mahamudra - traleg rinpoche

8/13/2019 Mahamudra - Traleg Rinpoche

1/69

Traleg Rinpoche: Mahamudra Talk 1

In Tibetan Buddhism, particularly in the Kagy tradition, the tradition to

which I belong, the concept of mahamudra is very important. The word

mahamudra literally means great seal or great symbol. In Sanskrit,maha means great and mudra means seal or symbol. Mahamudra basically

refers to ultimate reality, to shunyata or emptiness, but the word

mahamudra also refers to the very nature of mind. Ultimate reality, which is

mahamudra, is all-pervasive and non-differential and does not fall on either

side of subject or object because of its all-pervasive nature, and that concept

is not different from the nature of mind itself.

From this point of view, the nature of mind is different from the mind that

we normally refer to in ordinary discourse. Normally, when we talk about the

mind, what we mind is the mind that thinks, which wills, which experiences

emotions and so forth, but when we talk about the nature of mind we are

talking about something which goes beyond all that. Because the nature of

mind is indistinguishable from ultimate reality, which is emptiness, it no

longer relates to the thinking process, or the process of willing, or the process

of the experience of emotions. It goes beyond all that. Therefore, the nature

of the mind and ultimate reality are known as mahamudra. There is that

sense of nonduality. But I think that in order to understand mahamudra, weneed to place it in the context of the Buddhist tradition generally.

From the point of Buddhism, the ultimate aim is to achieve nirvana or

enlightenment. Nirvana is achieved as a result of having purified ones mind,

having overcome certain defilements and obscurations of the mind which afflict

the individuals consciousness. As long as defilements such as anger, jealousy

and all kinds of egocentric tendencies exist, as long as there are defiling

tendencies of the mind, then sentient beings, human beings, continue to

experience a sense of dissatisfaction, frustration, suffering and so forth.

These defilements exist in the first place because human beings generally have

a very misguided way of understanding themselves, of understanding the

nature of what they consider to be their own self. Human beings generally

tend to think that the self is something immutable, lasting and unchangeable.

This is not available in direct experience, but is a mental construct. Based on

this, one then sees everything from the point of view of a very stable,

unchanging, permanent self. Of course, this can manifest in relation to various

philosophical and religious ideas regarding the nature of the self, the notion of


2/69

the soul, but it does not have to have anything to do with philosophy or

religion.

Even if one does not believe in immortality of the soul, nonetheless, almost

everybody has the notion that it is me who feels happy, who feels sad,who experiences joy and unhappiness and there is something called the self

which endures the varities of experiences that I have. I may feel good, or

I may not feel good, I may grow old. There is the feeling that there is

something called me, essential me, which endures all these experiences.

The experiencer who has the experiences is somehow more lasting, more

permanent than the experiences themselves.

When Buddhism talks about egolessness or selflessness it does not mean that

ego as such does not exist at all, as an empirical thing. Of course it does. Butthe almost instinctive feeling that we have that says there is something called

ego which has this permanent endurance that is unreal, that is a simple

mental construct, because ego, like everything else, is impermanent.

As long as one does not have that understanding, then one would continue to

grasp onto things, hold onto things, cling onto things, because this tendency

which human beings have, in terms of clinging onto the self, would

automatically lead to clinging onto other things, things which are outside the

self. As long as human beings have the tendency to believe in a permanent

self, then automatically, one would want to obliterate anything that is

considered to be threatening to that notion of a self or one would want to

pursue those things which one believes would promote the solidification of

that notion of a self: aversion and excessive desire. Even aversions such as

hatred, resentment, hostility and so forth are a form of clinging.

From the Buddhist point of view, once one starts to realize that this so-

called self or ego is non-enduring, non-permanent, non-eternal, then gradually

one starts to cling less and as a result of that ones experience of

frustration, dissatisfaction and so forth would decrease.

This is not to say that clinging, grasping, craving and so forth are the same

as desire. Over the years in the course of talking to Westerners, I have found

that many of them have the notion that Buddhists really aim towards the

extinguishment of all desires. That is no true. What Buddhists really talk

about is the idea of overcoming clinging, grasping, craving.


3/69

As I mentioned before, clinging can manifest even in the form of clinging onto

the idea of begin resentful of someone, clinging to the notion of not being

able to forgive, not being able to accept certain things, holding onto ones

feeling of hostility and resentment of other people. Desire, on the other

hand, can be either positive or negative. Clinging, grasping, craving can never

be positive. Clinging onto anything, at least from a Buddhist point of view, is

always unhealthy. But we have to have desire to be even able to operate as

human beings. Without desire we will never get anywhere. Even from a

spiritual point of view, unless we have the desire to sit on our cushion and

meditate, we will never get anywhere. Unless we have the desire to want to

attain enlightenment or become a Buddha we will never get anywhere. Unless

one has desires, nothing can be achieved.

From a Buddhist point of view there is basically nothing wrong with having

the desire to want to have a good family, to want to look after ones

children, to want to have a good relationship, to want to have a good

partner in life, to want to get a good job or even to want to keep ones job.

The problem arises when those desires become exaggerated. When desires

become transformed into forms of clinging, forms of grasping and, at the

same time, if desires manifest in the form of craving, then it becomes a

problem.

So I think it is important to realize that Buddhism does not promote the

idea of abandoning desires altogether. What Buddhism encourages is the idea

that all forms of craving, grasping and clinging, which are exaggerated forms of

desire, have to be abandoned not because there is something morally wrong

with them, but because, ultimately, they are the cause of unhappiness.

One may think that clinging onto things somehow or other would promote

ones happiness, but that is misguided. Such misguided ideas come from having

this mistaken notion about the self, from thinking that the self is apermanent, enduring entity rather than realizing that the self, just like the

experiences which the self endures, is impermanent, mutable and therefore

ephemeral.

So, from the Buddhist point of view, if one is to overcome the experience of

suffering or dukkha, then one has to have proper insight into the nature of

the mind or into the nature of the self, because as long as one clings onto

this mistaken notion about the self, then one would experience varieties of

suffering.


4/69

We have to understand that suffering, from a Buddhist point of view, is

quite different from what we normally mean by suffering. When Buddhists

say, everything is suffering, that does not mean that Buddhists have the

understanding that everything is terrible and bleak, there is no future for

anybody and we cannot have any sense of enjoyment of happiness. Suffering is

understood in a broader context, in the sense that, as long as we cling onto

the idea of an enduring self, even the happiness which we experience, the

pleasure which we experience, is always going to be something impermanent,

something which only lasts for a short time, precisely because of clinging and

grasping. The happiness and pleasures that we experience are not denied.

Buddhists do not say we do not experience happiness or pleasure. But, because

of our grasping or clinging, even when we have experiences of happiness and

pleasure, they are only temporary.

As human beings, our mind is dominated by the concept of an enduring self so

when one has the experience of happiness and pleasure, the way in which such

experiences are pursued is in relation to something that is external to the

self. How does one pursuer happiness in relation to things that are external

to the self? Wanting to get a job that pays well and thinking that will bring

permanent happiness; thinking that if one marries the right person, then

permanent happiness will be found; thinking that if one has children who are

good an pleasant to have around, then permanent happiness will be discovered.

From the Buddhist point of view, the reason why everything is seen as

suffering is precisely because of having that misplaced conviction, having that

misplaced understanding in relation to what would really bring happiness, what

would really bring pleasure in ones life. As long as one thinks that long-lasting

happiness or long-lasting pleasure can be obtained only in relation to things

other than the self, then no happiness or pleasure really is going to be

lasting, because ones whole idea or experience of happiness is contingent on

other things. Whether things which would promote ones happiness persist or

not is dependent on all kinds of external causes and conditions which are

mutable, changeable, impermanent and which, for that reason, bring about a

sense of frustration and dissatisfaction. Therefore, everything is suffering.

If one wants to attain lasting happiness, then that can be achieved only

through self-transformation, through changing ones attitudes, through

changing ones understanding of the self. Without that, no matter how much

one wants happiness, no matter how much one pursues happiness, happiness is

going to be elusive. One think that happiness can be achieved or discovered in


5/69

relation to things that one possesses or things that one does, but not in

relation to the way one exists, in the way one lives ones life, not in relation

to ones own being.

