Relating Buddhism and the PCE

To respond to your edit...it is absolutely not equivalent to "rigpa" if "rigpa" means something like "the recognition of a universal awareness" or "the recognition of a pure awareness underlying phenomena."

The two are absolutely distinguished by the complete lack of feeling in a PCE. Not because feeling is sublimated into something else or because one has a radically different perspective on feeling during the PCE, but because it straight-up isn't there.

One other distinction is that "rigpa" supposedly has no gradations (either you recognize universal awareness of not), but there are very many gradations between normal consciousness and the PCE, which are probably best characterized in terms of how much affect is gone.

Thanks. Well your definition of rigpa is not correct, but lets not get caught up on definitions or labels. That's why I asked for a phenomenological description of what you and others are calling pce, so I can judge for my self what that description may be pointing to. AF is call it pce. I and those from other traditions may call it something else. Any contention of uniqueness of the pce experience is doubtful and points to hubris. However, I will make that judgement for myself.

So it is characterised by lack of feeling(s). What else?

Thanks for your help.

Absolutely everything unique about it seems to be related to the lack of feelings. You can consider "lack of feelings" the sole criterion. However, depending on your ability to discern feelings in your own experience, you may prefer less precise criteria such as "absolute clarity about nothing more than 5-senses and cognition comprising experience," "absolute lack of anything related to the perception of what might be called 'self'," or "absolute lack of any suffering whatsoever / perfect happiness here-and-now."

I don't use the word "absolute" lightly. If you use the alternative criteria, you have to be sure that what you discern as no self / no suffering / whatever has ABSOLUTELY no perception related to those.

If you look through this thread you'll see that I strongly believe that the PCE is not new and many traditions understand it perfectly well but use different words.

(Do you think your definition of rigpa matched Kenneth's in the past? Because Kenneth is also sure now that rigpa [in his prior understanding of it] and the PCE are not the same.)

Ok. So there are gradations of the pce based on degree of feeling content involved in the experience? Is there bliss present? Sense of clarity? Absence of sense of self? A sense of experience, but no one who experiences? Objects of experience that are not separate from your experience? Have no substantial, self-existence, in that experience? Non-duality?

Bliss is a feeling.

Look, Adam, it's so simple. No feeling. Literally no feeling. Everything else falls out of that. Look for no feeling, and you'll find the PCE. Then you'll know all the other miscellaneous things about self and dualism and separation and whatever else that can be said about it for yourself.

Keep in mind that things like "blankness," "equanimity," "boredom," "disinterest," etc. are feelings that many people mistake for lack of feeling.

Based on what you and others have said about pce, I believe you are speaking of Rigpa as clasically explained and described in Dzogchen and Mahamudra. That is the basis of my contention that AF is rubbish idiocy. Read their stuff and it is rambling gibberish. And any truth contained therein is a pale reflection of what may be found in Mahamudra and dzogchen primarily, and Zen and taoism to a lessor extent. I would further contend that those enamored by AF simply are so because of their lack of knowledge of more complete, sophisticated and ancient traditions as those I just mentioned, and others.

I have no need or desire to change anyone's mind though. These are just my conclusions. Each will come to their own.

Thanks for your willingness to chat! edit for typo.

In kind regards,

Adam.

If you really want a phenomenological description the best simple one I can offer is: no feeling, sense objects are just there, absolute intimacy / closeness, unimaginable richness and subtlety in sensory experience in place of pleasure / pain / sensual enjoyment, the recognition "this is perfect".

Yep, Rigpa.

So what is the key practice said to realise pce?

"Based on what you and others have said about pce,"

We started this conversation off when I suggested you *have* a PCE, not listen to me talk about it. You insist that you understand what I mean even though it was clear to me that linguistic explanations would not be sufficient (which is why I suggested getting a non-linguistic explanation). Silly, huh?

Do you have feelings now?

Do you expect to have none in the future?

Here's what Kenneth says about the PCE, which I agree with, except that the brahmaviharas are actually subtle feelings: kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/page/3rd+...Tolle%2C+and+the+PCE

I've found that his method can lead to a PCE if practiced with assiduous attention to recognizing and not indulging absolutely anything that could be a feeling.

