report an error in the passage at 43:39 Highlight the passage at 43:39

44:05 But now he's going to go back to shamatha. It's interesting. That was a very quick, like, you know, like, just a very swift invasion into the realm of Vipassanā. And then he's pulling back and he's going to go back and we throttle back a bit. Back to shamatha. Okay. Kind of bracing. And this is a very interesting strategy. Report an error in the passage at 44:05 Highlight the passage at 44:05

44:28 He does this repeatedly. In the Bajra Essence it's there, in two other texts it's there, where he invites you into solitude, cultivate bodhicitta, guru devotion, settle in, and then boom, which is primary, body, speech or mind? Mind, okay, boom, where is it? I mean, he just blasts you, as soon as you get into solitude, he's giving you an existential shock therapy, you know, goes right to Vipassanā, right to Vipassanā. Report an error in the passage at 44:28 Highlight the passage at 44:28

45:01 After he's shaken things up, it's kind of like you've got a Coke bottle of a mind and he drops it for you. And it doesn't quite shatter, but definitely something happened. You know about dropping a Coke bottle twice. It Report an error in the passage at 45:01 Highlight the passage at 45:01

45:19 shatters that utter confidence that you've really got a mind. And it's a sentient beings mind. If you've really got one, you should be able to find it. And if you don't have anyone at all, then you shouldn't be able to read the text. So he causes a tremor. Report an error in the passage at 45:19 Highlight the passage at 45:19

45:40 Aryadeva says, if you can, to even doubt the existence of inherent existence, make saṃsāra tremble. Something like that. Do you remember it? Something pretty close to that. Even to doubt it. Go ahead. What's that? Report an error in the passage at 45:40 Highlight the passage at 45:40

46:01 I just couldn't understand the English. Rips. Rips saṃsāra streaks. Report an error in the passage at 46:01 Highlight the passage at 46:01

46:07 Rips to Threads. Rips to Threads. That could be another one. It could well be. Because they approach this in different phrases. Maybe that's his phrase, but the one I remember, but it's like a 40-year-old memory, so what do I know? But it kind of just causes saṃsāra to tremble. Rips to shreds when you're finished with it. That's like a terrier with a small rat. It's just little rat fragments all over the place. Report an error in the passage at 46:07 Highlight the passage at 46:07

46:27 But what he said, the one I remember was, if you eat, let alone doing incisive, thorough and definitive investigation. Well, that rips to some jar to shreds. But even being uncertain, even getting to the point where you're, gosh, does the physical world really exist out there? Maybe it doesn't. My mind in here, might it be true that it doesn't really exist from its own side? Report an error in the passage at 46:27 Highlight the passage at 46:27

46:52 Could that be? Even that, just that, we're really asking the question. Not as just a philosophical meandering, but kind of a, yikes. Report an error in the passage at 46:52 Highlight the passage at 46:52

47:04 Like, this is a revolution. I didn't see this one coming. I thought those six previously were pretty big, but this, like, oh man, this is going to change everything. And if that's true, ay caramba, like, whoa, Report an error in the passage at 47:04 Highlight the passage at 47:04

47:22 cause it to tremble. I said, okay, now before you go further, you might want to check your sanity level and enhance that. Because if you're going to be able to assimilate this, embrace this, absorb this, and not go completely cuckoo, Then you might want to be exceptional sanity to that task, and that's where we bring in shamatha. Shamatha really is exceptional sanity. There's nothing more than that. Report an error in the passage at 47:22 Highlight the passage at 47:22

47:45 And nobody has a monopoly on it. Report an error in the passage at 47:45 Highlight the passage at 47:45

47:49 So if you forcefully suppress the thought process while focusing your mind single-pointedly on such things as a stick or pebble, that's really entry-level. That's like preschool approach to shamatha. And it's taught. Padmasamabha teaches it in natural liberation. Kamechamirambhuci, great master of Mahamudra and Dzogchen, he teaches it in a spacious path of freedom. Report an error in the passage at 47:49 Highlight the passage at 47:49

48:16 It's really very basic and it's simple and it's so straightforward. And it can be a stick or a pebble. It can be a piece of paper or an eraser or a computer chip, whatever you like. Just put something in front of you and try to stabilize your mind by looking at it, keeping not only your visual gaze but your mental awareness focused on the piece of paper. Report an error in the passage at 48:16 Highlight the passage at 48:16

48:37 And don't lose mindfulness. Bear that in mind without forgetfulness, without distraction. So you can start there. So that's, I mean, you won't go very far with that, but it's a good way to start. I mean, really, if you're out there in the nomad country, at least you can find sticker pebbles. So you won't have to buy one because they don't have much money. So this is a free meditative object. Report an error in the passage at 48:37 Highlight the passage at 48:37

