"The Controversy"

This is the first time I've read this essay. I remember when Dr. Ingram's reply came through with all the follow-up I wasn't able to really follow what every one was saying. I'll try to look at it again.
But, first, my impresssions.
I guess I must be a "conservative Theravada Buddhist" at least at this point. This is partly from direct experience but mostly, of course at this point, from a sort of instintual intellectual opinion. Just from first blush I certainly don't believe there is an "inherently existing primoridal awareness," and I'm actually surprised that some of you do.
For me, when I surrender completely to this moment, it feels light, powerful, freeing, energetic -- and suffering goes away (for that moment at least) but at this point it seems very clear and factual to me that everything is empty and flickering in and out of existence constantly.
"primordial awareness"-- that sounds like God, of some kind of power or prescence and something, actually, separate or different or "better" or more "pure" and " real" from the small me.
Fortunately, or luckily, when we let go and stop adding "ourselves" to reality it creates a sense of being part of something huge and powerful and, perhaps "alive" and "primordial" and actually "aware." But today I think that is just what it seems like only. I"m completely open to being wrong especially because it seems strange to really believe in nothing permanent and big and all encompassing.
I'm curious if I'm able to move along in insight what I'll end up thinking about all this.

Hi Mike,

I'm a fan of healthy skepticism when used as a tool for discovering the truth. So, it's good that you're not taking as gospel the writings on this site.

I think some of your contention around the issue of primordial awareness is your current "view" of it, which I think is not quite in line with the living tradition. The flaw is in assuming that awareness is, "separate or different or 'better' or more 'pure' and real' from the small me." The position of those in the primordial awareness camp is that there is no separation. The only reason a person would assume that something perfect is "other" then themselves is due to "obscurations" in perception and view.

It is possible that some of this stuff will get cleared up as you continue to practice, but it's not a sure thing. As Kenneth rightly points out, not all developmentally enlightened folks recognize rigpa. We can also say that not everyone who recognizes rigpa also recognizes the stages of the Progress of Insight (including "Fruition" and the "Three Doors" that precede it). The best way for a person of either camp to experience the other way is to practice the techniques of the tradition of which they are unfamiliar.

In other words, if you want to discover your true nature as primordial awareness, try practicing the techniques that the non-dual guys and gals do. Let go of your assumptions and just give it a shot. I'm not saying you'll experience anything, or that you'll change camps. But it's the only way to find out.

Helpful?

~Jackson

Jackson -- helpful? yes.
Couple of questions/confusions:
- though I might be a conservative theravadan right now, I certainly think I am a non-dualist as well. Aren't "four path model" people non-dualists? if so, why is it that just the other camp seems to get to use the term?
- so the "rigpa" i keep seeing is a name for "primordial awareness." ???
- on your second paragraph above -- I think there is a constantly created "small self" that is false, is an illusion, is ignorant and that thinks of itself as real and permanent. I guess right now that false self SEEMS separate from reality because it is when this is seen through and dropped that all the huge and real "non-dual" reality comes into play. So, I think I am connected and a part of everything for real but often forget that fact, you know? I don't see how anything else could ever be true.

There's an old saw that says something like, "If you want to understand another person then walk a mile in their shoes." In other words, when Jackson said:

"... try practicing the techniques that the non-dual guys and gals do. Let go of your assumptions and just give it a shot. I'm not saying you'll experience anything, or that you'll change camps. But it's the only way to find out."

I could not agree more.

Hey - don't put me in a "camp" yet.
I'm serious that I just now realized what the two camps were and what my INITIAL opinion might be.
I really don't know. Really.

(I still don't understand why "conservative theravadans" can't call themselves 'non-dualists.' )

Mike, I'm glad my post was helpful. I'll see if I can't clear up some of the confusion, though it may take more than one post, and I'd love some help from the others in the forum.

Without fleshing it out too much, the traditions that are generally referred to as "non-dual" (e.g. Tibetan Dzogchen and Mahamudra, Advaita Vedanta, Soto Zen, etc.) emphasize the "always already" approach to enlightenment. Your true nature is always your true nature, and always will be your true nature, and you can recognize it NOW. No separation. Nowhere to go. Development is just icing on the cake.

