Relating Buddhism and the PCE

Hi EndInSight,

I shall definitely continue on with direct mode practice. The way I interpreted "vacant and dry blankness" was as directly referring to the absence of any emotional / affective experience, however I could be way off there. Thanks for the interesting discussion.

metta!
Justin

"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. -EndInSight"

Yes, I agree.

Thanks for the clarification Kenneth! ^__^

"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". -Malt"

It has occurred to me that the brightness quality of rigpa, taken in isolation, has a lot in common with some descriptions of the PCE. The brightness aspect of rigpa refers to the clarity of the five physical senses. It's important to point out, though, that the brightness quality is not essential to rigpa; sometimes it is present and sometimes not. The lucidity quality, however, is always present and it is this lucidity that recognizes even when the senses are dull.

Kenneth is right in my opinion insofar as Rigpa is not often described phenomenologically, for the most part. That statement needs to be qualified, however. Rigp is defined as this: recognition of the nature of mind. Recognition being the defining feature. As the nature of mind is always present as your very mind here and now, that which sees and knows these words I am writing. It is not mysterious insofar as it is literally your mind right now. Yes that mind. This one. Ordinary sentient beings do not recognise the 'essential' nature of mind, that is why they are ordinary sentient beings, and not Buddhas. Recognition is the only factor. Buddhanature as your ordinary mind is always present. That's it.

So there is an epistemological process, and a ontological presupposition on what the mind really is. Direct knowledge of your true nature in real time, here and now, experientially, from one mind-moment to the next, is enlightenment in the Mahayanist tradition of Dzogchen / Mahamudra. In the initial stages there are no thoughts. One often uses shamatha as the basis to get to the thought free state. Thoughts and therefore dualistic ideation and the resulting fixation / grasping are considered obscurations to the recognition of your true nature as Dharmakaya / nature of mind.

(continued) edited fr typo.

(continued)

This grasping / fixation on objects (out / in-there) and fixation on a sense of self (in-here) that perceives / thinks these thoughts is source of our suffering and a description of our confused, unenlightened state, due to NOT having recognised the nature of mind. So phenomenologically, there is less to no thoughts in Rigpa. There is no sense of self. There is direct perception of sensory and cognition experience; that is, no sense of self or sense of separation from your experience. There is just pure unified experience. There is no suffering whatsoever. There is complete liberation. There is complete richness of experience. There is complete enlightenment, defined as recognition of what is. Just this. By analogy, your swimming in the water at the beach. This is it. Unmistakeable. There's the water, you're in it.

The tradition is clear that a stabilization process occurs. A deepening occurs. As part of the complete realisation of the nature of mind one directly sees that all phenomena are inseparable from the nature of mind, including thoughts and emotions. Confusion and unelightenment sees 'appearances' or phenomenon as separate from one's on mind. That is unenlightenment. Confusion. An ordinary sentient being. That mis-perception is the source of human suffering, according to Dzgochen / Mahamudra. That view of appearances is false. Once one has reaised the nature of mind in a stable way, all appearances naturally self liberate. There is no suffering. There is no afflictions. Hence the fetters model of Buddhism. Suffering is fixation and grasping at appearances, due to lack of the true recogntion of the state of things.

(continued) edited for spelling

(continued)

AF's preocupation with emotions as the source of suffering comes about do to the false view that emotions are the enemy, the cause of human suffering. They are not. Phenomena are just the infinite display of reality. Correctly recognised phenomena cannot harm us. They are not separate from us. There is no us. There is only cognizant emptiness. 'Knowingness as your true nature. Pure perception as your true nature. Recognition of that is freedom. Lack of recognition is suffering. Ontologically nothing changes. Epistemologically, recognition is present where before it was not. So in a stable recognition of Rigpa there can be thoughts, but no afflictive states. No emotional reactions of suffering. There is universal or impersonal compassion / empathy / love for the suffering of other beings. However, one does not suffer because they suffer.

AF's entire metaphysics and psychology is confused and premised on a misunderstanding. We have pce as a phenomena. Then we have AF's attempt to make meaning of it, placing it in a metaphysic and psychology that is premised on false assumptions.

If anyone wants clear descriptions of Dzogchen / Mahamudra, then you will need to get your hands on restricted texts. The public texts don't go very far into the details of it's subtleties. If you live in the US its easy to get transmission and the teachings. Look there for yourself and make your own decisions.