49:00 I mean, if you say, focus on a Buddha image, they say, yeah, but I can't afford a Buddha image. I don't have one. I'm a nomad. I don't have that many yak. So what do I do? Okay, stick or pebble. Try that. Oh yeah, I got one of those. Okay, so you're focusing on that. Now, if you're doing this and you're focusing on this and while doing so, you really, like a very stern parent, turn to your mind and say, shut up. Report an error in the passage at 49:00 Highlight the passage at 49:00

49:26 Suppress the thought process. I'm busy. I'm focusing on my stick. So piss off. If you really get really stern, like a really strong 1950s father, Report an error in the passage at 49:26 Highlight the passage at 49:26

49:41 There were a lot of them. Those fathers who went through the Second World War, that was not easy. I think a lot of us know that, yeah? Yeah, it was not easy. So that was rather common back then. So if you're like that, really stern and aggressive and macho, macho, macho, I'm going to beat this mind into shape, so shut up or I'll let you know, I'll give you something to cry about. Report an error in the passage at 49:41 Highlight the passage at 49:41

50:05 If you do that, then many obsessive thoughts will arise. Your mind won't like it. And the mind's going to come back and say, oh yeah? Oh yeah? It's going to come back like a teenager, a really rebellious teenager. You tell me to shut up, I tell you to shut up. Report an error in the passage at 50:05 Highlight the passage at 50:05

50:26 Really, watch it. Watch what happens. You get really macho macho with your mind. Watch who gets punched harder. You or your mind, I think your mind's got a bigger fist. So obsessive thoughts will arise as if you had blocked an irrigation canal. So you block it, block it, block it, and of course after a while the water pressure is building up and the whole... Report an error in the passage at 50:26 Highlight the passage at 50:26

50:45 The whole blockage, the little dam completely bursts, and now you look like you're in worse shape than you were when you started out. So as if you blocked, many obsessive thoughts will arise as if you blocked an irrigation canal, and your body, speech and mind will become sharply uncomfortable. Report an error in the passage at 50:45 Highlight the passage at 50:45

51:03 So that's a very common experience. I find it interesting that he would say this in 19th century Tibet, where I kind of... I do idealize it a little bit. I think not in a ridiculous fashion, but I do tend to idealize it. The pastoral scene, the yaks, the goats, you know, the big sky, playing the flute, you know, da-di-da-di-da, you know. Report an error in the passage at 51:03 Highlight the passage at 51:03

51:25 I mean, it sounds pretty nice. And he's saying this right in his home country in the 19th century, so apparently there were uptight people in Tibetan nomadic lands as well. Report an error in the passage at 51:25 Highlight the passage at 51:25

51:36 But if that was true for Tibetan nomads, try that out in Germany. Or any northern European country. We tend to be, you know, more uptight than the Mediterranean. I found that to be true. Just generally speaking. Northern people are very productive. Southern people are having fun. Their economy is in the crapper, you know. But they're really having a good time. And they let Germany and Scandinavia pay for their debts. Report an error in the passage at 51:36 Highlight the passage at 51:36

52:01 It's an old story, you know. And so here we are. And so for those of us, and I'm one of the northern European, by the way. I'm definitely Scottish, English. German blood. So I know what that's about. I know it firsthand. And so what happens if you take this really macho approach? And there are many meditation teachers that teach that exactly, including in the Zen tradition, the big thing, bring out the stick. Report an error in the passage at 52:01 Highlight the passage at 52:01

52:26 So you're going to be miserable. Your body's going to be uptight, a lot of stress, a lot of pain, a lot of discomfort. Your speech might actually start having speech impediments. And your mind's going to be just warped, twisted, stressed out, fatigued, pissed off, irritable, not very healthy. That's called sharply uncomfortable. So if you drift off into that macho, macho area, then in that case, loosely relax and watch your thoughts from afar, clearly observing whatever arises. Report an error in the passage at 52:26 Highlight the passage at 52:26

52:58 So this, once again, is a very, very short, concise account in the Vajra Essence. And you can read this in that book out there, Stilling the Mind, where he really unpacks it a lot more. He says this in a bit more detail. And he says specifically of people in, he said, in times... When kinds of very coarse, kind of very primitive times, when mental afflictions are very strong, and people with a vata constitution, with a wind constitution, wind, bile and phlegm, the vata people tend to be very dynamic, very energetic, very flighty, kind of unstable, often very creative, and just lots and lots of activity. Report an error in the passage at 52:58 Highlight the passage at 52:58