From a Buddhist point of view the reason one needs to gain proper insightinto the nature of the self is precisely happiness, real lasting happiness, simply

comes from just that: having insight into the nature of the self, into the

nature of the mind, and realizing that thinking there is this self, this

unchangeable, permanent, enduring entity, is a misconception.

Furthermore, with this misconception all kinds of delusions and obscurations of

the mind arise, which in turn inhibit the individual from experiencing and

perceiving reality. So right from the beginning Buddhism has emphasized the

importance of purification of the mind, of how important it is to eradicatethe defilements and obscurations of the mind, of how important it is to have

proper self-knowledge, because that is the only way that real, lasting

happiness can be attained. That same emphasis exists in the later teachings,

in the Mahayana teachings, and also in the teachings of mahamudra which Im

going to be discussing.

I think it is important to talk about these things because the teachings of

mahamudra make sense only in relation to understanding these fundamental

Buddhist insights. Right from the beginning, Buddhism sees spiritual salvation

only in understanding the nature of ones own self, in realizing what kind of

individual one is, and in seeing how certain emotional conflicts arise due to

certain misconceptions. Those are the two veils: the veil of conceptual

confusion and the veil of emotional conflict. This means that our thinking and

our experience of emotions are intimately related. We cannot separate the

two. Due to certain misconceptions regarding what we understand ourselves to

befor example, the notion that there is something called an enduring,

permanent selfall kinds of emotional conflicts follow. By changing theconceptual structures of the mind even emotions become transformed.

In the West we have the notion that emotions and thoughts are very

different, that emotions and reason are completely opposed to eachother.

From a Buddhist point of view this is not true. In fact, what we believe in,

how we think, has direct influence on the mind of emotions that we

experience. Fundamentally, all our beliefs are tied up with our notion of the

self. A Buddhist would say that our very dogmatic attitudes towards things

or people, dogmatic attitudes toward people who belong to other religions,other races, and so forth all reflect ones own notion of the self. Either they


6/69

are seen as threatening or they are seen as something that would help

consolidate the notion of the self. But once that whole idea of the self as

being an enduring permanent entity is overcome then all the defiling

tendencies of the mind would subside, both on the conceptual as well as the

emotional level.

I would like to stop here and have a discussion.

Q: There is no doubt that outside things do contribute to happiness. They

are impermanent, but they still contribute to our peace of mind and

wellbeing. Does that mean its not real?

A: No. From a Buddhist point of view, it is legitimate to have the desire to

want to have a good job, have a nice family, be able to drive a car that runs,

rather than one that breaks down and causes further misery, or have a

spouse who is supportive and understanding, rather than one who abuses you.

All that is important. But because of clinging and grasping, one normally has

the tendency to think that these will bring about permanent happiness. So

what happens when the spouse stops loving you or when the car breaks down

or when you lose the job? Then one would feel suicidal, because one thinks,

Im nothing, other than the job that I have, or Im nothing without such

and such a person. Everything that one believes oneself to be is defined by

these things or people that one finds oneself with. And that is mistaken.

That is what Buddhists mean when they say real lasting happiness will be

obtained through self-knowledge, through real understanding of oneself, and

not from other things. Which is not to deny the existence of temporal

happiness.

When Buddhists say everything is suffering, that does not mean there is no

pleasure or happiness in life outside oneself. There are such pleasures and

happiness, but they are only temporary, precisely because they are dependent

upon causes and conditions external to the self. Even when one has a really

good relationship, lets say, one is in love with a spouse and the spouse loves

you and everything is hunky dory, if the spouse dies unexpectedly, then

happiness disappears and suffering sets in. One has to have a proper

understanding of impermanence and real appreciation of impermanence would

come from realizing the impermanence of the self. What we regard as the self

which we think is unchanging and immutable, in fact, is always in process. And

that could be a good thing. So from a Buddhist point of view self-growth can

take place precisely because the self is not some kind of immutable unchangingentity. Otherwise any kind of change or transformation in the self would only


7/69

be apparent, not real, because the real self is seen as something that is

unchanging and permanent.

Q: How do you distinguish between a desire that is valid, and clinging and

grasping?

A: Just from not clinging, but desiring. For example, if you want to get a

job, if you want too much, then youll make a fool of yourself during the

interview, precisely because you want it so much. Or if you desire somebody

and you think, He is so good, he is so fantastic, and the more you think

about it the more you get worked up, that in itself might make the other

person stand back and not have anything to do with you. Thats really what

clinging, grasping, craving means. Buddhists are not promoting a notion of

social breakdown, that parents should stop loving their children because it is aform of attachment and that children should stop loving their parents because

it is a form of attachment or that husbands should leave their wives as

quickly as possible because that also reflects a form of attachment. That

whole idea is a misunderstanding in so far as there is nothing wrong with

these things as long as one keeps everything in perspective, as long as one

does not become attached and there is no clinging-grasping involved.

Q: In that situation when one is clinging, say to anger or grief, and one

watches oneself clinging, how does one work themselves out of it?

A: In Buddhism that is why meditation is so important. Through meditation

we become more aware. If one becomes more and more aware of the

tendencies that one has, then even without making any deliberate effort to

drop certain habits that one has, they will naturally drop away.

There is a story about a thief who was wandering around in the mountains.

There were no houses with riches or anything like that, so he was feeling a

bit desperate when he discovered a cave. He went in and there was ameditator sleeping. He started to take whatever he could while this

meditator was sleeping. As he was about to leave the mouth of the cave the

meditator woke up and asked, What are you doing? The thief said,

Theres been nothing to steal so I had to come here. But Imsorry. I know

you are a meditator and I shouldnt be doing this. The thief was feeling

really embarrassed and said to the meditator, Look, I feel so bad, Ill do

anything. I should change my ways. I would like to become a spiritual person.

You, being a meditator, maybe you could teach me a few things. But dont

tell me to stop stealing, because that is what I do and I cant help it. But


8/69

you can teach me anything else and Ill do it. The meditator said to him,

Dont worry about it. Next time when you steal, just be aware that you

are stealing. After about two weeks the thief came back to the meditator

and says, What have you done! I cant steal anymore.

So if one has that awareness, even if one is not deliberately trying to stop

certain negative habits, just being aware would naturally wear them down. In

fact, if one tries too hard to drop certain habits, then those habits may

become more solidified. Awareness is more important than actually making too

much effort into not being certain things. For example, if we try too hard to

be nice, we end up not being nice. We become nice by becoming more aware

of not being nice, rather than trying too hard to be nice.

Q: Are the mind and the nature of mind two separate things? They are. Andthe mind, I presume, is the logical mind that we perceive the world around

us. Can that mind become aware of the nature of mind? And if not, how do

you become aware of the nature of mind?

A: The nature of mind is not different from our thinking mind as such, yet

at the same time they are not identical. It is because one does not have

insight into the nature of the mind that ignorance exists. Ill talk about this

later, but the nature of mind is no different from the nature of thoughts

and emotions that we have, but because we do not have insight into the

nature of thoughts and emotions, we do not have insight into the nature of

the mind. How do we gain insight into the nature of the mind? That comes

from awareness. Awareness is the key. For example, when you do meditation,

without thinking Why do I think about these trivial things, why do they

come up in the mind? Why do certain emotions arise? Why do I have certain

thoughts and emotions arising?not thinking like that, not judging them to

be bad or terrible things that you have to get rid of, but simply being aware

of them, that is the mahamudra approach. From the mahamudra point ofview, if you judge certain things to be bad or terrible, then that is a form of

clinging as well. If you think, I have to get rid of these terrible things that I

think about, these terrible negative emotions, then that in itself is a form

of clinging. So just be aware of what arises in meditation.

Q: Is the difference between the mind and the nature of the mind like the

difference between the consciousness and the subconsciousness?


9/69

A: I suppose we could say it is, in so far as we are not conscious of them. If

one has more awareness of the nature of the mind then much of our

experience of dissatisfaction and so forth would subside.

