← B. Alan Wallace

Transform Your Mind & Change Your Life Retreat - 7-Point Mind Training from Atisha (part 56)

B. Alan Wallace · 1 h 9 min · Vajrayana Institute via Internet Archive

Download audio

Automated transcript, not yet checked by a person; report an error.

Words the recogniser was unsure of are underlined with dots. Use “Report an error” beside any passage to tell us what the teacher actually says.

Key passages

The teacher's own words, quoted from the transcript below and chosen automatically as representative.

  • 3:43

    Vāsanā means habitual propensity. It's Sanskrit. Habitual propensity. And the view here that goes back many, many centuries is that there are processes in the mind of which we are unconscious, but they do influence our behavior, our thoughts, states of consciousness and so forth. But they can become conscious. But they often operate on an unconscious level. But there's not a word in that they simply say there are such processes, but they don't bracket as they're located here.

  • 7:09

    It's just, this is what happens. You slip and this is what appears and this is what it feels like. It's very phenomenological. But my sense of it, to give a short answer, is that the substrate consciousness is the deepest level of the subconscious. The deepest level. Because you can be way up there, more towards the surface of the mind, but beneath the threshold of consciousness. And you say, well, if the fact that you're not aware of it, but it is processing, if that makes it subconscious, well, then it's in the subconscious, but it's way up there.

  • 23:19

    Otherwise, you know, it's just a body part. A sentient being has been killed. Which means it was in the process of, let's say, you know, hopefully, you know, well, let's imagine that it takes place early. Then a sentient being has been killed. And so that formation of its becoming human being stops. It's not now going to become human being. It's going to be passed out. And so, no, there's nothing special about that in terms of other sentient beings. Animals are killed every day and human beings die. All kinds of sentient beings are dying every day.

  • 49:03

    And so you've highlighted two, understanding versus realization, and then Dujum Lingba, Padmas and Bhava then expands this out a bit to three levels, four levels actually, and in sequence. And so the first one is called Kowa, and that means to understand. So usually the Tibetans will understand some aspect of Dharma first by hearing it. They'll seek out a Lama who is very qualified and then they'll listen to the teachings.

  • 59:56

    It went all the way down. And the head's right there flushed to the wood. You've really realized it. You nailed it. Right? Now, could that nail come out? Yeah, bring out the nail and bring the hammer out and pop it right out again. So it could come out. So you can have realization and you can lose it. People will be lucid in a dream and then the dream continues and they can lose the lucidity. They can go right back to a non-lucid dream having been lucid.

0:17 There are a couple of written ones, so I will look at one written question and then I'll turn to you. Report an error

0:27 While practicing Donglen over time, I gently, slowly default to shamatha and find myself resting in awareness. Is there something I should stop doing? It actually feels quite natural during practice. Nothing wrong with that, as we saw in the teachings of a teacher for his instruction on the best way to die. Report an error

0:40 done. Report an error

0:49 It doesn't just go back and forth, back and forth. And so, you know, it's just, there is this complete parity and complementarity between wisdom and method, wisdom and skillful means. And so, it's fine. That's a short answer. It's just fine, sure, no problem at all. And, you know, we consider, too, I quoted at length one citation from the Vajra Essence, which will be in the notes that are sent out to you digitally at the end. Report an error

1:18 From the Vajra Essence saying, you know, once you tap into Rigpa, you've tapped into ultimate bodhicitta. And relative bodhicitta comes out of there. So you don't need to look outside of Rigpa. So until then, it's good to go back and forth. But the more deeper you come right down to the center, then both the method and wisdom spring from that. So it's really good. Very good. Report an error

1:39 So any other questions or comments pertaining to any of the material that we've covered in the last five days? Yes? Report an error

1:51 But you have a whisper. You got your voice back? Report an error

2:06 Spencer? I don't think so. Report an error

· · ·

2:49 Number one, I do think, since I'm not really an expert at all in Western psychology, I've read here and there. William James I'm pretty familiar with, but that's just one individual. But I have a pretty clear impression that not everyone agrees exactly what the subconscious is. So there's Freud, but I think Jung somewhat, but the collective unconscious, that was certainly different. Report an error

3:10 And then since then, over the last 80 years or so, I'm sure there must be different interpretations there as well. There's nothing wrong with that. But I would want to know exactly which view of subconscious. So what I would suggest is, because I think we have a general sense of the subconscious without getting too nitpicky about it, that there's a great deal of overlap between the two. Report an error

3:31 But I would suggest this. That there is a similar notion to the subconscious in Buddhism, but it's not the same as the substrate, the substrate consciousness. And where it comes up is the term vāsanā. Vāsanā means habitual propensity. It's Sanskrit. Habitual propensity. And the view here that goes back many, many centuries is that there are processes in the mind of which we are unconscious, but they do influence our behavior, our thoughts, states of consciousness and so forth. Report an error

4:00 But they can become conscious. But they often operate on an unconscious level. But there's not a word in that they simply say there are such processes, but they don't bracket as they're located here. They're simply below the threshold of consciousness. Now, when we practice settling the mind in its natural state, and we do it a lot, like maybe eight hours a day for some weeks, months on end, then we find more and more. Report an error

4:29 That processes including desires, thoughts, emotions, a wide variety of mental processes that were previously beneath the threshold of conscious awareness are drawn into conscious awareness. Because the image I like is taking a really jagged stone with a string tied around it. So just imagine this loop, loop, loop, loop. And then you take this jagged stone and then you drop it down through some water that has many layers of sedimentation, like in a lagoon or like in the delta of a great river. Report an error

5:04 And as this rock then unravels, as it unwinds from the stream, and it's a jagged rock, then as it goes down, down, down through the layers of water, it will stir up the water, right? And then eventually it will hit all the way down to the bottom. And so when you're settling the mind in its natural state, that's an image that comes to mind. As you're settling, settling, settling, you're not just making a beeline for bliss, luminosity and non-conceptuality, as if you just have more and more of them as you go down. Report an error

5:32 But as I mentioned earlier, there are these upheavals, and so emotions, desires, but you'll also simply be dredging the psyche. The dredging of the psyche. And it's not all upheavals. Like I mentioned the psychologist that had a recollection of a girl he knew 50 years ago. Well, that was not an upheaval. Report an error

5:49 It was not an emotionally charged. It wasn't disturbing. It was just like interesting. But that was what came up. As he was settling, settling, it somehow, and I have no idea why, it triggered that memory. And it came up very, very clearly. Now we can say that prior to, like an hour before he started that meditation, His memories of that little girl were subconscious. And if you say, well, what did she look like and so forth, you might say, well, it was 50 years ago, how do I know? Report an error

6:19 And so it was subconscious. But that which was subconscious became conscious. So we don't, in the Buddhist terminology, maybe it's just a matter of semantics, but we don't speak of the subconscious. It's simply that there are subconscious processes. But then as you do this type of practice, shamatha in general does this and settling the mind does this big time, is that those subconscious processes, memories, desires, emotions and so on, well you're just casting a brighter and brighter light as it stirs up and you're seeing more of the processes which then are no longer subconscious. Report an error

