Relating Buddhism and the PCE

"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.

So the idea of focusing on no affect, no pleasure, no enjoyment *feels* uninteresting, boring, and unnecessary. "

Hi Orasis,

"Efforting" as a tension, the feeling that focusing on no affect is uninteresting and boring, etc. sound like affects to me.

As far as I can see, it's not possible to will affect away. It just has to go away by itself. A yogi recognizes when that's happened by seeing that there is no affect, no pleasure, no enjoyment. But trying to go directly for that probably won't work (unless they yogi knows *exactly* what no affect means, probably from prior experience). Instead, as you found, it may be unsatisfying.

A good way to double-check to see whether or not some state that appears to have no affect is the PCE, or is close to it, or is something else entirely, is to see whether things like "perfection," "nirvana," "the meaning of life," "the peace that passes all understanding," "heaven on earth" and so on strike a chord. All kinds of descriptions are possible depending on what language you like to use....what they have in common is how extreme they are.

It's certainly possible, as you say, that I have a peculiar door into this state, and emphasize different things than most people. But I'm talking about the state, not the door.

The point of this conversation is not for me to tell people what I think they're doing wrong (how would I know???!), but to make sure that everyone is talking about the same thing, as much as possible. Whatever you're doing now sounds like a good DM practice and I would never suggest changing it if it works. I just want you to know how to tell when you've found the state that is at the apex of DM.

Just to clarify...people seem to use "rigpa" in all kinds of different ways. Kenneth's meaning of rigpa is much larger and more expansive and inclusive than what I mean by the PCE.

Direct mode, as I understand Kenneth, is just one more manifestation of rigpa. So, in Kenneth's definition, rigpa is not at the apex of direct mode. But the PCE is. So don't expect to find anything there but the PCE. You can see it as just one more manifestation of rigpa if you like. And you don't have to pursue it as the sole means of liberating yourself from suffering if you don't see the need.

In fact, I don't see a major conflict between what Kenneth teaches and what those of us aiming at the end of suffering via the PCE are trying to do. In the PCE, all there is, is the recognition of perfection as the nature of things. You can think of that as approaching rigpa in a very specific and limited way. But rigpa is rigpa, and if that's how some of us feel the need to approach it, why not?

Some Indian traditions emphasize that there are different paths to God, and each yogi will approach the path to God in the way that suits the yogi's nature, and God will appear to the yogi in a form that accords with the yogi's chosen path. I humbly offer that this situation is exactly what those traditions may be referring to.

If I may add just one tidbit from this insignificant peanut in the gallery: -- Rigpa, in my experience, is not a state. It is the all-encompassing envelope of Awareness (Big "A"). Every possible state, past, present and future, is contained within the infinite. timeless wrapper of Awareness. Once experienced it isn't possible to mistake this (it is really and truly beyond describing in words) for a state of mind. So a PCE is a manifestation of rigpa like everything else in existence is a manifestation of rigpa; me, you, my dogs and cats, coat hangers, dust, bugs, ideas, thoughts, emotions and distant galaxies.

Just sayin'

"that focusing on no affect is uninteresting and boring, etc. sound like affects to me."

I am writing those words after the fact. The experience itself feels unsoiled as always and there is no existence of uninteresting and boredom other than slight tugs of the habitual tendency to narrate. The experience is that the effort feels like tension and my mind can't find a good reason to hold onto that tension. When my thinking mind examines it, it can't find a good reason to practice in that way. So I should say that my thinking mind finds the idea of efforting uninteresting and boring. This may just be my own personal issue because I find that same process of letting go of efforting also often pops me out of formal sitting sessions.

What a great conversation. Noting "gratitude."

@EndInSight
Just to clarify, when you say there is no pleasure or displeasure in the pce I assume you mean this affectively? If you stubbed your toe for example you would still feel physical pain?

