Impermanence, No-Self and Suffering

Here's the counter-argument that actually isn't one, as it attempts to show they are the same.

Let's say that we define suffering in the fundamental sense as that artificial duality created by habitual misperception of seeing some sensations as Subject, in this case patterns of sensations that sometimes appear in control but sometimes don't seem to be in control, sensations that are struggling with whether or not to surrender or even how to do this, whether or not to investigate, whether or not they are enlightened, whether or not they have finished the thing up, whether or not the Tibetans or the Theravadans or Zen kids are right, in short, this sort of suffering is created by not understanding fundamental things about this pattern of sensations (and perhaps others).

If we assume simple "Theravadan" things, things that are actually found also in the Mahayana and Vajrayana in equal abundance, then this apparent duality between the traditions dissolves.

If the sensations of Subject are understood as more sensations that are aware where they are, this is the luminosity spoken of by those who describe how this happens using terms such as primordial awareness or cognizant emptiness, use this sort of language to describe that these sensations simply present where they are. In this parlance, the primordial awareness is an aspect of phenomena, not as a separate thing.

The perfect flip side of this linguistic coin that makes the same point is when the Therevadans say things like, "In the seeing, just the seen, in the thinking, just the thought, in the hearing, just the heard, in the feeling, just the felt," etc. In which they are also saying that phenomena are just manifest where they are with out a dualistic observer or Subject in the separate sense, but the point is the same, it is just a question of which side of things they fall on descriptively.

Thus, viewed from the "cognizant emptiness" point of view, one who, by whatever balance of surrender and effort or other method or focus or technique or non-technique or whatever, perceives the sensations that appeared to be "Subject" clearly, questions of surrender become superfluous, as all sensations of surrender are seen as how things always were, the empty and cognizant universe doing its thing, meaning surrender was always the case, and now this is understood by default and without other perceptual option.

In exactly the same way, all effort, all striving, all investigation, all goal oriented practice, all thoughts of future, all thoughts of analysis, all thoughts of comparison or questioning, all thoughts of achievement or completion, all intentions to surrender, all intentions to not surrender, and all the rest are perceived naturally and without effort as they are, arising naturally as they do, which can be described as "cognizant emptiness", and no-self, and impermanence, as they all change.

However, when these things are finally perceived as they are at baseline, thought whatever focus method or lack thereof, thought whatever mix of resting in how things are or investigating how things are, the Suffering in the fundamental sense is gone, gone, gone, and gone are all questions about which side is right, as from that point of view, however achieved, they both are pointing to the same thing, however different they may initially sound.

Those things said, after this is realized, when surrender arises, it has a different quality than when effort arises, just as it did before, though both happen naturally and are perceived as "no-self" or "empty cognizance" or "The Tao" or "God" or "True Self" or whatever you want to call that, and that makes all the difference and ends the conceptual, technical and traditional struggles once and for all.

Kenneth makes an excellent point about the Theravada, that when people are trying to get Third Path, or even some of the lower paths and Equanimity, they are not told to look at the emptiness of phenomena in real-time in that particular way that also highlights its luminosity, its light of awareness in phenomena, nor are they told to turn the light back on the sensations of Subject in that way, and these focuses can produce progress in a way that the narrow, Three Characteristics in the more limited sense focus can produce in many people, and the dogmatic way they ignore the other way of describing the thing is unfortunate, as much can be gained from seeing things from the other point of view to come to the final understanding that sees through the whole thing as the default and only mode.

This is obviously a relatively goal and map-oriented way of looking at the thing, and not exactly how Kenneth put it, but the point remains.

The point is that the Three Characteristics of Suffering, Impermanence and Emptiness or No-Self are actually more profound than many of the Theravadans realize, which is unfortunate, leading to limited focuses and specific points of view that limit understanding of how profound these teachings are and also limit they ways they are used in practice, such as to turn the "light" onto itself, or to notice the "light" in phenomena, which produce a very different feel of practice and can lead to profound insights.

However, the point that if one simply notices the Three Characteristics of all phenomena leads only to seeing suffering, impermanence, and no-self is not true, as that focus lead me to understand "luminosity", "True Self", "cognizant emptiness", and that Suffering in this sense is conditioned on not perceiving impermanence and no-self clearly, as when they are perceived to sufficient degree, that Suffering vanishes, as the apparent duality is seen through.

