Quelling the Storm

The third thought which turns the mind to practice is contemplation on karma1. Karma is commonly described as cause and effect. Something happens to us which then becomes the cause for our response, the effect. We perceive something and this is the cause of our reaction. If the perception is distorted then our response is also likely to be distorted. If we perceive through the filter of our referential, neurotic patterning, then our response will also be coloured by that referential, neurotic patterning. To make matters worse, if we respond in alignment with our distorted patterning, then we make that pattern even stronger, even more ingrained. However, our response, effect, reaction is not predetermined – even though it may sometimes feel as though it is. We can discover the space between perception and response, action and reaction, cause and effect. Spiritual practice offers a real and potent opportunity to undermine our own patterning. We can take control of our reaction and discover freedom from patterned response.1 Lé (las)Karma can be misunderstood to mean that everything bad that we have ever done or thought is somehow stored up somewhere, and that at some point we will have to experience the consequences – like Marley's Ghost burdened by a long chain of interpersonal misdemeanours. We may understand karma to mean 'If I am nasty to you, then at some point you are going to have to be nasty to me.' We may think that merit, Sonam (bSod nams)2 is a repository where the good thoughts and deeds are stored – like some helium balloon relieving us of the weight of our chain – but we may never feel terribly confident that the 'merit balloon' is as powerful as the miscreant* chain.2 Sonam (bSod nams) – An evildoer; a villain. An infidel; a heretic (Old French mescreant, croire – to disbelieve, mes- – wrongly, not)Although the approach of Sutrayana is to gradually replace unhelpful actions and attitudes with helpful ones, this is often misunderstood as increasing the

balloon of merit and decreasing the weighty chain of misdeeds. Cause and effect however, is not some kind of mechanism inherent in the fabric of reality. It is created by the way we have trained ourselves to perceive. The root of karma is dualism – the perceptual separation of emptiness and form. Through attaching to form and rejecting emptiness, we distort our reality dualistically. This leads us to manufacture our own discomfort. I hold on to the hurt I felt I received from Mrs Jones, in order to remind me to be wary of her next time. When I meet her, I remember the hurt and protect myself by being cold or aggressive towards her. Mrs Jones senses the aggression and responds aggressively towards me. I feel justified in my approach because of her aggression, and congratulate myself for effective self-protection. The pattern is laid down. Any chance of discovering that Mrs Jones is friendly is lost. Our inability to enter openly into the empty-opportunity of my second meeting with Mrs Jones, is instigated* by the projection of the emotional form-memory of my previous meeting. This is the process of duality and the functioning of karma. When dualism ceases however – karma ceases. When form and emptiness are recognised as a unified experience, there is no dualistic distortion woven into perception and therefore no karmic cause. There is therefore no distortion to be experienced as a karmic effect. I can meet Mrs Jones for the first time – every time we meet.* to instigate: To cause to happen. To urge on to some action (Lat. instigare)If karma is seen as independent of the individual experiencing karma, then we have a form of fatalism, which has more in common with the predestination as it is presented in popular Hinduism. Dzogchen3 views karma in terms of 'perception and response' rather than 'cause and effect'. The essential meaning is the same but this approach opens our understanding of karma so that we cannot mistake it for fatalism. If the cause, which is our perception, perceives a focus of attraction, aversion, or indifference, the effect will be our response to that cause. There is no sense in which the actual circumstances of our lives are preordained according to

a system of rewards and punishments for our previous actions. This is a primitive misconception which would make enlightenment dependent upon karma.3 Particularly The Ulukhamukha Upadesha Dakini Sutra (’ug gDong mKha’ ’gro sNying thig mDo) from the gTérma of Khyungchen Aro Lingma.My misunderstanding of cause and effect as predestination made it seem as though there could be no escape, and that there was no room to move or possibility of free will. This view offered no hope of change or incentive to engage in spiritual practice. This view of karma as a process of balancing merit and sin, did not function well for me as a 'thought to turn the mind to practice'. It is a structural linear approach and perhaps some people respond well to the discipline of filling the merit balloon and avoiding additions to the chain of egregious behaviour. However for me this approach to the principle of karma produced despondency, a feeling of powerlessness, and a belief that grinding, sparkle-dimming self-control was my only method of escape. Considering karma as perception and response offered me a sparkling, spontaneous approach. When I came to understand the view of karma in terms of motivation, and as perception and response, the process of cyclic existence became transparent.As a result of distorted perception, I respond in a manner which conforms to the cyclic patterns of my neurotic conditioning. I interpret a situation in a particular dualistic way, based on my habitual referential patterning. I judge the situation and interpret it through learned responses. I filter my clear, naked, unconditioned perception through referential conditioning and self-protection. I am unaware that I automatically measure every experience against previous experience and roll out the response that seems to best fit the situation: I see this as a threatening situation (empty) so I must protect myself with aggression (form). I see this as an attractive situation (form) so I must hang on to it as long as possible (make it more form). I see this as a neutral situation so I don't really care. We respond with

