(Submitted by Sam Shepperd for Travis Edwards)
In one of the teachings in The Way of the Bodhisattva there is a statement everything comes from the mind. But in the book Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness there seems to be another stage of learning involving luminosity beyond the mind. Could you please share your insight since I believe these contradict?

Thank you! Travis Edwards, Tulsa, Oklahoma

Best wishes,
Margaret ford

Tonight, 23.09.2011 we set up a way of donating on the Rigul Trust Bodhicharya Communities website.

Tomorrow, 24.09.2011 we plan to set up designated DONATE button just for Sikkim Earthquake fund at http://www.rigultrust.org but we haven’t started this yet and now it’s bedtime!!

Also tomorrow 24.09.2011 we hope to explain what is happening and how to donate from this website.

So, please bare with us and keep an eye on http://www.bodhicharya.org and http://www.rigultrust.org
We hope to do this tomorrow as I say, but Jude works full time and she needs to configure all these technical PayPal things too!

Yes, things are very bad in Sikkim, three emails from Rinpoche tonight with a lot of information.
Rinpoche is well with his mother and family in Kathmandu still.

You have given much to people here in Scotland through your visits and teachings; I would like to offer help to you and your people at this time of sorrow. I invite others to respond so that together we might be able to raise awareness of the needs of those left bereaved or homeless after the earthquake and perhaps contribute in some way. With love and prayers Taramag

Rigul Trust has now set up a Sikkim Earthquake Relief Work Appeal, where you can donate funds to the relief work. You will find it in the Bodhicharya Communities, here’s a link to the Rigul Trust page there:

http://bodhicharya.intouch.net/pg/groups/19516/rigul-trust-sikkim-earthquake-relief-work-appeal-donate-here/

You will have to register with the Communities network first, if you haven’t done that already. You can do it by clicking ‘Sign up now’ button and filling in your details.

Love, Minna

Mutch Love to You Rinpoche, to Your family.

Madalena

http://www.flickr.com/groups/bodhicharya/

Looking forward to seeing them!

Not returning ill for ill, that surely has to be the base.
I remember years ago (1994?) my teacher (the Dzogchen Pönlop, Rinpoche) lead a workshop on Social Justice in Halifax, with the Shambhala community. I asked him about intervening in some ill-deed, how to respond to someone who was doing ill. In the style I’ve come to know so well he began his reply with, “Give them a break!” This, to me, signals an over-arching benevolence.

But I am thick, and slow, and clumsy. How to “give someone a break” in a manner that does not do them injury “in the long run”? I am surely not to establish a co-dependent relationship where I door-mat myself and indulge their delusion.
I can appreciate “taking the lance directly into your heart and there dissolve it” but my understanding is so thin I can’t imagine how to acknowledge their goodness, through the antagonism and confusion.

I suppose that’s because my own prideful resentment is muddying my mind!

thank you, Rinpoche, for your gentle counsel
Karma Chöpal

tashi delek from berlin…

_()_

marco

Alistair, Nerea, Lore and Ayla.

I do hope you have a very Happy Birthday and thank you so much for the online shedra teachings, it is a wonderful experience to receive your knowledge and guidance through the internet.
Please have a very good and healthy year ahead.
Thank you. Gerry Marshall

With love, love, love and love I wish you joy, joy, joy and joy!

May all your wishes be fulfilled , may all your dreams become Reality!

I was interested to know if it was possible to do meditation program at your centre for about 10 days in the month of either september or november 2011.

I will be more than happy to know more about it and attend it.

Thanks,
Ninad…

This was before I heard your kind instruction. You seem to be saying that stanza 1 is talking about rejoicing in the postive deeds of the most ordinary beings which brings temporary relief from suffering. I accept we rejoice in ordinary beings doing positive deeds even though they may not be aware of the dharma.

I’m interested as I found the reminder that spiritual energy has the power to transform and bring suffering beings to eternal joy, even to beings in the most suffering, to be inspirational and helpful for my practice. This seems effective for me at cutting through negativity and I have found it simple for me to use to invoke feelings of rejoicing. I also believe it to be true (from the little I have glimpsed through my own practice) when I am rejoicing there is not so much space in my mind for the jealousy! It seems a shame I have come to the wrong interpretation, can I continue to use this practice?

Thanks so much for replying! I believe that the Bodhicharyavatara is a very practical guide to the everyday concerns we all face, just like the ones you mention in your post. I am devoting all my dharma study time for a little over a year to delving into this book to see how it might help in my own life. I’d love to have a little study group here in the shedra to share my efforts with.

So I’m going to copy your post to the Discussion Board and reply to it there. I understand from your opening that you aren’t committing to deep and frequent discussions, which is fine. I just think we students of the Bodhicharyavatara need a place where we can share our thoughts, concerns, and difficulties in applying the lessons. I hope others will join in.