AF has a pretty good description of rigpa but misinterprets it and tacks on additional confused premises. Its preoccupation on emotions, what it calls affect (which by the way means emotional expression, particularly in the form of body language and para-linguals, not emotions / feelings) is misguided at best, and utterly confused at worst.

Thanks,

Adam. edited for spelling.

"The tradition is clear that a stabalisation process occours. A deepening occurs. As part of the complete realisation of the nature of mind one directly sees that all phenomena are inseparable from the nature of mind, including thoughts and emotions.

AF's preocupation with emotions as the source of suffering comes about do to the false view that emotions are the enemy, the cause of human suffering. They are not. Phenomena are just the infinite display of reality."

Glad that we've agreed: rigpa (as you define it) and the PCE are not the same.

So we're back to where we started. Go have a PCE and tell us what you think. That's all that counts in the end. Your own contemplative experience. Weave whatever theories you like afterwards.

Perhaps this is just extrapolating from my own case, but I would say that the hallmark of having had a PCE with enough meditative attainment to analyze it is the recognition that affect is the same as the perception of a self...or, allowing for the possibility that you still disagree, then at least a clear and *explicit* understanding of why this is insisted upon.

Let's bring things down to earth. If you think you have attained something that makes affect irrelevant (just part of the infinite display of reality), or that you could possibly attain such a thing in the future, suppose at that point someone offered to implant a device in your brain that would cause the rest of your life to be spent with the worst depression you can imagine. Your own claim is that this wouldn't be suffering...because however you feel does not influence your ability to recognize the true nature of mind, which is independent of this affect. So, apart from practicalities (like not being able to get out of bed and face the world ever), what reason could you have to prefer the way you are now to this hypothetical case?

This is not a rhetorical question. Please let us know. (cont)

I'm not saying that a tradition or spiritual path has to be able to say "that wouldn't be suffering" to be valid. I am saying that if you parade the claim that some tradition literally leads to the end of suffering, you have to be able to say it with a straight face (and keep the rest of us from smirking). (EDIT: Things like terrible depression can be caused in all kinds of ways, without even positing a mad scientist, which was just to get the point across. A head injury (e.g. from a car crash) can surely do it.)

I imagine that those of us aiming for the end of suffering via the PCE would say "either it would literally not be suffering [because no mood could occur], or it would be a reversal of the condition of no-suffering due to changing the organ responsible for that attainment back to the state that it was in before the attainment occurred."

Your position can't appeal to the latter clause, because depression is not compatible with the PCE, but it is compatible with recognizing the nature of mind.

Hi endinsight!

I don't agree that pce is not that same. I say it is. There is no affect as you mean it in rigpa. And there can be no suffering by definition, in Rigpa. Certainly no depression.

Suffering or afflictive states is premised on not recognising them from what they are - display of your own mind. In that recognition, they cease to exist. No depression.

I will come back to this a little later. Got some work I gotta do.

Thanks,

Adam.

"I don't agree that pce is not that same. I say it is. There is no affect as you mean it in rigpa. "

As I mean it, "affect" includes anything that a regular person would (in their ignorance of the nature of mind, or whatever) find enjoyable or displeasing or neutral. All pleasure, all pain, all emotions. So, make sure your future response doesn't redefine the word.

You wrote: "Phenomena are just the infinite display of reality. Correctly recognised phenomena cannot harm us."

and you included emotions in the things that are just the infinite display of reality. So, which is it? Does rigpa disallow some of the infinite display of reality from arising? Or does rigpa include affect but somehow reveal that it isn't suffering, or reveal that only confusion about affect is suffering? The former case appears to disagree with what you've written and the latter case shows that rigpa is not the PCE. So I hope your response will clarify this for me.

(The PCE disallows some of the infinite display of reality from arising. That's one reason that I see it as relating to what is in the Pali suttas; no fetters, no defilements, no mental fermentations. It doesn't disallow anything that genuinely seems to be interesting to arise, which means any sense experience or thought whatsoever.)

I would suggest AF's definition of affect is problematic and certainly idiosyncratic. so are you saying that pce is not in anyway enjoyable? The stated richness of sensory and cognitive experience is not enjoyable? I would say that the direct experience of human being in its unconditioned, non-dualistic form as in pce is enjoyable. I would suggest that there is a sense of completion. Of perfection. Is that enjoyable? Of course it is. Does it necessarily involve emotions, or emotional responses? Of course not. It does not. The pleasure comes from, among other things, I would suggest, the tactile sense of the pranas running through the central channel. The sense of completion and perfection comes from, I would suggest, direct realisation or contact with Buddhanature. With unconditioned reality. These qualities are of the buddhanature itself. They are our innate qualities, that simply go unrecogonised by sentient beings. However, these experiences are of a different class than ordinary human experiences, which are coarse and perhaps of a more unrefined kind. Often involving emotional responses following from mental grasping, fixation, aversion. Reactions in other words. There is no reactions in Rigpa, no grasping. There is just pure experience. I would suggest there is none in pce either. And yet by your own words there is richness and perfion. Same thing. Different language. Different presuppositions, however.