6:55 Now how does that relate to the substrate consciousness? Now there's a very specific term. And within Dzogchen it's quite uniform. There it is and there's not multiple views about it. And I think it's radically experiential. There's no philosophy there. It's just, this is what happens. You slip and this is what appears and this is what it feels like. It's very phenomenological. But my sense of it, to give a short answer, is that the substrate consciousness is the deepest level of the subconscious. Report an error

7:28 The deepest level. Because you can be way up there, more towards the surface of the mind, but beneath the threshold of consciousness. And you say, well, if the fact that you're not aware of it, but it is processing, if that makes it subconscious, well, then it's in the subconscious, but it's way up there. Report an error

7:46 So here you are, and here's the subconscious process, and here deeper sub, and deeper sub, deeper sub, and down here's the substrate, the substrate consciousness. The substrate consciousness, the subconscious, I would say, is that which emerges from. Report an error

8:00 My sense is, because I've read some Freud, is that the subconscious is human. It's a human subconscious. It's not somebody that of a primate or a mammal that is human subconscious. I had a pretty clear impression of that. I don't think he was all that interested in animals. He was really doing human psychoanalysis. And if that's right, if I'm correct on that point, then the subconscious... Report an error

8:27 And thus substrate consciousness are not identical. Because the substrate consciousness is not human. It's that out of which human mental activity, states of consciousness, desires and so forth, emerge. And when you die and your brain goes flatline, then these activities don't simply evaporate into space. Freud himself said that there's a kind of a conservation principle with respect to memories and so forth. Report an error

8:52 But I don't know quite how he worked that out. But in Buddhism there is a conservation principle. And so when you're dying, then those imprints from experiences, memories and so forth, they don't simply evaporate into space, become nothing, as the materialist assumes, but they slip back into this role of vāsanā, habitual propensities that are stored in that substrate consciousness. Report an error

9:13 And that carries on then from life to life. Freud certainly never suggested that the subconscious goes from one life to the next, because I think he was bottom line basically materialist. The mind is something the brain does. Report an error

9:39 Who says this? Yeah. Well, that's what they say. That's what they say. I think it's very ignorant, but if they want to believe that, they will. Report an error

9:50 High power? Higher power. Yeah, I've just never seen any compelling evidence. It's not just because I'm a Buddhist, but this notion that the mind is what the brain does has become such a cliche by now. But then they keep on saying that. But then you say, well, tell me, how does the placebo effect work? And within that paradigm, they don't have a clue. Report an error

10:11 It doesn't work within them. Because there's no way that... I'll give you an example. And that is... I don't think I gave it in this retreat. Somebody being given what was in effect a placebo for Parkinson's disease. Did I give that in this retreat? Maybe not. Okay. Here's just one out of thousands of cases. The person is given a substance that has no efficacy whatsoever for Parkinson's. Report an error

10:34 He has Parkinson's. But he's told in a double-blind experiment and so forth, you know, take this, I think you'll see the symptoms of Parkinson's subside. And he believes it, it's an authority, and they all agreed, well, you may get the placebo, you may not, but they're saying, take this, I think this will help. And so the person takes it, has faith, so here are the real factors, it's not a placebo effect, it's an effect of... Report an error

10:59 Confidence, trust, expectation, desire. That pretty well wraps it up, yeah? But none of these are informed. I mean, if you ask this person, tell me exactly what is the neurochemistry of Parkinson's disease. Tell me exactly how does it work physiologically. Well, most people with Parkinson's don't know. They're just suffering the symptoms, but they don't know all the mechanisms that relate to it. Report an error

11:20 So it's basically an uninformed, uninformed faith, expectation, belief, trust, confidence, desire. So the person takes this inert substance and takes it and taking that with this faith, then what turned out to be the case, what happened was that this influence of his believing it triggered those brain mechanisms that triggered the parts of the brain responsible for creating endogenous dopamine. Report an error

11:49 His brain started generating more endogenous dopamine and the symptoms of his Parkinson's subsided. Now to go from uninformed faith, if I take this, may as well be a sugar tablet, that this will trigger, and you'll probably even know about endogenous dopamine, that that is in fact part of the cause of the symptoms of Parkinson's. Report an error

12:11 Within this paradigm, this reductionistic materialist paradigm, there's just no way of explaining that. It doesn't make any sense. It sounds like magic. Or divine intervention or something. And so that's where I just have... Profound, I mean, not doubt, I just think it's, I can't believe it at all. That that's a summary, that's really how it works, that the mind is nothing more than the brain does, with or without higher powers. Report an error

12:35 And so I've written a whole chapter on this in my book, Meditations of a Buddhist Skeptic, which takes some principles actually from quantum cosmology and applies this to the human body. And I'm presenting the theory, inspired by some very sophisticated physics. That the human body itself is not fundamentally, it's just a hypothesis, but it's actually a testable hypothesis. Unlike, all the materialist hypotheses are not testable, that's the bizarre thing about them. Report an error

13:04 They just believe them, but they don't test them. So here's a testable hypothesis, that the body, this body-mind system here, is not fundamentally, or bottom line, it's not simply atoms or molecules, cells in motion. That's what materialists believe. And everything is simply an epiphenomena or emergent properties of matter. Report an error

13:21 So they can believe that, but then they have no explanatory power for so many things that do happen. But if this body-mind system is actually a conscious information processing system, and information is primary and not matter, then if you tell someone, take this substance and this will help, this will alleviate the symptoms of your Parkinson's, that's taken as information, which is primary, and that information being taken in and believed, Will trigger then the secondary and those precise brain mechanisms that are necessary to bring about the expected and anticipated result. Report an error

13:58 That actually makes sense. That has some explanatory power. And I've never found a neuroscientist or any of those people that have any way of explaining the placebo effect. And the fact that they misnamed it is pretty suspicious. What's that? Well, thank you. Thank you. My interest in materialism is actually very thin. Report an error

14:27 even, yeah. But a total believer in? That's good. It's hard to be a materialist and a higher power, and so there's probably a lot, obviously there is, a lot of nuance there, of which I'm unaware. But whenever I hear the phrase, the mind is what the brain does, I just immediately have profound skepticism, to the point of I start laughing. Yes. Report an error

14:52 So, why don't I read one? But thank you. And I'm sure there's a lot more, otherwise you'd not be so fascinated by it. I'm sure, I'm sure, no doubt. So, as a young misguided youth, I had committed an act of atrocity through having abortions. Okay, I'm going to leave this one anonymous. Having abortions, six years old and six something old, years and less, through ignorance, whatever reasons, my awareness, compassion, understanding were not present since coming to this retreat. Report an error

15:24 I'm grateful to have the opportunity to brush this stone land, but what of the path of these aborted babies? Where do they end up? Do they linger forever as spirits waiting for the next suitable parents? How can I help? Very good. I'm happy to keep that one. Even though there's a name here, I'm happy to keep that one. Anonymous. It's your business. But I'm happy to respond. Report an error

15:44 I'm saddened by the lack of curiosity that manifests when it comes to the issue of abortion. Because I am a very strong, almost fanatical advocate of women's rights. Because they're still not getting, there's still no parity. So I'm very, very strong for that. But then people speak of, you know, what do they call it, pro-life people. I'm certainly pro-life. Report an error

