Overview of A Root Text On Gelug-Kagyu Mahamudra

Overview of A Root Text on Gelug-Kagyu
Mahamudra
This is the printer-friendly version of: http: / / www.berzinarchives.com / web / x / nav /
group.html_1947384435.html
Session One: The Preparatory Practices

Unedited Transcript
Listen to the audio version of this page (0:58 hours) {1}
This is a topic, which we find in many different traditions of Tibetan Buddhism. It derives
from India. Specifically, we're looking at the tradition that's found in the Gelug lineage, and it
is known as the Gelug-Kagyu tradition of mahamudra, which is perhaps a bit of a surprising
name.
[See: A Root Text for the Precious Gelug-Kagyu Tradition of Mahamudra {2}.]
The word Kagyu (bka'-brgyud) means "a lineage of the enlightening words of a Buddha," and
so there are some commentators who say that, "Well, the title here doesn't really mean the
Kagyu tradition; it actually means the mahamudra tradition of the enlightening words of the
Buddha that are found in the Gelug tradition." So they want to put Kagyu aside here as
referring to the actual Kagyu tradition, but His Holiness the Dalai Lama disagrees with this,
following other commentators. The text was written by the First Panchen Lama, and the First
Panchen Lama wrote his own commentary to it, and in this autocommentary, we would call it,
the First Panchen Lama quotes extensively from Kagyu masters. So it's quite clear that he's
drawing on the Kagyu tradition.
Moreover, the First Panchen Lama was the tutor of the Fifth Dalai Lama and was undoubtedly
the architect behind the whole policy of the Fifth Dalai Lama to bring peace to Tibet after a
hundred and fifty years of civil war and bring harmony among all the different traditions of
Tibetan Buddhism. And so it makes perfect sense from the Panchen Lama's own commentary
and from the type of work that he was doing, that he is bringing together the Kagyu and Gelug
traditions here.
But the Panchen Lama makes it very clear that he's not making this up; he says this very
clearly in his beginning lines that these teachings come in a lineage from Tsongkhapa, the
founder of the Gelug tradition, but he's only writing it down for the first time. Up until then,
from the time of Tsongkhapa to his time, which was about two hundred years, this tradition
was just an oral tradition.
Now, you have to bear in mind that Tsongkhapa studied with teachers from all the different
traditions that were available at his time. So he had Kagyu teachers, and Sakya teachers,
Nyingma teachers, teachers who had the various Kadampa lineages as well. Regarding
mahamudra, he had thewhat's called "the distant lineage" that comes all the way from Buddha
through the line of Kagyu lamas. But it wasn't limited only to Kagyu, we also find mahamudra
in the Sakya lineage as well.
Overview of A Root Text on Gelug-Kagyu Mahamudra 1

Overview of A Root Text on Gelug-Kagyu Mahamudra (audio + transcript)
But Tsongkhapa also has the what's called the "near lineage." The Panchen Lama refers to the
"near lineage" and this is the lineage that comes from a vision that Tsongkhapa had of
Manjushri. Now, what an actual vision is and what happens during a vision, I must say, I
really don't know. But in any case, Tsongkhapa had a very profound vision of Manjushri, who
gave him many teachings of course, but particularly, I think what's most significant is that
Manjushri gave him a very clear indication of where to look in the Indian sources to get the
most profound understanding of voidness.
Tsongkhapa was a great revolutionary - I think that's the proper word for him, because he
completely reinterpreted most of the teachings that were going on in Tibet up until that time.
That's a very interesting phenomenon, if you think about it, because Tsongkhapa, like every
great Tibetan lama, puts a great deal of emphasis on entrusting oneself to the spiritual teacher,
which is usually called "guru devotion." So one would think that a disciple could not disagree
with his or her teacher, particularly concerning the teachings and how to understand the
teachings.
But there is actually quite a long tradition of disciples disagreeing with their teachers'
interpretation and in a sense going further than their teachers. The one great example is Atisha
with his teacher Dharmakirti, also known as Dharmapala, in Sumatra who held the
Chittamatra view and Atisha held a Madhyamaka view. But disagreeing with one's teacher
concerning such points doesn't mean disrespect for the teacher, because Atisha, like
Tsongkhapa as well, learned a great deal from their teachers and they acknowledged that very
strongly.
But the whole tradition of Buddhism, the way that it's practiced in Tibet follows the tradition
from Nalanda Monastery in India, which uses debate and logic. So if one can show logical
inconsistencies in somebody else's thinking, even if it's your own teacher, then according to
what Buddha himself said, one must accept the consequences of logic - and that's not
disrespectful.
From another point of view, different people have different meditational experiences, and
there's no reason why everybody's meditational experiences should be exactly the same. So no
matter how close we might be to our spiritual teacher, that doesn't mean that our own
individual spiritual meditational practice is going to be an exact replica of that of our teachers.
We are, after all, different mental continuums and we've had different, separate previous lives.
So, what did Tsongkhapa do or add to this mahamudra tradition that he received from his
Kagyu lamas? The Panchen Lama makes it very clear in his text. When we talk about
mahamudra, we're speaking about meditation on the nature of the mind. And, as with any
phenomenon, we can speak about the conventional or superficial nature of what mind is and
we can speak about the deepest nature.
The superficial nature of something is what does it - appear to be? It's superficial in the sense
that it's the surface appearance and - as both the Sanskrit and Tibetan word implies - it hides
something deeper underneath. And what it conceals, or hides, is the deepest nature, and the
deepest nature is how something actually exists, in other words voidness. And voidness is
referring to its way of existing devoid of impossible ways. Everybody agrees on that, but what
people disagree on is what are the impossible ways that things are devoid of existing as.
What Tsongkhapa does in his interpretation of mahamudra is that he accepts and follows the
traditional Kagyu methods for being able to recognize and meditate on the superficial or
Session One: The Preparatory Practices 2

conventional nature of the mind. But then he introduces his own way of meditating on the
deepest nature of the mind, as was indicated to him by Manjushri to follow from the Indian
sources of Buddhapalita. So we have a traditional Kagyu method of meditating on the
conventional or superficial nature of the mind and the Gelugpa method of meditating on the
voidness of the mind. This is why it's known as the Gelug-Kagyu tradition of mahamudra.
This is not the only example of this type of combined tradition. We also find this within the
Kagyu traditions in which we have combined mahamudra/dzogchen type of practices. For
instance, a great Kagyu master named Karma Chagmey (Kar-ma Chags-med) introduced a
system in which one meditates in the mahamudra style up to a certain point and then for the
final stages one follows a traditional Nyingma dzogchen approach.
Now, one might start to question this whole method of combining various different traditions
in light of a statement that His Holiness the Dalai Lama makes very strongly, which is that we
shouldn't mix practices together. But His Holiness explains that "mixing" actually means to
adulterate, and what that means is to put everything all together into one big soup. Here, what
these great masters like Tsongkhapa and Karma Chagmey are doing is they are not mixing
everything together in one stage of practice, but they're taking different traditional types of
practices and having them in sequence with each other. So that's not mixing it together into
one soup; that's like having different courses in the meal. Sort of like starting your meal with
borscht and then ending with a pizza. For some people, maybe that is very appetizing, for
other people maybe not.
In any case, we have this lineage and this tradition. One can give various other examples, but I
think that's enough examples of combining different practices in stages. In any case, let's turn
to our text, and what I thought to do is just give a brief overview of the text without going
through it line by line. I myself have received teachings on this four times, once from Geshe
Ngawang Dhargyey, twice from His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and once from Serkong
Rinpoche. So I will try to explain it to the best of my understanding, which of course is not
that great.
The Panchen Lama begins in the traditional way of respectfully paying homage to mahamudra
and then to his gurus, and then he says what he's going to write about. This is the traditional
standard way in which any text begins. Then he says that he's going to divide his discussion
into - standard way, in which almost everything is divided - the preparatory practices, the
actual methods, and the concluding procedures.
As for the preparatory practices, this is I think important for us to understand as "preparation"
rather than "preliminary." I'm translating "ngondro" (sngon-'gro) as "preparation," rather than
"preliminary." I don't know about the connotation of the Russian words, but in English you
hear "preliminary," and then people think, "I don't need the preliminaries, I'm advanced
already. Let's skip that, that's boring, that's not interesting."
"Preliminary" just means what you do first and it's not so important, but "preparation" has a
different connotation. Think of the example of nomads living in tents, who are about to go on
a caravan journey. Well, in order to go on your caravan journey, you have to prepare, which
means you have to pack up the tents; you cannot go on the journey unless you prepare by
packing the tents, loading the yaks, and then away you go.
That's very different than a preliminary, like at a movie theater, where before the actual main
movie you have advertisement as the preliminary and previews of coming attractions as your

preliminary, which obviously you can skip. So, very different connotation. So, when we read
about and learn about what in Tibetan is called "ngondro," we really need to keep the image in
our mind of the yak caravan and not the image of the movie theater advertisement.
And it's quite interesting how the terminology that the First Panchen Lama uses here is very
reminiscent of caravans, because he says that for getting into these teachings, the
entranceway, like the entranceway into a tent, is taking refuge or what I call "safe direction."
And then the central tent pole for putting up the tent is bodhichitta. That means that these two
are absolutely essential for being able to practice this mahamudra. Now, this is probably not
the time or occasion to go into a detailed discussion of safe direction, or refuge, and
bodhichitta... a statement like that, of course, is always followed with "but..."
When we talk about what's usually translated as "refuge," we're talking about putting a certain
direction in our life. It's a very active process, not passive. And that direction is indicated by
the Dharma Jewel, which is what Buddha taught as the third and fourth noble truths. We're
talking about the true stopping of obscurations, true stopping of all the garbage - problems,
and the causes of the problems - on the mental continuums of those who have had
nonconceptual cognition of voidness all the way up to Buddhas.
And the true paths are actually the true pathways of mind; they are the minds, the
understanding, that brings about that stopping and which is the result of the stopping. That's
referring to the uninterrupted path and the liberated path on each of the bhumis, actually, for
those who know technical details. It's the uninterrupted path, it's the understanding of voidness
that will get rid of a portion of junk that you have to get rid of, that's the uninterrupted path.
And then the liberated path is the mind that's free of that junk. There's always two steps.
Then the Buddha Jewel are those who have the true stoppings and the true paths in full, and
the Sangha Jewel are those who have it in part - those are the aryas, they have a little bit of
this, but not the whole thing. Now, if you think about that, that has a profound connection with
mahamudra; because it's absolutely essential to really understand the nature of the mind in
order to be convinced that it's possible to get rid of the junk - all the problems and causes of
problems that are on the mental continuum - and that it's possible to develop the antidote that
will get rid of it and the state of mind that will result from that.
So, of course, there are two ways of developing this. The first way would be - on the basis of
inspiration from various teachers, on the basis of many emotional states, and so on - that we
want to put this direction in our life, because we're convinced that OK, it's at least going to
help us somewhat to go in this direction. And once we're going in this direction - at least we
know what we're heading for - then, in order to really have that firm, we're going to really
need to work very hard to really understand and recognize the nature of the mind, so that we're
really convinced that it's possible, that what we're aiming for, the direction we're going in, is
not just some fantasy, but it's actually possible.
After all how do we know that there was a Buddha? How do we know that it's possible to
become a Buddha? How do we know? Is it just a nice fairy tale? Or are we aiming to become
Santa Claus, or what? So it's only when we really understand the nature of the mind, that our
refuge, this safe direction will be really firm. But as a preparation for being able to really
investigate the nature of the mind, we would need to be wanting to go in that direction that has
that intimate connection with the nature of the mind, the direction that's indicated by the true
stoppings and the true pathway minds.

So the entranceway to get into the tent is at least going in that direction of working with the
mind - and, as is said very clearly in the teachings, the actions of our speech and body are
derivative from the actions of the mind. So one way of practice is first to put that direction in
our life, for whatever reason - we don't want things to get worse, we have confidence that the
Buddhas can lead us in that way, and so on - so we do that first, and then work to gain the
understanding of the mind.
Or the other way would be to get some understanding of the mind first and then, when we're a
little bit convinced that this whole Buddhist trip is possible, then put this direction in our life.
So there's two ways. As His Holiness the Dalai Lama explains, for those of us who are more
emotionally and devotionally inclined, the first style is more suitable - that first we go in this
direction, motivated by emotion and devotion, and then try to get the understanding. Or for
those who are more intellectually inclined, first try to get some intellectual understanding of
the possibility of going in this direction, and then one puts this direction in one's life firmly.
But regardless of which way in which we practice, even if we're practicing the second way, it's
not going to be the deepest understanding of mind and the possibility of getting rid of the
obscurations or the garbage on the mind. There is a little bit of understanding, but in either
way, this safe direction of going in this direction is an absolutely essential preparation for
being able to really now go deeply into trying to understand and recognize the nature of the
mind.
So, now we're going in the safe direction that gets us into the tent. What is the central pole
that's holding up the tent? It's bodhichitta. What does the central pole of a tent do? It gives the
strength for the whole tent to stay there and stay up and not fall down. So bodhichitta gives us
that strength to follow the path and follow the path all the way. Without it, our whole practice
of mahamudra is likely to fall down. Therefore, we need to understand what actually
bodhichitta means.
And that's not so easy. First of all, we need to think of everybody, and that means everybody,
and we have compassion - we think of their suffering, we want them to overcome their
suffering - we take responsibility to help them overcome that suffering, and we see that the
only way to actually be able do that is if we ourselves become Buddhas. So we are thinking on
the most grand, extensive scale possible. Enlightenment means a mind that encompasses
everybody and everything, and we want to help everybody. That encompasses every being
that exists.
And an enlightened mind is the endpoint of the Dharma refuge. It has the full elimination of
both the emotional and cognitive obscurations; it has all the possible good qualities that a
mental continuum could have. And we are not only going in the direction that's indicated by
this, but now we want to actually achieve this type of mind ourselves. Refuge or safe direction
doesn't mean necessarily going all the way to the end of this path - to enlightenment - it could
be going just as far as liberation. But now, with bodhichitta, we want to go all the way to the
end.
If we are aiming for a state in which mind has its fullest capacities, and is totally free of all
obscuration, and is totally capable of everything that a mind is capable of - if that's now our
aim, then we can really understand that it is "preparation." We need that in order to be able to
- with mahamudra practice - understand, and recognize, and realize this nature of the mind.

So, with bodhichitta, what we are aiming for is our own future enlightenment, which has not
yet happened, but which definitely can happen. We're not aiming for enlightenment in general.
We're not aiming for Buddha's enlightenment - that was Buddha Shakyamuni's enlightenment.
We're aiming for our own enlightenment. But our own enlightenment doesn't exist now, does
it? So what are we aiming for? Are we aiming for something that doesn't exist? That's pretty
weird.
Then one has to start thinking very deeply about things that have not yet happened - do they
have any type of existence at all?
I am aiming for my seventieth birthday. My seventieth birthday doesn't exist yet, does it? It
hasn't happened yet, but it's not a total fantasy; it's something that can happen. On what basis
can it happen? It can happen on the basis of - personally, I'm sixty-one, and I'm getting older
and getting closer to that seventieth birthday every day. Unless I die before then, then I can
reach that seventieth birthday, that not-yet-happening seventieth birthday will become a
presently-happening seventieth birthday, just on the basis of the fact that I am aging. That is a
natural quality of my mental continuum; it's going on from moment to moment. And actually,
I don't have to put in any effort in order to reach my seventieth birthday, it will happen
naturally.
Now what about my not-yet-happening enlightenment? Is it the same as my not-yet-happening

seventieth birthday? Well, yes and no. First of all there is a basis, a valid basis for my
not-yet-happening enlightenment - this is known as Buddha-nature, the actual nature of my
mind, my mental continuum, both it's conventional and deepest nature. On the basis of that
Buddha-nature, I can become enlightened, just as on the basis of the fact that my mental
continuum continues I can become older and reach my seventieth birthday.
So on the fact that conventionally the mind is capable of knowing anything - it's capable of
knowing things, isn't it? And on the basis of the fact that the mind doesn't exist in any
impossible ways - so it is free of all this junk - it's possible to achieve total true stopping of all
the junk and the total understanding of everything. However, it doesn't require any extra effort
for me to reach my seventieth birthday, it will just happen naturally unless I die before then.
It's not the same with reaching enlightenment. We're going to have to put in a tremendous
amount of effort and hard work to reach that enlightenment.
Although death could prevent me from reaching my seventieth birthday, and I would never
reach it in this lifetime, it's not quite the same with bodhichitta. You see, something could
prevent me from reaching my seventieth birthday in any lifetime. I could never reach my
seventieth birthday in any lifetime, whereas with bodhichitta, with reaching enlightenment,
certain obstacles might come up preventing us in this lifetime from achieving it, but there's
nothing that could prevent it completely.
So if we've really understood the nature of the mind, and if we've really understood the third
and fourth noble truths, then we will be convinced that it's actually possible to achieve
enlightenment. And it's possible for me to achieve enlightenment, and it's possible for
everybody to achieve enlightenment, including the mosquito buzzing around my head that
kept me awake last night. After all, if we are aiming to lead everybody to enlightenment, we
need to be convinced that everybody can actually achieve enlightenment.
So, we can see from this that bodhichitta is a very profound topic - just to understand what is
bodhichitta. We are, first of all, aiming to benefit everybody, bring them to enlightenment, and

then we're focused on our own future enlightenment, which has not yet happened, but we
understand it can happen on the basis of our Buddha-nature. And we're working to achieve
that, to make that attainment actually a presently-happening attainment, in order to then
benefit everybody.
It is with this thinking that in the beginning of our class, when we took safe direction or
refuge, we thought in terms of those who have actually achieved enlightenment - that's the
result. We think in terms of our own future enlightenment that we're aiming for achieving
with bodhichitta in respect to that - that's the path that we're going to follow to that result. And
we prostrate and show respect to our own Buddha-nature, which is the basis which will allow
us - with bodhichitta - to work toward our future enlightenment, so that we ourselves become
a Buddha.
We can see from this discussion that safe direction and bodhichitta have a very intimate
relationship with mahamudra meditation for understanding the nature of the mind. And if we
have - at least on an emotional and devotional level - this safe direction and bodhichitta, that is
the preparation. We've packed our bags; we have all the stuff that we're going to need along
the way in order to actually do this mediation and succeed in it.
So we've gotten into the tent; we've set up the central pole so the tent will be stable; and now
we can practice in that tent; we can live in the tent. And the Panchen Lama says, "Do not have
these merely be words from your mouth," in other words, feel this sincerely from your heart!
Then the Panchen Lama says, to actually be able to see the nature of the mind, we need to
build up the two - I call them the "networks," sometimes they're called "collections," a
"network of positive force" and "deep awareness," sometimes called "collection of merit" and
"collection of wisdom or insight." These are not "collections" in the sense of a collection of
stamps, but what we're doing is on the one hand meditating with bodhichitta and compassion,
and actually helping people, which builds up more and more positive force or energy, and all
of that force or energy networks with each other and gets stronger and stronger. And we're
studying and meditating more and more on voidness, and all our understanding and everything
that we learn networks together, so it gets stronger and stronger. So we have this great
strength from compassion and love and bodhichitta, and we're working to build up these two
networks, to strengthen them more and more. It's like putting energy into a system, into an
organic system.
Now, we can think of this in terms of an analogy with water. If you put enough energy into the
water then, all of a sudden, it will reach a critical phase transition point, in which it will
rearrange itself and change into steam; it will boil. Similarly, if we build up these two
networks, get more and more positive force, more and more understanding, eventually our
whole system will - blip! - rearrange and we will gain the insight of mahamudra; we will
eventually become an arya, gain nonconceptual cognition of voidness of the mind. So we need
to put a lot of energy into our system.
In addition, we need to purify ourselves of mental obstacles or obscurations. Now, of course

the only thing that will really get rid of the mental obscurations is the nonconceptual cognition
of voidness. Because, you see, we have a tremendous amount of potential for causing more
problems and having emotional disturbances and all these sort of things. There's a lot of
potential for that from our previous behavior. And what will activate those potentials? What is
it that will activate it, is our - it's very complicated, but to put it in simple terms - it's basically
our ignorance, our unawareness, our confusion.