Q: Is the nature of the mind more like emotions and the way you behave,and the mind is more like what you are thinking?

A: Ill be talking about this later, but the nature of the mind is said to be

completely nondifferentiated, spacious, and is the basis of all of our

experiences, the source from which all of our experiences arise. But in itself,

it is not differentiated. So the nature of mind, unlike our thoughts and

emotions, does not exist as an entity.

Often it is compared to space. Space itself is not something like an entity,

but it is because of space that clouds and so forth arise. Clouds have definable

characteristics, whereas space itself doesnt. But space makes it possible for

the clouds to be there in the first place. Sometimes the mind and the nature

of the mind are compared to waves or the surface of the ocean and the

ocean depths. One may perceive the waves, the activities on the surface of

the ocean, but not actually realize the stillness and infinity of the depth of

the ocean. The mind is said to be the same thing. On the other hand the

nature of the waves and the nature of the depth of the ocean is the same

thing, it is still water.

In a similar kind of way, our thoughts and emotions have the same nature as

the nature of the mind, but because of our ignorance we cannot appreciate

that. If you are a psychologist or try to understand the mind, then you try

to understand the mind in relation to its definable characteristics, in relation

to thoughts and emotions. But there is another way of understanding the

mind, which has to do with understanding the nature of the mind, which goes

beyond that in a sense.

Maybe I should put it another way. From the Mahayana point of view, we

talk about two levels of truth, relative truth and absolute truth. What is

absolute truth? Absolute truth is emptiness. What that means is that things

do not have enduring essence. There is no such thing as substance or

something that we can refer to as being the essence of things. On the other

hand that does not mean that things do not exist. The nature of things, all

the chairs and tables that we perceive, their nature is emptiness. The

problem is in not perceiving the emptiness of the chairs and tables, not

realizing that they lack enduring essence. How do we realize that? We realize


10/69

that through these very things, chairs and tables. Emptiness does not exist

over and above them, emptiness exists as the nature of these things. The

same thing with the mind. We understand the nature of the mind through

our thoughts and emotions.

Q: If the self has no enduring quality, what element is it that is therefore

transmitted in the Buddhist belief in reincarnation?

A: A Buddhist would say that precisely because there is no enduring self that

there is rebirth. Buddhists do not really believe in reincarnation, Buddhists

believe in rebirth. Each rebirth is quite complete. Nothing that is

unchangeable gets transferred from one state of existence to another. Certain

dispositional properties of the mind become transferred from one state of

existence to another.

Often, in the traditional Buddhist teachings, the example of plants are used.

You would not say that a seedling is the same as a mature plant, but

nonetheless there is the obvious transference of dispositional properties from

the seedling to the mature plant. In a similar kind of way, certain

dispositional properties of our previous existence get transferred to our

present state, but nothing that is unchanging survives during this period.

A seedling is one thing and a mature plant is something else. We were all inan embryonic stage at the beginning of our life, but as regards the

relationship between the embryo and the mature people that we have

become, obviously something from the embryo is transferred, but we are not

the embryo. From that point of view, it is the same with the notion of the

self or ego.

Buddhism says that our notion of the self gets reinforced in two different

ways. One is through habit, through an innate tendency to think that my

self is something permanent, which comes withthe birth of consciousness.The other is that the same idea gets reinforced through learning. So if we

are brought up in an environment which promotes the notion of a soul or

some kind of unchanging psychic principle, then that would reinforce our idea

of the self as something permanent and nonchanging. So it comes from two

sources. One is innate, the other is learned.

Q: So in an embryonic state we would have at least a beginning of a self,

which is then developed and reinforced as the embryo develops and we grow

older. But in fact that notion of self is an illusion.


11/69

A: To understand the self from a Buddhist point of view means we have to

understand it from the point of view of the middle way. A Buddhist does not

deny the existence of an ego or of the self. The self exists, on the relative

level, but the self is an ultimate entity, as some kind of unchanging

permanent thing does not exist. But that does not mean people do not have

egos or that ego is totally illusory.

I think some people have interpreted the Buddhist notion of selflessness or

egolessness from that point of view, which is not true. We do have egos, we

do have selves, but the self, as a Buddhist would say, is an aggregate, a

skandha. We tend to think that the self is somehow distinguishable from our

memories, our emotions, our thoughts, our attitudes. Somehow or other the

self remains at a distance, observing all these things going on, or enduring all

these experiences, but the experiencer is at a remove from what is going on.

But Buddhists say that is exactly what the self is. The self is the memories,

thoughts, emotions, concepts, attitudes. Put them together and you have a

self. And if you take away all of thatin Buddhism we do this as an

exerciseif we disassociate ourselves completely from our body, our memories,

our thoughts, emotions, attitudes, our backgrounds, experiences, if we divorce

ourselves from all these things, what remains? Nothing. We are something,

somebody, precisely because we have those things. Without them, it is

nothing. And that is emptiness, I suppose. But when we have them together,

that is an aggregate, that is whats called skandha in Sanskrit.

Q: You know that the concept of there being an I or an experiencer is just

that and you know that you have another concept that there may not be

anymore there, but how do you get past just having an idea about it to

knowing it?

A: Basically from observation, through meditation. The continuity of the self

is there. That is not denied. What is denied is something that is unchanging,permanent.

Q: Im not going to identify with my body, any of my emotions, any of my

experiences, but I still have this thought that there is someone there who is

experiencing.

A: Well there is. Thats the thing. There is, and that is the ego, ego which is

changing and impermanent rather than something unchanging and permanent

as we normally assume it is. Ego as an empirical thing exists, but it is a

product of causes and conditions, just like our body. That is what Buddhists


12/69

mean by egolessness. It doesnt mean it doesnt exist, as so many people

assume. It exists, but it doesnt exist as an ultimate entity.

It has been said that western thought talks about the ego, while Buddhism

does not and, in fact, it teaches the nonexistence of ego. But even westernpsychology does not make any reference to the concept of soul or anything

unchanging. When western psychologies talk about the ego, they are not

talking about anything unchanging, permanent, immutable. So in some ways,

there are similarities there. It is also said that western psychology talks about

building up the ego, whereas Buddhism teaches how to break down the ego.

But Buddhism, as much as western psychology, also talks about building up

self-confidence and feelings of self-worth. Buddhism does not say that through

the experience of egolessness we should feel nothing, that we should feel bad

about ourselves. But through understanding of the self as not being

permanent, a real appreciation of the self can be attained because then the

self is something that can be transformed rather than something that is

unchanging and permanent.

Q: Ive often wondered why Buddhism uses the noun form emptiness. It

seems to me that the word emptiness creates the illusion that emptiness

is an entity itself.

A: Nagarjuna has said that if we cling onto the idea of emptiness as being

something, then that is worse than clinging onto the idea that everything has

enduring essence. He says, To think that things have enduring essence is as

foolish as a cow, but to think that everything is nonexistent or completely

empty is even worse. That is the middle view. The idea is that emptiness

does not mean things do not exist. Emptiness is not discovered over and

above existing things, emptiness is discovered as being the nature of all things

that exist. Its not something that is a negative thing, its not total

voidness, or anything like that.

Q: Something we say all the time that I have found quite useful is, change

your mind. You might say, Ill have a cup pf coffee and then, Ive

changed my mind and its quite simple. Sometimes when Im angry Ill

remember and just change my mind, just do something different. That catches

the idea that its not permanent.

A: Thats an interesting comment. From a Buddhist point of view, thoughts

and emotions are so intimately related that by changing our thoughts we

change our emotions. For example, the thought that your lover is having an


13/69

affair makes you angry or jealous, but if you realize that that was unfounded

and not true, then jealousy or anger subsides immediately. In the west, these

days, there is this tendency to think that you can deal with emotions

directly, but from a Buddhist point of view, we actually can have more

success with the changing of our emotions only if we change our thoughts. If

we think differently, then we will feel differently and we will experience our

emotions differently as well. So in that sense, yes, by changing our mind we

will be a different person. As we know, the most upset person is the one

who thinks too much. You cant sleep, you cant eat, constantly these

thoughts are nagging at you and you get more and more worked up.

