Impermanence, No-Self and Suffering

"
Haquan, I am not sure that I fully understood your interesting method. The idea is I guess to see the silver coating of the mirror (pure awareness) beyind the reflected images (perceptions and thoughts), right?





"

More or less," yes", but it's better not to over-think it. In fact, any thought or model you have about it is "adding something to it".

On one count, Daniel is correct, if you "turn your awareness towards something clean" the "quality of cleanliness" will arise - even if it is in the periphery of your awareness.

Underwhelming.

At least it was to me, when I first encountered it, quite some time ago. Seemed like just another formation structure - which are, in fact, all empty. I used to call formations "essences" before I knew what they were.

Kenneth told me, "Look David, you know a lot. Forget all of it." So I did, and I just followed instructions, without really questioning.

So I looked, I managed to catch a glimpse of something pure in my peripheral awareness (no surprise). I said to Kenneth something like "I thought that was (just) the essence of purity(?)" Kenneth responded "YES!!!" and told me to keep taking peeks at it throughout the day as often as I could.

That led to some interesting results. For one thing, I recognized it as something I had encountered that had had healing effects on me, immediately after my early enlightenment experiences. Secondly, there were effects from attending to it - sensations of coolness (Rada energies for those who know them) - some 6th and 7th chakra activity, etc. Kenneth instructed me that these were "clouds in the sky", told me to be interested in the sky, and that anything I could think about it was "extra". I began to wonder if it could be directly known (Kenneth said no) - if these effects were not like smoke from an unseen fire.

Kenneth also told me that if I could take it as an object of meditation, that wasn't it.

The sensations began to grow stronger, and I began to get a better look at the formation structures that were arising in response to that "some thing" - one very interesting phenomenon (which is going to be quite baffling to those without much experience with formations - is that normally there is a kind of interaction - the formations change in response to awareness - and there is a bit of a sense of formations arising from this body-mind to interact with the formations arising from the object - both change on contact. (Does anyone have any idea of what I'm talking about?) In this particular case, what ever was being examined (the "clean thing") did not change on contact - but "my" formation structures did. "Interesting," I thought. The awareness of "it" was also beginning to "pop up" at different times without me inviting it. It was becoming more diffuse as well.

I was getting some interesting qualities through the tactile like sensations of my awareness exploring it - purity, clarity, perfection, goodness. I reasoned that since I could not directly look at it, and I did not want to confuse the effects of the awareness of it with "it" then I needed to remove the focus of my awareness, and take as much of "me" out of the picture as possible. Anyone who has been able to obtain any of the higher jhanas in a Zazen posture knows how the visual information has to be subtracted from the field of awareness - that's sort of what I did with trying to look at it - probably a "compound jhana"

At any rate, it turns out that this is not "just another formation structure" but rather a master archetype for the whole of existence. I haven't suffered in some time now - honestly, I don't even suffer when in great pain.
Cont

(I was recently in great pain, sustaining second degree burns to my face earlier this year, and having the wounds debrided with nothing for pain. I didn't suffer a bit, though the sensation was exquisitely intense). But this is more than just the lack of suffering... it contains the certain knowledge that from some ultimate perspective, everything taken together, works out literally perfectly - and it is good, and beautiful, and just, and absolutely wonderful.

So the technique is to try to find the essence of purity in your peripheral awareness, and to keep turning your awareness to it. Once it begins to become a kind of background awareness, open the focus of your awareness to a diffuse focus. Tight focus, you are intensely aware of the computer screen you are reading. While continuing to look at these words, notice how you can begin to become aware of the room around you, your chair, the sounds in the room, while never looking away - that's open focus. My technique is to widen the focus as much as possible, and defocus the central awareness as well (the central awareness was the computer screen in that example). If "it"is in background awareness, just notice it, and relax...

Incidentally, Dzogchen acknowledges that Mahamudra winds up in the same place as it - but Mahamudra has a sophisticated training regimen before introducing it's equivalent of Rigpa ("non-meditation"). It's kind of the difference in approach of a guitar instructor who starts by teaching songs vs the teacher who wants you to learn scales and chords first.

