Editing Mahamudra (section)

====Vipaśyanā====
The detailed instructions for the insight practices are what make Mahāmudrā (and Dzogchen) unique in Tibetan Buddhism. In Mahāmudrā vipaśyanā, Wangchuck Dorje gives ten separate contemplations that are used to disclose the essential mind within; five practices of "looking at" and five of "[[pointing-out instruction|pointing out]]" the nature of mind. They all presume some level of stillness cultivated by mahāmudrā shamatha. In retreat, each contemplation would typically be assigned specific time periods.{{sfnp|Ray|2001|p=276}}

The five practices for "looking at" the nature of the mind are as follows:{{sfnp|Ray|2001|pp=276-277}}
* ''Looking at the settled mind.'' One repeatedly looks at the mind's still state, possibly posing questions to arouse awareness, such as "what is its nature? It is perfectly still?"
* ''Looking at the moving or thinking mind.'' One tries to closely examine the arising, existence, and ceasing of thoughts, possibly posing oneself questions so as to better understand this process, such as "how does it arise? What is its nature?"
* ''Looking at the mind reflecting appearances.'' One looks at the way in which phenomena of the external senses occur in experience. Usually, a visual object is taken as the subject. One repeatedly looks at the object, trying to see just how that appearance arises in the mind, and understand the nature of this process. One possibly asks questions such as "what is their nature? How do they arise, dwell, and disappear? Is their initial appearance different from how they eventually understood?"
* ''Looking at the mind in relation to the body.'' One investigates questions such as "what is the mind? What is the body? Is the body our sensations? What is the relation of our sensations to our mental image of our body?"
* ''Looking at the settled and moving minds together.'' When the mind is still, one looks at that, and when the mind is in motion, one looks at that. One investigates whether these two stages are the same or different, asking questions such as "if they are the same, what is the commonality? If different, what is the difference?"

The practices for "pointing out the nature of mind" build on these. One now looks again at each of the five, but this time repeatedly asks oneself "What is it?" In these practices, one attempts to recognize and realize the exact nature of, respectively:
* The settled mind,
* The moving or thinking mind,
* The mind reflecting appearances,
* The relation of mind and body,
* The settled and thinking mind together.

The above practices do not have specific "answers"; they serve to provoke one to scrutinize experience more and more closely over time, seeking to understand what is really there.{{sfnp|Ray|2001|p=277}}

Gelug sutra Mahāmudrā, as presented by [[Lobsang Chökyi Gyaltsen, 4th Panchen Lama|Chökyi Gyaltsen]], practices a unique Gelug style of doing [[vipaśyanā]], based primarily on Gelug [[Madhyamaka]]. According to Roger Jackson:

<blockquote>In an actual meditation session, this involves, first of all, analyzing whether the meditator who has achieved tranquil equipoise actually can be found in an ultimate sense. Seeking the meditator both within and apart from the various elements, one encounters the meditator nowhere; seeking ultimacy in phenomena (dharmas), one encounters it nowhere. Thus, one comes to abide in a space-like awareness of the void nature of both the person and dharmas. Next (or, alternatively) one examines more carefully whether the mind itself can be found in an ultimate sense: it is discovered to have the conventional nature of a flow of awareness and clarity, but no ultimacy, no true existence. In short, one should recognize that any existent that arises, whether an object of the mind or the mind itself, is merely conceptual, is void and—as Chos rgyan quotes his guru, Sangs rgyas ye shes, as saying—"When . . . you are equipoised one-pointedly on that, marvelous!" (GBZL: 4a; trans. Dalai Lama and Berzin: 100; YSGM: 30b). In the period between meditation sessions (rjes thob), one should see all appearances as deceptive (sgyu ma), as existing differently than they appear, but one must at the same time recognize that their ultimate voidness does not preclude their conventional functioning, any more than conventional functioning gives them true existence.{{sfnp|Jackson|2001|p=178}}</blockquote>