TALK 2

Having discussed the general Buddhist understanding of the concept of the selfand what needs to be done in relation to establishing a proper concept of the

self so that one would be able to gain real insight into it, now I will talk

about the Mahayana Buddhist concept of Buddha-nature, which is called

tathagathagarbha in Sanskrit.

The tathagathagarbha theory, the theory of Buddha-nature, was presented by

the Yogachara school of Mahayana Buddhism. In order to understand the

mahamudra view of the nature of mind it is essential to have some

understanding of the concept of Buddha-nature, because the mahamudra

concept of the nature of mind is based on this essential Mahayana notion

that all sentient beings have the potential and opportunity to become fully

awakened.

The concept of tathagathagarbha has been rendered differently in different

English translations of various Mahayana texts. Some translate this particular

concept or word as the womb of enlightenment others as matrix yet

others have translated it as seed of enlightenment.

In any case, when this concept was introduced into Mahayana it was seen as

quite revolutionary, because up to that point Buddhism only talked about

egolessness, lack of self. When the notion of Buddha-nature was introduced

into Mahayana literature some Buddhists felt that this was, in a way, a

perversion of the original teachings because Buddha-nature implies that there

is something in the continuum of the consciousness which, in fact, is

unchanging and can act as the basis upon which one can develop on a spiritual

level. There is this potential for enlightenment in everyone. In some of the

Mahayana literature Buddha-nature is called the great selfthe ego being


14/69

the little self. In some Zen literature it is also called the mind of no

mind.

When this idea was promoted by the Yogacarins it seemed to many that the

whole idea of an unchanging self was being re-introduced into Buddhism,therefore people were very skeptical. Many Buddhists tried to explain this

new teaching regarding the concept of the essential self.

Some teachers said that the teachings on Buddha-nature are taught not

because they are really true, but so that certain people who have been

frightened by the notion that there is no self would find some comfort in

thinking that there is something afterall, which is called Buddha-nature.

For many Mahayana teachers, particularly the so-called sunyavadins or teachers

who emphasized the importance of emptiness, it was just an expedient

method to enable people to come to some understanding about themselves on

a gradual level. After coming to have some understanding of Buddha-nature,

they would then gradually abandon the whole notion of Buddha-nature and

eventually come to accept the teachings on emptiness, which is the ultimate

truth.

For many other Buddhist teachers, particularly the Yogacarins who of course

promoted the concept, Buddha-nature is not just a theory, not just aconcept, but exists in reality and is the essential nature of all human beings.

What this concept suggests is that for human beings, or sentient beings

generally, as far as their mind is concerned, there is an element of

consciousness which has never been defiled, which has remained pure, right

from the beginning and precisely because of the purity of this element of

consciousness it is possible to attain enlightenment. Without it, that would

not be possible. The Yogacarins said that the defilements exist but only on a

relative level because ultimately the mind is pure by nature.

In terms of early Buddhism the Buddha in some of his early sutras in fact

made references to the mind being undefiled, pure and so forth, but these

were just references. He did not elaborate on this. We could say that the

Yogacarins elaborated on that concept.

The mind itself is completely undefiled, but what they call adventitious

defilements arise. The word adventitious is used in order to suggest that

defilements and obscurations of the mind are not essential to the mind itself,but arise due to causes and conditions. These defilements exist only on the


15/69

relative level, because on the ultimate level the mind itself is totally pure and

undefiled and has been right from the beginning.

Now, if the mind itself or an element of the mind or consciousness has not

been defiled, right from the beginning, then the question might be asked,From where do the defilements arise? From what source? TO answer that,

the Yogacarins introduced the notion of alayavijnana. That word is normally

rendered into English as storehouse consciousness, but some translate it as

fundamental consciousness, while Professor Guenther translates it as

substratum of awareness. In any case, the wordalayavijnana was

introduced into Mahayana teachings by the Yogacarins because they felt it had

to be proposed as the basis of all our delusional experiences. This is the basic

source from which all the obscurations and defilements arise. It is also the

source from which one has this mistaken notion of self-existing, unchanging,

permanent self.

As the English rendition this Mahayana term as storehouse consciousness

suggests, all of our experiences in terms of our karmic traces and dispositions

are stored in the alayavijnana. Nothing, in fact, gets wasted. Everything

remains dormant on an unconscious level and, when the appropriate time and

situation arises, then the karmic traces in the mind would give rise to certain

appropriate experiences. According to Yogacara philosophy, defilements arisefrom the alayavijnana, but the mind itself understood from the point of view

of tathagathagarbha or womb of enlightenment is pure and non-defiled. That

is, in fact, the ultimate aspect of the mind. The relative aspect of the mind

understood from the point of view of the storehouse consciousness, is defiled.

So the defilements in the mind exist only on the relative level. From the

ultimate point of view the mind is completely pure.

Some of the teachers who expunded this theory went so far as to suggest

that tathagathagarbha or Buddhanature has four aspects: pure, blissful,permanent, and nontemporal and great self. Those of you who are familiar

with conventional Buddhist teachings would know how radical this whole notion

is. Traditionally, it is said that the mind is impure because of the

defilements; there is no bliss, only suffering because of the defilements and

due to clinging, grasping, and craving; nothing is permanent in terms of the

mind or the self, everything is subject to change and is therefore mutable,

but the Yogacarins say that Buddhanature is permanent. The last

characteristic is great self, but Buddhism as we know has rejected all notions

of a permanent, immutable self.


16/69

So the Yogacarins say the tathagathagarbha has these four attributes of being

pure, blissful, permanent, and manifesting as the great-self. Now this might

lead people to think that the tathagathagarbha theory is not different from

the notion of the atma in Hindu tradition, which is normally translated as

the soul or great self, because the atma is also understood to be permanent,

blissful, et cetera. But according to Yogacara masters that is not the case.

When it is said that Buddhanature is permaenent this is not saying that the

tathagathagarbha is some self-existing reality, some kind of immutable entity.

It does not meant that there is something that is actually existing and has

some endurance, but permanent only in relation to the aspect of emptiness.

The nature of tathagathagarbha, the womb of enlightenment, is emptiness.

And because emptiness is not subject to change, it is therefore permanent.

So these Mahayana teachers distinguished the notion of Buddhanature from

the atma theory. They did not want to posit this concept as having some

kind of self-existing or inherent existence.

The phrase womb of enlightenment or seed of enlightenment suggests

that tathagathagarbha exists only on a dormant level or as a potential. Again,

different interpretations arose regarding this.

Some say that it is called the seed or womb of enlightenment because it

suggests that sense of dormancy or potentiality, rather than actuality. If this

is the case, then tathagathagarbha is to be realized over a long period of

time, after overcoming appropriate or characteristic obstacles on the path.

The tathagathagarbha exists as a potentiality only.

Yet others interpreted this in a radically different way. They said no,

tathagathagarbha exists in all sentient beings. The lement of the consciouness

which is non-defiled in ordinary sentient beings is no different from that of

enlightened beings. Therefore sentient beings are originally enlightened, they

only do not realize they are enlightened. That is the only problem, so

ignorance lies in not realizing that. The tathagathagarbha, the womb of

enlightenment exists not just in potentiality, but in actualiy. It is already

there.

These two different streams of interpretation exist both in Chinese and

Japanese Buddhism, in relation to Zen. The teaching which said that the

tathagathagarbha exists only in terms of potentiality is called Zen of the

dcotrines, while the teaching which said that the tathagathagarbha exists in


17/69

its complete form even in unenlightnened ordinary sentient beings is called

patriarichal Zen.

We have the same two different kinds of interpretation in Tibetan Buddhism

also. Some traditions interpret the concept of tathagathagarbha to meanthat it exists as a potentiality for enlightenment, rather than enlightenment

as such. Other traditions such as the teachings on mahamudra and Dzogchen

or maha ati interpret it to mean complete enlightenment. Enlightenment is

already present in its fullest form, nothing has to be added. If proper insight

is gained into the nature of the mind, which is the same as tathagathagarbha,

then there is nothing that has to be attained. It is more a question of

realizing what one already possesses, rather than trying to improve on

something through practice, through meditation, through embarking upon the

spiritual path.

