Therefore
this wiU not do.
Wang-ch-ug-Dor-je-Mahamudra-Eliminating-the-Darkness-of-Ignorance
lMUDRA
an insight or a solid experience, and to make them recognise these without mixing in affected Dharma jargon. The disciple likewise must exert himself in this. That is the first point (for penetra- tive insight meditation) : looking at the nature of the
(settled) mind.
? Looking 11t tlte Hloving or Thinking 1Jii1ttl
Next, to cut from its root the foundation (of ignorance) you must examine thoroughly the moving mind or train of thought, and be made to
? recognise it for what it is. Adopt the bodily posture, way of looking and acting as before. Place yourself in a state in which you have bliss, clarity and bare non-conceptuality-aJI three, and then relax in this
pristine purity and let a fleeting thought arise all of a sudden from this (state), or purposely emanate a thought of whatever seems suitable.
Look at the nature of the cognition that has been emanated. Look at it at the time it is -emanated. Having looked at the enduring of what bas been emanated, does it have a colour, or a shape? Is there a place it arose from, a place it endured in, a place it ceased into ? What about it ? Is (this thought) located outside, or inside the body ? If it
is inside, i? it in the centre cf the heart, for instance, (in the brain} and so forth '1 Inside, outside, wher- -ever it is, just how does it endure and how is it ~manated ? Investigate this.
This mind, is (its nature) a conditioned pheno- menon (arising from causes}, or is it unconditioned?
? 74 MAHAMUDitA
Does it have an arisal. a cessation, a colour, or a shape 1 If it does, then what kind does it have~ or is it the case that you think it does not (have any arisal and so forth) 1 If you say that it cannot be thought of as being like this, well then, is there still some conscious aspect of it which nevertheless ha~ no arisal or cessation and so forth 1 When you look at a thought, is it that all thoughts arc a voidness,: free from all mental fabrications (of extreme modes. of existence), with no arisal or cessation 1 After you have looked at a thought, is it that it disappears completely, leaving no trace 1 All thoughts that occur, is it that they pop up but cannot be identified (as being like this or like that) 1 Take a look. Ir you say that they pop up but cannot be identified (as being like this or like that), then at that very moment (when a thought pops up). is there or is there not (another) thought to the effect that there is no- identifiable component here 1
There is no end to the amount of questions to which you can subject a thought such as "I saw my friend yester- day. " Where is this thought ? Where did it come from ? ? What is it made of? 1s this thought the same shape as. your friend and is the image of your friend the same as your friend himself? When this thought passes, docs it leave? no trace like a cloud disappearing from the sky, or does it leave a footprint like a child walking on the beach 'l I f you: say this thought has no qualities and cannot be found, then what about the thought that thinks that ? Ifa mute person cannot put his thoughts into words, does this <mean he has no thoughts ? ?
By interrogating thought like this you can ? ? question it to death". If you are plagued by thieves and you catch one and publicly flog him, and then do the same for several' more, the thieves will get the idea not to come any more? and you will be free of them. The same thing will happen?
? PENETRATIJIE INSIGHT MEDITATION 1S;
with your thoughts. Persistent questioning takes the life- out of them and they will not bother to come so often? . And when they do, they will be weaker in force and not so bold. In this way you will come to see the nature of your mind and thoughts.
After a thought has arisen or you have made one come, take a look at it without blocking or grasping on to it. Whether it has a happy (feeling)
to it or an unhappy one, look at the individual natures of happy and unhappy (feeling tones). No matter how many thoughts you have, look at them. When a delusion has arisen strongly, such as one or the five poisons (of desire, anger, closed-mindedness, pride or jealousy), or you make one arise, take a look at it too. Making sure to cut out any exaggerated ideas_you might superimpose from within, look at the (deluded) thought itself (such as anger), the object
of that thought (an image of an enemy) and the . immediately preceding thought and check to see, for instance, if there is any difference as far as the mind
(or consciousness aspect of them) is concerned. When you see that the nature of thought is a bright, clear awareness, then look to see whether there is any difference between the bright, cJear awareness you saw previously with respect to the settled mind and the bright, clear awareness you see now with respect to a thought. If you cannot decide, then draw the thought back and place
yourself into a state of clear awareness.
This is a figure of speech. Thoughts are not like a jack- in-the-box which you can stuff back into your mind. What is meant is to cease interrogating the thought and let it dissolve.
When (another) thought all of a sudden comes up when you are not looking, then look at its very'
? 76 MAH. . llt/UDR. . l
nature to see how it in no way adulterates that of . your original, normal consciousness.
When a wave rises and falls, has the ocean basicaUy changed? Does a cloud affect the sky ?
As this is what you must see, look very well.
In short, when the Guru and disciple working together have reached this conclusion based on how thoughts arise (in the disciple) and how he under- stands them, then the root has been cut ofthe foundation (of his ignorance) and the true meaning has been reached. That is the second point (for penetrative insight meditation) : making an effort in the methods to look at (the nature of the moving mind) so as to see and be made to recognise it for
-what it is.
? Looking at tl1e Alind BeReeting Appearances and at tl1e Alind
in Belatio11 to tl1e Body
Next, in order to be made to recognise the- inseparability of the mind and appearances, you should look (at the mind) when it is reflecting an appearance (in a moment of bare perception). With. your way of looking and bodily posture as before, focus your eyes and attention single-pointedly on a
specific object, such as a vase, your image in a mirror, Mount Meru or any suitable visual form in the space (before you). Look at it scrupulously. Relax your awareness of it slightly, and then look at it again.
Likewise, look at the nature of a sound that is the object of your ears' (consciousness) and see if there is any difference (in nature) between a pleasant and an unpleasant, or a loud and a soft one. Look at the sound of your own voice and that of someone else, and so forth. Likewise look at a fragrant smell that appears as an object to your nose's (consciousness) and at a foul one, at both a delicious and an unpalatable taste on your tongue,. .
? ? 18 MAH. . lMUDRA
at both a pleasant and an unpleasant, a hot and a -cold and at an intensely painful physical sensation on your body-look at whatever comes up. At such a time, is the appearance something that passes away by ceasing to exist ? When reflecting an appearance, ar~ the mind and the appearance two separate things ? Does the appearance come into the mind
-(from outside) or is it that when the mind reflects ? something it goes out and catches hold of an . appearance thinking "I am going to reflect it" ? Actually, the mind and appearances (on it) are
inseparable (like a "magic mirror'' and the images on
it). There is just the resplendence of an appearance . and Voidness, with no (truly existent) object.
Take a look at the consciousness that is doing the looking and at its five types of sense objects, -each in turn (first sights, then sounds, smells, tastes and tactile sensations). Look to s. ee if there is any -difference between these two (namely, consciousness
and the appearance of its sense objects), and then look for what is the difference between an appearance that is the object (of a consciousness) and the consciousness that has it as its object. When you have looked at an object, is it the case that the
-object is something out there, solid and real ?
When you close your eyes, does it disappear? When you put your hand in front of your eyes, where is the clarity of the appearance ?