EDIT: Also, with his method one has to recognize that every moment of non-PCE experience has some kind of feeling in it (often neutral), and one has to constantly ground it in the body and not indulge it.

Maybe I should phrase this a bit differently. If what I mean by PCE is what you mean by rigpa, then I see no reason that you would have a negative opinion about AF. AF seems to me (as a person who decidedly DOESN'T practice along those lines) as a perfectly good explanation for how to get a PCE, what is different about a PCE and normal consciousness, and (judging from people's success with it) how to make a PCE-like state ("actual freedom") permanent. Just with rather bizarre language surrounding it and explaining it.

So, you think Mahamudra and Dzogchen lead to the same thing as AF. What's up with the provincialist hatred?

I would suggest pce and rigpa as a subjective phenomena is not difficult to describe or understand if one has a frame of reference for those experiences.

There are many people who have practiced intense meditation for decades, who have happened on these kinds of experiences. I am one of them. There are many people who practice in traditions that work specifically with these experiences. I am one of them. Not that mysterious really. Humans being human, with similar physiology and esoteric anatomy, have similar experiences. While every experience may be ultimately unique given individual complexities, particularly what one subjectively brings to the experience, and how one makes meaning out of it, in the same way that we all experience swimming in water relatively the same, and can easily describe it, given the basic human structures are the same, so too are many of the basic classifications of human spiritual experiences. No mystery there.

AF's claim of a unique realisation of pce is hubris, confusion and a political artifact. Boring really. But I digress.

I will followup on the link.

Love a simple statement on how to practice leading to pce though. Might be some value in that. edited for typo.

Thanks,

Adam.

"AF's claim of a unique realisation of pce is hubris, confusion and a political artifact. Boring really. But I digress.

Love a simple statement on how to practice leading to pce though. Might be some value in that."

The Mahayanist claim of a unique realization of enlightenment compared to the poor deluded Pali monks is hubris, confusion and a political artifact, too. (Read the beginning of this thread for why I think so.) So, why don't you dismiss all Mahayana forms as rubbish?

As for a simple statement, I already gave you Kenneth's link. The simplest I can imagine is: every feeling and emotion and pleasure and displeasure is a body sensation and nothing else whatsoever (no mental aspect to them); see them all as body sensations, hold that way of viewing them, and simultaneously turn away from them until they gradually fade away.

The key seems to be to see 100% of them as body sensations and not see 95% as body sensations and miss the other 5% (which you then can't help but indulge without realizing it).

"What's up with the provincialist hatred?"

You've read his site, right? Its serious rubbish. Many seem to come away with that feeling. Furthermore, he makes claims of exclusive realisation, stating no other tradition has ever realised what he has; that everyone else is wrong but him. That his is the only true enlightenment. Its just not true. It's elitist. Its arrogance. Its ignorance of, and dismissal of, humanity's collective realisation. A universal realisation across many, many traditions over many generations.

Its just poor quality writing, philosophy, analysis and insight. Its potentially pernicious in being more than ignorance and poor scholarship, it is the rhetoric of a self-important person with a political agenda. Cultish aspirations.

He has some insight, granted. But such insights can be found elsewhere in a far more sophisticated and clearly written format. Not written in a self-interested and self-congratulatory manner. In my opinion, anything that is found to be good in AF can be found elsewhere in a clearer, more insightful expression. One that does not come with such a pernicious agenda.

Just my opinion. edited for spelling.

Yep, I agree. Of course every tradition suffers from the same failings. They all think theirs is the only and highest truth. They're all political and agendas. I am commenting on the quality and content of his writing / teachings, for the most part. There's better out there, is all. Much better.

Thanks for the description of the technique. Love to hear more from others on technique and how it has worked for them. The politics of af is boring, as is the politics of other traditions.

I am interested in practice and realisation. If AF has helped others to realise enlightenment in the traditional sense of 'freedom from, and realisation of', than good. We just need to be mindful and theoretically critical (that is, conscious of the theoretical assumptions involved, their historical genesis, and the underlying socio-political power relations) that come with practice traditions. AF is part of that discourse, but if anyone thinks it is new or original, or the best source of those ideas, they'd be wrong.