These two traditions are normally referred to as the gradual and

instantaneous schools of practitioners, the gradualists emphasize the

importance of having to spend a lot of time developing that innate quality of

the mind, which is non-defiled, and the spontaneists saying that there is

nothing that one needs to do. In fact even meditation itself is not something

that one does in order to improve the mind. Rather, meditation is done in

order to strip away the layers of veils, the layers of defilements. But nothingneeds improving, nothing needs to be added.

Sometimes in mahamudra and in Dzogchen teachings it is said that nothing

needs to be subtracted or added to, everything is complete in itself. In

mahamudra teachings Buddha-nature is identified with the nature of mind.

The very nature of the mind is said to non-defiled and complete. The nature

of mind of ordinary sentient beings who are afflicted with varieties of

obscurations and defilements is not different from the mind of enlightened

beings. There is absolutely no difference. So the practice is not one ofgradually working through ones karmic traces and dispositions and overcoming

appropriate obstacles on the paths and stages, as it is in Mahayana teachings,

but rather of allowing the mind to be. If one is able to allow the mind to be

and not make any effort, not even the effort to become enlightened, if

through practice of meditation one is able to allow the mind to be in its

natural statethat is what is called in mahamudra teachings: in its natural

statethen one would realize that one is already enlightened. Enlightenment

is not something one has to attain. Enlightenment comes from being, from

being in ones own authentic condition, without any contrivances.


18/69

It is said that through the practice of mahamudra one does not use any

methods to change or transform the mind. The question is not of

transforming the mind as much as it is of allowing the mind to reveal itself,

because the nature of the mind itself is already perfect, complete and totally

non-defiled. Therefore enlightenment is not achieved, as it has been said in

oneself to be in ones own natural state. Then all the defilements would

naturally become self-liberated.

Self-liberated is a technical word used in mahamudra teachings and alsoin

Dzogchen. The idea here is that, unlike the gradual approach of using the

gradual approach of using different antidotes in order to overcome certain

obstacles on the path, there are no antidotes that one needs to use, because

all the delusions and obscurations of the mind would naturally become self-

liberated if one is able to rest the mind without any contrivances, without

trying to change it, without trying to transform it, without even trying to

make it become more still, more clear, more translucent, more calm, more

tranquil and so on. Without doing any of that, if one simply exercises pure

awareness, observes what arises in the mind in terms of thoughts and

emotions, does not judge them, does not pursue positive thoughts and

emotions or shun the negative ones, but is able to simply let whatever arises

in the mind to be, then according to the mahamudra traditions the thoughts

themselves can become part of meditation. Thoughts and emotions may

continue to arise, but they will no longer disturb the stability of the mind if

one is able to maintain a pure sense of awareness.

From the mahamudra point of view, the way in which one realizes the nature

of the mind is not from shunning thoughts and emotions, but from letting

them be, because if one is able to allow the mind to be in its natural state,

then when thoughts and emotions arise, the nature of these thoughts and

emotions would be revealed as having the same nature as the nature of the

mind. Therefore another technical term used in mahamudra teaching is

ordinary mind. Instead of thinking that Buddhahood is attained through

transforming the mind or through becoming something greater than what one

already is by trying to overcome ones negative thoughts and emotions, if one

simply relates to the ordinary mind itself, ordinary mind meaning the mind

which has experiences of all kinds, then during meditation, when thoughts and

emotions arise, even if they are of a negative nature, if pure awareness is

applied, then the nature of the negative thoughts and emotions would be

revealed as having the same nature as the nature of the mind.


19/69

One of the mahamudra prayers says that the nature of thoughts is

dharmakaya. Dharmakaya, meaning the nature of the mind, is not different

from ultimate reality, so the nature of the thoughts is dharmakaya.

Dharmakaya or ultimate reality is not to be found somewhere else, existing

over and above the delusions which are already present in the mind. If proper

awareness is applied by seeing the nature of the delusions, one would

understand the nature of the mind, which is of course equated with the

attainment of enlightenment.

From the mahamudra point of view, because enlightenment is already present

one should not concern oneself too much with abandoning this and trying to

acquire that, unlike the traditional Mahayana approach to the path and

meditation where one tries to abandon certain negative tendencies and replace

them with positive ones, such as trying to overcome ones bad karma so that

one would be able to create good karma and then be able to realize

Buddhahood. One does not concern oneself with such an approach. What one

has to do is practice meditation in such a way that the mind is left alone.

One is not trying to use antidotes in order to overcome obstacles in

meditation, one is not trying to transform the mind or use any kind of

contrivances. One allows the mind to be in its own natural state. This is the

so-called spontaneous approach, gcig charba in Tibetan.

The gradual approach is called rimgyi ba, which means step-by-step approach

to enlightenment. Enlightenment is not something that can be attained

straight away, it takes a lot of effort and a lot of time. According to some

Mahayana teachings it takes three countless eons to achieve enlightenment, so

it is not an easy task.

The instantaneous approach on the other hand says that because

enlightenment is already present all one needs to do is to enter into that

mind state, the state of enlightenment. It is not a question of going throughdifferent stages.

Some teachers have noted that the gradual and instantaneous approaches may

be able to reconcile their differences if one understands that when spiritual

insights occur they occur instantaneously, but that there are many different

kinds of spiritual insights that one can obtain, so these insights may occur

over a period of time. Even though insights as they occur may be

instantaneous, nonetheless these varying degrees of insight would be happening

over a period of time. Therefore in a sense it is gradual also.


20/69

When the Mahayana teachings say that it takes three countless eons to

become enlightened maybe that should not be taken too literallythis is

according to some of the teachers who reconcile the differences between the

gradual and the spontaneous approaches. Maybe it does not mean that it

literally takes three countless eons to attain enlightenment, but because of

the Mahayana concept of bodhichitta, of having to adopt infinite compassion

to want to liberate all sentient beings, one generates the thought that until

all sentient beings are enlightened one would not want to become enlightened.

One has to develop such an attitude, but to develop that attitude and to

think that one would like to remain in the samsaric condition for as long as it

takes to liberate all sentient beings does not mean that the bodhisattva

actually remains in the samsaric world for three countless eons, or for an

indefinite period of time. If the bodhisattva has generated the relevantbodhisattva attitude, then that bodhisattva may attain enlightenment in a

short period of time. So understood that way, it is said that there is no real

contradiction between the approach of the gradualists and the non-gradualists.

Even for example the teachings which explicitly set out the five paths and ten

stages of the bodhisattva, of the Mahayana practitioner even these teachings

which explain in great detail how each of the paths are traversed and how one

gets transferred from one level of the bodhisattva to the next should not

perhaps be understood in a too literal sense of having to spend so long a

period of time going through the five paths and ten stages. The paths and

stages can be traversed within ones own lifetime.

Mahamudra teachings and the ones who try to reconcile the two different

traditions emphasize the importance of aiming towards achieving

enlightenment in ones own lifetime. Enlightenment is not something that one

works towards in terms of accumulating good karma or merit as it is called

over a long period of time and hoping that at some future time in one of

ones future rebirths one would become enlightened. Enlightenment should be

attained on the spot. When one sits down to practice on the meditation

cushion ones does not think, Im just an ordinary sentient being with so

many delusions and defilements. I do not have the ability to attain

enlightenment. I have to do with breaking down certain negative karmic

tendencies and gradually stripping the mind of defilements. Then at some

future time I might become enlightened. Instead, one has to think,

Enlightenment is accessible right now.