If you say it is not, then it seems as though there is no difference at all &tween an object (on the one side) and the mind (on the other) that can look starkly at (this object) without any obstruction but
which (on its own part) is at ease: does not hold
? PENETRATIVE INSIGHT MEDITATION 79
(anything as its object) and in which nothing (appears) clearly. If you say it is impossible to think that there is no difference between these (two), but rather it is the case that the object is something . out there, solid and real, then what about the very thought that thinks that ? (Is its object something . out there? ) Take a look at this:
Likewise, look to see whether the body and the mind are the same or different. If they are the same (or one thing), then the body which is something that arises and ceases and the mind which is something permanent (by nature) with no arisal or cessation would have to be the same.
Although your cognitions, like your body, change from moment to moment and are thus impermanent, the nature of the mind as a clear, void, blissful awareness is something that does not change and is permanent in the sense that it does not depend on causes or circumstances. The nature of your mind does not arise out of nothing when you are born or wake up, nor does it cease when you die or fall asleep. The awareness is by nature the same regardless of what it is aware of.
And if they are different, then you should be able to identify two separate things, the body and the mind (totally apart from each other}. But the mind is not something that you can pinpoint here (or there). It is not (only) at the top of your body or at the bottom, it completely pervades it. The fact that you can expr. rience feelings (all over), what is that due to?
The body and mind are like something that supports and the thing that is supported (like a cup and the tea in it). But, if you say that the body is outside and the mind inside, (as two separate things)
? 80 MAHAMUDRA
like a man and his clothing, then when it comes t<> experiencing feeling, if you think that it is the body alone that has feelings, then a corpse would also have to have feelings. If you say that the mind (alone) has the feelings, then the two (body and mind) would have to be dilferent (and unrelated).
Now the mind is something that cannot be killed or in any way affected. If when your body is pricked by a thorn your mind feels it, then how
is this different from the example when you burn the clothes worn by someone you burn the person who is wearing them too?
When you prick the body, do you prick the mind also? After looking at this thoroughly, you
must reach a firm decision.
Namely, you must decide that the body and mind are neither the same, nor different. Conventionally they art like something that supports and the thing supported, but ultimately they are not two inherently existing objects. sharing such a relation.
In connection with this you must also realise that whatever feelings arise are like waves and (your mind is like) water. Because when you place your mind on this realisation you cut through from this state to the true meaning of the actual nature of
reality, you must look (at your mind) like this. That is the third point (for penetrative insight meditation).
? Lool,i11gat tl1e Settletl anti Jflot'iltg Alinds Togetlter
Once more settle your mind into a state of pure clarity and Voidness and look at its nature. Then make a thought arise and look at its nature. Look to see if the natures of these two-the settled mind and the moving mind-are the same or different. After looking, if you see that they are different, then how are they different ? Do the settled and moving minds alternately come up like when you have strung thread around two poles and twirl it together (to make a string) ? Is the settled mind like a field and the moving mind that arises like the crops growing in it ? Or are the two of them the same like a snake or rope and its coils (in that you cannot have a coil separate from the rope)? If so, then when the mind is settled without any thought arising, is it also moving, and when it is l)loving, is it also settled? There is a big difference between the moving mind which can think up anything and fantasise in endless variety and the settled mind which stays without moving. But if you think that the two are different in nature, then is the difference in terms of colour, shape and so forth ? Is it in terms of arisal, endurance and cessation, or of past, present and future, or of permanence and imper? manence ? Look to see how they are different.
? 82 AIAHAMUDRA
When you know? through meditation what thoughts truly are, then (you realise that) the nature of both the settled and moving minds is nothing but the same. The way they arise is by alternating, and when it is settled there is nothing that is moving and
when it is moving there is nothing that is settled. like water and waves, it is the mind alone that functions and acts. That is all there is to it. When you understand that both the settled and moving minds are nothing more than a brilliant, clear Voidness, then you have a little understanding.
It is like a mirror, which has the same void clarity whether or not it is reflecting an object.
Now, when you draw a thought in (for interroga- tion) and then place yourself in meditation, is it that (the thought) has gone into a clear Voidness, or has it disappeared and afterwards in its place is a clear Voidness?
In other words, is it like the darkness of night dissolving into the clarity of daylight ? Or is it like the darkness dis- appearing and being replaced by daylight ?
Or is it that the vivid thought itself is a clear Voidness ? Ifyou think that it is like either of the former two, you still must make very stong requests to your Guru (for his inspiration) and then look once more with effort and try to see with certainty
how things really are.
The ways of looking at the nature (of the mind)
can be approached in three styles.
These ways o f looking have been a t the settled mind,
the moving or thinking mind, the mind. reflecting an appearance, the mind in relation to the body and both the settled. and moving minds together.
Those who skip ahead develop penetrative insight first and then m~ntal quiescence, or sometimes they
? PENETIUTlYE INSIGHT MEDITATION 83
develop both together at the same time when previously they had neither. Those for whom it happens at once develop both mental quiescence and penetrative insight at the same time by merely being taught their descriptions. This is due to the power of their previous training.
This refers to instincts from former lifetimes as is the case with Incarnate Lamas (Tulkus).
Those who progress gradually develop these in stages. Here (the explanation has been given) in accordance with this latter type of person's approach and it must be taught after assessing the way in which the disciple has his experiences.
When looking, you must place yourself in a state of clarity without any grasping, like a small child looking (at the paintings of deities) in a temple.
Exert yourself with great enthusiasm to look in this way and abandon laziness. Turn away from your compulsive obsessions and have no requirements (which you feel must be met before you can practise). Have a renounced mind and faith, admiration and loving respect for your Guru. Make your mind-
. fulness firm so that your mind does not wander and practise in an uncontrived state without being fettered by expectations or worries. Be interested only in your future lives without letting ? yourself go after ever-changing worldly concerns. If you make an effort to look at the mind (with an Enlightened
. Motive of Bodhicitta), then it is impossible for you not to develop quickly and with certainty the pristine awareness o f penetrative insight. Therefore decide about the settled and moving minds. That is the fourth point (for penetrative insight meditation).
? BecotJnising tl1e Nature of tlae Settled Alintl
If you have cultivated looking at the nature (of the mind) like this in accordance with the oral teachings concerning the mind, there is practically no need for (your Guru) to make you recognise (its nature). It will reveal itself to you from within. Some people, however, do not recognise it even if this has happened. Others will have only a dry intel- lectual understanding of it from reading or hearing teachings and, although they have developed no expe- rience or insight despite their desire to do so, will say they have and describe them in unerring Dharma iargon. The Guru must be able to differentiate these (types of people) and the disciple on his part must practise taking all this to heart.
After you have examined or looked at the nature of the mind and reach~ a decision about it, you must experience? it in meditation and recognise the experience in terms of what you have previously ascertained. Therefore the Guru is essential, for through his interplay and questioning he lead$ you to the correct decision about the nature of your mind and confirms for you when you have had a true medita- tional experience or insight into it. This is what it means for a Guru to make you recognise your mind or, literally, to introduce you to it.
The first way to make beginners recognise the n:~ture (of the mind) when they are looking at it (is
? PENETRATIYE INSIGHT MEDITATION 8S
as follows). Look at the nature of the settled mind in the way as was done before. The nature of the settled mind is a clear, vivid brilliance, not a- total nothingness. In this settled state there is clear, open, resplendent, gently flowing consciousness which cannot be identified (as this or that). You cannot say that it is like this, that it has a colour, a shape and so forth. It cannot be put into words or expressed as being like this or that. Athough it cannot be identified (as this or that), nevertheless pristine, pure, brilliant, resplendent, vivid (moments of) consciousness which make things clear with no obstruction happen to you (all the time). This consciousness is not something that previously you did not see, but now you do; or
previously you did not experience, but now you do ; or previously you did not know about, but now you do.