- Jeff

I have been unsuccessful in trying to find others who would like to join me in a student discussion group to explore the different ways that we understand these marvelous teachings. So I’m taking your very good question as an opportunity to ask again if anyone is interested in having student discussions that focus on the text and teachings. Sharing our personal efforts to internalize and apply these teachings is a great way to plumb their depths!

David who apologizes for the quality of his English…

Can you please explain to us how we should understand the different kinds of torma offerings?

Many Thanks

Alistair

Precisely! I am looking for people who are willing to share their efforts in that regard so we can all benefit from each other’s nuanced understanding and application.

I know I very behind in following the Shedra but I want to mention that I am finding your teachings very helpful to lift me out of discouragement with my practice. Sometimes I despair of being able to generate a good bodhichitta (being able to hold it) but your teachings sideline doubt and distrust and focus on the real ‘how to’ process.

Thank you so much!

This is very helpful. Thank you so much for your teachings and taking the trouble to post these self-study questions!

I had read the Bodhicariaavatara 2 or 3 times before, some chapters many more times, and I thought that I had understood…In the past, I just glossed over Chapter 1, in a hurry to get to Chapter 6 or some other place in the book…This Shedra is helping me see how much more meaning this book has and how very little I had understood from my previous readings. After realizing how much there is in Chapter 1 alone, I am very humbled, and so glad I joined!

Again, my very deep and grateful thanks!

I don’t think Rinpoche would say he is offering “The Final Answers”; he offers authoritative guidance and direction. It is we who must apply the guidance and travel in the correct direction. Shantideva says in 2b-3a it’s important to constantly repeat these teachings for ourselves to seat them firmly in our minds and strengthen our faith for a little while. This is necessary because virtue is weak and non-virtue is extremely strong (v.6).

Right now we are gathered together in a class on one of the greatest classics of Buddhist philosophy and practice. As a gathering of sangha for a purpose it is a lightening-flash opportunity for all of us and we can better seize the opportunity by focusing on the material. I certainly agree that all dharma topics are equally valuable but at times it is more worthwhile to focus on one topic alone. Taking the example of training in shamatha, if I choose “bodhicitta” for my object of meditation then during the session switch to “emptiness”, I still have a virtuous object but I’m not making progress toward shamatha because I didn’t settle my mind where I intended. Similarly I think a class about bodhicitta practice will be enhanced if the students carry their focus outside the classroom to reinforce the lessons in discussion among themselves.

The most important thing I’d ask people to consider is that discussions among students are not about being right or proving what we know or aggressively pushing a particular point of view. The purpose of discussing is to share different perspectives. Each of us sees something different in the teachings. By having a common focal point – namely the verses Rinpoche has recently taught – we can all enhance our personal understanding if we simply share the many nuances of what we think we hear.

I remember as a kid having our private little-kid-discussions where we tried to make sense of things we heard about or saw from the adult world. We just shared openly. I believe that kind of basic knowledge-sharing, regardless of our ages or levels of development, is an extremely important element in the process of growing up – whether “growing up” refers to becoming adults or bodhisattvas.

I guess I understand the “shedra” to be a separate online class at Bodhicharya.org specifically dedicated (at the present time) to studying the Bodhicharayavatara. That’s why I find it puzzling that none of the debates have even mentioned the text or teachings. But regardless of that, the new Discussion Forum has both shedra and non-shedra areas, and there are topics already in progress.

I think it is profound because it contains all the essential elements for internalizing dharma: a core teaching; an authoritative commentator; a receptive student; and companions with whom to share different impressions. To me, that is the essence of what you call wanting “to explore with another practitioner, a conversation that grounded any kind of ‘high’ teaching in basic instructions”.

I advocate that for this shedra, especially those of us who don’t have a local discussion group, these online debates and discussions should be our Bodhicharyavatara discussion group. Sharing various insights, questions, and even misunderstandings about the specific verses Shantideva is declaring and Rinpoche is teaching is an extremely important method for grounding this wisdom in our daily lives and actually putting it into practice.

I would go further and say that in the same way we practice calm abiding by choosing a single object and not straying to other objects that come to mind (virtuous or otherwise), so too when we are engaged in a particular study topic we, as a class, do better to focus all our attention on that topic. Outside of class or when it’s over there will be plenty of open forums where all dharma topics are equally relevant.

Non-distraction is the body of meditation, as is taught.
Whatever arises is fresh, the nature of realization.
To the meditator who rests simply in naturalness,
Grant your blessings that my meditation is free from conceptualization.

Perhaps this is a good place to end.
Peace and blessings. Spaff

As a well brought up English girl I was always required to sit with my knees and ankles together. When I tried to meditate, I found it almost impossible to sit cross legged on the floor – my knee joints ‘screamed’ in protest. Anyway, for reasons beyond my control, I joined a Mahamudra Course led by the Tai Situpa several years after it had commenced. On the Saturday I took refuge and the bodhisattva vows, on the Sunday I participated in a Guru Rinpoche empowerment, on the Monday I learnt how to focus with full awareness and on the Tuesday I was privileged to meet the Tai Situpa in a one to one interview.

