Looking Carefully at the Experience Of Not Finding Anything

T his morning we continued to examine how to look at the mind’s nature within stillness. Now we come to a scrutiny of that state—to a scrutiny of the nature of the mind experienced within stillness and of stillness itself. This scrutiny is necessary because we have always assumed that the mind exists, and yet we have never looked at it. When we start to look at it, we discover that we cannot find anything. Therefore, the text next presents how to scrutinize or look carefully at that experience of not finding anything. This is done within the context of what are called eleven forms of authentic mental engagement. In the practice of tranquility we found there were nine methods of resting the mind; here in the practice of insight there are eleven forms of authentic mental engagement.

The first of the eleven mental engagements is “thoroughly seeking.” Thoroughly seeking means to seek very carefully and thoroughly for the mind in the act of observation: for example, to look for the mind within the body— is the mind somewhere within the body, and if so where is it?—scrutinizing carefully the body from the top of the head to the very tips of the toes, looking to see if the mind can be found in any location; to look for the five sense consciousnesses, looking to see if they exist within the body or if they exist within the objects of those consciousnesses; to look for the substantial characteristics of the various consciousnesses—do they have color, do they have shape, and, if not, what are they, what do they have? Now looking in this way, which characterizes this particular mental engagement, means trying to discover in direct observation the answer to these questions, rather than trying to figure them out or to infer them through analysis.

The second mental engagement is called “individual scrutiny.” You can think of it as detailed scrutiny, because it involves being very precise and very detailed in your scrutiny of mind and mind’s functions. Sometimes you apply

this scrutiny within stillness; you look at the mind itself within the state of stillness. And sometimes you apply this scrutiny within movement or the occurrence of thought, and in that case you can analyze the thoughts that arise. Again, analyze here means direct observation and not coming to conclusions about the thoughts. When you scrutinize thoughts, you look to see if you can observe an origin from which the thought comes, a location where the thought abides while it is present, and a destination to which the thought goes after it has dissolved or disappeared. Look to see if you can find an environment or container that supports or contains the thought.

Now, this does not involve inference of any kind. It is not a matter of thinking, “Thoughts must be like this; they must come from here or go to there.” It is a matter of direct observation, and that observation must not be impeded by easy assumptions or habitual thinking or attitudes. For example, if you are looking at a thought of anger and you ask yourself the questions, “Where did this anger come from, where is it, where is it going,” normally, we would simply say, “Well my anger arose from my conflict with such and such an enemy; as for where it is, it is right here; and as for where it is going, it will go wherever anger goes, where it will be ready to come back any time someone gives me trouble.” That is not what we are looking for here. Here we are looking for direct observation of the very stuff or substance of anger, the very nature of the anger itself, to watch and observe where it comes from, where it is, and where it goes. That type of careful scrutiny is what is called here individual examination or individual scrutiny.

The third mental engagement is called shibmor chöpa. Shibmor means “in great detail” or “very, very precisely” and chöpa is the strongest form of the word that means “to examine, analyze, or scrutinize.” So, in your notes make a distinction between the second and the third. Although the difference between them is not clear in the name, there is a very clear difference between them. In the second mental engagement, individual scrutiny, you were mostly looking at objects of mind such as thoughts. Here you turn the same type of scrutiny in on itself, and you look at that which has been looking. You look at that which has been seeking for the existence or nonexistence—or whatever—of the object. So the difference between the second and the third is that in the case of the second you are looking at objects of mind and in the third you are looking at that which experiences objects of mind, at that which is looking, at that which has been performing the scrutiny.

Now, this kind of careful looking at both objects of mind, as in the second engagement, and at mind itself, as in the third, is very important, because sometimes it seems to us as if objects of experience exist and that which experiences exists. So therefore, it is important to scrutinize, to examine carefully and thoroughly, both of these. When you look at them, you find that there is nothing there.

The fourth mental engagement is called “tranquility,” and it is the same word, shamatha or shinay, that is used to describe tranquility meditation. Here it has a more specific meaning. Through the first three mental engagements, through the thorough scrutiny that has been developed during those first three engagements, it has been resolved that objects of mind and mind itself are not to be found, and that the not-finding-anything when you look for the mind is not because you have failed to find it; nor is it because the mind exists but is somehow too subtle to be found in that way; nor is it because it is too far away from you, too distant to be seen—after all it is your mind. The reason that you do not find anything is that in not finding anything you are finding what the mind is, which is emptiness, and this is a matter of direct experience. In the fourth mental engagement, you rest your mind in that direct experience, applying the faculties of mindfulness and alertness that you developed during the previous practice of tranquility meditation.