16:10 The question that's not being asked, and I just am astonished. Because I'm pro-women and I'm pro-life. But the question I just don't see being addressed is... That there's a point at which there's no debate. And that is, does a woman, if she ovulates, does she have the right to do whatever she wants with the egg? Report an error

16:28 And I don't know anybody who debates that. That is a body part, as the man with his sperm, put it in the sperm bank, he can sell it, whatever he likes. There's a point of non-controversy, right? It's your body part, there's no question about it. It's an egg, it's a sperm, and do it exactly what you like. So there's no controversy there. Report an error

16:45 And then we get to... A baby who's just waiting any moment for the water to break. So it's fully developed. And there's no controversy. I think nobody in his right mind says, but that's just the woman's right, that's the body part. When it's a baby ready to be born, I've never heard anybody say, oh, that's the body part. She can do whatever she likes as long as it's inside her body, because it's part of her body, because it's inside. Report an error

17:09 I don't know anybody who says that. So we have two points of complete agreement. And so everything's in the middle. Here's a body part, and here nobody thinks it's a body part. It's a passenger, right? So if you own a train, if you own a train, and you know, the owner of the train, you walk in between the aisles, and you find somebody you don't like, even though you own the train, you don't have the right to throw them out the window and say you're a train part, right? Report an error

17:37 Yes, you're in the train, but you're not a train part. You're a passenger. And so here's a passenger, and here the egg is a body part, right? That's absolutely just no doubt. So at what point in, let's say, that nine months does it go from being body part to passenger? At what point? And I, among all the people debating this and all the strong opinions and so forth, I don't see anybody even raising that issue. Report an error

18:05 And the answer is we don't know. And so that I find very saddening because, you know, I'm all for women's rights. At what point is it no longer a body part? At what point is it a passenger? And among passengers, if we look very early in the formation of the fetus, in Buddhism, in Tibetan Buddhism in particular, they plot the stages of embryonic development quite closely, and they parallels pretty closely to modern medicine, which has much more sophisticated knowledge. Report an error

18:34 But there's a point at which, and I won't pretend to know anything I don't know, but there's a point at which, clearly, it's a sentient being there. Report an error

18:43 It has a separate stream of consciousness. Clearly there is, because here, no, I don't believe a woman's egg is conscious. And even those little sperms going up the canal look like they're conscious. They look like guppies. But I just don't believe that when a man ejaculates, he's sending, you know, I don't know, 20 million little sentient beings up the track. Report an error

19:02 Almost all of whom die. I don't think that it's, you know, mass murder every time a man ejaculates. I'm very sincerely hoping that's not the case. Report an error

19:15 Otherwise, mea culpa like every other man. And so, they look like guppies, but again, I don't know anybody who thinks just the sperm cell itself is a sentient being, although it certainly looks like it. But so, sperm cell, no. Otherwise, all of us men go to jail forever. And the egg, no. They come together, and at some point, it's not just two body parts. Report an error

19:39 There's something else there, and it's forming into the body of a sentient being, and at some point, and again, I won't pretend to know anything I don't know, it's a sentient being. Now, in Buddhism, in the very early phases, like the first two weeks, the first two weeks, the first month, it's not called a human being. The Roman Catholics called it a human being from conception. Report an error

19:59 But then, where did Jesus say that? Well, I don't know. He just decided. But what the Buddhists call it, it's like they're doing that first month. Doesn't look like a human being, doesn't act like a human being. And that's because it's not a human being. But what the Buddhists call it is in Tibetan, Mir Chakpa. It's a sentient being, because it has its own stream of consciousness. Report an error

20:22 But it's becoming human. Mir Chakpa. It's becoming. It's in process. Not yet, but it's not going to turn into a chimpanzee or into a gopher or something else. It's going to give it a chance. It's going to become a human being. And so Mir Chakpa. But it's turning into a human being. And it's a sentient being, which means if there's a sentient being in you, it's not a body part. It's a sentient being because it's a passenger. Report an error

20:49 And so if you kill it, you're not killing a human being, but you're killing a sentient being. I don't see this even coming up. I find it very weird. And then at some point, and again, I don't know when, I don't know when you draw the line in the sand, but that which is becoming a human being has become a human being. Report an error

21:08 And then it's certainly not a body part. It's a human being that's a passenger. And so I just wish that it's all out in the open that we all acknowledge how ignorant we are. Because the pro-lifers don't and the pro-women's rights don't. They all pretend as if they know what they're talking about. And I'm just saying, I don't. Report an error

21:30 I don't. I don't know when it's a sentient being. I know an egg isn't. I'm confident an egg isn't and a sperm isn't. But I'm also confident at some point it's a sentient being there and it's becoming human. And at some point, clearly, it doesn't become human just when it comes out. It's a human being before then. Report an error

21:48 And so when is a body part? When is it a sentient being? When is it a human being? We don't know. And I think if any decisions about abortion are to be made, if the question comes up, we should at least face what we don't know and not pretend that we know what we don't know. And I think pretending is happening a lot. That dominates the media, as far as I can tell. Pretending to know what we don't know. And if we can at least be open about this, that, all right, we don't know. Report an error

22:19 And I'm not advocating anything here, the laws and so forth. I'm not advocating anything here, except that we cherish life. Women's life, women's rights, baby's rights, sentient beings' rights, and let that be all on the table, evidently. So then to answer the question, But this weighs on me a lot, because we read about it all the time, and I just don't see the honesty. I just don't see the honesty. I'm on either side, pretending as if they know, and so righteous, so self-righteous. Report an error

22:52 And I'm hearing the pro-women's rights, and I'm saying, I'm for you, but is this really your right, or is there something more complex? And then the pro-life, but yeah, really, you're calling about a human being? Why does that little piece of, you know, look like yogurt? Why are you calling that a human being? It's not a human being. Report an error

23:10 So with that preface, in the case of an abortion, then a sentient being has been killed. Otherwise, you know, it's just a body part. A sentient being has been killed. Which means it was in the process of, let's say, you know, hopefully, you know, well, let's imagine that it takes place early. Then a sentient being has been killed. And so that formation of its becoming human being stops. It's not now going to become human being. It's going to be passed out. Report an error

23:38 And so, no, there's nothing special about that in terms of other sentient beings. Animals are killed every day and human beings die. All kinds of sentient beings are dying every day. And so there's nothing special about an aborted sentient being, whether it's a human child that aborted or simply a sentient being in the process. There's nothing special about in the sense that they're somehow come out in some aborted limbo. Report an error

24:02 They just go into the Barlow, just like any of us. When we die of old age or disease or anything else, we go into the bardo. And when animals die, they go into the bardo. And so whoever it is, sentient beings, when you finish one, you go into bardo and then there's a transition and then you take another type of embodiment. Report an error

24:21 And so they're simply sentient beings that entered into one womb that didn't work out and so then they move on and find another place to take birth. And they'll sooner or later succeed. Because that's how things work. You keep on trying until you succeed. So that's that. And in terms of purification, if one looks back and feels, and I'm not imposing any morality here, I'm a Buddhist and I have Buddhist views in this regard, that we try to avoid killing sentient beings. Report an error