Hi David,

Thanks a lot for taking the time to explain "it". I am following your instructions right now. What happens is that my entire field of perception starts feeling like a flat round TV screen. I don't see "it" yet, but will try to do much as much as possible during the week-end. From what I understand, I just have to relax and widen the focus as much a possible, looking for something "pure" and "clear". I guess when I see "it", there is no possible doubt about it. I will let you know if (when) I get it.

Thank again,

Alex

"Hi David,

Thanks a lot for taking the time to explain "it". I am following your instructions right now. What happens is that my entire field of perception starts feeling like a flat round TV screen. I don't see "it" yet, but will try to do much as much as possible during the week-end. From what I understand, I just have to relax and widen the focus as much a possible, looking for something "pure" and "clear". I guess when I see "it", there is no possible doubt about it. I will let you know if (when) I get it.

Thank again,

Alex
"

Remember to peek at the edge of the flat round TV screen.

" It just dawns on us that so much of our daily life is a scurrying about trying to redress basic fundamental dissatisfaction or suffering - and then Rigpa dawns and there is complete rest and freedom - no need to 'do' or change anything - the Great Perfection - and yet 'doing' is spontaneously done - the play of Dharmakaya.

Taken at face value, could there be anything else that we could be more excited about!! Our previous motivations seem like the gasping breaths of a dying, struggling, unenlightened mind. Upon its cessation, and by comparison, the view of the non-deluded awareness seems pretty amazing. Songs have been written about much less..."-Adam West

I can't say it any better, Adam, so I just wanted to repeat your words. Thank you for expressing it so beautifully.

Kenneth

What a wonderful, marvelous thread to read! David, I can't begin to thank you enough for your descriptions of "it." Thank you thank you thank you. You have confirmed something for me this morning, and it is marvelous!

There are a few places in Haquan's instructions that say things like: "That's not it", or something like looking for it is not it, meaning a Rigpa that excludes certain kinds of sensations, and he also says there is no connection between jhanas and Rigpa, meaning a limited Rigpa, an exclusionary Rigpa, rather than an inclusive Rigpa, as if Rigpa was somehow separate from certain phenomena, wasn't present in certain phenomena, or could only arise under specific conditions around things or at the edge of things.

Adam West comes up with a more inclusive Rigpa, but his version seems a child's dream of a world without pain or any unhappiness or difficulty of any kind.

Some clarification of definitions should probably follow, but I offer the following.

Rigpa should be inclusive, as it is everything, a fundamental aspect of everything, and thus, Haquan misses something.

Rigpa should be inclusive, as it is everything, a fundamental aspect of everything, and thus, Adam West misses something.

A Rigpa that is exclusive is not true Rigpa, and whatever they are finding is clearly very nice, and may contain aspects of some truth, and it is hard to criticize something that they are clearly enjoying so much and getting so much out of, but there is a certain dizzy high that this thread seems to be on that lacks the sort of rigor and bold all-embracing clarity that one should find in a discussion of this particular topic.

As those of us who have been doing this a long time have learned, it is really easy to be all impressed with whatever amazing, transcendent, luminous, open, clear, wonderful whatever one has found, only to have reality chime in with its two cents and find the whole thing fails to finally do what you think it did, and there is much out there worthy of careful description that looks a lot alike when we are all in, "Yeah! YEAH! OOOOHHHH, YEAAAAAHHHH!" mode.

Well then.

"As those of us who have been doing this a long time have learned..."

This is known as "pulling rank." It infers that those who've described their rigpa here don't really and truly get it. Now, I'm just a silly neophyte but I'm left with the impression, Daniel, that you harbor some amount of disdain for this rigpa stuff. Whenever people bring it up you pooh pooh it. It's a pattern. Others who post about rigpa seem to agree as to its nature. Those who write or speak of about rigpa, who describe it as best they can in words, seem to agree as to its nature. I'm talking about folks like Vajrayana masters, Christopher Titmuss, Ajahn Amaro, and others whose realization, I don't think, is in much doubt. That OOHHH!! YEAHH!! mode is what they all describe, every last one of them, right on down the line. So after watching this dance here and on DhO for quite some time I'm forced to conclude that your rigpa ain't their rigpa. I don't really know what that means but it's quite obvious at this point.

