The Practice of Insight, Which Eradicates the Kleshas

T his morning we finished the section of our text that describes the practice of tranquility. Next we come to the practice of insight. We have to begin with the practice of tranquility because, although we have the innate capacity to recognize our mind’s nature, this capacity is obstructed by the disturbance of thoughts. Thoughts disturb our minds; therefore, the first step in coming to a recognition of the mind’s nature is to pacify the thoughts and thereby stop the disturbance.

In the Aspiration of Mahamudra by the Third Gyalwang Karmapa, Rangjung Dorje,19 it says, “May the waves of coarse and subtle thoughts be pacified in their own place; may the ocean of the mind abide naturally undisturbed by the wind of distraction, free of the sediment of torpor and dullness; may the water of the mind rest in flawless tranquility.” The image used here is the surface of a body of water. A body of water has the natural ability to reflect. For example, a body of water can reflect the moon and stars and so forth that are in the sky above it, but there are two things that can prevent that from happening. If the surface of the water is agitated by the wind and, therefore, has waves, it will not reflect properly. Nor will it reflect properly if the water itself is pervaded by sludge or sediment. Our minds are like that body of water, prevented from being as lucid as they naturally can be by two things: coarse and subtle thoughts, which are like the wind that causes waves on the surface of a body of water; and dullness in the mind, which is like sediment in a body of water. The latter includes all states of torpor and mental obscurity or dullness. The purpose of tranquility meditation is to pacify and, thereby, remove these two impediments—thoughts and dullness.

Tranquility meditation pacifies thought, and because thought is the medium for kleshas, it also leads to the pacification of kleshas. This in turn leads to considerable relaxation and tranquility of mind, which produces many benefits and qualities, but by itself tranquility meditation cannot eradicate the kleshas. They can be and are weakened by the practice of tranquility meditation, but they cannot be and are not eradicated by it. Only prajna 59 can eradicate the kleshas, and there simply is not enough prajna present in the practice of tranquility meditation. Now, of course, some prajna is generated by the practice of tranquility alone, because, when the mind comes to rest, the mind’s natural lucidity is heightened. Nevertheless, this lucidity of cognition is not particularly emphasized in tranquility meditation; therefore, the full-blown prajna of meditation is not developed by the practice of tranquility alone. Tranquility meditation alone cannot eradicate the kleshas; the meditation that leads to the eradication of kleshas is insight meditation, because insight leads to the development of discernment (Sanskrit: prajna; Tibetan: sherab) and of wisdom (Sanskrit: jnana; Tibetan: yeshe).

When the Buddha Shakyamuni came into this world, he turned the wheel of dharma, which is to say, he bestowed the instructions that form the basis for our practice. The first of his three turnings of the dharma wheel is called the dharma wheel or dharmachakra of the four noble truths. The four noble truths present the basic structure of the Buddhist path and approach. They present an outline of how one can immediately set about achieving liberation. These four truths start with what we are principally concerned with, which is how to become free of suffering. Of course, we cannot become free of suffering just by trying to become free of suffering. We cannot stop suffering by itself. Instead, we first have to identify and remove the cause or causes of suffering. Thus, the first noble truth is the truth of suffering, and the second noble truth is the truth of the cause of suffering, identified as karma20 and kleshas.21 The third noble truth, the truth of the cessation of suffering, explains what happens when you get rid of all karma and all kleshas. Because of the cessation of the cause of suffering—because of the absence of kleshas—the cessation of suffering comes about as a natural result. So the third noble truth presents the freedom that results from practice.

The fourth noble truth presents the method, referred to as the path, through which that freedom, that cessation from suffering, is achieved. According to the Buddha’s teaching, this path is to be consciously and gradually cultivated.