As I sat down in front of the great master my knee joint gave way and I could think of nothing else but how to stand up. If I leant forward I might fall on him and if I leant to the side I would have to put my full weight on the bad knee. So what to do. Conversation was minimal (how very disappointing!) When I stood up the pain shot through my body and all I did was swear (Oh s***). My first meeting with a great master and that was all I had to say.

In that moment, as my body recovered from the shock, I just felt overwhelmed by the most amazing kindness. I turned to thank Rinpoche and was transfixed. I was transported into a realm of limitless ‘bliss’ the like of which I had never know before. All I can say is that it was an experience of total purity, clarity and beauty. I was totally focused and totally ‘aware’ throughout the experience (or if at any time I wasn’t then I was not aware of it). I have no idea how long it lasted – eventually I just bowed my head and walked out of the room. So a lightning flash of intense pain and a lightning flash of bodhicitta!!

thank you

Yes, I do agree with that. We can mix relative truth with relative falsety, and we can also mix relative truth and falsety with absolute truth. Relative truth and falsety are conceptual, and absolute truth is non-conceptual.

-”In the two debates, we have been asked to go ‘beyond’ the dualities and ‘beyond’ the conceptualising mind. I have tried to argue that this is impossible.”

This is my point : the ego is a concept, it is the conceptualising mind, therefore it can not go beyond the conceptualising mind, the ego can not go beyond itself. Nevertheless, I think that a totally silent and non conceptual mind is possible, but not for the ego, not for the conceptual mind. Like you said, all concepts are dualistic, that’s why I believe that the only way to “experience” absolute non-duality is to be in a total non-conceptual state of mind. (And it’s not really an experience, because an experience is still dualistic, so let’s call it an “experience” without an experiencer and an experienced). It is not to experiment non-duality, it is to BE non-duality, it is not to experiment silent mind, it is to BE silent mind, without a subject and an object. That’s why I said nobody can be or become enlightened, because enlightenment is the “experience” without an ego (of the person and the phenomena).

But still, I think that even so-called “enlightened beings” continue to think, which means to have an ego, but that is no more grasped, no more believed to be inherently existent.

That’s what I meant, and it’s just my point of view, not my “experience”, or “non-experience”, if you prefer…

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify my thinking.

With meta

Therein lies the problem. You think in terms of ultimates and absolutes and I think (and feel) in terms of relatedness or interconnectedness. As far as I am concerned words/concepts (or mental constructs) only have meaning in relation to the language/thought systems/value systems/conceptual frameworks (call it what you will) in which they are generated. Confusion arises when we try to ‘pick and mix’ concepts from different systems or at different levels of abstraction – whether in philosophy, science, religion or any other field of study.

As I understand it, in the Bodhicharyavattara, Shantideva is setting up a new conceptual framework (I use conceptual to include thoughts, feelings and actions) based around the concept of bodhicitta. At the moment we are familiarising ourselves with his terminology and his reasoning processes. Perhaps, as Jeff Holloway implied, we should stick to Shantideva’s system.

I would just add that we express our thoughts and feelings by using dualities or antinomies (I am not always sure of the difference). Thus hotter/colder, harder/softer, more pleasurable/more painful, grasping/letting go etc. There is no such thing as ultimate pleasure/absolute pain or ultimate kindness/absolute callousness any more than there is ultimate hotness or absolute coldness. In the two debates, we have been asked to go ‘beyond’ the dualities and ‘beyond’ the conceptualising mind. I have tried to argue that this is impossible. Even the concept of an ‘enlightened being’ creates a duality/antinomy – set as it is against a non enlightened being. If this is what you meant, Mustapha, then I would have to agree with you.

[Nb. There are even ten levels of bodhisattva-ness (I made that word up) so more bodhisattva-ness and less bodhisattva-ness? I jest.]

With meta (thanks to Kalpana for that word/concept – I shall use it often)

I don’t think I ever said anything was meaningless. In short, what I said, is that compared to the ultimate truth, all meanings are meaningless. All meanings are conceptual and concepts are not the truth, there are just concepts, including what I’m writing here, of course. So even what I say with these words is not really true and you can thus throw everything to the trash can.

If I do not make a mistake, that’s what this debate is all about : conceptual mind, less conceptual mind and non-conceptual mind.

You said : “So what ?”
Jackie said : “Grasping is painful…and conceptual!”
I say : Grasping to concepts is conceptual…and painful!

Thank you for your very interesting comment.

All the best.

We normally pitch our speech at a level to suit our audience. The problem with the first debate was that no one (including me) really knew the level to pitch it at. The second debate has been much less abstract – and I don’t think we need to go over old ground.