53:37 It takes them a long time to fall asleep, and they hardly ever really rest, you know? Those are Vata people. And Padmasambhava in that text says, if you're any of the above, you have a coarse mind, a lot of mental afflictions, and you're Vata. And if you try to focus on a stick, a pebble, or you try to generate a Buddha image, and then you fasten your attention to it with a rope of mindfulness, and you bear down shamato or bust, you may go comatose. Report an error in the passage at 53:37 Highlight the passage at 53:37

54:04 He said it actually may get severely imbalanced from that. And he's saying that in Tibet in about 1860. 1860 something. And he says, if you're of that sort, that disposition, that type of mind, then that approach, which is generally a perfectly good approach, he's not criticizing the approach, he's just saying that medicine isn't for everybody. Report an error in the passage at 54:04 Highlight the passage at 54:04

54:25 And if that's the type of mind you have, bear in mind he's speaking about 1865 in Tibet nomadic country. If you have that kind of mind, don't go that route because it's just going to tie you in knots. If you're that sort, then much better. Throttle back, ease up, loosely relax, and just watch the thoughts arising in the space of the mind. And that will do. Clearly observing whatever arises. Report an error in the passage at 54:25 Highlight the passage at 54:25

54:51 So that's the method that they taught in 19th century Tibet, and they taught in 17th century Tibet, and they taught earlier than that, in 8th century Tibet, for people who kind of uptight a lot of thoughts, a lot of drive, a lot of stress and so forth. You have to choose your method very carefully to make sure it suits your psychophysiological constitution. And this is the one highly recommended for people like us, modern people. Report an error in the passage at 54:51 Highlight the passage at 54:51

55:22 I think he's described us to a T. Not all of us. We have to be careful about generalizations. I try to be. But I know some artists, for example. Artists, and they're dealing with imagery all the time. Artists, architects, other people for whom they're professional work. It requires them to deal a lot with imagery, probably graphic designers and so on. But I know some. I had at least one in the eight week retreat, at least one. Report an error in the passage at 55:22 Highlight the passage at 55:22

55:50 I met with her every week. And she said, I find visualization easy. Just easy. I enjoy it. I find it easy. And if on top of that, you have real devotion, real genuine devotion, heartfelt devotion, let's say for Tara, Padmasambhava, whoever it may be. But if you have a natural gift for visualization and real reverence and faith and admiration, especially for any of these particular forms of the Buddha, manifestations of the Buddha, that can be really sweet. Report an error in the passage at 55:50 Highlight the passage at 55:50

56:20 It can really work and prepare you extremely well for state regeneration practice and focus on image. I found those people to be a small minority, the people I've engaged with, but let's never overlook the small minority. Because they count, and there'll be other practices that are just tailor-made for them. Most people I've encountered, their minds are very, very busy, and I can't count the number of people who've told me, I can't visualize, or I'm really bad at it. Report an error in the passage at 56:20 Highlight the passage at 56:20

56:46 Or the very true first time I taught meditation to a group, October 1976, there was one lawyer, it was a small group of Swiss up in the mountains, very romantic. Fifteen students, they asked me to teach, engaged her up and told me I had to, so I did. And I taught him a bit of shamatha. I was 26 years old and I said, okay, try a Buddha image. Here's a Buddha image. Report an error in the passage at 56:46 Highlight the passage at 56:46

57:12 Look at it, gaze at it, become familiar with it, and then generate something like that in your mind. So we did it for whatever, 20 minutes, half an hour. And then afterwards, this one man, a lawyer by trade, and he gave up being a lawyer to become a cowherder, a good classic hippie, but very smart, very well educated. Report an error in the passage at 57:12 Highlight the passage at 57:12

57:31 He came to me after the session and said, Alan, I sat there for the whole session. Not once did a Buddha image arise. Nothing. Except towards the latter part of the session, in my mind's eye, a seagull flew through. Report an error in the passage at 57:31 Highlight the passage at 57:31

57:48 Seagull. I don't know whether it was Jonathan Livingston's seagull. I don't know who it was, but that's all he saw. And so this is not an unintelligent person or brain damage. There's nothing wrong with it. Some people are gifted in visualization and others not. But you may as well go with your strengths. Report an error in the passage at 57:48 Highlight the passage at 57:48

58:05 And then over time, balance it out and develop multiple strengths. So this is the word of wisdom from Dujum Lingba. And this is, as I said before, a number of times now, this practice of, so interesting, and bear in mind, the translation is as close as I can possibly make. That's why it's sometimes a bit awkward, a bit heavy. But I do prioritize as a translator, accuracy first, accuracy first, then clarity, so sometimes not so clear, and then finally beauty. Report an error in the passage at 58:05 Highlight the passage at 58:05

58:34 He's a very nice English, but that's my set of priorities. So often my English translations are not so nice to read, and sometimes they're not all that clear, but I try as a top priority to make them accurate. So that doesn't mean my translations are infallible by any means, but I'm trying. So when he says, loosely relax, well that's straightforward, nothing mysterious about that, but he does say, watch your thoughts from afar. Report an error in the passage at 58:34 Highlight the passage at 58:34