These first teachings given by the Buddha form the basis of all his subsequent teachings. They are fundamental to everything he taught, and so they are appropriate for someone beginning the path. In the second and third dharmachakras he expanded on these four truths, principally by explaining in much greater detail what the path consists of and what the methods for accomplishing it are. For example, he taught the prajnaparamita sutras at Vulture Peak Mountain, near Rajagriha. These sutras exist now in longer, middling, and shorter forms. The most concise of these, and also the best known, is the Heart Sutra.22 If you look at that sutra, you will see that the Buddha was teaching emptiness at that time. The reason for teaching emptiness is that, as we have seen in the outline of the four noble truths, if we want to be free of suffering, we have to abandon the cause of suffering, which is the kleshas. But just as we cannot simply abandon suffering by wanting to, we cannot simply abandon kleshas or let go of kleshas by wanting to either. The only way to actually abandon or eradicate the kleshas is to see their nature. Therefore, in order to abandon the kleshas, we must cultivate the prajna or discernment which is able to see the nature of those kleshas. If their nature is seen, they will disappear by themselves without having to be chased away or destroyed by any other means.

So in order to cultivate this prajna,23 the Buddha taught emptiness. He taught that there is no truly existent person who generates kleshas, that there is no truly existent object that stimulates kleshas, that the kleshas themselves have no solid or substantial existence, and so forth. He taught that what we experience exists as relative truth, but that the emptiness of what we experience is absolute truth. These explanations, such as are found in the Heart Sutra, make up the second turning of the dharmachakra. More elaborate presentations of the same prajnaparamita teachings are found in The Hundred Thousand Stanza Prajnaparamita Sutra, The Eight Thousand Stanza Prajnaparamita Sutra, and so forth. In the second dharmachakra, the Buddha taught or demonstrated that all phenomena are empty, that emptiness is the nature of all things. In the third dharmachakra, he presented in great detail what the nature of emptiness is. Therefore, the third dharmachakra is called “The Dharmachakra of Fine Distinctions,” which includes sutras such as the Lankavatara Sutra, the Samadhiraja Sutra, the Lotus Sutra, and so forth. To assemblies of bodhisattvas and shravakas the Buddha taught in these sutras that, while it is the case, as he had previously taught, that all phenomena are empty, that emptiness, which is the single nature of all phenomena, is not nothingness. It is emptiness, but it is at the same time lucidity or clarity; it is not nothingness like space, but is rather the open expansive presence of wisdom.

Now, these teachings of the second and third dharmachakras were gradually elaborated on, explained, and propagated by great pandits and siddhas. They are summarized and embodied in some of the vajrayana teachings that we practice. You can see a summary of these teachings, for example, in the shunyata mantra, which is often used at the commencement of a generation stage practice.24 After the preliminary syllable OM,25 the first word in the mantra is SHUNYATA, which means emptiness. It is shunyata or emptiness that is, in the final analysis, the principal concern or principal message of both the sutras and the tantras. It is shunyata that is to be realized. However, it needs to be understood that shunyata is not nothingness; it is at the same time wisdom. Therefore, after the word shunyata, comes the word JNANA, which means wisdom. Furthermore, while this empty wisdom is the nature of all things, it is also unchanging. It is not the case that sometimes things are empty and sometimes they are not, that sometimes the nature of that emptiness is wisdom and sometimes it is not. It is utterly unchanging. Therefore, the next word is VAJRA, which in this context means that which is indestructible and unchanging. The mantra concludes with the statement, SOBAWA ATMAKO HAM, which means, “That is my nature.” The message of this mantra is simply that this indestructible union of emptiness and wisdom is the nature of all beings and all things. Because this is our nature, we need to meditate on it and we need to recognize it. We need to recognize it, because it is what we truly are.

Then, how do we meditate on this nature? There are two approaches: one is to take inferential valid cognition as the path; the other is to take direct valid cognition as the path. Inferential valid cognition is cultivated by following the traditions of the middle way established by the glorious protectors Arya Nagarjuna and Arya Asanga. The commentaries of Arya Nagarjuna demonstrated and established emptiness, and the commentaries of Arya Asanga demonstrated and established the lucid wisdom which is inseparable from emptiness, which is sugatagarbha or buddha nature. In their compositions and writings they clarify the Buddha’s presentation of emptiness and wisdom respectively, and their traditions have come to be known as the empty of self and empty of other traditions of the middle way. When pursuing inferential valid cognition, you analyze objects such as phenomena, the imputed self, and so forth, and you prove logically that things are empty and that your mind is empty.26 It is valuable to do so because, when one says to a beginner, “All things are empty,” this seems like a shocking and unreasonable statement. Therefore, it is of great value to be able logically to prove or establish that emptiness is the nature of all things. We tend to experience things as though they existed. The imputed self 27 seems to exist, external objects seem to exist; therefore, to prove their nonexistence is something tremendous.

