Archive Result

1

Mahamudra

A teaching given by Kyabje Gehlek Rimpoche

October 21, 2004 Jewel Heart New York

Good evening and welcome everybody. Today is the last day of what we’ve been talking about, and also the very last verse of the mahamudra, the relative mind aspects of it. I virtually have one verse left here. I’d like to review a little bit. What we really talked about, when we talked about the actual meditation on mind, what is really true meditation on mind? What do we accept out of it? Is the acceptance correct or not? The meditation itself is concluding; the actual meditation itself says,

It is a clear focusing without any obstacle, absolutely lucid.

It is not in any physical form , it is void, just like space.

Yet it is capable of perceiving everything, and [is] empty, solid.

That’s what we already talked about. What does that mean? When you are looking at the actual meditative state, it is lucid mind, completely clear, pure, and there is no[t] anything physical. It is actually void just like space. Yet you can perceive anything; whatever you focus [on] or whatever appears to you. It is almost like three qualities. It is completely open, lucid, [with] no physical form, yet it can perceive everything. So, when you talk about mind, [it] must be something like that. If the mind [had] some physical form, then we can talk about whether the mind is a bearded one or a bald-headed one. Nobody says mind is bearded, nobody says mind is bald-headed. No tall, no short, no fat, no thin, no chopstick; [there is not] anything like that. [There is] no black, no white, no yellow, no red. So it is void, space-like. It is empty in nature.

Some of the earlier teachers say this is the nature of the mind. Whether it is the nature of the mind or it is mind itself; this is a different story [altogether]. It depends on how you use the word nature. It sounds like [what] President Clinton said; “It depends what ‘is’ is.” (Rimpoche laughs). It is the way you use the word ‘nature.’ If you are talking about the nature of the reality, then you are talking about the true nature; but if you are talking about the nature of mind, it’s not the true nature, not the true emptiness aspects of mind. What mind really is, in the sense of what we are talking about here is something very solid and vivid, yet you cannot say [point it out] and you cannot show anything. Perhaps that’s what we [talked about] earlier. Then I also mentioned to you earlier there is actually a mixture, an overlapping of two voids. When you are looking at the mind itself, when you are perceiving the mind [that's one void] and then all the different thoughts will pop up and then you trace the thoughts [and perceive a void]. Either way.

We have given six different ways of looking at the thoughts earlier. [When] you follow the thought it actually disappears, and you see the empty nature of it. That’s not emptiness, as far as I’m concerned, but the empty nature of [the thought]. In other words, you are tracing the thought. Suddenly it disappears and there is nothing left to trace. That is the void we are talking about. It is not the emptiness of the thought. It is just a void. And then you look at ‘who is tracing?’ Which is the mind? There is another mind that pops up, the mind which is tracing the thoughts, watching the thoughts, facing the thoughts, challenging and tracing. That thought also will disappear. So you have two voids here. The void looking at the original thought, and the void created by looking at the thought that recognizes thoughts. Are you with me?

So you’ve got the double void now. When the two voids are overlapping, they become one in the mind of the individual. This is called a mixing of the "steady and the continuing" – did I say it correctly? Steady and moving. One void came out of the steady thought, and the other void came out of the moving thought. When they overlap, becoming almost like one, that is like water in the water, milk in the milk. You hear that a lot from all kinds of sources. That’s what they are talking about. Once you have overlapped these two voids together, you see something solid; a void, a solid-nature void. Does that make sense? Or is it making [it] more confused? On the one hand we’re saying void, on the other hand we’re saying solid. Solid and void just don’t go together. Right? It sort of contradicts. However, when I say solid here, I don’t mean physical[ly] solid. The thought you are tracing, whatever it is; every solidness doesn’t have to be physically solid. If it has to be physically solid, then all kinds of ‘solid’ are not really solid. Even when you [talk about] a solid person, the person doesn’t have to be a big, fat, heavy one. A big, fat, heavy one may not necessarily be solid. When you talk about a solid person, he/she could be a person who can stand on principle, who doesn’t waver. Bush accuses Kerry and Kerry accuses Bush [of not being this kind of person]. That’s what they’re doing anyway, so they’re fighting for the solidness. Who is more solid? That’s what they’re fighting [about], right?