[Nb. Whether a statement/opinion is right or wrong, and whether a concept is valid or invalid, depends on the conceptual framework we are using. I tried to make this point by referring to the different ways specialists would describe and explain the sensations produced by a simple cup of tea (whether the specialists are tea drinkers, tea connoisseurs, environmentalists, biologists, chemists, physicists, mathematicians or philosophers). A specialist can only argue a case in relation to the conceptual framework within which she/he operates. It would be inappropriate for a philosopher to argue that a discussion about say the impact of the environment on tea production was meaningless because the tea leaves, the environment and the environmentalists had no inherent existence. They may have no inherent existence but so what? It would be equally inappropriate for a mathematician to argue that the soothing properties of a cup of tea were meaningless because they were not measurable or quantifiable. Again so what? Maybe I just want the pleasure of drinking it.]

When I said there is nobody to be enlightened, I didn’t mean we do not exist at all, it’s not a nihilistic point of view. What I meant is the ego is a conceptual experience, it’s not real in itself, it has no inherent existence. So the ego, like everything else, is neither existent nor non-existent.

So you are right, it’s not correct to say there is really somebody, but it’s neither correct to say there is really nobody. Maybe we could say, there is apparently somebody.

P.S. : Dear Jackie, I wish you a quick and complete recovery.

PS. I won’t bother replying to Mustapha since he is so convinced we don’t exist.

I think nobody is, has ever been and will never be enlightened. Enlightenment is the “seeing” by no-one that there is nobody to be or not to be enlightened. The ego can not be present to it’s own absence. Enlightenment and non-enlightenment are just concepts. Maybe not to believe in those concepts, and in any concept, is what is called enlightenment.

No need to say I’m very far from enlightenment, but I just wanted to share my thinking.

With love

[Nb. It should be noted that the same question has been asked by many philosophers from many cultures and backgrounds throughout recorded history. Modern scientists have also tried to explain what 'ultimate reality' might be - apparently the entire universe is now considered to be, mathematically at least, a vast hologram on the fringes of a black hole.]

I agree with your last sentence. What our minds ‘normally’ do is construct images, form concepts, hypothesise and theorise etc etc. from the information received via our senses. However I think the most important thing is just to recognise that we create the whole of our world from our, distorted and biased, experiences and perceptions and then react and respond in a negative manner to the images and concepts we have ourselves created. Silly really isn’t it?

I think you are right to separate meditational experiences from experiences in everyday (conventional) life – though I am told that for experienced practitioners/enlightened beings the meditational and post meditational experiences are the same.

I don’t think that it is necessary to ‘deconstruct’ our experiences or to break them down into their component parts but rather just to recognise them for what they are – mental constructs created out of our sense perceptions. A Tibetan teacher at Samye Ling in Scotland used the analogy of a picture to explain this. The picture is before us (in a conventional sense) but each viewer ‘sees’ it/interprets it in a different way. So for one it may be beautiful, for another it may be ugly, for a third it may be frightening and for a fourth it may be exhilarating etc etc.

Another example is that of the late Princess of Wales, who was probably the most photographed woman of the last decade. Despite the most minute details of her life being ‘splashed’ across the newspapers of the world, everyone ‘saw’ her in a different light; no one really ‘knew’ her – just the image of her they had created in their minds. The same applies to US presidents (eg JFK) and film stars (eg Marylin Monroe)

When we are upset, or when we feel negative emotions such as greed, anger, hatred etc., we often blame someone else or some event in the ‘external’ world but we in fact create our own upset by the way we view these ‘others’ or view the events which have occurred. We may be unable to change ‘society’ but we can certainly change our response to ‘it’.

I think it really important to recognise that ‘love’ in particular is a creation of our own mind and that we should not go ‘looking’ for it from someone else. Having been brought up a Christian, I am mindful of the prayer of St Francis: better to love than be loved, better to give than receive
better to understand than be understood etc. I am told it was the favourite prayer of Mother Teresa.

We were asked to follow debates on ‘activity and non activity’ and on ‘beyond mind in meditation’ and this inevitably led to (theoretical) considerations of emptiness and (experiential) considerations of the nature of mind. I think this quotation applies to, and answers, both.

Just one more point (though this is probably more relevant to the discussion arena). Some of the contributors have emphasised ‘mindfulness’. My concern is that this seems to be becoming big business. There are conferences on mindfulness for professionals, MSc degree courses, commercial companies specialising in the field etc etc. It makes me even more appreciative of all the Rinpoches who spread the dharma so openly and willingly – and of Ringu Tulku Rinpoche in particular for his kindness in initiating this website and his patience when explaining the meaning of Shantideva’s words and answering all our questions.