21/69

Mahamudra teachers are always pronouncing the importance of not distancing

oneself from the state of enlightenment, of not thinking that enlightenment

is something superior, something transcendent, something that is not really

within ones reach at the moment. One should think of enlightenment as

imminent, already present. By dropping ones defilements, which include such

negative thoughts as distancing oneself from enlightenment, one would attain

enlightenment on the spot, during meditation. Even to think of Buddhahood

as being something so different, something totally independent of the samsaric

condition, is a form of discrimination. And the mind should not discriminate in

that way. By not discriminating, by not judging, by not placing evaluations on

ones experiences but allowing the mind to be, then one attains

enlightenment. All the delusions become self-liberated. One does not

deliberately get rid of the defilements or the obscurations of the mind. Theybecome self-liberated, purely through awareness.

I think Ill stop here and we can have a discussion.

Q: You talked about mahamudra being a spontaneous or instantaneous

enlightenment compared to a gradualist approach. What makes the difference

between being enlightened in one instance and not in another?

A: The mahamudra masters actually do not say that there is a real conflict

between the gradualist approach and the instantaneous approach because when

spiritual insights occur they occur instantaneously, but on the other hand

insights occur over a period of time in terms of intensity and so on. So in a

sense there is a sense of gradualness about it.

What the mahamudra teachers say is that the gradualness does not have to

do with many lifetimes. It is not necessary that one has to devote so many

lifetimes to practice, before one achieves enlightenment. According to

mahamudra, even the Mahayana teachings which talk about the paths and

stages, teachings which claim that it is necessary for the bodhisattva to spend

three countless eons before attaining enlightenment, should not be taken

literally. It simply refers more to the attitude of the bodhisattva then what

it, in fact, the case. The bodhisattva, due to his or her infinite compassion,

cares so much about the sufferings of ordinary people and so wants to

postpone enlightenment. That is their mental attitude, but that does not

mean that they would in fact, end up spending three countless eons before

attaining enlightenment. So they say that even the teachings which set out

detailed descriptions of the path and stages should not be taken too literally.


22/69

In that way you can reconcile the two traditions of gradualist and

instantaneous approaches.

Q: So its just a difference in emphasis in the motivation at the point when

you sit down to meditate?

A: Yes. Even if you have this concept of Buddha-nature, if one has the

gradualist approach, then one may see Buddhanature as being more like a seed

of enlightenment or potentiality for enlightenment, rather than Buddhanature

being a fully developed enlightened aspect of the mind as it is now.

Q: I find it difficult to pinpoint the difference between the instantaneous

approach and the gradualist one. It seems to me that the practice is very

similar.

A: The gradual approach think of enlightenment as occurring in the future and

the instantaneous approach thinks of enlightenment as being present now: it

is only delusion which stands in the way, it has nothing to do with

transformation of the mind or improving on anything. The mind in relation to

its nature is already perfect. Dzogchen is another tradition which emphasizes

the instantaneous approach. Dzogchen, great perfection, means simply

that the mind as it exists is perfect itself. It is only due to ignorance due to

delusions that one does not realize it.

Enlightenment does not mean that the mind has become transformed, as

much as that delusion, which stands in the way, has been removed. Once that

is out of the way then one realizes ones own nature is perfect, that nothing

needs to be added or subtracted from, as is said in the mahamudra and

Dzogchen teachings. Subtracted means removing the defilements or delusions.

But even teachings such as mahamudra and Dzogchen, which emphasize the

instantaneous approach, try to reconcile the differences between the two

traditions. They do not say that the gradualists are wrong. What they do isinterpret the gradualist approach, the teachings which say that in order to

become a fully enlightened Buddha first of all you need to adopt a bodhichitta

or bodhisattva outlook and traverse the five paths and ten stages of the

bodhisattva, then eventually this would culminate in the attainment of full

Buddhahood and normally it would take three countless eons to do that. The

mahamudra teachers and Dzogchen teachers have reinterpreted this to mean

that in reality it does not mean it actually takes three countless eons to

achieve Buddhahood, but according to Mahayana teachings which emphasize

compassion so much, to develop this attitude involves having infinite


23/69

compassion for others, therefore such a bodhisattva has the attitude of not

even wanting to attain enlightenment in a great hurry, that one would like

to postpone ones enlightenment. But as Trungpa Rinpoche once said in his

teachings, even if the bodhisattva does not want to become enlightened, he

or she would become enlightened in spite of himself or herself, even without

trying.

Q: Why should it be a disadvantage to wish to become enlightened? Surely

you are instantly more useful if you are enlightened than if you are not.

Whats the idea of putting it off?

A: The idea is that one does not want to enter nirvana prematurely. One

wants to be in the world helping others.

Q: Is that a consequence of not being available?

A: Yes. But according to certain Mahayana teachings, and this includes

Mahamudra and Dzogchen teachings, samsara and nirvana are not so different.

Sometimes it has been said that samsara is nirvana and nirvana is samsara.

That does not mean samsara and nirvana are identical, what it means is

samsara and nirvana have the same nature, which is emptiness. In that sense

entering into nirvana does not mean going into some kind of totally different

or transcendent realm, far from the empirical world that we live in. Nirvanais here right now if one knows how to attain it. So it is not something that

takes place outside of space and time.

Q: So where does the thought of wanting to put off ones enlightenment

come from?

A: That comes from compassion. Achieving enlightenment for ones own sake

without thought of others is considered to be non-Mahayanist because

Mahayana Buddhism puts so much emphasis on compassion. For that reason.

Q: I see preliminary practice as a more gradual practice. Would you

recommend for somebody to focus purely on doing mahamudra or on doing

both mahamudra and preliminary practice?

A: In the Kagyu tradition we do preliminary practice, we emphasize that very

strongly, and we also practice mahamudra. But the preliminaries are

performed with the intention to want to realize mahamudra in this life.

Preliminary practices are not done with the intention to want to become

enlightened in the distant future at some later date. As some of the


24/69

mahamudra teachers have said, the practices of the preliminaries help to thin

out the defilements. For that reason they are practiced. But all the while

one is doing the preliminaries one should have the mahamudra view, which is

that enlightenment is within ones grasp and it can be attained. It is not

something that is too exalted or out of ones reach. One can do the

preliminary practices with the mahamudra view, instead of thinking that with

the preliminary practice one is slowly wearing down the negative karma and, if

one is lucky, at some future date one may become enlightened.

Q: It is possible to grasp onto the idea of becoming enlightened?

A: Yes. From the mahamudra point of view we should not be grasping onto

any kind of idea, even the thought of enlightenment. When the mind is not

grasping, when its not clinging onto anything, including the notion of having atranquil mind, a peaceful mind, or grasping onto the notion of getting rid of

thoughts, negative thoughts and emotions, then one realizes enlightenment.

Q: Can one do meditation on ones own or does one need a teacher?

A: It is important to have a teacher, but we have to realize that the

teacher does not mean what in the west people think gurus to be. Basically

having a teacher is to have a relationship with somebody and because the

teacher has more experience than you, then you can work with the person.But that does not mean that someone has to be ultimately dependent on

the teacher. For that reason, in fact, in mahamudra teachings it is said that

the teacher has two aspects, relative and ultimate. The ultimate aspect of

the teacher is Buddha-nature, or the nature of the mind itself. Thats the

ultimate teacher. The relative teacher is the human one. Through the human

teacher one comes to realize the ultimate teacher, which is the nature of the

mind itself.

Q: Im not familiar with the preliminary practices.

A: The preliminary practices are normally, in Kagy tradition, what we call

the four foundation practices. One is doing prostrations, another is called

mandala offering, the third is Vajrasattva and the fourth is practice of

devotion to the lineage. These are conducted in order to overcome certain

obstacles.

For example , doing prostrations can work with ones sense of egocentricity.

With prostrations for example, westerners find the fact that you prostratedemeaning. Even though you are not prostrating to any individual as such,


25/69

just the simple fact of doing it is a bit too much. On the other hand, in

order to show our humility we do that. People kneel in church, people kneel

to pray, so its not foreign. Even in the west doing prostrations or kneeling

reflects that attitude of humility, which is, of course not the same as lack of

confidence or of self-worth. It works in terms of dismantling ones ego-centric

attitudes so that one becomes more open.

Mandala offering works with the sense of generosity so that you give up

clinging-grasping and Vajrasattva is for purification of the mind.