Does it have some merits? Sure. If consumed critically.

All I can say is that I saw things your way until I had a PCE, and then the site became quite clear and straightforward. Which is why I'm skeptical that you know what I'm talking about.

The exclusive realization claims, etc. are the same things that the Mahayana sutras say. You seem enormously biased in not aiming nearly so much venom at them. In fact, you think they're the bees knees.

You don't like the terminology, which is understandable, but which is irrelevant to people who do.

A number of people who practice according to actualism reach what they consider to be the end of suffering. Why be a hater? Zen practice traditionally involved things like hitting students with a wooden staff. Do you think that's a good idea? Does it matter in any way what you think of it, so long as it led to what they aimed at?

About whether Richard has some insight...insight isn't the point. The end of suffering is the point. The PCE isn't fundamentally about insight in the sense that I would understand the term (though you can get some from it). If you think it is, if you think whatever experience you're having is, and if you think whatever experience you're having is good because it leads to insight, and you think insight is other than no-feelings, I continue to doubt that you know what I'm talking about.

And now I have some idea why Richard thinks his discovery of what he calls "actual freedom" is unique.

Let's end the conversation here. Good talking with you. I hope you find what you're looking for, whatever it may be.

Thanks! You too. Each to there own. We're all on our own journey. Some believe its complete. That great, indeed!!

"Thanks! You too. Each to there own. We're all on our own journey. Some believe its complete. That great, indeed!! "

Glad we agree on the more fundamental point.

Actually, just to understand you more clearly, it would benefit me a lot if you could answer these two questions for me. (Not for the purposes of discussion, just because I'd like to know about what difference your practice has made for you.)

* Do you have any feelings right now?

* Do you expect to have no feelings, permanently, at some point in the future?

Thanks!

Hi EndInSight,

I think the use of the word "feelings" is problematic because some of its commonly used definitions have to do simply with the ability to perceive tactile sensations. This is from Google's in-house dictionary:

---

feel·ing
noun'ƒ/ˈfÄ“liNG/'ƒ
feelings, plural

An emotional state or reaction
- a feeling of joy

The emotional side of someone's character; emotional responses or tendencies to respond
- I don't want to hurt her feelings

Strong emotion
- 'God bless you!' she said with feeling

A belief, esp. a vague or irrational one
- he had the feeling that he was being watched

An opinion, typically one shared by several people
- a feeling grew that justice had not been done

The capacity to experience the sense of touch
- a loss of feeling in the hands

The sensation of touching or being touched by a particular thing
- the feeling of water against your skin

A sensitivity to or intuitive understanding of
- he seems to have little feeling for art

---

Earlier, you used the word "affect," which might be a more precise indicator of what you are describing. Am I right in thinking that?

It occurred to me while reading your post above that a newcomer to this site might think you are suggesting that we become disconnected from the tactile sense, but I don't think that is what you mean.

edit: 2 typos

"To respond to your edit...it is absolutely not equivalent to "rigpa" if "rigpa" means something like "the recognition of a universal awareness" or "the recognition of a pure awareness underlying phenomena."

The two are absolutely distinguished by the complete lack of feeling in a PCE. Not because feeling is sublimated into something else or because one has a radically different perspective on feeling during the PCE, but because it straight-up isn't there."

First of all, I would like to thank everyone who's participated in this thread, for the helpful clarifications they have contributed.

Taking the above quote into consideration, I present the following for discussion;

Perhaps we can reconcile the aberration of the PCE from rigpa. In the thread for Kenneth's new video, Mahamudra and the Joy of Failure, mumuwu posted a very interesting link to a book entitled ""Fearless Simplicity: The Dzogchen Way of Living Freely in a Complex World".

tinyurl.com/6hy5tno

See pages 156 through 158

"The real proble is if one frowns upon dualistic practices because of hearing that the nondual state of rigpa is the real thing. One might incorrectly feel that trying to be compassionate and cultivating noble qualities is an inferior type of practice, so why bother? Unfortunately, the loving-kindness and compassion that should be spontaneously present within the awakened state hasn't manifested yet. One is in a vacant and dry blankness where nothing much happens."