So if we gain the nonconceptual cognition of voidness and are able to stay with it all the time,
then there's nothing that will activate these potentials. So if there's nothing that can activate
these potentials, there aren't any potentials anymore. We can only talk about a potential on the
basis of a future ripening of the potential. If there's no future ripening of it, there's no
potential. A potential for something only exists relative to that something that it is a potential
for being actually possible to happen.
So that's the only thing that actually is going to purify all these karmic aftermaths and
potentials and so on, is this nonconceptual cognition of voidness, and staying with it all the
time. We shouldn't fool ourselves then into thinking that recitation of the hundred-syllable
mantra of Vajrasattva, which is what we do at this stage of our practice as a preparation, is
going to rid ourselves of all these obscurations forever, the way that the understanding of
voidness will do. Doing the Vajrasattva practice - and doing it perfectly, of course - is like
washing our hands. Our hands are clean after we wash our hands, but that doesn't mean that
they're never going to get dirty again.
But we want to wash them, so that we can do something very delicate with them, like a brain
surgeon or something like that. So as a preparation for doing an operation on the brain, we
wash our hands. So similarly - "Where did you get all the training?" "In medical school." - so
similarly to do this operation on our minds, to try to understand the nature of the mind, we
need to build up a lot of force. So here we do building up the two networks - we have to have
our motivation - bodhichitta on so on - we have to actually get into this whole study and
practice, and then we need to wash our hands, so we need to do some purification practice like
Vajrasattva.
And then when we've done this, the final step of our preparation is to "make heartfelt requests
to our root guru inseparable from all the Buddhas of the three times." Now what in the world
is going on here with making requests? What are we doing, saying, "Oh guru, pretty, pretty,
please let me see the nature of my mind. I will make offerings to you every day. Please let me
see it. I'll be a good boy; I'll be a good girl, just let me see the nature of my mind?" Well, I
don't think that it is such a childish practice as that. So what actually are we talking about here
in terms of making requests?
Because this is emphasized in so many teachings. What we're doing is basically opening
ourselves up for inspiration. This idea of opening up is very key here; it's very central. We
opened up to the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, that safe direction in life; rather than going
nowhere or going into a negative direction in our life, now we've opened up to going in some
positive direction. Then we've opened up to the vastness of all beings and the vastness of the
enlightened state of the mind when we have developed bodhichitta, and we've opened up to
the vastness of intensity of compassion for everybody.
And in doing this purification of Vajrasattva, for example, when they talk about confession,
the word for that literally is "opening up," and so it's like the same word for when you cut a
piece of wood and you split it open with an axe: "I admit all the negative things that I've done,
and I open up, and I want to get rid of it." And now what we want to do is to open up as well
to inspiration from our spiritual teacher. In order to see the nature of the mind, both
conventional and deepest nature of the mind, mind has to be totally, totally open. If we're just
a little bit closed, there's no way that we're going to actually see the nature of the mind.
The more and more open we are in all these various dimensions that we've just mentioned, the
more prepared we are for success in this practice. And we need to also make the mind more

and more intense. Intense is like instead of a twenty watt light bulb, a two hundred watt light
bulb. I think the light bulb is a good example here. We want to be able to see the nature of the
mind; and so we have to speak about the mind that is looking at the nature of the mind, and
the nature of the mind that is being seen. The more intense the mind as an object is, it'll be
easier to see it; and the more intense the mind that is the subject that's doing is, it will also be
easier to see it.
You need both the mind as the object and as the subject to be intense. Think of the example of
the light bulb: the stronger the intensity of the light bulb, on the one hand the more visible the
light bulb will be, and on the other hand we will be more able to see the light bulb. Like that
we want to get the mind as intense as possible, because then we will have a mind for looking
at the nature of the mind that will be more intense and strong, and what we're looking at will
be more intense and strong.
So of course we have to get a lot of electricity into the light bulb, so we have to build up these
networks. And of course we have to clean the light bulb, so we have to do the purification.
And we have to plug the light bulb into the electricity source, so we need safe direction and
we need bodhichitta. And then, for increasing the intensity here, we make these requests. So
what we want is to open up now to the inspiration of our spiritual teacher - we already have
great intensity from compassion and bodhichitta, "I really have to help everybody."
The root guru is the one that acts as a root, not who acts as the seed that starts the plant to
grow, but acts as the root. The root of a plant is what the plant gets its strength from; so the
root guru is the most inspiring to us, gives the most strength to us. For many of us it'll be His
Holiness the Dalai Lama. We may never have a personal, individual contact with him, yet he
gives us tremendous personal inspiration.
And we see our root guru as "inseparable from all the Buddhas," it says right here in the text.
It certainly doesn't mean literally that our teacher is a Buddha in the full technical sense, and
can multiply in twenty billion forms, and walk through walls, and knows the telephone
number of everybody on the planet. But what it's talking about is seeing Buddha-nature in the
spiritual teacher, and seeing through the inspiration of the spiritual teacher what can be a
Buddha, and that we have that same thing. We see the basis, what we're seeing in the guru as
the Buddha is the Buddha-nature of the teacher.
We see in our guru the guru's Buddha-nature, and that inspires us to be - like we talk in
guru-yoga - to be inseparable from our guru. Just as the Buddha-nature is so obvious in our
teacher - in terms of the accomplishments of the teacher, and the inspiration, and so on -
likewise I have Buddha-nature too. In other words, in seeing the Buddha-nature of the teacher,
then when we say, "the teacher is a Buddha," and giving a name of the result to the cause - on
one level we can see it's an ordinary person, and on another level, equally valid, a Buddha. On
the basis of Buddha-nature, one is an ordinary being, and on the basis of Buddha-nature one is
a Buddha.
On the basis of Buddha-nature, we are an ordinary being; on the basis of Buddha-nature we

are a Buddha - this is what in the Sakya system is called the inseparability of samsara and
nirvana. That doesn't mean literally that the guru is a Buddha, but by understanding
Buddha-nature, which of course is not so easy, but by understanding Buddha-nature and
seeing it more easily in the teacher, then we can see it in ourselves. And that is a really strong
opening up for being able to see the nature of the mind. Gampopa said when he realized the
inseparability of his mind and his root guru, Milarepa, he realized mahamudra.

This has to do with this whole process of making requests on the basis of understanding
Buddha-nature, gaining inspiration. And inspiration is not a disturbing emotional state. If on
the basis of thinking of our guru, we get really emotionally unstable - "Oh my guru," and
crying, and all this sort of stuff - that is not proper, stable inspiration. It's unstable. When we
speak about the word that's usually translated not so nicely as "faith," which is a type of
confident belief - one of the three kinds is the "clear-minded belief," in other words, the type
of belief that your guru has Buddha-nature and all the good qualities and so on, that clears the
mind of disturbing emotions.
So we're not in love with our guru; that's not the emotion we're talking about here. But this
inspiration uplifts us. The word for "inspiration" is "chinlab" (byin-rlabs), "waves of
brightening," this is the Tibetan term, the Sanskrit term adhishtana just means "uplifting."
"Blessing" is how it's often translated, but I think that is bringing in a system of other religious
beliefs that really are irrelevant here. How do we gain inspiration? We think of the guru's
good qualities, and we think of the kindness of the guru - the kindness toward everyone, the
kindness specifically toward us - and that inspires a strong emotional state, which is a stable
state, not a disturbing state. And this really adds energy to the mind - both as the subject and
as an object - and opens us up even further.
And then the final step is that we imagine our root guru coming to the crown of our heads and
then dissolving into us and we become one. That doesn't literally mean that now we become a
clone of our teacher, and have all the conventional habits of the teacher - eating the same kind
of food, and wearing the same clothes, and so on. But we understand that the Buddha-nature
of the guru and the Buddha-nature of ourself are individual, "My Buddha-nature isn't your
Buddha-nature. My nose isn't your nose, but they're equivalent."
And what is really important here is, if we have this state of inspiration from the teacher - it's
strong, our heart is really moved by the teacher - then when the teacher dissolves into us, it's a
very, very joyous, blissful state of mind that we have, and super-intense. It's not the same as
visualizing an apple in front of us and the apple comes to our head and dissolves in our heart,
"So what?" You don't feel anything.
Translator: Unless you're really hungry.
Unless you're really hungry, but then you want it to dissolve in your stomach, not in your
heart, and not a visualized one. When we have done all of these preparatory practices of the
safe direction, bodhichitta, building up the two networks, purification, requests to the guru,
dissolving the guru into us, then our minds are the most open and in the most intense state,
which will then be the preparation for having the most conducive mind - as both an object and
a subject - for gaining the insight of mahamudra.
This is very important to really comprehend this, really digest what that means. If we start to
try to meditate on the nature of the mind, and we just sort of sit down and start to do it, in the
vast, vast majority of cases, our minds are not going to be terribly intense at all. It's like we
haven't sharpened the knife to be able to cut something. We have to sharpen the knife first; we
have to get the mind in the proper state in order to then do the mahamudra meditation.
Once we have seen the nature of the mind, and we're very, very familiar, then we can see it all
the time. But when we still haven't achieved that, and we're trying really hard to be able to
meditate on the nature of the mind, these preparation steps are essential. At least some level of
them is a preparation for our practice. And in the words of the Panchen Lama, "Do not have

these merely be words from your mouth."
That covers the preparation material, and then tomorrow we'll discuss the actual meditation
practice. Do you have some questions?
Question: Would you tomorrow give us a "lung" for meditation, permission for meditation,
maybe afterwards? Because I know this is a big question: can you do the meditation without
the permission of a lama or a teacher? Or will you only describe how to do this?
Answer: The question is, will I give a lung or oral transmission to do the meditation
tomorrow? That's a very interesting question, because it gets into a whole discussion of what
is a "lung," an oral transmission. An oral transmission, according to my understanding, is of a
text, not of a meditation. The custom arose in India from the time of the Buddha, when
nothing was written down for the first three and a half, or four centuries after Buddha. None of
his teachings were in written form; the teachings were all transmitted orally. People had to
memorize them and then recite them.
So in order to study the teachings, you needed to have somebody who had memorized them
before you, and listen to that person reciting it correctly, word for word, without any mistakes.
One listened to this and had this transmission in order to have the confidence that you got the
words of the teachings correctly. And if you listened to it often enough, or if you had a really
good memory, you would be able to memorize it based on hearing other people recite it
correctly. So it was very, very important; otherwise the text got corrupted if people didn't
remember them correctly and recite them correctly.
And the custom continued even once the texts were written down. Now the interesting thing
here is that the person who gives an oral transmission of a text does not necessarily have to
understand anything of the text that he or she is reciting. The only criterion is that they recite it
correctly without making mistakes. So I must say, I found this very surprising, but what I'm
saying is based on what His Holiness the Dalai Lama told me personally. I'll tell you the story,
it's interesting:
There is one of Tsongkhapa's most difficult texts, called the Essence of Excellent or Eloquent
Explanation of Interpretable and Definitive Meanings (Drang-nges legs-bshad snying-po).
Anyway, it's Tsongkhapa's tremendous text on the Svatantrika and Prasangika systems, the
Mahayana systems; it's probably Tsongkhapa's most difficult text. It's about two hundred and
fifty pages long, and my teacher Tsenzhab Serkong Rinpoche, he used to recite it from
memory every day as part of his daily practice - he was one of the teachers of His Holiness the
Dalai Lama.
And there's a lineage of it from Tsongkhapa himself. But Serkong Rinpoche's father, Serkong
Dorje Chang, was probably the most accomplished yogi of his generation, and he had a vision
of Tsongkhapa who gave him another transmission of the text, an explanation. So Serkong
Rinpoche had this special double lineage. And he never gave the oral transmission to His
Holiness the Dalai Lama. He said that he was waiting until he had something really special
about it to be able to explain to His Holiness that His Holiness hadn't heard before, and so he
was waiting. And before he was able to give it to His Holiness, he died.
However, I have received the lung of this text from Serkong Rinpoche, and it was a very
special oral transmission, because he did it from memory, without looking at the text - two
hundred and fifty pages - he recited it every day as part of his practice, at super-speed. So,

Serkong Rinpoche's next reincarnation was found and I'm as close to him, if not closer than I
was with the old one. He's twenty-two years old now, and when he was I think nineteen - it
must have been when he was around nineteen - he wanted very much this oral transmission.
And so we looked and looked, and there was nobody who was still alive who had the oral
transmission except me, and there were two other people present at the time, and Rinpoche
wasn't interested in getting it from them, so he wanted me to give him the oral transmission.
Now, I had never studied this text, and so I have no understanding at all of what's in the text,
but Rinpoche was very insistent that I give it to him. So I asked His Holiness the Dalai Lama
permission, "What should I do?" since His Holiness the Dalai Lama supervises Serkong
Rinpoche's education.
And that's when His Holiness explained to me that it doesn't matter that I don't understand
anything from the text. I received the actual oral transmission and I can give it back to
Serkong Rinpoche, since obviously he was very special and it was very important that he
continue this lineage. So, I practiced and practiced reciting, reading the text out loud, until I
could do it without making a complete idiot out of myself, without it being just totally boring
and a torture for Rinpoche to listen to me.
And I went to Rinpoche's monastery and I gave him the oral transmission. I read the text to
him out loud, basically - and that's it; that's what an oral transmission is. I was actually quite
shocked that that was all that was involved. I had thought that the person who gave it had to
really have total understanding and insight and all that sort of stuff in the text. So that's very
different from giving vows. When you have to have the vows purely, or giving an initiation, or
things like that, it's a very different category.
So, as for an oral transmission or a permission for a meditation, I don't know that there is such
a thing. There are initiations for doing the anuttarayoga tantra level of practice of this, that's
something different, but this can be done on a sutra level and this text speaks about it on a
sutra level. As for giving an oral transmission of the text, I don't happen to have the Tibetan
text with me. If I did, I could read it to you out loud; I'd be happy to do that. I could read you
my English translation, but I don't know that that would do much for you. Anyway, that's it for
oral transmission.
The question of course is how useful is it nowadays, and that is a difficult question. From the
traditional point of view, it's considered very important. I think it's important from the point of
view of feeling part of a lineage - continuity, authenticity, and so on - of at least the material.
But as I said, it doesn't necessarily imply that the person giving the transmission understands
what they're saying; although I would hope that most of the great masters who give these oral
transmissions do understand what they're reciting, but it doesn't seem to be a prerequisite. For
instance, the great lamas who gave oral transmissions to His Holiness the Dalai Lama, I would
hope that they understood what they were saying, and I would assume they did.
OK, I'm sorry I took a lot of time with that question, but I think that's an important point in the
whole trend of demystifying Tibetan Buddhism, which I like to do, to bring it down to reality.
So, let's end today with a dedication. We think whatever understanding, whatever positive
force has come from this, may it act as a cause for actually being able to successfully do this
type of practice, to see the nature of the mind, and to reach enlightenment through that, for the
benefit of all.

Session Two: Starting the Actual Meditation Practice

Unedited Transcript
We have been looking at this text by the First Panchen Lama called A Root Text for the
Precious Gelug-Kagyu Tradition of Mahamudra, and we saw that after his salutation verses,
and his presentation of what the subject matter of this text is going to be, and the lineage in
which it comes from, the Panchen Lama starts his discussion. And in the traditional manner he
divides his presentation with the preparatory practices, the actual methods, and the concluding
procedures.
The preparatory practices are what we discussed yesterday, and we saw as preparation we
need to have a very strong taking of safe direction, of refuge, and a very sincere bodhichitta
aim. We want to be able to benefit everybody and bring everybody to liberation and
enlightenment. In order to do that we focus on our not-yet-happening enlightenment, which
nevertheless can happen on the basis of our Buddha-natures and a great deal of hard work;
and we aim to achieve that - to make that not-yet-happening enlightenment into a
presently-happening enlightenment - with the intention to help others as much as possible
along the way, but to really fully help everybody as much as is actually possible once we
actually have achieved that goal.
In order to bring about the attainment of a presently-happening enlightenment on our mental

continuums we need to - also as a preparation - try to build up as much as possible the two
networks of positive force and deep awareness, and purify ourselves - as much as possible at
this stage - of our mental obstacles and obscurations. And what's very important is to do these
two processes - of building up the networks and purifying the obstacles - with that safe
direction and bodhichitta motivation. That means having a very clear intention, setting the
motivation beforehand, before doing anything positive, and dedicating the positive force of it
afterwards.
This is because, if we think of our minds like a computer, then the default setting for anything
that we do is samsara. So if we do something positive, like helping others, or even meditating,
but we don't have a clear intention and dedication toward either liberation or enlightenment,
then all that it does is build up good karma, positive karma for improving samsara. That
means that we will experience as a result happier, nicer situations in samsara, but with all the
problems and shortcomings that come from that - the samsaric happiness never lasts and it
never is satisfying, we never can have enough.
Likewise, if we study and learn about voidness, and even meditate on it, without the proper
intention and dedication toward liberation or enlightenment, then likewise it will just
contribute to improving samsara. We will be able to speak cleverly about voidness, and it
might help us in a psychotherapeutic sense to minimize a little bit of some of the emotional
problems that we face; but nevertheless, it's not going to get rid of them. We still are going to
be stuck in samsara.
It's very important to keep in mind that Buddhism is not about improving samsara; Buddhism
is not a form of psychotherapy. Buddhism is all about gaining liberation or enlightenment.
That's very clear from Buddha's teachings on the four noble truths - it couldn't be more clear
in terms of true stoppings and true paths. That's why Buddhism is actually quite difficult to
Session Two: Starting the Actual Meditation Practice 13

follow sincerely. Because in order to really follow it sincerely, we have to be very convinced
that liberation and enlightenment exist, they're possible, and that we can actually attain that.
That's not so easy to understand. In fact, it's not easy at all to even understand what liberation
or enlightenment mean. After all, only a Buddha can really understand what it means to be a
Buddha, so what hope do we have? But we can get some sort of idea of what it might be like
and - on the basis of that - aim toward achieving it. But the more accurate an idea we have of
liberation and enlightenment, the more realistic our following of the path toward those will be,
and this depends very much on understanding and actually being able to recognize - in our
own experience - the nature of the mind.
If we speak about samsara, if we speak about liberation, if we speak about enlightenment, all
three situations are things that are experiences. We experience them; they're experiences in
terms of mind. They're situations of the mind and derivative from that will be situations of the
body and speech. Therefore, in order to really - even from the early stages on - aim for
liberation and enlightenment, we need to recognize at least and acknowledge the importance
of understanding the nature of the mind and being able to recognize it and work with it.
And then, when we work on building up these networks of positive force and deep awareness
of voidness, we need to do that with the intention that the positive force from that and the
understanding from that act as a cause for our achievement of liberation - and if it's only for
that, if we only dedicate it for that, that's all that it will contribute to. Or we have the intention
and dedicate it for enlightenment with bodhichitta, and then it will contribute to that.
Therefore - if again we can use the analogy of a computer - it's as though there are three
folders on our hard drive in the mind. There's the "samsara" folder; there's the "nirvana"
folder; and there's the "enlightenment" folder. And when we are going to do some sort of
positive thing or meditation, the intention is opening up one of those folders, and then the
dedication is saving it in one of those folders. And if we are not sure to open up the
enlightenment folder and save it in the enlightenment folder, the default setting is it's going to
go into the samsara folder, and we don't want that to happen.
If it does happen, it's not the most disastrous thing in the world, but all that it's going to do is
improve our samsara. Most of us are not even aware that there's anything other than the
samsara folder. This is why we need to really start to investigate and learn about the nature of
the mind, because only when we do that are we going to discover that actually there is a
liberation and an enlightenment folder. They might be pretty much empty now, but at least
those folders are there. But we're only going to know that they are there if we start to
investigate and learn about the nature of the mind.
Also, if we can continue the analogy of a computer, although of course it's not an exact
equivalent, but if we can continue that, then for most of us, our samsara folder is so full that
there's hardly any room for putting things into the liberation or enlightenment folders. We
have to do some purification, we have to clean out a little bit from the samsara folder - and
actually, our samsara folder is mostly filled with spam, complete garbage.
And even if we can manage to delete some of the spam, more and more constantly is going to
come in. With every spam-like thought that we have - and we seem to have that all day long,
at least most of us - it just keeps on filling our samsara file with more and more junk, junk
mail. But at least, if we can clean out some of the spam - with Vajrasattva meditation and so
on - there's a little bit more space on the hard drive to throw some stuff into the enlightenment

folder.
This is the analogy that we can use here to understand this process of purification. But it's
really only with the nonconceptual cognition of voidness that we're going to be able to
actually delete the samsara folder. And actually, it's only when we're able to stay with this
nonconceptual cognition of voidness all the time that we really delete the folder completely,
not just throw it into the trash can.
We also saw that - in addition to all of these preparatory practices - we need to make very
heartfelt requests to our root guru, the one that gives us the most inspiration, so that we really
open up fully; and then we imagine that the root guru dissolves into us. And by doing this we -
in addition to the bodhichitta motivation - increase the intensity of the mind, so that it
becomes a little bit easier to be able to see the nature of the mind, because we have increased
the intensity of the mind, both as the object to observe and as the subject that is observing it.
Then, "as for the actual basic methods," the First Panchen Lama points out that "There are
many ways of asserting mahamudra," but we can speak of it primarily in terms of two
divisions of it, the sutra tradition and the tantra tradition. When we speak about mahamudra in
the tantra context, we're speaking about it in the context of the fourth or highest class of tantra
practice, anuttarayoga tantra - and we need to bear in mind that it's only the Kagyu and Gelug
traditions that assert that there are both sutra and tantra types of mahamudra practice;
according to the Sakya tradition there's only tantra practice of mahamudra.
Now, as for the difference between these two divisions of mahamudra practice, it has to do
with which level of consciousness or mind we're going to examine and focus on in terms of its
nature. In the anuttarayoga tantra teachings - I'll just call them tantra teachings for short - there
is a presentation of three levels of mind: we can speak about the coarse level, the subtle level,
and the subtlest level.
The coarse level of mind, or awareness - however we want to speak about it - is what is
involved with sense cognition: seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and feeling physical
sensations. The subtle level is dealing with our usual level of mental consciousness, both
conceptual and nonconceptual. When we speak about the coarse level of sense cognition that's
always nonconceptual.
By the way, just very briefly, when we speak about conceptual cognition, we're talking about
cognition of something through a category; it's usually a category. A category could be
looking at this object in terms of the category "table," or looking at this figure in front of me
in terms of the category of "human being" or a "woman." These are categories concerning
objects. We can also perceive things or cognize things in terms of categories regarding
qualities like "good," "bad," "red," "black," etc.
Conceptual cognition can also be through the medium of what we would call a concept, such
as space or voidness - but we won't go into that in detail, that's rather complex - but
nonconceptual cognition is not through the medium of a category, to say it just briefly. Also
there are various levels of conceptual mind - we have personal concepts of things, and we
have more general ones. More general ones everybody would have, even animals, whereas
more personal, specific ones we might have only in terms of a particular human lifetime.
But in any case, the subtlest level of mind is what is known as the clear light level, and this is
the level which is more subtle than the course or subtle levels, so it certainly is more subtle

than our sense consciousness, our ordinary mental consciousness, more subtle than any
conceptual level. The various disturbing emotions that we have can occur with either the
coarse consciousness or the subtle consciousness; and the subtlest level is more subtle than
that, so it is free, naturally, of disturbing emotions.
And when we speak about "appearances of true existence" and "grasping for true existence,"
these are things which occur on these grosser levels. The gross level and the subtle level make
appearances of true existence, and the subtle level, the conceptual level, grasps for that true
existence, in other words, believes it.
To put it in very simple terms, the grosser levels of mind make things appear in an impossible
way, like for instance - the analogy that I often use is - ping-pong balls. It makes things appear
as though there's a line around them, and there they are, existing by themselves like a
ping-pong ball, just there. That's the appearance-making of true existence. And then what's
called "grasping for true existence" is - without getting too complicated with it - actually is
believing that the way that things appear corresponds to the way that they actually exist. So
that's conceptual when you actually believe that.
Please bear in mind that I'm explaining the Gelug position on this regarding the Prasangika
tenet system; there are different interpretations of this in the non-Gelug schools. But in any
case, everybody agrees that the clear light mind, the subtlest level, is more subtle than these
levels in which the appearance-making and grasping for true existence occur - it doesn't do
that, everybody agrees - and this clear light level underlies every moment of our experience,
of our cognition of things, in all our lifetimes, during death time even, even during
enlightenment.
When we speak about this division between sutra and tantra mahamudra, sutra mahamudra is
a practice to identify and understand the nature of the two grosser levels of mind, and the
tantra practice of mahamudra is to try to recognize and work with the nature of the subtlest,
clear light level of mind. Obviously the tantra one is much, much more difficult to do. The
First Panchen Lama gives the scriptural sources for these two traditions of mahamudra and
then he says that he will explain the sutra method.
The term which is used here for recognizing the mind, the word "recognize" is an interesting
word; it's sometimes translated as "introduce" as well - "ngotro" (ngo-sprod) in Tibetan - and
actually it means to literally "meet the face" of the mind. So, when we read in translation "the
guru or the lama introduces us to the nature of our mind," we have to understand what that
means. It's not saying, "Sasha, here is your mind, mind here is Sasha," and you exchange
calling cards.
Rather, through the interaction with our root guru, and particularly because of our openness
and the inspiration that we receive from the root guru, then in an interaction with the teacher,
that interaction can provide a circumstance - if we've built up a tremendous amount of positive
force and deep awareness, those networks and the purifying - that will provide the
circumstance for us to then actually "meet the face" of the mind. In others words, we will be
able to see it and - we would say in English at least - recognize it.
"Recognize" is a funny word, because that tends to mean that you've seen it before, and then
you recognize it again, and fit it into the category of what we had before. So that's not quite
precise either. In dzogchen we have a terminology speaking about how the mind doesn't
recognize its own face, and so we need to get to the subtlest level of mind - it's not quite