emotion, action, behaviour or communication that is based in dualistic perception. We look for the interpretation and response that seems safest or most attractive for retaining and substantiating form. We attempt to avoid emptiness. Dualistic response reflects the distortion we create through dualistic perception.This could also be called action and reaction. This happens so I respond with that. I experience a particular emotional response to a situation and react to it in a particular way – creating a cause – and at some point I will experience an effect of that cause which I have laid down. Cause and effect is often misunderstood in a fatalistic manner, as if our lives are predetermined with no possibility of chance or free will. Such an approach ignores the unknown factor of chaos and the possibility of choice of response. It also negates the non-duality of 'form is emptiness and emptiness is form'. If a particular cause always created a definite, certain, corresponding effect, that would mean both the cause and the effect were eternal and could never change. Although this would appear to be eternal form, because it had become permanent, separate and defined, in fact it would actually have become emptiness. Only emptiness is changeless. Once movement ceases, we are no longer dealing with form, because it is the nature of form to move and change. Movement, change, and impermanence define form. Form arises, abides, and dissolves. The whole idea of changeless eternal form is nonsense because perception can never be independent of the perceiver, and effect can never be independent of the effector.Let us examine this using a mundane example: eating Brussels sprouts. If I have never come across sprouts in my life up till now, then I have never created a sprout-reaction. The cause has not arisen. My taste sense has never perceived sprout taste, and I have never experienced attraction, aversion or indifference to it. No cause, no effect. One day however, I am given sprouts with my meal. My perception initially is likely to be open, because it is a new experience. The minute the sprout stimulates the sense of taste, I perceive the taste of sprout. I immediately judge that experience

against previous like/dislike responses, and say, 'Hey, this is nice – crunchy and fresh, with a good strong, vegetable flavour'. With this response I have created an attraction response, and begun a pattern of attraction to sprouts. However my response might be: 'Good grief this tastes like a mouldy sock. It tastes foul!'. With this response I have created an aversion response, and begun a pattern of sprout aversion. Sprout perception and sprout attraction do not exist independently. Sprout perception and sprout aversion do not exist independently. I may remember the feeling, but the perception and response will not arise again unless the cause of eating sprouts is revisited.Motivation is the primary factor in karma. If we wish to perform an action, engage in the activity, and are happy with its execution – then that is a complete karma. A complete karma encompasses the feeling of satisfaction after the act. We believe the activity was a good idea and we are happy that we followed it through. This complete karma creates a pattern, a tendency, a predisposition. If we are given the opportunity to engage in that activity again, intention will most likely arise to do so, and we shall follow it through to actually engaging in the activity. If the following through from intention to accomplishment was a satisfying experience, the pattern is now strongly established and will function as a perceptual filter.I decide to eat sprouts with the expectation of enjoying them. I enjoy them and I am satisfied that I have fulfilled my expectation and enjoyment. This is a complete karma, and establishes a strong pattern of attraction. If I decide to eat sprouts with the expectation of hating them, I hate them and am satisfied that my expectation of disgust has been fulfilled. This is a complete karma and establishes a strong pattern of aversion.However, if we wish to perform an action, we carry it out, and then are not satisfied, this is an incomplete karma. If we regret the action in some way and decide it was not such a good idea after all, the karma is incomplete. It does not have the weight of patterning of a complete karma. If we engage in the activity again,