Tarin wrote something about this here:

"1- when i was trying to induce a pce, i tended to be more successful when there was some degree of sensuous pleasure happening.. nothing extreme, a simle walk down a flight of stairs or the street could do it. now actually free, i find the experience of being here pleasurable by default, though pain still operates as is appropriate (for example, the experiences of burning my leg against a motorcycle tailpipe and having a sinus headache are painful). it is not an entirely constant condition, but it is on-going for the most part. however, in addition to bodily pleasure, there is also the pleasure - to use the term loosely - inherent in apperception.. and this is all-the-time.

2- first off, bodily pleasure is physical, and felicitous feelings are affective. felicitous feelings are indeed absent in a pce, as are blissful feelings as well as afflictive feelings.. the entire affective field is. however, upon the resumption of affective experience, you may note that it is felicitous feelings which imitate the pce most closely.. and so they are essential to cultivate in the practice of actualism (in addition to it just making good everyday sense to feel deeply happy for its own sake)."¹

¹http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/644928

@Adam West
Hi Adam, you asked for some descriptions of PCEs earlier in the thread, I'm curious if these line up with what you're calling Rigpa?

"I remember the first time I experienced being the senses only during a PCE. There was no identity as '˜I' thinking or '˜me' feeling ... simply this body ambling across a grassy field in the early-morning light. A million dew-drenched spider-webs danced a sparkling delight over the verdant vista and a question that had been running for some weeks became experientially answered: without the senses I would not know that I exist as this flesh and blood body. And further to this: I was the senses and the senses were me. With this came an awareness of being conscious '“ apperception '“ rather than '˜I' being aware of '˜me' being conscious." - Richard

(...)"We arranged a comfortable picnic spot by the lake and, as I strolled off by myself, a pure consciousness experience crept up on me. I remember walking in the shallow water and marvelling at my magical fairy-tale-like surroundings. A vast blue sky overhead with an ever-changing array of wispy white clouds. The sun glistens on the tiny ripples of water washing gently over my feet. The sensual feel of the mud oozing between my toes as they sink into the muddy beach. Huge pelicans glide overhead and I liken them to the jumbo jets of the bird world as they come in to land on the water some distance out. The sun on my skin is warming me through and through, the breeze is ruffling my hair and tingling my forearms, and the water is cooling on my feet. It is so good to be alive, my senses bristling and everything is perfect. Absolutely no objections to being here '“ pure delight!
After a while I turn to my partner who is sitting in the shade beneath a wonderfully gnarled and ancient tree on the lake's edge. There sits a fellow human being to whom I have no '˜relationship'. Any past or future disappears; she and I are simply here together, experiencing these perfect moments. The past five years that I have known her, with all the memories of good and bad times, simply do not exist. It is just delightful that she is here with me, and I do not even have any thoughts of '˜our' future. In short, everything is perfect, always has been, and always will be. It is an experience of actual freedom where I, as this body only, am able to experience with my physical senses the perfection and purity of the physical universe, free of the psychological and psychic entity within. And also free of the delusion that it is all the work of some mythical maker to whom I owe gratitude for my being here. I am actually here, in the physical universe and enjoying every moment of it." - Peter

Reference: www.actualfreedom.com.au/actualism/others/corr-pce.htm

"@EndInSight
Just to clarify, when you say there is no pleasure or displeasure in the pce I assume you mean this affectively? If you stubbed your toe for example you would still feel physical pain?"

I have no idea. I should try doing it next time I attain a PCE and then I'll find out. My experiences of PCEs, after I took up meditation, are actually quite limited, and I've only had a few (all in the last few days). I have a very precise and analytic way of looking at things, so I can tell you about the experiences as they were, but I can't infer much about things that I didn't experience during them.

Tarin is probably right that positive affect is helpful for attaining a PCE (I have never been able to attain one or even get close if I wasn't feeling good), but it goes away when the PCE begins. (EDIT: It goes away to the extent that one moves from normal experience to an EE to a PCE.)

I've been reflecting on my conversation with AEN. AEN found a sutta that said arahants experience only physical vedana, not mental. And the Sallatha sutta, which I've been interested in separately, says:

"The discerning person, learned, doesn't sense a (mental) feeling of pleasure or pain: This is the difference in skillfulness between the sage & the person run-of-the-mill."