(continued)

To clarify, no depression or afflictions of the fetters can show up in rigpa. None. there is no suffering whatsoever. period. One could fall out of rigpa. Fall into distraction. back into habitual grasping. Into confusion. At this time suffering may re-present. One may then re-cognize the nature of mind again, and in that instant, all suffering then self-liberates. It is gone.

Rigpa is what the pali suttas is speaking of, yes. No fetters, defilements, fermentations. In enlightened mind there is no suffering. Period. Only in unenlightened mind. Realisation of buddhanature is free of suffering. There are no personal emotions. Period. One may have a personal emotion, due to habituation, but it will instantly self-liberate. One may fall back into confusion, due to said habituation. One may re-acquire Rigpa in the next mind-moment, at which point, there is no disturbed emotion or mental state.

There is a degree of mastery or stabilization. I am not a master. I am not in permanent Rigpa. My journey of stabilization continues. Certainly my suffering is a bear minimum these days, with periods of zero. There is profound richness, completeness and perfection. I enjoy the full human experience. Habit patterns continue, but are diminishing. The fetters model is correct. There is an end to suffering.

Am I being clear?

Thanks,

Adam edit spelling.

"I would suggest AF's definition of affect is problematic and certainly idiosyncratic. so are you saying that pce is not in anyway enjoyable? The stated richness of sensory and cognitive experience is not enjoyable?

The pleasure comes from, among other things, I would suggest, the tactile sense of the pranas running through the central channel.
One may have a personal emotion, due to habituation, but it will instantly self-liberate."

It strikes me that AF's definition of affect is not problematic or idiosyncratic. Affect = vedana as far as I can see. Completely straightforward and clear.

There are at least two ways to use enjoyable. One is for "something that someone could enjoy". The PCE is not enjoyable in that way. The other is for "something worthwhile". The PCE is enjoyable in that way, but this stretches the meaning of enjoyable in a way that doesn't exactly match how it functions in English.. The two senses seem to be utterly distinct. I would never use "enjoyable": to describe it if I were thinking straight, because it is not enjoyable in any normal way. I would definitely not use the word pleasure no matter what, which you seem to think is appropriate. The enjoyment that I think you're talking about, the pleasure that I think you're talking about, are pale imitations of what is worthwhile in the PCE. There is nothing in a PCE that would be recognized as enjoyment by a normal person (who only has affective experience to enjoy).

So, what to make of your claims so far? I see three possibilities:

* You're not talking about a PCE, but you're trying to force the PCE into your worldview.

* I'm being stubborn and disagreeing with your claim only because of my own bias.

* You're experiencing an affective distortion of the PCE and calling it rigpa.

I'd guess that perhaps it's the third possibility. (cont)

Affective distortions of the PCE, in my experience, have many of the qualities of the PCE, but also manage to hide affect in the experience in a camouflaged way (making affect seem identical with the PCE qualities, as if the affect isn't there because it hides under the PCE qualities and so can't easily be discerned), which would explain why you think enjoyment and pleasure are good ways to describe it and why you reject the claim that affect = suffering. (EDIT: I should say, why you reject the actualist-style claims that it is affect, rather than lack of insight, which is the only problem.)

Speaking as a person who has no innate attraction to actualism and comes from a purely pragmatic perspective and had never indulged the idea that pleasure could be bad, having a PCE made the claims that affect = suffering and affect = perception of self and affect = everything wrong with experience so utterly crystal-clear. And I think this is pretty damn common among people who have it. Like you, I think the actualist terminology is so bizarre, but I figured out how to translate it into terms that weren't bizarre, and recognized that it was on-the-spot after all. You, on the other hand, think those simple claims are errors and can't find a way to translate actualist terminology into something that is accurate. I take those things as evidence against your claim that rigpa = PCE. I don't think understanding this stuff requires a deep grasp of esoteric philosophy hidden in some secret dzogchen texts somewhere. The PCE makes it all really down to earth and really obvious in an everyday, non-esoteric way. I don't see that the PCE has any real possibility of being misunderstood by anyone, when they have it, because it's so simple and, in a way, mundane. (EDIT: I should say, anyone with a background in meditation, who aims at analyzing it in order to see what it is. Surely people can misunderstand it otherwise.) (cont)