Thus, this controversy is more one of methods to realize the final thing, more of what focus is best, though in the end, whatever focus is used must incorporate aspects of the others, even if one didn't start out to try to do that.

If one chooses effort, one must stay with what is arising as the basis of investigation, which means one must surrender to what is. Thus, from the point of view of effort and investigation done really well, one must surrender.

If one surrenders, one must realize that when effort arises, effort arises, and surrendering to the arising of effort is required to really surrender if effort is what is arising, and thus, from the point of view of surrender really done well, it must also include surrendering to the arising of effort.

Ultimate reality has no problem with effort or surrender.

If one looks carefully enough at the Three Characteristics, one will move through the paths and insights, at which point the other points made by the Mahayana and Vajrayana and Vedanitic become obvious, though having them pointed out is helpful.

If one looks at Awareness or Luminosity with sufficient ability to attain the paths, one also realizes the Three Characteristics, as are described ad nauseum in the Mahayana and Vajrayana and Vedantic literature despite them emphasizing the other sides of the coin and other focuses, and they actually use the Three Characteristics in their teachings and practices.

In the end, the thing realized is the same, though different techniques and emphases lead to different qualities to practice and to the specifics of what happens later and how it is described, thus the controversy is more one of method and skillful means and how best to describe the thing for whose trying to realize the thing, as the thing is the thing is the thing, or it wouldn't be Ultimate Reality, by definition.

It is very true that turning awareness to the "I AM" and surrendering to reality, as techniques, have a very different feel in practice than doing things like strict noting technique many times a second, and there is no question about which is more pleasant most of the time, and then it is just a question of what what works best for you, what you believe will lead to what for you and meet your criteria for the optimal balance of speed, efficacy, pleasure, ease, attainment, relaxation, etc.

As the science hasn't been done, meaning that there has been no grand study of how to best align meditators with the optimal techniques and focuses to achieve whatever their goals are and provide the optimal balance of teachings for each person to maximize their chances of attaining whatever it is they wish to attain with minimal side effects and problems, there is still controversy, and that will likely continue.

Thus, I think the focus should not be on the fact that there is controversy about Ultimate Reality, as actually don't think there is that much really between those who have understood it for those who take the time to really untangle the other person's or tradition's descriptions, but instead on how to optimize the teachings to fit with peoples goals, personalities, tolerances, inclinations, talents, limitations, and other qualities, and that is ongoing work being done many places, such as this site.

Is there anyone who can claim access to both? If so, couldn't hat person say something like, "It's the same," or, "It's two different things, and here's why?"

Me, but it is not both, it is the same, just a question of how you look at it or describe it or what arises:

For instance:
* If attention turns to itself, the "I AM" arises
* If it turns to luminosity, there it is
* If it turns to the specifics, there they are
* If it turns to effort, there is effort
* If it turns to surrender, there is surrender
* If it turns to impermanence, there it is
* If it turns to naturalness, there it is
* If it turns to wholeness, there it is, etc.

And yet, the same quality remains of it being what is, as it is, undefended at the deepest level, and the most interesting thing is that when attention looks around for the quality of suffering that resulted from the habitual misperception or phase-problem that was in place before, it is gone, which is the natural co-emergency of manifestation and wisdom.

One could just as easily say:

* When the "I AM" arises, that is what arose
* When the quality of luminosity arises, that is what arose
* When the qualities of the specifics of reality arise, there they are
* When effort arises, that is what arises
* When surrender arises, that is what arises
* etc.

This is so simple from this point of view, but the world wishes to make it complex, which is one of the many categories of defenses against it, a trick of Mara to use Theravadan language, Moksha to use the Zen parlance, another obscuration in Tibetan parlance.

Obvious, literal, direct, as it is, and yes, arrived at by a lot of work with a lot of techniques and adventures and misguided practice and good practice and much fine tuning and much wearing away of the defenses against the full field of this that finally resulted in that right blend of clear comprehension and complete surrender, but now done and it has weathered the test of time for years now.

Hello Daniel,

Nice to see you here! I had a similar discussion with a Zen teacher in Beijing in August this year. I raised the issue of the three characteristics since his core practice was the Four Foundation of Mindfulness.

He told me the three characteristics (falling under the broad category of emptiness) were precisely the main focus of Zen practice and that his own teacher had warned him about false teachers who do not insist on this important point, regardless of the method used.

