Please work within the culture of this community

in other words, according to my current understanding, the witness as an awareness seperate from concepts and experiences is actually a subtle, impersonal conceptual experience.

"

3rd gear, then (in my personal understanding) is surrendering in such a profound way as to experience what Ken Wilber often calls "One Taste". As awareness and the objects of awareness dissolve into each other fully (no just in concept) - therein lies 3rd gear. It is the culmination of the formless practices, the culmination of the four yogas of Mahamudra, the culmination of the four yogas of Semde.

Jackson"

The 4 yogas are taught in some different ways.

One: sequential stages. You practice at a certain "level" until you shift into the next, etc, one by one, over your career as a meditator. One day you will enter the great non-meditation, and you're a buddha. This seems to be how Mahamudra lineages approach it exclusively, as far as I can tell, and is never to my knowledge taught in Dzogchen lineages. At least I've never encountered it taught that way. One could still be enjoying moments of Rigpa prior to engaging such a sequential training, and anywhere along the way. I think this is what my instructor was dismantling for me. I would have tried to locate myself somewhere in the first two stages of this process before communicating with him.

Two: quasi-sequential states. Here the best analogy I can think of is sequencing asanas in hatha yoga. I haven't done much hatha, but in a class with a talented instructer I have been able to enter poses I wouldn't have been able to enter otherwise, because she led me from an easy pose through a sequence of poses that flowed into each other resulting in the "difficult" pose being attained. This could take place in a matter of minutes, again culminating in a state-experience of Rigpa in the fourth Yoga. This is a use of the Semde for introduction, in other words, as a preliminary practice to reveal the View, Rigpa, non-dual awareness.

Three: completely non-linear, in which Rigpa deeply appreciates its facets of emptiness, clarity, nonduality, spontaneity, and here it's called the Four Contemplations or Samadhis. I can't say anything about that.

My main experience of sitting meditation had been along the lines of working with the first two yogas of calm state and movement, in which the basic idea is to "identify" (tricky language) the awareness that is present in a state free of thought, then in the thought movement, in order to come to a definitive conclusion, an experiential understanding, that the awareness is the same. In effecting the shift I found growing confidence and access to the natural state, Rigpa, non-dual awareness., along with a lot of fireworks.

I can see why in this tradition there is an admonishment to keep such sessions short, especially once you have really got the hang of it, because as a byproduct of completely relaxing into the nondual state the energies of body and mind unwind, leading to many intense experiences. For me these took the flavor of clarity and emptiness mostly. These were very dramatic and at times seemed to last for nearly full days, etc etc.
I still have those sorts of byproducts Jackson, and in some ways they are even more intense objectively.

However, since really taking to heart the instruction to take refuge in naked awareness (remember that's synonymous with wholeness for me), the whole thing has seemingly shifted. Now, the notion that there are discreet moments of recognition and non-recognition seems increasingly dreamlike and hard to relate to. Each momentary experience has the same "is" quality regardless of the specific content, period, and awareness is always only that "is". It's hard to describe, and outside of a few conversations like this, I have lost nearly all motivation to try to describe it. On the other hand, if I were to say, I just changed Ivan's diaper, which I did in fact just do, that seems like a description of it to me on equal par with the flashy spiritual descriptions. I sincerely hope that doesn't sound like a fatuous claim, because I mean it literally. Each description is a description of that. Seeing this seems to have the effect of dropping off patterns of harming self and others. I don't know how else to explain it. Maybe if I more carefully analyzed all the myriad twists and turns my path has taken over the last few decades I would discover some linear process there all spelled out clearly. To me it seems like I was going round in circles, chasing my tail, until I began to stop being that way. Stopping is not something I can claim in a decisive way, but during my waking moments and frequently in dreams I am sensitive to the dynamics of suffering and nondual freedom.
Jackson, thank you for attempting to communicate with me about this. It can be very difficult cutting through all the words which different spiritual subcultures use in such different and contradictory ways. That's why an attempt to genuinely understand each other sometimes is so challenging. I look forward to continuing this discussion with you in pursuit of clarity.

