Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche

minds that apprehend appearances

Minds That Apprehend Appearance

, , , , , , , ,

The following is an excerpt from Minds that Apprehend Appearance by Acharya Sherab Gyaltsen. This is included in the sourcebook we use in our Mind & its World II course, which we are offering during this year’s Summer Institute. This course completes the Classification of Mind (Lorik) root text, from the tradition of Pramāna or Buddhist epistemology that students begin in Mind and Its World I.

Learn more and register for the Nitartha Summer Institute 2021 here: http://bit.ly/nsi21fb



MINDS THAT APPREHEND APPEARANCE

—Acharya Sherab Gyaltsen

The second main section of the Lorik text is the specific analysis of the essential modes of engagement of the mind. It has five subsections. The first is minds that apprehend generalities and particulars, which we have completed. We are now looking at the second subdivision, and it is divided into two sections: inclusive engagement of appearances and eliminative engagement of conceptions. 

INCLUSIVE ENGAGEMENT OF APPEARANCES
Minds that apprehend appearance and elimination has two parts: inclusive engagement of appearances and eliminative engagement of conceptions. 

Definition of Inclusive engagement of appearances
A mind that directly engages its specific object without excluding its opposite is an inclusive enager. For example, an eye consciousness apprehending a flower is an inclusive engager because it apprehends and directly engages its specific object, the flower, without excluding its opposite, that is, what are not flowers. 

From the view of the inclusive engagement of appearances, the word “appearances” refers to objects for a nonconceptual consciousness. The inclusive engager cognizes the object through just the mere appearances of it. Through just the mere appearance of the object, the action of cognizing is completed, which means that this mind does not do anything else. Its engagement of the object does not exclude anything; it does not need to go through the process of excluding everything that the object is not. It is simply, on the basis of the mere appearance alone, that the object is engaged. Its action is completed through just seeing of the object. You might wonder if all instances of direct valid cognition are inclusive engagers of appearances. Yes, they are. Consciousness can engage an object in two ways: either as an inclusive engager of appearances or as an eliminative engager of conceptions. All direct valid cognitions are inclusive engagers, but not all inclusive engagers are direct valid cognizers, as in the case of wrong cognition. That would still be an inclusive engager, but it would not be a direct valid cognition. 

Divisions of Inclusive Engagement of Appearance
This has three modes: First is the actual mode of being of the object, that is, the way the object is. Second is the mode of apprehension of the mind, which is the perceiving subject. Third is the concordance of mind and object, the way in which the perceiving subject and it object relate in a concordant way.

Khenpo Rinpoche wrote the verses in this presentation. The verses are in the form of a reasoning, which was done to make the whole thing easy.

Actual Mode of Being the Object
The first line is the subject: “Entities that exist as actual objects.” Actual objects are specifically characterized phenomena, or ultimately existent objects. The predicate is the second line: “Exist without evident and nonevident aspects.” The reason is the last two lines: “One entity does not exist as different entities / And different entities do not exist as one.” 

We will use an eye consciousness apprehending these flowers as our illustrating example. When the eye consciousness directly sees these flowers, the single specifically characterized phenomenon “flowers” does not exist as different entities. It exists as something single. When the eye consciousness sees the flowers, it does not see half of them and then not half of them. They exist as one single thing, and they are seen as that. This is the meaning of the line “[They] exist without evident and nonevident aspects.” If the specifically characterized phenomenon did exist as different entities, you would only see one and you would not see another. You would see some aspects clearly and some not clearly. But, in fact, when the eye consciousness looks at the flowers, it just sees the single entity, the single specifically characterized phenomenon, just as it is. 

A specifically characterized phenomenon, which is a thing that exists clearly from its own side, is exactly what it is. If it is single, it is single; if it is single, it does not exist as different entities. Different entities do not exist as one. Therefore, when an inclusive engager apprehends its specific object, it sees it clearly as it is. It apprehends the object just as it is, without obscuration. It is not some parts of it are not clear or obscured. It sees specifically characterized phenomena just as they are. 

Mode of Apprehension of the Mind
The subject is part of the first line: “in inclusive engagement.” The predicate is the fourth line: “In engagement through appearance, there is no remainder.” The reason is the second and third lines: “One entity does not appear as different entities / And different entities do not appear as one.” The example is shown in the first line: “Sense direct valid cognition.”

The first line says: “In inclusive engagement, such as sense direct valid cognizers.” “Such as” includes mental direct valid cognition, self-aware direct valid cognizers, and so on. These are all inclusive engagers.

For an inclusive engager, one entity—one specifically characterized phenomenon, which is its specific object—will not appear as different entities. Different specifically characterized phenomena will not appear as something single. Therefore, in engagement through appearance, there is no remainder. 

An inclusive engager directly engages its specifically characterized phenomenon without something being left over that is not seen. When it directly engages with the object, there is not some part of the object left over somewhere, that is not seen. It engages the whole object. It sees the whole thing. When you have an eye consciousness apprehending something white, the object is the white thing that is seen. When this white object is directly seen, the whole thing is seen. It is not as though the eye consciousness only sees half of it and the other half is not seen.

In the context of Madhyamaka, bodhisattvas abiding on the first bhumi directly realizes emptiness. The mind of such a bodhisattva is an inclusive engager. It is yogic direct valid cognition that is realizing emptiness, and when this emptiness is realized, nothing is left out. It is not as though half of the emptiness is seen and there is another half that is not seen. For this reason, it is said that the emptiness realized by the three types of noble beings, shravakas, pratyekabuddhas, and bodhisattvas, is the same. When emptiness is realized, the emptiness of a self of the individual and the emptiness of the self of phenomenon is realized. From the view of the emptiness that is realized, nothing is incomplete, and the distinction made from one bhumi to another is simply whether the familiarization or habituation to that emptiness has been completed or not.