So, solidness doesn’t necessarily mean physically strong like a rock – like a rock, yes, but not [with] the physical appearance. That [is] the solidness of void I am talking about. When these two solid voids are becoming one, overlapping, and the person is accepting them as one, when you’re seeing it, this time it is called the merging of steady and moving, [of] these two together. [It is] the merging of the moving and the steady thoughts together, void like space yet solid and able to perceive anything. Perceive means see, understand and take it in, but not necessarily accept it. I’m sorry, [I mean] able to let everything appear, yet it is not really perceived. Does that make sense? No. Is perceive and appearance the same thing? No. What is the difference?

Audience: Something appears, and you perceive it.

Rimpoche: So perceiving is just seeing it.

Audience: And understanding it.

Rimpoche: And understanding, okay. But in addition to that, you accept it [and] say ‘it is.’

Audience: That is called apprehension or acknowledgement.

Rimpoche: [You've] got more terminology here. Thank you. So the mind is capable of seeing every appearance. Whatever appears, it is capable of seeing, yet it does not – did you say apprehend? Or in other words: acknowledge. Actually, you do acknowledge, because you see it. But you don’t [necessarily] buy it, so [in that sense] you don’t apprehend it. When that happens, it is fantastic.

Many people will tell you that this state is actually a wonderful state; a state that delivers total enlightenment in your own hand. In other words, those people will accept the nature of mind - now in real terms of the nature of mind itself; i.e. not the true nature, but the mind itself - as emptiness, as wisdom.

So you have these two voids; in other words, the watcher and who watches become merged together and there is no separation [between] going and goer, no separation [between] what you watch and who’s watching. [These] are merging all together. Yet, it’s not lost. Everything can appear but does not become [anything]. Many people say this is the ultimate emptiness. To prove that they quote Naropa. Naropa was instructed by his guru, Tilopa.,

Appearance will not tie you, but the acceptance of appearance will tie you. Therefore, let the acceptance of appearance go.

That’s what Tilopa said to Naropa. This is true. Also, the word itself is true, what it tells you is true. So these people now interpret this as that you can see everything, [everything appears], but you don’t accept [it] in the nature of reality. Or you accept everything and it becomes one. There is no separation [between] one who watches and what [one watches], one who goes, the goer and going, and perceiving and the perceiver.

A lot of people spend a lot of time meditating on that, and then [watch and wait]. So this is a problem, according to the First Panchen Lama. The meditations which do not accept anything, do not think anything, do not focus on anything are simply experiencing mind; lucid, and solid. You see that it is clear, yet you cannot say ‘this is,’ and ‘this is not'. It cannot be clarified, and you cannot even speak about it., you can only feel it, you cannot see it, you experience yet you cannot speak; because they say this is [inexplicable through] words. Only experience can tell you. [This is considered] a great, profound state. [It is a case in which] clearly seeing the face of the mind is considered the ultimate wisdom. Therefore they say, you can see it, feel it, [but] cannot [point it out]. They say that these are the explanations given by Buddha on the wisdom -- emptiness.

Actually, in the Heart Sutra, before the Heart Sutra begins, it does say,

Even if you want to say it, you cannot say it. You cannot describe [it] by words.

That is the prajna paramita or the wisdom. It is the only Mother. (It is continue. You know, discontinue and continue.??) It is [in the] nature of space; it's nature is like space. Yet it is completely discriminating wisdom, which is lucid. It is the Mother of all Buddhas of the three times. What happens is that the quality [that] Buddha talked of, the wisdom itself, has been brought down here [by the people who hold that view of the conventional nature of mind being wisdom of emptiness], and they try to present it [the wisdom] as the qualities of seeing the mind.

Now [this is] my last verse here. The First Panchen Lama himself said,

For this, I will say for laypeople like us, who are beginning, it is a wonderful basis for us to meditate, to develop mental quiescence. This is the wonderful method and this is the introduction to relative mind, the mind itself. I proclaim this as the relative mind.

He praised this state tremendously. That state is the introduction to mind. It is a wonderful method to develop mental quiescence. This is also a beautiful way of keeping mind within you, keeping [it] inside, not focusing outside, but focusing inside. It is really wonderful quiet focusing. Then in the reality of mind, there are two; the relative gross mind and absolute refined true nature of mind. This is the relative, gross, what we normally call mind.

That is what I, the author, Chosky Gyaltsan proclaim.

That’s it. This is what I wanted to cover, and I did. In other words, the next question comes, ‘If that is not emptiness, if it is just the mind, then what is the true wisdom – what is the emptiness on mind?’ This question is the subject of the whole next half of this mahamudra text here, and over the whole next year I plan to talk on the wisdom here in New York, on the basis of Tsong Kha;a’s lam rim chen mo, from the beginning of next year on. The first course will start in January.