It has always been the case, for the nature of the mind is permanent.
But you must know from the depths of your heart that it cannot be pinpointed or said to be like this or that.
If you have only a (dry, smug) intellectual understanding that it is a clear, resplendent, unidentifiable state of clarity and Voidness, you will be unable to make any progress.
Therefore this wiU not do. But if this (realisation) has dawr. ed
from within (from your own meditational practice), then you have really had penetrative insight into the (nature of) the settled mind. Therefore except for conscientiously (meditating) starkly on the nature (of the mind), there is no way to see it.
? 86 MAH. lMUDRA
I f (the Guru) introduces you to it prematurely, you will be left with only a dry intellectual under- standing and will become jaded. Then no matter what other things he may try to explain to you, they will only cause harm. Therefore (the Guru) must not try to make you recognise (the nature of your mind before you are ready to see it).
If the Guru tries to make you recognise the nature of your mind before you have had any meditative experience, you will have only an intellectual understanding. Because of your smugness and self-satisfaction, you will become jaded, lacking all appreciation for the profundity ofthe teachings. Closed-mindedly you will feel you understand everything already and therefore will disparage all your Guru's further efforts to teach you. Like a stone in water, you will not absorb anything be says and thus you will make no progress. Therefore it is better for the Guru to be reserved about teaching the nature of the mind, lest be
do so prematurely and jade the disciple.
If you have not cut the stream of your thoughts, you will not see the nature (of your settled mind). If you do not see this nature, you cannot be made to recognise it for what it is. And if you have not recognised it, then your meditation will not become an actual path (to Enlightenment).
When you have excellent experiences and boons (in meditation), look at them. Even when things are going poorly, try repeatedly to intensify the clarity.
In other words, when you are in pain, do not indulge yourself but rather look at the nature of the mind experienc- ing this pain and try to intensify and focus on its clarity. This is similar to the technique used to eliminate mental wandering in tantric visualisation meditations, namely inten- sify the clarity of the visualisation and extraneous mental activity disappears.
To teach the methods for cultivating such type of
? PENETRATifiE INSIGHT MEDITAT/ON 87
practice is called a (meaningful) oral explanation. When you know how to meditate, it is called a finished oral explanation. Then if you cultivate this state without any mental wandering, there will be no trouble in developing experiences and insights. Therefore, in order to reach certainty about the nature (of the mind) after you have seen it and to have all your doubts cut, it is necessary (for a Guru) to introduce you to it (in other words, cause you to recognise it).
In general, there are two things (needed) in meditation, mental quiescence and penetrative insight. Of these, (mental quiescence) is when your mind has been placed in its relaxed, natural state and you have a settling of the mind into its natural, clear, resplendent state after all thoughts have been quieted in their place (having looked at them the moment they arose). Your conventional mind does not indulge in any mental wandering concerning this life or worldly things. It is blissful and tranquil, with all delusions quieted into a fine sleep. Settled single-pointedly on the nature of virtue, your mind
stays wherever you place it for as long as you want. It is under your control. You do not feel even the passing of your breath in and out. If your (meditation) is like this, then it is a distinguished state of mental quiescence.
The flash experiences and boons of bliss, clarity and bare non-conceptuality (you receive in this state) are very important. They do not fulfil the requirement to count as insights, (for that you need penetrative insight), but you cannot do without them. If you cultivate them without any compul? sive attachment, and remain in this state (of mental
? 88 MAHAMUDRi
quiescence) without Jetting yourself lapse into any mental duJiness, agitation, or unspecified state of indifference, you wiU come to know and experience what kind of object your mind is-although you cannot say that the nature of the mind is like this or that, or has this colour or that shape, for it is beyond all words, thoughts and description. It
cannot be put into words, like the sexual bliss of a young adult. A unity of clarity and Voidness, it is free from all extremes of mentally fabricated (modes of existence) and cannot be identified (as this or that). It is unadulterated by any conceptual thoughts of the Dharma. It is unsullied by any conceptual worldly thoughts. It cannot be
pinned down (with the conceptual thought that) this is a non-conceptual state or one of mental quiescence.
Such a consciousness which is in its own state, at its own level. in its own place is calJed the root of all good qualities, the normal mind or simply the mind. If you are unconscious of it, then you have ignorance or unawareness and the cyclic existence of sams~ra. But if you are conscious of it, this is
called awareness, pristine awareness, Nirvar:ta, the pristine awareness of simultaneity, the primordial state, the Clear Light, or penetrative insight. Therefore now you should divide clearly this head- water of either sams~ra or NirY~r:ta?
If you recognise the mind, it is Nirvir,ta; but if you do not, then it brings you samsilra. Thus the nature of samsira and NirVilQa is the same. Their difference is in terms of your awareness of their nature.
When your Guru introduces you to the nature (of your mind), you will recognise it like meeting (an
? PENETRATIVE INSIGHT MEDIT A TION 89?
old friend) you knew long ago. Such a recognition is called recognising the mind. (The nature of the mind) is not something produced by the great discriminating intelligence of a disciple or the skil? ful oral teaching of a Guru.
It has been there all the time and is something you come to recognise only through meditational practice.
From time immemorial (your mind) has been like this, but because it has been obscured by delusions and thoughts you did not recognise it. But now that the stream of your thoughts has been cut and you have been introduced to it, you know it.
The mind is a pristine clarity that cannot be identified (as this or that). Although it has no inherently existent nature as such, yet it allows for clear appearances. The defining characteristic of the mind is that by nature it is clear, void awareness. It is pristine and alert with no discontinuity. That is the nature (of the mind). When you have a stark recognition of this, cultivate it at all times without any wavering. The benefits from this are beyond aU imagination.
Therefore to develop penetrative insight into (the nature of) the settled mind and to recognise it, there is this first actual introduction (by your Guru to your mind). Take it to heart, put it into practice and cultivate it continually. This is extremely important. That is the fifth point (for penetrative insight meditation) : recognising in this way (the nature of the settled mind) and cultivating it.
? Recognising the Nature of . the. llovingor Tl1inking. llind
The second way of looking (namely at the nature of the moving or thinking mind) cuts the root of the foundation (of ignorance). There are two points (in connection with this) : (1) being introduced to the non-conceptual mind and (2) being introduced to the moving mind or thoughts, (this latter one) referring to being introduced to the moving mind when a thought has already arisen
or you make one arise. ?
The first is as follows. You have looked at the pristine, clear, resplendent, non-conceptual settled' mind which is an awareness free of mental dullness and agitation. You know that (its nature) has no arisal or cessation, yet you do not {conceptually) think, "It has no arisal or cessation, no colour, shape and so forth. " To do that is penetrative insight into the non-conceptual mind.
To conceptualise about the lack of qualities of the non? conceptual state of mind is to go to an extreme of making non-existence into a "thing".