Edit: wording.

"There are a few places in Haquan's instructions that say things like: "That's not it", or something like looking for it is not it, meaning a Rigpa that excludes certain kinds of sensations, and he also says there is no connection between jhanas and Rigpa, meaning a limited Rigpa, an exclusionary Rigpa, rather than an inclusive Rigpa, as if Rigpa was somehow separate from certain phenomena, wasn't present in certain phenomena, or could only arise under specific conditions around things or at the edge of things."

Well technically what the instructions are intended to do is allow people to recognize Buddha nature. Once that's done, then it's easier to see how it pervades and encompasses all phenomenon. Returning to the movie analogy we discussed on a thread in DhO - (for those who don't remember I proposed that the value of enlightenment might be as if you were in a theater watching a movie but thought it was all real - enlightenment might be sort of like realizing it was a movie - Daniel responded it's also realizing that there is nothing but the movie). if I were trying to get you to notice the movie screen (especially if you were not aware that there was such a thing) - I might do the same thing. I'd get you to look at the edges of the screen (to keep from focusing on the movie). I might also say - "no it's not the image of that actor, or that car blowing up, etc." Now that would not be intended to mean that the screen does not "encompass' all that phenomenon - just that I those are not the essential elements I want you to attend to. Once you see the screen, you can see how it's all included - but it's not easy to recognize the screen, especially if you don't know it's a movie.

For the record I said that Rigpa doesn't *correlate* to a jhanic state, not that they are not included.

Hi Dan!

Thanks for popping back in. Just to clarify my position, I would say Rigpa is 'that' cognizant feature of reality that is reflective of, and inherent to, said reality. Notice neither the cognizance nor reality is defined, just pointed to.

So there is no one who is cognizant, and no phenomena that is not included in, or outside of, said cognizance. And since that self-luminous clarity is fundamental to reality - as it does not change or come and go, since it is not a thing and is empty - and is reflective of it, it is necessarily fundamental to the play of phenomena also. In this way we can see then, If reality is inherent self-shining movement in stillness - stillness in motion, It then follows, there can be nothing that exists outside of that reality; hence, necessarily, there is nothing that can exist outside of Rigpa. However, more technically speaking, as I understand the term, Rigpa is the recognition of the previously said reality in real-time. So put another way, Rigpa is the apersonal apprehension of reality.

Dan since you are fully awake - I believe that - and thus, you have apprehended reality for what it is, I would assume you apprehend the same thing that I have attempted to point to. However, you appear to use a different conceptual frame work and language. Language that emphasizes emptiness and the process of phenomena. However, the language of Rigpa, seems to emphasize the cognizance aspect. Neither is in contradiction - two fundamental aspects of the same whole, as you were originally saying in this thread.

[cont] edited: spelling.

It is true that highs come and go, but there always seems to be a sense of perfection - for how could it be otherwise, since it is just phenomena - empty and luminous - and a sense of completeness. Which is perhaps a better translation of Dzogchen - the Great Completeness. Additionally, there always seems to be a wholly deep seated satisfaction, with and ease of, reality which is apparently apprehended as, or in conjunction with, a sense of baseline joy and bliss, that if investigated, has no substance - like jhana kinda does - 'not added to', rather it is fundamental.

Mind states may come and go; thus, as such, personal highs may come and go - but the spacious, non-local ease and completeness of reality remains, as it seems to me. It does seem to be the inherent completeness which is the source of the apparent inherent ease, peace, joy and bliss. So, I am not positing a limited emotional range model, rather, reality as it is, does its thing, and is complete in and of itself as it is in real-time; and as such, it may be wrathful, miserable or perfect - from the perspective of some ego that has fallen into distraction and fails to apprehend reality as it is - but reality remains as it truly is, regardless. More concretely, mental processes and states are ongoing, however, being lost in them is an entirely different matter; hence, the absence of suffering.

If we ignore any reference to the previously stated adjectives with regard to Rigpa, may we say your personal experience of enlightenment is the same? That is, reality does its thing - the play of phenomena - empty in real time, with great depth and impermanence, and yet, for you - that cognizant feature of reality that apprehends it - there is no suffering, for you right? You do not suffer, do you Dan? Is there a deep ease and fundamental satisfaction to your reality, regardless of what is going on?