Devotion to the lineage to build up confidence in what one is doing. For

example, if you are practicing something which has been put together by some

crackpot who woke up one morning and thought he or she spoke to god who

said this is what you should do, obviously that is not as credible as atradition which has been based on authentic transmission from teacher to

student, so there is a real valid transmission which has been preserved. So

building confidence in that with ones devotion to the lineage.

Thats what one does with the preliminary practices.

Q: Could you say something about the relationship between ethical practices

and meditation?

A: In Buddhism we talk about cultivating wisdom through reflection, through

contemplation, through meditation, and you cultivate compassion in terms of

your actions, in terms of how you relate to others. In the early Buddhist

teachings these are set out in the so-called paramitas, which also promote

the whole idea of the three trainings of morality, wisdom, and meditation.

Q: Meditation is really seen as the link between compassion and wisdom. In

order to do both properly, one needs to practice meditation. From the

mahamudra point of view actually, it is said that meditation is in some ways

more important than concerning oneself too much with the practice of

compassion because unless one has certain insight into oneself, unless one has

certain understanding of ones own mind, then even if one is trying to do

something which is good or worthwhile, it may in fact be perverted due to

ones own delusions and lack of insight.

It is said that through meditation in fact ones capacity to help others would

come naturally. If one is able to have proper understanding of oneself, then

one would have proper understanding of everything else. From the mahamudrapoint of view to understand the nature of the mind is to understand all


26/69

things because there is no separation, there is nonduality. If one has that

experience of nonduality then compassion would stem forth naturally. It is

not something that one has to deliberately cultivate. It would come.

But generally, unlike what some people in the west think, Buddhismbecauseof its emphasis on meditationdoes not undervalue the importance of

engagement in the real world, helping people, doing whatever is necessary to

alleviate others suffering. Which is very important. As the Buddhist nun Aya

Khema said, Compassion can move mountains, but without wisdom you dont

know which mountain needs moving. That sums it up nicely, in terms of the

importance of both.

Q: Is mindfulness essentially without language? I can be self-conscious of

myself, but that will always be with a form of language following myselfaround. The idea of mindfulness seems to be something which transcends

language.

A: I suppose thats true in a way. Mindfulness is really involved with an

object. You use certain objects so that you can practice mindfulness. From a

Buddhist point of view mindfulness should give rise to awareness. It is very

difficult for a beginner to be aware. You do not just become aware, but

through the practice of mindfulness it is possible to develop awareness.

Awareness comes from the practice of consistent mindfulness. You use an

external object or you use the breath or you use your senses to practice

mindfulness, so you are constantly going back to the object of mindfulness and

not allowing your mind to run off in all directions. Mindfulness helps to

anchor the mind so that it does not get too indulgent in thoughts, and

language too. But from a Buddhist point of view mindfulness is something

that becomes transcended through development of awareness. Once awareness

develops, then one does not need to be mindful. Mindfulness is a deliberate

thing whereas awareness is more spontaneous.

Q: If just by being in the presence of a teacher you become emotional, what

is actually happening?

A: In Tibetan Buddhism we have this notion, this concept called auspicious

coincidence. It is in a way similar to Jungs idea of synchronicity. For

example if you hear Buddhist teachings it may strike a chord in you.

Auspicious coincidence does not mean it is something accidental, that it just

happened. The cause lies in ones own past and because of that now it has

come to fruition, in a sense.


27/69

Q: What comes to fruition? Is it something from the past?

A: In terms of ones past karma. From a Buddhist point of view nothing

which is significant happens accidentally. If you hear something and that gives

rise to certain emotions, then that does not mean you just happened to bethere and, all of a sudden it just happened. Another expression used is

karmic connection, whatever that means. Thats the phrase westerners use,

but the concept is the same as what we call auspicious coincidence. As lamas

keep on saying, there are millions and millions of people in the west and only

a very few take an interest in Buddhism. Why so? From a Buddhist way of

understanding, the ones who take interest in Buddhism have some kind of

karmic propensity already, that is why. It doesnt happen just like that. The

interest in Buddhism, for example, does not just happen. It has happened

because of ones karmic propensity, which is already set in motion.

Q: Is that from previous lives?

A: Past lives, generally speaking from Mahayana point of view. Thats one way

of understanding. But to be Buddhist or to practice Buddhism one does not

have to believe in rebirth or anything like that. Thats not essential. What

one needs to believe in is what Buddhism says about what causes suffering and

how to overcome it. If we do that, then thats the essence, thats the most

important thing. There are certain auxiliary concepts in Buddhism, concepts

such as rebirth which are part of Buddhist teachings as well. But they are not

essential.

Q: In talking about the four characteristics of Buddha-nature you explained

how the term permanent is interpreted in such a way that it is seen as

being nonsubstantial. Could you interpret the term great self?

A: It is the great self precisely because it is not some kind of metaphysical

entity. It is the great self only because it represents the whole qualities ofenlightenment which are already present within ones own mind. Because of

that it is the great self, but not the great self as the atma concept

suggests.

Q: About the emotional response that is some kind of connection to whatever

in your previous karma, how does one deal with it?

A: Just accept it and let it be.

Q: How can one come to terms with a situation like grief?


28/69

A: From a mahamudra point of view, one has to allow oneself to feel the

grief, and then let go. Not suppress it, not encourage it, but when it arises

one experiences it, and then let go.

Q: How can you do that without becoming self-indulgent?

A: Through awareness. There is nothing wrong with the feeling of grief. That

is another thing. After doing meditation even if one has been doing

meditation for a number of years, at least from a Buddhist point of view

particularly from a mahamudra point of view, one should not think that one

should go beyond all experiences of emotion. Emotions may still arise, but one

experiences them differently and one deals with them differently, through the

practice of meditation. That is really what is the most important thing. Even

if you meditate, if a loved one dies then the appropriate emotion toexperience is grief. If you dont grieve, theres something wrong with you.

But to go on and on and not be able to let go, then it becomes a problem.

Even if one is meditating, if some tragedies happen in ones life or tragedies

happen to others, emotions arise but they are managed better because they

dont overwhelm the person as much as if one was not meditating.

Meditation should not lead the person to become like a piece of wood.

Q: So you dont need to understand a karmic connection to understand where

its coming from so you can try and transcend that emotion?

A: You can transcend it by letting go, by not worrying about it. Not

worrying is letting go, worrying is grasping. Thats what it is. From a

Buddhist point of view, particularly from a mahamudra point of view, we

should not be asking too many questions about why certain emotions or

thoughts have some into the mind, but rather how they arise. How the

emotions arise, how they affect us, that is really more important than

looking for causes because you can come up with so many different

explanations in terms of why and you can never be sure which one is correct.

I think the existence of so many different psychotherapies proves that. Each

form of therapy has a different explanation as to why certain emotions or

certain neuroses arise. But that does not mean that is not important, we can

still ask those questions and try to understand in terms of why, but it is

more fundamental and more important to understand how they arise and how

they affect us.


29/69

The question that should really concern us is more the question of how?

not why? When you ask the question how? it is immediate. You can

perceive it, its happening. When you start to ask why? its in the past.

Then you start to look into causes. Thats why asking how? is more

important and more beneficial. You were saying that when you hear Buddhist

teachings emotions arise. You should be looking at how those emotions arise

and how those emotions affect you, rather than thinking, Is it karmic

connection or am I seeing the teacher as a father figure? So not concerning

oneself too much with that, but with what type of emotions arise and how

they affect you. Thats important. Even in terms of meditation, when

emotions arise, it is more important to think of how they arise, rather than

why they arise.

Q: Whenever a certain type of music is played, and its the bagpipes believe it

or not, I get an irrepressible urge to cry and it overwhelms me. I dont know

how

A: Thats how.

Q: Okay. I feel very sad and I wait for it to go.

A: Thats it. Its good to be aware of that.

Q: It doesnt stop it.

A: Thats not the point.