As for the second, if you say that all thoughts (by nature) are a total Voidness with no arisal or cessation, you are taking Voidness too literally (and going to the extreme nf nihilism). What they are
? PENEI'IUTIVEINSIGHT MEDITATION ~~
is a vividness that leaves no trace and (the nature of) which has no arisal, cessation or enduring and cannot be identified as having this colour, that shape and so forth. If (you realise) this much, you have developed a little (understanding). Further- more, you must recognise that they cannot be identified as this or that and do so without concep- tually thinking, "They cannot be identified as this or that. " And, without any grasping or contradiction
(in your mind between thoughts being both vivid and void, you must recognise) that thoughts both arise and subside at exactly the same time (like a drawing on water). In addition you must gain the insight that there is not the slightest difference (in nature) between thoughts and the object of thought, between the mind when it is settled and when it is moving, between past (and present) mind, between past (and present) thoughts and so forth. (They
. are all by nature) clear, brilliant awareness.
When you draw a thought in (for interrogation) or when a thought disappears, it is not that it has gone into a clear Voidness (or one has been left in its place). Rather, the thought that arises all of a sudden is itself a clear Voidness. When you realise or gain this insight, then you have recognised (the nature of thought).
There is not even the slightest difference between the non-conceptual state and that of true insight into the fact that moving thoughts, the settled mind and the nature of thoughts themselves are all three
clear, void and brilliant. To hold the two (as being different) is an interpolation of the mind that does
not recognise them.
? 92 M. . 4HAMUDRA
Previously when you did not recognise (the nature of) thoughts, you were unable to take them into your meditation. This was ignorance (or unawareness). But now that you recognise them, you can meditate on thoughts themselves and thus they become awareness or pristine awareness. Now you can make thoughts the root of meditation. Previously the thoughts themselves were obscuring. themselves, and so you could not see them.
They were so thick, they obscured their own nature. But now they are transparent ; you can see right through them.
This present meditation on conceptual thoughts is known to be more especiaJly distinguished than the meditation on the non-conceptual state. There? fore whatever thoughts arise, you should take them as what to recognise. When thoughts do not arise, they stay in this state of them not arising. There is no need to emanate (or produce) them. When they do arise, then stay in this state of them arising. There is no need to collect them back. Therefore, without giving any heed to expectations or worries, bring your thoughts themselves into the nature of your meditation.
Thoughts are nothing more than the mind. This mind, which naturally subsides, is the Dharmak~ya, by nature a clear, void brilliance, devoid of anything to be subsided or anything to do the subsiding. When you gain this insight, then you have had penetrative insight (into the nature of) thought. You have recognised the Dharmak~ya, which is a unity
of clarity and Voidness.
Thus you must realise that thoughts, being a clear Voidness, arise and subside at exactly the same time, like
? PENEI'IUTIYE INSIGHT MEDITATION 93
a handprint on water. They have no endurance and there is no interval between their arising and subsiding. Nor is there space between them as if they were ? ? things" that could be separated by space. This is what the term "naturally subsides" means, which when translated literally is "self? liberation".
In short, you should recognise whatever (thoughts) arise, place your mind single-pointedly and uucontrivedly right on their very nature, without any mental wandering, and cultivate this state. This is the second actual introduction (by your Guru to the nature of your mind). Having recognised it, however, is not enough. You must cultivate the continuity (of this awareness). That is the sixth point (for penetrative insight meditation).
? Be~ognising the Nature of tl1e JJiiiUI BeRe~ting ApJietlran~es and of tl1e JJlind in Relation to the
Bodg
The third introduction is being made to recognise (the nature) of the mind reflecting an appearance and this is in terms of the inseparability of the mind and appearances. When you look at any o f the five types o f external sense objects (sights, sounds, smells. tastes or tactile sensations), the object which is obvious with no obstruction but
about which you cannot think that it is some object out there, solid and rea), and the vivid mind that is looking at it without actually clutching some- thing-these two are neither the same, nor different. However you should not (conceptually) think that they are neither (the same, nor different).
To do so would imply that being neither was somo sort of inherent nature truly existent in them.
likewise, the body and the mind are neither the same nor different. They are inseparable, a unity of clarity and Voidness, ofappearance and Voidness, Jike the (reflection of the) moon in water.
? PENEI'RAT/I'E~NSIGHTMEDITATION 95-
If the reflection or appearance of the moon in a puddle and the water were the same, then when you put your hand over it, the appearance should still be there. If they were different, you should be able to lift the appearance off the puddle like a piece of paper.
Furthermore, whatever feelings you have, such as bot or cold, are also appearances. Because you do not recognise them as (a unity of) appearance and Voidness, your mind mentally labels them (as truly existent) and thus you have the infinite variety of grasping. But aside from this, on the ultimate level, whatever physical or mental feelings you have are devoid of being an (inherently existing) basis for labelling. You must gain this insight.
In a dream, you have a body and you see many appearances, and they all seem real and truly existent. But when you awake, you see that they were all of your mind and appearing to your mind, and that they had no true basis for their existence or for you to have labelled them "'my body" and so forth. The same is true of death with reference to your life's experiences and when you awake from ignorance and see what you deceptively considered concrete and real is actually void of existing as such.
Appearances all come from the mind. If you think: there ? are ghosts or demons, you will see them. If you do not believe in them, you will not. Once Je-tziin Mi-la rll-pa was meditating in a cave and, noticing a hole in the wall, be wondered if it might contain a ghost. As soon as this thought arose, a horrible ogress riding on a musk deer
appreared and asked him, "Why did you call be ? Your grasping ego sent for me. Quiet your mind and then I can leave. " Likewise, it is because you have been fooled into thinking that appearances exist as real, solid objects "out there" that you believe them to exist that way. This is nothing more than superstition.
? All appearances are reflections of the mind, void of true, inherent existence as something solid "out there'. .
? -96 MlfHAMUORA
uisting from its own side. For instance, great Lamas will come to Bodh Gaya and sec it as a paradise and all the people there as deities. To a beggar, it ? Will appear as a hell. And for each of them, this is reality. Consider a glass of liquid. A hell-creature sees it as molten copper, a hungry ghost as pus and blood, a fish as a home, a human as water and a god as nectar. Each of these is merely an appearance to and of the mind. However things appear to you, that is your mind. But appearances arc all deceptive, because they appear to be real and "out there. ,, when in fact they are not.
Consider the same person wearing the same set of thick clothes in summer and in winter. At one time he labels them heavy, at another thin and light. What is the basis for his labelling them as such ? There cannot be an inherently existing basis for this in the clothing : it is all
appearance. The same is true with feelings.
Snuff and chili pepper are either delicious or terrible
depending on what you are accustomed to, in other words how they appear to you.
Whatever. appearance comes up (before you, such as your finger), look at it (in an intensely staring) manner and focus your mind (on it single? pointedly for several minutes). Then relax your stare a little. At first aU the details are sharply there. But then after a while, the (image) goes away in its very place because either you became nauseated and did not want to look at it any . more, or your eyes went numb or started to tear. But then when you look at it a little (once more), a vivid appearance that cannot be grasped comes (again). It has come back in its very place.
At this point (you should realise) that your own (mind) and the appearances to and of it are inseparable. They are (a unity of) appearance and Voidness, resplendent without any object (inherently
? PENETRATIVE INSIGHT MEDITATION 97
existing on its own side). Because there is this reflexive appearance of the actual abiding nature of reality, also known as the defining characteristic of the mind, there are no two separate, different things-external appearances and the internal mind. The mind's own lustre arises with no obstruction;
that is all.