My best guess about how this works (as I'm confident that someone in a PCE can tell the difference between being hit with a hammer and not) is that it's useful to distinguish between mental and physical vedana, but physical vedana are so subtle and so completely overwhelmed by mental (affective) vedana as to be practically indiscernable in normal experience until the mental vedana are removed and one has the opportunity to see physical vedana by themselves. (cont)

I had previously read this sutta and formed various ideas about what it means "not [to sense] a mental feeling of pleasure of pain" and found that it had literally been impossible for me to imagine what that meant without having a PCE, because all my imaginings were suffused with affective stuff over them that I couldn't discern.

So, overall...I don't have the answer here, except to say that I find nothing in the PCE that corresponds to the normal usage of the word pleasure. It could be a problem with using non-AF terminology to talk about PCEs, or it could be that I need to discern more precisely, or it could be that I will hit myself with a hammer during the next PCE and find that the explanation is other than those two possiblities.

EDIT: The key point is that there is no pleasure or displeasure or neutrality in the PCE that is ever the kind of thing that one could experience as happening to 'me'. Affect is the same as the perception of a self as the subject of the affect, so the simplest way to sum this up would be to say "any pleasure that could be experienced as 'you' enjoying it is absent from the PCE." (EDIT AGAIN: In other words, anything that *could* have an imaginary 'you' as subject, whether or not you discern it as actually having an imaginary 'you' as a subject, is absent.) Helpful?

"What a great conversation. Noting "gratitude.""

Thanks for making this forum such a wonderful place to have these conversations in!

""that focusing on no affect is uninteresting and boring, etc. sound like affects to me."

I am writing those words after the fact. The experience itself feels unsoiled as always and there is no existence of uninteresting and boredom other than slight tugs of the habitual tendency to narrate. The experience is that the effort feels like tension and my mind can't find a good reason to hold onto that tension. When my thinking mind examines it, it can't find a good reason to practice in that way. So I should say that my thinking mind finds the idea of efforting uninteresting and boring. This may just be my own personal issue because I find that same process of letting go of efforting also often pops me out of formal sitting sessions."

OK. Sorry about the misinterpretation.

Was the experience you had one that you think someone might describe as "perfection" or "the meaning of life" or etc.?

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

There's no reason to shortchange yourself like that. The point of all these practices that we do, as far as I can see, is to recognize what's been right in front of us all the time. If it's right in front of us, we don't have to have any attainments to be able to get it into position to be recognized. It's always in position. The attainments and the experience just make recognition more likely. You're as capable as anyone else.

Nothing stands between you and a PCE in any moment except your mind's relationship to the affects which obscure the actual sensory experience you're having at that moment. Let go of the affects, and the PCE arises, like magic. In the PCE, the senses are literally exactly the same as they are outside of it; the PCE merely allows you to see what's amazing about them.

"Was the experience you had one that you think someone might describe as "perfection" or "the meaning of life" or etc.?"

Sometimes, yes, absolutely - "perfection", "merging with God" "making love to experience". Other times the words "simple", "mundane" "nothing special" "ease" feel right. Most often it is just "bright" "clean" "clear" "peace". I am still working to understand this, but the shape bubble of my attention seems to play a big role in the overall tone. I think Antero said it best on his journal:

"When I talked with Kenneth, he put things into context by leading me through various positions of attention that are considered to be the final destinations in various contemplative practises. All the target areas produced very different but all the same interesting ways of experiencing the stillness and it quickly became clear to me that it would be totally arbitrary to say that one is better than the other.