Thanks for sharing!

In kind regards,

Adam,.

Thank you Adam, that was quite beautifully expressed!

While I agree that it's the same realization, the view is quite different depending on the method. I was thinking regarding my analogy, what if it was your job to convince a tribal person who had had no contact with civilization that cinema was not real? You could only take them in the theater after the movie had begun, and must leave before it ends. In the theater, you must not do anything to disturb the audience (like approach the screen). In this situation, different methods might be used to help the native realize the nature of the situation. One method might be to have the native observe the show closely, and to *note* aspects of the experience to himself. Presumably at some point the native might "get it" and realize cinema was illusory. Another method might be to try to get the native to see the flat screen behind the images. As an interesting thought experiment, how would you do that? (You might tell them to notice the areas of clear white light!). You would probably direct them to the features of the screen - shimmering, white, reflective - taking on the features of what is projected upon it. Once seen, this realization by itself would make it immediately obvious to the native that cinema is illusory. Now what's the difference between the two natives? They both know that cinema is illusory... But one knows why - and has a particular view of why. The other knows cinema is illusory, but may feel that there is "nothing" behind the images. What if the two natives met and had a discussion about film? Do you think they would argue about the nature of cinema? I think they might. Native #1 might say, "There is nothing there, cinema is empty." Native #2 might say, "Well, actually, there *is* something there, if you look the right way, but all of the images are illusory."

Native #1: "No - you don't understand - none of it is real, it's a story."

Native #2: "Well yes, of course, but did you see the screen?"

Native #1: "It doesn't really matter what you saw, or when you saw it - none of it is real."

Native #2: "No, there is an underlying reality - and it has some particular qualities - it's shimmery, like a mirror..."

Native #1: "Look, obviously you don't really understand the nature of cinema, whatever qualities you are perceiving, they are all empty."

Native #2 "Actually, there's something you didn't see - let me show you!"

Native #1 "This is a complete waste of time!"

Now how would Native #2 help Native #1 see the screen? Well, first of all, Native #1 would have to be willing to go look. He'd have to put aside the notion that Native #2 is a complete idiot who doesn't get it, and then he'd have to suspend his prejudices regarding the nature of film long enough to look at things in a new way. He still might not see it... If he never goes back in the theater to look for it, he definitely will not.

So this is where the rubber meets the road, Daniel. Do you believe there is a "Buddha Nature" or not? Do you believe there is a 'storehouse consciousness?' If not, are you willing to suspend disbelief long enough to look?

Are you wise enough to listen to the fool?

I've moved a post from this thread to another. You'll find the post, along with an explanation for the move at:

kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/thread/3366987/-

I also deleted Haquan's response to said post in order to preserve the flow of this thread. I will send Haquan the text of his own comment so that he can re-post it after editing it so that it doesn't refer back to the now-missing post. If anyone wants to dispute or discuss the move, please do so on the thread linked to above rather than on this thread, which is dedicated to another topic.

Thanks,

Kenneth

Here's the edited post:

It should be pointed out that the above example involving cinema was intended as an analogy, and is a metaphor - a thought experiment intended to stimulate our thinking, and not to be taken literally. It should not be confused with the reported experience of the anagami who may experience a Void-like superspace surrounding experience, or which experience is projected on to.

Buddha nature is very unlike a movie screen, in many ways, and any analogy can only be carried so far. All metaphors ultimately fail. It's important not to take examples like that too literally. But as a kind of parable, they can be useful. Teaching stories are often used in the Sufi tradition (not that that example even comes close to the degree of profundity of one of those, which are said to be able to be interpreted on 7 different levels.)

While consciousness cannot ultimately be compared to a movie screen, I do think that consciousness is the milieu or matrix that experience takes place in.

Consciousness itself is Buddha Nature.

Hi Haquan,

I have tried your method and it seems that I got it, if it feel like bringing down the 6th jhana back to everyday consciousness? The image of the movie screen is a good analogy here (regardless of assumptions about its ontological reality). I don't see it as an object like sensations or thoughts, but more as the luminous reflective nature of the mind on which thoughts, perceptions and sensations are reflected. It feels pretty much like that quote from the movie the Matrix:

"The matrix is everywhere, its all around us, even now in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn your TV. You can feel it when you go to work, when you go to church, when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth".