As to the names given to the ultimate reality, Zen masters used a variety of names like emptiness, suchness, one mind, no-mind, buddha-nature or dharmakya depending on circumstances. As an example, when monks got too attached to prayers and ceremonies, Zen master Mazu preached: 'Mind is the Buddha'. When they started conceptualizing it and reifying Buddha-mind, Mazu switched to: 'No mind, no Buddha'.

Advaita Vedanta is another matter. However, I recently mentioned to Alan Chapman (who used part of it in a recent article I think) that Advaita Vedanta, created by Adi Shankaracarya and his guru Gaudapada, was in fact a sub-school of the much elder tradition of Vedanta (lit. end of the Vedas = Upanishads). Interestingly, many scholars consider that Gaudapada was a crypto-Buddhist who borrowed largely from Madhyamika and Yogacara Buddhism.

Just to take the example of the three characteristics, they are expressed in positive form by the notion of Sat '“ Chit '“ Ananda. Traditional Advaita Vedanta practice is based on a form of Vipassana Bhavana called Atma Vichara, which is actually a via negativa where one is to discard as 'not this, not this' (or 'neti, neti' in Sanskrit) all that it not permanent, including awareness if it is not also present during deep dreamless sleep. Buddhists would say something like 'not this, not mine, not self', which is almost identical.

Kind regards,

Alex

Hi Daniel,

Some people here believe that they had a direct realization experience without attaining the fourth path or even the lower ones.

Do you think this is possible?

Amr

Okay, nice, Daniel.

So... my next simpleton's question is what is the difference between the Theravada nibbana (cessation) and the phenomenon the Vajrayana folks call "rigpa?" And if there is a difference then how is it explained in the model you are presenting, Daniel?

Thanks!

Dear Keeiton:

I sorting out exactly what they got and understood tends to take personal conversations and a bunch of time, as even when things line up better with standard or non-standard theory, things can get really slippery even when you know people well. Kenneth and I are 15 year veterans of this and great friends, and even then, it is not easy in the least. Thus, much more info on what they currently perceive and exactly how their mind works would be needed and how they use these slippery concepts would be needed for that sort of thing, as well as time to know how things hold up. There are multiple stories of sudden awakening, but I haven't known any personally. All those I know went through or are going through a progressive series of stages with plateaus, hills, sudden jumps, periods of integration, and the like. I know none who just jumped to the complete thing in one shot, but I always find these reports intriguing, as that would seem an easier way to go, if one can figure out how.

Dear CMarti:

Nibbana in the technical sense of the Theravada is used two ways: one is Fruition, which is a gap at the end of an insight cycle, a discontinuity, an unknown event, a vanishing and reappearing of all that is, the other meaning is arahatship or Buddhahood, meaning the understanding of emptiness or things as they are or non-duality or whatever you want to call it of the sensate, waking world, e.g. "Nibbana is Samsara", that sort of thing, as in the cessation of fundamental ignorance or misperception, which the Vajrahana and some other strains call Rigpa, meaning the true nature of things, the correct perception of things, the direct, stainless, untainted, fundamental knowing of the sensate world as it happens.

Continued:

Things get murkier when people start talking about non-duality states that are not in the context of realization, and there are many states that can feel really amazing, true, real, profound, wonderful, unitive, transcendent, or some other really great quality, but they fade. I have had lots of those and none impressed me or solved the problem as the final thing did.

Even murkier is now Rigpa relates to Anagamis (Third Path) in the later stages, where they may have long periods where they really feel they have got it, are in the thing, have sorted it all out, have clear access to the truth of things, with no clear sense of Subject as Subject, no clear sense of will as something they really have in the way they did before, no clear sense of center point or localized perceiver, in short, they really feel they are in Rigpa or are arahats, but it fades, there are subtle gaps or grey areas, and then they feel they get it again.

Even murkier is what to do with arahats that are not full-time arahats, those who really have seen through the thing but it faded, didn't stick, and so sometimes they are clearly in it, and other times they are close but not quite. Do we call that Rigpa when they are in it? I would argue "Yes", as the Tibetans talk about finding it and then staying in in for progressively longer periods of times and in the face of more complex challenges. One could also argue it for the anagamis, as it really feels that way to them at times, but from the arahat point of view it pales in comparison though has many close and similar features.

Helpful?

D

Welcome, Daniel!

Thanks for weighing in on this important topic. It's great to see you here on the forum.

Kenneth

"Helpful?"