exactly the same as the subtlest level, but anyway - rigpa, to be able to recognize its own face,
to see its own face. Now, in terms of meeting the face of our mind on these grosser levels,
again we have to identify what aspect of mind are we trying to see the face of or we'll use the
word "recognize" in a loose sense here.
We can speak about "primary consciousness" and "subsidiary consciousness," or "mental

factors" is another way of translating that. The primary consciousness - if we can use an
example of a chandelier here - would be the big light bulb in the middle of the chandelier, and
the subsidiary awarenesses are the little light bulbs around it. The little light bulbs only go on
when the big light bulb is on; they can't work by themselves, so that's why they're "subsidiary"
to the primary one. When we call it "mental factor," which is much easier to say, we somehow
can lose that sense of the fact that they really are subsidiary to the primary thing - they can't be
there by themselves; that's clear from the Tibetan and Sanskrit term.
What we want to be able to recognize is the nature of primary consciousness; therefore we

have to know what is the difference between primary consciousness and subsidiary awareness.
Primary consciousness is - in the Prasangika system - of six types. There is eye consciousness,
ear consciousness, nose, taste/tongue, body consciousness - which is consciousness of
physical sensations, not just feeling of a rough or smooth cloth, but also hot and cold, and
motion, any sort of physical sensation - and then mental consciousness.
If we look at the Tibetan description of this, the primary consciousness and the subsidiary
awarenesses, first of all, all focus on the same object and they work through the same
cognitive sensors, like for instance the photosensitive cells of the eyes, and there's a whole list
of things that they share in common. When we talk about sensors, we're not talking about the
gross organ of the eye, we're talking about the very tiny photosensitive cells within the eye -
that's actually what's involved with cognition; or the sound-sensitive cells of the ears, we're
talking about tiny little cells. Some people translate them as "sense powers," but that's very
inaccurate, because "power" is some sort of abstract thing; we're talking specifically about
little cells.
But in any case, the primary consciousness is aware of just the - I translate it as - "essential
nature" (ngo-bo) of the object, which means what type of object is it? Is it a sight? Is it a
sound? Is it a smell? Is it a taste? Is it a tactile sensation? Or is it a thought? And then the
subsidiary awarenesses - it's a whole cluster of them - they focus on the same object and they
assist the primary consciousness. They do various technical functions - like concentration, and
interest, these type of things - also add emotional qualities to it - compassion or anger - and all
the subsidiary things that go together: distinguishing one object from another object,
distinguishing that an object is "this and not that."
If again we go to the analogy of a computer, the primary consciousness is aware of what kind
of data is this? Is it audio data, is it music data, is it video data, is it text data? And then the
subsidiary awarenesses read that data. Obviously, the primary consciousness is the main thing,
because in a computer the data has to be put into the right program, so that it can read the data
correctly. You can't just read data without putting it into the right program - an audio program,
a video program, a text program. So the mind works in a similar fashion.
Because obviously, if we think in terms of the Western description of the mind and brain, all
the information is just electrical and chemical impulses, isn't it? So we need to somehow be
able to sort out, are these electrical impulses giving us visual information or audio
information, and so on. So this is what we're trying to recognize, is the primary consciousness,

and we want to recognize both its superficial or conventional nature, as well as its deepest,
void nature.
This is not easy, not easy at all. We need to be able to recognize it in our own experience,
every moment, because actually this is going on all the time. Therefore - because it is so
difficult to actually recognize, even though it's just right there - it's like our face is there all the
time, but we can't see our face, can we? Unless we have a mirror or something like that.
Actually that's a very interesting thing, what our face looks like - although our face is there all
the time, we really don't stay aware at all of what our face is looking like, do we? Unless we're
extremely vain and always looking in a mirror and make-up, and so on. But it's there all the
time. Likewise, our mind is functioning all the time.
Now, the Panchen Lama mentions that there are various different traditions, which are all
intending for the same point - to be able to recognize the conventional and deepest nature of
the mind - and he lists a whole group of different traditions that we find in the various Tibetan
lineages. But the Panchen Lama concludes with a very strong advocacy of nonsectarianism.
He says, "Nevertheless, when scrutinized by a yogi, learned in scripture and logic and
experienced (in meditation), their definitive meanings are all seen to come to the same
intended point."
"Definitive meaning" is literally "the meaning that one is led to" with the teachings, the final
point that you're led to. And what Buddha intended and all the great masters intended with
these various methods was that it comes to the final point. The final point is everybody
recognizes the same nature of the mind, because we all have mind with the same nature and,
on the basis of that, we're able to achieve enlightenment.
Then the Panchen Lama also mentions that within the sutra tradition there are two methods of
practice. The first is meditating on the mind, it says literally in the text, in other words, trying
to get single-minded concentration, or even deeper than that, shamatha - which is a stilled and
settled state of mind - focused on the conventional nature of the mind, and then, after that,
getting the correct view of the voidness of a mind. And the other method is first getting at
least some level of a correct view of voidness, and then getting "zhinay" (zhi-gnas, Skt.
shamatha) on the basis of the conventional nature of the mind.
When we talk about either single-minded concentration - or "absorbed concentration" I like to

translate it as - that is a state of mind completely free of mental dullness or flightiness of mind,
mental agitation. When we speak about shamatha, the stilled and settled state of mind - I'll
just use the Sanskrit word "shamatha," it's easier - then in addition to that absorbed
concentration we have a mental factor which is called a "sense of fitness."
It's an exhilarating feeling of both physical and mental factor that makes you feel fit, that you
can concentrate for as long as you want, on anything you want, your body can sit without
moving for as long as you want, etc. If that is added to this absorbed concentration, that's
shamatha. Since you know Tibetan, we're talking about the term "shinjang" (shin-sbyangs),
and it's described as "laysu-rungwa" (las-su rung-ba), suitable to doing work - "shinjang"
super-trained, literally.
We should point out that - since very often we have misconceptions about this - that we have
many cognitions simultaneously. After all, when we're with somebody, we can both see them
and hear them at the same time, can't we? So when we have absorbed concentration in
meditation on some object, and even when we have shamatha on that object, that doesn't mean

that we don't also see the wall in front of us. We do see the wall in front of us. Other
cognitions are occurring at the same time. It's just that there's no mental wandering toward
that, you don't pay attention to it.
Now, "vipashyana" is an extremely perceptive state of mind, literally, and this is only possible
on the basis of shamatha. You can't have vipashyana by itself; if it's vipashyana, it's combined
shamatha and vipashyana, if you want to speak about it in a technical way. What vipashyana
does is it adds on top of shamatha a second sense of fitness, which is not just the sense of
fitness that you can concentrate on anything, but the sense of fitness that you can analyze and
understand anything.
Well, I should also add that we can gain shamatha and/or vipashyana on a wide, wide variety
of objects. Vipashyana is not just gained in terms of the understanding of voidness, but here
we're talking about gaining vipashyana on the basis of a correct view of voidness. So when it
says, "First we gain shamatha on the conventional nature of mind and then you gain the
correct view of voidness," first of all, we could gain not only shamatha, but we could gain
even vipashyana on the conventional nature of the mind.
We can gain both shamatha and vipashyana on the conventional nature of the mind, and we
can gain both shamatha and vipashyana on the voidness of the mind. So we have to not get
confused here about what the Panchen Lama is talking about. We're talking about just trying
to understand voidness, and the voidness specifically of the mind, and we're talking about
gaining shamatha on the conventional nature of the mind. Even if we work on trying to gain
the understanding of voidness first, and then get shamatha on the nature of the mind, still we
wouldn't get vipashyana on the nature of the mind till after we've gotten shamatha.
Even if we do the second method of gaining the understanding of voidness first, and then
second, gain shamatha on the nature of the mind - here specifically the conventional nature of
the mind - that doesn't mean that when we gain that initial understanding of voidness, that
we've gained vipashyana on the deepest nature of the mind. So actually what we're talking
about is a logical debate in terms of: what in the world is he differentiating here in the text?
And I think that the main point is: how deeply are we going to try to understand the voidness
of the mind, and at which stage are we going to do that in our practice?
Now, we can work beforehand on the understanding of voidness in general - the voidness of a
person, the voidness of the table - we could also work initially on understanding the voidness
of the conventional nature of the mind, just based on knowing the definition of the
conventional nature of the mind. However, that's quite different from actually being able to
focus on that conventional nature of the mind perfectly, and then applying our understanding
of voidness to that object, that conventional nature of the mind.
There's a difference between - let me just say that again - between applying an understanding
of voidness to some concept that we have of the conventional nature of the mind and applying
it to the actual conventional nature of the mind that we're actually focused on perfectly. So,
the method that the Panchen Lama is going to explain here is: first recognizing the
conventional nature of the mind, gaining shamatha on that, and then on that basis trying to
understand and focus on the voidness of that conventional nature of the mind - whether or not
you have vipashyana on the conventional nature of the mind or not is irrelevant.
It doesn't mean that we have absolutely no understanding or even familiarity with voidness
before we gain shamatha. I don't know of anybody who would do that in actual practice,

because most of us would have had a broad array of teachings, as least basic lam-rim that
covers all the topics in general. However, in writing a text, you can only explain one at a time,
and so here it gives the impression that we don't work at all with voidness until we gain
shamatha. But in actual practice hardly anybody would do that, since it's very difficult to
achieve shamatha.
However, to understand the voidness of an object we really need to be able to focus on that
object in a very stable way, otherwise it's difficult to apply that understanding of voidness to
that object. That's why the emphasis here is on gaining at least some sort of mental stability on
focusing on the conventional nature of the mind before understanding the voidness of it.
The Panchen Lama continues now with his actual description, and he first describes the proper
seat to sit on for gaining "mental stability" (bsam-gtan), he calls it here, and then sitting on
that seat with the proper posture. The seat - without going into all the details - what is usually
important on a meditation seat is that the back be slightly raised from the front, so that if we
have something underneath our behind, and our knees are a little bit lower, your legs don't fall
asleep so easily - this is particularly helpful when we are sitting in the full posture, which
entails what's known in the Hindu yoga systems as the "full lotus" position. So if we do have
that problem of our legs falling asleep while we're meditating, then we can try putting a
cushion underneath our behind.
And the posture - I imagine that most of you are familiar with - it's called the seven-fold
posture of Vairochana. So (1) our legs are crossed. In the Buddhist tradition it's known as the
vajra position; as I said, in hatha yoga it's called the full lotus position. And obviously, for
many of us that's not so easy to do, therefore we need to train ourselves very slowly over quite
a period of time for our legs to become flexible enough to be able to sit in that posture. If
we're unable to sit that way, then the half lotus or just our legs crossed will do, and if we can't
sit cross-legged at all, that's rather unfortunate, but in any case, we could still try to do the
meditation just sitting in a chair.
The main point of the posture is to get the energies flowing in the body in as smooth and
harmonious a way as possible. The amount of conceptual thought and wild thoughts that we
have is proportionate to the "wildness," let's say, of the way in which the energy is flowing in
the body. When we talk about mind, we're speaking about an awareness of something, and
there's a certain energy associated with that. So depending on how the energy is flowing in the
body, likewise our awareness will be similar. If we're very nervous, we tend to have very
worried thoughts for example, and if the energy of the body is calm, then the mind tends to be
calm. So this posture is to optimize - at least from the physical side - the smoothness of the
flow of energy in the body.
(2) The hands are on the upturned feet, with the left hand beneath the right, and the thumbs
touching, forming a triangle near the navel. Now, the hands should rest on your feet, not hold
them up in the air. If you hold them up in the air, the muscles of your arms are tense and so
that's not a very relaxed posture. (3) Our spine and our back needs to be perfectly straight;
that's the most important aspect of the whole posture. So even if we're sitting in a chair, sit up
straight.
(4) The lips need to be relaxed and the teeth not clenched tight, and the tongue needs to touch,
just gently touch, the upper palate - the part of the mouth that's above where the upper teeth
are. That helps to retain saliva, so that the mouth doesn't become dry, and it also prevents us
from drooling. If there's excessive saliva forming in our mouth, we can swallow, but this

position of the tongue should minimize the salivation. Obviously, if we have to swallow all
the time, that affects our concentration.
(5) The head should be bent slightly forward and down - not all the way touching our chest,
and not up - a little bit down. If it's too low, we tend to get dizzy; if it's too high, we tend to
get distracted. (6) The eyes are half-open, focused loosely in the direction of the tip of the
nose. That doesn't mean cross-eyed; it just means basically looking down toward the floor,
and just loosely focused.
In the Tibetan tradition, we're not encouraged to meditate with our eyes closed, although in
some other Buddhist traditions people do meditate with the eyes closed. If our eyes are closed
when we meditate, there's the danger of easily falling asleep. His Holiness points out that if
your eyes are closed, you tend to see sort of flashing little dots of light, and that can be very
distracting. In other words, it's easier to not pay attention to the floor in front of you if your
eyes are half-open, than to these little flashing lights that one tends to see when the eyes are
closed.
Also, my own idea - I haven't seen this in any text - is that if we're practicing as Mahayana
practitioners, then if we close our eyes in order to meditate, that builds up a certain tendency
of dissociating from everybody around us in order to meditate. And that can make an obstacle
in terms of applying our meditation in a Mahayana way to situations in which we're actually
helping others.
In dzogchen meditation - where similarly we're trying to recognize the nature of the mind -
one is recommended to have the eyes be very intensely focused, although not necessarily
observing the floor in front of you, as if you're looking for your contact lens, if you dropped
them, but the eyes should be strongly intense. But here in the mahamudra practice that doesn't
seem to be indicated.
(7) The shoulders need to be straight back, and even - at the same level with each other - and
the elbows slightly bent, leaving a small space between the body and arms. And if we add the
breathing here, then the breathing needs to be quite natural - through the nose, quietly, not
forcefully, with the in-breath the same length as the out-breath, neither of them too deep or too
shallow, and without holding the breath.
Then - once we're sitting in the proper position on the proper seat - the Panchen Lama says
that we need to "clear ourselves purely with a round of the nine tastes of breath." This is a
type of breathing practice which helps to, in a sense, clear out a little bit of our disturbing
states of mind. Now, there are several ways of practicing these nine rounds. We can do this,
by the way, before any type of meditation and it's helpful, and it can be done with or without
visualization of the energy channels in the body.
We can visualize the energy channels whether or not we've received an initiation - but only if
we've received an initiation can we visualize ourselves as a Buddha-figure while doing this,
let's say as Yamantaka, or Chenrezig, one of these, Kalachakra...
So, if we are visualizing the energy channels, then we are basically visualizing three channels.
We have the central channel... there are several ways of doing this, but we can have it go from
our nose, basically, over the top of our head, and then down by the spine, and it ends a little
bit below the navel, four finger-widths below the navel it says. But actually, if we want to be
more precise, it ends at the middle of the brow and not actually at the nostrils, and it's white

on the outside and red on the inside.
Now obviously, if we get too caught up in the visualizations here, that could be an obstacle, so
this is why they say it can be either with visualization or without visualization. Then the right
channel... that [central] channel is the thickness of a medium-sized bamboo, it says, so that's
maybe a couple of centimeters wide, maybe the size of a small finger of a small person then;
the right and the left channels are thinner, and the right one is red, the left one is white, and it's
the thickness, they say, of a stalk of wheat, so it's pretty thin.
And it's the right and left channels which go a little bit further down beneath the navel, and
they come up and these are the ones that go out the nostrils. I find the red and the white a little
bit easy to remember, at least in English or in German, because right and red both start with
"r." I don't know about in Russian, but it's helpful to have some sort of mnemonic device,
otherwise it's very easy to get this confused - figure out little tricks for helping to remember
these sort of visualizations, that's helpful.
Now we're doing nine rounds of breathing divided into three groups of three. The first three
are in the right nostril and out the left, and we imagine now that the right energy channel is
inserted into the bottom end of the left six finger-widths beneath the navel. The central one
ended four, these end six beneath the navel. What we do is: you hold your left nostril closed
with the fourth finger of the left hand, and you breathe in slowly through the right nostril, and
then with the right hand you hold the right nostril closed with the fourth finger and breathe out
through the left nostril. So you do that three times.
Although actually I find it a little bit easier to just use the same hand for closing each of the
nostrils rather than switching hands; it's a little bit distracting having the hands move all the
time, so this is a little bit easier. Anyway, the actual instructions is you shut the left nostril
with the left hand and you shut the right nostril with the right hand. So, breathe in the right out
the left three times; then in the left and out the right three times; and then - with your hands
back down in your lap - in both nostrils and out both nostrils three times. We breathe slowly,
but without holding the breath.
When we're doing the visualization, then when we breathe in the right and out the left, we
imagine the lower end of the right is stuck into the lower end of the left and what we're
clearing out from the left channel is the energy wind of the disturbing emotion of longing
desire; and when we breathe in the left and out the right, then the channels are reversed, the
left one is into the right one, and we breathe out the energy that was blocked in the right
channel, which is of anger.
So, three times for getting the blocked energy of desire out of the left, and three times for
getting the blocked energy of anger out of the right channel. And then you imagine the lower
ends of the two channels are both curved up and sticking into the bottom end of the central
channel now, and when we breathe in through both nostrils, we imagine that the air comes
into the central channel and it expels - as we breathe out - the blocked energy of naivety.
And that leaves us at the end of the central channel, which is of the middle of our brow; and
when we breathe in, we imagine that we breathe in white light, and when we breathe out the
blocked energy, literally it says that we visualize it as black light, which of course... light can't
be black, but at least dark. Now, this is a rather complicated visualization, and it can be quite
distracting if we're not familiar with visualization, and it could make us even more nervous
and upset trying to get the visualization correct than it is worthwhile.

The important thing here is not the visualization. So, unless we are already fairly well-trained
with visualization and it comes very easy to us, I would recommend forget about the
visualization at the beginning and just do the nine rounds without worrying about the color
and the size of the channels and this sort of stuff. But obviously, if we are able to do the
visualization, then it is a stronger practice.
OK? So, why don't we try this? And I will lead it, since we might not remember how to do it
yet. Usually when we sit down to do meditation, I must say that the first instant that you sit
down to start doing this might be a bit too much, so it is often helpful to just sit for a few
moments until we settle down just focusing on the breath coming in and out, but for not too
long, just for a few moments, just so that we settle.
We start with closing the left nostril with our left hand, the fourth finger, and we breathe
slowly through the right nostril; and then - switching hands - we breathe out the left nostril;
and we're going to do that three times without holding the breath.
Actually, although it's not really described very thoroughly, or at least I haven't seen it
described, again, I find it very distracting if you have to lift your hands - up and down, up and
down - six times, and so if we're going to do it with both hands, then it seems to be easier to
leave both hands up; if not, just do it with one hand. After all, this is intended to help us to
quiet down and relax, so you don't want to be too busy doing this, it defeats the purpose.
OK, so having done "in the right and out of the left," then use the right hand to block the right
nostril - in the left and out the right three times. And breathe slowly, not quickly, not to fill
yourself fully with the breath; and then we put our hands back down in the meditation posture
and breathe slowly through both nostrils and then out both nostrils.
Those are the nine rounds of breath - in the right, out of the left - and in the left, out the right -
and then in both and out both nostrils; first get rid of the blocked energy of desire, then of
anger, then of naivety. Then, once we've completed that, those nine rounds - or nine "tastes"
of breath, literally - then the instructions say: don't repeat it, only do it once. If we still have
gross mental wandering, then we would follow another method.
We breathe in and out both nostrils silently, not forcefully, with the in-breath the same length
as the out-breath, and we count - each round of breath - up to twenty-one. And there are many
variations on this, it could go up to eleven, it could be up to seven, it could be up to
twenty-one - here Geshe Dhargyey explained it as twenty-one. Because if we have to focus on
both the breath and keeping count of the breath, then that leaves not very much room for other
thoughts. The point is to quiet down before we start our meditation.
Also, when we are trying to gain shamatha, it's very important to try to get the conducive
place for doing this, and there's all sorts of instructions about what would be a proper place for
doing retreat. It would be very difficult to gain shamatha if we were not in a retreat situation,
because we want to be able to focus totally on just the meditation. But that doesn't mean that
we can't meditate outside of a retreat situation, but to minimize distraction it's best to meditate
either very early in the morning when we first get up, before we've actually gotten involved in
the activities of the day, or at night, after we've finished the activities of the day. But not right
in the middle of the day when you're just taking a break from your activities: there's too much
distraction thinking about what your daily activities are. Some people are more alert in the
mornings, some people are more alert at night - we have to judge for ourselves when is the
best time for us to meditate. Ideally, we should be able to meditate both times. Also it's best to

meditate not immediately after eating, because right after we eat we tend to be get dull.
Then, after we have quieted down with these breathing meditations, we do the preparatory
practices as has been discussed already, of course starting with safe direction or refuge, and
bodhichitta. There are verses that we can recite for this, but it's very easy to get into the habit
of reciting a verse and it's just "blah, blah, blah," especially if it's in a language that we don't
understand. But even if it's in a language we do understand, it still is very easy for it to just be
"blah, blah, blah," and have no feeling at all. Therefore it is important to really try to generate
some sincere feeling of actually putting this direction in our life, of actually aiming with
bodhichitta to reach enlightenment for the benefit of everyone.
Now, how to do this? This is not so easy for many of us, particularly when we have a limited
time for meditation, because we are busy; we have a busy schedule; we don't want to be late
for work. But it is more worthwhile to actually get that strong sense of refuge or safe direction
and bodhichitta than it is to meditate without that at all. In other words, having that strong
intention, having that strong direction in mind, having that strong motivation, even a little bit
of meditation is very helpful; it works. It's effective toward enlightenment. Without having
any of that and just meditating for a long time, that will just go into the samsara folder.
One of my students uses a method, which I don't know if he was actually taught by some lama
this method or whether he made it up himself, but it seems to be quite helpful. He had gone on
pilgrimage to Bodh Gaya and found it very, very inspiring. In Bodh Gaya, you have this huge
stupa and the bodhi tree - at least something that grew from the previous bodhi tree under
which Buddha became enlightened. So it's a very inspiring, very moving place, a tremendous
energy there. And he imagines being there in Bodh Gaya when he sits down and meditates,
and he imagines circumambulating the stupa and sitting before the tree and, in this way, then
taking very sincere refuge and developing bodhichitta, because visualizing this type of
situation helps to bring on this strong feeling more sincerely.
Now, we do have similar practices that are taught traditionally, in which we imagine that we
are in a pure land and we are sitting in front of the tree of assembled gurus and the Buddha
and all this sort of thing - very, very complicated visualization - and in that context we take
refuge and develop bodhichitta. So there is this practice. But, again, if we have a very
complicated visualization, then we can get very uptight trying to visualize it, and spend all our
effort in trying to get the visualization accurate and clear, and very little time on actually
developing the motivation.
So, what my student does is instead of trying to visualize a Buddha-field and a pure land and
these complicated trees and stuff like that, he uses something that he's actually experienced,
which is Bodh Gaya and the tree there. Mind you, he doesn't visualize all the beggars and
lepers and the pigs and shit and stuff in the fields, but just in an ideal way. I don't think there
are mosquitoes in a Buddha pure land. But, in any case, he uses something which is much
more real to him and much more inspiring than some sort of ideal visualization that's just too
difficult to do; and this can be very effective.
And we visualize our spiritual teacher, our root guru. Usually we're always supposed to be
visualizing him or her in the form of either Buddha Shakyamuni or some sort of
Buddha-figure, but Serkong Rinpoche advised that in doing, for instance, the Kalachakra
guru-yoga practice, if it's difficult for us to visualize His Holiness the Dalai Lama as
Kalachakra - if we've received the initiation from His Holiness - then we can just visualize His
Holiness in his usual form, but in an ideal form, not having a cold or anything like that.