24:50 Try to avoid as little injury as possible. It's a simple principle. As little injury as possible. Try not to step on ants. Do not swat mosquitoes. As much as you can, avoid inflicting injury. And we do inflict injury. We're not walking around with masks and little whiskey brooms as we walk down the street. So, I mean, that's very conscientious. Report an error

25:11 But the Buddha never suggested we should go that far. He just said, try your best and walk down the path and try to avoid stepping on creatures. Just try your best not to inflict injury. But there are important things to do with your life that are more important. Then spending all your life trying to avoid stepping on ants. We have human intelligence, human creativity, Buddha nature, and try to take full advantage of human life, which should entail more than not killing ants or stepping on other creatures inadvertently. Report an error

25:41 But when one looks back and one sees, I acted out of ignorance, and we have, you know, that's utterly understandable. I mean, I don't feel I was a terrible person when I killed trout. I wasn't being mean or vicious or hateful. I didn't kill them out of anger. Report an error

25:58 I was told I wasn't even hurting them. After a while, he kind of woke up from that stupidity. But while I was doing it, with a person I really respected, I was ignorant. And so I killed fish, especially as a youth. I killed other creatures, insects mostly. And so then we look back, and if we feel, as I do feel, fish are sentient beings. Report an error

26:21 They're insects that I killed on occasion. They're sentient beings. That we look back and then there's remorse and we generate remorse for it. That there I acted out of ignorance but now I'm not as ignorant and I've recognized that was harmful, killed a sentient being. And so the remorse commensurate with the deed and then the resolve from this I should abstain from this, I should avoid this really, completely, totally in the future. Report an error

26:49 Having a strong resolve and then That is cultivating compassion for sentient beings, because that's killing sentient beings. So then cultivating compassion, that's the third one, the power of reliance. And then engaging in pre-required practices, and that is engaging in any kind of practices that save the lives of human beings. Or nurtures those who are like orphans, other children, who did get it into this life, but are in very difficult circumstances. Report an error

27:22 That is, refugees. And other children who are really in very dire straits. And so going out of way, out of compassion to help children and babies and so forth. Then, however many abortions occurred, it can all be purified. It can all be purified. So I've tried to choose my words carefully here. But it's, when I hear in countries like, you know, communist China and Japan and so forth, I mean, just millions. Report an error

27:49 And just being taught like, well, this is... This is what we do. If it's not convenient and we don't want it or it was an accident, it's just kind of like throwing out the garbage. I just think, oh, heaven, you give it a bit more thought than that. It deserves very careful thought. Ignorance to be supplanted by understanding. And until we know when is it a sentient being and when shall we call it a human being, we might want to err on the side of caution. Report an error

28:19 Wouldn't that be good? Err on the side of caution. If there's a glass of water and you think there might be an insect in it. I mean, this is a big thing for monks. One of the things about, one of the precepts of a monk is you do your very best not to kill creatures with water. Because when you're washing, just go back to India 2,500 years ago, you're washing your clothes, you're taking a bath and so forth. Water is a real killer for insects. Report an error

28:45 And so the monk has to use water and he has to do cleansing. But when you throw out the water or you've been washing the dishes and you throw out the water, Report an error

28:53 Watch where you throw it and try your very best not to kill centipene with water. So if that's the case, if there's an area and you're not sure there are insects are there, then you check before they throw the water. Or then I'll move on to, I've said my piece, but I'll tell just, I really, I love this story. So I'll move on to it a little bit. Report an error

29:14 But I've said my piece. But I'll tell this story with my grandson. I really very much enjoy it. He was quite young, I think he was about three years old. Report an error

29:22 I was giving him a bath. He asked me, Grandpa, would you wear me a bath? You betcha, sure. And so we're sitting there and we're filling the tub with water. No, we're just about to. Because whenever I take a bath, I check the bath to see whether there's any insects in there. I don't want to create a tsunami and kill creatures, you know, when I turn on the bath. Report an error

29:41 But he got into the habit. He said what Grandpa does, you know, Grandpa Z, Grandpa does, whatever. And so we're both checking out before we run the bath, are there any creatures in there? And I found one, and so bring in a piece of toilet paper, bring it out into a safe place, and we're looking, and I'm pretty satisfied. I think, okay, we've done due diligence. Report an error

30:01 Empty bathtub. I'm ready to go. Ex-monk is ready to fill the bathtub. And he says, wait, Grandpa, there's one more. And I said, I don't think so. That's just a little, a speck, a little piece of linda toy. I don't think that's... No, look, Grandpa, I think it's a cinchipin. It's a cinchipin. Report an error

30:17 We've indoctrinated him well. Report an error

30:22 I said, I think it's sentient being. I said, I don't think so. Well, check. So I bring out the piece of toilet and it moves. Oh, you're right, Troy. So we picked that one out. And then he was satisfied, I was satisfied. And then we ran the bathroom. So that's to avoid killing a little sentient being. Report an error

30:41 And so instead of a bathtub, you have a mother's womb. It might be good to avoid as much as we can killing sentient beings. Because many people want babies. Report an error

30:53 But whatever we've done, whatever we've done, and we feel remorse, it can be purified, and that's important. And Shantideva, in a text that is not so widely read, not nearly so widely read, it is a great classic. The other one, a compendium of practices, right towards the beginning of the text, he has a long discussion of how to purify negative karma. Report an error

31:14 It's a pretty important thing to do. He makes a point that when I read this maybe 30 years ago, it really stuck. And that is, he said, when you focus on some misdeed, Report an error

31:27 And you recognize it was wrongdoing, it was a harmful deed, a negative deed. And you arouse the remorse. And then you do the other things. You resolve to turn away, purificatory practice and so forth. He said, while it's important to generate remorse for the wrongdoing, it's important also to move on and not to keep on coming back and back and back and just... Report an error

31:56 Just coming back and never letting yourself off. He said, if you keep on coming back and just coming back and back with remorse and remorse and remorse, and you never really let it go, then he said the downside of that is it's going to take all the joy out of your practice. Report an error

32:13 And for your practice really to flourish, there should be enthusiasm and joy and some lightness that you really can't leave the past behind, that you're not trapped. You don't have to identify with. Wrongdoings of the past, purify them, purify them sufficiently with the remorse commensurate to the deed, and then move on happily with the confidence, I'll never do that again, and then you're free. Report an error

32:42 So I think that's very helpful advice. Report an error

32:57 for advice of School for Means. Report an error

33:03 the aspiration to undertake Report an error

33:12 we have taken another tradition I've taken other traditions, other traditions of Galupa, earlier on the path. I've come across Report an error

33:26 lineage practices, and my question is, what are the components one should be mindful of in traditions? Does that make sense? Of course, yeah, absolutely. Sure, sure, sure. Well, we can go back to Atisha, for example, who is universally revered by the name of Galupa, so he's kind of common ground. He's like everybody, he loves Atisha. Seventh-point mind training. Report an error

33:55 Practice taught in all the traditions. They just love it. I think we've seen why. Because those teachings on ultimate bodhicitta, I mean, I could do it all over again. I teach it entirely in terms of galupa. And it would make all good sense. I just chose to go Dzogchen style this time. But when I wrote my first commentary to it, I did it totally galupa. Report an error

34:15 It's called Seven Point Mind Training, I think. But I teach it himself. So everybody, you know, Tibetan Buddhism all reveres. Report an error