"My main experience of sitting meditation had been along the lines of working with the first two yogas of calm state and movement, in which the basic idea is to "identify" (tricky language) the awareness that is present in a state free of thought, then in the thought movement, in order to come to a definitive conclusion, an experiential understanding, that the awareness is the same."

Hi Jake,

Thanks again for providing additional information. I do think it is helping me to understand where you are coming from.

OK, I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but... when you talk about "identifying" the awareness that is present in a state free of thought, that's what I refer to as clarifying the sense of I AMness, or recognizing and dwelling as the Witness. You see, that's where the word "Witness" is unfortunate. It makes it sound like there's something on one side that's aware of something on another side. But that is not the experience at all. This is why the Advaita/Zen influenced yogi and teacher Aziz (Anadi) Kristof prefers to refer to Witnessing as "the State of Presence". Which, coincidentally enough, he equates to the recognition of and stabilization of pure awareness (as in rigpa). It is the recognition that awareness is unbound; that THAT which is aware is not fixed, and is in fact the groundless ground of all being. But even if we're speaking about a preliminary recognition of non-local awareness, this early recognition/identification you speak of sounds to me like what I generally refer to as "Witnessing" - out of habit more than anything.

I don't expect you to adopt my terminology or anything. I just want to make sure you know what I mean when I use that term.

I'll write more later. I have to go clean up the royal kitchen mess that resulted from the salmon and potato dinner I made earlier. Delicious.

~Jackson

Ha! Kitchen mess!
Yes, it's entirely possible that what we are refferring to is similar using different language. Please note that I refferred carefully to my "main experience of sitting meditation" and I was referring to a specific point in my practice. Great clarification on your part of your use of the term witnessing. I have come to recognize that the rubrics of 1st 2nd 3rd gears include many many varieations within each one in terms of experience and realization, as the terms are used in this community.
You are kind and skillful to take the time to carefully suss out what is meant by different terms, as describing experience is incredibly tricky particularly without a shared conceptual and linguistic background. I think you know I have no interest in getting anyone to adopt my favored descriptions either, but do chafe at being misrepresented by folks who make assumptions about what I am saying based on projecting their own linguistic habits onto my statements. It's frustrating and boring, and I appreciate you engaging me in a more thoughtful and careful way.
So, in the passage you quoted, I was not describing Rigpa. I wasn't quite clear enough, and looking back I see the few words I left out that I shouldn't have. I could edit post 27, but it would disrupt the flow of our burgioning conversation! (I am getting the feeling that if we had met at work and started talking about this stuff on our breaks, we would have gotten off on a better foot than we have in this dangerous text only format).
Right, so, in the passage you quoted from post 27, I was refering to my experience with the second mode of Semde as described in post 26. Remember, these states can be experienced sequentially, or out of order, or whatever, and are really just ways to familiarize ourselves with certain facets of our natural state that are always present.

I am not proficient in this teaching, but basically the point about sequencing yoga asanas is the best analogy I know. The first three yogas, in this second way of speaking of the four yogas as *merely preliminary* approaches to dzogchen/rigpa, are a way that dualistic mind can be "like" Rigpa. I am totally comfortable with equating this kind of practice with witness-type practices, and I would go so far as to say that all of the preliminary practices of Dzogchen that I am familiar with could be placed in this category. that would include Semde in this second sense, Rushans, Semdzins, and all other practices insofar as each meditation method, correctly applied, produces a reliable experiential result, and by employing them systematically in light of the questionability of "who?" is having all these experiences, one can "identify" awareness as that which is the same in all experiences.
There is an important caveat, which is that in Dzogchen culture this preliminary phase of "identifying" awareness as that which is the same in all experiences is not meant to be cultivated. It is merely and only used, as far as I know, in a hyper-transitive way. One would never be told to dwell in that state, because of all the undesirable side-effects (as far as this orientation is concerned).
So I was "using" that state in an extremely momentary way to relax into nondual awareness. From being illusorily embedded in points of view (thoughts, feelings, sensations) to a brief illusory momentary emergence from that embeddedness, or withdrawal from points of view as the illusory pure subject, to relaxing into naked awareness naturally immersed in its own vibrant appearence, in the snap of a finger.
Once I gained enough confidence in total relaxation I pretty much stopped employing that contrived approach.