With practice is should be possible to ride it back to it's unborn source, tracing back the radiance as Chinul would have put it. As long as it is not also present during deep dreamless sleep, we still don't know its coming and going and it is therefore still a guest and not the host. I know that you are also a dream yogi. Have you tried to see "it" in the dream or dreamless state? Now, is would be interesting to see how it relates to cessation. Does anyone have a clue?

Using your analogy of the movie screen native 3 is Watching (aware of) the playing out of reality on the movie screen (his/her awareness) but then native 3 realizes there is no movie screen it is all just awareness, the totality of (native 3's) reality

cheers
Jeff

Hi Alex,

I'm going to message you off-list to get more detail from you, particularly insofar as how you experience 6th Jhana. The experience of infinite space or nothingness is pretty universal, but my feeling is that there could be some idiosyncrasies in terms of how people represent consciousness to themselves. I personally experience it as field of golden light, warm, with presence - which is not much how I experience Buddha nature (I wonder if 6th jhana will change for me now). In the latter case, I experience that as pure clarity, purity, and limpidity (which is how it's described in the Tantras - but I had that impression before I read them). So I'll check with you...
I have not tried to check this in the dream state. I used to be pretty accomplished at lucid dreaming, but proficiency demands a certain lifestyle. I go to bed very late, and get up early much of the time, and I hit the ground running. I'm sleeping 5-6 hours a night tops. For dream yoga, you really need to be able to sleep in, and to journal the dreams right after awakening. My favorite technique was to get up, have a cup of coffee (which increases REM) and go back to bed. Now days I'm lucid maybe once a month.

Jeff: Hmmnn... I'll have to think about that one. I'm not sure it works to use a native who is already classically enlightened - makes it a bit of a meta-example, when there is no equivalent meaningful meta-example to the actual realization of enlightenment (that I know of). In the example, the real life equivalent of both Native #1 and #2 is an arhat trained in Theravada and Dzogchen respectively - both are fully realized. What is the real life equivalent of the hypothetical Native #3? He or she would have to be more realized than an Arhat.

The example of Native #3 does remind me of something I was musing about last night though.

In other places we have generally accepted that different traditions with different belief systems may lead to the same basic end point - not only with different schools of Buddhism, but outside of Buddhism altogether. That is, mystics with *markedly* different belief systems from Buddhism may become classically enlightened: Jewish mystics, Christian mystics, Hindu Yogis, and Sufis. Many of those don't even accept the concept of anhatta, and some involve a relationship with a personal creator god.

It made me wonder if the question of Buddha nature was more of a paradigmal issue than a practical one - that is, the ultimate matter is "not this, not that" - nondual. The disagreement may be an artifact of rational thought and language.

@ Dave: "It made me wonder if the question of Buddha nature was more of a paradigmal issue than a practical one - that is, the ultimate matter is "not this, not that" - nondual. The disagreement may be an artifact of rational thought and language."

Yes, it's very difficult, if not impossible to resolve that question with any kind of conclusive support. It is clear people frame their enlightenment from within their respective traditions. How to prove enlightenment exists outside of these traditions - personal and social constructions - is very problematic. See the work of Professor David C. Lane and more particularly, Baba Faqir Chand, a great exponent of Surat Shabd Yoga.

Chand has shown that people experience their meditations and peak experiences according to their beliefs and expectations. He is an adept in that tradition, and people have profound life changing experiences of universal God Consciousness in which they experience Chand coming to them and initiating them into whatever spiritual experence they are having; or indeed, they see him saving them in times of crisis. However, Chand, of course, has no awareness of these encounters. An yet, he is a full adept and has full access to the transpersonal state.

Due to unconscious psycho-dynamic processes at work duing said meditation - and off the cushion - on principle, any said realizations are iredeemably confounded. Of course, the traditional view is true enlightenment, by definition, transends the unconsious and even archetypes, however, how to prove it. Especially when time and again, people see what they want to see, particuarly the symbolism of their parent traditions.