Appearances as objects to be grasped and consciousnesses to grasp them are both the arisal of deception. At such a time, these (appearances) can- not be singled out to the side; they appear because they are the self-deception of the mind. Therefore the mind is the appearances.
an insight or a solid experience, and to make them recognise these without mixing in affected Dharma jargon. The disciple likewise must exert himself in this. That is the first point (for penetra- tive insight meditation) : looking at the nature of the
(settled) mind.
? Looking 11t tlte Hloving or Thinking 1Jii1ttl
Next, to cut from its root the foundation (of ignorance) you must examine thoroughly the moving mind or train of thought, and be made to
? recognise it for what it is. Adopt the bodily posture, way of looking and acting as before. Place yourself in a state in which you have bliss, clarity and bare non-conceptuality-aJI three, and then relax in this
pristine purity and let a fleeting thought arise all of a sudden from this (state), or purposely emanate a thought of whatever seems suitable.
Look at the nature of the cognition that has been emanated. Look at it at the time it is -emanated. Having looked at the enduring of what bas been emanated, does it have a colour, or a shape? Is there a place it arose from, a place it endured in, a place it ceased into ? What about it ? Is (this thought) located outside, or inside the body ? If it
is inside, i? it in the centre cf the heart, for instance, (in the brain} and so forth '1 Inside, outside, wher- -ever it is, just how does it endure and how is it ~manated ? Investigate this.
This mind, is (its nature) a conditioned pheno- menon (arising from causes}, or is it unconditioned?
? 74 MAHAMUDitA
Does it have an arisal. a cessation, a colour, or a shape 1 If it does, then what kind does it have~ or is it the case that you think it does not (have any arisal and so forth) 1 If you say that it cannot be thought of as being like this, well then, is there still some conscious aspect of it which nevertheless ha~ no arisal or cessation and so forth 1 When you look at a thought, is it that all thoughts arc a voidness,: free from all mental fabrications (of extreme modes. of existence), with no arisal or cessation 1 After you have looked at a thought, is it that it disappears completely, leaving no trace 1 All thoughts that occur, is it that they pop up but cannot be identified (as being like this or like that) 1 Take a look. Ir you say that they pop up but cannot be identified (as being like this or like that), then at that very moment (when a thought pops up). is there or is there not (another) thought to the effect that there is no- identifiable component here 1
There is no end to the amount of questions to which you can subject a thought such as "I saw my friend yester- day. " Where is this thought ? Where did it come from ? ? What is it made of? 1s this thought the same shape as. your friend and is the image of your friend the same as your friend himself? When this thought passes, docs it leave? no trace like a cloud disappearing from the sky, or does it leave a footprint like a child walking on the beach 'l I f you: say this thought has no qualities and cannot be found, then what about the thought that thinks that ? Ifa mute person cannot put his thoughts into words, does this <mean he has no thoughts ? ?
By interrogating thought like this you can ? ? question it to death". If you are plagued by thieves and you catch one and publicly flog him, and then do the same for several' more, the thieves will get the idea not to come any more? and you will be free of them. The same thing will happen?
? PENETRATIJIE INSIGHT MEDITATION 1S;
with your thoughts. Persistent questioning takes the life- out of them and they will not bother to come so often? . And when they do, they will be weaker in force and not so bold. In this way you will come to see the nature of your mind and thoughts.
After a thought has arisen or you have made one come, take a look at it without blocking or grasping on to it. Whether it has a happy (feeling)
to it or an unhappy one, look at the individual natures of happy and unhappy (feeling tones). No matter how many thoughts you have, look at them. When a delusion has arisen strongly, such as one or the five poisons (of desire, anger, closed-mindedness, pride or jealousy), or you make one arise, take a look at it too. Making sure to cut out any exaggerated ideas_you might superimpose from within, look at the (deluded) thought itself (such as anger), the object
of that thought (an image of an enemy) and the . immediately preceding thought and check to see, for instance, if there is any difference as far as the mind
(or consciousness aspect of them) is concerned. When you see that the nature of thought is a bright, clear awareness, then look to see whether there is any difference between the bright, cJear awareness you saw previously with respect to the settled mind and the bright, clear awareness you see now with respect to a thought. If you cannot decide, then draw the thought back and place
yourself into a state of clear awareness.
This is a figure of speech. Thoughts are not like a jack- in-the-box which you can stuff back into your mind. What is meant is to cease interrogating the thought and let it dissolve.
When (another) thought all of a sudden comes up when you are not looking, then look at its very'
? 76 MAH. . llt/UDR. . l
nature to see how it in no way adulterates that of . your original, normal consciousness.
When a wave rises and falls, has the ocean basicaUy changed? Does a cloud affect the sky ?
As this is what you must see, look very well.
In short, when the Guru and disciple working together have reached this conclusion based on how thoughts arise (in the disciple) and how he under- stands them, then the root has been cut ofthe foundation (of his ignorance) and the true meaning has been reached. That is the second point (for penetrative insight meditation) : making an effort in the methods to look at (the nature of the moving mind) so as to see and be made to recognise it for
-what it is.
? Looking at tl1e Alind BeReeting Appearances and at tl1e Alind
in Belatio11 to tl1e Body
Next, in order to be made to recognise the- inseparability of the mind and appearances, you should look (at the mind) when it is reflecting an appearance (in a moment of bare perception). With. your way of looking and bodily posture as before, focus your eyes and attention single-pointedly on a
specific object, such as a vase, your image in a mirror, Mount Meru or any suitable visual form in the space (before you). Look at it scrupulously. Relax your awareness of it slightly, and then look at it again.
Likewise, look at the nature of a sound that is the object of your ears' (consciousness) and see if there is any difference (in nature) between a pleasant and an unpleasant, or a loud and a soft one. Look at the sound of your own voice and that of someone else, and so forth. Likewise look at a fragrant smell that appears as an object to your nose's (consciousness) and at a foul one, at both a delicious and an unpalatable taste on your tongue,. .
? ? 18 MAH. . lMUDRA
at both a pleasant and an unpleasant, a hot and a -cold and at an intensely painful physical sensation on your body-look at whatever comes up. At such a time, is the appearance something that passes away by ceasing to exist ? When reflecting an appearance, ar~ the mind and the appearance two separate things ? Does the appearance come into the mind
-(from outside) or is it that when the mind reflects ? something it goes out and catches hold of an . appearance thinking "I am going to reflect it" ? Actually, the mind and appearances (on it) are
inseparable (like a "magic mirror'' and the images on
it). There is just the resplendence of an appearance . and Voidness, with no (truly existent) object.
Take a look at the consciousness that is doing the looking and at its five types of sense objects, -each in turn (first sights, then sounds, smells, tastes and tactile sensations). Look to s. ee if there is any -difference between these two (namely, consciousness
and the appearance of its sense objects), and then look for what is the difference between an appearance that is the object (of a consciousness) and the consciousness that has it as its object. When you have looked at an object, is it the case that the
-object is something out there, solid and real ?
When you close your eyes, does it disappear? When you put your hand in front of your eyes, where is the clarity of the appearance ?
If you say it is not, then it seems as though there is no difference at all &tween an object (on the one side) and the mind (on the other) that can look starkly at (this object) without any obstruction but
which (on its own part) is at ease: does not hold
? PENETRATIVE INSIGHT MEDITATION 79
(anything as its object) and in which nothing (appears) clearly. If you say it is impossible to think that there is no difference between these (two), but rather it is the case that the object is something . out there, solid and real, then what about the very thought that thinks that ? (Is its object something . out there? ) Take a look at this:
Likewise, look to see whether the body and the mind are the same or different. If they are the same (or one thing), then the body which is something that arises and ceases and the mind which is something permanent (by nature) with no arisal or cessation would have to be the same.