From their own side, all compounded phenomena are impermanent. When one understands this through reasonings and becomes habituated to that understanding, and finally directly realizes the impermanence of all compounded phenomena, it is not as if one realizes half of it and does not realize the other half. It is not that some part of impermanence is realized but another part is not realized. If one realizes impermanence, one realizes that all compounded phenomena are impermanent. It is for this reason that Aryadeva said that when one realizes the emptiness of one thing, one realizes the emptiness of all.

Concordance of Mind & Object
“Object and subject” is the subject of the reasoning. The third line where it says “without any confusion” is the predicate. So we are saying, “Object and subject are without any confusion.” Then two reasons are given. The first one is the first two lines: “In whatever way an object’s features abide. In that same way are they apprehended by mind.” the second reason is the second half of the last line: “Abide interdependently.”

“Object and subject” refers to a specifically characterized phenomenon and a direct valid cognition. No confusion is present. Nothing mistaken occurs. Then we have two reasons why. First because “in whatever way an object’s features abide, in that same way are they apprehended by mind.” If we have one object, there will be one perceiving subject. For example, when an eye consciousness apprehends a flower, it sees a flower. It does not apprehend something else—which brings us to the last line: “abiding in mutual dependence”—because the object and perceiving subject are dependently originated. If the object is a flower, the apprehending consciousness will apprehend a flower, or an aspect of a flower; it will not apprehend a piece of paper or something. Therefore we have this statement: Object and subject are without any confusion. There is nothing mistaken in their relationship. In whatever way an object’s features abide, they are apprehended by mind in that same way because they abide in mutual dependence. 

Let’s use a mirror as an illustrating example. A mirror is able to have reflections appear within it. There is an interdependent relationship between the object and the mirror in which it is reflected. If we have an external object and we have a mirror, the form can be reflected within the mirror. If we do not have a mirror, but we do have an object, of course, the object cannot be reflected. If we have a mirror, but we do not have an object, nothing will be reflected in the mirror. In the same way, the perceiving subject and its objects have an interdependent relationship. In the case of an eye consciousness apprehending a flower, we need the observed object condition of a flower and an eye consciousness to be present for the apprehension of a flower to occur. Without the flower, there will not be an eye consciousness that apprehends a flower. The two abide in mutual dependence,  or they exist in a relationship if interdependence. That is why the text says that in whatever way the object abides, it is apprehended directly by  mind. 

Learn more and register for the Nitartha Summer Institute 2021 here: http://bit.ly/nsi21fb

 

 

Buddha in nitartha institute blog post.

Hearing, Contemplation & Meditation Part II of II

, , , , , , , ,

The following is part II of an excerpt from Commentary on Hinayana Tenets by Acharya Sherab Gyaltsen (You can read part I here). This is included in the introduction section of the sourcebook we use in our Mind & its World I course, which we are offering during this year’s Summer Institute. Some things we learn about in details in the course rare: 

  • Divisions of mind
  • Definitions of valid cognition
  • Definition of direct valid cognition
  • Sense direct valid cognition
  • Two truths in Vaibhashika and Sautrantika view
  • Process of perception in Vaibhashika and Sautrantika view
  • Mental direct valid cognition
  • Self-aware direct valid cognition
  • Yogic direct valid cognition
  • Seeming direct cognition
  • Definition of inferential valid cognition for oneself and for others
  • Appearing object, referent object, object of engagement
  • Nonvalid cognition
  • Three results of valid cognition
  • …and much more

Learn more and register for the Nitartha Summer Institute 2021 here: http://bit.ly/nsi21fb

Hearing, Contemplation & Meditation

—Acharya Sherab Gyaltsen

Read part I here.

Qualities of Hearing
To illustrate the qualities of hearing, we can make the analogy of a dark house. If you have a dark house, no matter how many nice belongings and possessions you have inside, no matter how beautiful the paint is or how  nice the shapes of the room are, if it is dark, when you enter the house, you are not going to be able to see any of the house or appreciate it. In the same way, as sentient beings, out mind-streams from beginningless time have been turned towards the ignorance that is deluded about the way things appear and the ignorance that is deluded about the way things are. There is a very thick darkness that exists in our mindstreams as sentient beings. Hearing the Buddha’s teachings is like turning on the light in your house. We can illuminate the darkness in our minds. 

Wisdom of Hearing
The wisdom of hearing is said to be the supreme of all jewels. Worldly types of jewels or things that we may keep in our houses are subject to being stolen by thieves. But if we engage in hearing and develop the qualities and wisdom  of hearing, the teachings of the Buddha will stay in our mind-streams, and no bandit, robber, or thief can ever access them. They will always stay with us once we acquire them. For this reason, hearing is said to be the supreme of all jewels. 

The wisdom of hearing is also taught to be like a sword. It can conquer all enemies, just as a physical sword can  conquer external enemies. The sword that is the wisdom of hearing can conquer the darkness of not knowing. Once we rely on the wisdom of hearing, we can come to correctly know what points are to be abandoned or adopted in regard to karma and the way things appear. As well, we can come to understand the points that are to be adopted or abandoned in regard to the way things are—the actual nature of things—by relying on the wisdom of hearing. Since this is the case, hearing is taught to be like a sword that can conquer all enemies. 

Wisdom of Contemplation & Meditation
Of course, we cannot just stop at the wisdom we acquire from hearing. We must join the wisdom of hearing with the wisdom of contemplation. Therefore whatever we hear from our spiritual friends, it is beneficial to reflect again and again on what we have heard. It is said that hearing that is not joined to contemplation and meditation is like a rich man who is bound by his wealth. He has innumerable material possessions and wealth but cannot enjoy them. He is afraid to put on the nice clothes he has bought or eat the nice food he owns. He just wants to store it all and have it all. If one does not further apply the understanding that arises from hearing through contemplation, one is like a rich person who cannot enjoy his or her possessions.