Later and most recently there has seemed to be some sort of shift, due to following the clear advice mentioned above, in regards to making (and re-making, and remaking) a clear commitment to that which is obvious in total relaxation, namely nondual wholeness. The results so far of this shift have been pretty unexpected. I really find it difficult to articulate in what way, although within my life the difference is undeniable. I've done my best to say it above. The "is" that is common to buddhanature and samsara-mind exactly equalizes them, without removing their specificity or implications. While I used to associate myself entirely with samsara-mind, and at various times used samsara-mind to investigate itself (what's my problem? why does being here suck so much so often?) and then began to flash into buddhanature (ah, being here doesn't suck, but samsara-mind does) to suddenly laughing at the belief in the illusion of the duality of the two. In other words, from where I stand right now (who the hell knows where I'll seem to be tomorrow? Please don't hear some ridiculous claim of attainment here) the "flashes of buddhanature" were a subtle version of samsara-mind, that is, they never happened to anyone and were more or less an optical illusion. And they still are, as are bliss, clarity, diapers, and the FAFSA I just filled out etc, but I'd rather just play my guitar, sit quietly with my living room wall, or wash the dishes than look for something outside of this moment to fulfill me. If bliss clarity and the rest come, ok. If ego and disturbing states come, ok. They are only problems when I let the problem-making viewpoint trick me. It's very tricky stuff.

And yes, if I wasn't clear, I think identifying awareness or presence in the thought-free state *could* be an introductory phase of a witnessing practice, and I found Tolle's pointers helpful in discovering this state as it seems to be pretty much what he teaches, while on the other hand finding presence (as identified in no-thought) to be the same in the movement of thoughts, and then in the simultaneity of movement and stillness is meant to deconstruct the clinging to the witness state and introduce the practitioner to Rigpa, which as used in Dzogchen is not as used by Aziz. The Dzogchen perspective on Aziz's use of the word Rigpa would probably be to say, at best that is a preliminary understanding, at worst it is a misrepresentation of another community's terminology which will probably confuse people about how it's used in its native context. Probably better to invent a word in that case, rather than borrow one and employ it out of context!

I have been mulling over a combination of surprise, disappointment, and concern about the turn of events that this thread represents. There is a good deal of similarity between Jake's most valued sources and my own. There are many points of similarity in his view and my own. He, along with some of the other posters, has a hell of a lot more youthful energy and zeal in reading more widely and writing more volubly than I; I suppose I could make comparisons and get annoyed with him for being so 'wild', but I enjoy the difference.

I have, on several occasions, thought that I might be too close to some undemarcated 'line' myself when I've been aware that I'm putting out a view that is at best tangential to those more frequently espoused here. I am aware that I can sound authoritative about my own experience, and that probably I haven't eradicated the habit of saying 'we' when I can really only know about 'I.'

But, given that this is a voluntary convocation of adults, I'd thought that we can agree, disagree, consider the source, and take or leave what others have to say here. As long as the conversation is civil, it's interesting-- or not. The stuff that I don't relate to, I don't read.

I found something this weekend that seemed to me to shed some light on these issues: 'The complete discourses of all Buddhas of past, present, and future are inherent in the essence of the human being. If you cannot realize this on your own, you need the guidance of a teacher to see it. As for those who do realize on their own, they do not need to seek elsewhere.
If you insist that a teacher is necessary to attain liberation, you are wrong. Why? Because there is a teacher within your own mind who enlightens you spontaneously!'
This quote is from Hui-Neng, in TC's introduction to the book, titled "Kensho: the Heart of Zen"

"If you insist that a teacher is necessary to attain liberation, you are wrong. Why? Because there is a teacher within your own mind who enlightens you spontaneously!'
"

You hit it with the quote. If you have to back your point of view with other teacher than you are still a student

The entire episode just confuses me and makes me worry that I'll break a rule and get called out and also makes me feel bad for the person called out.