Although your cognitions, like your body, change from moment to moment and are thus impermanent, the nature of the mind as a clear, void, blissful awareness is something that does not change and is permanent in the sense that it does not depend on causes or circumstances. The nature of your mind does not arise out of nothing when you are born or wake up, nor does it cease when you die or fall asleep. The awareness is by nature the same regardless of what it is aware of.
And if they are different, then you should be able to identify two separate things, the body and the mind (totally apart from each other}. But the mind is not something that you can pinpoint here (or there). It is not (only) at the top of your body or at the bottom, it completely pervades it. The fact that you can expr. rience feelings (all over), what is that due to?
The body and mind are like something that supports and the thing that is supported (like a cup and the tea in it). But, if you say that the body is outside and the mind inside, (as two separate things)
? 80 MAHAMUDRA
like a man and his clothing, then when it comes t<> experiencing feeling, if you think that it is the body alone that has feelings, then a corpse would also have to have feelings. If you say that the mind (alone) has the feelings, then the two (body and mind) would have to be dilferent (and unrelated).
Now the mind is something that cannot be killed or in any way affected. If when your body is pricked by a thorn your mind feels it, then how
is this different from the example when you burn the clothes worn by someone you burn the person who is wearing them too?
When you prick the body, do you prick the mind also? After looking at this thoroughly, you
must reach a firm decision.
Namely, you must decide that the body and mind are neither the same, nor different. Conventionally they art like something that supports and the thing supported, but ultimately they are not two inherently existing objects. sharing such a relation.
In connection with this you must also realise that whatever feelings arise are like waves and (your mind is like) water. Because when you place your mind on this realisation you cut through from this state to the true meaning of the actual nature of
reality, you must look (at your mind) like this. That is the third point (for penetrative insight meditation).
? Lool,i11gat tl1e Settletl anti Jflot'iltg Alinds Togetlter
Once more settle your mind into a state of pure clarity and Voidness and look at its nature. Then make a thought arise and look at its nature. Look to see if the natures of these two-the settled mind and the moving mind-are the same or different. After looking, if you see that they are different, then how are they different ? Do the settled and moving minds alternately come up like when you have strung thread around two poles and twirl it together (to make a string) ? Is the settled mind like a field and the moving mind that arises like the crops growing in it ? Or are the two of them the same like a snake or rope and its coils (in that you cannot have a coil separate from the rope)? If so, then when the mind is settled without any thought arising, is it also moving, and when it is l)loving, is it also settled? There is a big difference between the moving mind which can think up anything and fantasise in endless variety and the settled mind which stays without moving. But if you think that the two are different in nature, then is the difference in terms of colour, shape and so forth ? Is it in terms of arisal, endurance and cessation, or of past, present and future, or of permanence and imper? manence ? Look to see how they are different.
? 82 AIAHAMUDRA
When you know? through meditation what thoughts truly are, then (you realise that) the nature of both the settled and moving minds is nothing but the same. The way they arise is by alternating, and when it is settled there is nothing that is moving and
when it is moving there is nothing that is settled. like water and waves, it is the mind alone that functions and acts. That is all there is to it. When you understand that both the settled and moving minds are nothing more than a brilliant, clear Voidness, then you have a little understanding.
It is like a mirror, which has the same void clarity whether or not it is reflecting an object.
Now, when you draw a thought in (for interroga- tion) and then place yourself in meditation, is it that (the thought) has gone into a clear Voidness, or has it disappeared and afterwards in its place is a clear Voidness?
In other words, is it like the darkness of night dissolving into the clarity of daylight ? Or is it like the darkness dis- appearing and being replaced by daylight ?
Or is it that the vivid thought itself is a clear Voidness ? Ifyou think that it is like either of the former two, you still must make very stong requests to your Guru (for his inspiration) and then look once more with effort and try to see with certainty
how things really are.
The ways of looking at the nature (of the mind)
can be approached in three styles.
These ways o f looking have been a t the settled mind,
the moving or thinking mind, the mind. reflecting an appearance, the mind in relation to the body and both the settled. and moving minds together.
Those who skip ahead develop penetrative insight first and then m~ntal quiescence, or sometimes they
? PENETIUTlYE INSIGHT MEDITATION 83
develop both together at the same time when previously they had neither. Those for whom it happens at once develop both mental quiescence and penetrative insight at the same time by merely being taught their descriptions. This is due to the power of their previous training.
This refers to instincts from former lifetimes as is the case with Incarnate Lamas (Tulkus).
Those who progress gradually develop these in stages. Here (the explanation has been given) in accordance with this latter type of person's approach and it must be taught after assessing the way in which the disciple has his experiences.
When looking, you must place yourself in a state of clarity without any grasping, like a small child looking (at the paintings of deities) in a temple.
Exert yourself with great enthusiasm to look in this way and abandon laziness. Turn away from your compulsive obsessions and have no requirements (which you feel must be met before you can practise). Have a renounced mind and faith, admiration and loving respect for your Guru. Make your mind-
. fulness firm so that your mind does not wander and practise in an uncontrived state without being fettered by expectations or worries. Be interested only in your future lives without letting ? yourself go after ever-changing worldly concerns. If you make an effort to look at the mind (with an Enlightened
. Motive of Bodhicitta), then it is impossible for you not to develop quickly and with certainty the pristine awareness o f penetrative insight. Therefore decide about the settled and moving minds. That is the fourth point (for penetrative insight meditation).
? BecotJnising tl1e Nature of tlae Settled Alintl
If you have cultivated looking at the nature (of the mind) like this in accordance with the oral teachings concerning the mind, there is practically no need for (your Guru) to make you recognise (its nature). It will reveal itself to you from within. Some people, however, do not recognise it even if this has happened. Others will have only a dry intel- lectual understanding of it from reading or hearing teachings and, although they have developed no expe- rience or insight despite their desire to do so, will say they have and describe them in unerring Dharma iargon. The Guru must be able to differentiate these (types of people) and the disciple on his part must practise taking all this to heart.
After you have examined or looked at the nature of the mind and reach~ a decision about it, you must experience? it in meditation and recognise the experience in terms of what you have previously ascertained. Therefore the Guru is essential, for through his interplay and questioning he lead$ you to the correct decision about the nature of your mind and confirms for you when you have had a true medita- tional experience or insight into it. This is what it means for a Guru to make you recognise your mind or, literally, to introduce you to it.
The first way to make beginners recognise the n:~ture (of the mind) when they are looking at it (is
? PENETRATIYE INSIGHT MEDITATION 8S
as follows). Look at the nature of the settled mind in the way as was done before. The nature of the settled mind is a clear, vivid brilliance, not a- total nothingness. In this settled state there is clear, open, resplendent, gently flowing consciousness which cannot be identified (as this or that). You cannot say that it is like this, that it has a colour, a shape and so forth. It cannot be put into words or expressed as being like this or that. Athough it cannot be identified (as this or that), nevertheless pristine, pure, brilliant, resplendent, vivid (moments of) consciousness which make things clear with no obstruction happen to you (all the time). This consciousness is not something that previously you did not see, but now you do; or
previously you did not experience, but now you do ; or previously you did not know about, but now you do.