Short Summary:

Head area as a whole
Exhilaration, enthusiasm, energetic, a lot of vibrations and rising energy currents, rigidness in social situations, feeling of tension, feeling of presence


Chest area
Feeling of relief after the former, Openness, joy, friendliness, warm buzzing vibrations, flowing outward, vulnerability, seeking contact with others, affection, relaxation, easy to be in social situations, empathy

(cont)

Base of the spine
Energy going down, draining out, small muscles in the face relax, all tension going away, clearness, pure silence, absence of vibration and affection, polite aloofness, clarity

10 centimetres above the head
Top of the head opening, streaming upward, Spine straightening, luminosity, feeling of union, connecting heaven and earth, sublime joy, transcendence, above all concerns, lightness, feels like I will be lifted to heaven any moment wearing white robes

Throat
Unpleasant distracting vibrations, lump at the throat, thoughts of doubt and uncertainty, no silence, face twisting, difficulty of communicating, feeling self conscious, awkwardness

Bottom of the feet
Heaviness, silence of a mountain, immovable like a rock, merging with the chair, breathing very shallow, hard to think

Third eye area
Localized sense of being, Concentration, sandwiched between the body and the heaven, there is a pulling feeling to body, feels like experiencing the world through a tube pointing forward

According to Kenneth, if none of these areas should be favoured over the others, the logical consequence must be that all of these should be included in the experience of enlightenment. All of the perspectives should be kept accessible. Even though the mind would very much like to pick one, plant the flag and declare the victory, it is possible to use these parking spaces of attention to deliberately pull the rug from under 'I' and keep it from entrenching itself."

Orasis, it's interesting that you bring up the "shape bubble" of attention. I'm familiar with this in a vague way. I notice that in normal experience, attention bounces between objects of experience and parts of the body, and the particular parts of the body that it bounces to determine something about how we describe the experience's qualities. The list you provided is way more detailed than anything I ever figured out, though.

I have the feeling that this phenomenon is not present in a PCE. As I recall, attention has no "shape bubble" in a PCE. But I'm not sure of that right now because I never took a specific note of it and my recollection isn't precise, so until I have another one I can't say either way.

It would be interesting for you to find out whether the phenomenon is present in your experiences of rigpa, I'll do the same, maybe someone else like Nick or Owen will weigh in, and we'll see if we can triangulate something about PCEs from that.

(During my next PCE, I have to find something that might be physically pleasurable to experience, hit myself with a hammer or stub my toe, watch my attention to see if it has any shape...hopefully I won't forget when the time comes...God, I'm beginning to dread the prospect already!)

re: enjoyable, how is pce worthwhile?

It seems AF has a dichotomous position on pleasure, linking it with suffering. If one is capable of pleasure, one is capable of suffering. Or perhaps, in fact, pleasure is a gross kind of unrecognized suffering? endinsight, would you clarify that for me please? This is not a new idea. In fact da buddha spoke of this.

This central dogma seems to explain AF's preoccupation with affect. Affect defined as any kind of pleasure, painful or neutral experience. Which if correct, is a completely absurd use of the word. And a ridiculous premise to begin with. Everythingh is either pleasurable, painful or neutral in the broadest sense along an infinite continuum. That is just basic description of sentient experience.

(continue) edited for typo.

I would suggest that the fact that Rigpa is pleasurable is besides the point. Its a secondar qualitative observation, with the primary one being the sense of completion, richness and perfection here and now of reality as it actually is, and always was. Just not seen before in our ignorant state. So the defining feature is one finally recognises the true nature of reality. [edit: That reality being perfection. (same as AF)]. Hence, enlightenment. The realisation of the Tao; of Buddha nature, of one's original face, natural state; nature of mind. That is why it is worthwhile. Not because it is pleasurable or an end of suffering. (continued)

Simply because now things are finally seen for what they are. Additionally, and most importantly, these qualities are not subjective or personal, they are true qualities of the nature of reality; the basic qualities of our mind. The thing that is closer than our breath. Of us. Completion. Perfection. Changeless. Can't get any better. Can't get any worse. Such dichotomous thinking is the source of our suffering. It follows from not recognising our true nature. Not from the absurdity that life must not be pleasurable, painful nor neutral. Of course it is all of the above. However, when experienced from rigpa or buddha-nature, there is no suffering. No grasping, fixation, aversion, reaction. There is just the richness of it all and an overwhelming recognition of its completeness and perfection just as it is right now, as it always has been and always will be.