Unfortunately, this is going to be the last session this year for us here. That’s sort of what we wanted to complete; we had finished the course on meditation, and then there was a little extra few weeks, so we thought, ‘What will we do? Review or go to the mahamudra? Some of you chose to do the mahamudra, which we sort of picked up here and we did address the relative aspects of the mind. It’s sort of in line with the meditation course we did. So it is completed here.

I just really wanted to thank all of you here, and I hope you have listened to last Tuesday, the Tuesday I concluded the Tuesday course in Ann Arbor. If you have not listened, you have the transcript available. In that I did bring the development of love – compassion through the exchange system on the basis of five important resolutions. Resolution one [is] seeing the equality of self and others. Resolution two [is] seeing that self-cherishing is the source of all trouble and problems and cherishing others is the doorway of joy, happiness and all great qualities. Resolution four [is] one can exchange the idea of self-cherishing [for] the cherishing [of’] others. The fifth point [is] the practice of give-and-take, on the basis of tong len, doing the exchanging of self-cherishing [for] cherishing others.

On the basis of tong len, [there are] three times where you give and three times where you take. The three times of giving will be the body, wealth and virtue. Three times of taking is suffering, which is the result, and its cause, the gross delusions. One I forgot is the imprints. The imprints of the gross delusions block you from [reaching] total enlightenment. The gross negative emotions and [their] consequences block the individual [from] happiness and joy. Furthermore, liberation and nirvana [are blocked] by those gross negative emotions. Actions [following those emotions] become negative karma, [which again block the individual from liberation]. Even if you are free of that, if you still have the imprints of gross negative emotions such as hatred or obsession, these imprints alone block the individual from [becoming] totally enlightened.

What you take is those three things [suffering, its causes and the imprints of the causes]. What you give is body, wealth and virtue. That is basically the give and take, the tong len. It is not just simply sitting there and breathing out, giving all my good things with white light to you, and I take all your bad things with black light to me, and this and that. It’s a good thought, but this is just childish give and take. The real give and take is [these] three things that you give and three things that you take. The question really arises, when you take that in, what do you do? Am I going to get all these overwhelming [sufferings, causes and imprints]? No, you don’t. What you do is you give that to the ego, who is at your heart level. The ego is sitting there just like a dictator – a brutal dictator – and dictating. So you throw [the three] there, at that level, and you destroy it completely. [It’s as though] the collection of dust has been washed away by a bucketful of water. That is one traditional example. The second traditional example is thundering and lightning on a collection of rocks, which [scatter] into pieces and disappear.

That’s it. So in general, what do we do? We are learning the bodhisattvacaryavatara on the one hand, and the meditation points on the other hand. So we have both: the material to meditate [on] and how to meditate. So utilize that as best you can every day. You know, everyday things count. Yes I know, some of you have a lot of commitments of saying this sadhana, that sadhana; they are great, you have a commitment, you are doing it. Great. But the bottom line of Dharma practice is really one thing. The great Sakya Pandita, or (Uma Gyentse?), one of the earlier Sakya lamas said

You have to see the total obsession, where it lies, it really tries to make myself wonderful. That wonderfulness, if you begin to judge what the wonderfulness is all about, what the quality of people is all about, the moment you think that you begin to measure the wonderfulness in terms of the green dollar, in terms of wealth [and] comfort, then that is a clear sign there is something wrong from the spiritual point of view. [It is] because there is still strong obsession [with] material comfort and benefits within our goal[s].

We cannot manage without any material things. I don’t mean that you should give [that up] completely, run into the forest or the caves and live there. That time has been completely over even two hundred years ago. It is done. It is no longer there. Now, your priority, the future life or total enlightenment, is not superior [as you] may think. It is considered to be equally important for the individual [as the material life]. Truly we know, material things do not really answer what we are seeking. That we know absolutely. You people are specially educated and intelligent, and many of you are brilliant, so you know that clearly. But the problem is you are still lost in between these two. Yes, I know it doesn’t answer [all your needs]. But the priorities will make you work for [material benefits]. Yes, you do, you have to pay your bills. You have to have an easy, comfortable [standard of] living. Yes, you do.