As for contemplation, it is said that we have to contemplate in the manner of following the way of gaining certainty, not just believing what we have heard out of some kind of respect for something like that. The Buddha said that it is not appropriate for an individual to adhere to his teaching or to trust or believe in his teaching simply out of respect for the fact that he is the Buddha or that it is his command.

THREE STAGES OF ANALYSIS
The Buddha taught the three stages of analysis so that people could better give rise to certainty in the scriptures or the teachings they have heard. To present the three stages of analysis, he used that example of a gold merchant inspecting his gold. There are three stages a gold merchant goes through to  inspect his gold: burning, cutting, and rubbing. The first thing a gold merchant does to test the gold is to burn it and see if it changes color in the way that gold should. Next, he rubs the gold to see if it matches up to the reaction that gold should have to rubbing. Finally he cuts the gold to see what it looks like on the inside. After thoroughly analyzing it in this way, he can be certain whether it is gold or not and whether he should keep it or throw it away. In the same way, we need to contemplate the teachings in a thorough manner. We first need to thoroughly analyze the teachings, and if, as the Buddha said, in the end they are something that you agree with, and if they concord with your reasoning, then you should put them into practice. But if they do not concord with your reasoning, you should just abandon them. 

CAUSE & EFFECT RELATIONSHIP
Some people think that to engage in hearing and contemplation in this way is an obstacle to meditation because, they say, it will just increase one’s thoughts. They think that it is just engaging in conceptual mind, and that it will increase one’s concept and thoughts and will not help one’s meditation. They say it is like a prisoner in a jail.

Whether you are bound by iron chains or gold chains, you are still bound in the same stock. The gold chain is akin to correct hearing or having the right idea, and the iron chain is akin to incorrect hearing or having wrong ideas. They say that whether it is incorrect hearing and contemplation or correct hearing and contemplation, both are still in chains in a prison. You are still bound by chains. But this is an incorrect view. 

The people who hold this view are in error. They do not realize the cause and effect relationship between hearing, contemplation, and meditation. The cause of hearing bears the result of contemplation, and the cause of contemplation bears the result of meditation. You cannot have meditation without its corresponding causes, and you cannot have the result of good meditation without the corresponding causes of hearing and contemplation. Thus those who think that hearing and contemplation are simply binding factors are also accepting that results arise without any cause. 

The Buddha taught 84,000 heaps of dharma, and it is said that the dharma teachings that Buddha gave are limitless. We could ask these people, “If it is the case that meditation is all you need to do without hearing and contemplation, then why did the Buddha teach all these teachings?” It would follow that the Buddha’s 84,000 teachings of dharma would be purposeless, and so this is not the case. 

Someone who meditates without hearing or contemplation is like a person who has had his or her hands cut off but wants to climb a mountain. He or she can have this great goal and vision of climbing to the top of a very steep mountain, but however much effort he or she puts into this goal, this person is not going to get anywhere. In the same way, if a person wants to meditate without having heard any teachings or contemplated any teachings, he or she might have a lot  of ignorance to work with but will not have any wisdom. This person will not know what is to be meditated upon, and he or she will not be able to attain any kind of result.

This has been a brief explanation of the purpose and reasons why we engage in hearing, contemplation, and meditation.

Read part I here…

Buddha at Nitartha Institue blog post.

Hearing, Contemplation & Meditation Part I of II

, , , , , , , ,

The following is an excerpt from Commentary on Hinayana Tenets by Acharya Sherab Gyaltsen. This is included in the introduction section of the sourcebook we use in our Mind & its World I course, which we are offering during this year’s Summer Institute. Some things we learn about in details in the course rare: 

  • Divisions of mind
  • Definitions of valid cognition
  • Definition of direct valid cognition
  • Sense direct valid cognition
  • Two truths in Vaibhashika and Sautrantika view
  • Process of perception in Vaibhashika and Sautrantika view
  • Mental direct valid cognition
  • Self-aware direct valid cognition
  • Yogic direct valid cognition
  • Seeming direct cognition
  • Definition of inferential valid cognition for oneself and for others
  • Appearing object, referent object, object of engagement
  • Nonvalid cognition
  • Three results of valid cognition
  • …and much more

Learn more and register for the Nitartha Summer Institute 2021 here: http://bit.ly/nsi21fb


Hearing, Contemplation & Meditation
—Acharya Sherab Gyaltsen

The Buddha, the teacher who is the perfect Blessed  one, taught two types of teachings: the teachings of scripture and the teachings of realization, and it has been over thirty years now that these two teachings have been spreading in this land.

EXPLANATION & PRACTICE SECTIONS
The Buddha taught methods to increase and propagate these two forms of teachings. As a method to increase the teachings of scripture, the Buddha taught that one must engage in explanation and listening. AS a method to propagate the teachings of realization, the buddha taught that one must engage in the practice of the path. For the former, there is a section that concentrates on increasing the teachings of the scriptures, and it is the explanation section. As for the latter, the practice section propagates the teachings of realization.

As far as the practice section is concerned, even though all three elements of hearing, contemplating, and meditating are present, what is foremost is meditation. This is not to say that one meditates in the practice section without doing any hearing or contemplation—all three are present—but what is foremost in the practice is meditation.

From the perspective of the explanation section, again the threefold combination of hearing, contemplating, and mediation is present. Here, however, hearing and contemplating are emphasized rather than meditation. 

From the perspective of progressively engaging the view, it is taught that between the explanation section and the practice section, the explanation section comes first. Therefore what we are engaged in here at Nitartha is primarily the section of explanation. Even in the explanation section, however, there is meditation. To attain the ultimate final result, the state of buddhahood, the most important thing is meditation. But to have correct or good meditation, one has to have correct contemplation, and to have correct contemplation,one has to rely on correct listening or hearing. Therefore we start in this way hearing.