And we actually find this type of practice in the Shangpa Kagyu tradition, in which - unlike in
the Gelug tradition, or in Karma Kagyu, or Nyingma, or Sakya - when it instructs us to
visualize the guru for guru-yoga, you visualize in the actual form of the guru, not as a
Buddha-figure. So there is this tradition. And it can be much more effective in moving our
hearts; the whole point is to move your feeling, get some inspiration.
Imagining that we're in a pure land, by the way, is helpful, whether we have some - who
knows what type of vision we have of what a pure land looks like, but - whether it's like
something painted on a thangka, or whether it's an ideal vision of Bodh Gaya, the point is that
it's in a situation in which everything is conducive for intense meditation, which means that
when we're meditating, we forget about the traffic noise outside - or the dirty wall, or
whatever it might be - and just imagine that everything is conducive. One of the biggest
distractions in meditation can be complaining, "I wish I could be in another place, and it
wasn't so noisy, and there wasn't this smell," and so on. That's a big distraction, so we just sort
of dismiss that and imagine, "Everything is cool; everything is fine."
Also what is very helpful and important and emphasized as a preparation - not here, but in
other contexts - is that before we meditate, we actually clean our meditation room and make
some offerings, at least water bowls. If we sweep the floor and have everything in order
around us - not our dirty underwear on the floor, but everything neat and orderly - then that
affects the mind as well. The mind will be more neat and orderly. If there's chaos around us,
that affects the mind.
Also by cleaning the room - at least just sweeping the floor and picking up everything - and
having some water bowls arranged in front of some either picture or painting or statue of a
Buddha, we're showing respect to what we're doing, and that also is very important.
And with a visualization of our guru in front of us, we take refuge, have a safe direction,
bodhichitta. For building up the two networks and the purification we usually do, the simplest
thing would be the seven-part practice; and then requests to the guru, the guru comes to the
top of your head and dissolves into you.
We have a few more minutes left according to my watch, which is probably slow, but in any
case, if you have some questions.
Question: Should we view shamatha as just like a tool, like binoculars, with which we can
view any kind of object? Because you were saying shamatha with respect to the absolute
nature - like emptiness - of the mind, and shamatha with respect to the conventional nature. So
in this context should we view shamatha just as binoculars, which is taken to view something?
Answer: To just repeat, in case that didn't get on the recording, "Do we view shamatha just as
binoculars, as a tool to enable us to then stay with perfect concentration on the nature of the
mind?" Yes. That is so. Both shamatha and vipashyana are not necessarily Buddhist practices;
both of them are found in non-Buddhist practices, and particularly in India. What makes them
a Buddhist practice is if they're done in the context of safe direction or refuge. And it makes
them Mahayana practice if it's done as a method for helping us reach enlightenment with a
motivation of bodhichitta.
So, shamatha is merely a tool - not an end in itself - that we can use then for staying totally
focused - with this sense of fitness - on any object that would help us on the way to liberation
or enlightenment, here particularly the conventional and deepest nature of the mind. And

vipashyana is also just a tool - that we have in addition to the shamatha - that the mind is
totally fit to be able to discern and understand everything in all its details, here particularly the
nature of the mind, the conventional and deepest nature.
There are many, many things in Buddhism, which are not specifically Buddhist, but which we
find in common with so many other Indian traditions, and even with non-Indian traditions,
like aiming for a better rebirth, that's certainly not Buddhist. What makes things distinctively
Buddhist - and very important always to emphasize, and the Panchen Lama does it here in the
text - is refuge and bodhichitta - bodhichitta making it Mahayana.
So, let's end here.
Session Three: Mere Clarity and Awareness

Unedited Transcript
The First Panchen Lama has divided his text into the preparation practices, the actual material,
and the concluding procedures; and in the presentation of the actual body of the material he
specified the various divisions of mahamudra, specified that there's a sutra tradition and a
tantra tradition, and within that, he's going to discuss the sutra section. And within sutra there
are two approaches: the first is to meditate on the mind, and then gaining a correct view of
reality; or (2) gaining a correct view of reality first, and then meditating on the mind.
First meditate on the mind, he says, and then meditate on voidness, or meditate on voidness
first and then the mind. If we look a little bit more closely at that, then actually "to meditate on
the mind," here he's speaking about the conventional nature of the mind, and concerning the
conventional nature of the mind, we can gain both shamatha and vipashyana focused on the
conventional nature of the mind, and then - on the basis of that - go on to do voidness
meditation of the nature of the mind. Or, we can work on gaining the understanding of
voidness first - whether we do this with shamatha or vipashyana is not actually spoken of -
and then focus on the conventional nature of the mind, gain shamatha and vipashyana, and
then apply our understanding of voidness to that. The First Panchen Lama specifies that he's
going to present the first method, which is to meditate on the mind, which means to gain
shamatha and vipashyana on the conventional nature of the mind first, and then he'll discuss
the voidness of the mind.
Now, the big question is: what is the conventional nature of the mind? When we speak about
conventional nature here, we're talking about "What is mind?" And when we ask the question
"What is something?" then we look to try to understand the defining characteristic of that
object or phenomenon. What then is the defining characteristic of mind? We have a definition
of mind in Buddhism which consists of three words. Now, these are usually translated as
"clarity," "awareness," and "merely," or "being only that."
Now, none of these three are particularly easy to understand what they are actually referring
to. We need to go back a little bit and look at the Buddhist presentation of various types of
phenomena. We can speak about existent phenomena and nonexistent phenomena. Something
that exists is something that can be validly known; something that doesn't exist can be known
non-validly, like a unicorn or true existence. We can cognize something like that, but it
wouldn't be valid, it would be a distorted cognition.
Session Three: Mere Clarity and Awareness 26

Now, what exists, what can be validly known can be divided several ways. One way is to
divide it into static and nonstatic phenomena. I'm not calling it permanent and impermanent,
because that gives a misleading connotation. We're not talking about how long something
exists: impermanent implies "for a short time," permanent implies "forever." But rather the
distinction that's being made here is whether or not something changes from moment to
moment for however long it might exist, either a short time or forever.
When we speak about mind, we're speaking about something which is nonstatic. It changes
from moment to moment, but it lasts forever. When we read in Kagyu and Nyingma texts that
mind is permanent, there they're using the same word as we just translated as "static," however
they're using it in the meaning of "lasting forever." And they explain that the nature of the
mind doesn't change from moment to moment, although they would have to agree with the
Gelugpa presentation that the object of the mind changes from moment to moment.
And when the Kagyu and Nyingma texts say that the mind is an unaffected phenomenon, that
means that the nature of the mind is not affected by anything and is not created by anything.
However, they would have to agree with the Gelug presentation that the object of the mind is
of course affected, or what object the mind takes is going to be affected by causes and
conditions. Because of this difference in approach, we have quite a different way of
explaining mind in these two sets of traditions.
And unless we're clear about what each of these traditions is talking about, which feature of
mind they're talking about, we could get terribly confused and think that these two traditions
totally disagree with each other and say the exact opposite of each other. But that, in fact, is
not the case. As the Panchen Lama himself says, there are all these different traditions, and yet
they all come to the same intended point. So it can't be that they are speaking about mind in
totally contradictory manners.
Among nonstatic phenomena - things that change from moment to moment - we have forms of
physical phenomena, first of all. These are "forms of physical phenomena," not just "form."
"Form" is a little bit misleading, because that's only really one of different types of physical
phenomena. We're talking about sights, sounds, smells, tastes, and physical sensations, and
also the physical sensors, like photosensitive cells of the eyes, and also various forms of
physical phenomena that can only be known by the mind, like subatomic particles,
astronomical distances, what seems to be like colored shapes and sights and so on that we
perceive in dreams, these type of things. These are forms of physical phenomena. You can't
say that all of these are material things; that gets a little bit strange when we talk about things
like sense data of these various senses, it's not quite material.
Then we have ways of being aware of something. This is where mind comes in, so this is a
completely different category of nonstatic phenomena. And I choose these words very
carefully - a "way of being aware," or a "way of cognizing" something. It's talking about an
activity, a way of experiencing, and experiencing something, there has to be an object to it. It
could be a primary consciousness - seeing something, hearing something... thinking something
- or it could be one of these subsidiary awarenesses - concentrating on something, being
interested in something, being angry with something, liking something. All these are ways of
being aware. It's not at all some form of physical phenomenon. We're not talking about some
sort of "thing" in our head that does this; we're talking about the activity that's occurring.
Then there are, the third category - it's difficult to translate the term, because it's defined
differently in the different tenet systems, and so that's not so easy, but I call them... well, why

don't we just make it very simple and say - nonstatic phenomena that are not either of the
other two. As I say, that gets very, very complicated once we start looking at the presentation
and definition of these in the various tenet systems. But what would be included here would
be things like time, and also persons, like "me," the conventional "me."
Now, when we talk about mind, we're talking about an activity, and - another way of dividing
phenomena in general is individually characterized and generally characterized phenomena -
we are not talking here about mind like a general category, like "the mind," some great thing.
We're talking about individual minds, a countless number of individual streams of continuity -
that go on forever - of ways of being aware of things.
And because it's individual, then it's subjective, isn't it? My experiencing of seeing a movie is
not your experience of seeing a movie, is it? I might like it, you might not like it. I'm sitting in
this seat, you're sitting in that seat, so the angle from which we view the movie and the
distance is different. So it's subjective, it's individual. So although the defining characteristic
of all minds, of all streams of mental activity, is the same defining characteristic...
We talk about a "mental continuum," it's a continuum of moment after moment after moment
of a way of being aware of something. And being a phenomenon, what's called "cho" (chos,
Skt. dharma), the defining characteristic of such a thing is in Tibetan - I'm using Tibetan since
my translator knows Tibetan - is "ngowo dzinpa" (ngo-bo 'dzin-pa), it holds its own essential
nature, which means that it retains its individuality. Each one retains its own essential nature
as an individual continuity. So even when we become a Buddha, the mental continuum of
each Buddha is individual; it's not that they all merge into one big mind. And as a way of
being aware of something or experiencing something, it always has content, there's always a
something, an object.
Now, the three defining characteristics: when we speak about clarity and awareness, these first
two characteristics, again we need to understand these as ways of being aware of something,
and we're not talking about a generally characterized phenomenon like clarity in general or
awareness in general. We're not talking about something like that. We're not talking about a
quality of this activity; we are characterizing the activity, what kind of activity is it? What's
happening? What's it doing?
This word "clarity," then, we need to understand a little more like a verb, rather than an
abstract noun. The way that it is explained or glossed, in other words, what's a different word
for it, is the same word as is used for the dawning of the sun. So it is giving rise to something,
giving rise to an appearance, so appearance-making. It's giving rise to, in a sense, an object of
cognition - you see, we can't say that it makes it appear, this is a little bit little tricky here.
I'll explain that, because it's a little bit cute, if we can use the word. This is only the Gelug
explanation. In general, when we are aware of something, the mind gives rise to a mental
hologram of it. Even from a Western scientific point of view, we would have to say something
like: light hits the eye, and then there's all these sort of electrical impulses and so on, and what
we see is actually like a mental hologram. So, giving rise to a mental hologram is one way of
understanding this word clarity.
That "mental hologram" in Tibetan is known as an "aspect," "a mental aspect," "nampa"
(rnam-pa), but I think "mental hologram" is a much easier way of understanding it. And it can
be a hologram not only of a visual thing, a sight, but of a sound, of a smell... of anything.

Now, the problem is that in addition there is the giving rise to something that is not actually
appearing. For example, I see this table and so what appears is a mental hologram of a table,
but also I'm aware that it is not a dog, or not anything other than a table, so "not a dog," there's
no mental hologram of "not a dog." There's no mental hologram of "not anything other than a
table," but that also is part of this clarity, of this arising.
This is purely Gelugpa. Let's take a moment to think about that and digest that.
[contemplation]
When I see Sasha, what arises is a mental hologram of Sasha, and also what arises is being
aware that it's not somebody else. This is what this word "clarity" means. It means giving rise
to that, and it doesn't have to be in focus, like the word "clear" implies. We're talking about
giving rise to a cognitive object. That cognitive object can either appear with a mental
hologram or not appear with a mental hologram.
Now, we're talking here with this factor of simply giving rise to the cognitive object. We're
not talking about knowing, for instance, that this is Sasha and nobody other than Sasha. We're
not talking about that. We're giving rise to "Sasha" as somebody, as something that I know,
and giving rise to not something else. We don't know that it's Sasha, we're not talking about
names, and recognition, and all of that; we're talking about something very, very basic here.
So, think again.
[contemplation]
OK. Do you have a question on that? We're not going to get terribly far unless we understand
these basic points here, and these are extremely, extremely difficult. That's why we have to do
all the preparation and all the stuff, to be able to actually recognize, what in the world are we
talking about? This is very, very subtle, so don't think, "Oh, it's really easy, and I'm stupid,
because I don't understand it, I don't recognize it."
Question: [inaudible]
Answer: The question is, are we talking only about a visualized object, or an imagined object
when we speak about mental hologram?
Actually, no. It's the exact same thing - in fact the scientists have discovered that as well - that
if we see an object, or we imagine an object, the mental process is exactly the same. The
mental hologram is based on - from a Western point of view - light coming through the
photosensitive cells of the eyes and firing all sorts of optic nerves and things like that - still
there's a mental hologram. And that process of giving rise to a mental hologram is exactly the
same with all the senses and imagination, in other words mental consciousness as well, and
thinking too.
There are many, many things that this discussion can lead to, of course, from a metaphysical
point of view. For example, what do we mean by distance, if our only way of knowing things
is in terms of mental holograms? ...just giving you a little bit of an indication of where this
discussion can go.
When we speak about a defining characteristic of mind or mental activity having three words,
the three words all go together; they're not separate - occurring in sequence, or anything like

that - they're combined together, networked together. Therefore, when we look at the second
word of the definition, we are still talking about the same mental activity, but now we are
describing it from another point of view. And although it may be translated as "awareness,"
we're not talking about some sort of general quality, we're not talking about some abstract
thing; we're talking about an individual activity.
It is being aware of something both in a transitive or causative sense of making something

something that we're aware of, and also in a nontransitive way of being aware of something.
Now, this is the same activity as giving rise to a cognitive object. Giving rise to a cognitive
object is equivalent to being aware of a cognitive object. It's describing the phenomenon from
two different points of view. So it is not the case that first a thought arises and then we think
it. Giving rise to a thought is what it means to think a thought. If the thought first arose, how
would you know that it arose in order to then think it. So that doesn't make any sense, that's
nonsense.
So similarly, giving rise to a mental hologram of colored shapes - sights - that is what seeing
is. It's not that first there's the arising of that visual mental hologram and then we see it and we
decide, "Am I going to look at it, or not look at it?" We're not talking about how much
attention we pay to the mental hologram, that's a subsidiary awareness. We're talking about
just seeing.
OK, so let's think about that.
[contemplation]
Do you have questions on that?
Answer: The question is, "When we cognize the table, there's the external object, the table,
there's the mental hologram of the table. So what is it that we actually cognize?"
I will just explain the Gelug explanation, the non-Gelug explanation is quite different here.
From the Gelug explanation, we are cognizing both of them. Through the mental hologram we
are cognizing the external table - so the Gelug explanation is that the mental hologram is
"fully transparent." So now the question is, "When we perceive a table through the mental
hologram of a table, how do we know that it is a valid cognition and not just a hallucination of
a table?"
This is dealing with sense cognition, and there's a whole list of conditions for distorted sense
cognition, to see. Is there some condition, or cause, or circumstance that would be making it
distorted, like for instance there's something wrong with our eyes? You don't have your
glasses on, for example, or some external thing, like there isn't enough light to see clearly
what it is?
So our cognition needs to be confirmed by other cognitions which are valid. So we would
have to - if somebody does have their glasses on, and when we turn on the light, and so on -
can we confirm, can we corroborate what we saw? When we come down from LSD, do we
still see what we saw when we were under the influence of LSD, for example?

Answer: So the question is, "If our sense perception is distorted, how can we know that
somebody else's sense perception is not, or our own sense perception later is not distorted?"
Well, if we're dealing with a nonstatic phenomenon - another term for it is a "functional
phenomenon" - then the criterion is: can what we perceive it perform its function? If I put a
glass of water on this object, is it going to hold it? Is it going to perform the function of a
table, or is it going to fall through because it was a hallucination? So this is in this case of
sense cognition, which is always of nonstatic phenomena, that's bare cognition ...well, there
are two definitions of this, but I'm using it just in the sense of nonconceptual cognition; let's
not get too complicated here.
How do we know that when we know a static phenomenon that it's valid or not, in terms of a
hologram? This has to do with valid inference, inferential cognition. There are three types of
inferential cognition. One is based on logic, "Where there's smoke there's fire." So you see
smoke, and then you infer there's fire there. So we can check the validity of that, if our logic
does not have a fault, and there's all sorts of rules of logic.
Then there's inference based on renown - renown is what's well known - in other words, when
we hear a certain set of acoustic patterns of sounds, then it is well known that those sounds
signify a word and it has a certain conventional meaning, and so we infer when we hear these
sounds that it means that. So for that, you can rely on dictionaries and the convention of a
language. It's just a sound after all, how do we know that it means anything?
And then there's inference based on authority, that when somebody says something, like
Buddha, and we don't have any other way of knowing whether it's correct or not, then by
knowing that this person is a valid source of information, then we can infer that what they say
is correct, like about karma. Like knowing somebody's name - we can't see it, we can't infer it
by logic, you have to ask a valid source of information, of somebody who knows this person's
name.
Or the example His Holiness loves to use, which is: how do we know our birthday? We have
to rely on a valid source of information, our mother or somebody like that. So, there are ways
of validating what we know. That's a big topic of discussion in Buddhism actually.
Any other question?
Then the third word of the defining characteristics here, which is the word "mere," or
"merely," or "only." So, we're talking about one activity, which from one point of view is the
arising of an object of cognition, and from another point of view it is cognizing an object of
cognition. And "merely" means "that's all that's happening," and that means that there's no
separate entity called "the mind" that's actually doing this, and there's no separate me that's
actually making this happen.
So it's not as though there's some me in my head that goes to the computer, which is the mind,
turns it on and, "Now I'm going to think something," or "I'm going to see something," and
uses the mind, like using a machine. Even though we might speak that way - like, "Why don't
you use your mind and figure it out?" - this mental activity just occurs, automatically, without
any effort, from moment to moment to moment, with no break in its continuity, individual,
subjective.