34:25 He trained under 60 gurus. Now, do you think they're all of the same lineage? Report an error

34:33 Not possible. He went on way off to Indonesia to receive teachings, you know. Traveled all over the place. And so, he wasn't the only one. Report an error

34:43 And so, if it was okay for Atisha, maybe it's okay for us too. So, but there are, you know, the Tibetans have an aphorism. lumbareylede, getreylede, lamareylede, çöylede. And that is, every valley has its own dialect, and every Lama has its own Dharma. Now, by that means, there's no disrespect, any more than you speak of disrespect about valleys having its own dialect. Report an error

35:09 It's actually true. And so there's no disrespect, there's no criticism implied in this. But it is to say that simply every Lama has his own approach, his own approach. And even if they're all galupas from Serache monastic college, they'll still have different approaches. Geshe Rabdan didn't teach in the same way that Geshe Ngamantage taught, and he didn't teach in the same way as other Lamas from exactly the same college. Report an error

35:31 You know, they have different emphases, which is exactly right. Otherwise all we need is one Lama and recordings. You got it right, just play the tape, you know, because that was the only right one. And so... But then we have, you know, Goloka, that is, is it okay to study from Lamas who've studied in Depung versus those from Sera? Because they differ, they debate, and they debate, and they debate. Report an error

35:56 No, we follow the textbooks of Depung Loserling, well, we follow the textbooks of Sera J, and now we debate. So, you know, how far are we going to take this? Because this is within the Goloka tradition, but boy, I was in the debating courtyard, I was taking Loserling side, but then there's Sera side. Report an error

36:13 And two of my teachers, Geshingo and Taike and Genlo San Gyatso, from the Buddhist cult dialectics, in the annual debates in Dharamsala, they would be whacking away. Report an error

36:25 And loving it. I saw a photo of Geshingo and Taike, and actually a photo of the debate, and they're just smiling so broadly, you think their heads are going to split open. But they are debating, and they are disagreeing, but there's such joy in it, and mutual respect. There's no question about it. They're two outstanding scholars, excellent monks, pure ethics, beautiful bodhicitta, and they're just having the time of their life. Report an error

36:50 And it's fun, you know, if it's done in that spirit. And so obviously there's a spectrum here. And so where's the wisdom behind? Don't mix. And that is, if we just follow straight Tsongkhapa, you know, straight, it is completely coherent. Start to finish. I mean, Tsongkhapa has... sorry. sorry. Report an error

37:08 A mind that is just about inconceivably brilliant. There's no flattery there, but his 18 volumes are just, how could any one person think all of that? And that everything fits with everything else. 18 volumes, like 800 pages a piece. And it all fits together homogenously. That's not easy. That's harder than writing eight volumes of Harry Potter. And I thought that was pretty impressive. Report an error

37:34 But this is 18 volumes, 800 apiece, you know, and it all fits together. And so if one just followed Tsongkhapa all the way through, then you have a path that is completely homogenous, consistent from start to finish, culminating in stage of completion of Gwe's homage. And so, oh, you know. But then Tsongkhapa himself, so I started with a teacher. Tsongkhapa himself had multiple Sakya teachers and Kadampa teachers. Report an error

38:01 He studied with Nying Mapa, and he said, Ningma teachings, and specifically Dzogchen, these teachings, and I have it quoted and source in my book, Balancing the Mind, that was my doctoral dissertation, that he said when he received Dzogchen teachings from a Ningma master, he said, these teachings are complete and flawless. Report an error

38:26 So if Tsongkhapa says this, and then you have a Galupa teacher saying, don't mess with Ningma, say, well, which part of the Tsongkhapa do you want to refute here? You've got a lot of chutzpah. Report an error

38:36 So he studied with all of them. He received his lay ordination from Karmapa, and then he received his, yeah, Karmapa, his lay ordination, you know, the Upasaka, he received that from one of the Karmapas. He studied with Nyingma, he studied extensively with Sakya, and of course the Galupa is called the new Kadapa tradition, of course he studied with Kadavas. So now what are you supposed to do? Report an error

38:58 Say Tsongkhapa was a heretic, but follow him anyway because he has the one pure path? You know, it falls apart really, really quickly. This notion. And especially when people say pure Dharma, some of the real fanatics use that word a lot. Pure Dharma, as if our lineage is pure and if you mix it with anything else, then it's impure. Report an error

39:18 That's really very dangerous talk and has given rise to a lot of misery. And so what's the rationale before that? And that is the teachings of Tsongkhapa, for example, or Jujumlingba, for example, they're complete, they're coherent, they'll take you from the beginning to the end. And so if one mixes them, Mixes them helter-skelter. Helter-skelter. Like a little bit of sakya here and a little bit of this here. But I also like teravara and I really dig that shaman. Report an error

39:47 And I like this work over here and then kind of put it all together. You may at the end of the day have hodgepodge. Where there's no coherence, there's no natural development, there's no path. Basically you went into the bakery and you say, I like that sweet, this sweet, this sweet. So that's their point. And it's a good point. Report an error

40:06 On the other hand, His Holiness Dalai Lama, who is my root guru, he has received teachings from Sakyapa, Gakyu, Nima, extensive teachings of Dzogchen, and of course Galupa masters. And he will teach them on different occasions as well. And so, you know, there he is. And so there is something to being very conscious, conscientious about drawing different traditions together. Report an error

40:35 But if you have a very qualified teacher who has a large mind and a big picture, then that teacher can help you show this is completely compatible and this is complementary. These two are different. You have to probably choose here. For example, rangdong and jentong, two interpretations of emptiness. So are things other empty or self-empty? Report an error

40:58 I'm not going to go into it, but they are different. So if you try to combine those two, that's going to be messy. That's going to be messy. It would be like trying to unite Freud and Jung. Well, that's going to be messy. Because Freud has his own coherent thing going, and you can believe it or not, but it's coherent. Report an error

41:18 And Jung, a very brilliant man, had his own coherent. But just try to blend them, 60 and 40, that would get messy really quickly. And so, if you have a Lama who appreciates multiple traditions, like, for example, he's no longer alive, but the Penjana Rinpoche. The Penjana Rinpoche. He did this. So he took Kaikyut and Galupa, lineages of Mahamudra, and united them in one text. So if this is really taboo, then how did one of the greatest scholar adepts in the whole Galupa tradition do that and get away with it and be cited by the Dalai Lama and have this be one of the great classics for the last 500 years? Report an error

41:57 So to do it casually, randomly, that could be messy. But do it with some skill. And then it just enriches your understanding of Dharma. Just enriches it. And then you just delight. And then if you're mostly in yinma, and then you see the galupa, you say, wow, way to go galupa. And if you're a knowledgeable galupa, like His Holiness and many others, way to go Dzogchampas. And then way to go Theravāda. Boy, they nail things so clearly in Theravāda. Report an error

42:28 Some of them in ways you don't even find in Tibetan Buddhism. And for Chan, and Chan has its beauties, and the Zen had its beauties. So you don't want to blend them all together, but if you have a clear understanding and you see the points at which are complementary and see the points where you're probably going to choose this versus that, it can be done intelligently and very richly. Report an error