The other reason I suspect an affective distortion of the PCE is that, in my experience, it [the regular PCE] degenerates into a non-PCE not via gross emotion (which is utterly gone in the experience) but via the tiniest, almost indiscernable tinge of enjoyment or displeasure. I don't have a lot of experience with PCEs yet so I'm not saying it must be this way...however, I have LOTS of experience with affective distortions of PCEs, and the most common way they degenerate is by transforming into a gross emotion (which is what I think you're calling a personal emotion). And it makes sense that it should be this way, because in the affective distortion, lots of emotional things are already happening, so it's a small step for them to transmute into a gross emotion, whereas in the PCE nothing emotional is happening, and so if a gross emotion arose to end it, it would be utterly out of place. When the PCE ends, it turns into an EE, which (at the level that is almost a PCE) has 99% of the qualities of the PCE, and which is almost indiscernibly different, because there is no gross emotion, no subtle emotion, and only the barest tinge of pleasure or displeasure or neutrality.

Anyway. Like I said, I think many traditions know about the PCE and aim at it. I have no idea whether Dzogchen or Mahamudra are among them only because I don't know much about those. Perhaps the ultimate meaning of rigpa in those traditions, among the masters who reached the end of suffering, really is the PCE. I just don't think you yourself are talking about the PCE. For those yogis reading this thread, the only way to decide which of us is more likely to be correct is to have a PCE (using the absolute criteria of PCE = no affect, no pleasure, no enjoyment) and see whose description of it is accurate. (cont)

Another reason I suspect you're talking about an affective distortion of a PCE is...for how many years have you been recognizing the nature of mind? Actualists seem to think that the end of suffering is not far away for a person who can attain a PCE regularly and is absolutely committed to reaching the end of suffering. (I don't know if it's true but some advanced practitioners [Trent, Tarin] seem to have gotten there fast and others seem to be getting there fast.) (EDIT: The Pali suttas also imply that the end of suffering is not far away for a serious practitioner who renounces all sensual pleasure.)

Anyway, I mean this in the most helpful, non-paternalistic way: next time you have an experience of rigpa, why don't you try rejecting, turning away from, and denying the value of any of the qualities of the experience that you describe as enjoyable or pleasurable? (I would include in that anything that you perceive as cognizant but empty awareness.) Ask "where in the body are these experiences located?" and then try to reject or renounce them absolutely and see if you can make them disappear.

Alternatively, why don't you post practice notes describing how you recognize the nature of mind, including the various gradations of that recognition, and we can compare that to what people say about attaining a PCE and the various gradations of experience up to the full thing?

If you're right, nothing is lost. If I'm right, this may bring you one step closer to the actual end of suffering, and the actual thing that the dzogchen / mahamudra texts may be pointing at. (cont)

"If anyone wants clear descriptions of Dzogchen / Mahamudra, then you will need to get your hands on restricted texts. The public texts don't go very far into the details of it's subtleties. If you live in the US its easy to get transmission and the teachings. Look there for yourself and make your own decisions.
"

One last thing...this is the pragmatic dharma community. The idea of secret texts that are required for proper practice is problematic in so many ways. But supposing that there are such secret texts, and supposing that they do lead to the end of suffering, it seems to me that it's incumbent upon you (as a compassionate human being) to describe the subtleties of practice and make that description publicly available (as an e-book or the like). Experience has shown that hiding maps and practice details does not actually somehow protect people from messing themselves up, but is actually what harms people. The traditional claims to the contrary seem to be politically motivated (allowing those who possess and distribute the knowledge in the texts to retain a position of power, authority, and control).

And, when one sees the PCE for oneself (which is a straightforward, simple, and down-to-earth experience, despite its high accolades), the claim that there is some big secret to understanding it, that one needs to have the right metaphysical or esoteric stuff running through one's head to make sense of it and make progress, turns out to be *utterly ridiculous*.

Also, "affective distortion of a PCE" may be my own invented terminology, so let me explain it clearly:

* In a PCE, there is no affect.

* In an EE, there is little affect, and what remains is normal, typical everyday affect.

* In an affective distortion of a PCE, there is little affect, but what remains has varying kinds of outrageous, extraordinary qualities.

The reason that affective distortions can occur is that "little affect" does not imply anything about what kind of affect it is. (There are two dimensions to affect, quantity and quality.)