With regard to the lucidity or wisdom aspect, we do not normally directly experience sugatagarbha or buddha nature. But its presence can be logically established or proven in the same way as emptiness is established.28 So, in this way, through inferential valid cognition, you are cultivating the first two prajnas, the prajna or discernment of hearing and that of reflection and analysis. Through this approach, because emptiness and buddha nature can be logically established, it is quite easy to develop certainty about them. However, while it is easy to gain certainty in this way, it is not easy to use that certainty as a basis for the practice of meditation. Therefore, when we turn to the cultivation of the third prajna, the prajna of meditation, we require the instructions of the great mahasiddhas—Saraha, Tilopa, Naropa, and so forth—which are not based on the logical proofs of emptiness contained in the teachings on inferential valid cognition, but are based on directly revealing emptiness to one’s own direct experience in one’s own mind. These instructions are found in the dohas or realization songs of the great masters, and they show us emptiness directly, rather than logically proving it.

Therefore, when we practice meditation, and specifically when we practice insight, we use the instructions of Saraha, Tilopa, Naropa, and other such great meditators. These instructions form the basis of the path that takes direct experience, direct valid cognition, as its main technique. In the words of Saraha, “Homage to the mind, which is like a wish-fulfilling jewel.” Saraha refers to one’s mind as a wish-fulfilling or wish-granting jewel, because the mind already contains within it all necessary qualities. It contains within it the potential for all wisdom, as all wisdom arises within the mind. Now, often, when we talk about our minds, we do so somewhat pejoratively. We say our minds are full of defects, full of kleshas, full of thoughts, and so on. But really our minds are very precious; one’s mind contains everything that one needs, all positive qualities. A person’s mind is the source of all freedom and all wisdom. Therefore, it is with the mind that we are concerned when we take direct experience or direct valid cognition as the path, and the practice of insight meditation consists simply of looking at your mind, looking at and seeing your mind’s nature.

The word for looking and the word for view here are the same in Tibetan. Normally, when we use the word “view” in the context of Buddhism, we tend to think of it as something that we are thinking about. In this regard we have to make a clear distinction between the view of inferential valid cognition and the view or direct looking of direct valid cognition. In the pursuit of inferential valid cognition, the view is developed by inference, by logical deductions, by thinking, “If it is not this, then it must be that,” and so forth. But in the pursuit of meditation and the practice of insight we do not engage in that kind of logical analysis, and we do not attempt to infer what the mind is like. Therefore, it is important from the beginning to understand clearly the difference between the analytical approach of inferential valid cognition and the direct approach of direct valid cognition. The view associated with direct valid cognition is looking at the mind, rather than thinking about the mind. For example, if someone were to study birds, inferential valid cognition would be like reading lots of books and articles about the behavior of birds—this type of bird eats this at such and such an age and develops such and such type of feathers; it grows in this way and to that degree, and so on. Direct valid cognition is very different from that approach. It would be like actually going out and following the birds around, watching them, seeing where they go, where they fly, how they fly and what they really look like, and so on. So in the pursuit or practice of direct valid cognition, rather than trying to infer what the mind is like, you observe directly what it is like. One looks to see what the mind is like when the mind is at rest; one looks to see what exactly is at rest and in what. Where is it resting; how is it at rest? When your mind moves, what moves? Where does it move, and so on? So, the difference between inferential valid cognition and direct valid cognition is the difference between inference and direct observation.

