An Open Secret

An Open Secret

There is an essential point which I think you may be poised to discover for yourself; the Dalai Lama speaks of a secret “which lies hidden and obscured by conceptual thinking.” A lama would have penetrated this secret, so obviously it would be a perception which eludes our normal, conceptual cognitive framework. The Dalai Lama has spoken of two aspects of awareness, one being “natural” or “inherent” to us (for which he uses the Dzochen term, rigpa), the other being an (adopted) awareness that is secondary, the result of our conditioning, or learning. This latter (which he refers to as gross consciousness) is— for most people—normative awareness, which is basically superimposed on our natural awareness (rigpa). Our selective, menial consciousness (“gross” or “relative”) arises within, as it were, our visceral and universal consciousness (that which animates our body regardless of our individual conditioning). To narrow down the raft of terms, let us say that the selective, analytic aspect is “relative,” and the aspect which naturally is clear of relative concerns and conceptualized objects is our innate, universal or “absolute” (nonobjective, undifferentiated) condition, or awareness, or “mind.” To avoid potential abstractions, let’s say that the relative aspect of awareness, or “thought,” focuses attention on mundane matters, such as “what should be,” “what could be,” “what will be,” “what has been,” etc. The universal aspect of awareness is attentive always to “what is.”

One of the elements, in its awareness of what is, is the (“internal”) activity of the constantly preoccupied, relative mind: the relative mind arrives at a conclusion or decision; the universal awareness is “aware of,” in observance of (like an impartial witness), one more phenomenal event, or thought. The nature of the relative mind, being an individual-ized artifact, is that it is fragmentary. Due to the necessary limitations within which its acquired and accumulated knowledge operates, it is—from the wholistic standpoint—a sea of confusion. In occasional moments of inactivity, when the restless waves momentarily subside, the truer aspect of our awareness recognizes this confusion. Feeling (or noticing) a sense of contrast in our consciousness, we intuitively long for a deeper expression of the imperturbable aspect of our nature. In consequence, we might find ourselves consciously studying what is written about Dzochen, or one of the other forms of illumination.

As beginning students, habituated by our comparative and objectifying mind, we will presume that a lama has substituted or replaced the relative mind with thoughtless awareness. From the bias of our either-or perspective, we will endeavor to discredit our relative (limited) thoughts and establish in their place “impartial” thoughts. In the context in which we’re speaking, we will endeavor to transact a shift from the mind which would not be characterized as rigpa, to the condition which we suppose would be characterizable as rigpa. The secret, we eventually come to learn, is that no such effort is necessary: there is not anything which needs to

be replaced. Rigpa is a matter of recognition: recognizing that undesired mentation is a phenomenon of the same mind which quietly observes it with no reaction (as rigpa). The undesired mentation occurs in a condition of awareness which is operating in relative terms: there is an “object”— undesirable manifestation—and a subject: to whom this particular manifestation is undesirable. To our “unborn mind”—that which existed prior to the self—there is no discernible subject (I) nor object (mind, thought, etc.); in this awareness, there is neither this or that; neither “desirable” or “undesirable.”

The innate, unconditioned awareness dispassionately observes the phenomenal activity of the analytical, superficial mind. Yet it is in no way disconnected from, or apart from, that…in the same way that your left hand is not disconnected from your right hand. To attempt to eradicate, or ameliorate, the activity of your relative mind—whether conceived of as “good” or “bad”— is as un-necessary as a bilateral lobe removal in your brain. The relative aspect of awareness and the witnessing aspect are like two facets of a gemstone, each facet needing no justification. Rigpa is to recognize what is, “internally” and “externally,” and to let it be as it is. And among that which is, is the “undesirable” activity which appears to occur within our individual psyche. Merely see it for what it is—impermenant phenomenon—and let it go. Then rigpa is your secret.

Notice that, as the Dalai Lama states, in the “natural” [unborn, “primordial”] condition of the mind “there is no objectivity [subject as opposed to object] involved….

“You are not preoccupied by what arises in the mind [‘good’ or ‘bad’], nor does it cause you any distress…. You do not employ…discursive [analytical; e.g. ‘this is okay,’ ‘this is not rigpa’] thoughts….

“(What) we are talking about is an extra-ordinary quality of awareness [not our normative, perfunctory condition]…”

This extra-ordinary quality, of rigpa, is that there is

“…no inner and no outer [relative notions], nothing like ‘this’ or ‘that’ [rigpa; not rigpa], nothing to be experienced by something experiencing it [‘I am experiencing rigpa’; or ‘I am not experiencing rigpa’], and no duality of subject and object whatsoever [me as opposed to—or separate from—my relative, or witnessing, awareness].”

The fact of the matter is that to make such distinctions as indicated above is to operate in (or from) relative awareness, the form of consciousness which Eastern mystics refer to as illusional—not reflecting our true, fundamental nature. The mind which distinguishes “good” from “bad” is the mind which generates our suffering; maya (illusion) is the seed of dukha (suffering). Illusion is not a product of witnessing awareness; it is a product of “gross consciousness”— separative, relativistic cognition: “dualistic thinking.” But, dualistic awareness has its (particularizing) function; non-dualistic has its (non-particularizing) function: both are

awareness. To be immersed in one condition in exclusion to the other is to be in a state of distraction from our fundamental human potential. When Namkhai Norbu says, “stay present in this recognition without getting distracted,” one would normally interpret this in the customary (separative) way: “Keep your understanding of rigpa forever present in your awareness lest gross consciousness interdict.” Could it be that such a preoccupation would be the very distraction which he is alluding to? Might it not be that “this recognition” is that rigpa is the Tibetan equivalent of choiceless awareness? The message, in whatever language, is to observe whatever arises as it is—good, bad, or otherwise—and not be distracted with ideas about how manifestations ought to ideally occur: “then all impurities dissolve [automatically, under such circumstances, without effort on your part]; this is the [secret] essence of the path.” Could it be, when the Dalai Lama comments, “The most difficult task is to differentiate between ordinary mind and rigpa,” that he himself—operating on the undifferentiating continuum—does not burden himself with this difficult task, because he no longer concerns himself with this “mind” and that “rigpa”? “Only when the mind is not fragmented,” says Krishnamurti, “what you see in totality is the truth.” When the mind is fragmented, it can perceive only either and or. When the mind is whole, “either” and “or” are one and the same truth.

Our native awareness, being unbroken, encompasses all that is—including the fragmented. To move ‘from’ a fragmented

mind ‘to’ an un-fragmented mind is merely to recognize that the former is an extension, a subject, of the latter— not removed in space or time. In the enlightened mind, one condition is not “preferred” over another, because both are understood to be inseparable elements of the one, same reality—which has no identifiable qualities, either good or bad.