Now, the difference between tranquility as the fourth mental engagement of insight practice and tranquility meditation per se, which we studied earlier, is simply that, when you practiced tranquility before, you had not seen your mind’s nature. You were just resting in it, but it was unseen. Here, having seen the mind’s nature, you rest in it, but you are resting in a lucid certainty, an experiential rather than conceptual apprehension of that nature. So therefore, it is a state of tranquility or shamatha but it is tranquility with a difference.

The fifth mental engagement is called “insight” and here it is the same word, vipashyana or lhaktong, which is used for this entire practice of insight. Through the practice of the fourth mental engagement, which is tranquility, you have practiced resting your mind in the recognition of your mind’s nature. Nevertheless, the lucidity on which the recognition depends continues to require some reinforcement. Therefore, in order to further generate or further reinforce or strengthen that lucidity, it is important not just to rest in an already gained recognition of the mind’s nature, but repeatedly and actively to look again and again at that nature. For example, in Moonbeams of Mahamudra, Dakpo Tashi Namgyal says that, when you practice insight, if you just practice insight alone, somehow the stability of the lucidity of insight can diminish, and that can inhibit progress. Therefore, he says, even when you are practicing insight, you need to be careful to maintain the active or vigorous quality of mindfulness and alertness. In this connection, in describing his own experience, he uses the words, “a mindfulness and a lertness that are both clear and sharp.” So this means that even at this point you must not simply rest in the nature of mind passively; there still needs to be the intentional application of this effort of mindfulness and alertness in looking at or scrutinizing the mind. This is of particular importance because of what is called the undercurrent, which is a continuous undercurrent of subtle thoughts, which, if unrecognized, can weaken the lucidity of insight and the stability of tranquility. So, the point of this fifth mental engagement is that, even when you are resting in the recognition of mind’s nature, it is important within that resting to look at or scrutinize that nature again and again in order to generate the necessary lucidity.

The sixth mental engagement is called “unity,” which here refers to the unification of the fourth mental engagement, tranquility, and the fifth, insight. Up to this point you have cultivated both the lucidity of recognizing mind’s nature through the practice of insight as a mental engagement and the stability or stillness of resting in the recognition of mind’s nature through the practice of tranquility as a mental engagement. Now, obviously, since these occur within the generic context of insight meditation based upon tranquility meditation, the two are very closely related. Nevertheless, even at this point they can sometimes seem somewhat contradictory. Sometimes in experience they can inhibit or interfere with one another. You may have the experience that sometimes, when the lucidity of recognizing mind’s nature—the aspect of insight—is strongest, it somehow causes the tranquility or stillness of resting in that recognition to be weaker. And sometimes you may have the experience that when the tranquility or stability of resting in the recognition of mind’s nature is most stable and possesses the greatest quality of stillness, the actual lucidity of the recognitions seems somehow diminished by it. So here, as the sixth mental engagement, you are practicing the unification of these two, tranquility and insight, so that they no longer interfere with or inhibit one another. In the end, you must bring them to the point where the stability heightens or strengthens the lucidity and the lucidity stabilizes the stillness.

The seventh mental engagement is called “lucidity,” and the eighth is called “no conceptuality,” and the two are best thought of as a pair, because they correspond to one another, although they serve different functions. You will remember from the instruction in tranquility meditation that the greatest obstacles to meditation are torpor and excitement. These are obstacles not only to the practice of tranquility but also to the practice of insight, and therefore, at this point in one’s practice, if they are occurring, they must be corrected. The seventh mental engagement, lucidity, is the remedy for torpor, and it is to do anything appropriate that enhances the mind’s lucidity and dispels torpor. Even at this time, if you wish, you may employ the mahabhrama samadhi, which was taught in the context of tranquility meditation, or use any other means which serves to dispel torpor, to promote enthusiasm, and thereby to enable you to continue the practice with the necessary lucidity.