but continue to feel unhappy about it, we will eventually give the action up. It is unlikely that we shall carry on with activity that fails to provide us with satisfaction.If I decide to eat chocolate but remember I am on a diet, I may enjoy the taste but will not feel completely satisfied because I have undermined my diet. This is an incomplete karma, and has not established or strengthened the pattern of attraction. The result of eating the chocolate is less defined. If I found I did not like sprouts, but decide to eat some with the intention of seeing if maybe they were not so bad after all, I may find I do not hate them quite as much as I remembered. Again the result is less defined; I may give sprouts another try sometime.The experience of lack of satisfaction keeps the activity in a state of ambivalence – we are unsure about the intention and result. From the perspective of Tantra, this is a workable state. It has the possibility of movement and transformation. It lacks the fixity of a definite 'yes this is good' or 'no this is bad'.The third possibility is that intention arises but is not acted upon. We have the intention to engage in a certain activity, but decide not to follow it through and are glad that we did not do so. In this case, the intention has little impact of conditioning. We allowed the intention to dissolve before it was carried through to response. No effective karmic pattern is created.When karma is viewed in this way as perception and response, we can see that its nature is no mystery. It is logical. It makes sense. We do not have to fear the effect of a bad activity lurking somewhere ready to leap out and repay us at the first opportunity. It is simply that deep ditches on our path are easy to fall into and difficult to get out of. And these ditches of response become deeper every time we repeat a response to a particular perception. We never know what circumstances in our lives will cause us to fall into a particular furrow of automatic response. Our life circumstances are more chaotic and unknown than we might care to imagine. Our potential response is also unknown but is patterned by previous responses to the

same or similar stimuli. Our lack of presence – ability to dwell with clarity in the present moment – makes us unable to recognise choice at the moment of perception. We respond automatically without awareness. Presence enables us to choose the direction of our response, regardless of the furrow attempting to dictate our path.The subjective definition of whether intention is positive or negative has no bearing on whether or not the karma is complete. It is the factor of intention carried through to action, and the experience of satisfaction or regret at the completion of the action which dictates whether the karma is complete. If we return to the idea of cause and effect, we could say that positive intention carried through to action creates merit and negative intention carried through to action creates sin. However, from the perspective of perception and response – positive intention carried through to action creates a pattern which tends to unwind the distortion we create through splitting emptiness and form. Negative intention carried through to action compounds the distortion created through dualism. We give the terms ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ meaning in terms of referentiality. We interpret 'that which supports my feeling of security of self' as positive, and 'that which undermines my feeling of security of self' as negative. From a practitioner's point of view however, 'positive' and 'negative' are given meaning with regard to whether the perception and response is helpful or unhelpful in undermining our dualistic conditioning. From the perspective of realisation there is no positive or negative, but simply perception and response that leads us towards non-dual realisation, or perception and response that leads away from it.Intention is the energy of perception that leads to response. If perception is dualistic, the intention and response will be dualistic. Intention or motivation is the energy that activates the process of cyclic existence. So long as we continue to attempt to separate emptiness and form, intention will drive the wheel of cyclic existence. When perception is non-dual, response spontaneously arises as pure appropriateness –

intention is simply the energy of non-dual perceptual-responsive congruency. The cogs* of dualistic distortion no longer click into action. Karma no longer arises because perception and response are spontaneous and clear.* cog: one of the teeth on the rim of a gearwheel; a gearwheel, esp. a small oneIntention is always present in any action and interaction with others, whether we are aware of it or not. Intention and motivation always arise as we perceive circumstances and respond to that perception according to our conditioned patterns of response – yet at the level of intention we always have choice. We have the choice of allowing the patterned response to kick in – or not. We always have the choice of how we respond to perception. We always have the choice to change our response and to refrain from entering the pattern of neurotic conditioning.This process of patterning is also the mechanism that creates opinions. Our opinions are based on our experience. I like science fiction. I think science fiction is entertaining and can open my mind to new ways of looking at things. I enjoy books and films about science fiction. I watch science fiction movies and usually enjoy them, which strengthens my liking for science fiction. My neighbour hates science fiction. He thinks it is a complete waste of time. He thinks that the storylines are usually farfetched, a traditional story in an alien setting, or just an excuse for techno-babble dialogue and fancy special effects. He occasionally watches a science fiction movie and they confirm his negative opinion of science fiction.There is actually no problem with this situation. Having an opinion is not a problem. Having a different opinion to my neighbour is not a problem – unless we feel threatened by our differing opinions. My neighbour can enjoy my appreciation of science fiction and retain his feeling of not being keen on it. I can enjoy my appreciation of science fiction and see that his opinion of it is sometimes true without this spoiling my enjoyment.