I propose that this could be referring to the PCE. And that the PCE is a pre-rigpa state before it has been stabilized and "looseness" has been applied, allowing the Brahmaviharas to naturall manifest.

"To fixate ones mind on the unconditioned while rejecting noble qualities is an obstacle."

continued....

"It is a self created hindrance for practitioners of particularly this kind of practice."

Is it possible that the PCE is the recognition of rigpa in it's infancy, before it can be deepened through applying "looseness, brightness, and lucidity".

Perhaps fixating on the PCE is equivalent to fixating ones mind on the unconditioned while rejecting noble qualities.
Or perhaps I am mistaken and simply misunderstand the PCE / rigpa altogether. However from my experience with direct mode practice this seems to make sense to me. I am interested to hear everyones take on this.

"I think the use of the word "feelings" is problematic because some of it's commonly used definitions have to do simply with the ability to perceive tactile sensations.

It occurred to while reading your post above that a newcomer to this site might think you are suggesting that we become disconnected from the tactile sense, but I don't think that is what you mean."

Kenneth, you're right. "Affect" is a good, precise term, and I should stick with it. Not sure why I didn't. Thanks for the suggestion.

In case anyone is confused by what I've said, I don't recommend that anyone disconnect from their tactile sense, ever. The things I called "feelings" are a very specific kind of body sensation, and the range of possible body sensations is much, much larger than feelings.

I don't even recommend that anyone disconnect from the specific kind of body sensations I've been calling feelings. If you want to see what there is to see in direct mode, you have to perceive them as clearly as you can. "Turning away" doesn't mean not being aware of them, it means not interacting with them in any way whatsoever except to recognize them with the barest gesture of attention (but to recognize them fully). Kenneth, would you agree that this is a good description of your lightning rod practice? Cuz that's where I got the idea.

"One is in a vacant and dry blankness where nothing much happens."

Malt, I would suggest attaining a PCE before speculating about it.

I mean this suggestion in the most heartfelt way, and not as criticism. Speculation is fun for some people. I used to speculate about what the PCE might have been and how it might be related to the stuff I knew. It didn't help me. I doubt it will help you either.

Just keep on with direct mode and see what you think later.

I'd say the PCE is the most alive thing I know of, absolutely the opposite of dry blankness (dry blankness being a kind of affective / emotional experience).

EDIT: The concepts that surround our understanding of affect tend to be very misleading. It seems you're imagining that the PCE is somehow boring. Boredom is an affect. Affectlessness sounds boring, but it's actually something that your current concepts may not allow you to imagine in advance of seeing it for yourself.

Riffing off of Malt's comments:

My understanding is that rigpa is process oriented and deliberately left undefined in terms of experience. Both Dzogchen and Mahamudra encourage us to recognize the "essential nature of mind," the "clear light of awareness," the "cognizant emptiness" that is the basis of all of manifestation. Nowhere do I find a phenomenological description of exactly what this should feel like. This makes a lot of sense; the words are used as pointers, but are never used to limit the experience. Since the essential nature of mind can be recognized in all experience, it makes no sense to say precisely what this is going to feel like. No experience is exempt from rigpa.

For me, this is the difference between rigpa and the PCE: while the PCE is defined as a particular kind of experience, rigpa is not. The PCE is limited by its definition. Rigpa is not. So, while rigpa could presumably be practiced from within a PCE, rigpa is not limited to the PCE. Rigpa is simply freedom in this moment, irrespective of the behavior being manifested or the phenomena being experienced provided that one of the phenomena being experienced is primordial wisdom.

This is not to say that the Mahamudra instructions are vague; on the contrary, they are very clear. The practitioner must recognize the empty but cognizant nature of the mind. This is not always easy in the beginning, which is why it's so important to have a fully stocked yogi toolbox. When the pure, sweet, untouched nature of mind is not apparent, we can downshift to 1st Gear and note until the mind becomes calm and flexible, at which point it is possible to recognize that there is no problem here. We need not get rid of the self; it does not exist except as a momentarily arising thought. If there is such a thing as developmental buddhahood, it will come about by moment after continuous moment of seeing through the subject/object duality.