PROGRESSION OF HEARING, CONTEMPLATING & MEDITATING
We engage in the explanation section through reasoning. We engage in hearing the dharma in a way that concords with proper reasoning, as opposed to mere superficial understanding. Listening to the dharma can be divided into two classes. There are those who listen merely to get an understanding, and there are those who listen while exercising their ability to reason. The latter one, listening while exercising one’s ability to reason, is what we are trying engage in here. 

Through what reasoning do we hear the teachings, and through what reasonings do we follow these teachings? We follow a progression of reasonings. We can all say that we are individuals who desire liberation and peace and who  do not want suffering. Not only that, but we are individuals who are looking for the ultimate peace. From that perspective, we can say that hearing the dharma is important. Why is it important? Because contemplation is important. Why is contemplation important? Because meditation is important for the attainment of these goals. And why is meditation important? Because attaining the ultimate result of buddhahood is important. This is the progression of reasonings we use to decide that hearing is important. 

For beginners on the path, the most important thing is to engage in hearing the dharma. The Buddha taught numerous methods of cutting the root of ignorance, the clinging to a self-identity. To cut the root of ignorance, one needs to learn and understand these methods. If one relies on a lama or a spiritual friend in the manner of trying to engage in these methods without first understanding them, one will not be able to cut the root of clinging to a self-identity, and consequently will not be able to relinquish suffering. Thus the principle reason for the importance of hearing is that we understand the methods to cut the root of ignorance. 

Therefore we engage in hearing, contemplating, and meditating in a progressive order. First we hear the teachings of the Buddha, then we contemplate what we have heard, and finally, we meditate on our contemplation. Let us take for example a person who suffers from hunger. What is the most important thing this person needs? Obviously, this person needs to eat food. Food will alleviate his or her suffering. What do we do to eat the food of meditation? To eat the food of meditation. We need to know how to make the food, so we need to be skilled in the way of making the food. This is contemplation. Next, to know how to make the food, we have to learn what the food is made of, what causes and conditions have to come together for the food to be made properly, and so on. This is akin to hearing. To sum up, the skill to know what causes and conditions come together to make the food is similar to hearing, and actually making the food is similar to contemplation. However, just having made the food will not suffice. We have to eat it, and eating the food is similar to meditation. 

Drawing from this analogy, obviously, the first thing we need to learn is how to hear the dharma. It is said that hearing is like a torch that dispels ignorance. This scriptural citation praises the qualities of hearing. It is important to know the qualities of hearing because if we do not know the qualities of hearing, we will not give rise to any kind of joy or delight towards hearing the dharma.

Continue reading part II here…

Mind & Mental Events

Mind & Mental Events

, , , , ,

This excerpt is from the sourcebook that we use for the Mind & Its World II course. This course completes the Classification of Mind (Lorik) root text, from the tradition of Pramāna or Buddhist epistemology that students began in Mind and Its World I. This course has two main sections. The first provides the practitioner with the tools for delineating conceptual and non- conceptual types of mind in meditation. This teaching is codified as the modes of engagement of mind. The second section investigates mind in terms of the mental factors/events that describe specific functional aspects of mind, as well as determine its virtuous or afflicted states, in order to cultivate the former and relinquish the latter.

If you are curious about this course, learn more here: https://nitarthainstitute.org/curriculum/foundation-curriculum/bud510/


Mind & Mental Events
-Acharya Sherab Gyaltsen

In the  explanation of the divisions of mind, which is the large, second part of the outline of the Lorik text, there are three sections: 1) the general teaching about the important divisions of mind, 2) the specific analysis of the essential mode of engagement of mind, and 3) the delineation of the necessary distinction between mind and mental events. We have come to the third section, which distinguishes “mind,” ¹ in the sense of primary mind, from mental events, ² which are the mental processes that accompany the primary mind. Both of these are divisions of “mind,” in the larger sense of that word: both mind and mental events are mental phenomena, not material. The importance of this section of the Lorik is that it encourages us to take a close look at the contents of our mind, at our different types of mental states, and provides a framework, a lens, that will help us bring what we see into clear focus. 

Definitions of Primary Mind & Mental Events
The definition of a primary mind is “that which is aware of the essential nature of an object.” The primary mind is that which simply knows the object. There are differing classifications of primary mind in parallel with Buddhism’s various philosophical systems. According to the Vaibhashikas and Suatrantikas, primary mind is divided into the six consciousnesses, five sense consciousnesses and one mental consciousness. According to the Cittamatra tradition, there are eight consciousnesses; they add two mental consciousnesses. 

Mental events are what accompany the primary mind. In subsequent chapters, we will consider the classifications of mental events in some detail, but in a broad way we can say that mental events, also called “mental factors” (these two English phrases will be used interchangeably), on the basis of the primary mind observing an object, engage the object from the point of view of its features, such as its functions and so forth. In his classic text Distinguishing the Middle From the Extremes, Maitreya gives a definition of the primary mind as “the consciousness that sees the object.” The primary mind experiences the mere fact or presence of the object. Mental events are described as “what engage the features of the object,” e.g., they discern the function of the object, its pleasantness or unpleasantness, or any of its other features. 

Just because something is a mind in the broader sense does not mean that it is mind in the narrower sense of primary mind. Mental events are minds but not primary minds. If there is a primary mind present, there will be its attendant mental factors. If there is no primary mind present, there will not be its attendant mental factors. Although a primary mind and its mental factors have different functions—knowing the object and distinguishing its features, respectively—they all take place within one mental continuum. 