Doha
(A Dharma Song by Ven. Lama Gendun Rinpoche)

Happiness cannot be found through
great effort and willpower,
but it is already there,
in relaxation and letting-go.
Don’t strain yourself,
there is nothing to do.
Whatever arises in the mind
has no importance at all,
because it has no reality whatsoever.
Don’t become attached to it.
Don’t pass judgment.
Let the game happen on its own,
springing up and falling back,
without changing anything -
And all will vanish and reappear, without end.
Only our searching for happiness
prevents us from seeing it.
It is like a rainbow which you run after
without ever catching it.
Although it does not exist,
it has always been there
and accompanies you every instant.
Don’t believe in the reality of
good and bad experiences;
They are like rainbows.
Wanting to grasp the ungraspable,
you exhaust yourself in vain.
As soon as you relax this grasping,
space is there -
open, inviting and comfortable.
So, make use of it.All is yours already.
Don’t search any further.
Don’t go into the inextricable jungle
looking for the elephant
who is already quietly at home.
Nothing to do,
nothing to force,
nothing to want -
And everything happens by itself.

Something went wrong with my submissions and they all ended up in the trash can – maybe the best place for them. Minna retrieved them – hence the repeated remarks from me on different pages where I kept trying to resubmit them (my thanks to Minna, I think). Anyway, I now don’t know whether you were disagreeing with me or with someone else.

I very much like the quotation but I do want something else. I have different experiences when I meditate with different rinpoches. [I don't know whether this happens to other contributors - perhaps one of them will tell me.] Sometimes I ‘feel’ the emptiness – like an astronaut lost in space or a gigantic blue amoeba swimming through the aether. It is lonely beyond words. Other times I ‘overflow’ with compassion – and with sadness for the human condition (love and pity mingled). I think however I prefer the response I have with the situ rinpoche – intensity, beauty, clarity, kindness combined -as a ‘mother looks upon her only son’.

I just don’t know what ‘bodhicitta’ is, whether all these different aspects or none of them. I suppose I will just have to follow the course led by Ringu Tulku Rinpoche until I ‘experience’ whatever is being portrayed. It hasn’t happened yet!!

the less conceptual experience which is coming to my mind happens while my work with body awareness, zen shiatsu or chi gong: The state of mind of pure perception and acceptation of “what is”without comments, nor judjement. Also of course while the MBSR training of John Kabat Zin you can make this experience. So long we are incarnated in bodies, in flesh, blood or nervs, mindfulness works always through perception, through our senses. But this sensibility is also a part of the all pervading perception of the true nature of the mind, which exists beyond materie, pure consciousness . This pure perception is always deeply kind, full of loving kindness but without sentimentality.

Have a super nice day!

I can’t pretend that I have reached a high level of meditation (or non-meditation), it’s just my intellectual understanding of it. I just said that, because you said : “At the end: practice and practice and practice, over and over…”. So I talked about the end, but really I’m just a beginner, really.

Thank you for your precious comment francoise.

Thank you for your comment.

It seems to me that there are two distinct strands flowing through this debate and, as I have indicated above, flowing through all religious debates since time immemorial. One strand relates to ‘thought’ and the other to ‘feeling’ – to put it in it’s simplest terms. The quotation could fit either or both strands.

Now the original debaters referred to a mind beyond concept – or a non conceptual mind – which has led to many comments on the ‘emptiness’ of all phenomena or rather, as I would prefer, the interrelatedness of all phenomena. But concepts are usually a product of the reasoning aspect of mind – they are the result of intellection and/or conceptual analysis.

I am more interested in the experiential or feeling aspect of mind. As we all know, meditation is not just about the interrelatedness of concepts it is also about ‘calm abiding’; about dealing with the sins’ or ‘stains’ of anger, craving, ignorance, frustration, jealousy, pride etc and transforming them into peace, desirelessness, wisdom, compassion etc.

My question for you is thus as follows. Is what you refer to as the ‘primordial consciousness’ and I would call ‘insight’ (but which we would both describe as a clear awareness without entanglement with the ego) the same, or rather ‘of the same taste’, as compassion/loving kindness? If not, how do you reconcile the two?

The sixth song of the arising of experiences and the elimination of obstacles
Karma Chakme Rinpoche

Just some excerpts from this great text,. Hope you will appreciate it! At the end: practice and practice and practice, over and over……………

My understanding of primordial consciousness is not that this state of mind is a kind of heroin trip, and we are floating amoebic within. It is the opposite. We are (full) consciousness, sharp and bright and also thoughts are there, but we don´t relate with “I” and “me” on anything. The difference between samsaric state of mind and enlightened state of mind is “just” this strong focus on me or I, and it works like a thick filter which breaks and splitts the light, or like blinds in the front of the windows of our ego-boxhouse. In samsara we are all hypnotized: it is also a state of (un-)consciousness.
To wake up is going beyond.

I don’t think that was the original meaning of the analogy. I think the original idea was that, in meditation, the hotel owner (ie the meditator) just watches ideas come and go, like guests checking in and out of a hotel. The ideas, like the guests, are interesting but not that interesting and not worth more than a superficial glance.