The practice of insight involves looking at the mind and observing the mind in various states and while it is performing various functions. Now, as we have explained, when you cultivate the practice of tranquility, you cultivate a state of stillness in which the mind is tranquil and at rest. And you cultivate the ability to be aware through watchfulness of that stillness, so that you will be aware, “My mind is at rest, my mind is tranquil,” and so on. Sometimes, you also experience states of movement or mental activity, where thoughts are present within or moving through the mind.

In the practice of insight, you look at your mind in both states: within stillness and within the movement or occurrence of thought. First, you practice by looking at the mind within stillness. There are three stages to this. The first stage is to look at the mind within stillness or in the context of stillness. The second is to scrutinize what you find or what you discover in that state. The third is to identify or to have pointed out to you what in fact is there. The first stage, looking at the mind within stillness, is practiced on the basis of your previous cultivation of tranquility. Through the practice of tranquility meditation—grasping the mind when it is ungrasped, stabilizing the grasped mind, and bringing enhancement or progress to that stabilization— you have cultivated sufficient mindfulness and alertness to be able to maintain a lucid state of shamatha or tranquility. That lucidity is necessary in order to be able to be aware that your mind is at rest. Now you look at that state of stillness or rest, and fundamentally, there are three things about it that you want to discover or observe. If the mind is at rest, it must be at rest in some medium or environment. So, where is the mind at rest? Secondly, if the mind is at rest, something is at rest. So, what or who is at rest? And thirdly, if the mind is at rest, if the mind is in a state of stillness, there must be some quality to that stillness. In other words, since you are able to say, “This is stillness and this is movement,” they are obviously different; therefore, there must be some characteristic to that stillness, some way that the mind is that enables you to identify it.

When you are looking for where the mind is at rest and what it is that is at rest and how it is at rest, do not think, “I need to discover this.” Do not have a preconception about what you are going to find or what you want to find. Also, do not think, “I must not find this,” or, “I hope I do not experience it in this way.” In the practice of insight, you are not attempting to improve on or in any way change or alter what your mind is. You are trying to see your mind as it is and as it has always been. This is the one thing we have never done. We have done many things, but we have always looked outward; we have always looked away from our own mind—under the simple assumption that it is there—but we have never looked at it. So, here you start the practice of insight by looking for where, what, and how the mind is in stillness. Do not think of anything that you observe as being particularly good or bad; just find out exactly where the mind is, what the mind is, and how the mind is.

Another way to look at the mind within stillness is to look to see where the mind comes from or came from, where it is at any moment, and where it goes. We assume that the mind must have come from somewhere, must be somewhere, and must be going somewhere. In this practice you attempt to observe these in direct experience. Now, do not be too quick to jump to the conclusion that the mind did not come from anywhere, is not anywhere, and does not go anywhere, just because its nature is emptiness. At this point everyone has heard that [laughter], but at this point it is just a belief. You may even have a sophisticated conceptual understanding of why that must or might be the case, but conceptual understanding and experiential realization are entirely different. Conceptual understanding is when you figure out that it must be like this, that there is no other way it can be than such and such a way . If you find yourself thinking that way, that is conceptual. Experiential realization is when you directly observe in your own direct experience what there is; so, beware of skewing your observation with assumptions or beliefs.

If you find yourself thinking, “Well, I know that the nature of mind is emptiness ; so, let’s see, that means it cannot be anywhere,” and so on, that is not the method here. You are simply trying to look at the mind and just see what you see. For example, look at the mind and try to see what its substance is—what is the stuff of mind? Does it have solidity? Does it have shape? Does it have color? If it has a particular characteristic, such as texture or shape or color, then exactly what texture, what shape, what color? If it does not have a particular characteristic, such as texture or shape or color, then, in the absence of that particular characteristic, what does it have? Of what does that absence of that particular characteristic consist? If the mind seems to have none of these substantial characteristics, then of what does that absence of characteristics consist? If the mind is nothing, of what does that nothingness consist? What is the stuff of that nothingness?

So, we’re going to stop here and meditate a bit. [Short meditation session with Rinpoche.] [[[Dedication of merit]].]