42:48 And so I have only deep appreciation for the teachings I've received and the guidance from Theravāda. I'm not a Theravāda Buddhist, but I certainly appreciate a lot there that I don't find anywhere else. Stories from the Pāli Canon, the brilliance of Buddhagosa, I mean, amazing. And I draw from that extensively when I'm teaching the four measurables, the four applications of mindfulness. Mindfulness of breathing, brilliant, really brilliant. You don't find, teaching that you don't find anywhere in Mahāyāna. Report an error

43:15 But then the Galugva, I mean Tsongkhapa is incomparable, you know, so brilliant, start to finish. But then I go to Guru Rinpoche, Padma Sambhapa, my way of Dujjum Limba, my heart kind of almost bursts, you know. But it's not bursting at the cost of someone else, like, well, that cast Tsongkhapa into the shadows. Report an error

43:33 No, Tsongkhapa is radiant by himself. He never gets into the shadow. But neither is Buddha Gosa. As a Theravadan, he doesn't get any better, you know, as an incredible scholar. And when it comes to the Lakeborn Vajra, then I just, I swoon. Swoon with joy, because it's so brilliant. And it's just kind of a total, just total love. Report an error

43:54 So there's a middle way there. And finding Lamas who have an appreciation and understanding of more than one lineage can be very helpful in this regard. So I just feel very relaxed and fortunate that His Holiness, you know, embraces these multiple ones. And I'm just kind of in my tiny, tiny way, following in His footsteps. Report an error

44:14 The second question was, I've recently started doing the nine-round meditation. Yep, yep. Why that's Report an error

44:41 helping? What's happening with that energy? Oh, sure. Yeah, it's just a, why it helps is my question. Sure, sure. Well, just as for starters, you may very well know, last spring I spent eight weeks teaching mostly the Penjana Rinpoche's texts on Mahamudra. It was mostly that. We did some of the Karma Kaikyu tradition from Karma Chami Rinpoche. It's brilliant, but I spent most of the time, probably five weeks, working on the Galupa text, which was the union of the Kaikyu and Galupa traditions on Mahamudra. Report an error

45:18 The first time I'd ever taught it. I received it 40 years ago. I had to wait until the time was ripe. But I really loved every day of it. It was so just beautiful. And in that presentation, then he teaches the ninefold breathing as a preparation for Shant. It's very common. It's very common. Now, it's called Lumro Gu Du. It's expelling, in nine ways, literally corpse energy. Report an error

45:46 Ru means corpse. Or something dead. And so what it is, is if the breath is not flowing in its natural rhythm, and for most people it's not, most people have breathing disorders. Not clinically diagnosed, but they're just not breathing in a very healthy way. The emotion, mental afflictions, all kinds of stuff, grasping and hope and fear and all of that, really disrupts the breathing. Report an error

46:07 That's why it's taught as a method, settling body, speech and mind. So especially when the cycle of the breathing is not really fully... You know, natural and providing the body with all the needs. Then there accumulates what are called these residual or stale, it's probably the best word, I mean corpse energy is a bit weird, but stale energy, stale energy, stale breath. Report an error

46:32 And it's kind of lingering there, it's more on an energetic level, but it's related to breath. And so when you engage in these practices, where you're fully expelling all the way through, and you may do the visualization, but it's not necessary. And there are different ways of doing the ninefold breathing. Report an error

46:47 But either way, you do the ninefold, so three, three, and then through both. But it's that full expulsion, because this is not settling the breath in its natural state, that full expulsion all the way to the end, through the left, the right, and then both. Then this is expelling these kind of old, stale, just like stale food. Stale energies, cleaning those out, it's kind of like spring cleaning of your prāṇa system. Report an error

47:15 And so you'll feel fresher, better flow and so forth, feel a bit invigorated, and then you're ready to get on to the heavy lifting, Sharmata Vipassanā, Mahamudra. Okay? That's what it's for. During your eight week from this year, if I went back, would there be some more explanation? Yep. And I also have a PDF file. I have a PDF just on the ninefold breathing. It's quite nice, very clear. And so that should be available too. Report an error

47:46 Yeah, you're welcome. So, anything else coming up pertaining to this retreat? Yes, Don, you are on. The Report an error

48:01 question is just about the difference between understanding and realisation. If you put, say, emptiness, sunyata, it seems quite straightforward intellectually. Quite, quite. Report an error

48:21 Realising it involves a lot more. Indeed. Not existable from its own side. Exactly. Report an error

48:25 And I'm just wondering what, in specifically in connection with this retreat, in the case of the certain point of mind training, would realisation, would satisfying the criteria for having a train... Yes. Sure. that count as realisation if you live according I take it that realisation involves actually living out you understand. Report an error

48:53 Sure. Sure. I'm happy to contextualize the question a little bit in a way I found, I learned in the Dzogchen tradition, in the writings of Dujum Lingba in particular, found very, very useful. And so you've highlighted two, understanding versus realization, and then Dujum Lingba, Padmas and Bhava then expands this out a bit to three levels, four levels actually, and in sequence. Report an error

49:16 And so the first one is called Kowa, and that means to understand. So usually the Tibetans will understand some aspect of Dharma first by hearing it. They'll seek out a Lama who is very qualified and then they'll listen to the teachings. And that's the primary transmission, listening to the teachings from a person who has understanding. And they're conveying more than simply information. They're conveying what Pulyani, Michael Pulyani, called implicit, implicit knowledge. Report an error

49:45 And there's really something to that. And it's known scientifically. Pulyani wrote about this in a very interesting way. I studied it when I was studying history and philosophy of physics. It's very, very interesting. That it's not just some kind of very, very mystical thing. It's actually very real, and it occurs in science as well. Report an error

50:01 A type of knowing that is transmitted that is beyond data transfer. And Buddhists have known that. Indians have known that for millennia. And so you listen to teachings. You hear the teachings by someone who's conveying not just the words, the information, but conveying understanding by listening. And from that, If you've been listening with an open mind, a mind that's not contaminating it with a lot of preconceptions and you've actually remembered what's held, so the three qualities, then out of that there arises understanding and that is indicated the symptom of understanding or the sign of understanding is you can explain it to other people and you're giving the correct explanation because you understood it. Report an error

50:44 You're not giving a recording, you're not a parrot. You're finding your own words, and if in different words you are convening it accurately, and that shows, good, you've understood it. And so that's that. And we would call it intellectual understanding, but it is within the field of concepts. You heard it, you've understood it, and you can articulate it. That's understanding. But then, of course, the whole idea is to put it into practice. Report an error

51:07 Because we're not just here to transfer baggage, baggage of knowledge. So you go into the practice, you go into the meditation. And as you're meditating, whether it's Samatha, Vipassanā, whatever it may be, over the course of time, maybe in the first day, but over the course of time, there arises experiences. Report an error

51:25 So it's called Nyongma. Nyongma is experience. Experiences arise, so you start experiencing, for example with Samatha, you start experiencing, aha, this is meant by relaxation. Oh, this is stillness. That's clarity. You have the words, anybody can understand the words, but now you know in this context, What are the words referring to when you're cultivating shamatha? And then you say, this is mindfulness. Ah, I got that. This is introspection. Got that. Report an error