The eighth mental engagement, “no conceptuality,” is the remedy for the other major problem in meditation, which is excitement, in which your mind is distracted by pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral thoughts. You may employ at this time, if you wish, the subterranean samadhi, which was presented previously in the section on tranquility as a remedy for excitement, or any other suitable method that will dispel the problem of excitement so that you can remain in samadhi.31

The ninth mental engagement is called “equanimity,” and is connected with the idea presented in the common vehicle of avoiding the extremes of excessive unconcern and excessive concern. Excessive unconcern is when a defect is present in meditation, either torpor or excitement, and you fail to apply the appropriate remedy. But excessive concern is when the defect is not present, and there is no problem, but you worry about the possible arising of such a defect. You think, “Oh, maybe I am going to become torpid or maybe I am going to become excited.” This anxiety or excessive concern about the possibility of a defect arising in the future is itself an obstacle to meditation. So the practice of the ninth mental engagement is, once the defect has been dispelled—for example, torpor by the seventh mental engagement or excitement by the eighth, then not to continue to apply the remedy. Once it has served its purpose you return in equanimity to the prior practice and do not speculate about the possible recurrence of that defect in the future. The tenth mental engagement is called “no interruption,” and it refers to the continuation or continuity of practice. It means that you do not discard your meditation through undervaluing it or through regarding it as useless. This needs to be stated, because otherwise it might happen that you practice with diligence for a time, and thereby generate authentic experience, but then somehow discard the practice. There will be no progress if that is done. It is important to continue with the practice. Now this tenth mental engagement refers to continuity or continuation primarily in the context of even placement or meditation practice.

The eleventh and final mental engagement, called “no distraction,” refers primarily to the practice of post-meditation or subsequent attainment.32 It sometimes happens that we are diligent in even placement, in meditation practice, but when we arise from the meditation session, we think, “Now I can relax,” and we let go in the wrong way and our thoughts run wild. This is a serious impediment to progress. Therefore, the eleventh mental engagement, no distraction, is to maintain, as much as possible, the faculties of mindfulness, alertness, and watchfulness in post-meditation—to recollect frequently the lucidity and stability of the meditation practice and attempt, as best you can, to bring it into your daily activities such as working and eating and talking. Now, obviously, this is somewhat difficult in the beginning, but if you try to do it repeatedly, it will become more and more possible. By maintaining mindfulness in post-meditation, your meditation is enhanced, and your meditation in turn facilitates the easy application of mindfulness in post-meditation. That is the eleventh and final mental engagement, which is called no distraction.

The practice of insight through the application of these eleven authentic mental engagements is the cultivation of direct observation of the mind and not the cultivation of conceptual understanding of the mind. There is a great difference between these two, and this difference is crucial to the practice of mahamudra. For example, if you look at a painting with your eyes, you see the colors of the paint; you see yellow and red and blue and whatever. Thereafter, at some point you can also close your eyes and imagine or recollect what you saw. In the language of valid cognition, what you actually see is the thing itself and what you recollect is a generalized abstraction of the thing; it is a general image that is based upon but is not the thing itself. The distinction between the direct experience of a thing and the entertaining in the mind of a generalized abstraction of that thing is very important. The danger of not understanding the distinction between understanding and experience is that your mahamudra practice can degenerate into speculation, in which the sixth consciousness, which after all is in its main function conceptual, will think about mind, think about itself, think, “It must be like this, it can be no other way than this,” and so on. And because the ideas that you might entertain in that way are in some cases valid, and in the context of theory even useful, you may think that you are having meditation experience. But in fact, the generation of understanding cannot serve in the place of meditation experience. It does not have the power to eradicate bewilderment in the way meditation experience and direct experience of the mind does.

When we talk about direct valid cognition, the most common example used is sensory direct valid cognition—for example, when you look at something with your eyes and see it. However, in this case, when we are talking about direct valid cognition of the mind’s nature we obviously are not talking about physically seeing something. In the study of valid cognition, four types of direct valid cognition are mentioned: sensory direct valid cognition, mental direct valid cognition, self-aware direct valid cognition, and yogic direct valid cognition. Self-aware direct valid cognition is simply your mind’s capacity to know what it is experiencing at any time. It is always there, although it is generally somewhat unclear to us, as we pay very little attention to it. For example, the sixth consciousness does not directly experience any object of the senses, but instead generates a generalized abstraction that is a replica or image of something that was experienced by one of the sense consciousnesses.