Problems arise because we tend to regard our opinions as fact, rather than remembering that they are the result of our subjective experience. We like to gather people around us who share the same subjective view. We are less likely to become firm friends with people whose subjective view is different. If I feel I have to start a 'Friends of Science Fiction' club so that I feel supported in my subjective view or ridicule my neighbour for his small-mindedness – then my liking for science fiction is functioning as a strong reference point in my life. It is not just a straightforward preference based on perception and personality; it has become a crutch to my need to feel substantial and of value. I identify with this genre, have lots of friends who like it too, and can talk endlessly to justify the view that 'science fiction is best'. I like science fiction, therefore I am.In this way we attempt to feel substantial and safe in the form of our subjectivity and feel threatened by the emptiness represented by alternative views. The members of the 'science fiction is rubbish' club become my enemies. Ultimately I have to kill them. We maintain our sense of existence in the process of separating emptiness and form, and defining ourselves through the form we like, dislike or do not care about. This is madness! We do exist. This much is certain. We do exist – as a continuity. Trying to prove we exist by fixing form reference points does not work and can never work.Once the pattern of our response to particular perceptions has been established, the only way to open our view to the possibility of choice at the level of intention is to allow some space to develop. We need to learn to become aware of intention arising in response to perception, so that we have a space in that moment to decide whether to allow the response to follow through, to let it dissolve, or to change it to another response. One of the primary methods of developing this spaciousness at the level of intention is through meditation techniques that teach us to dwell comfortably in the space of mind-without-thought. We discover Sky Mind. There are many methods of spacious

meditation in the different schools and traditions of Buddhism4. These methods teach us to cease giving attention to the constant chatter in our minds – cloud mind. Through letting go of cloud mind, we discover Sky Mind. We sit and allow the movement in mind to settle. When a thought arises, we let go of the content and allow the energy to dissipate. When a memory arises, we let go of the content and allow the movement to dissolve. When sensation arises, we do not judge it as good or bad, attractive or unattractive, we let it subside and disappear.4 For information on the practice of one of these methods, based in the Aro gTér lineage of the Nyingma Tradition see Roaring Silence by Ngakpa Chögyam and Khandro Déchen (Shambhala Publications, 2002).When we learn to be comfortable in the space of Sky Mind, we find that we have discovered one of the most potent methods of transforming dualistic perception and response into enlightened perception and response. When we discover spaciousness at the point of intention, choice becomes a possibility. We realise we can go down the usual furrow, start a new furrow, or allow every perception be the fresh, new, clear, vivid experience of the moment. I can see that the grass is green; I can hear the sound of my beloved’s voice; I can smell the roses; I can taste the honey; and I can feel the caress of silk on my skin – for the first time, every time. Because every time is the first time in this mind moment. Every perception can be the ecstatically empty perception of now.If we never learn to dwell in this spacious moment, we remain slaves to the automatic patterned quality of responses. There is no choice. We plod down the same furrow or create new ones which are equally constricting.There are several ways to approach emptiness. If we are not able to dwell in emptiness as a meditational experience, karma can still be undermined through awareness and effort of will. We can approach emptiness by learning to control our responses to perception through mindfulness and self-discipline. Mindfulness is a practice of developing emptiness. Self-

discipline is a practice of developing emptiness. These are practices of the Sutrayana path and are pragmatic and effective. They represent the path of renunciation. If chocolate is a source of desire that, if indulged, leads to the deepening of the ingrained pattern of desire, then I simply remove myself from the sphere of chocolate. This approach works, and can be applied to all sources of desire and aversion. The ultimate expression of the path of renunciation is monasticism. Here the method of developing emptiness through mindfulness and self-discipline is embraced by letting go of as many of the reference points of ordinary life as possible. The monastic practitioner lets go of the colourful perceptions of ordinary life that function as causes for the stimulation of the responses of desire and aversion. They adopt a restricted life with fewer opportunities for distraction. This is an admirable commitment to the development of emptiness in order to undermine the potency of karmic patterning.However, the renunciate life may not be possible or desirable for the majority of us. It is fortunate, therefore, that different methods of undermining karmic patterning exist. Emptiness can be developed through meditation and devotion. Devotion can be understood as form, through our interaction with a teacher and teachings in terms of showing respect and listening with attention. But it can also be understood as emptiness through our openness of heart and mind. When emptiness is discovered through meditation, this ground experience of spaciousness allows the practitioner to actively play with perception and response in order to effect transformation at that level. This is the path of Vajrayana. It is an effective and pragmatic method, but it can be more difficult to grasp than the path of renunciation. We need to be aware of the danger of failure. If I fail to dwell in spaciousness at the moment of perception, so that I fail to open intention and realise choice, then I have simply reinforced my patterning. My practice may then become the cause of the continuation of the cycle of samsara rather than the cause of liberation. Hence, Vajrayana is a more advanced path than Sutrayana. It is also regarded as potentially dangerous. Only if