Talk 3

The teachings of mahamudra are basically drawn from two streams of

Mahayana thought, one being the Yogacara system and the other the

teachings of the sunyavadins, who promoted the idea that ultimate reality is

emptiness. Within the Buddhist tradition generally, one needs to eradicatecertain defilements and obscurations of the mind in order to realize the

ultimate truth or ultimate reality. The most effective way to achieve that

goal is through the practice of meditation.

Generally speaking, two different types of meditation are engaged in. One is

called shamatha, or meditation of tranquility, and the other is called

vipashyana, or meditation of insight. Through practice of meditation of

tranquility the meditator learns how to quieten the mind so that it becomes

more focused, more resilient, more aware and less susceptible to distractions.Meditation of insight on the other hand is usually conducted in an analytical


30/69

form. Therefore, while the practice of meditation of tranquility encourages

the mind to become more calm and less disturbed by conceptual thoughts,

meditation of insight uses these thoughts in order to gain certain insights

such as realization of the fact that there is no enduring or permanent

immutable self.

Conventionally, meditation of tranquility is presented in a way which suggests

that as the mind becomes more focused the meditator could enter into

different levels of concentration, of absorptions. So as discurcive thoughts

subside, the mind would go into different levels of absorptions. Once one has

perfectd shamatha, if one engages in analytical meditation, then thinking no

longer gives rise to conceptual confusions as it normally does, but it gives rise

to different insights.

It is said that Buddhist meditation is regarded as being different to other

traditions only because of the practice of meditation of insight, since other

traditions also have techniques of quieting the mind, techniques that help the

mind to become more focused. But it is through the practice of meditation

of insight that one comes to the realization that there is no such thing as an

enduring or permanent self, or that there is no such thing as enduring essence

in physical and mental phenomena, or in physical and mental properties.

Mahamudra also makes use of these two different techniques of shamatha and

vipashyana, but according to mahamudra teachings to go through different

levels of absorptions or concentrations is not important. It is sufficient for

one to have stabilized the mind. Even if one has not achieved any ultimate

state of concentration, even if one has not managed to obtain any level of

absorption, nonetheless if the mind has become more stable and less

susceptible to distractions then one can proceed with the practice of

meditation of insight. Here also the practice of meditation of insight according

to mahamudra is quite different from the conventional approaches. In theMahayana tradition one normally uses the analytical method to understand

the lack of essence in all things, realizing that everything that exists in the

physical and mental realm is a product of causes and conditions. Nothing

exists in a self-sufficient way therefore everything that exists is dependent

upon causes and conditions. Through such an analytical method one would gain

some conceptual understanding of what emptiness is, and that leads to the

direct experience of emptiness.

But mahamudra teachings say that if one focuses ones mind on the minditself and realizes the nature of the mind, then one would realize the nature


31/69

of everything else. Instead of using reasoning and the analytical method to

reduce everything to emptiness as is normally done in the Mahayana approach,

if one focuses ones mind on the mind itself and realizes that the nature of

the mind is emptiness, then one would realize that everything else has the

same nature, which is emptiness.

According to mahamudra teachers the normal sutric approach of the Mahayana

uses an external phenomena as objects of meditation, whereas mahamudra uses

the mind itself as the object of analytical meditation. But even in relation to

the mind, in mahamudra one does not analyze the mind in order to realize

that the nature of the mind is emptiness. Rather, through contemplation, by

allowing the mind to be in its natural state, the mind would reveal itself to

have that nature. The nature of the mind is not analyzed and one does not

have to have some conceptual grasp of the fact that the nature of the mind

is empty. If the mind is allowed to be in its natural state and if all discursive

thoughts subside, then the nature of the mind itself would be revealed as

being empty of enduring essence.

In a normal context, when one engages in the practice of meditation one has

to use different antidotes for different obstacles. According to mahamudra,

one should not become too concerned with the obstacles and also with the

use of the antidotes in order to quieten the mind. One should have a generalsense that all obstacles that arise in meditation can be divided into two

categories. One is the obstacle of stupor or drowsiness and the other is

mental agitation.

With stupor, even though the mind is not disturbed by the agitation of

discursive thoughts or emotional conflicts, nonetheless there is no sense of

clarity in the mind. The mind has become dull and sometimes of course this

gets followed by sleepiness and drowsiness. Mental agitation on the other

hand is easier to detect because ones mind has fallen under the influence ofdiscursive thoughts, distractions, emotional conflicts and so on.

Instead of using different antidotes to control the mind in these situations,

the mahamudra approach recommends two methods. One is relaxation and the

other is a tightening up process. If the mind has become dull, then one should

tighten the mind with the application of mindfulness. One should try to

regenerate and refuel the sense of mindfulness of the meditation object,

whatever it happens to be. If ones mind is agitated, then one should not

apply too much mindfulness, but relax the mind more. If mental agitation ispresent during meditation, then one needs to loosen the mind, in a sense let


32/69

go of mindfulness or whatever it is that one is using in order to make the

mind more focused. If the mind has become dull and there is no sense of

clarity, then one should try to regenerate and refuel the presence of

mindfulness.

In terms of posture also, if ones mind has become dull, then oneshould

straighten ones spine, expand ones chest and tighten the body somewhat.

Not too rigidly, but make the body become a little bit more rigid. If mental

agitation is present, then one should loosen ones posture so that one feels

more relaxed and one should focus ones mind on the lower part of the body.

Basically, if mental agitation is present then one should loosen ones body and

concentrate on the lower part of the body; if dullness is present, then one

should try to tighten the body. In any case, these two methods of loosening

or tightening are used.

The practice of mindfulness is called dran-pa(pronounced tren-pa) in Tibetan.

It literally means rememberance. Before awareness arises in meditation, the

meditator has to learn how to focus the mind and that is achieved through

the practice of mindfulness. One has to use a particular object in order to

practice mindfulness. When mindfulness is practiced for a period of time, then

awareness would arise as a product of mindfulness.

In mahamudra teachings, in relation to shamatha meditation, the beginner

should first use some external object such as a piece of wood, a pebble, any

kind of physical object in ones visual field and concentrate on that. Whenever

the mind become distracted, through use of mindfulness one remembers to go

back to that object of meditation, that physical object. After having done

that for a period of time, one can use ones own breath as the object of

meditation. One applies mindfulness to the incoming and outgoing breath. In

order to help with this process one can even count the breaths, up to five,

up to eleven, and so on. Each outgoing and incoming breath are counted asone. Counting helps the mind to be more focused on the object of

meditation, which in this case is the breath. When one has been able to do

that with some success, then one should move onto using the mind itself as

the object of meditation. One tries to be mindful of the thoughts and

emotions as they arise, without labeling them, without judging them, simply

observing them. As this observation continues, mindfulness becomes

transformed into awareness. So if distraction arises, one becomes aware of

that distraction; if dullness or stupor is present in the mind, one becomes

aware of that; if mental agitation is present, one becomes aware of that.


33/69

With the practice of meditation of tranquility the mind becomes more

stabilized.

When one contemplates on the mind itself and lets the mind be in its natural

state, then, apart from mental stability there has to be a sense of clarity. Itis not sufficient that the mind has become stable, it is also important for

clarity to be there. In mahamudra teachings this is described as gnas tyur,

the aspect of stability, and gsal tyur, the aspect of clarity. A mind which is

stable but without clarity is deficient. Both mental clarity as well as stability

have to be present. According to mahamudra teachings, if one is able to

pursue with this, as the mind becomes more stable and clarity is present,

then even when thoughts and emotions arise, the stability and clarity of the

mind are not disturbed.

So if one maintains mental clarity when the mind is calm or when mental

agitation arise, that is the best form of meditation. Meditation does not

mean ones mind should always be calm or empty of thoughts and emotions.

If a sense of mental stability or clarity is there, even when the mind is in

movement, then that is the ultimate goal. The ultimate goal is not to

eradicate thoughts and emotions, but to be able to maintain that sense of

awareness both in movement as well as in a restful state. That is why in

mahamudra teachings we use expressions like gnas ju rigs sum. Gnasmeansthe mind when it is stable, when its not agitated; jumeans the mind when

it is in movement, basically when thoughts and em

mahamudra - traleg rinpoche

Documents