51:52 And then you develop your vocabulary, but you're not simply understanding the words, which, you know, just basically knowing the dictionary. But you're seeing the referent. So remember, don't rely on the words, rely on the meaning. The meaning is the referent. What is the relaxation you actually experience, which is the referent of the term relaxation in the context of shamatha. Report an error

52:14 And so now you're getting the taste. When the Buddha himself said, through developing, cultivating mindfulness and breathing, you enter into a peaceful state, a sublime state, an ambrosial dwelling, such that in an instant, when unwholesome states arise, they dissipate. That's easy to understand. Peaceful state, I think I understand that. Sublime, sounds good to me. Ambrosial, probably even better. And then unwholesome states arise, then they dissipate. Report an error

52:40 Yeah, I got that. I cannot explain that. But then you go into the practice and you say, ah, that's the peaceful state. Oh, this is what he's referring to when he said sublime. And yowza, that's the ambrosial dwelling. I see why he called it that. And then you see the ethical import, that some negative impulse, you know, something really toxic, something unwholesome arises. Report an error

53:01 And you see it coming up and then it has no hold. It just comes up and then, ooh, dissipates. Oh, that's what he's talking about. So that's experience. Where you're seeing the reference of the terms in your own experience. And you're tasting it, you're experiencing it, right? And so you may have some experience. Vipassanā has a good one. Report an error

53:20 So you're getting some experience. What's it like to meditate? When are you falling more into nihilism? When are you falling more back into substantialism? So you're getting experience. You're learning the ropes. It's like learning to sail or learning to ride a bicycle. You're getting experience. And seeing when you're on course, when you're falling off and so forth, you're getting experience. And then there comes, so we have understanding, then experience, and then there comes that breakthrough point where you get it. Report an error

53:48 You really, you get it, you realize it. You know something. You know something. It's not really a belief or a hunch. You know it. And you know it experientially, but you know it. It's not just experience. You know something. And that's what we call realization. When there's a clear knowing, and it's your knowing, and nobody can take it away. If you know it, you know it. And so that's realization. Report an error

54:14 Now, you can know something, and you can forget it again. Sometimes we know something, and then it fades out. We don't sustain it, we don't nurture it, we don't keep it going, we can know it, and then after a while we don't know it anymore. Report an error

54:28 And so it's possible to have insight, even into emptiness. And then be distracted. I say, well, I was meditating emptiness a lot, but then I got really interested in cooking. And I become a really good chef, but my food is definitely not empty. It's full of flavor. And so it's possible to have realization and have it fade out, just because one gets derailed and goes off and does other things. Report an error

54:55 So the realization may be authentic and may have an impact, but if it's not sustained, if it's not deepened, then it can also fade out. So there's a fourth level. And that is, it's called Deng Thopa. It's an innocent term, it just means acquiring confidence. Acquiring confidence. And that, in the optimal circumstances, where you have that Vipassanā, that insight, and then it's backed up with its great ally, Samatha. Report an error

55:21 So you bring the Samatha, the muscle of Samatha, to the sharpness of your Vipassanā, and you return to that insight. And then Samatha gives you that sense of ease, stability and clarity that you go deeper and deeper and deeper. So bear in mind, for example, you can become a little bit lucid in a dream. Report an error

55:38 But bring in the Samatha. So you're sustaining the dream and the lucidity and then keep on probing with a stable and clear mind and you should get more and more lucid and more and more lucid until you can be stabbed, you can walk through walls, you're just totally fearless. Because there's nothing about the dream reality you'd understand. You've nailed it. You've thoroughly... Report an error

55:59 But that's way beyond having the first insight. When you first become lucid, you've realized it's a dream, right? But can you walk through a wall? Report an error

56:09 So I've been teaching this a long time. It's one of the fun things to do. So people, you know, they train in dream yoga, lucid dreaming, and then you give them a task. Okay, when you become lucid, and that means you realize something, you know it's a dream, nothing can persuade you otherwise, you know it's a dream. So that's realization. Report an error

56:26 And then I give my students a task. When you're in the dream, find a wall and walk through it. Because you know it's a dream wall. There's no molecules there. There's nothing physical in a dream. So find a wall, walk through it, see what happens. Now they know it's a dream, which means they know there's nothing really there. Report an error

56:47 But they also know if they walk up to the wall in the dream and go, it'll go right back. You know, that you actually feel something. And it feels pretty much like a wall on the waking stage. So now you know it's hard. You also know it's not there. Right? It's hard and it's not there. There's no wall there. There's no molecules in the dream. So you know that. And now can you walk through it or not? And the common thing to happen is that people, because I've seen them, bring people like this, they kind of, I can walk through, I can, I can, I can, I can. Report an error

57:24 They walk through it and then they get stuck halfway through. Report an error

57:30 And my old students know what I'm going to say next. And so many of them stuck there. I've lost a lot of students that way. Report an error

57:44 So then I have a lot of very clever students. They get stuck once. Soon or later they wake up, of course. And then, you know, if at first you don't succeed. So they start getting clever. Because they figure if I go through, I'm going to probably get stuck again. So some of them are like Harry Potter with his little trolley. Report an error

58:00 They say, if I run really fast, I'll get through it before it catches me. So they run through it, and some of them get through it, and some of them get a headache. Then I have more clever ones. Some of them go through the ball backwards, and then you don't know when it's going to hit, and you get all the way through it before you know through it. And that's very clever. Report an error

58:20 So some of them get through it that way. But then when you've done this multiple times, maybe you've tried to walk on water, breathe underwater, fly through the air, transform yourself into... Frank Sinatra, whatever your favorite one is. You've done the shape-changing, so forth. Then, when you're quite adept, you can simply walk through a wall. Report an error

58:41 You don't have to run, you don't have to close your eyes, you don't have to run backwards. And that means you're very lucid. And these are the people who can put the knife into the guts. Because, hey, no problem. And so the realization, well, how realized are you? And this is a really good example. Because you're realizing the emptiness of inherent nature of the things in the dream. Report an error

59:02 Even though you knock on it, you still know it's not really there. And you can walk right through. You can knock on it and then walk right through. If you're very, very lucid. If you deeply realize the emptiness of inherent nature of the phenomenon in the dream. You can be lucid and not really thoroughly get that. Report an error

59:19 But the final one is Deng Thopa. And that is where the realization is so deep. It's gotten into your marrow, so to speak. It's so deep that it's yours. It's yours. And I like to think of this analogy. It's one I give a lot. And that is realization. It's like planting a nail, a nice sharp nail in wood and getting a big hammer and going... Report an error

59:46 And it goes right down so the head of the nail is flushed to the wood. And then we say, in our English, we say, you nailed it. Because that wood, boy, you just nailed it. It went all the way down. And the head's right there flushed to the wood. You've really realized it. You nailed it. Right? Now, could that nail come out? Yeah, bring out the nail and bring the hammer out and pop it right out again. So it could come out. So you can have realization and you can lose it. Report an error

1:00:13 People will be lucid in a dream and then the dream continues and they can lose the lucidity. They can go right back to a non-lucid dream having been lucid. Their mind wanders and they go crunching down. That happens. Not at all uncommon. But now imagine taking that nail, banging it right down flush to the wood. Report an error