response is rooted in realisation of the emptiness of the form of perception can karma begin to be undermined. Vajrayana offers methods of symbolic activity, to be employed as the empty form of intention and response, so that the subject and object of response are dropped. The experience of non-duality is simulated through symbolic activity until the actual experience as the co-emergence of bliss and emptiness is achieved5. Empty or non-dual form is experienced as blissful. It is the potent delight of the movement of form in the present moment. The ecstasy of loving appreciation; the blissful enjoyment of sensory experience; the inspiration of insightful ideation.5 For a full and detailed explanation of symbolic method see Wearing the Body of Visions by Ngakpa Chögyam (Aro Books, 1995).Once we are able to dwell in the experience of emptiness between moments of movement in the mind, and even expand the scope of that emptiness, our patterning becomes transparent. It is revealed and laid bare. We can experience the naked empty nature of our perception, and joyfully play with the movement of intention and response. We can begin to recognise the processes we enter into at the moment of perception that result in response. We can see how we judge everything, categorise everything and separate ourselves from the direct, naked experience of perception. We can recognise that we continually filter perception through expectation and previous experience, and are at the mercy of the three root misconceptions of attraction, aversion, and indifference.These three distracted tendencies are the grinding of the wheel of samsara. Through objectifying ourselves as substantial and separate, as beings that can exist in permanence and continuity, we impute upon ourselves the ability to own experience and to possess a definition that can be harmed. Through our form-based definition of what we are and how we exist, we create the duality of subject and object. We are the subject of existence (perceiver) and everything else is the object (perceived).

This sense of subjectivity is known as Dag (bDag)6. We believe Dag is substantial, separate, and defined and can be maintained as continuous and permanent7. From this misconception, whatever we perceive is seen as having the potential to either substantiate Dag, threaten Dag, or be irrelevant to the security of Dag. From this perspective arise attraction, aversion, and indifference. In fact, attraction, aversion, and indifference are simply the inevitable outcome of dualism. If we split emptiness and form and define ourselves as subject and everything else as object, then we are inevitably going to be attracted to that which appears to support Dag, be averse to that which appears to undermine Dag and indifferent to that which appears to have nothing to do with Dag.6 bDag – pronounced dug, means ‘soul’, ‘self’, or ‘self existing unchanging identity’.7 The notion of a self-existent self is often referred to as ‘ego’ in Buddhist writings available in the West. This can be confusing, as we may be familiar with ‘ego’ in the context of Freudian psychology. Ego has no Freudian implications in this context. Alternatively, readers may be familiar with atman/anatman: inherent self/lack of inherent self.The three root misconceptions of attraction, aversion and indifference are often described as lust (or desire), hatred, and ignorance. The words lust and hatred are quite extreme, reminiscent of the seven deadly sins. The problem with using such colourful words is that we can misunderstand the scope of the root misconceptions. Attraction encompasses the merest hint of preference right through to lustful compulsion. Aversion embraces slight irritation through to roiling, boiling, murderous hatred. Indifference includes the sense of not having the energy to bother right through to wilful determination to ignore what is in front of us. Also the emotive words of 'lust and hatred' having the flavour of 'sin' about them, suggests that these reactions are 'naughty' or 'wicked' and must be abandoned for that reason. The process of samsara is actually rather subtle and the words 'lust, hatred and ignorance’ may cause us to miss the subtlety. The alternative words of 'attraction, aversion, and indifference' encompass even the slightest of feelings,