58:58 In other words, not in their midst, not entangled with them, not with cognitive fusion. But resting there, as if you're up on a little hillock, a little hill, and there's a big plane lying up below you. And you're just resting there, gazing out over the plane. And you see your calves, your sheep, your goats, your yaks. And they're just meandering about. And there's no wolf, there's no eagle, so there's no threat. Report an error in the passage at 58:58 Highlight the passage at 58:58

59:23 You know, that kind of scene. Very bucolic, very serene scene. And there you are just observing them. And all is well. There's no wolf, there's no predator inside. All is well. And you're just watching them, watching them from afar. That calm, that kind of detachment, but interest, very light touch. Report an error in the passage at 59:23 Highlight the passage at 59:23

59:42 Not influencing them in any very significant way. That quality. That's the practice. That's this practice. So as you'll see, he's returning and he'll elaborate a bit more on shamatha. So we had our brief foray. That one session we just did, that was a brief spike into vipassanā, right? But now we'll come back. Report an error in the passage at 59:42 Highlight the passage at 59:42

1:00:05 Tonight we'll of course have silent session. Tomorrow we'll come back and see what else does he have to say about this practice of the shamatha. In his nomenclature, he calls this taking the impure mind as the path. He commonly calls it that in his five treatises. He calls it that. He calls it taking the mind as the path. Same. And he also calls it taking appearances and awareness as the path. Report an error in the passage at 1:00:05 Highlight the passage at 1:00:05

1:00:30 Those are the three terms he uses. Others use a couple of others. But taking appearances and awareness as the path. So that relates right back to Charles' comment yesterday. That when you say taking as a path, it means these two are both incorporated in, they're integral to your method. So appearances, what kind of appearances? Well, it's actually not appearances of sound and touch and smell and so forth. No, those are set aside, not deliberately giving any attention to them. Report an error in the passage at 1:00:30 Highlight the passage at 1:00:30

1:01:01 But now having... Channel the flow of your awareness single-pointedly as you can to the mental domain. Now, whatever appearances are arising there, you're taking those as your path. And whatever's coming up, with no editing, no censorship, no grasping, just whatever's coming up, you're right there, right there, right there. Those are the appearances. Report an error in the passage at 1:01:01 Highlight the passage at 1:01:01

1:01:21 But when you're aware of appearances, what else are you aware of, Charles? When you're aware of appearances, what else are you aware of? Report an error in the passage at 1:01:21 Highlight the passage at 1:01:21

1:01:30 Awareness, yeah. You are. But that's not indoctrination. That wasn't kind of like, did you get the right answer? Is it true or not? I'm aware of you right now, your appearances. But am I also aware of being aware? Yeah, that's true. Well, you're taking both of those elements. The appearances that are coming, going, coming, going, all kinds of stuff happening. Report an error in the passage at 1:01:30 Highlight the passage at 1:01:30

1:01:51 It seems to be quite a zoo in there. All kinds of stuff happening. Those are the appearances. Coming, going, coming, going, coming, going. And there is your awareness. Like an unflickering candle flame illuminating all these appearances coming, going, coming, going, coming, going, and awareness is still. That's the first step. But it is both. Report an error in the passage at 1:01:51 Highlight the passage at 1:01:51

1:02:09 It's easy when we just get sick and tired of the world. Ever experience that? Just like, basta? Give me a break? And you just want to go into a quiet room, close the door, you know? It's very, there's an attraction. I experience it. Just like, basta? I just want to go into my room and be there. Report an error in the passage at 1:02:09 Highlight the passage at 1:02:09

1:02:30 And that's withdrawal. And that's all very fine until I have to come out my room. And then I can't do that anymore. And then, oh man, what a mess. And then it's easy to lose that. Because you're caught up totally entangled. You're totally unprepared for having to deal with all the mess, all the comings and goings. So then you left your Dharma at the doorstop of your meditation cabin. Report an error in the passage at 1:02:30 Highlight the passage at 1:02:30

1:02:54 My Dharma's in there. I'll get back to it soon, I hope. So it's very easy to make that bifurcation. And this from the get-go, from the very outset, that's saying, don't go there. Don't go there. Bring the world into your meditation. That's what bodhicitta is for. And bring your meditation into the world. And that's simultaneously sustaining the stillness of your awareness in the midst of the hurly-burly. Report an error in the passage at 1:02:54 Highlight the passage at 1:02:54

1:03:17 Enjoy your break. See you at 7 o 'clock. Report an error in the passage at 1:03:17 Highlight the passage at 1:03:17