In kind regards,

Adam.

"
Yes, it's very difficult, if not impossible to resolve that question with any kind of conclusive support. It is clear people frame their enlightenment from within their respective traditions. How to prove enlightenment exists outside of these traditions - personal and social constructions - is very problematic. See the work of Professor David C. Lane and more particularly, Baba Faqir Chand, a great exponent of Surat Shabd Yoga.

Chand has shown that people experience their meditations and peak experiences according to their beliefs and expectations. He is an adept in that tradition, and people have profound life changing experiences of universal God Consciousness in which they experience Chand coming to them and initiating them into whatever spiritual experence they are having; or indeed, they see him saving them in times of crisis. However, Chand, of course, has no awareness of these encounters. An yet, he is a full adept and has full access to the transpersonal state.

Due to unconscious psycho-dynamic processes at work duing said meditation - and off the cushion - on principle, any said realizations are iredeemably confounded. Of course, the traditional view is true enlightenment, by definition, transends the unconsious and even archetypes, however, how to prove it. Especially when time and again, people see what they want to see, particuarly the symbolism of their parent traditions.

"

Wow! Those two are definitely on my reading list!

So it doesn't seem that reaching "the unconditioned" is the key point, at least evidentially. Obviously, that's not a tough sell for me. Gotama was deeply hesitant to let women enter into sanghas - and it was he himself who propagated the myth that arhats must enter monastic life or they will die.

Enlightenment as a social construct! I love it!

Continued

Part II

Come to think of it, let's work with that concept of enlightenment as a social construct.

As far as social constructs go, it's one of the most positive ones I've ever run into. In fact, it's probably necessary for our survival as a species.

Peter Senge tells a story about how when a senior Zen monk went to India recently, he knew when he saw the Bodhi tree that now was the era of group, rather than individual, cultivation.

It's just what the direct path people always say - there is no individual to be enlightened!
So the question is really: How do we enlighten our social systems and structures?

Now that's not to say there is not individual effort required, or that there isn't a universal core to the experience, but maybe it's not what we think it is.

D

Jeff: Hmmnn... I'll have to think about that one. I'm not sure it works to use a native who is already classically enlightened

Hi David,
I didn't realise your analogy started from them being enlightened (trying to type out a quick post while I should be working, next time I will read it properly first before butting in) as I was trying to add that
I thought it was all Buddha Nature/Buddha Mind
all (natives 3) awareness (the sensations that appear to make up the movie screen arises and passes within it)
all (natives 3) reality
that you can not add or subtract from it

(or it can be argued there is no awareness just senstations from another point of view)

Tarin (theprisonergreco) has suggested that "the transition from 3rd to 4th path [is] seeing that there is actually no screen, which also end any sense of impression that there seems to be one."

The ability to see that there is no literal "screen" upon which images are projected is not a 4th Path phenomenon. Vipassana yogis in the dissolution ñanas (1-10) before 1st Path routinely report this insight. In fact, it is this real time disappearance of all observable phenomena that creates the difficulties for "dark night" yogis. At this stage, they are forced to come to terms with their own insubstantiality as well as the insubstantiality of everything they previously imagined to be solid, including a personal God. Furthermore, Trekchod, the Dzogchen practice of "cutting through" the confusion of mind objects in order to rest in pure awareness or "buddha mind" is taught to yogis at all levels of development. It is not exclusively a post-arahat practice. Neither is it a practice from which one is expected to graduate. It is one that Tibetan adepts continue to practice throughout their lives, even after having reached the loftiest heights of enlightenment.

A second point is that metaphors of screen and images, sky and clouds, etc., are used as pointers and are not meant to be taken literally. Taking apart metaphors or similes in order to find their flaws misses and even obscures the point they are intended to make. It's like analyzing a joke. Analyzed jokes aren't funny. It's enough to issue the blanket disclaimer that "the finger pointing at the moon is not the moon" and move on to the next metaphor. We know from thousands of years of human experience that pointing works; metaphors can be skillfully used to coax people into seeing what was previously hidden to them. A way to recognize people who get the joke is that they start telling jokes of their own.

Kenneth