judgments, expectations, and preconceptions we place upon naked experience. The strategies of attraction, aversion, and indifference protect us from emptiness, so that we can live as much as possible in the sphere of form.While our view remains dualistic, attraction, aversion or indifference arise from perception as night follows day. From these three arise responses that are coloured by the intention of attraction, aversion, or indifference. In this way we turn the wheel of samsara and ingrain our belief in Dag more and more deeply. Spiritual practice offers the opportunity to let go of Dag and recognise the energy of attraction, aversion, and indifference as being no different from the energy of kindness, clarity and awareness. We do not have to learn new ways to respond to what we perceive, we simply have to recognise the distortion we inflict on the natural energetic flow of our response. When we recognise the root cause of this distortion as addiction to form, we can relax. We can let go at the point of perception, and relax into the certainty that pristine perception naturally allows response to flow as kindness, clarity, and awareness.In Sutrayana we work at the level of response, adjusting our activity to purify ourselves and allowing perception to become empty. In Vajrayana non-duality is discovered through embracing the energy of attraction, aversion, and indifference. Through dissolving the subject and object of emotions they self-manifest as the non-dual wisdoms. In Dzogchen there is simply direct perception, in which energy and activity of response are naturally and spontaneously congruent.However, awareness of the distortion of perception and response, and engagement with methods to clarify their flow, is dependent on emptiness. Without the experience of spaciousness as the ground of being, we do not have the opportunity of choice. Space allows us to discover awareness at the moment of potential engagement with experience, to realise the possibility of transformation at the moment of perception, or to be mindful of our activity when we respond. Practice is the key that explodes the narrow confines of our ordinary

experience. Practice liberates the fatalistic, deterministic view of karma as cause and effect. Once karma is understood as self-originated and self-maintained, we can let go of the cause and refuse to support its maintenance. Through direct introduction to method by our Lama, we can derail karma and burn the diesel as passionate devotion8. We can turn around the causes that create samsara, and transform their energy into creating the causes of eternal satisfaction through the endless continuity of blissful now-moments.8 Passionate devotion is the emptiness and form of who we are as Vajrayana practitioners. Devotion is our passionate interest and involvement with the teacher and teachings – the way our devotion manifests. Devotion is also our capacity to be an empty vessel for the teachings, and to be open to hearing and understanding.Once we have gained an understanding of karma as perception and response, and have gained some experience of the spaciousness of mind, we can celebrate that we have utter choice and total freedom to be whatever we want to be. We can view karma as a snare that we can avoid through practice. When we recognise that Dharma offers methods to completely explode our neurotic patterning, understanding karma inspires us to practise. Through the development of spaciousness, our patterning can become totally open and transparent. It becomes completely available to us to observe, to change, or to enjoy. We can play. Our patterning becomes a sparkling nexus of opportunity. We can view perception. We can recognise intention. We can motivate responses. We are in control – but not with rigid, suppressive, 'police state mind'. We are in control simply because we have become transparent to ourselves.Ngak'chang Rinpoche explains being in control as:

". . . not being out of control. Being in control does not mean that one controls phenomena – but that one has one's hands on the steering wheel or on the reins. Holding the rein does not mean that one completely dominates the horse. The horse always has personal ideas about the landscape and what it contains. The landscape is not controlled even

though we attempt to follow certain directions within it. The weather is not controlled either. In fact little control is possible – Passionate devotion is the emptiness and form of who we are as Vajrayana practitioners. Devotion is our passionate interest and involvement with the teacher and teachings, the way our devotion manifests. Devotion is also our capacity to be an empty vessel for the teachings, and to be open to hearing and understanding. yet nonetheless we are in control, to the extent that we have not abdicated responsibility for what is happening.”

When our patterning becomes transparent, we can laugh at the compulsion of our desire, at the fearfulness of our aversion, and at the wilfulness of our stupidity. Every moment becomes an opportunity for freedom and realisation.Ultimately, finding presence of awareness in the dimension of the moment is the experience of non-dual emptiness and form. Within this experience, all manifestations become the ornaments of spontaneous presence and are experienced as purely appropriate, natural, uncontrived, and free. Karma as a cause of cyclic existence no longer exists. Spontaneous enlightened perception manifests simultaneously as spontaneous enlightened response. We are no longer tossed about on the stormy waters of hope and fear, expectation and preconception. We can quell the storm.Questioner: When we talk about incomplete karma, it seems to me that some patterns are strongly established even if we don’t experience satisfaction. We keep repeating certain activities even though we know they’re not a good idea.Ngakma Nor'dzin: We have to look at what is meant by satisfaction. We indulge in some peculiar psychological distortions! Satisfaction may not always mean we feel ‘happy’. The satisfaction of engaging in the activity may have become the misery of wishing we had not done it. In this case the feeling of satisfaction that completes the karma is the misery or guilt we feel. Sadly, there are many convoluted ways in which we can distort our perception and response.