Well, I keep repeating myself, but what is it like to be conscious without being conscious of any thing? Is it a mystical state of grace/bliss?

So is practice actually more about ‘upping’ our level of care about the others we are missing out in focusing on the one family? Valuing them all equally preciously. It is nice to notice someone and notice their uniqueness and to care that they exist. But ideally we try and do that for all, equally. And that frees us from grasping at that one family. It gives a different feeling entirely. I think I might be trying to describe moving towards ‘perfect discriminatory wisdom’, the enlightened nature of perfectly transformed desire and attachment. We see the beauty in the unique details of how life expresses itself. We enjoy that. But we see it everywhere and leave the stories aside. (Well, when we’re the enlightened hotel owner we do.) Is this a way to see it?

Mary Heneghan

—-”Dialogue across different spiritual traditions is fraught with obstacles, even within a shared Buddhist heritage. Over the thousands of years since the death of the Buddha, different schools have evolved in their own unique ways.

Typical of the pitfalls was a meeting in the late 1970s between a Korean Zen master and a respected Tibetan rinpoche. The meeting had, of course, been set up by their Western students in hopes of fostering an exchange between two lineages long estranged.

The Zen master began with a Dharma challenge. Holding out an orange, he asked forcefully, “What is this!” The Tibetan master sat in silence and continued to thumb through the beads of his mala. The Zen master asked again: “What is this!”

The rinpoche turned to his translator and inquired softly, “Don’t they have oranges in his country?”—-

It’s a funny and wise story and I wanted to post it because of that. And also because “beyond concepts” is something we can at least start relaxing into. An instruction given of a good meditation posture in Ringu Tulku Rinpoche’s Lojong book is: “We imagine ourselves as a bundle of hay, cut loose.”

The Bodhicharyavatara is a book for practical application. Shantideva frequently cites the efforts of ordinary beings, contrasting them with our lazy attitudes toward dharma. He points out that fishers, farmers, and hunters suffer tremendous hardships for the purpose of earning a living. He uses medical analogies to show that we submit to bitter medicine and invasive surgery for better health. He also uses warrior analogies, not to discuss war, but to say that combatants will endure any dangers to inflict death upon someone whom Shantideva calls a corpse already. He says such enthusiasms are better applied to bodhicitta.

My purpose is to interject Shantideva into these shedra discussions. I’d like for us as students to share our ideas about the text and teachings. I used three analogies, not to bring up war, but rather the warrior-practitioner within us.

First was the carpenter striving for perfection while completing the job at hand. Here and now we have the benefit of a present master to guide us through a literary masterpiece and a classical commentary. I advocate attending to the immediate job of applying the lessons (getting the job done) rather than speculating about emptiness and selflessness (striving for perfection). Doing the job well leads to perfection.

Second was the dharma boot camp. Shantideva has given us a precise guide for applying dharma in our daily lives. Kunzang Pelden’s teacher did it just as Shantideva describes. And Rinpoche is here to guide us.

Third I tried to apply Shantideva’s warrior analogy to the current debate topic of “Beyond Mind”. I meant for it to compare a spontaneous moment of mind/no-mind with a moment of heroism. They both depend upon a history of focused preparation and yet go beyond any preparation without being caused by it. The present shedra is a “focused preparation”.

I am so surprised that anyone should wish to separate conceptualisation from rational thinking/intellection. Maybe it would be better to talk in terms of a ‘state of mind’ than a ‘non conceptual’ mind (even though both are themselves concepts).Thus not a thinker and a thought but the thinking; not a perceiver or a sense perception but the perceiving; not a benefactor or a recipient but the giving/receiving; not a guru and a disciple but the compassion/devotion; not a self and an other but the loving kindness; not an ego and a conceptual mind but the ‘awareness’.

I like when Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche says that:

When you don’t have obsession
When you don’t have hang-hups
When you don’t have Inhibition
When you are not afraid
You will be breaking certain rules
When you are not afraid
You will not fulfill somebody expectations

What more enlightenment do you want?

Everything that can be perceived with the mind is conceptual, there is no need to be afraid of this. It is like that. Our eyes and hears have more wisdom than the mind who cannot perceive directly. Can we function in our world without some level of conceptualization?

Interestingly, all the metaphors, aphorisms, analogies and similies used by debaters and commentators relate to activity – guests in a hotel, clouds floating across the sky etc. etc. Somehow there is supposed to be an ‘absolute’ or ‘ultimate’ mind totally at rest behind, beyond or transcending the activity of this conceptualising mind. I don’t buy it.

What I think is important is the activity of the mind itself: not a perceiver or something perceived but the perceiving; not a listener and sound but the hearing; not a dancer or a dance but the dancing; not a self and another but the relating; not a benefactor or a recipient but the giving/receiving; not a guru and a disciple but the compassion/devotion; not an ego and a conceptual mind but the awareness. I could go on.