And what follows in terms of the sequence of the object of cognition follows in an orderly
fashion based on cause and effect, karma. And even once we've become liberated, it
continues. Even when it's not under the influence of karma, but still the sequence will occur in
an orderly fashion according to cause and effect. When we attain liberation as an arhat, we're
out of samsara. We're not enlightened yet, but we're no longer under the influence of karma.
Now, that point - that the mental activity occurs without there being a separate, totally
independent entity called "the mind" and "me" - of course brings us into the whole discussion
of voidness. But even without a deep understanding of voidness, we can still have some sort
of understanding of why - particularly in Gelugpa - we add this third word to the definition,
the word "merely." This word in Tibetan (tsam, merely) excludes something that it's not, it's
only this, it's only this. OK? Let's think about it.
[contemplation]
Any question on that - without going into a deep discussion of voidness yet, since that will
come tomorrow?
Answer: "What is the function of willpower in our whole presentation of the sequence of what
we're aware of?"
That's a very good question. Willpower is a mental factor. It's one of the subsidiary types of
awareness; it would be "intention." Now, the intention to think about something, the intention
to go and read a book and so on, these intentions - it's also a type of mental activity and they
occur without a separate me doing the intending. Now, why does a certain intention arise? It
arises dependently on many, many factors, for instance the intention to go read a book, there
has to be a habit of reading books...
In general, what activates a karma is... It's a little bit complicated, but if we just simplify it
completely: let's make it grasping for true existence. It's much more complex than that, so to
be a little more precise, it's "craving." We crave, when we're experiencing happiness, not to be
parted from it, and when we're experiencing unhappiness, to be parted from it. And then we
identify with that, with a solid me, grasping for true existence. This is going on every moment,
"I want to be happy, I don't want to be unhappy," and we identify with that. That activates
karma each moment.
Then there's a whole big collection or network of habits of what can be activated, and then the
specific habit - or "tendency," to be more technically correct, not "habit" - the specific
tendency that will be activated is going to be affected by other conditions, conditions of the
circumstance that we're in, the time of day, the people we're with, what we were doing just
before, and so on. First, what comes is a mental factor of wanting to do something, "I feel like
reading a book," and then an intention to actually do it. So, all of that happens without there
being some separate me that's doing it, "I am going to do that."
We have a choice, but when we speak about choice, choice is within the context of voidness
and dependent arising. We experience... from our subjective point of view, we experience that,
"I have a choice." However, our mind makes it appear as though there is a separate,
independent me and separate, independent choices, like on a menu, that exist all by
themselves, and "I exist all by myself and independent of anything I'm going to choose on the

menu what to do."
And that is complete garbage, that's not at all how it exists. Everything arises dependently on
causes and conditions and so on. But it's not predetermined, it's not fixed, that's the other
extreme. It's not as though it exists already before it happens, or somebody has decided what's
going to happen... so this gets into a very sophisticated discussion.
Perhaps we can save the other questions till after our break. That's a very important point to
work on.
Session Four: Questions and Answers

Unedited Transcript
We were in the middle of asking some questions concerning the defining characteristics of
mind, and there were a few hands that were up with questions. Does anybody have further
questions they'd like to ask?
Answer: The question is: "How can there be two thoughts at the same time - grasping for a
truly existent me, as well as thinking to do something?"
First of all, let me clarify that when we talk about intention, intention accompanies both
conceptual and nonconceptual cognition. So it doesn't necessarily require what we would call
" thinking" - "thinking" is thinking in terms of categories.
Now, this gets a little bit complex of course - when we speak about nonconceptual cognition,
like seeing, there can be intention that draws us to seeing the table, as opposed to seeing the
wall. But then there can also be the thought which might come before that - and perhaps a
verbalized, but not necessarily verbalized in our mind - "I think I'll look at the table." Most of
the time, we don't think that; we just look at the table. So we need to be clear that intention
goes on all the time; it's one of the five ever-functioning mental factors that accompanies each
moment of our awareness ...it depends on which tenet system we're following: Vasubandhu
says it accompanies every moment, Asanga defines it as only an intention for something
constructive, and so it isn't with every moment.
In any case, within a nonconceptual cognition, the mind gives rise to an appearance of true
existence and we perceive that, we cognize that. In conceptual cognition, not only do we
cognize that appearance, but we take it or understand it to refer to what actually exists. There's
the arising in this case of an appearance of true existence and cognizing it, being aware of it;
there's just simply that in nonconceptual cognition.
Translator: And in conceptual?
Answer: In conceptual - in addition to that - we conceive, or we think that the way that this
appears to exist corresponds to the way that it actually exists, or in very simple language, we
believe this deceptive appearance.
Session Four: Questions and Answers 33

Now, within any cognition we need to differentiate - this is Gelugpa, mind you - the aspect of
mental activity that cognizes the superficial truth of something - what it appears to be, or what
it is conventionally - and there's also an aspect of that cognition which cognizes how it exists.
So there's the cognition of "table" and within one cognition two parts of the cognition: one
part "what is this." And it is not necessarily knowing what it is, saying "table," but it is
perceiving the conventional truth of it, the conventional truth of it as a table. So, we see,
according to Gelug, not only a colored shape, but we also see a table; we see both. So that's
one part of the cognition and that can be either accurate or inaccurate.
Now, the other part of the cognition is a cognition of how it exists, and here it's perceiving it
to exist in a truly established way - I won't go into the definition of that, that's complex - so
one part of the cognition is accurate, one part of it is not accurate - Gelugpa says this. And the
only difference in conceptual is that it perceives this through a category - "table" - and in
terms of how it exists, it actually believes that it truly is existent, or that it's existence is truly
established.
Translator: Now you were speaking about nonconceptual?
Answer: Well, both nonconceptual and conceptual - conceptual adds on top of it.
Whether conceptual or nonconceptual, the part of the mind that is perceiving how it exists, in
other words this appearance of true existence - in the non-Gelug, they explain it very nicely -
what happens is that it makes a twofold appearance: that the object is truly existent and that
the cognizer is truly existent, and truly existent as me, as a separate me.
Translator: Conceptual or nonconceptual?
Answer: The same, conceptual or nonconceptual. When we are talking about the part of the
cognition that's cognizing how it exists, then the non-Gelug explains this in a very nice way.
Gelug would agree that the object appears to be truly existent and the mind that's perceiving it
appears to be truly existent as me.
Translator: And this is Gelugpa or non-Gelugpa?
Answer: Non-Gelugpa explains it that way and Gelugpa would agree; they don't actually give
this type of explanation, but I think it helps to understand your question - the answer to your
question.
Translator: So these two aspects, a truly existent perceiver and a truly existent object? And
Gelugpa would agree?
Answer: Gelugpa would agree. The way that Gelugpa would explain this is that there's
automatically arising grasping for true existence of all phenomena and there's automatically
arising grasping for true existence of the "me," and that both of these accompany the
cognition. That's the way Gelugpa would explain it, but it's not inconsistent with this other
way of explaining it, and this other way of explaining it, I think, makes it clearer.
So, automatically arising appearance of true existence of all phenomena - so that's referring
usually to the object of the cognition, and the automatically arising making an appearance of
true existence - and then the conceptual thing, believing it - of a me, the object of that is

usually the mind. It doesn't have to be the mind, non-Gelugpa always explains it as mind, it
doesn't have to be, but often it is. The automatically arising grasping for true existence of all
phenomena would correspond to making an appearance of true existence of the object, and the
automatically arising making an appearance of a truly existent me, and then the conceptual
cognition believing it, would correspond to thinking in terms of the perceiver, being "me."
Whichever way we want to understand it, it comes down to the same thing, which is that
seeing the table and believing in a truly existent me aren't separate cognitions. They're all part
of the same cognition involving various types of mental factors, or - it gets technical, because
grasping for true existence is not a mental factor, but in any case - various ways of being
aware that all occur in one cognition. So, in one cognition, there are many different things that
are going on that are making up that moment of cognition; and we shouldn't think that they
are, in a sense, disconnected to each other. It all makes one moment of experience.
Answer: The question is: "In terms of conceptual and nonconceptual cognition, does
conceptual have to do more with Aristotelian logic and nonconceptual with paradoxical
logic?"
I don't think that there's an equivalency here. The Buddhist analysis is of course speaking in
terms of different systems of logic than the Greek traditions, but whether we are analyzing in
terms of the categories of Buddhist epistemology - ways of how we understand the way the
mind works - or in categories of ancient Greek epistemology, nevertheless, human experience
is the same. We have conceptual and nonconceptual cognition, they're just different systems
for understanding.
In Buddhist logic, the form of the logical syllogism used for proving a thesis is different from
the form in Aristotelian logic, but that difference is irrelevant to your question. Whether we
try to prove something with a logical syllogism - which would be done from a Buddhist point
of view in the Sautrantika, Chittamatra and Svatantrika systems - or we try to prove something
via paradoxes, which would be the Prasangika system, both types of logic involve conceptual
cognition.
Nonconceptual cognition does not arise based on any line of reasoning or logic. Now, we have
to qualify that, of course - that explanation is true within Gelugpa for the non-Prasangika
systems. You see, in the non-Prasangika systems we divide inferential cognition and bare
cognition in terms of one being conceptual, the other being nonconceptual. So inference is
conceptual and non-inferential is nonconceptual.
But Prasangika makes a different distinction here, and for them inferential relies directly on a
line of reasoning and now, instead of calling it bare cognition, we translate the same term as "
straightforward cognition," which means it doesn't rely directly on a line of reasoning. Before,
the definition was "bare," bare of concepts; here it's "straightforward." It means it doesn't go
through a line of reasoning. Still, in the Prasangika system, inferential cognition relies on logic
and it's always conceptual, whether it is straight syllogisms or paradoxical logic.
Straightforward cognition could be either conceptual or nonconceptual, so we can have
conceptual cognition not relying directly on a line of reasoning or logic.
An example would be, for instance, we go through a line of reasoning of inference, and then
we come to a conclusion, "Where there's smoke, there's fire." And so we go through that line

of reasoning, that's inferential cognition of the fire. We see smoke, and then we go through a
line of reasoning, "Where there's smoke, there's fire," and now we focus on, "There's fire
there," we don't actually see it. So, when we come to that conclusion, that's inferential
cognition, that's conceptual. Now we focus on, "There's fire there." That is conceptual,
because we're thinking in terms of the category "fire," but it is straightforward cognition, it is
not relying directly on the line of reasoning anymore.
Translator: So we focus conceptually on the existence of fire, without relying...
Answer: Without at that moment actively relying on the line of reasoning. This affects very,
very much our whole understanding of what's usually called analytical meditation and
absorbed meditation, whether or not conceptual or nonconceptual affects very much our
understanding of how to meditate on voidness and so on. There's a very significant difference
here, especially when we think in terms of Western categories like "intellectual
understanding." Unless we make a very clear distinction of these various ways of knowing,
then we can get very, very confused.
Question: Can you give an example of an indirect conceptual understanding?
Answer: "Indirect" is a terrible word here, because I don't know what you're referring to. I
make a very clear distinction between "direct and indirect," "explicit and implicit," "
straightforward and non-straightforward," "bare and non-bare." If you don't make distinctions
between these words, and if you just use "direct and indirect" in a very loose way for all of
them, you're going to get enormously confused. OK.
Direct and indirect - this is used in the non-Gelug systems. Remember, we were talking about
seeing the table and the mental hologram. Now, the non-Gelugs take nonstaticness very
literally. So moment one of the table gives rise to moment two, which is the perception of the
mental hologram; so when we are perceiving the mental hologram in moment two, the table
which gave rise to that, which is moment one, doesn't exist anymore.
Actually, they don't say we see the table, they say we only see a colored shape. So, when we
see the mental hologram of a colored shape, we directly cognize the hologram and indirectly
cognize the moment before of the colored shape that was external - indirectly because it
doesn't exist anymore. That's the difference between direct and indirect in how I'm using the
terminology. Direct is right this moment, it's the same moment, and indirect is a time lag of a
moment before, like when we hear the radio signal from the moon, or from Mars, there's a
time lag.
Now explicit and implicit has to do with whether or not the mind gives rise to a mental
hologram of the object. This has to do with whether or not there's a mental hologram of the
object of cognition. So, explicitly there's a mental hologram, so I see a table - this is Gelugpa -
I see a table, so explicitly I perceive a table, because there's a mental hologram of a table, and
implicitly I perceive "not anything else," or "not a dog." There's no mental hologram of that.
So that's the difference between explicit and implicit.
Bare and not bare - the difference is whether or not the cognition is through a category, so
that's conceptual or nonconceptual. And straightforward and not straightforward is whether
or not it relies directly - meaning immediately - on a line of reasoning or not.
Translator: If it relies, then it is?

Answer: Then it is not straightforward, and if it doesn't rely it's straightforward.
Now, if we just use our Western languages in a sloppy manner, we could refer to all of these
as direct and indirect. But if we translate it like that, we're going to get terribly confused,
because here are four very different distinctions that are being made. And, by the way,
although it might seem as though this is a grand wavering from our topic of mahamudra, it's
not, because when we look in more detail about these ways of knowing things, it gives us a
much clearer idea of what are we talking about, when we're talking about mind.
Ways of being aware, it's aware of something, so how is it aware of something? With a time
lag, with making a hologram, without making a hologram, with relying on a line of reasoning,
with a category, without a category? All of them have the exact same nature of mind; all of
them have the conventional nature of mere clarity and awareness, the mere arising of a
cognitive object and an engagement with it, a cognitive engagement, without there being some
separate mind or separate me doing it. All of them fulfill that defining characteristic.
Each of these ways of knowing have the same defining characteristics: mere clarity and
awareness, the giving rise to a cognitive object and the cognitive engagement with an object,
and that happening without there being a separate me or a separate mind that's doing it. Mind
you, I left out that this mental activity can also be described from the point of view of
physically what's happening. That would be in terms of the energy and so on that's involved
with this - but that's not the same as the actual subjective experiencing of something - the
winds, the brain, the nerves and so on; we're not denying that.
Translator: So from the viewpoint of Prasangika Madhyamaka, you gave the example of the
straightforward conceptual thinking with the example of smoke and fire, so what would be the
not straightforward conceptual thinking?
Answer: What would be not straightforward? The not straightforward cognition is when we
actually go through the line of reasoning "where there's smoke there's fire" and come to the
conclusion. The process of thinking through the line of reasoning and coming to the
conclusion, that first moment or little phase of thinking the conclusion, that would be the
conceptual, inferential cognition.
Translator: So that's the one that should be backed up by the previous moment of logic?
Answer: It is the final step in the line of logic, the whole process is the inferential
understanding, and then the next moment after that would be straightforward.
Translator: So the immediately preceding cause of the direct conceptual thinking here will be
the indirect one?
Answer: Let's not use direct and indirect.
Translator: The immediately preceding cause of the straightforward is the

non-straightforward?
Answer: Correct. What will precede the straightforward conceptual cognition will be not
straightforward, one that relies on a line of reasoning. So one could go through a line of
reasoning to come to the conclusion of voidness, "There's no such thing as truly established
existence," and then stay focused on it straightforwardly, and it's still conceptual, but you're

not relying directly on a line of reasoning anymore.
Translator: Would that mean that enlightened consciousness is one which lacks
conceptuality?
Answer: The enlightened mind - there's a great deal of discussion of when a mind gets rid of
all conceptual cognition. But if we follow the Gelug tradition on that, that would only be an
enlightened mind. An enlightened mind does not from its own side - this gets into a big
discussion, a big debate, but the Gelugpas would say that - the mental continuum of a Buddha
from its own side doesn't generate and perceive categories, so it doesn't perceive things
conceptually; however, it could be aware of concepts of others.
Answer: The question is: "Playing chess involves conceptual thinking; could a Buddha play
chess?"
I'm just speaking off the top of my head now; obviously this isn't discussed in the text.
Conceptual thinking has to do with categories, remember that; but one can perceive cause and
effect and so on not necessarily through categories. A Buddha knows cause and effect
nonconceptually, it's not through the category, "when you bang your foot against something in
the dark, then it hurts." So that's a general category of things, and our specific instances fit into
that category. A Buddha doesn't think in those terms.
Translator: I didn't understand what banging the foot has to do with categories.
Answer: Well, that's a general category, like a principle that - "category" isn't the precise word
either; it's hard to come up with a term here, but a "principle," or a "law," that - " bang your
foot and it hurts," cause and effect, just on a very simple level. If we think conceptually about
it, then anytime that somebody bangs their foot, then we would think, "Ah, bang your foot,
that fits into this category 'bang the foot and then after that comes pain.'" And so then we
would know conceptually the relationship between those two.
A Buddha wouldn't think in terms of these categories, these laws. A Buddha would just know
nonconceptually, not through a category. So, the same thing in terms of playing chess: a
Buddha would know, "If you move this piece this place, then that would happen, that would
happen, that would happen in a specific context," but without thinking in terms of rules. If we
put it in very simple terms, to play chess conceptually is to have all the rules in your mind and
fit everything into the rules. A Buddha just plays, and a Buddha knows how everything works,
but without having to constantly look in the rule book.
OK, that brings us to the end of our session. We haven't been able to go further into the text;
however, having an opportunity to ask some questions is always helpful, and particularly, as I
said, it sheds light more and more on the phenomenon of mind. And to really understand the
nature of the mind, we have to get to the basic, basic, basic defining characteristics. So,
whether the mind is conceptual, nonconceptual, whether it's any of these two sides of all these
variables that we've mentioned, the defining characteristics are the same. So don't think the
defining characteristic of mind is that it's nonconceptual; that's not a defining characteristic.
OK?

So, let's end with the dedication. We think whatever understanding, whatever positive force
has come from this, may it act as a cause for really being able to successfully do this
mahamudra practice, to be able to actually recognize the nature of my mind, both
conventional and deepest, and through working with the mind achieve enlightenment for the
benefit of everyone.
Session Five: Attention, Mindfulness, and Alertness

Unedited Transcript
We have been discussing the First Panchen Lama's text on the Gelug-Kagyu tradition of
mahamudra; and we saw that the presentation is divided into the preparation, the actual
teachings, and the concluding procedures. And with the preparatory practices, we saw that this
entails having this safe direction in our life, and the bodhichitta aim, and then building up
these networks of positive force and deep awareness, and doing some at least temporary
purification with Vajrasattva practice. And then making requests to the guru for inspiration,
and then imagining that our guru comes to the top of our head and merges with us, which then
produces a very blissful, intense state of mind.
Somebody asked a question yesterday about how bodhichitta fits in with the actual main
practice of focusing on the nature of the mind; and although the nature of the bodhichitta mind
is the same nature as any other moment of cognition, nevertheless we might not necessarily be
meditating on the nature of the bodhichitta mind. What I should mention, since this is not
always made so clear, is that we have a distinction between what can be called "labored"
bodhichitta and "unlabored" bodhichitta. "Labored" means that you build it up with labor,
with work, you have to go through a line of reasoning in order to actually generate the
bodhichitta aim; "unlabored" is you don't have to go through that process.
"With labor," in other words, you have to work through a line of reasoning, "Everybody's been
my mother, and they've been kind, and so on," and then you generate bodhichitta; and the
other doesn't require this effort or "labor" to go through that line of reasoning. In some
contexts it could be called "contrived" and "uncontrived" bodhichitta, but the usual term here
is this "labored" and "unlabored." When we have this unlabored bodhichitta, that's the
boundary line for having what's usually translated as the "path of accumulation," so the
"building-up pathway mind," the mind where you build up from there. You start with this
unlabored bodhichitta; so that's where you start these five paths as a bodhisattva.
[See: The Five Pathway Minds (Five Paths): Basic Presentation {7}.]
Shantideva, in the first chapter of Bodhicharyavatara, Engaging in Bodhisattva Behavior, he

says that once you reach this stage, in which you have this unlabored bodhichitta, then you
have that all the time, day and night. Even if you're asleep, even if you're drunk, you still have
this bodhichitta, and it's constantly building up more and more positive force. Now what in the
world does that mean? What it means is that we have, as I mentioned previously, the
possibility of many cognitions simultaneously.
So, once we achieve this unlabored bodhichitta, then we have this bodhichitta mind, this
bodhichitta cognition manifest all the time. The only questionable moment is at the time of
total absorption, nonconceptually, on voidness. And here, the different Gelugpa monastic
Session Five: Attention, Mindfulness, and Alertness 39

textbooks disagree, have different opinions about what happens to bodhichitta at that time,
because bodhichitta is conceptual and this is the nonconceptual absorption on voidness. But
we'll leave that discussion aside. When we have bodhichitta manifest all the time, that doesn't
mean that we are paying attention to it, because when we have various types of cognition
manifest at the same time, the amount of attention that we pay to them will vary.
This is quite interesting, because the difference that we make in our Western terminology is
very different. In our Western terminology, we would say when you are asleep, bodhichitta is
unconscious; but from the Buddhist analysis, bodhichitta when we're asleep is still manifest. It
may be unconscious from a Western point of view, but it's manifest, it's happening. Now,
what does that actually mean? The way that my teacher explained this is that it means that no
matter what we're doing, we still have that aim in life. We never ever lose the aim in life that
we are striving for enlightenment in order to benefit everybody - whether you're actively
thinking of that or not.
So that also gives us another little piece in the puzzle concerning what actually is mind. And
mind, this mental activity can be - if we use our Western parameters - conscious or
unconscious; it's still mental activity. However, I always recommend to people - and this also
one of my teachers, Geshe Ngawang Dhargyey, always recommended - that we don't try to
apply an external system to Buddhism to try to make sense of it, because all that's going to
happen is that we're going to get confused. So, while we are doing mahamudra meditation on
the nature of the mind, there's still manifest bodhichitta occurring simultaneously.
And even if we have perfect shamatha - completely stilled and settled mind, perfect
concentration on whatever we might choose as a topic - still we could have bodhichitta
manifest and that doesn't interrupt the concentration. So, I find this actually quite helpful to
keep this in mind, because I must say that before I got this clarification, I had quite a different
idea of what perfect concentration meant. I thought that there was absolutely nothing else
going on at the same time. So, we see that mental activity and mind is much broader than what
we might expect.
Then we went on to the main part of the text, and we saw that the way that the Panchen Lama
is going to explain this is in terms of the sutra system, and within the sutra system he's going
to explain it in terms of first gaining a state of concentration, and then gaining the
understanding of voidness. Within that broad division within sutra - which covers not only
mahamudra meditation, but any type of meditation - that first we strive to get concentration
and then strive to get the understanding of voidness. The Panchen Lama then continues with a
discussion of gaining shamatha - or perfect stilled and settled state of mind, perfect
concentration - on the conventional nature of the mind.
And one of the points that he makes is that in other traditions of mahamudra, even if they gain
both shamatha and vipashyana on the mind, the way that they are explaining it in these other
traditions is just gaining shamatha and vipashyana on the conventional nature of the mind, and
that they haven't really looked at the deepest nature. Therefore, we need to keep in mind that if
you have vipashyana, it is not pervasive, in other words, it doesn't follow necessarily that
vipashyana is focused on voidness. You can have shamatha and vipashyana on a large variety
of different topics; and in fact, both shamatha and vipashyana are found in non-Buddhist
systems as well.
Now, we saw that in the Gelug tradition, here what is emphasized is always knowing the
defining characteristic of mind in order to be able to then focus on it; and we saw that this

defining characteristic of the conventional or superficial nature of the mind was consisting of
three words that are usually translated as "clarity," "awareness," and the word "merely," or
"only." And we saw that what we're talking about here is the mental activity of experiencing a
cognitive object, and we're talking about individual, subjective experiencing of something.
And the experiencing of something can be described in terms of the subjective aspect of it:
from one point of view, it is the arising or making arise of a cognitive object, and from
another point of view it is a cognitive engagement with it. And that cognitive engagement,
which is what awareness means, can be of any kind. So, it could be understanding the object,
but it could also be not understanding the object; it could be paying attention to the object, it
could be inattentive of the object, although it's a cognitive object. So, we shouldn't think that
because of the word "awareness," it means that you actually are conscious and know the
object.
Translator: It's like knowing, not knowing, concentrating, not concentrating...
Answer: Well, yila-cheypa, yi-la macheypa, paying attention or not paying attention;
concentration is very different from attention - attention is the mind going to an object,
concentration is the mind staying on the object. They're different mental factors.
And the word "merely" adds to this that this is all that's happening. There's no separate entity -
the mind - like some machine that's making it happen; nor is there a separate agent - me - that
is either making it happen or observing it.
The point of there not being a separate me that is observing this is very crucial in meditation,
because very often when we meditate - especially when we're watching our mind, or watching
the content of the mind, and these sort of things - it seems as though there's a separate me
sitting in the back of our head watching all of this and observing.
That is a big fault in meditation. When we're doing meditation - whether it's on the nature of
the mind, or whatever it might be - we can have understanding what's going on as part of the
meditation, it's part of that state of mind, but there isn't a separate me - as an entity, divorced
from this whole thing - that understands. You just want to accompany your meditation with
understanding, but not have somebody separate from it who is understanding. That's a very
delicate differentiation.
When we read, or when we listen to somebody speaking, there is understanding as part of that
cognition, isn't there? So, understanding accompanies the reading, it accompanies the listening
to language, but we don't consciously think or feel there's a separate me - separate from the
reading and from the listening to somebody speak - who is understanding it, do we? Correct?
So, think about this, because that's exactly the same way in which we need to meditate,
particularly when we're meditating on understanding the nature of things like the mind.
Also, while you're thinking about it, try to think about it just with understanding
accompanying the thinking and without a feeling of a separate me who's doing the thinking.
There's just thinking. If we ask who's thinking? "Well, I'm thinking, it's not somebody else
thinking." But that "me" who is doing the thinking is not like some ping-pong ball separate
from the whole thing.
[contemplation]