Congruency Of Mind & Mental Events
Primary mind and its accompanying mental events are both mind in that they experience an object and are present in the same mental continuum. This point is brought out by saying that a primary mind and its attendant mental factors have five kinds of congruence. These congruencies are presented differently in the two great abhidharma traditions: the tradition of Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakosha, which our Lorik text follows in this matter, and Asanga’s Abhidharmasamucchaya. According to the Abhidharmakosha presentation, the five are: a) the support, b) object, c) aspect, d) time, and e) substance.

Establishing primary minds and mental events to be congruent
The first way in which a primary mind and its attendant mental events are congruent in is regard to the support. They have the same sense faculty as their support or basis. If we take an eye consciousness as an example of a primary mind, its support will be the eye faculty. Its attendant mental factors will also have the eye faculty as their support.

The second congruence is that of the object, or focus. In the case of an eye consciousness, its object is a form. Its attendant mental factors will also have the same object, a form. 

The third congruence is that of the aspect. In the case of an eye consciousness, an aspect of a form will arise to it. For its attendant mental factors also, the same aspect of a form  will arise for them. For example, when we look at a brown car, the color brown appears to both the primary mind—the primary mind—and its accompanying mental events. 

The fourth congruence is that of time. The arising, abiding, and ceasing of the primary mind, for example, an eye consciousness, occur simultaneously with the arising, abiding, and ceasing of its attendant mental events. Since the primary mind and its attendant mental events arise, abide, and cease together, they cannot have a cause-and-effect relationship, which might be thought to be the case if the primary mind preceded the mental factors. 

The fifth congruence is that of substance. Here “substance,” a technical term in this context, refers to the primary mind and its mental events having the same number of moments of the same type. However many moments the primary mind perceives some object, for the same number of moments will its accompanying mental events perceive that object. In a single moment of a primary mind, there will only be one of each of the corresponding mental events. For example, one moment of eye consciousness, a primary mind, can only be accompanied by one of the three types of the mental factor of feeling—pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral.

In Asanga’s Abhidharmasamucchaya, the presentation of the five consciousnesses is slightly different. The congruences of time and substance are the same as in the Kosha. However, in the Samucchaya, the congruences of object and aspect are combined and there are two new ones added: the congruence of essential nature, and that of realm and level. 

The congruence of essential nature means that if the primary mind is afflicted by kleshas, then the attendant mental events will  also be afflicted. If the primary mind is free of the mental affiction, then the attendant mental event will also be free of affliction. 

The fifth congruence in the Abhidharmasammuchaya system, that of realm and level, means that if the primary mind belongs to the desire realm, then the attendant mental events will also belong to the desire realm. If the primary mind belongs to an individual abiding in the form realm, then the attendant mental events will also be of the form realm. In the same way, if the primary mind belongs to a being in the formless realm, the attendant mental factors will be of the formless realm. This means that there will never be, for example, a primary mind belonging to the desire realm with its attendant mental events belonging to the form or formless realms. 

Mind itself is extremely vast and has no end or limit. When we talk about the primary mind and its accompanying mental events of feelings, discriminations, and so forth, it may seem that we are making the mind small. But in actuality, the mind is like an ocean. It is one continuum but this continuum has many parts, just as an ocean is one vast body of water, but we can speak about its southern region, its northern area, and so forth. When we talk about what is happening in the mind, we talk about various primary minds; there is a primary mind for the eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, taste consciousness, and body consciousness, each of which is accompanied by its five omnipresent mental factors. At the same time, we may have other mental factors occurring in our mind, such as recollection and so forth. That is why we say that the mind is immeasurable. 

We practice meditation to develop the limitless quality of mind. There are the immeasurable qualities of loving kindness, compassion, joy, and equanimity, and we explore these limitless possibilities of mind. Our mind is not restricted the way our physical body is. No matter how much we train physically, we will only be able to jump so far, run so far, live so long, because a body has its limits. But the mind has no such limits. There is no limit to our mind, and so we train to develop it, by meditation for example on its limitless capacity for loving kindness, compassion, joy, and equanimity. 

¹ Tib. sem, sems

² Tib. semjung,, sems byung

Meditation on Repulsiveness

Meditation On Repulsiveness

, ,


This excerpt is taken from our ebook that we are giving away this year, Analytical Meditation. Tame Your Mind. Please sign up here to receive this 20  page detailed ebook on analytical meditation by Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche.

Meditation On Repulsiveness

-Dzogchen Ponlop rinpoche

We are human beings, one of the six classes of sentient beings who live in the desire realm of the three realms of samsara. Since we live in the desire realm, desire is foremost among the mental afflictions for us. All the other mental afflictions, such as aggression, bewilderment, pride, and jealousy, arise on the basis of this fundamental mental affliction. It is not that we do not have the other mental afflictions, but the ground for all mental afflictions is desire. 

From the Sutrayana perspective, the main method to purify the mental activity of desire is the meditation on repulsiveness. The meditation on repulsiveness mainly concentrates on the body as the object of repulsiveness. You start off by contemplating the nature of your body, and if you find that you have any attachment and clinging to your body, you then contemplate the repulsive nature of your body. From there, you expand your contemplation outward to the bodies of others and so on, whatever you might be attached to. When you contemplate your own body, you think about how what makes up your body now is something that you have to leave behind in the end.

From the Buddhist point of view, the body is actually like a motel or a hotel. Whether you stay in a shitty motel that smells bad or whether you stay in a fancy hotel that has really nice soap and Aveda shampoo, it is the same thing. Nothing belongs to you. You are there as a guest, and from that perspective, there is no difference. You can take care of that room, or you can trash it, like Eddie Van Halen did because they gave him green M&Ms. But do you really want to live in a trashed room? Even if you are living in a shitty motel room, if you take care, it can be nice. In the same way, as long as you live in this motel called this body, this life, and so on, if you take care, it will be nice, and there is nothing wrong with that. At the same time, it is impermanent, and sooner or later, you will have to leave this motel. Sooner or later, someone will take your body to a mortuary. In Tibet, the vultures take care of it. 