"The entire episode just confuses me and makes me worry that I'll break a rule and get called out and also makes me feel bad for the person called out.
"

Get what you mean.
To balance this the "calling out" was to this off topic thread, so the decision has been handed over to the public scrutiny ( this makes it no easy matter for Kenneth). And yes; I might, and others might end up here, no big deal when you see what gets you here. We are all just a bunch of ego's doing what ego's do, being liked and admired by other ego's and not wanting to be here is high on the list of things to do . I am sure Kenneth considers his ego just like anyone else, not different.
Jakes response has been admirable ( at least my ego thinks so ) and he has probably explained himself better than he otherwise would have.

"Get what you mean.
To balance this the "calling out" was to this off topic thread, so the decision has been handed over to the public scrutiny ( this makes it no easy matter for Kenneth). And yes; I might, and others might end up here, no big deal when you see what gets you here. We are all just a bunch of ego's doing what ego's do, being liked and admired by other ego's and not wanting to be here is high on the list of things to do . I am sure Kenneth considers his ego just like anyone else, not different.
Jakes response has been admirable ( at least my ego thinks so ) and he has probably explained himself better than he otherwise would have.

"

yeah, if I had been Jake I would've just gone away and never come back. the way he's just hung in there has been cool to see.

oh, by the way, my ego just told me that it doesn't exist and that there is no such thing as an "ego."

"oh, by the way, my ego just told me that it doesn't exist and that there is no such thing as an "ego." "

Don't fall for it, Mike! That's just another one of his traps! ; )

But, actually, I'm not totally joking.

After all, isn't that "ego doesn't exist view" one of the MOST pernicious forms of egoic thinking?

It's a little like when you're hiding from someone, and they call out, "anyone here?" and you answer, "Nope."

Whoops! Then the jig is up. : )

Good point. The bottom line is that there's really nothing at all, and then we get up and go to work

Hey guys- thanks for nothing!
hahahaha

"
Good point. The bottom line is that there's really nothing at all, and then we get up and go to work

"

If I keep posting on nothing while I'm at work pretty soon that's what I'll be doing for a living!

Thank you roomy as always a wonderful insight post

'In the beginner's mind there is no thought, '˜I have attained something.' All self-centered thoughts limit our vast mind. When we have no thought of achievement, no thought of self, we are true beginners. Then we can really learn something. The beginner's mind is the mind of compassion. When our mind is compassionate, it is boundless. Dogen-zenji, the founder of our school, always emphasized how important it is to resume our boundless original mind. Then we are always true to ourselves, in sympathy with all beings, and can actually practice.
So the most difficult thing is always to keep your beginner's mind. There is no need to have deep understanding of Zen. Even though you read much Zen literature, you must read each sentence with a fresh mind. You should not say, '˜I know what Zen is,' or '˜I have attained enlightenment.' This is also the real secret of the arts: always be a beginner. Be very very careful about this point. If you start to practice zazen, you will begin to appreciate your beginner's mind. It is the secret of Zen practice.'
-- Shunryu Suzuki

I hear you, Roomy; beginner's mind is good. The question is: what is the difference between beginner's mind and simply being a beginner? What are the behaviors associated with beginner's mind? Does beginner's mind condescend? Pontificate? Seek attention?

There are many people here with beginner's mind. You can spot their posts. They tend toward brevity rather than volume, simplicity over complexity, clarity over obfuscation. As I see it, there are three reasons to be here: 1) to learn 2) to share, with the hope of helping others 3) to find community with fellow yogis. And all of this has to happen within the very focused theme of this website, which is to help people awaken by their own efforts using contemplative methods and with a minimum of dogma.