Are there any questions on that?
This is a very important point to be able to understand that this mental activity is occurring
every single moment - there is the arising of a cognitive object, there's a cognitive engagement
with that object - those are two ways of describing the same phenomenon, the same activity -
and there's no separate me or mind doing it.
And this mental activity - the exact same mental activity, the exact same defining
characteristics - is occurring regardless of what the content of that mental activity might be,
regardless of the cognitive object, and regardless of what subsidiary awarenesses are
accompanying that cognition. Whether it's a disturbing emotion, whether it is a positive
emotion, whether it's a lot of concentration, a little concentration - it makes absolutely no
difference, because after all we're focusing on the conventional nature of the primary
consciousness in the cognition - the eye consciousness, the ear consciousness, the mental
consciousness and so on.
Now, of course the nature of the primary consciousness and the nature of the subsidiary
awarenesses that accompany it are exactly the same, they all are in one package of a
cognition. But by looking at the nature of the primary consciousness it makes it a little bit
simpler, because the subsidiary awarenesses have - in addition to the basic defining
characteristic of being a way of knowing something - they also have their own individual
defining characteristics - the characteristic of love, or the characteristic of hatred. So to make
it simpler, we look at the defining characteristics of the primary consciousness itself.
Now, when we look then at the Buddhist path, we find that the disturbing emotions and the
suffering that we have, in other words the first and second noble truths - all the problems of
samsara and the causes for them, these type of things - all of these are ways of being aware of
something, aren't they? They are experiences, and as such they all have the same conventional
nature of the mind.
And when we look at the fourth noble truth, these true pathways, these are all the good
qualities, all the understandings and so on, the states of mind that are free of the first and
second noble truths. All of that is likewise mind, it's mental activity, it's an experience, it has
the same conventional nature. And the third noble truth, the true stoppings of the first two
noble truths, that occurs on a mental continuum on the basis of mind. So, mind is crucial here
in terms of both samsara and nirvana, if we want to use the usual terminology.
Purification of all these things that we need to get rid of is on the basis of the mind. Building
up the two networks, building up good qualities, all of that is on the basis of the mind. All the
actions of our speech and of our body are based on intentions and so on, that come on the
basis of the mind. And so this mahamudra meditation on the nature of the mind - both
conventional and deepest nature - is totally crucial to this whole Buddhist path. It's not
something which is just an exotic, separate practice that somehow magically is going to help
us in our Buddhist progress.
It's very central to the entire subject matter of the path. Also it's very relevant to helping us
with daily life problems. What we want to do is to not get caught up in the content of any
moment of cognition, any moment of mind. So, regardless of any object of cognition,
regardless of any types of mental factors that accompany our cognition, it makes absolutely no
difference in terms of the nature of the mind. It's still an arising of a cognitive object and a
cognitive engagement with it and nothing more. So it's no big deal, regardless of what the

content might be of any moment of experience.
The Karma Kagyu descriptions use an image which is very helpful here, which is the image of
the ocean. The various thoughts that we have, the various cognitions, disturbing emotions etc.
are just like waves on the surface of the big, extensive, deep ocean. And it doesn't matter what
the shape of the wave is, it doesn't matter how big it is, it doesn't matter how small it is, it's
still water; and it arises on the ocean and it settles back on the ocean and that's all.
There's nothing special about anger, there's nothing special about love, there's nothing special
about happiness, about unhappiness, nothing special, no big deal. So no reason to get excited,
no reason to get upset - that after all is the basic teaching in terms of what's usually translated
as the "eight worldly dharmas," the "eight transitory things in life," whether people praise us
or criticize us, "same same," what's the difference? It's just words.
That is extremely, extremely helpful, if we can keep this understanding in our everyday
experience. Some sort of a disturbing emotion comes up, "Well, it's just arising and engaging;
that's all. I'm seeing the wall and there's an image of a wall, a hologram of a wall, and there is
this emotion that's happening at the same time as well. It's no big deal, it's just arising and
awareness, nothing else," so we don't get caught up in it is the point.
If we get a room in a hotel and there's a nice view, or there's a terrible view, or the wall is
nicely painted, or the paint is peeling - so what? You could get caught up in it and, "Oh, that's
so terrible," and then you really experience a tremendous amount of suffering. But why? That
just is unpleasant. It's just the awareness of a cognitive object, there's nothing else, so no big
deal. There's a bad smell. OK, so it's a bad smell, nothing else; you don't have to get excited
about it, you don't have to get upset.
Now, that doesn't mean that we don't take action, we don't do anything. There's loud noise
outside, somebody is banging on a metal thing with a hammer. Now, there's no reason to get
upset about that, it's just a noise, just a sound, no big deal. However, it will cause problems
and inconvenience in a recording when other people listen to it in a different setting, and so
you take action, but you don't get upset, you don't suffer.
Same thing, I recently, a few weeks ago, had my laptop computer stolen on a train, and I lost a
number of files that I hadn't backed up and some other things that were in the computer case.
So, now you have a choice. Here is a something that has ripened from karma, something that
now you're experiencing - I'm experiencing seeing no computer bag up on the luggage rack
and the train has stopped and you have to get off.
"Hmm," so now you have a choice of really getting very upset and angry and tremendous
suffering, or you just accept the reality of the situation, "Here is an arising of a cognitive
object - no computer there - and I'm aware of it, I understand it. It's just a mental event that
has come about and is a ripening of karma and many other circumstances. So, no big deal,
nothing special, what do I expect from samsara? Of course things like this will happen."
And then you just deal with it, go to the Lost and Found Department, see if they can locate it -
which they didn't - speak to the... I have a patron who bought the computer for me and he was
very happy to buy me another computer, and - no big deal - that's it. I spent a couple of weeks
reconstructing the files that I lost, and finished, no suffering - very little suffering, I should
say. A few things I couldn't replace, but "OK, I can't replace them."

We have a saying in English, "No use in crying over spilt milk," it's spilled, finished. So like
that, if one can not get caught up in the content of any moment of experience, even if it's a not
very nice ripening of karma, and just understand that it's just an experience - it's just the
arising of an object and awareness of it, engaging with it - and then just deal with it, you
minimize your suffering. Still, being a samsaric being, of course there's a little bit of sadness
associated with this, but this is the direction to go in for overcoming even that.
Actually it's a very interesting phenomenon, because there's quite a difference between what's
going on in your own mind, which could be quite quiet about the whole thing, and then when
you tell your friends, and you have to explain it, then other circumstances come up, which can
bring other emotions. Either they're more upset than you are, so you have to calm them down,
or somehow you have to show some sort of emotional response to the whole situation. It's
very interesting.
Anyway, these meditations, as I say, it's very important to realize that they're not just abstract
meditations that you do sitting in your meditation chamber, and when you're dealing with
daily life it's totally irrelevant. These are very relevant, very helpful in daily life, and the more
familiar we are with this type of meditation process, with this type of understanding, whether
you sit and formally meditate on it or not, but thinking about it, and understanding it and
trying to apply it, the more familiar we are with that, the more automatically it will just arise
in any situation, particularly a difficult situation.
Now, much more difficult is when we are in situations in which very strong disturbing
emotions come up, to apply it then. But if it's just a situation and a strong disturbing emotion
hasn't come up yet, then if you can catch it before that, it's much easier. And how you apply
this thing would be: anytime after losing my computer, if I'm sitting or whatever and the
thought arises, "Oh, I lost my computer," immediately apply this method that, "It's just the
arising of a thought, it's just a mental object, it's just an awareness of a mental object, that's all
it is," and don't follow out the thought.
The way that the Panchen Lama describes the meditation is that - after you dissolve the guru
in your mind after making requests - you imagine with the dissolution that all appearances, all
thoughts, everything dissolves - everything dissolves. He says, "dissolve your (visualized)
guru into yourself. Absorb for a while in this state in which all haphazard
appearance-making and appearances have been contracted until they have
disappeared."
"Haphazard" is the really important word here, "haphazard" means "just everything chaotic."
OK, so this is not a voidness meditation, or any meditation on the clear light mind or anything
like that, in which we imagine all appearances and appearance-making contract back in. We're
speaking more in terms of the chaotic, all the junk, all the junky type of thoughts, and the
images that come up, and all of that, we try to imagine that as the guru dissolves into us, all of
that calms down and dissolves back into us.
And then he says, "Do not contrive anything with thoughts such as expectations or
worries" - this is a standard instruction in every meditation - don't expect that you're going to
have spectacular experiences and results, and don't worry that "I'm not going to have any."
He goes on to say, "This doesn't mean, however, that you cease all attention as if you had
fainted or fallen asleep. Rather, you must tie (your attention) to the post of mindfulness
in order not to wander, and station alertness to be aware of any mental movement."

Now, to understand these instructions here, we have to be very clear about the definitions of
attention, mindfulness, and alertness - if we don't have that clear in our minds, we're not going
to be able to meditate properly - and these are three very distinct and different mental factors
and not easy to translate. So, what are the definitions of these mental factors? We need to use
them in all meditations whatsoever, so it's important to know these.
Attention - literally the word is "to take an object to mind," so it is taking an object as our
cognitive object; and that can be strongly or weakly.
Then mindfulness is like the mental glue. I think this is a very helpful image. It's the same
word as "to recall," or "to remember."
Translator: Memory, yes?
Answer: Yes, but the problem with our Western word "memory" is that it is talking about
when you put something into your memory, here we're talking about when you're actually
remembering something. What it's referring to is the mental hold, it's the mental factor that
holds on to an object of cognition and prevents you from letting go.
So, mindfulness has to do with the mental hold; and then - what's usually translated as
"concentration," which is more a "mental fixation" - the placement, it's staying on the object,
or remaining. Mindfulness is not letting go, this is remaining, and attention is going to the
object.
And alertness is watching - not as something totally separate, but part of the whole thing -
watching to see what is the quality of the mental hold of mindfulness. It's watching to see: is
this hold too tight, too loose, has it let go? That's what it's watching. And it's like the alarm
system, and when it notices something wrong, then the alarm goes off - ding, ding, ding, ding,
ding! - and attention is what then corrects the situation. So the attention will then be a
resuming type of attention, to go back to the object. It could be a more painstaking attention to
go to the object more strongly. It's the attention that actually has to be reset. The alertness is
just the alarm system.
The image here is quite nice: the mindfulness is like the tent post. You bang the tent post in
and the mindfulness keeps hold, like of the tent; and you tie your attention to that, so that your
attention is always going to that object that you have the mental hold on to; and then alertness
is watching it.
And it says, "Don't cease all attention as if you had fainted or fallen asleep," so it's not as
though you're no longer paying attention, that the mind is no longer going to objects. Now,
what are we focusing on, what is the mindfulness on, what are we holding on to? We're
holding on to the nature, the conventional nature of each moment of our awareness, whatever
the content of it might be; and we try to do this here in the situation in which the mind is quiet.
In dzogchen meditation, the way that one starts to do something like this is in a total... what I
would call a "sense deprivation zone," in other words, in a completely dark, quiet room, in
which you have a minimal amount of sense perception, because then you can really in that
situation observe the nature of the mind by itself, without it being involved with sense
perception. Although of course you're going to feel - if you start to become really quite
attentive - you're going to feel your clothing on your body, and the seat underneath you... but
it's minimal.

I would like very much for you to understand this terminology, as I say, this is very important
to be really understanding of what we mean by attention, mindfulness, and alertness. Let me
give you an example of how easy it is to misunderstand if you don't know all the definitions.
There's a term in Tibetan in "lorig" (blo-rig, ways of knowing), which is called "nangla
mangeypa" (snang-la ma-nges-pa), which means... I used to translate it as "inattentive
perception," which is absolutely wrong.
Translator: You think that this translation is incorrect?
Answer: That translation is totally incorrect, but this is the way that I used to understand it. So,
once I asked Bakula Rinpoche, who was a great, great lama, he's since deceased. I asked him,
"When you do mahamudra meditation and you're focusing on the nature of the mind, doesn't
that meditation then become - because you're not focusing on the content of the cognition -
doesn't that cognition then become inattentive perception, and therefore your meditation
would be a non-valid cognition?"
This is what I asked him. If it's inattentive perception, if it's a nangla mangeypa, it is not a
valid cognition. And he explained to me that my understanding was completely wrong, my
question made absolutely no sense, and the problem was that I didn't really understand the
definition of this term nangla mangeypa. A perception is nangla mangeypa if it is not a
decisive cognition of what appears to it. "Decisive" means decisively it's "this" and "not that."
It has nothing to do with attention. So it is a nondetermining cognition, it doesn't determine its
object as "this" or "that." That's nangla mangeypa.
Translator: So Bakula Rinpoche was saying what your perception is, it is not nangla
mangeypa?
Answer: Well, I'll get to that. I'm just saying first what's the definition.
Translator: I didn't understand what you said before.
Answer: The whole point is that the cognition is not nangla mangeypa, because you are
determining that the mind is "this" and it's "not that." It's just that within the cognition, you're
not paying attention to the content, but that doesn't affect whether it is a "ngeypa" (nges-pa) or
not a ngeypa, whether it's decisive or not.
Translator: You were considering not a nangla mangeypa state, basically, and he...
Answer: That's why I say the understanding of this technical terminology is very important.
So, the cognition is valid, the meditation is a valid cognition. Even though you're not paying
attention to the content of that moment of awareness; nevertheless it is valid, because it
correctly takes its object, which is the conventional nature of the mind, and it's decisive about
it, that it's "this" and "not that." Just because in this meditation we are not paying attention to
the content of a moment of awareness, we're only paying attention to within the cognition the
nature of the mind, that doesn't mean that it's an invalid cognition. And it apprehends its
object, because it takes its object accurately, which is the nature of the mind, and decisively,
"decisive" means that it determines as "this" and "not that."
It's not exactly analogous, but we can understand it by the following analogy. When I look in
this direction, I see a whole field of vision. And within this field of vision I'm paying

particular attention to this person, and I determine that this person is Anton and not Fritz or
somebody else. Now, that is a valid cognition, even though within that cognition I am
inattentive of the other people who are in my field of vision, I'm not paying attention to
absolutely everything in the field of vision.
So, just because you don't pay equal attention to absolutely everything in the field of vision
doesn't mean that that cognition is not valid. It gets a little bit complicated, it's not exactly
analogous, because in mahamudra we're dealing with mental cognition, not sense cognition
and that's a completely different situation, so a slightly different analysis, but we can
understand the analogy here.
Translator: Would you say a few words about nangla mangeypa, so it would make it clear
what it is?
Answer: Nangla mangeypa is a "nondetermining cognition," so you are not determining that it
is "this" and "not that." For example when - this is Gelugpa analysis - when you have a stream
of a certain phase of seeing somebody and you're determining it's "this" and "not that" - "It's a
person and not a lamp," something like that, even if it's just on that level, it doesn't mean that
you have to know the name - then the last moment of that stream of continuity, just before you
start to look at something else, you're no longer determining, you're no longer decisive about
the object. That's the example.
Translator: So the last moment of perception...
Answer: The last moment, the cognitive object is still appearing, nangla, but it's no longer
ngeypa, you're no longer decisive about it, that it's "this" and "not that," because you're just
about to leave it.
Translator: Does it necessarily have to be the last moment? Couldn't we just be distracted, but
still watching that person we're observing?
Answer: That's another example. We can be distracted and not decisive. I just gave the classic
example.
Translator: That's what we usually do, when we listen to the channel with music and then
seeing something without seeing it, something like that?
Answer: Another example can be that we're listening to music and the seeing of the wall is a
nondetermining cognition, but I gave the classic example that you find in the texts. The
problem with these examples is that we tend to think that what is missing here is attention, or
what is weak is attention, and that was my misunderstanding - the attention may be weak,
that's besides the point - that's not the defining characteristic; the defining characteristic is that
it's not decisive.
For example, bodhichitta - manifest even when we are distracted about something else. We're
not paying attention to the bodhichitta but it's still decisive. "I'm going to attain enlightenment
and not attain being the richest person on the planet."
Translator: The uncontrived bodhichitta?
Answer: Yes, the unlabored.

Translator: Manifest, but it has little attention?
Answer: It has little attention. The complication - I don't really want to get into this - is that
according to the Gelugpa lorig, with mental consciousness you can't have nangla mangeypa.
Nangla mangeypa only deals with sense consciousness. But we can think in terms of the
factors here, of is it decisive, is there attention or not? It's not that mental cognition cannot be
non-decisive, what it means is that this category of nondetermining cognition is a category
that pertains only to sense consciousness.
So, let us before we take a break just spend a few seconds trying to digest what we just said,
the difference between attention, mindfulness, and alertness; and when we are meditating on
mahamudra we might not be attentive of the content of our cognition, but we're attentive of
the nature of the mind. Mindfulness holds onto that, and alertness keeps a watch as to the
quality of the hold.
[contemplation]
Session Six: Guided Meditation

Unedited Transcript
Before our break we were talking about these mental factors and subsidiary awarenesses that
are very much involved in any meditation practice - alertness, mindfulness, attention,
concentration - and we saw that in mahamudra meditation all of these are involved. I think
that now we are ready to try this meditation. After we do just a very brief preparation, then we
will try to just have our attention go to the nature of the mind. In other words, in each moment
of our experience what we want to focus on is the actual arising and engaging with cognitive
objects.
We don't have our attention go to the actual object itself. Now, of course the object is part of
this activity, because the activity is a mental activity regarding an object. But we want to pay
more attention to the structure of what's going on, if we can describe it that way. Whether we
are just seeing the floor in front of us, whether we are hearing some sound, whatever that
sound might be, feeling the chair or cushion underneath us, or thinking a thought, it's the
same.
Particularly when some thought arises, the text suggests two methods. One is to recognize it
for what it is, and the other is cutting off the thought, like in a duel with swords. Now,
recognizing the thought doesn't mean that in our mind we say "thought!" But rather what it
means is to focus on the conventional nature of that thought, what's actually happening. And
then not follow the thought out, don't continue it.
As the quotation in the text goes, it's like a bird that is released from a ship on an ocean. In the
middle of the ocean there's nowhere that the bird can go, except come back to the ship.
Likewise, there's no place that the thought can go, it just dissolves back into the basic level of
the mind. Or if we follow the other method of just cutting off the thought, we still come down
to the same nature of the mind when the thought is cut off.
Session Six: Guided Meditation 48

OK, let's try this. As I've mentioned many, many times, it's not easy to actually identify what
we're focusing on, but it is not an exercise in just sitting there and spacing out and not being
attentive of anything.
We begin with the nine rounds of breathing. First three times in the right nostril and out the
left; then three in the left, out the right; and then three times in both and out of both. You
might want to quiet down for a moment before you begin, if you're not already quiet.
[pause]
Then we reaffirm the safe direction that we're going in in life in terms of Buddha, Dharma,
and Sangha.
[pause]
The direction is the true stoppings, the true pathway minds, as exist in full on the mind-stream
of a Buddha and in part on the mind-streams of the arya Sangha. "That's the direction that I
want to go in in my life."
[pause]
"Thinking of the suffering of others and having compassion - the wish for them to be free of it
- I am aiming for my own future enlightenment that has not yet happened, but can happen on
the basis of my Buddha-nature. And I'm definitely going to work to attain that in order to
benefit everybody the best. And I'm not going to stop until I gain that full attainment."
[pause]
Then, to build up the positive force and deep awareness and to purify, we do the seven-part
practice visualizing our root guru in the form of a Buddha, or whatever, the form of a
meditational deity, his own form or her form, whatever is comfortable. Actually we should
have started doing that already when we did the refuge, but in any case, we offer prostration.
[pause]
And we make beautiful offerings.
[pause]
We openly admit all the negative things that we've done and regret them and we're going to
try not to repeat them at all.
[pause]
And we rejoice in all the positive things that we ourselves have done and all the positive
things that the Buddhas and the great masters and others have done.
[pause]
And we request our teachers and the Buddhas, "Please teach."