As an antidote to our clinging and attachment to our own body, we meditate on repulsiveness. This way of meditation is from the common or foundational vehicle of Buddhism, and three main meditations are practiced at this stage. The first type is the meditation on filthiness, the second type has the name of the overall category so it is called the meditation on repulsiveness, and the third type is the skeleton visualization, the skeleton being the main basis upon which the body is built. I will not be explaining the detailed explanation of these three meditations in this class. The practices may sound very weird, but they are profound in the sense that they are great mind training practices. It is all about mind training—mind training, mind purification, mind transformation.

In sum, as a method for purifying the mental activity of desire, we meditate on repulsiveness. Even though we may meditate on repulsiveness, we will not be able to completely relinquish the mental affliction of desire. Nevertheless, if we thoroughly practice this meditation, it is taught that it will stamp down the manifest forms of desire. We might not get all desire, including its latent or dormant forms, but we will be able to stamp down the manifest forms of desire.

The collection of instructions about these meditations for purifying the mind is known as the “upadeshas” or “pith instructions” for purifying the mind. It is also called “mind purification” or “lojong.” It is important to think about the name of this collection of teachings: instructions for purifying the mind. These are instructions that help us overcome our thoughts and different forms of fixation. They do not have anything to do with the objects we think about, the outer objects themselves, but they instruct how to purify our own mind inside. 

These meditations are not about how ugly someone looks or how repulsive someone may be. They are about our attachment and how our attachment is ugly and repulsive. In the end, it is our attachment that is disgusting. Whether we have a beautiful object or whether we have a not so beautiful object, our attachment is the same, and it is our attachment and desire that bring pain to ourselves and others. In my opinion, whether we are contemplating filthiness or contemplating repulsiveness or visualizing skeletons, all are simply ways to relate to the attachment and clinging found in our own mind.

Although the basic structure of a skeleton does not have a label or name, once it is covered with flesh and so on, we put all kinds of labels on top of it. From there come many concepts, thoughts, ideas, and attachments that have nothing to do with reality. Even when we talk about our parents, children, and partners, we project and label on top of their basic skeletons. The actual reality of who they are is like a skeleton. Then, on top of that skeleton, we cover them with body and flesh—all of our projections, thoughts, and so forth—and we build something totally different other than who they actually are. On the basis of that skeleton, we generate many emotions, thoughts, attachment, and clinging. That mind is what is ugly, disgusting, and repulsive. That is what the teaching on repulsiveness really means for me.

Of course, in our meditation practice, we use different techniques to create and bring on this feeling of repulsiveness and ugliness. In that way, meditation is a bit like CGI. It has to be more creative and graphic in order to gross out and entertain people, like in “True Blood” and “Dexter.” In the same way, meditation is sometimes exaggerated, so that it makes you feel disgusted. Since the meditation on repulsiveness is so graphic, it has an “R” rating. If you are a minor, please close your eyes and ears! The meditation on ugliness, repulsiveness, and filthiness is quite graphic in order to bring on the feeling of how disgusting our thought process and labeling mind is. That labeling has nothing to do with the basic skeleton of reality. The basic skeleton of reality is totally different from what we put on top of it. When this kind of meditation is taught traditionally, people usually think it is weird and do not want to do it, but if you think about it, it is a profound and beneficial meditation, as it shows us how disgusting our labeling mind actually is.

Sometimes when you think someone is upset with you, and you wonder why he or she is not talking to you, you think that this person looks differently at you now. We have all kinds of projections. Why is she being like that? Maybe it’s because I did this or that, but when you finally have a chance to talk to that person, she says, “Oh, I have been so busy, and I didn’t have time to call you,” or she says, “I have been having a really difficult time with my work and haven’t had time to call anyone.” In the end, it has nothing to do with you or any of your projections that you have been suffering over for the past week. This is how our projections bring us so much suffering and pain. It is disgusting.

When you think about this matter carefully, you might reach the conclusion that there is no choice not to feel repulsiveness or no choice not to have an insight into filthiness, and that is why in the traditional context contemplating repulsiveness is presented in the beginning. It is very graphic, but this type of technique is needed to enhance our relationship to this contemplation on repulsiveness, such as contemplating the list of the thirty-six filthy substances of the body and so on.

At the beginning, it is a bit like a picture dictionary, but later you can just read the words and definitions, and you no longer need the pictures. After that, you can look to the synonyms and antonyms, and you do not need the definitions. So, there is a progression. In the beginning, you need a graphic dictionary of ugliness and repulsiveness; however, these things are not needed in the context of the final form of meditation. They are simply skillful means to purify and tame our mind. In the beginning, our mind is overwhelmed with the conceptual movement of thoughts, and in order tame the mind, we practice shamatha that focuses on the breath. Next in order to relate to our emotional mind, particularly that of desire, we begin by practicing the meditation on repulsiveness, but all of these are simply methods for taming and purifying the mind, as opposed to being called methods for taming and purifying objects. It is not about changing what you see out there, it is about changing how you see it. 

Meditation Practice

There is a nice verse that reminds us of the context and intention through which these teachings are being given to us. The verse says:

All of the great many dharma ways of the victorious One,

Infinite in their reach

Are nothing other than methods

For taming our own mind-stream.

Please contemplate this verse well. Remember it and memorize it.


This excerpt is taken from our ebook that we are giving away this year, Analytical Meditation. Tame Your Mind. Please sign up here to receive this 20  page detailed ebook on analytical meditation by Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche.

wheel of analytical meditation blog post

The Wheel Of Analytical Meditation

, ,

This excerpt is taken from our ebook that we are giving away this year, Analytical Meditation. Tame Your Mind. Please sign up here to receive this 20  page detailed ebook on analytical meditation by Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche.