Yes. But may I ask, based on your comments about rigpa... what was your experience of rigpa and is it describable in words that can be typed in here? See, my impression is that the Mahayana buddhist world says rigpa is the be all and end all, the highest attainment a human being can aspire to. Your comments make it sound... not so much like that at all. You seem to equate it to any of many states that a practitioner can experience - states that are nice, cool, exhilarating, what have you, but impermanent, not self and unsatisfactory. That doesn't seem to square with the descriptions I get from the Vajrayana or Zen folks who describe it. In the Dzogchen world I see rigpa being described as endless, timeless, always. It's not described as a state of being. It IS being. So I'm left with this contradiction that in my inexperience I can't resolve. Maybe I don't need to resolve it. Maybe it doesn't matter.

BTW - I listened to the Hurricane Ranch Discussions again the other day and I want to thank you for your very apt (apt in a very personal way for me) description of second path that's in part 2. It made me feel much better about all the confusion and weirdness I've been going through of late and made me much more at ease with it. Having people like you and Kenneth around is enomously valuable.

Hi all great exposition!

Dan, great synthesis of the traditions; thanks for taking the time to do so.

This is my take on the apparent coming and going of Rigpa. My sense is that Rigpa is it - is the base - the simplest thing. Here always - timeless. If it is always here now, then it can't be a dependent transient state - impermanent. However, it is not a thing ether, so it is not a separate permanent self nor an ontological essence. I generally like Tibetan and Zen parlance and would equate Rigpa with our Fundamental Nature or Original Face or Clear-Light Self-Luminous Cognizance to denote what is fundamental to US, and not some other, and yet not this apparent '˜me-self-subject' that strives and suffers which is a mis-apprehension of the Self-Nature and the state of things.

What seems fundamental to getting it is this: One can notice what is now i.e. that which notices or sees not noticing '“ that which sees or sees mis-perceiving - or one can be distracted and fall into identification with a sensation composed subject that suffers. It is distraction that comes and goes. So it is not a matter of Rigpa coming and going like altered states of consciousness, and moods and such; rather it is whether one is distracted from what is here right now - Cognizance - or not. To recognize or re-cognize is the question. Cognizance is like a burning self-luminous clear-light that illuminates the dependent play of phenomena. If one does not have a good degree of stability in one's realization of Rigpa, one may be distracted into identification with this phenomena.

[cont.]

To see the difference between distraction and Rigpa notice that Rigpa is that fundamental empty cognizance that sees sensations. Cognizance never goes away, does it? Except for Theravada ceasation and dreamless sleep, but that is a different story. '˜Recognition' of our cognizant empty nature does come and go, but not that cognizance per se. Without cognizance, you could not be cognizant that you are not cognizant; right? ;-P 'Cognizance' is that which is apprehending this text right now '“ YOU '“ not some meta-YOU. 'IT' is what notices the thought, 'I am not in Rigpa'; that I am distracted; that I am suffering '“ YOU notice this. When you are cognizant or aware that I haven't got it now, but I did have it yesterday, that is emptiness (YOU) that sees that very thought in your mind. ;-P As we can see, IT (self-luminous cognizance - the formless empty YOU, that you are now and always were - never goes away. However, distraction and misidentification with phenomena does come and go. Habit patterns through a life-time of identification and learning that I am a separate subject continue to be present; and when they do, if we do not see through them, we may fall back into distraction - identification. However, that which is seeing the confusion does not come and go, though, does it? Otherwise you could not experience the confusion and suffering '“ there would just be unconsciousness. This is my experience too, of self-recognition (Rigpa) at some times, and suffering and confusion at others. Permanent and effortless stabilization would seem to be Buddhahood. Which may come at any point along the path, though most evidence points to a developmental pathway.

[cont.]

To know the above is the first step to seeing through distraction and noticing that which sees / experiences. It is a pointing out. Then through profound attentive stillness and turning the light around upon itself or by asking who is it that is seeing the confusion etc., one may '˜cut through' distraction again '“ and notice Rigpa here and now.

That is how it appears to me. At least from what I can interpret from my experience.

In kind regards,

Adam.

To solve this Self vs No-Self dabate, we might have to relate Rigpa or Buddha nature to Theravada Buddhism.
In this respect, we should recall that the concept comes from the Anguttara Nikaya (A.I.8-10) where the Buddha said:

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements".