Heidi suggests “we rest in the energy behind it all” and for me that energy (which in scientific terms is an oscillation or a vibration) is the activity of the mind – whether fast or slow, aggressive or passive, harsh (like a sneeze) or soft (like a yawn).

For compassion I would read loving kindness and for insight I would read conceptual analysis. So, loving kindness and conceptual analysis sit side by side, one does not lie above, beneath, before or behind the other.

I would agree that at times we can become less conceptual and much kinder and at other times we can become more conceptual and less kind but I think it is difficult (if not impossible) to become totally non conceptual or totally devoid of kindness. Even the worst Nazis showed kindness towards their families.

Yes, we can not conceive it, because it is unconceivalbe. Non-conceptuality is unconceivable.
If there is no more concept, there are no more the concepts, and the conceptual experience of lower, higher, concept, vibrating, Universe, I, experience, effects, subtle, body, mind, speech, etc. I have heard that all is left is pure Awarenes/Peace, but I don’t know what it is, because my mind is always so full of concepts, especially when I try to have no more concepts.

Of course it’s not a perfect analogy, but on the relative level of everyday reality we deal with…it might be seen as certainly making a choice to give up personal agenda for the benefit of beings. What the individual motivation is in moments of fighting, one never knows. Even at the moment of death, we can’t know how the dharma practitioner’s motivation is going. Hopefully, we are practiced enough to direct that and as you say alistair….give victory and gain to others and enjoy the fruits of that selfless act. …anyway, these comments inspired my exploring my own understanding about dharma and war. The warrior of course in dharma means “courage” to keep on the path. As Trungpa says. No aggression there but endurance putting teachings into practice.

I am reminded of the mediaeval Christian debates about the primacy of Faith or Reason. These were conducted at the time of the Crusades when many new ideas were brought back from Constantinople, a melting pot of cultures and races. [NB. There were long periods of peace, when all parties got along, as well as long periods of war!]

The question then was whether reasoning/conceptual analysis or faith/experience was the most fundamental. Proponents of the former argued, amongst other things, that ‘God was that of which no higher could be (intellectually) conceived’ whilst proponents of the latter argued that ‘God was the mystical state of grace achieved through meditation’. Others argued that the life of Jesus Christ, as described in the New Testament, was all that could be ‘known’ and therefore all debate and meditation should be about Him. The debates were resolved by positing a Trinity – God (intellect!), the Holy Spirit (faith!) and Christ (the manifestation of intellect and faith!) – all component parts being of ‘equal’ importance.

I think those debates are relevant to the present comments. Which is the more fundamental – an intellectual understanding of emptiness, an experience of bodhicitta, or the mind, body and speech of the Buddha? In other words, does the conceptual mind ‘transcend’ the experiential mind, or does the experiential mind ‘transcend’ the conceptual mind? The wording of the debate, ‘Going beyond Mind’, and the arguments of the original debaters would imply the latter, but some of the commentators seem to be assuming the former. [I use the word transcend instead of behind and beyond but recognise that these are all conventional terms - what else can we use?] Maybe we should just concentrate on our guru as the preserver and transmitter of the body speech and mind of the Buddha, and as the manifestation of the buddha nature in it’s totality.

Incidentally, I cannot conceive of anything ‘higher’ than the concept of a vibrating Universe, and I cannot experience anything other than the effects of the subtle vibrations of my body, mind and speech.

Thank you Rinpoche for making this available to all.

Here’s an exercise I love to do! Go outside and look into the sky. Come inside and sit in a closet with the eyes closed…and look into the sky. Imagine that space. Now then…..do this when completely unstressed. And then, just to see what happens….imagine you just got fired. Now be in the small closet, close the eyes…..how easy is it to duplicate the “looking” into the sky, space, expansiveness, relaxedness………….Play. Meditation can be play in the field of the mind. Gradually I find I can trust my own re-creation of spaciousness. It’s my experience actually. No one put it there. jr

When we think and discuss, we use concepts, in a certain way. It’s an option, one kind of activity. We do it to make sense, to point towards something, to be on same page and to turn the next. One thought leads to another, it’s like ants building their nest. And we can go on and on, that’s how thinking is. At some point we may notice we can’t stop. It’s almost claustrophobic.

While, instead, in stepping “beyond mind” in meditation we remain alert but just let be.

The concepts are not the problem. Rather, to be beyond concepts you have to let go of all “have to” while still alert and aware. It’s not difficult (and yet it is, which is so strange). You can start it with just relaxing your “must” muscle. (But maybe not try too hard.)

Very big concepts can be helpful with this, a little like gazing the sky instead of the screen.

Or, maybe you can try if it’s a little bit like the difference between looking and seeing.

That’s simple. Don’t look. See.

When it’s dark, what’s the use of looking.
But even with your eyes closed you can see.