[pause]
"And please don't leave. Continue teaching me and everybody until we achieve enlightenment.
We're serious."
[pause]
"Whatever positive force has come from this, and will come from the meditation that follows,
may it act as a cause to reach enlightenment for the benefit of everyone."
[pause]
Then we request our guru, "Please inspire me to be able to actually recognize and focus on the
nature of the mind and in this way overcome all the mental obscurations and realize all
potentials, to actually reach enlightenment to help everyone."
[pause]
Usually we do this by reciting the guru's name mantra, or Tsongkhapa's verse Migtsema
(dmigs-brtse-ma), or just the Buddha mantra. The mantra of Buddha Shakyamuni is OM
MUNI MUNI MAHA-MUNIYE SVAHA.
[pause]
Then our guru very happily and pleased with us comes to the top of our head - very small and
facing the same direction as we are.
[pause]
And dissolves into us, going down the central channel and dissolving into our heart. And our
body, speech, and mind become inseparable from his or hers. And we feel very joyous at this.
[pause]
And stopping any further chaotic, haphazard thoughts that we might have, or our eyes
wandering here and there, or any sort of extraneous mental activity, we just focus on the
nature of the mind, the nature of mental activity in each moment - an arising of a cognitive
object, engaging, and just that, nothing more.
[pause]
Being fully attentive, mindfulness holding on like mental glue to this object, alertness keeping
watch, and being decisive about what the conventional nature is.
[pause]
Any thought that arises, see that in the nature of the mind and don't follow it out.
[pause]

If your mind starts to get dull, you start to space out, you can usually notice that with your
eyes getting out of focus. So, notice that with alertness and reestablish your attention by
having your eyes be back into focus. It doesn't mean that we pay close attention to what we're
seeing, but we want the mind to be in focus and that helps.
[pause]
Then we always end our meditation with a dedication. Whatever positive force comes from
this, may it act as a cause to reach enlightenment for the benefit of all.
[pause]
Any questions or comments? Are you actually able to do this a little bit?
Answer: Let me just repeat the question: if we are very visually oriented and these various
metaphors - like the wave on the ocean, thoughts being like waves of the ocean - come up as
actual visualizations during the meditation process, how do we prevent these from becoming
an obstacle?
Basically we take that into the meditation and we see that the visualization itself has the same
nature of mind, of awareness. It's the arising of a mental object and cognitively engaging with
it.
Answer: If we don't have any thoughts present, what to watch?
Well, we have our friends outside on the building construction making noise. And each
moment we are hearing something, we're seeing something, feeling the clothing on your body,
the seat underneath you. The mind hasn't stopped. But whether we're thinking a thought, or
we're not thinking any thought, the nature of the mind is the same. That's very important to
recognize, the continuity, the unbroken continuity of mental activity.
Answer: The question is: outside of our meditation practice it is difficult to maintain
mindfulness and alertness and to keep our attention proper.
The main focus that we use for these mental factors is our behavior, behavior of body and
speech. In Shantideva's Engaging in Bodhisattva Behavior, he has two chapters on ethical
discipline. The first chapter is called, I translate it as "The Caring Attitude." This is: "I really
care about and I take seriously the effect of my behavior on myself in the future and the effect
of my behavior on others. And so I am concerned about cause and effect, I take it seriously.
Therefore I will restrain from negative behavior."
[See: Engaging in Bodhisattva Behavior, chapter 4 {9}.]
And then the second chapter deals with mindfulness and alertness. We need to hold on to our
discipline, which is basically restraint from acting negatively. So, we hold onto that with

mindfulness; and alertness watches when we are letting go. And if you've let go of it and are
about to act negatively, Shantideva repeats over and over again, "Act like a block of wood."
Don't do anything. Therefore we develop and train these mental factors of mindfulness and
alertness with ethical discipline, particularly with our gross behavior of body and speech, so
that then it is going to be possible to apply it to our mind, to our mental activity, particularly
in meditation.
[See: Engaging in Bodhisattva Behavior , chapter 5 {10}.]
So, if we have difficulty maintaining this mindfulness and alertness between meditation
sessions in our mental activity, at least try to maintain it in our behavior of body and speech.
And if we are able to apply this mindfulness and alertness to our minds, even if we're not able
to apply it in terms of staying focused with attention on the nature of the mind, at least use it
for maintaining ethical discipline of our mental activity, to restrain from negative mental
activity.
Atisha said it very nicely in his Garland of Bodhisattva Gems. He said, "When alone, watch
out for your mind; when with others, watch out for your speech."
[See: Text of A Bodhisattva's Garland of Gems {11}.]
Answer: What he's saying is that it's a little bit easier with mental thinking, obviously thinking
is mental, but with mental cognition, particularly thinking, that we have a line of thought and
we don't follow out the line of thought, but what about seeing or hearing?
Now, with the line of thought, of course, getting caught up in the line of thought means to
follow out the line of thought and let it continue. So, we need to cut that. Or, if we just look at
the nature of the thought, it ends anyway. Don't get carried away by this stream of thought.
But it's true, with seeing or hearing it's different. But with seeing or hearing what we focus on
is just the nature of that actual seeing and hearing, "It's just the arising of an object and
cognitively engaging with it." The continuity of seeing and hearing will go on as long as the
sound continues and the sight, whatever it is, is still in front of our eyes, but we don't think
about it. We don't pay attention so much to the actual object. You just stay with the nature of
the mind.
Now, I haven't actually seen this in the texts, but what this suggests to me is that we can make
a distinction here similar to the distinction that we make in terms of voidness meditation.
Usually when we speak about the division between total absorption, that's nyamzhag
(mnyam-bzhag), and the subsequent attainment, which is jeytob (rjes-thob), we're talking
about what is it that we are cognizing and focusing on with total absorption, so total
concentration, and then when we arise from that, what is the understanding that we
subsequently attain to that, which we can maintain both in meditation and after meditation.
Don't call it "post-meditation," that's totally misleading; it's what you subsequently attain,
jeysu-tobpa (rjes-su thob-pa). And it is also in meditation; it's not only after meditation, it's in
meditation.
Translator: Usually they say "post-meditation."

Answer: I know, but I don't agree with that translation at all of "post-meditation," because it
gives you the impression that you're not meditating anymore - it is the understanding.
It's like for instance when you're doing voidness meditation in Gelugpa. You focus on the
deepest truth and then subsequently you focus on the superficial truth. So, having understood
the deepest truth, subsequently what understanding do you attain concerning the conventional
truth - so you're still in meditation - and that is divided into two: what is in meditation and
what's in-between meditation. In both of these, we're not talking about a period of time, we're
talking about a mind; and concerning this mind, it has a certain cognition. And when it's
perfected, it's called a deep awareness, a yeshey (ye-shes).
Now, this division is not only in terms of voidness meditation. In voidness meditation we
focus on, during total absorption, "No such thing as true existence, or impossible existence."
And then our subsequent understanding that we attain based on that is: "Nevertheless,
conventionally things function, like an illusion." Similarly, if we are focusing on the
conventional nature of the mind - this is what's suggested by this - we could have total
absorption on just the nature of the mind - here instead of voidness, we're talking about an
arising of a cognitive appearance and engaging with it - and subsequently attained from that
understanding would be the understanding in terms of the content, that the content
nevertheless arises like an illusion as an appearance of the mind.
So, in total absorption we're focusing on the nature - here conventional rather than deepest
nature - and subsequently attained we focus on appearances. Things appear despite being void
of true existence, so like an illusion. And things appear despite just mental activity.
This is why the First Panchen Lama says very clearly that when you view other traditions, you
might think that just focusing on the conventional nature of the mind and then seeing all
appearances as appearances of the mind, that you've got it, that you've achieved enlightenment
when you have that all the time. Actually you've only been focusing on the conventional
nature of the mind, you haven't been focusing on the deepest void nature, even though it has
this structure of total absorption and subsequently attained deep awareness.
So, in terms of what we're seeing and so on - to get back to your question - we can focus on
just the conventional nature of the mind here in our particular exercise; or when we're walking
around, "It's just an appearance of the mind."
But Tsongkhapa points out very clearly that just to understand that all appearances are
appearances of the mind is not going to eliminate your emotional and cognitive obscurations.
You haven't gone deeply enough, because the mind makes an appearance of true existence as
well, and to just understand that an appearance of true existence is the appearance of the mind
doesn't stop the arising of an appearance of true existence.
Let us end here then with a short dedication. We think whatever understanding, whatever
positive force has come from this, may it go deeper and deeper and act as a cause for reaching
enlightenment for the benefit of all.
Session Seven: Voidness of "Me" and of the Mind

Unedited Transcript
Session Seven: Voidness of "Me" and of the Mind 53

We have now covered the meditation on the superficial or conventional nature of the mind or
mental activity. Now we're ready to look a little bit at the meditation on the deepest nature of
the mind.
When we talk about these two natures, we're talking about the two truths about mind. These
are two facts that are true about the mind. In the Hinayana tenet systems, when we talk about
the two truths, we are talking about two different types of true phenomena. Whereas when we
are speaking in the Mahayana context about the two truths, we're talking about two truths
concerning one phenomenon. They are both true, and they are inseparable, you can't have one
without the other.
Because, at least in English, the words "absolute" and "ultimate" imply that it's more true than
the other true fact; and also the word "absolute," at least in English, has the additional
misleading connotation that it doesn't depend on anything else - there are some schools within
Tibetan Buddhism, and I shouldn't say schools, I should say some authors, some masters who
do use those terms in such a way that what I call "deepest truth" becomes for them like a
transcendent realm almost, so in that sense it becomes almost absolute - but certainly in the
Gelug context that is not the case. But that's a long discussion in terms of why you have these
various differences in the different Tibetan schools and among the different Tibetan masters,
and we don't have so much time to go into that. But here we have two true facts about mind.
One is on the surface, what does it appear to be, and the other is when you look deeper, how
does it actually exist. Both are true. And when we look at the deepest nature of the mind, what
it is referring to, of course is its voidness.
Voidness is a negation. It's a negatingly known phenomenon. Remember, we were talking

about what exists and what doesn't exist. What exists can be validly known. What doesn't exist
cannot be validly known. What exists, what can be validly known, can be known either in an
affirming way, or in a negating way. So, what can be known in an affirming way, or an
affirmation phenomenon, would be "table." You don't have to know anything beforehand in
order to know "table." A negatingly known phenomenon would be "not a chair." In order to
know "not a chair," you have to know "chair" beforehand and it is excluded, it's negated.
And of course that becomes a very, very interesting topic in terms of learning theory. How
does a baby learn "food," how does a baby learn "not food?" These sort of things. It becomes
very interesting, actually. But in any case, voidness is a negatingly known phenomenon, it is
excluding something. There are two types of negatingly known phenomena: one that implies
something, or an implicative one, and one which is a nonimplicative one, that doesn't imply
something. What it means literally, if we look at the actual Tibetan definition, there is a
negating phenomenon that leaves something behind it, and there's one which doesn't leave
something behind it.
I'm trying to find a clear example. "Not a table cloth." "Not a table cloth" leaves behind it that
it's something else. It's not a table cloth, it's a glass. I'm looking for a table cloth all over the
house, and I look at this thing, I look at that thing, I look at that thing, that's not a table cloth,
that's not a table cloth, not a table cloth, not a table cloth, not a table cloth. It's something else,
it leaves something behind. But then finally we talk about "there is no table cloth." "There is
no table cloth." doesn't leave anything behind. So, one is called an implicative negation, the
other is called a nonimplicative negation. So, voidness is a nonimplicative negation, it's
saying, "there is no... blah, blah, blah."

Now, when we talk about "There is no blah, blah, blah," then we can talk about "There is no
table cloth," that's something that exists, or we can talk about "There is no invader from the
fifth dimension," which is something that doesn't exist. Voidness is a nonimplicative negation
of something that doesn't exist.
In addition, when we talk about the absence of something that doesn't exist, we can speak
about the absence of an object that doesn't exist, or a manner of existing that doesn't exist.
Voidness is talking about the absence of a manner of existence that does not exist. There is no
such thing as an impossible way of existing, to put it into simple language.
And so there is a total absence of this impossible way of existing, it never existed. It's not like
"There is no dog in the room," and the dog might be outside, it just left for a little while, we're
not talking about that. We're talking about something that never existed, "There's no such
thing!"
This study of these negation phenomena can be very far-reaching and actually is very helpful
to enable us to do voidness meditation correctly.
Now, there are many ways of discussing this topic; and when we talk about impossible ways
of existing, that is a very general way of translating our terms here. We're not talking so much
about a way of existing as such; we're talking more about a way of establishing the existence
of something. For the sake of our translator who knows Tibetan we're not talking about
denpar-yopa (bden-par yod-pa), we're talking about denpar-drubpa (bden-par grub-pa).
Drubpa means to establish something, to prove something. What establishes, what proves,
what makes something exist?
Is there something on the side of the object that establishes that it exists or not? How do we
know that something exists? This becomes a very interesting question. How do you know that
these chairs are in this room when we're out of the room? How do you know that? What
establishes that they're in the room? When you open the door and you look, you can see it, so
it's established from the side of the mind, it's not established from the side of the chair. Or you
have a camera, or some sort of mechanical device that is recording it. So how do you know?
You look at what the mechanical device says, so it still involves the mind.
This is our whole discussion here. Obviously we can get far more refined than just these
introductory remarks, but that is the topic of discussion of voidness, "what establishes that
something exists?" And what we are negating here is impossible ways of establishing that
something exists.
This room is filled with atoms and force fields, subatomic particles, energy fields, it doesn't
matter, electromagnetic energy, all this sort of stuff. What establishes that this group of atoms
is a body? Is there some sort of plastic coating around this group of atoms and this group of
electromagnetic energy that encapsulates and makes it into an object separate from the atoms
of the air around? Is there?
Question: It isn't any plastic bag, but it's a question of vibration of atoms.
Answer: OK, so it isn't a plastic coating, it's a question of vibration of atoms. Well, where is
the boundary? What sets the boundary between the vibration of the atoms or the energy that
constitute the body and that constitute the air? Where is the boundary?

Question: The amount of vibration is so small in a material body that it became material.
Answer: OK, so the amount of vibration is small in our body. So if it's one
micro-microvibration more or less, then it's not the body, then it is the body? It's an absolute
number? What makes an object red? What establishes that the color of that object over there is
red? Is there something on the side of the object, a little label that says "red?" In the light
spectrum are there boundaries that are solidly there? Walls that say this vibration more than
that number is red and less than that number is orange? Does that exist on the side of the light
spectrum?
There is no such thing. That doesn't establish that that's red.
Translator: There's no straight boundary.
Answer: There are no straight boundaries and of course every society is going to divide the
color spectrum differently. Even individuals will divide the color spectrum differently. The
shirt that she's wearing - I'm sure if we ask a whole group of people, some people will call it
green, and some people will call it blue. Which one is it?
Translator: Turquoise.
Answer: And some people will call it turquoise. So, what establishes these things? And here
we get into the whole realm of mental labeling. What establishes that something exists, even
just as a knowable object, let alone as what it is - red or orange - is mental labeling. Then we
have to understand what mental labeling means.
Mental labeling can also be called "imputation." Not amputate, impute. "Impute" means to put
something onto something else. Now, we have a mental label, we have a basis for labeling,
and then we have the referent object of the label (btags-chos). These aren't easy words to
translate.
Translator: Yes, I know... And what would be an example?
Answer: There's the word "red," that's a label, which after all is just an acoustic pattern that a
group of cave people decided, "Ah, we're going to make this acoustic pattern into a word and
we're going to give it a certain meaning." It's totally arbitrary. The words are totally made up
by a group of people and adopted as a convention. That's why we talk about "conventional"
truth.
The basis for labeling (gdags-gzhi) is vibrations of the light spectrum between a certain part
of the spectrum, between this part and that part. Actually this isn't scientifically accurate,
because somebody was telling me that colors are actually just really a mental thing, that there
isn't actually colors, so we're just talking about light. But let's just leave this on the child level
of understanding of colors.
So, now the referent object of the label would be red. In other words, what does the word
"red" refer to? It refers to red on the basis of these vibrations. So, it's the conventional object
red, or here we're talking about a quality.
Translator: It's a convention?

Answer: But we're talking about the conventional object. Let's use a grosser example. "Sasha"
is a name, a word; and there's a basis for labeling that, a body, mind, feelings, etc. So, who's
Sasha? Sasha is not the word "Sasha," it's not the name "Sasha," Sasha is not the body, or the
mind. So, what's Sasha? Sasha is what the word "Sasha" refers to on the basis of this body and
mind. And there is a conventionally existent person Sasha. Take a moment to digest that.
[contemplation]
Translator: What is the difference then between the dagzhi and the conventionally existent
Sasha, the referent object?
Answer: This is a very important point. What is the difference between the basis for labeling
and the referent object of the label? That is a very crucial thing, that the basis for labeling is
not identical with the referent object of the label. They're not exactly the same, they don't
make one identical thing, they're not one ping-pong ball, nor are they two totally separate
independent ping-pong balls not relating to each other.
Question: Can we say that by putting a label on the basis we get a referent object?
Answer: The question is: by imputing a label onto the basis that we get the referent object?
That's a very important question. When we talk about mental labeling here, we're not talking
about the active process of labeling. It's not an active process. It doesn't require somebody
actively mentally labeling something in order to create a referent object of a label. What
establishes that the earth existed before there were any living beings on the earth? Well, what
is the earth? It's what the word "earth" refers to on the basis of a planet. Does it matter
whether or not somebody was there to label it "earth?" No.
But here in that example maybe that's a little bit misleading, because "earth" is a name, and
obviously different societies could call it by a different name. So, more importantly, more
subtly - what establishes that it was a knowable phenomenon? It could be known, it doesn't
require somebody being there and knowing it. What the word "knowable object" refers to on
the basis of this "thing." A "knowable object," that's just a concept as well, that's a label.
Translator: The earth was functioning regardless of sentient beings being there or not being
there?
Answer: Right. The earth was functioning regardless of beings being there or not, regardless
of beings experiencing it or not. But if we ask, what is the earth? What establishes the earth?
What establishes it is the label "earth," what establishes it is the label "knowable thing," and
so on, on the basis of a basis for labeling. And it was a knowable object regardless of whether
or not anybody knew it. It's what the word "knowable object," it's what the word "existent
thing" refers to on the basis of a basis for labeling.
Now, one has to be very careful here and this starts to get very subtle. The basis for labeling
doesn't exist like some sort of blank cassette and we come along with the label and put the
label on it. The basis for labeling itself is what a label refers to and it itself dependently arises
in terms of mental labeling. I labeled "Sasha" on the basis of a body and mind. But what's the
body? The body is also labeled in terms of its parts. What are the parts? They're labels in
terms of the atoms; they're labeled in terms of... it just goes on and on.

Now, we have to differentiate the referent object of a label from the referent "thing" of the
label. That's how I'm translating tagcho versus tagdon (btags-don). In English I call it the
"referent object," which would be the conventionally existent thing; and the referent "thing."
A referent "thing" doesn't exist. A referent "thing" would be an actual thing on the side of the
object that by its own power makes it an existent thing, or makes it a table, or makes it Sasha.
So an actual findable Sasha on the side of Sasha, that would be the referent "thing," the tagdon
- there are two different words in Tibetan - as opposed to tagcho, which is the conventionally
existent referent of the word "Sasha."
What would be truly established existence? Truly established existence is existence

established by a referent "thing" findable on the side of the basis for labeling.
Translator: That's what true existence is?
Answer: That is what true existence is and that is what is impossible. When we talk about "no
such thing as truly established existence," we're talking about the absence of existence
established by a findable referent "thing" on the side of the basis for labeling. And what's
impossible is that this referent "thing" on the side of the basis by its own power makes "me"
me, or makes something some thing, or by its power in conjunction with the mental labeling
makes "me" me.
It's like really funny. We all think like this, in this incorrect way. We think that there is some
me, a real findable me, "I have to find myself. If I can find myself, if I can find who I really
am, then I'll be OK." So, it is as if there were a referent "thing," a me inside me that I could
find and which makes "me" me, it makes me a unique individual. And then, when I find it, I
have to express it, express the real me.
Translator: Share it with the world.
Answer: Share it with the world, be creative, prove that I exist. We even speak in terms of
that, "the real me," the truly existent me. This is what is impossible, and there isn't a real me
by its own power that is making "me" me, findable, sitting somewhere inside my head or my
body or something like that. And it's not something which is sort of like a hook that if you
labeled it "me," then it would light something, "Now I'm me."
Translator: So those objects have no referent object, like those invaders from the fifth
dimension, so they haven't in fact any existence then. How is it with these things that have no
referent object?
Answer: Well, this is a very interesting question. When we talk about invaders from the fifth
dimension, do they have any existence? Or if we talk about true existence, truly established
existence, does it have any existence? This gets very complicated and there are many different
explanations for this. It's the topic of "cognition of nonexistent phenomena." I have an article
on that on my website, and the new version of the website will have a revision of that article, a
more precise version. And Gelugpa and non-Gelugpa disagree, or analyze it differently.
[See: The Appearance and Cognition of Nonexistent Phenomena: Gelug Presentation {13}.]
How do we cognize a nonexistent phenomenon. Do we cognize the invader from the fifth
dimension or the appearance of true existence, or do we cognize something that represents it?
Now, anything that we cognize, we cognize through a mental representation. Remember, we

were talking about mental holograms. We're not talking about where there's no appearance;
let's talk about where there is an appearance. Now, the question is: what are the causes and
conditions for the arising of that mental hologram?
In the case of the arising of a mental hologram of Sasha, there's an externally existent object,
it's called the "focal condition" for the arising of that mental hologram, what one focuses on in
order to have the cognition. In the case of a mental hologram of an invader from the fifth
dimension, or of true existence, there's no external object acting as the focal condition for this.
This is arising for what's called a "cause for hallucination" in the context of seeing an invader
from the fifth dimension; or [in the case of appearances of true existence] caused by the
constant habits (bag-chags) of grasping for true existence.
Translator: It can be either a cause of a hallucination...
Answer: That would be like seeing a pink elephant or something like that. Or when we talk
about an appearance of true existence, that's coming from the bagchag, the constant habits of
grasping for true existence.
So, the Gelugpa Prasangika gets into a whole interesting discussion of "Do hallucinations
exist?" And they say that, "Yes, they do exist as mental holograms, and they could even be
known accurately," in the sense that "I accurately cognize this as a hallucination of an invader
from the fifth dimension, and not as a pink elephant." Nevertheless, it's of something that
doesn't exist at all. There are no actual invaders from the fifth dimension.
This starts to become very, very profound and very deep when one investigates this from the
point of view of true existence. Just because true existence appears doesn't establish that true
existence itself exists. An appearance of true existence exists, and we can accurately identify
"This is an appearance of true existence," even though true existence doesn't exist.
Tsongkhapa makes a big deal out of this. This is the background of his whole discussion on
identifying the object to be negated. The non-Gelugpas say, "Come on, this is ridiculous. It
doesn't exist at all, so how can you identify something that doesn't exist?" To this whole point,
this radical thing that Tsongkhapa made, that it's so important that the first step in voidness
meditation is to identify the object to be refuted (dgag-bya), they're saying, "Well, you're
talking about something that doesn't exist at all." Tsongkhapa says, "Yes, but you can
accurately identify the appearance of true existence."
It becomes even more interesting, because you can mentally label true existence. What is true
existence? It's what the term "true existence" refers to. But now we bring in another technical
term, the zhenyul (zhen-yul), the conceptually implied object doesn't exist. In other words,
actually conventionally existent true existence doesn't exist. What is true existence? It's what
the term "true existence" refers to. Does it conventionally exist? No. So here, the tagcho and
the zhenyul are not the same - the referent object of the label and the conceptually implied
object of the label are not the same.
For most of us on a beginning level, this detailed discussion is perhaps not too helpful or
necessary. But since the translator is also a translator of Tibetan, then these technical terms are
not so easy to work with and get a grasp on and they are really quite specific in their
definitions, what they're talking about, and one has to be quite clear about it. But I think that
we can at least appreciate that the philosophical analysis here is very, very precise and, if we
want to understand the voidness of the mind here in mahamudra meditation, that we really