The luminous mind ("pabhassara citta" in Pali) of Theravada Buddhism is the root on which the notion of Alayavijnana, Tathagatagarbha, Buddha-dhatu (Buddha-nature) or Rigpa took form. It is not a construct or mere experience on the way to fruition, but whatever remains when phenomena are seen as anicca, dukkha and anatta.

The Mahasi Sayadaw tradition -mainly based on the Vishiddhimagga- might not address it directly, but it is not the case of other serious Theravada traditions.

Here is a link to Maha Boowa's "Arahattamagga" which clearly describes the Citta from the stand point of Pali Buddhism:-

www.mediafire.com/?okehzygn1jm

Great ebook!

-Alex

Well, I've been working with Kenneth lately, and started out with the samatha jhanas, and as it turns out, I've traversed some of the territory before and can hit all 12, hard. With Kenneth's help and the "Stages on the Way to Cessation" thread, it became clear that I have cessations - all the time in fact, and had not been noticing them. According to Kenneth, if I can hit one Pure Land jhana, then technically I have to be at least an anagami. Point is, I have some experience of Emptiness in the traditional, Theravada, developmental sense.

Kenneth has lately been pointing out some things that will presumably lead to Rigpa, if it is not already.

I'd be interested in what Kenneth has to say in response to Daniel's thoughts above, and also I'd like to know if Daniel has gotten the Rigpa transmission - from anyone, including Kenneth. No offense, Daniel, but I just want to confirm that, because receiving that instruction has lead to a very different place for me than I imagined.

What I can say is that not only does " that turning awareness to the "I AM" and surrendering to reality, as techniques, have a very different feel in practice than doing things like strict noting technique many times a second" - but that the actual experience of emptiness is quite different as well. It's almost like they're two different kinds of emptiness - the kinds of formulations and images that one gets about them - the vision if you will - seems almost completely different to me at this stage. (Note that the formulations, images, etc are illusory, and are known to be in both cases - but as Shinzen Young says, emptiness itself is never experienced - we just see ourselves emerge from it and get an impression - the illusions become increasingly more subtle and accurate as one becomes more enlightened).

Cont.

Now it may well be that the "two emptiness experiences" are fundamentally the same phenomenon, seen from different perspectives - but it is rather the difference in perspective of looking at a mountain from it's base, or at it's summit.

I'd like to describe how they seem different, but I'm afraid that might screw up someone's Rigpa transmission, which I can now confidently say, really does need to be personally received.

Personally, I don't care if "they're really the same" or not. I'm a Chaos Magician. I can't really see the need to make two very different seeming experiences logically the same, other than to satisfy the need for dogmatic orthodoxy, which the arahants should have discarded when they reached the shore, but that's just me.

I'm glad what I have been doing has led to some good. Amazing, that. Thanks for the comment, David. And it just goes to show that even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

"
I'm glad what I have been doing has led to some good. Amazing, that. Thanks for the comment, David. And it just goes to show that even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

"

Your humility is delightful, Chris! No - after almost a year of lurking your thread finally sorted me out (coming from a place where I didn't even think "enlightenment" was possible). Thank you very much! I should have posted that there.

I was going to try to avoid making any claims, but this seemed to be a case where it's important to establish that you have an experience of both things, at least somewhat.

David, I'm no expert but I think you've made the right call. There is a lot of confusion "out there" in the aether about what this or that attainment is, who has it, how they claim it, and so on. From the perspective of the casual browser it can all be a bit too much. Some of the confusion is clearly differences in language - semantic - but some of it is more than that. I think you post on the differences between Theravada enlightenment and rigpa is a good start. I've asked pretty much the same question here myself.

I have lot more thoughts on this subject but I have to go run a meeting. Back later....

Ok - I figured out how to characterize the difference in a way that doesn't spoil the punchline.

Again, language will probably get me in trouble.

Traditional developmental emptiness is fundamentally amoral. It sees the ultimate interconnection and unity of all things, but accepts all of it.

Rigpa is connected to Virtue with a capital "V".

There are some subtleties here that are being lost in the mix, as well as nuance to the thing, as well as dualities added that aren't there.

The connection between morality and the understanding of things as they are is not so easy to flush out, and drawing a line between some hypothesized amoral emptiness and some grand Virtuous Rigpa is also really missing something fundamental. Beware the morality models, either those positing amorality or those positing some defined morality and how they connect with knowing reality as it is, as things are not so easy as that and attempts at straightforward lines like you are trying to draw lead to denial and shadow sides.