Try to see where looking begins.
Can you see it?

This is not a philosophical question to exhaust the mind. If you have to look, look beyond the words here. It’s not about looking and seeing, this is just a practical example.

Thank you. Jackie Roemer

Of course, everything we say are concepts. There is not really something as a manifestation and a non-manifestation, because “before something” manifests there is no space and time for it to manifests. It’s a timeless, spaceless manifestation, the Empty manifestation of the non manifested Emptyness. The Empty appearance of the non apparant Emptyness. And both are not two. Not one, not two, not many, not zero.
When you say : “My understanding is that dependent arising is the essence of emptiness…” , that’s also concepts. There is not really such a thing as an arising, and nothing like independant, dependant or interdependant. There are just concepts, which may be very helpful, but to “Be” beyond concepts, all concepts have to be abandoned, including the concept of abandoning.

Well, if we are ready, which is not my case!

I think that beyond an individual mind is also beyond a universal or a collective mind. The Nature of mind is infinite, without any limitation, so it’s “manifestation”, it’s appearance (the mind) must also be limitless. One universe or many universes are limited. Therefore, there must be countless universes, (like it is said in Buddhism). To tell you the truth, I’m not interested in supernatural powers (telepathie, etc). The point is to be free from suffering and help so called “others” to be free from suffering. If we develop supernatural powers before being free from ego clinging, I think it can only bring more suffering.

“I think the most fundamental nature of anything and everything is activity/motion. The Universe perpetually vibrates – in fact it is vibration itself. I cannot conceive of a Great Emptiness from which everything is manifested – for how can anything come from nothing”

I think the most fundamental nature of anything and everything is neither motion nor inmmobility, it is Emptiness. Emptiness is beyond time and space, and therefore beyond activity or passivity, movement or immobility, action or non action, beyond all opposites, beyond duality, beyond (the dualistic concept of) non-duality, beyond the conceptual and the non-conceptual mind, beyond everything. But still, this Emptiness appears as absolutely everything. So everything IS Emptiness, the appearance of the non apparant Emptiness, including the conceptual perception that it is not so. Emptiness is not nothingness, it’s not nothing, not a thing, not many things, not even everything, (because everything is still limited). Emptiness is the unborn, timeless, spaceless pure Awareness/Peace. Not Awareness OF something, pure non-dual Awareness/Peace. And this Emptiness appears as absolutely “everything” from “moment ” to “moment” (but there are no real moments, because nothing is separated in the “manifestation”, therefore there are no reference points to establish a duration). Maybe this “manifestation” is what you call the vibration of the Universe. This vibration must vibrate “from something” which is not “vibrating”; this apparant Universe must appear “from something” which is not the apparant Universe; this conceptual and non-conceptual mind must manifest “from something” which is beyond mind, beyond manifestation : The Nature of mind, Primordial Awareness, The Great Emptiness.

“Glimpsing, like perceiving, is a function of the conceptual mind (the perceiver). How can the conceptual mind therefore ‘glimpse’ anything which is non conceptual?”

Of course, the conceptual mind can not go beyond the conceptual mind. When there are no more concepts, there are no more glimpsing, perceiving, function, perceiver; there is no more world as we conceptually know and perceive it; there is only the non-conceptual mind, which is beyond the triplicity perceiver-perception-perceived. There is a non-dual, non-conceptual pure perception, that some call an a-perception (beyond perception and no perception).

Sorry for the lenght of my comment, but my english and my meditation are very poor, so it makes it difficult to talk about such a deep subject.

In regard to your other remarks: as I have already indicated, I think the most fundamental nature of anything and everything is activity/motion. The Universe perpetually vibrates – in fact it is vibration itself. I cannot conceive of a Great Emptiness from which everything is manifested – for how can anything come from nothing, as the saying goes. In Buddhist terms, how can any thing ‘dependently arise’ from no thing – whether mind or matter or both. Even the proponents of the ‘Big Bang’ theory, which explains the origins of everything in the Universe, cannot accept the notion that the Universe was created from nothing. The ‘old’ Universe must have contracted/collapsed in on itself before the ‘new’ Universe expanded/exploded into being.

Even if I could conceive of emptiness as a theoretical concept (like a zero pressure and/or a temperature of absolute zero) I could not possibly be ‘aware’ of it in the sense of feeling it ‘on my pulse’ as it were. Mind can only be ‘aware’ of mind – not the non existence of mind.

The notion of having ‘glimpses’ of mind which is beyond conceptual analysis is also logically meaningless to me. Glimpsing, like perceiving, is a function of the conceptual mind (the perceiver). How can the conceptual mind therefore ‘glimpse’ anything which is non conceptual? It is a contradiction in terms.

Incidentally, it is patently as nonsensical to talk about a perception without a perceiver, which forms the other half of the conceptual duality , as it is to talk about something glimpsed without a glimpser or even a dance without a dancer.