It has always been the case, for the nature of the mind is permanent.
But you must know from the depths of your heart that it cannot be pinpointed or said to be like this or that.
If you have only a (dry, smug) intellectual understanding that it is a clear, resplendent, unidentifiable state of clarity and Voidness, you will be unable to make any progress.
Therefore this wiU not do. But if this (realisation) has dawr. ed
from within (from your own meditational practice), then you have really had penetrative insight into the (nature of) the settled mind. Therefore except for conscientiously (meditating) starkly on the nature (of the mind), there is no way to see it.
? 86 MAH. lMUDRA
I f (the Guru) introduces you to it prematurely, you will be left with only a dry intellectual under- standing and will become jaded. Then no matter what other things he may try to explain to you, they will only cause harm. Therefore (the Guru) must not try to make you recognise (the nature of your mind before you are ready to see it).
If the Guru tries to make you recognise the nature of your mind before you have had any meditative experience, you will have only an intellectual understanding. Because of your smugness and self-satisfaction, you will become jaded, lacking all appreciation for the profundity ofthe teachings. Closed-mindedly you will feel you understand everything already and therefore will disparage all your Guru's further efforts to teach you. Like a stone in water, you will not absorb anything be says and thus you will make no progress. Therefore it is better for the Guru to be reserved about teaching the nature of the mind, lest be
do so prematurely and jade the disciple.
If you have not cut the stream of your thoughts, you will not see the nature (of your settled mind). If you do not see this nature, you cannot be made to recognise it for what it is. And if you have not recognised it, then your meditation will not become an actual path (to Enlightenment).
When you have excellent experiences and boons (in meditation), look at them. Even when things are going poorly, try repeatedly to intensify the clarity.
In other words, when you are in pain, do not indulge yourself but rather look at the nature of the mind experienc- ing this pain and try to intensify and focus on its clarity. This is similar to the technique used to eliminate mental wandering in tantric visualisation meditations, namely inten- sify the clarity of the visualisation and extraneous mental activity disappears.
To teach the methods for cultivating such type of
? PENETRATifiE INSIGHT MEDITAT/ON 87
practice is called a (meaningful) oral explanation. When you know how to meditate, it is called a finished oral explanation. Then if you cultivate this state without any mental wandering, there will be no trouble in developing experiences and insights. Therefore, in order to reach certainty about the nature (of the mind) after you have seen it and to have all your doubts cut, it is necessary (for a Guru) to introduce you to it (in other words, cause you to recognise it).
In general, there are two things (needed) in meditation, mental quiescence and penetrative insight. Of these, (mental quiescence) is when your mind has been placed in its relaxed, natural state and you have a settling of the mind into its natural, clear, resplendent state after all thoughts have been quieted in their place (having looked at them the moment they arose). Your conventional mind does not indulge in any mental wandering concerning this life or worldly things. It is blissful and tranquil, with all delusions quieted into a fine sleep. Settled single-pointedly on the nature of virtue, your mind
stays wherever you place it for as long as you want. It is under your control. You do not feel even the passing of your breath in and out. If your (meditation) is like this, then it is a distinguished state of mental quiescence.
The flash experiences and boons of bliss, clarity and bare non-conceptuality (you receive in this state) are very important. They do not fulfil the requirement to count as insights, (for that you need penetrative insight), but you cannot do without them. If you cultivate them without any compul? sive attachment, and remain in this state (of mental
? 88 MAHAMUDRi
quiescence) without Jetting yourself lapse into any mental duJiness, agitation, or unspecified state of indifference, you wiU come to know and experience what kind of object your mind is-although you cannot say that the nature of the mind is like this or that, or has this colour or that shape, for it is beyond all words, thoughts and description. It
cannot be put into words, like the sexual bliss of a young adult. A unity of clarity and Voidness, it is free from all extremes of mentally fabricated (modes of existence) and cannot be identified (as this or that). It is unadulterated by any conceptual thoughts of the Dharma. It is unsullied by any conceptual worldly thoughts. It cannot be
pinned down (with the conceptual thought that) this is a non-conceptual state or one of mental quiescence.
Such a consciousness which is in its own state, at its own level. in its own place is calJed the root of all good qualities, the normal mind or simply the mind. If you are unconscious of it, then you have ignorance or unawareness and the cyclic existence of sams~ra. But if you are conscious of it, this is
called awareness, pristine awareness, Nirvar:ta, the pristine awareness of simultaneity, the primordial state, the Clear Light, or penetrative insight. Therefore now you should divide clearly this head- water of either sams~ra or NirY~r:ta?
If you recognise the mind, it is Nirvir,ta; but if you do not, then it brings you samsilra. Thus the nature of samsira and NirVilQa is the same. Their difference is in terms of your awareness of their nature.
When your Guru introduces you to the nature (of your mind), you will recognise it like meeting (an
? PENETRATIVE INSIGHT MEDIT A TION 89?
old friend) you knew long ago. Such a recognition is called recognising the mind. (The nature of the mind) is not something produced by the great discriminating intelligence of a disciple or the skil? ful oral teaching of a Guru.
It has been there all the time and is something you come to recognise only through meditational practice.
From time immemorial (your mind) has been like this, but because it has been obscured by delusions and thoughts you did not recognise it. But now that the stream of your thoughts has been cut and you have been introduced to it, you know it.
The mind is a pristine clarity that cannot be identified (as this or that). Although it has no inherently existent nature as such, yet it allows for clear appearances. The defining characteristic of the mind is that by nature it is clear, void awareness. It is pristine and alert with no discontinuity. That is the nature (of the mind). When you have a stark recognition of this, cultivate it at all times without any wavering. The benefits from this are beyond aU imagination.
Therefore to develop penetrative insight into (the nature of) the settled mind and to recognise it, there is this first actual introduction (by your Guru to your mind). Take it to heart, put it into practice and cultivate it continually. This is extremely important. That is the fifth point (for penetrative insight meditation) : recognising in this way (the nature of the settled mind) and cultivating it.
? Recognising the Nature of . the. llovingor Tl1inking. llind
The second way of looking (namely at the nature of the moving or thinking mind) cuts the root of the foundation (of ignorance). There are two points (in connection with this) : (1) being introduced to the non-conceptual mind and (2) being introduced to the moving mind or thoughts, (this latter one) referring to being introduced to the moving mind when a thought has already arisen
or you make one arise. ?
The first is as follows. You have looked at the pristine, clear, resplendent, non-conceptual settled' mind which is an awareness free of mental dullness and agitation. You know that (its nature) has no arisal or cessation, yet you do not {conceptually) think, "It has no arisal or cessation, no colour, shape and so forth. " To do that is penetrative insight into the non-conceptual mind.
To conceptualise about the lack of qualities of the non? conceptual state of mind is to go to an extreme of making non-existence into a "thing".