The developmental enlightenment traditions (Burmese Theravada, some Rinzai Zen, and others) do not emphasize the "always already" nature of awakening. Though the conclusion of the Four Path model results in something we can call "non-duality", as the sense of a control center is seen through and untangled for good, there's still an emphasis on having to get somewhere before being enlightened. That's one way to describe the difference. The hard core Burmese Theravadans deny the existence of Buddha Nature, as it doesn't fit in with their dogma. But some Theravadans jive with the Buddha Nature thing, particularly the Thai Forest people. Though, they refer to Pure Mind as "Citta" (pronounced Chit-ta). So the Thai Forest tradition is sort of a hybrid tradition.

(continued below)

(continued from above)

As far as the "small self" stuff is concerned, I am of the opinion that you can experience non-duality prior to having completed the developmental process that untangles the small self. Reality is Reality, regardless of whether or not your small self keeps asserting itself as separate. It's almost as if we can bypass the delusion by dropping discursive thought, which is the ego's fuel. Dropping the separation completely provides the optimal platform for realizing Rigpa, which is why I think everyone would benefit from working on both paths simultaneously. Each way of practicing has benefits of their own, regardless of whether the other is practiced. But as Dipa Ma once told Jack Kornfield, "Both ways are best."

"(I still don't understand why "conservative theravadans" can't call themselves 'non-dualists.' )"

It's not that they can't, they just don't.

Thank you Jackson. I see that our discussion on Duncan's Blog continues here where it might be more appropriate. Just to say that I fully agree with you and take the opportunity to thank you for your great article on "The Three Characteristics" that elegantly blends the two approaches in a very inspiring way.


- Alex (Huanshen)

"(I still don't understand why "conservative theravadans" can't call themselves 'non-dualists.' )"

Mike, I have provided a link (below) to an article titled, "Dhamma and Non-Duality" by Bhikkhu Bodhi, a very conservative Theravadan monk. He clearly expresses why he believes the Buddha's dharma is not one of non-duality. In the article, he contrasts the teachings of Advaita Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism with classical Pali canon Theravada Buddhism. I should point out, as Bodhi does in the article, that "Advaita" itself means "non-dual" or "not-two."

His point of view is not my own. I just thought this might shed some light on the current debate.

The article may be found here --> bit.ly/1vXe2e

"
Thank you Jackson. I see that our discussion on Duncan's Blog continues here where it might be more appropriate. Just to say that I fully agree with you and take the opportunity to thank you for your great article on "The Three Characteristics" that elegantly blends the two approaches in a very inspiring way.


- Alex (Huanshen)
"

Hey! That was you?

Thank you for reading and appreciating my article. I benefit greatly from your posts as well, both here and elsewhere.

~Jackson

The Thai Forest Tradition (Theravada, btw) has a lot of the non-dual in it. If you read (and Mike, you really should read this) "Small Boat Great Mountain" by Ajahn Amaro (a Theravada master) you will see what I mean. The two (Thervada & Non-Dual) are complimentary, not competing. And thanks to Kenneth who first suggested I read this book:

www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books9/Ajahn_...t_Great-Mountain.pdf

Thanks everyone. I think I'm going to have to read all the material suggested because I now have more questions than answers.
But, importantly, what is my experience now?

- I know that that idea that there is a separate Mike Monson is false. I just keep creating that every day. It's a powerful falsehood and can have a great impact on other false separate things, but it is just a creation. I know this.

- My body is really here. The skin, bones, the grey matter of my brain, etc. Ever changing, but here, for a little while at least.

- What I really am is part of everything else.

- If (when) I surrender completely to the moment and truly have nothing to get, nothing to change, and drop all regard for the welfare of the creation Mike Monson - suffering goes away and all friction with life/reality ceases. However, this state isn't (at least not for me ever) some kind of super blissful jhana state, nor is it usually some kind of super unitive state in which I identify completely with the birds, with a tree, etc. But, I think this is "buddha nature" and can, with either grace or development open up into bliss or unitive states or many many other things I can't even think of.

- I'm completely baffled by the idea of "primordial awareness" but completely open to its existence.

(once, "the poor man" -- wife of Kenneth) had me do an exercise in which I sat in my office at lunch and asked myself who I am? who is the entity experience this awareness? etc. and for several moments I felt like all the objects in the room were looking back at me, with a certain aliveness-- is this something like primoridal awareness?)