The Wheel Of Analytical Meditation 

-Dzogchen Ponlp Rinpoche

In a different text by Lama Mipham, he says that meditation devoid of analysis is like falling asleep and is therefore not beneficial. That is why analysis is taught to be important in our approach to the Buddhist teachings. When we analyze, we do so based on our hearing and contemplating. We do not just select random thoughts to analyze. The method of analysis here is based on the scriptures and reasonings of the dharma teachings. It is not the ordinary sense of analysis, in which our random thoughts go crazy analyzing things. That is okay, but it is not really beneficial here. What is beneficial in meditation is analyzing on the basis of scripture, such as the Buddha’s teaching or the teachings of the great masters Nagarjuna, Asanga, and so on, as well as using logic and reasoning. When we analyze on the basis of scripture and reasoning, it becomes a great support and aid to our meditation. so when we talk about analyzing here, it does not mean letting our thoughts go crazy and analyzing some kind of conspiracy theory. Analysis here is based on scripture and reasoning.

We analyze using scripture and reasoning in this way, and the object of our analysis is the mind. If our analysis goes well, the result is that certainty arises. If certainty arises, then we cut through superimpositions and doubts. When we cut through our superimpositions and doubts, then our meditation can be free of obstacles. If our meditation is not free from superimpositions and doubts, then it is difficult for that meditation to progress. If we try to meditate in the midst of all our superimpositions and doubts, sometimes our meditation itself can become a cause for our mind to be more disturbed. Many people get messed up by meditating. Many people say that their mind was fine before, but since they started meditating things have gotten worse. This happens when our meditation is devoid of certainty. In order to give rise to certainty, we need analysis. Without analysis, we cannot give rise to certainty.

Analytical meditation is really a unique quality of Buddhist teachings. The Buddha always taught that we must analyze. The Buddha always taught that we must question. The Buddha never said that we should accept anything with blind faith. In my view, this is the most profound and distinguishing feature of Buddhism, compared to other traditions, religions, and cultures. The Buddha always said that you must question, and you must come to some kind of certainty. After you have certainty, you can take it or leave it. It’s very American, isn’t it? The Buddha never said, “It’s my way or the highway.” He said that after analysis and once you have certainty, you can embark on the path fully or leave it. It is up to you. If your certainty says it is wrong, then leave it. That’s very liberating, isn’t it? It is different from some supernatural being telling you cannot question or analyze, and that his word is the final word. The Buddha never said anything like that. This is why I think analysis and analytical meditation are so important. This point really strikes the unique feature of the Buddhist teachings and approach.

This is also different from other meditation practices. Other meditation practices tell you what to think, what to focus on, what to recite, what mantras to recite, and things like that. You just do it,t but this one is telling you not to just do it, but to analyze first, and then on the basis of that

analysis, you gain certainty. When you gain certainty, you cut through superimpositions and doubts, and when you cut through superimpositions and doubts, the instruction is to rest within that state. So, we do analysis, gain certainty, cut through doubts, and then rest. This is the process of analytical meditation. Isn’t that nice, instead of just meditating like a zombie? Why do you want to be a zombie with someone controlling your brain? From the Buddhist point of view, that is not right. We don’t just do what the gurus say; instead, we analyze and gain certainty, and once we have the certainty, we rest in that. Then a real experience can arise because that certainty is yours. It is not Milarepa’s certainty. It is not Guru Rinpoche’s certainty. It is not Lama Mipham’s certainty. It is your certainty. It is a direct perception and a direct experience. You no longer have to guess what they mean by this or that. You do not have to have endless interviews with lamas, teachers, and practice instructors, because you have gained your own certainty inside of yourself. This is called “unassailable insight.” No one can take it from you. Even if you were thrown in jail, you still would not lose this wisdom. Even if somebody waterboards you, and you are not lucid, it is there as soon as you gain consciousness. They can waterboard you again and again, but as soon as you gain consciousness, your certainty is still present. If your meditation is based on following someone’s instruction, your certainty will not be there when you wake up. Instead you will think, “Oh shucks, where is my meditation? Where is my instruction?” and you will feel very angry at your guru.

When we give rise to this genuine certainty, it is unassailable by others, it cannot be taken away by others, and it cannot be led in another direction by others. Even if other people tell you that isn’t the way it is or that is not the case, your mind still will not change in regard to your certainty.

In the traditional language of the shédra, it is said that when you give rise to this level of certainty, even if a thousand Buddhas were to show up in front of you and say you have it wrong, you will still not change your mind. Isn’t that nice? Or maybe you have just become extremely stubborn and beyond saving! Therefore, it is important to give rise to genuine certainty. If your certainty is corrupted, you will have a difficult time. This is the essence of why we practice analytical meditation.

In sum, the wheel of analytical meditation purifies the conduct and activity of mind, and we do that by engaging in a detailed personal analysis. This wheel of analytical meditation purifies the conduct and activity of mind by providing us methods to engage in a personal analysis. In other words, we do not rely on others to analyze for us. We could also say that this wheel of meditation engages in a detailed examination and analysis in that it analyzes phenomena as they appear, one by one, or discretely because we must engage in analysis in a continuous and uninterrupted way, it is called a “wheel.”

The way the relationship between analysis and meditation works is that in the beginning, we analyze by using scripture and reasoning. This analysis leads to the development of certainty, when the certainty arises, we rest within that certainty. We arrive at meditation at that point, but we do not just stay in that resting meditation state. We once again pick up our analysis and begin analyzing within resting. So the first stage involves analysis, and the second stage involves practicing analysis and meditation in tandem with each other. In the final stage, we practice resting meditation alone. These three stages carry their own sense of the word “wheel” as well. In the beginning, engaging in analysis in an uninterrupted way is like a wheel. In the middle, engaging in the alternation of resting and analysis in an uninterrupted way has the quality of a wheel, and in the end, allowing the resting meditation to sustain all meditation in an uninterrupted way is also like a wheel.