need to have studied quite well the teachings on voidness in order to be able to apply them.
Now, what are we talking about here in the context of mahamudra? First of all, the First
Panchen Lama divides his discussion of voidness into two parts. We have grasping for an
impossible soul of a person and grasping for an impossible soul of all phenomena - "soul" I'm
using as a translation of atman, because "self" sounds a little bit silly here. There's an
impossible soul or impossible self of a person and of phenomena. So when we're doing this
meditation, there is the appearance of an impossible me doing the meditation, and there's an
appearance of an impossible mind, impossibly existent mind, that we're meditating on.
Translator: An appearance...
Answer: There's the appearance-making, from at least the habits of these, appearance-making
of an impossible me, in this case a truly existent me, and the appearance-making of truly
existent mind. So, the refutation here is first of the false me, and then of the falsely existent
mind.
OK, now there's a big discussion. We don't have to go into tremendous detail since we don't
have so much time, but a little bit of detail. So this discussion is refutation of truly existent
me, and then refutation who's doing the meditating, and then refutation of a truly existent
mind, which is the object upon which we are meditating here. And in Gelug Prasangika the
impossible way that both of these seem to exist in is the same, the object of refutation is the
same, the impossible way of existing.
We talk about mind, for example. Then what is mind? Well, it's what the word "mind" refers
to on the basis of a stream of continuity of moments of experience. And each of those
moments is made up of micromoments and each of those are made up of
micro-micromoments and there's no partless basis, no ultimately findable basis. So what's
mind is the referent object of this word or concept that some people made up in relation to this
basis of labeling.
Now, rather than thinking that it is what the word "mind" refers to when it is labeled on this
basis, which brings up your whole question of: do you have to have somebody actively
labeling it? Rather than that, it's perhaps more accurate and less misleading to speak of this in
terms of dependent arising, the way His Holiness the Dalai Lama explains this. So it is what
the word "mind" refers to, dependent on or in relation to a basis for labeling.
That's a little bit more accurate. Something arises as a basis for labeling dependent on a label
and a label arises dependent on a basis for labeling. They both mutually arise dependent on
each other. The label and the referent object and the basis all arise dependently on each other.
So, what's mind? It's the referent object of the word "mind" in relation to these moments of
experience. Is there a referent "thing," mind, somewhere on the side of each moment of
experience that we can find there? No.
Now, the next step with that thought: is existence established by some individual defining
characteristics (rang-gi mtshan-nyid-kyis grub-pa)? Remember, we had the defining
characteristic of mind: mere arising and engaging, mere clarity and awareness. So is there this
defining characteristic sitting there inside each moment that's making it mind? No.
Translator: So its existence is defined through its defining characteristic?

Answer: That would be if there were such a thing, but there is no such thing. Even the
defining characteristics are just a convention. Somebody made it up and there it is in the
dictionary. That becomes very, very significant in our meditation, because we have identified
the defining characteristic of mind in our first step, and then we have to realize that you can't
find that defining characteristic, that that itself is a convention.
Take a moment to swallow that.
[contemplation]
So, conventionally there are objects such as mind; conventionally there are defining
characteristics, like "mere arising of a cognitive object and engaging with it." But nothing can
be found on the side of the object, or on the side of the basis, neither the object itself, a
referent "thing," or the actual defining characteristics. And despite all of that, it still functions,
mind still functions. It brings us samsara and it brings us nirvana.
Let's take a break to think about that, and then we'll have time for some questions.
Session Eight: Conclusion

Unedited Transcript
We often read in various presentations about voidness that when you search for the
conventional "me" or all these sort of things you can't actually find it. When we search for the
mind we can't find it. It's important to understand that we're not speaking in some sort of
trivial way.
"Where is your mind? Is it up your nose? Is it under your armpit?" Obviously to just say, "It's
not up my nose," is not very profound. Or in the various discussions, particularly we find it in
Karma Kagyu texts, where it says, mind has no form, it has no color, it has no shape. Well, so
what? That is a very beginner level to recognize that mind is not a form of physical
phenomenon. That's not the profound understanding of voidness of the mind.
What we need to understand is this whole discussion of nonfindability, is that you can't find
any referent "thing" in the context of mental labeling; there's nothing on the side of the basis
that makes something what it is, or establishes that something is what it is.
One of the quotations the Panchen Lama uses here is that when you twirl around a stick or the
sword, he calls it, of the understanding of voidness, it doesn't meet any obstruction; which
means that there's no concrete referent "thing," findable thing, or concrete defining
characteristic that would block and obstruct this understanding of voidness as if there were
some thing out there.
He says, "Within a state of voidness the lance" - that's like a big stick that's used as a
weapon - "of awareness twirls around. A correct view (of reality) cannot be impeded" -
that's "blocked" - "by anything ultimately tangible or obstructive." Alright? This is a
quotation by Padampa Sanggyay (Pha-dam-pa Sangs-rgyas) in his discussion to the people of
Dingri (Ding-ri brgya-rsta-ma, A Hundred Verses to the People of Dingri). Dingri is a district
of Tibet.
Session Eight: Conclusion 61

It's only with this understanding - that there is no findable referent "thing"; what establishes
that things exist is dependent on mental labeling - it's when we understand that, then there's
nothing to grasp onto in terms of mind, in terms of "This delusion," "This is a disturbing
emotion," "This is some wonderful thing that I want to achieve," or anything like that. There's
nothing to hold on to. These things are not concrete objects, concrete states of mind, concrete
understandings, concrete delusions, and so on, existing like solid ping-pong balls, "Here they
are," independently existing by themselves. We need to understand their existence in terms of
dependent arising.
In terms of the conventional truth of them, these are nonstatic phenomena - they arise
dependently on causes and conditions and they arise dependently on parts. And speaking in
terms of the deepest truth, in other words what establishes their existence, that arises
dependently on mental labeling. So, we understand dependent arising in terms of each of the
two truths.
The disturbing emotions are arising dependently on causes and conditions and so on, and
likewise they will be gotten rid of dependent on causes and conditions. And the attainment of
various good qualities and so on will come about dependent on causes and conditions. Even
though these disturbing emotions aren't some findable, solid referent "thing," nevertheless
they can be gotten rid of, and not just gotten rid of by saying they don't exist, but gotten rid of
dependent on causes and conditions.
Same thing with the positive qualities, they can be attained dependent on causes and
conditions, because the conventional nature of the mind can give rise to anything as a
cognitive object and be cognitively engaged with it in terms of understanding, decisive, valid
cognition, and so on. The mind is totally capable then of giving rise to all good qualities, to
omniscience. And the disturbing emotions are not part of the nature of the mind. The structure
of a disturbing emotion of being aware of something is part of the nature of the mind, but that
content is not.
Translator: The last part was...?
Answer: The structure of it, as being a way of being aware of something, that's part of the
nature of the mind, but the actual content - it's ignorance or unawareness and so on - that's not
part of the nature of the mind.
When we understand the deepest, void nature of the mind, then we can work with the
conventional nature of the mind to get rid of the disturbing side and build up the liberating
side. And success in this practice is going to depend very much on the preparation. If we
haven't built up enough positive force, if we haven't done enough purification, and so on, there
will be just too many obscurations, too many mental blocks to be able to actually see the
nature of the mind.
And what will really add the vital energy, the living energy, the emotional energy to all of
this, and I say that in a positive sense, is that healthy, strong, deep relation with a spiritual
teacher and the inspiration that we receive from that teacher. And that's really true. Otherwise
our practice doesn't have a certain vital life to it. There's no real living emotional backing to it
without this actual personal close bond, close relation with a spiritual teacher - even if we
don't really have very much personal contact - this personal relation, this close bond, the
damtsig (dam-tshig).

When we look at sources of inspiration, there's inspiration from the Three Jewels, but for most
of us it's really very difficult to even have a concept of what the Three Jewels are talking
about. Maybe if we've studied a lot, we can list all the qualities of the Three Jewels, but still,
to have some sort of living experience of what in the world that's talking about, let alone to get
inspiration from that, is not so easy.
But inspiration comes not only from - they just use the regular words - "up," meaning the
Three Jewels and the guru, but also it comes from "down," which is referring to all suffering
sentient beings. You see their suffering, and you have compassion for them, "How terrible!"
And this inspires us to develop bodhichitta. It inspires us to have to understand the nature of
the mind. So, please don't underestimate the human factor involved in this whole Buddhist
path, that human contact with a teacher, human contact with suffering beings - this makes the
whole path vital and alive.
All the Tibetan traditions put a great deal of emphasis on this inspiration, the so-called
"blessings," and I think it's important to understand that not in some sort of mystical sense, but
in a very down-to-earth sense of what do we actually derive from somebody that we have total
respect for based on their good qualities and their kindness and so on and how uplifting that
can be.
And don't underestimate the inspiration that we derive from suffering beings, especially ones
that we have a connection with, in which we have so much respect for this being, for this
person in terms of their Buddha-nature, in terms of their potentials, and so on, so that we're
moved and inspired to do our absolute best to be able to help this person.
So, we think of the good qualities and the kindness of the teacher toward us - in terms of
Buddha-nature and what they've actually done for us and for others. And with the suffering
beings we also think of their good qualities in terms of their Buddha-nature and also their
kindness - everybody's been our mother. So, the structure is actually the same in terms of
whether we're looking "up" or we're looking "down."
And please don't misunderstand this terminology of looking upward and looking downward.
That's just figuratively. We're not talking about "I'm so much better than everybody else and
I'm looking down on these poor things, these poor beings, these wretches who are suffering."
This is just a figurative way of referring to these two objects, these sources of inspiration.
So, we have some time for questions.
Translator: She goes back to the prior talk when you spoke about the young Serkong
Rinpoche who asked you to give him the transmission of Drangngey legshay nyingpo, and
you said that you were not particularly interested or well-versed in that text. Yes?
Answer: I didn't say that I wasn't interested, I was deeply interested, but I had never had the
opportunity to study it.
Translator: So then, in the end, why on earth did he need to receive the transmission of the
text from a person who was not particularly learned in the text? Why didn't he read it by
himself, if that is just a formality? Why did he insist on you giving him that more or less
meaningless transmission?

Answer: The question is why did young Serkong Rinpoche want so much to have the oral
transmission of the text, even though the person who was giving him the oral transmission had
no understanding of the text - although I had deep interest of course in understanding the text.
And this has to do with lineage. Because of course the young Serkong Rinpoche had read the
text many times, and he is in fact memorizing it, so that he can recite it every day the way that
his predecessor did.
Now, the word that's used here in Tibetan is the same word that we were just discussing a
moment ago, chinlab (byin-rlabs, inspiration). He wanted the inspiration of the lineage. Now,
you can think "blessings" of the lineage, but as I say, "blessings" gives a sort of magical,
mystical quality to it, which I personally don't think that's so helpful to think that way. And so,
there's a certain sense of connection and continuity which is involved with lineage; and the
inspiration here comes from that feeling of connection and continuity, rather than from the
continuity of understanding specifically.
The old Serkong Rinpoche had received this lineage, this transmission from his father.
Obviously, they were very, very close. And I was extremely close to the old Serkong
Rinpoche. I spent nine years with him. I studied with him, traveled with him, translated for
him, wrote his foreign letters, got his visas, etc. And I have a very, very close connection with
the young Serkong Rinpoche. When I first met him, when he came to Dharamsala, he was
four years old and the attendant asked him, "Do you know who this is?" when I came into the
room and his reply was, "Don't be stupid, of course I know who this is."
And although I was very suspicious and I took my time to really investigate, from his side, he
was four years old, from that time on he was always unbelievably close with me and not like
he was with other people. So, this feeling of lineage, of continuity is almost like a feeling of
family, spiritual family, and it doesn't really depend so much on understanding. At least this is
what I have come to understand, because I also thought that you had to understand the text,
but from this experience I understand a little bit more what's involved here. I think it's like
that.
I always wondered about the term "heart disciple" and what that actually means. But the more
that I think about it, the more experience I have in life, I think that it's not just somebody that
you give the essence of your teachings to. But I think in addition to that it also entails a
heart-to-heart connection with somebody, with a disciple, based on a very long - many
lifetimes - and very pure damtsig (Skt. samaya, a close bond). A close spiritual bond, which is
not mixed with disturbing emotion of attachment and jealousy and so on, so that there's really
a very strong positive emotional force that's there.
When you look at the word "devotion," because I have a lot of problems with this word, what
is it that "people are very devotional?" I have an article on this about different approaches to
the Dharma - intellectual, emotional, and devotional. And I think this devotional side is what
I've been talking about here, is this strong positive emotion, connection - whether it's with the
practice, whether it's with the deity, whether it's with the teacher, or whatever - that's not at all
mixed with a disturbing emotion - a very, very strong feeling of connection and inspiration.
[See: Approaches to the Dharma - Intellectual, Emotional, and Devotional {15}.]
There is this sense of connection, and continuity, and family, and so on that is important here
with these type of transmissions. There is this aspect of - what we were just talking about -
devotion that is involved with this sense of connection, this sense of family, this sense of

inspiration or uplifting that comes from the oral transmission of a lineage.
And they say based on that oral transmission, and the uplifting, the inspiration from it, then
you'll be able to understand the text much better. Now, mind you, various lamas give oral
transmissions to crowds of thousands of people. Sometimes they give an oral transmission of
the whole Kangyur (bKa'-'gyur) and Tengyur (bsTan-'gyur), which goes on for months and
months. So, is that the same type of level of transmission, does it have the same effect on all
people? Probably not.
But nevertheless it is the custom and I think it has some sort of sense of uplifting. Now, it's
very interesting, because they say that all the disciple has to do is hear the words. The disciple
doesn't have to understand what is being said. When His Holiness gives an oral transmission,
or these what are usually called Kangyur Rinpoches who give oral transmissions of the
Kangyur, they read it out loud so quickly, you can't even distinguish one word from another.
But the only criterion then that qualifies one for having received that transmission is that you
don't fall asleep - you don't miss one minute of the transmission and you never fall asleep; you
actually hear the whole thing.
This helps us to understand why Tibetan lamas don't take Western students terribly seriously,
at least most Western students seriously. Because Western students don't come to every single
class and don't arrive absolutely on time for every single class. If there's a birthday, if there's
an interesting movie, if they have a headache, or whatever, they don't come. To the Tibetan
lama that means that they're not interested in the oral transmission of the whole text; they
haven't received it, so they're not serious about actually studying it.
So, this oral transmission is very important from the Tibetan traditional point of view; and it
doesn't seem to be dependent on understanding. Not an easy topic.
[See: Inspiration ("Blessings") and Its Relation to Mantras and Oral Transmission {16}.]
Translator: She asked about the lack of true existence of the table. Let's say we remove all the
labels of the table: we remove the label "red," we remove the label "table," we didn't agree on
those labels, they do not exist, there's no convention "table," there's no convention "red" in our
minds - or even the table is in the other room and we don't see it and we have no labels - but
somehow the table nevertheless exists in this way, it performs some function, something is
standing on it. So, how does this all interact, correspond?
Answer: Let's hope that that got on the... There's a saying that if we remove the labels, "table,"
"red," and so on, and even if we didn't see the table, nevertheless the table performs a
function, and so couldn't that establish its existence, a truly established existence?
According to some of the monastic textbooks, that is the criterion for establishing true
existence - in the Sautrantika system, for example - that it performs a function. According to
some of the textbooks, not all of the textbooks. But Prasangika would object to that, because
that implies that there is some findable referent "thing," the table, that is sitting there
performing a function.
The suggestion that you made, that we remove all the labels, that's not exactly how it works. It
doesn't matter whether anybody labels them or not. A label can refer to table or red, but it can

also be a label, or an imputation of "a validly knowable object," an existent object, the most
general, general possible thing, "something that exists," that can be validly known. What is
this object? It is what that refers to, a validly knowable object. There's no, as I say, plastic
coating encapsulating it and making it a separate thing by itself that then I can come into the
room and see and know, even though it appears like that.
And it doesn't matter what I call it and if I know a name for it or I don't - that's irrelevant. And
the fact that it performs a function - as I say, there can be a misunderstanding behind that - of
course it performs a function, but it's not a thing existing from its own side that's performing a
function. So, if you just specify "performing a function" as what establishes it, you also tend
to specify, without making it explicit, that there's some findable referent "thing" sitting there
performing the function.
We have time for one more question and then I need to go.
Answer: What is the etymology of the term "mahamudra?"
There are so many etymologies that are given. You can find it in the commentaries on my
website from various Tibetan authors. But literally the term maha means "great" and mudra
means seal. A seal is like something with wax that attests to the validity of something. So,
what attests to the validity of mind is the conventional and deepest nature of it, even though
it's not like something sealed in wax that you can actually point to and find.
Translator: The validity of the mind is...?
Answer: The validity of it as an object that can be known, that you can work with, that, on the
basis of, you can achieve enlightenment.
Translator: That is confirmed by...?
Answer: Confirmed by its conventional and deepest nature.
So, we end with a dedication. We think that whatever understanding has come from this,
whatever positive force has come from this, may it go deeper and deeper and act as a cause for
reaching enlightenment for the benefit of all.
Links
{1} http: / / www.berzinarchives.com / media / audio / en / hi /
en_gelug_kagyu_mahamudra_32bit / en_gelug_kagyu_mahamudra_1_32kb.mp3
{2} http: / / www.berzinarchives.com / web / en / archives / e-books / published_books /
gelug_kagyu_mahamudra / pt2 / mm_06.html
Links 66
{7} http: / / www.berzinarchives.com / web / en / archives / sutra /
level4_deepening_understanding_path / path / five_pathway_minds_five_paths /
5_pathway_minds.html
{9} http: / / www.berzinarchives.com / web / en / archives / e-books /
unpublished_manuscripts / bca_shantideva / translation / engaging_bodhisattva_04.html
{10} http: / / www.berzinarchives.com / web / en / archives / e-books /
unpublished_manuscripts / bca_shantideva / translation / engaging_bodhisattva_05.html
{11} http: / / www.berzinarchives.com / web / en / archives / sutra / level3_lojong_material /
specific_texts / bodhisattva_garland_gems_atisha / atisha_garland_gems.html
{13} http: / / www.berzinarchives.com / web / en / archives / sutra /
level5_analysis_mind_reality / cognition_theory / level_b_fine_analysis /
appearance_cognition_nonexistent_phenomena / appear_cogn_nonex_gelug.html
{15} http: / / www.berzinarchives.com / web / en / archives / approaching_buddhism /
introduction / approaches_dharma.html
{16} http: / / www.berzinarchives.com / web / en / archives / advanced / tantra /
level1_getting_started / inspiration_relation_mantras.html
Links 67

Overview of A Root Text On Gelug-Kagyu Mahamudra

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Overview of A Root Text On Gelug-Kagyu Mahamudra

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Overview of A Root Text on Gelug-Kagyu

Session One: The Preparatory Practices

Listen to the audio version of this page (0:58 hours) {1}

Overview of A Root Text on Gelug-Kagyu Mahamudra 1

Session One: The Preparatory Practices 2

Session One: The Preparatory Practices 3

Session One: The Preparatory Practices 4

Session One: The Preparatory Practices 5

Now what about my not-yet-happening enlightenment? Is it the same as my not-yet-happening

Session One: The Preparatory Practices 6

In addition, we need to purify ourselves of mental obstacles or obscurations. Now, of course

Session One: The Preparatory Practices 7

Session One: The Preparatory Practices 8

On the basis of Buddha-nature, we are an ordinary being; on the basis of Buddha-nature we

Session One: The Preparatory Practices 9

Translator: Unless you're really hungry.

Session One: The Preparatory Practices 10

these merely be words from your mouth."

Session One: The Preparatory Practices 11

Session One: The Preparatory Practices 12

Session Two: Starting the Actual Meditation Practice

Listen to the audio version of this page (1:08 hours) {3}

In order to bring about the attainment of a presently-happening enlightenment on our mental

Session Two: Starting the Actual Meditation Practice 13

Session Two: Starting the Actual Meditation Practice 14

Session Two: Starting the Actual Meditation Practice 15

Session Two: Starting the Actual Meditation Practice 16

We can speak about "primary consciousness" and "subsidiary consciousness," or "mental

What we want to be able to recognize is the nature of primary consciousness; therefore we

Session Two: Starting the Actual Meditation Practice 17

When we talk about either single-minded concentration - or "absorbed concentration" I like to

Session Two: Starting the Actual Meditation Practice 18

Session Two: Starting the Actual Meditation Practice 19

Session Two: Starting the Actual Meditation Practice 20

Session Two: Starting the Actual Meditation Practice 21

on the outside and red on the inside.

Session Two: Starting the Actual Meditation Practice 22

Session Two: Starting the Actual Meditation Practice 23

Session Two: Starting the Actual Meditation Practice 24

Session Two: Starting the Actual Meditation Practice 25

So, let's end here.

Session Three: Mere Clarity and Awareness

Listen to the audio version of this page (0:32 hours) {4}

Session Three: Mere Clarity and Awareness 26

Session Three: Mere Clarity and Awareness 27

Session Three: Mere Clarity and Awareness 28

Session Three: Mere Clarity and Awareness 29

It is being aware of something both in a transitive or causative sense of making something

OK, so let's think about that.

Do you have questions on that?

Session Three: Mere Clarity and Awareness 30

Any other question?

Session Three: Mere Clarity and Awareness 31

Session Three: Mere Clarity and Awareness 32

menu what to do."

Session Four: Questions and Answers

Listen to the audio version of this page (0:26 hours) {5}

Translator: And in conceptual?

Session Four: Questions and Answers 33

Translator: Now you were speaking about nonconceptual?

Translator: Conceptual or nonconceptual?

Translator: And this is Gelugpa or non-Gelugpa?