"
The Thai Forest Tradition (Theravada, btw) has a lot of the non-dual in it. If you read (and Mike, you really should read this) "Small Boat Great Mountain" by Ajahn Amaro (a Theravada master) you will see what I mean. The two (Thervada & Non-Dual) are complimentary, not competing. And thanks to Kenneth who first suggested I read this book:

www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books9/Ajahn_...t_Great-Mountain.pdf

"

Thanks for posting this, Chris!

I'd like to use the following quote from Amaro's book to frame our further discussions on this topic...

"Do your best not to spend too much energy or attention getting everything to match. You can't align all the loose ends. But you can go to the place where they come from." (pg. 13 of the book, pg. 35 of the PDF).

~Jackson

"
"Do your best not to spend too much energy or attention getting everything to match. You can't align all the loose ends. But you can go to the place where they come from." (pg. 13 of the book, pg. 35 of the PDF).

~Jackson"

that's gotta be true

"Hey! That was you?

Thank you for reading and appreciating my article. I benefit greatly from your posts as well, both here and elsewhere.

~Jackson"

Hi Jackson,

Yes, it was me Thanks.

If I remeber well, I started a correspondence with Alan last summer. I think that he was asking me about the difference between Vedanta and Advaita Vedanta in response to a post on DhO where I mentioned that Advaita Vedanta started with Gaudapada (Shankaracarya's guru) who borrowed heavily from Yogacara and Madhyamika Buddhism according to a majority of scholars. Back then, I didn't know who he was and what was were his projects. I then started reading his fascinating biographical notes, which lead us to other interesting discussions. When the blog came out, I was happy to see that some of the things that we had talked about took form in one of his first articles entitled 'Enlightenment is an event that happens to a person'. Gradually, I started posting a few comments. Anyway, nice to see you there!

-Alex

PS: connecting Gaudapada with Ajahn Amaro in the context of 'the Controversy', I always thought that if we accept the hypothesis of an 8th consciousness (alayavijnana) identified with the '˜luminous mind' (pabhassara citta) of the Anguttara Nikaya (A.I.8-10), we can easily find a common denominator between Theravada, Zen, Dzogchen and even Advaita Vedanta. Some of the Thai forest monks have already pointed the way. Equipped with a solid philosophical framework, we can then focus on the most efficient methods including hardcore Burmese style Vipassana, Ramana Maharishi style self-enquiry, dzogchen style objectless meditation and/or whatever works.

Primordial awareness just means the self-existent or '˜causeless' clarity, lucidity, and cognizance that is fundamental to reality - that is fundamental or intrinsic to you.

Emptiness, voidness or Śūnyatā does not mean nothing whatsoever at all, as in the vacuum of space; we might consider it a negative description of reality, but it is an incomplete one. It does, however, point to no independent thing, or independent substance, or inherent ontological essence; or no intrinsic or persisting thingness or identity to forms, entities or reality. Nor does it mean absolute blankness, negation, absence or nihilism. In the Tibetan context, fullness is often considered a better translation. Full of what? Empty lucidity or cognizance '“ emptiness and cognizance/lucidity are one and the same thing. They cannot be separated; to do so conceptually, is a confusion. If you practice you will see all is empty, and as you go deeper, you will find there is only formless, baseless, indefinable lucidity or cognizance. Not a you that is lucid, just lucidity itself. Emptiness that is aware; or awareness that is empty.

[cont.]

When you surrendered, you saw for yourself that you were aware of this surrender and the coming and going, in and out of existence. That awareness is the lucidity or primordial awareness. It is not a thing, nor is it God, or a god etc. However, those from the western mystery tradition are pointing to the same thing, and its lesser, public teachings as found in Christianity use the word God, to point to this also - the ultimate, basic, primordial, primitive ground of reality. Really it is just the nature of mind, or luminous emptiness.

It is just empty, self-existent clarity, or lucid cognizance. There is no person or thing that is awareness or lucid or cognizant, there is just awareness of the coming and going of reality. That is what it is to realize emptiness.

If reality was not inherently aware, or cognizant, there could be no consciousness or sentience of any kind in all of existence. To this day, science cannot explain the presence of life or consciousness. Neither of which is an effect of conditions, they '˜are' reality itself. It is quite simple; and you saw it for yourself when you relaxed and was 'conscious' of the play of phenomena.

In kind regards,

Adam. edited for clarity

I do so love this whole message board. It's the only place, certainly one of the very, very few places, where one can read a conversation like this one. Just wanted to say that. Thanks.