1:00:33 So you've nailed it, you've really realized it, right? And now you take out a pin, a metal pin, and put it on top of the head of the nail, and then you bang it again. You whack it, and you countersink the nail. So the head of the nail now is a quarter of an inch beneath the surface of the wood. For all practical purposes, you're never getting that nail out without completely demolishing the wood. Report an error

1:00:57 And so that acquiring confidence is like countersinking the nail. It's in and it's not going away. So with bodhicitta, I mean we speak of realization, realization as in emptiness, rikpa and so forth. But there's also bodhicitta. And so we can cultivate bodhicitta, cultivate bodhicitta. We rev it up, we cultivate it and then it arises. Report an error

1:01:21 But then something comes up and we fall back into self-centeredness again. Then we clean off the dirt, repair ourselves and get back, cultivate, cultivate. Then something comes up and we're clingy again. and so it's... It is bodhicitta, but then it can fade out again. But then there's a point, this is classic Buddhism now, there's a point where the cultivation of bodhicitta goes so deep that it arises spontaneously, just spontaneously. Report an error

1:01:48 You see anything, virtually anything can just activate, trigger your bodhicitta, because it's flowing there, you know. So now it's called Jumma Mayimba Chanchukisen, uncontrived, unartificial, it's just arising effortlessly. And that's when you become a bodhisattva. When you don't have to keep on revving it up, revving it up, it's just natural, it's in the flow. Then you're a bodhisattva, uncontrived bodhicitta. Report an error

1:02:11 One can ask here, there's much more of an answer than you wanted perhaps, but once you become a bodhisattva and the bodhicitta is just flowing, you wake up and it's bodhicitta, moves you through the day, and you wash your dishes, you take a nap, you go to work, take care of your kids, but it's bodhicitta all the way, it's your prime directive. Report an error

1:02:27 It's the underlying motivation of all motivations. Could you lose it? Could you lose it? Could you abandon your bodhicitta and then just go back and say, well, I'm sorry, but I've had it. I just want out of saṃsāra and I want out as quickly as possible. I'm done. I just want my own nirvāṇa. Could that happen? And the answer is, yeah, it could. One can imagine encountering such atrocities, such evil in the world, that one might feel that times are so degenerate, I don't think I can help. Report an error

1:02:58 Since people can do that. And I won't give examples, but you can look at something. If we're living in such an era, I don't think I can help. I think it's too late. And so I can't help you people. I'm going to go off and just achieve my own liberation. That could happen. It could happen. That you have bodhicitta, but you could release it. Report an error

1:03:20 You could just say, I can't do it. Too much. And then basta, I'm out of here. And go back. But then is there a point at which your bodhicitta is irreversible, that you'll never lose it? It's countersunk. No matter now, no matter what happens, you can witness the most inconceivable atrocities and evil in the world, and you still don't lose it. Report an error

1:03:41 And the answer is yeah. It's called the second stage of the Mahāyāna path of accumulation, to be technical. And that's where the bodhicitta has already arisen, so it's uncontrived. But then you countersink it with wisdom. Countersink it with wisdom. And if the wisdom is there, And you see some of the evil we've seen, like in the Second World War and ISIS and Boko Haram and so forth. Sometimes it boggles the mind. Report an error

1:04:06 How could human beings ever do that? But if the wisdom is there, then you see. That protects your bodhicitta. You see the emptiness. This is not an intrinsically evil person. This is a person with a Buddha nature. Who has come under massive domination by mental afflictions. But the mental afflictions are not inherently real. The person is not inherently real. And most importantly, this person is not inherently evil. Report an error

1:04:34 Evil, yes. And should be stopped, yes. Maybe even with violence, yes. But not to the point of giving up on that person. And so that's when you countersink bodhicitta. And you'll never be an un-bodhicattva. Whether you spend many lifetimes or few lifetimes, but now your bodhicitta is in and is a keeper. Report an error

1:04:54 So when I heard about that, I thought, oh, that's something worth inspiring. Okie dokie. Thank you. That certainly wasn't more than I wanted. Report an error

1:05:06 It was wonderful. It is wonderful, yeah. I'm just passing on the wisdom, but it is really wonderful. So I agree with you. It has nothing to do with me, but I've received these teachings and they really are wonderful. So I share with you joy in those teachings that I just had the privilege to pass on. Report an error

1:05:25 Because there was nothing there for me at all. I had nothing to add. Very good. So let's end the evening. In Report an error

1:05:48 Tuscany and also in Santa Barbara and anywhere else in the world. How would we feel about contributing to that? If you'd like to make a donation to the Tuscany Project or Santa Barbara Institute, just go onto the website. And very easy to do. Report an error

1:06:08 Good. So now let's bring the evening to our last evening. Last evening together. Let's look back on the day. Whatever merit, virtue, positive energy, something good, something constructive, something very positive, then with your aspirations, your wisdom, your passion, your aspiration for freedom, dedicate this merit in the most meaningful ways you can. Report an error

· · ·

1:07:37 So, we now have Atisha's guidance, his instructions on the optimal way to die, using the five powers, and quintessentially coming back to just alternating at your own leisure, your own pace, between Donglen, And then just go and lighten the age of awareness. If you can go all the way down to pristine awareness, great. But at least on that trajectory, yeah, very clear. Very good way to die. No way that can turn out badly. Report an error

1:08:00 I think no matter what, no way that can turn out badly. And so if that's a good way to die, it's also a good way to fall asleep. So at your own leisure, sometimes don't lend, just, you know, your farewell beautiful gesture of don't lend to the world or to any individuals in your life or that you know of. Report an error

1:08:18 And then just release that and just go into awareness. When you feel like, come out into awareness. And then, have a good night's sleep. See you tomorrow morning. Report an error

Report an error

Passage at . Please listen to the audio before you suggest a fix.

Suggest a fix

Passage at . Please listen to the audio before you suggest a fix.

Related talks

  1. Transform Your Mind & Change Your Life Retreat - 7-Point Mind Training from Atisha (part 53)

    B. Alan Wallace · 1 h 6 min

  2. Transform Your Mind & Change Your Life Retreat - 7-Point Mind Training from Atisha (part 58)

    B. Alan Wallace · 54 min

  3. Transform Your Mind & Change Your Life Retreat - 7-Point Mind Training from Atisha (part 55)

    B. Alan Wallace · 39 min

  4. Transform Your Mind & Change Your Life Retreat - 7-Point Mind Training from Atisha (part 51)

    B. Alan Wallace · 32 min

  5. Transform Your Mind & Change Your Life Retreat - 7-Point Mind Training from Atisha (part 38)

    B. Alan Wallace · 1 h 25 min

  6. Transform Your Mind & Change Your Life Retreat - 7-Point Mind Training from Atisha (part 47)

    B. Alan Wallace · 1 h 12 min

Talk by B. Alan Wallace. Original at Vajrayana Institute via Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/retreatmindtraining. Licensed CC BY-NC-ND 3.0. Transcript generated automatically and may contain errors; the audio is the authoritative version.

Recorded at Vajrayana Institute, Sydney, and archived by the institute on Internet Archive. More from Vajrayana Institute

Listen on Internet Archive · CC BY-NC-ND 3.0