"(making affect seem identical with the PCE qualities, as if the affect isn't there because it hides under the PCE"

So if the pce experience is neither pleasurable, painful or neutral, but is rich and perfect. What is it? How is it experienced? For example, you feel your hand in pce, I would say it feels utterly perfect, complete, rich and amazing just as it is. Nothing more. You feel it, but can't feel it. Nothing there? No sensation? If there is sensation of the hand then in must be either pleasurable, painful or neutral. No other option. All possible descriptions must fall into one of those categories. You might say that it is transcendent and not subject to those linguistic categories. May be, something like ineffable. I feel it, but not possible to describe it.

Thanks for further clarification.

I would absolutely deny that affect equals self. Your sensations equals self. Maybe. A sense of self. A sense of sensations that collectively combine to generate the subjective experience of self. Sure. Self is more than sensations. It is an energetic phenomena in the chakra / energy body system. It is a dualistic subject / object dichotomy. It is a view or perspective from which one sees and experiences the world. It is more than a belief. It is more than just harmless misinterpretation of sensations - physical and cognitive.

So no. Sensation does not equal suffering. A dualistic sense of self that perceives itself grasping and fixating on itself and objects or sensations, if you want to further break them down, equals suffering. To the awakened mind, there is no self and sensations, or affect as it seems to be called, pass by or through the space that is generally occupied by a self.

By analogy waves on the ocean have zero harmful effect on the ocean. It is only the self as a wave crashing and screaming out of control on a dark night of a stormy ocean that fears for the its utter annihilation in smashing against and being lost in amongst the other waves. The ocean remains ever unchanged and perfectly peaceful.

edited for clarity.

"PCE nothing emotional is happening"

I never said there were personal emotions in Rigpa though. Do you mean a sense of universal compassion for all life that can arise A wonder at perfection. Not personal. Impersonal.

Rigpa is enjoyable but more in a sense of completeness, perfection and richness. There is no emotion whatever. However, if you mean affect in the form pleasure, pain or neutrality, which only leaves blankness or complete numbness. Then no, it is certainly not blank of numb. That is why I think your are describing Rigpa but unable to describe it as anyone else would outside of AF, because you can't break the central dogma of no affect. But I can see there is a subtlety of language that is going on that needs further clarification. You mean something that is not being well articulated due to AF's reduced and idiosyncratic vocabulary.

endinsight: "Regarding my practice suggestions...specifically try rejecting, turning away from, and absolutely denying the value of *this [positive qualities of rigpa]*."

The thing is, in Rigpa there is a complete end of suffering. Complete. Any effort to do more is counter intuitive. Nothing more to do. Nothing. Suffering only exists outside of Rigpa. When one has fallen back into confusion. No longer recognizes the essential nature of awareness. Can you see what I am saying. The end of suffering. Literally. No impulse to change a thing.

edited for typo and add in quote for clarity.

"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"."

Yes, I agree. I do not practice much of the traditional stuff. And there is a lot hoops to get through to get to the inner most teachings. There out there though, if people are inclined. Each to there own.

I have received much of my teachings from his families lineage; but other too.

Thanks,

Adam.

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

Yes. I think these things are present in differing degrees, at different times.

Yeah, confusion is a euphemism for dualistic thought; that is, self / object fixation and grasping. It is not present in Rigpa. That is the condition of sentient beings, Rigpa is the condition of Buddhas. Only difference. That is the meaning of confusion, as I have understood the tradition.

Endinsight: "to see whether things like "perfection," "nirvana," "the meaning of life," "the peace that passes all understanding," "heaven on earth" and so on strike a chord."

I remain again convinced that we are talking about the same thing. Your quote is exactly it. That is Rigpa. You just kant speak of it outside of the AF dogma. What is very unfortunate. If you look at the worlds traditions Taoism, mystical Christianity, Zen, Dzogchen, Mahamudra, Sufism, shamanism, and on and on it goes. They all have the same attainments. They all understand them differently. Assign different meaning in the context of different metaphysics. But the same experiences. It is only AF that has its absurd propositions, making it incompatible and exclusive to everything else.

Very curious indeed!

We/re experiencing the same heaven on earth, but using different incomparable language.