This excerpt is taken from our ebook that we are giving away this year, Analytical Meditation. Tame Your Mind. Please sign up here to receive this 20  page detailed ebook on analytical meditation by Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche.

Image of flowers

APPEARING OBJECT & REFERENT OBJECT

, , , , , , , , ,

This excerpt is from Lorik Oral Commentary by Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche:

Objects of Conceptual Mind & Direct Perception. This is one of the topics we study in our popular Mind & Its World II, Modes of Engagement & Mental Events class. This course completes the Classification of Mind (Lorik) root text, from the tradition of Pramana or Buddhist epistemology that students began in Mind and Its World I. This course has two main sections. 

 

APPEARING OBJECT & REFERENT OBJECT

By Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche

The conceptual mind has two objects, an appearing object and a referent object, whereas the nonconceptual mind has just one. This section deals with the two objects of the conceptual mind. When we imagine “a blue table,” there is an appearing object that appears to direct perception but not directly to conceptual mind. Compared to sense perception, the conceptual image is vague and unclear.

Each conceptual mind is involved with these two different objects. There is the mental image that is a conceptual object, “blue table” which we imagine, and there is also the basis for its arising—the blue table out there without any labels, conceptual impositions, or imputations. That is the referent object, that ultimately inexpressible thing out there in the world.

Though we use the word “image” in regard to the conceptual object, we are not referring only to the visual sense. Any of the senses can be involved. For instance, think of the inexpressibly rich chocolate taste of a Snickers bar. An image, an impression, comes to mind, though it pales in comparison to the real thing.

The object out there is a specifically characterized phenomenon, which produces a conceptual image in our mind. More precisely, it does not produce that image directly, but is the basis on which we develop the conceptual image. For example, based on our visual consciousness of blue, indirectly through a process of exclusion, we develop the conceptual image of “blue;” in a similar fashion, based on seeing tables, we develop the conceptual image of “table;” and based on our taste consciousness occasioned by eating a Snickers bar, we develop the conceptual image of “sweet, chocolatey taste.” Further we can amalgamate these—we can combine the “blue” and “table” the more complex conceptual image of  “blue table”—thus fashioning a rich conceptual world with our mind. 

The above is a basic description of conceptual mind. As background information, we should be aware that Buddhist texts on epistemology can speak of not just two but four types of objects: 1) the object of engagement, 2) the referent object, 3) the apprehended object, and 4) the appearing object. With reference to the conceptual process, generally the first two and the latter two are said to be equivalent, respectively. “Object of engagement” and “referent object” point to the same thing—the specifically characterized object, the real external object. In this context, the appearing object (or the apprehended object) is the conceptual image of the former, arrived at through a process of exclusion. In the context of direct perception, there is only one object, taken in through a process of inclusive engagement. In direct perception, the appearing or apprehended object is the object of engagement.

For the discussion of conceptual mind, the two important objects to consider are the appearing object and the referent object. The referent object is so-named because when we have an idea, it is reference to something. That something is the referent object. The word is being used in the usual way. For example, we can say our pramāṇa tradition makes reference to Dignaga, Dharmakirti, the seventh Karmapa, and Khenpo Rinpoche. Similarly, our conceptual mind conceives an image that has a referent. That referent object is specifically characterized, a really existing thing.

The appearing object varies according to the mind’s mode of engagement. In the case of conceptual mind, that appearing object is the conceptualized image. In sensory perception, there is no distinction made between the appearing object and some “referent object.” What appears to perception is the actual thing itself. There is no reference to some other object. More precisely, what appears to perception is the apprehended aspect, which is an accurate representation of the object, and so, to set aside the discussion of the hidden object for the moment, the aspect can be said to be the object. When we see a glass, it appears to perception without the label “glass.” Since the glass itself directly and fully appears to that perception, it can be called an appearing object. In nonconceptual, direct perception, we do not have two objects, but one—which could be called the apprehended object, appearing object (the more common term), or object of engagement (thus named because it is the actual object that consciousness engages, or gets at). For direct perception, they are all one and the same.

Conceptual mind’s image of the object is not very accurate—in the sense of being clear, precise, and complete—unlike the object of direct perception. By way of contrast, in the case of direct perception, there is no distinction between an appearing object and a referent object. There is only one object, and it appears directly to mind. 

If you are curious about this class, learn more here.

Nitartha Summer Institute 2019

2019 Summer Institute Website

, , , , , , , , , ,

We are pleased to announce the opening of our new Summer Institute website. Details about the new location at Willamette University in Salem, Oregon and information about courses and prerequisites for the new unified program, Meditation and Study in Union, can be found on the new website. Registration for review and prerequisite classes is now open. Summer Program registration will open in early spring.

openHouse2018

Open House 2018

, , , , , , , , , ,

Curious about the Summer Institute? Come check out our programs for one day!

On Saturday, July 14th, 2018 we are offering an Open House at the Summer Institute on the Western Washington University campus in Bellingham, WA. On this day you are welcome to attend any of the classes. You can mix and match classes in Buddhist Studies, Meditation, Thangka Painting, Mudra Space Awareness and Tibetan, as well as attend teachings by Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche!

Where?

Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA, about 90 minutes north of Seattle. For directions to Fairhaven College, home of Nitartha Summer Institute 2018, click here.

When?

Saturday, July 14, 2018 anytime after 8:00 am.

Registration

For planning purposes, we kindly ask that you let us know if you are coming by filling out a short form. Register Now!

Questions?

Check the summer institute website for a detailed schedule. Email us at info@nitarthainstitute.org or call 720-310-0422 for further information.

1 2