It would be more accurate to call it an affective distortion of an EE rather than of a PCE, but whatever; you get what I mean.

"The pleasure comes from, among other things, I would suggest, the tactile sense of the pranas running through the central channel. "

Regarding my practice suggestions...specifically try rejecting, turning away from, and absolutely denying the value of *this*.

"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.

"

Kenneth, what you are saying rings true in my experience.

By leaving Rigpa vague, it grants full permission to be enlightened in this moment. If the states associated with Rigpa evolve then there is full permission for that to be the manifestation of enlightenment in another moment. All the talk about purity and inherent Buddha Nature in all things supports this.

I am also realizing more and more how important the pointing out process is and why the Tibetans emphasize devotion so much. I believe pointing out puts you on the same mental wavelength as the teacher and gives you a taste of what they are transmitting. With strong devotion, you can find comfort that your realization from your teacher is the correct realization and you can be happy and comfortable with your enlightenment in this moment.

When recognizing awareness, I still often hear Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche's joyfully shrill Tibetan voice in my head - "Awareness!"

Adam: Thank you so much for your post. It was wonderful.

It is unfortunate that the design aesthetic of Tibetan practices is broken. Your typical post-Christian westerner is going to be completely turned off by the focus on the Ngondro, guru devotion, and the Tibetan religious trappings. If the Tibetan's heartfelt compassion for unenlightened sentient beings was aware of this design problem, they would engage in a process of re-designing the aesthetic of at least early Mahamudra/Dzogchen practice for the western mind.

The only person that I have seen begin to do this is Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche with his trickily subtle and profound books "The Joy of Living" and "Joyful Wisdom".

"One may have a personal emotion"

Adam, in true Rigpa do you feel that non-dualistic "emotions" still arise? Cleaness. Delight, Brightness, Purity, blanketing love, wonder.

Also, for you, is "confusion" more than just a word implying unclear thoughts? Is it a felt sensation when you are at the edge of Rigpa and being pulled back into duality? I have been experiencing a felt mind/body "confusion" more and more at the edge between those two worlds.

"For those yogis reading this thread, the only way to decide which of us is more likely to be correct is to have a PCE (using the absolute criteria of PCE = no affect, no pleasure, no enjoyment)"

I am not a master meditator, but I just tried that from within my personal understanding of Rigpa and phenomenologically there was very little difference. The level of brightness and concentration was exactly same. What was different was that there was now a sense of exerting effort to block some experience (namely affect, pleasure, enjoyment). As I have noticed in the past, I feel "efforting" as a tension, and when I let go of it I find myself back in what I understand Rigpa to be.

This blocking of experience reminds me of a knight adorning himself in a full suit of platemail trying to make himself impervious to attack, while my Rigpa is more likened to an Aikido master who doesn't mind if an attack comes because he will easily deflect it.

So the idea of focusing on no affect, no pleasure, no enjoyment *feels* uninteresting, boring, and unnecessary. If focusing on "no affect, no pleasure, no enjoyment" is your personal door into experiencing looseness, brightness, and lucidity then I could see why you would become quite attached to that door. Its not my personal door, so I feel no need to limit my experience by focusing on "no affect, no pleasure, no enjoyment".

The best description I can make of my personal door is that it is now just a mental gesture of either recognizing awareness, waking up, or not being lost. The scaffolding that I used to get here was to try to look at Now as intently and closely as I could then recognizing awareness. Otherwise I would look at Now as intently and closely as I could then exposing myself to pointing out instructions.
(cont)

Those pointing out instructions included Tulku Urgyen's Rainbow Painting, as well as Ken Wilbur's at ( wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/ontast_wharyo.cfm/ ), and going to a 2 day retreat with Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche who was basically constantly pointing out every sentence he was speaking for 2 days straight.

I wish I could explain more the magic of pointing out, but I am completely out of my league in understanding the psychic powers that great teachers transmit. (Kenneth running me through the 1st four Jhanas was just plain spooky in that it felt like he was inserting them directly into my brain).

Anyway, my initial experiences with going through that door were different than they are now, because at the time they were infused with newness and excitement that obscured some of the subtler qualities.

I also make very little effort to "sustain" this state. Rather I work to recognize it frequently and if it lasts 2 seconds, thats just fine. Kenneth's advice that each moment conditions the next was absolutely invaluable in helping me to see how to work with this and gain more moments of awakeness.

Again, don't put too much stock in my statements as I have only been doing this practice for a little over a year.