As for the second, if you say that all thoughts (by nature) are a total Voidness with no arisal or cessation, you are taking Voidness too literally (and going to the extreme nf nihilism). What they are
? PENEI'IUTIVEINSIGHT MEDITATION ~~
is a vividness that leaves no trace and (the nature of) which has no arisal, cessation or enduring and cannot be identified as having this colour, that shape and so forth. If (you realise) this much, you have developed a little (understanding). Further- more, you must recognise that they cannot be identified as this or that and do so without concep- tually thinking, "They cannot be identified as this or that. " And, without any grasping or contradiction
(in your mind between thoughts being both vivid and void, you must recognise) that thoughts both arise and subside at exactly the same time (like a drawing on water). In addition you must gain the insight that there is not the slightest difference (in nature) between thoughts and the object of thought, between the mind when it is settled and when it is moving, between past (and present) mind, between past (and present) thoughts and so forth. (They
. are all by nature) clear, brilliant awareness.
When you draw a thought in (for interrogation) or when a thought disappears, it is not that it has gone into a clear Voidness (or one has been left in its place). Rather, the thought that arises all of a sudden is itself a clear Voidness. When you realise or gain this insight, then you have recognised (the nature of thought).
There is not even the slightest difference between the non-conceptual state and that of true insight into the fact that moving thoughts, the settled mind and the nature of thoughts themselves are all three
clear, void and brilliant. To hold the two (as being different) is an interpolation of the mind that does
not recognise them.
? 92 M. . 4HAMUDRA
Previously when you did not recognise (the nature of) thoughts, you were unable to take them into your meditation. This was ignorance (or unawareness). But now that you recognise them, you can meditate on thoughts themselves and thus they become awareness or pristine awareness. Now you can make thoughts the root of meditation. Previously the thoughts themselves were obscuring. themselves, and so you could not see them.
They were so thick, they obscured their own nature. But now they are transparent ; you can see right through them.
This present meditation on conceptual thoughts is known to be more especiaJly distinguished than the meditation on the non-conceptual state. There? fore whatever thoughts arise, you should take them as what to recognise. When thoughts do not arise, they stay in this state of them not arising. There is no need to emanate (or produce) them. When they do arise, then stay in this state of them arising. There is no need to collect them back. Therefore, without giving any heed to expectations or worries, bring your thoughts themselves into the nature of your meditation.
Thoughts are nothing more than the mind. This mind, which naturally subsides, is the Dharmak~ya, by nature a clear, void brilliance, devoid of anything to be subsided or anything to do the subsiding. When you gain this insight, then you have had penetrative insight (into the nature of) thought. You have recognised the Dharmak~ya, which is a unity
of clarity and Voidness.
Thus you must realise that thoughts, being a clear Voidness, arise and subside at exactly the same time, like
? PENEI'IUTIYE INSIGHT MEDITATION 93
a handprint on water. They have no endurance and there is no interval between their arising and subsiding. Nor is there space between them as if they were ? ? things" that could be separated by space. This is what the term "naturally subsides" means, which when translated literally is "self? liberation".
In short, you should recognise whatever (thoughts) arise, place your mind single-pointedly and uucontrivedly right on their very nature, without any mental wandering, and cultivate this state. This is the second actual introduction (by your Guru to the nature of your mind). Having recognised it, however, is not enough. You must cultivate the continuity (of this awareness). That is the sixth point (for penetrative insight meditation).
? Be~ognising the Nature of tl1e JJiiiUI BeRe~ting ApJietlran~es and of tl1e JJlind in Relation to the
Bodg
The third introduction is being made to recognise (the nature) of the mind reflecting an appearance and this is in terms of the inseparability of the mind and appearances. When you look at any o f the five types o f external sense objects (sights, sounds, smells. tastes or tactile sensations), the object which is obvious with no obstruction but
about which you cannot think that it is some object out there, solid and rea), and the vivid mind that is looking at it without actually clutching some- thing-these two are neither the same, nor different. However you should not (conceptually) think that they are neither (the same, nor different).
To do so would imply that being neither was somo sort of inherent nature truly existent in them.
likewise, the body and the mind are neither the same nor different. They are inseparable, a unity of clarity and Voidness, ofappearance and Voidness, Jike the (reflection of the) moon in water.
? PENEI'RAT/I'E~NSIGHTMEDITATION 95-
If the reflection or appearance of the moon in a puddle and the water were the same, then when you put your hand over it, the appearance should still be there. If they were different, you should be able to lift the appearance off the puddle like a piece of paper.
Furthermore, whatever feelings you have, such as bot or cold, are also appearances. Because you do not recognise them as (a unity of) appearance and Voidness, your mind mentally labels them (as truly existent) and thus you have the infinite variety of grasping. But aside from this, on the ultimate level, whatever physical or mental feelings you have are devoid of being an (inherently existing) basis for labelling. You must gain this insight.
In a dream, you have a body and you see many appearances, and they all seem real and truly existent. But when you awake, you see that they were all of your mind and appearing to your mind, and that they had no true basis for their existence or for you to have labelled them "'my body" and so forth. The same is true of death with reference to your life's experiences and when you awake from ignorance and see what you deceptively considered concrete and real is actually void of existing as such.
Appearances all come from the mind. If you think: there ? are ghosts or demons, you will see them. If you do not believe in them, you will not. Once Je-tziin Mi-la rll-pa was meditating in a cave and, noticing a hole in the wall, be wondered if it might contain a ghost. As soon as this thought arose, a horrible ogress riding on a musk deer
appreared and asked him, "Why did you call be ? Your grasping ego sent for me. Quiet your mind and then I can leave. " Likewise, it is because you have been fooled into thinking that appearances exist as real, solid objects "out there" that you believe them to exist that way. This is nothing more than superstition.
? All appearances are reflections of the mind, void of true, inherent existence as something solid "out there'. .
? -96 MlfHAMUORA
uisting from its own side. For instance, great Lamas will come to Bodh Gaya and sec it as a paradise and all the people there as deities. To a beggar, it ? Will appear as a hell. And for each of them, this is reality. Consider a glass of liquid. A hell-creature sees it as molten copper, a hungry ghost as pus and blood, a fish as a home, a human as water and a god as nectar. Each of these is merely an appearance to and of the mind. However things appear to you, that is your mind. But appearances arc all deceptive, because they appear to be real and "out there. ,, when in fact they are not.
Consider the same person wearing the same set of thick clothes in summer and in winter. At one time he labels them heavy, at another thin and light. What is the basis for his labelling them as such ? There cannot be an inherently existing basis for this in the clothing : it is all
appearance. The same is true with feelings.
Snuff and chili pepper are either delicious or terrible
depending on what you are accustomed to, in other words how they appear to you.
Whatever. appearance comes up (before you, such as your finger), look at it (in an intensely staring) manner and focus your mind (on it single? pointedly for several minutes). Then relax your stare a little. At first aU the details are sharply there. But then after a while, the (image) goes away in its very place because either you became nauseated and did not want to look at it any . more, or your eyes went numb or started to tear. But then when you look at it a little (once more), a vivid appearance that cannot be grasped comes (again). It has come back in its very place.
At this point (you should realise) that your own (mind) and the appearances to and of it are inseparable. They are (a unity of) appearance and Voidness, resplendent without any object (inherently
? PENETRATIVE INSIGHT MEDITATION 97
existing on its own side). Because there is this reflexive appearance of the actual abiding nature of reality, also known as the defining characteristic of the mind, there are no two separate, different things-external appearances and the internal mind. The mind's own lustre arises with no obstruction;
that is all.
Appearances as objects to be grasped and consciousnesses to grasp them are both the arisal of deception. At such a time, these (appearances) can- not be singled out to the side; they appear because they are the self-deception of the mind. Therefore the mind is the appearances.