"... I think that he was asking me about the difference between Vedanta and Advaita Vedanta in response to a post on DhO where I mentioned that Advaita Vedanta started with Gaudapada (Shankaracarya's guru) who borrowed heavily from Yogacara and Madhyamika Buddhism according to a majority of scholars..."

Hi Alex,

I've seen you mention Gaudapada before in the forum, and I find the history fascinating. Can you point in the direction of where I might be able to look this up my self?

My practice at one time had me very interested in the Yogacara map of consciousness. My practice seemed to unfold as an upwards journey through the levels of consciousness. I thought to myself, "Wait... The Burmese guys don't mention this at all. What's going on?" It lead to a paradigm shift that was really helpful for my practice.

I find the passage on the "luminous mind" in the AN intriguing. Conservative Pali Sutta exegetes, as far as I've read, disagree that the passage is somehow pointing to a higher level of consciousness, but rather the mental condition of arahants (or something to that effect). Though, the Ajahn Amaro book that Chris cited above provides some other Pali canon citations that also support the Truth of "Citta" or "Rigpa".

I know better than to adhere to an old text rather than my experience, especially when it comes to meditation practice. What I have come to know I also find articulated by some of the Thai Forest masters (Chah, Mun, Maha Boowa). It's obvious to me that pure mind (Citta) is distinguishable from objects/phenomena. But mind is not found in the objects. Rather, objects are known in the mind. So while mind is distinguishable from objects, it is not fundamentally an "other". Calling this reality a "unity" is misleading, and we are therefore lead to refer to the Truth as "Non-dual." It can be no other way.

EDIT: Sp

Just a brief insertion here:
My experience has lead me to shy away from an "Absolute Non-duality" model - taking that for granted without question tends to create some sticky situations.
Currently I'd say that I take a "nondual approach" to nonduality.

That is to say, "Things are both dual and nondual, and are neither dual nor nondual."

I dunno. I'm not sure that actually contributes anything to the discussion, but I thought I'd throw it out there.
David

Edited: Grammar

"
That is to say, "Things are both dual and nondual, and are neither dual or nondual."

"

There is a lline from "zen mind, beginners mind," like that. I'll try to find it. Something like "one and not one" or "two and not two." Or both.

Yeah, Dave. I think that is right and a great contribution. Things are both and neither empty nor not empty; both and neither full, nor not full; both and neither luminously cognizant, nor not luminously cognizant.

One thing we can say, reality is not a concept and it does not fit into concepts; that is why when we apprehend it, we do so nakedly - just seeing, just hearing, just being.

Better to practice and see rather than conceive; for concepts are not it - just pointers.

In kind regards,

Adam.

"Yeah, Dave. I think that is right and a great contribution. Things are both and neither empty nor not empty; both and neither full, nor not full; both and neither luminously cognizant, nor not luminously cognizant.

One thing we can say, reality is not a concept and it does not fit into concepts; that is why when we apprehend it, we do so nakedly - just seeing, just hearing, just being.

Better to practice and see rather than conceive; for concepts are not it - just pointers.

"

Hey Adam,
Good point, as it were.

But specifically, the conceptual aspects of a nondual philosophy can raise moral issues - not respecting the separateness of things when appropriate can brew trouble.
I think it's rather like the wave-particle duality (or perhaps "wave particle non-duality" would fit better) - depending on how you look at things (design the experiment), they are either non-dual or dual, (or somehow both at the same time... or neither, I guess). Sort of how it's very obvious that now is the only moment that ever exists, yet linear time still makes sense... Where you can get in trouble is that consensual, social reality almost always behaves in a dualistic fashion.

I guess some of this is in reference to Jackson's article.
Kind regards,

Dave

Adam and David,

You're right in suggesting that "non-dual" may be too simple a concept to encompass the actual experience of reality directly (which no concept can really do).

On a conceptual level, I like how Nagarjuna reasons with stuff like this. On existence and dependent origination, Nagarjuna posits four statements that cannot be confirmed to be absolute truth.

1.) It exists.
2.) It does not exist.
3.) It both exists and does not exist.
4.) It neither exists nor does not exist.

What does that leave us with? Affirmation and negation only get us so far. This type of investigation leads to what D.T. Suzuki calls the "Higher Affirmation." There is just this.

I know that I am somewhat contradicting my last post. I wouldn't have it any other way

-Jackson