Nevertheless, while the sixth consciousness, the mental consciousness, cannot experience an object of the senses directly but only as an abstraction, it can experience itself directly. It is, in the language of valid cognition, not concealed from itself. So therefore, it is possible to have direct experience of your own mind. In this case, in the case of mahamudra, the particular type of direct valid cognition that is being used is the fourth type, yogic direct valid cognition. This refers to authentic direct experience or direct valid cognition of the nature of your mind, and it is utterly different from conceptually understanding the nature of mind. It is absolutely necessary that the distinction between understanding and experience be clear to you. I am going to stop here for this afternoon, and if there are any among you who wish to ask questions, please go ahead. Question: Thank you, Rinpoche, for the wonderful teachings; we are very fortunate. My question has to do with something you went over yesterday, the self-liberation of thoughts. I wonder if you could help us with how to know whether or not we have actually experienced that. Is it when a thought arises in meditation, and it may be a thought that in some way is bothersome to you, but having recognized that the thought is there, it does not return? And can one consider that experience validated if in post-meditation you find that bothersome thought also seems not to be present any longer? Perhaps both of these ideas are wrong. So, I would just like some help with this. Because we hear the phrase “self-liberation” so often, there would seem to be a danger in telling ourselves, “Oh, great! I recognize the thought, so now it is liberated; how wonderful!” But that may indeed not be the case.

Rinpoche: What you are experiencing both in meditation and post-meditation is a type of self-liberation of thought. In fact, for a thought to be considered to be self-liberated, it does not necessarily follow that it will not reoccur. The self-liberation of a thought does not necessarily entail the permanent liberation or permanent cessation of that type of thought or that particular content. It means that a thought dissolves without your having to get rid of it intentionally, because you see its nature. In the beginning, even after one is able to see the nature of thoughts, and is able thereby to allow them to dissolve naturally, they will reoccur, but over time they will become weaker and weaker and will reoccur less and less. Question: Rinpoche, my question is in regard to the third category of the tranquility section, enhancing stability. In my reading of that section, my impression was that one uses the sense perceptions and the occurrence of thought in order to reestablish the stillness of tranquility, and in your explanation of it, it seemed to be a bit different than that and had more to do with a kind of a continual watchfulness, particularly during the post-meditation state, as opposed to accomplishing a more intense experience of that stillness again and again. So I wonder if that is correct, if I am interpreting that correctly. Rinpoche: Well, they are basically the same thing put two different ways, because, if the faculty of watchfulness is cultivated, then tranquility meditation transcends any type of suppression of experience through regarding it as a source of disturbance, and therefore, it is somewhat connected with postmeditation, and is connected also with appearances and thoughts.

Question: The specific instructions Rinpoche gave were to be in the state of mind of knowing that you are looking at something and knowing that you are thinking. So there is obviously a mindfulness of immediate experience or of quality to that experience, but to me that is not exactly the same as stillness, the moment of stillness in the mahamudra practice itself. Rinpoche: I do not completely understand the distinction you are making, but in my opinion, the third set of tranquility instructions is primarily concerned with post-meditation because in the first two parts, grasping the ungrasped mind and stabilizing the mind that has been grasped, you are cultivating stillness through the practice of even placement, and in the third part, enhancement or progress upon stabilization, you are attempting to use the situation of post-meditation and the application of the watchfulness of mindfulness and alertness in post-meditation to stabilize that stillness. Question: Rinpoche, my question is about devotion. You have said that devotion is the most important factor in cultivating direct looking at our mind. Is that [[[devotion]] generated] before we are actually looking, so that we get the enthusiasm and confidence to do the practice, or, while we are actually looking, is there a warmth or a connection that we can experience that can help us?

Rinpoche: You do not consciously try to cultivate devotion while looking at the mind. You consciously cultivate it before looking at the mind and after looking at the mind, and through having that devotion and through repeated supplication [of the root and lineage gurus and/or of yidams], your devotion affects your practice while you are looking at the mind. From one point of view, devotion causes you to have more trust and confidence in the instructions, which makes you more diligent and concentrated in your application of them. But it does more than that; devotion alters how you experience things. For example, when people feel strong devotion, sometimes they will cry or they will get goose bumps and so on. These things indicate that their state of mind is somehow altered, and that alteration of the state of mind can make you more receptive to unfabricated experience and to recognition of the mind’s nature. Question: Rinpoche, in the mahabhrama samadhi, in which you visualize the white small pea-sized sphere of light going up, is this something that you said you use as needed? So would this be one shot, and then does this light stay up there? Or would you repeat this a few times in a session? Exactly how do we use this?