My criticism of Jake has very little if anything to do with Buddhist doctrine and everything to do with the smooth running of an online community. This site does not pretend to be all things to all people and isn't even particularly concerned with that mightiest of American values, freedom of speech. I consult regularly with veterans in the field of online forum management. They are, without exception, adamant that a forum left to its own devices will quickly devolve to the lowest common denominator. Serious and thoughtful members will go away rather than put up with adolescent chest-thumping. This counsel, together with my own experience at the DhO informs my decision to err on the side of caution when deciding how much "freedom of expression" to allow here.

Finally, there is Gresham's law, which says that the legitimate issuer of a currency cannot allow counterfeiting. When counterfeit money enters the money supply, all currency becomes worthless. I have something to say. This website is my vehicle for saying it. I believe passionately in the value of my message. Counterfeiting is not allowed.

Sincerely,

Kenneth

Gassho, Kenneth.

Thanks for the clarification of your take on matters; my perception of events may differ, but a tour through the comments on Brad Warner's blog illustrates your points-- in technicolor! Yikes!

Kate

"Thanks for the clarification of your take on matters; my perception of events may differ, but a tour through the comments on Brad Warner's blog illustrates your points-- in technicolor! Yikes! -Kate"

"I hear you, Roomy; beginner's mind is good. The question is: what is the difference between beginner's mind and simply being a beginner? What are the behaviors associated with beginner's mind? Does beginner's mind condescend? Pontificate? Seek attention?
"

Hi Kenneth, Kate!
Kenneth, I'm pretty sure that rhetorical character attacks aren't neccessary to maintaining a healthy online forum! Anyone could pick out all the negative character traits or signs of personality hang ups in a given participant, yourself included, and use the rhetorical device of "does buddhanature X, Y or Z?" This is a pretty good example of exactly the wrong way to moderate a forum, particularly a Dharma forum, in my opinion! Using such gambits reinforces the kind of social dynamic which make it more difficult for participants who come from different dharma backgrounds to communicate, because it runs the risk of alienating or marginalizing voices who are speaking truth from a radically different direction.
So am i claiming to be speaking truth, then, in some sense? Yes, I suppose I am. But forget about me. That's a distraction. I don't claim to be free from egoic mind-movements, and I see evidence of them in the posts of everyone on the forum, and in the behavior of everyone I have ever met (or sat in on a Dharmatalk by).
In my experience, the simultaneous presence of buddhanature and egoic mindmovements is a form of compassion, perhaps even the essence of compassion. I have compassion for my adolescent chest thumping, authority issues etc, as well as for any intertwining ducka-ing that my ducka-ing might invite.

"
There are many people here with beginner's mind. You can spot their posts. They tend toward brevity rather than volume, simplicity over complexity, clarity over obfuscation. As I see it, there are three reasons to be here: 1) to learn 2) to share, with the hope of helping others 3) to find community with fellow yogis. And all of this has to happen within the very focused theme of this website, which is to help people awaken by their own efforts using contemplative methods and with a minimum of dogma.
"

The subtle personal jibes aside, the content of this paragraph exactly expresses my reasons for being here, and my experience being here generally. Some of the "big wave surfers" seem to hold the opinion that I've never seen the ocean, some of them seem to think I might be handy with a boogie board
But over the past several months, the part of me that seeks validation for my experience in the approval or acceptance of others has been lived through to the point of really relaxing, and the facet of my nature that just knows what it knows and has no problem saying it-- even if in my own, idiosyncratic, expressive, sometimes overly complex or abstract way-- that part has been rock solid. This experience (of posting and socializing here generally) has profoundly effected the sense I have of life and my place in it, of how to move through my day, and of how to appreciate the deeper dimensionality of my existence without being afraid to be "out" with my imperfect traits. Nevertheless, I do intend to learn, and thus, starting on some other post in the future, (haha) I will endeavor to be more brief, simple and clear when articulating my understandings and questions.