Again, we are no longer living in the caves or the forests because that was [during Buddha’s time]. That was 2,600 years ago, and even afterwards. Very good. But now, from one hundred [to] two hundred years ago, that’s no longer in our vocabulary. We will rejoice [with] those who do, but that is not in our vocabulary. Those who claim to be celibate; they all look back. They go to the monastery, but they always look back. They are always revisiting us. You know, Tibetans have an interesting song. [It is a] public song. You know, Tibet is so funny. The song goes something like this:

This wonderful western paradise may not be that great. Why [are] those great Rimpoches and masters who are going up there revisiting us and looking back to us? What they call these eighteen different hell realms may not be that bad. The powerful leaders are rushing, one over the other, cutting into the lines and rushing there.

That’s what they sing. That’s the thing, because people who are [or who] claim to be celibate; even they revisit. If they can [remain celibate] we rejoice. But that’s not meant for us. The time is different. People are different. A great Tibetan master says,

One who remains in the beautiful home, the homemaker, the father and mother of kids, can have a wonderful liberation. If you don’t believe me, look at the great Marpa Lotsawa, the founder of the Kagyu tradition and many others.

So, it’s really relevant for us to remain in the home, be a wonderful parent or whatever [and] have a perfect spiritual practice. To [have] a perfect spiritual practice is your priority, your goal. You should not have a totally material goal. [Your] spiritual goal must have equal importance within your family, within your home, within yourself; by you, by your family, for you, for your family. That is number one.

Number two, through you, it should be for all beings, not only for the family, but for everybody else. And, it is simply the good motivation, good dedication, and [being] kind [and] compassionate. Think about love and compassion all the time. Don’t forget to give compassion, even to the terrorists. It’s hard to say it in New York and over here, even though it’s been two years or so; two or three years, right? Even [now] it’s hard to say it, but think [of] each and every one of those hijackers. They thought they were doing the best in their religious service, in their path’s service. So it shows how terribly brainwashed they are. So they are really a subject of compassion. If one cannot generate compassion for such a pathetic state, why else do we [generate] compassion?

Yes, yes, at the time we had to say, ‘Yeah, get them, get them and kill them and do whatever.’ But the reality is, you can get them. You can kill them. You can do all of them – but with compassion, not with hatred. Compassion is the key to make a difference for ourselves and for others. Peace, harmony and all love is going to come out of compassion, not out of hatred. Hatred brings hatred. It builds up.

I am really sorry to say this; I am an American citizen now, so I can say it: You know, the American embassy in Delhi, where I used to live, used to be a source of joy. It [was] wonderful, it was symbolizing freedom and wonderful [qualities]. People always loved to go there, whether [they had] business or not. [People would] just go there and hang around in that lobby. Sometimes they would bring some coffee and donuts and things like that. You would enjoy that; it symbolized freedom and love and all this. Now, everything is concrete blocks, right in the front. You can’t even go [in]. You have to go around to the back door, and everywhere you look the embassy [is] hiding behind newly built huge concrete walls.

So this tells us something. So that’s where we are. But all of that can be changed. As Americans we can go safe[ly] without any trouble, without any worrying, even if you are traveling in a plane. So we can do this, if we bring compassion. I didn’t say caring. I said compassion. (Rimpoche laughs.) [It’s] really true, if you bring compassion. Compassion is such that [when] each and every individual contributes it makes [a ] difference. A country or something, in general, is not going to develop compassion. But [if] each and every individual citizen contributes towards that, no matter how weak it may be, finally, the only thing that will bring peace and harmony is compassion. Nothing else can do it.

I’m sorry, it’s my personal feeling; it’s not a political statement. I think it is a spiritual statement. That’s what we should think, and we should function [in] our lives on the basis of love and compassion so that people can trust people. The politicians – they can’t trust each other. When they meet each other and they are shaking hands, probably they are thinking, ‘What do you have in your hand? What are you going to give me?’ That is not the normal people’s way. People build relationships with trust. When you don’t have hatred, when you don't think "I get you before you get me", then, you know, things are different.

Yes, you are right. Terrorists are absolutely crazy. They will get us before we get them, if they can. However, [they are in] a very pathetic situation, and are the subject of compassion. Really, truly. That doesn’t mean if some people have compassion, we must surrender. That’s not right. We have to protect and help ourselves with compassion, with love. The best protection is love.

Anyway, I told you a story. I thought I would talk to you [about] spiritual practice, but that’s it. With this I would like to thank you so much.

11/4/2004