Rinpoche: It does not really matter. First you try doing it once and then direct your mind to the sphere of light that you are at that point visualizing very high in space, and if that is enough to dispel your torpor, then you would return to the main technique. If that is not enough to dispel the torpor, then you can do it again and again. That is okay, too. Question: In this process of looking, the scrutiny, when you have some direct experience that there is nothing there to find, you follow with the next step of insight of “I’ve looked; I’ve seen there is nothing there; therefore, I’ll keep looking; therefore, I’ll relax; therefore, I’ll let go.” I am just not sure what you might say to yourself, the next non-thought . . . [laughter]

Rinpoche: This is discussed in the text when the student is asked, “What do you see when you look at your mind.” If they say, “Nothing at all; there is nothing there,” that means that they have partially seen their mind. This is called a partial seeing. The mind has two characteristics, emptiness and cognitive lucidity. When you see nothing at all, that is seeing emptiness, but it is not enough, because you have not recognized the cognitive lucidity. It is not enough, because the mind is not nothing. If the mind were nothing, then the whole world would be nothing; there would be no experience. If there were nothing, we would just be like corpses. So there is a cognitive lucidity to the mind, and that has to be recognized in the same way. So, if you are seeing nothing, you need to go back and look again, and you can read about this in your book. Question: Could Rinpoche say something about time, particularly in the phase when one is looking at the mind and going back and forth between looking at the mind between the thoughts and the mind having the thought?

Translator: About time? Question: Yes. Translator: This context?

Question: I had a feeling that was coming. I could ask it in a different way maybe. Is the experience of looking at one’s mind outside of time? Or is even the activity of doing that equivalent to time? Rinpoche: When you are looking at your mind, this activity is not happening in a state beyond or without time. The function or action of mind that enables you to look at your mind is what is called “the awareness of now, awareness of the present.” You will remember that in the first instructions on tranquility meditation it said, “Do not prolong the past, do not beckon the future, rest in awareness of the present moment without conceptualization.” That resting in the awareness of the present moment of experience continues in the practice of insight. When you are looking at your mind, what is looking is called an ordinary cognition of now or of the present. Now, through doing this, eventually you will see that time is nonexistent, but that will not happen now; that will happen later.

In somewhat more detail, when you look at your mind, the mind that you are looking at is the mind of now. When you are looking, it is the mind of now, because there is no other mind for you to look at. The mind of the past has ceased to exist; the mind of the future has not yet come into existence. So the only mind that is an object of direct valid cognition is the mind of now. Therefore, it is not happening beyond time; it is happening in the present. Question: The times when I actually think I am looking at my mind, and I am experiencing that, I often have physical sensations that in the past I’ve always not really tried to do anything with. But it happens so much, and it feels like tightening. Now it seems like my throat and my jaws often tighten, so my ears go bad or something. And I wonder am I straining? I do not know if it is really a valid experience, or if it is something I am forcing myself into thinking. Am I deluding myself into thinking it is a valid experience, or should I consciously really try to relax?

Rinpoche: It is not uncommon for practitioners, especially in the beginning, to have the experience that concentrated attention of mind will produce physical tension, and what you have to learn to do, ironically, is to separate your mind and body. In other words, teach yourself to be focused with your mind without becoming physically tense. Probably the best way to begin to do this is to practice some tranquility meditation at the beginning of the session, and at that point in the session do not try to look at your mind using the methods of insight. Now you will probably find that, as a result of the habit that you have built up, even when you practice tranquility meditation, you may find yourself physically tightening up. If so, while maintaining the proper focus of mind for tranquility meditation, consciously relax your body. Put some time and effort into relaxing, especially the muscles of the limbs. And then, when you have gotten to the point where you can maintain a focused mind with a relaxed body, then return to the practice of insight. And even while you are doing the insight practice and primarily looking at mind, from time to time during the session check to make sure that you are physically relaxed, and if you are tense, then take some time to consciously relax. It has been said traditionally that in the beginning we need to learn to combine mental focus with physical relaxation, and that does not really happen automatically; it has to be practiced.

[[[Rinpoche]] and students dedicate the merit.]