Q: Ngakma-la, when you gave the example of the sprouts it seemed clear, but what if we have other motivations at work? What if we don't like sprouts but think they are good for us, or we’re trying to set an example for a child?NN: My example was frivolous. As you say – our perception and motivation is often mixed. There are subtleties and complications which could be added to the example. Life is rarely simple or clear cut. If we look at the example of the chocolate bar and the diet – if I eat the chocolate when I am on a diet, the experience is more convoluted. I may enjoy the chocolate, but feel dissatisfied because I feel I should not have eaten it. If my intention is to resist eating the chocolate bar, I succeed and feel pleased that I have succeeded, and then I have added a degree of strength to the pattern of my resolve to resist foods like chocolate bars. It is possible that this intention can become a strong pattern, to the point that it becomes as compulsive as indulgence, and I develop anorexia – not likely in my case (laughter). Alternately, the activity of deprivation may mean that my perception is continually coloured by desire for chocolate bars, to a degree that would not normally occur – more likely in my case (laughter).We are complicated beings and the distortion we inflict on perception can be subtle and convoluted. This is why the opportunity offered by Vajrayana is so precious. Vajrayana offers us the method to work directly with the patterns of our distortion and transform perception and response. We do not have to laboriously unpick the knot of our distortion. From the perspective of Dzogchen, the knot is the snake, but the snake does not have any sense of suffering from a knot. The snake simply moves when it wants to move and mysteriously there is no longer any knot. If we could relax we would discover that there is no knot of distortion and never has been.Q: What is Buddhakarma?NN:. The Buddhakarmas have nothing to do with karma in the sense we have been discussing. Here the word karma simply means action or activity. Karma as we

have been discussing it is Lé-kyi (las kyi) and karma as in Buddhakarma is thrin-lé (sPrin las). There are four Buddhakarmas which relate to the elements as they arise from space. The Buddhakarma of the earth element is enrichment. The Buddhakarma of the water element is pacification. The Buddhakarma of the fire element is magnetisation. The Buddhakarma of the air element is destruction. Different Lamas manifest different Buddhakarmas according to what is most helpful for their students. Their Buddhakarmas are responses to whatever situations require. It is always compassionate activity9 but it may not appear so to us, because we judge everything by dualistic reference.9 The Four Buddha Karmas – lé-zhi (las bZhi), or kinds of enlightened activity, are: enriching – gyé-pa (rGyas pa), pacifying – shi-wa (Zhi ba), magnetising – wang (dBang), and destroying – drakpo ngön-gCod (Drak).Kyabjé Chhimèd Rig’dzin Rinpoche was always kind, but could appear quite terrifying. His response was always direct and personal. I once asked him how one would know who was your root Lama. He looked at me with a piercing glare and said, 'You married, yes?’ I replied that I was. 'Who is your root husband?' he asked. The point was clearly made.Q: If I had the intention to do something kind, but it somehow got screwed up so that it was actually unkind, is there anything I can do to help?NN: Yourself or the other person?Q: Both. (Laughter)NN: With regard to karma, it is incomplete because you recognised that the kind motivation went wrong and you felt sorry about that. It is best then to just let it go. There is no point in hanging on to it with feelings of guilt or self-recrimination. If there is something you can do to help the other person that will not compound the situation, then that is always possible.Q: What is happening when I eat the twentieth chocolate bar and find that I no longer want it or am able to enjoy it?

NN: There is the physiological response of your body, and the 'wearing out' of your ability for that object to be a reference point for you.Q: So does appreciation 'wear out'?NN: No. From the non-dual view, appreciation is non-referential. If there is a physiological reaction to the twentieth chocolate bar, non-referential appreciation appreciates the experience of queasiness and disgust. Non-dual appreciation is enthralled by the explosive experience of vomiting (laughter). When queasiness and vomiting are free of the referentiality of 'this is a bad thing that shouldn't be happening to me', they are just experiences. All experience is simply as it is – we add the extra layer of judgement of good, bad or indifferent.Q: Does our neurotic patterning change?NN: Yes, in an ad-hoc way, depending on the associations and reference points of our lives. Experience means that we may have different opinions, our tastes change, some patterns get stronger. Some change, and some disappear. If our perception appears to confirm our expectation, then we strengthen the pattern. But in any moment there is always the possibility of naked direct perception that is free of expectation and preconception.