Relating Buddhism and the PCE

what is the process for cultivating rigpa?

Well, Kenneth did pointing out instructions for me, so I am basically tuning into what was pointed out again and again. It's sort of like turning towards the unmanifest that underlies all experience (and which the manifest is not actually separate from) and recognizing how ephemeral the manifest experience is (for example I am able to see how although an object appears solid visually, there is this vast emptiness underlying that image - as if it is a whisp of smoke suspended in air). So the tension that I am grounding in direct mode appears as this whispy, energy that is barely anything. It is no longer a problem in the larger context. Mahamudra noting might be a good, structured way as well - www.buddhistgeeks.com/2011/07/mahamudra-noting/

Hmmmm... what seems to happen is that there is a realization, a recognition or a felt experience of the emptiness of all objects. This manifests such that while they appear solid they are at the same time bereft of permanent essence, seen clearly as creations of mind, and ephemeral. It becomes obvious that what we experience all the time is a non-dual reality in which what appears solid is also perceived to be empty. Yet emptiness itself is seen to be full of potential, and thus form.

No doubt this sounds whacky but then it's not at all easy to put this into words. That's why some Zen sayings sound self-contradictory. "Not two" (the term used by Kenneth up above) is a great way to express it but that, too, sounds weird

About the base of the spine-thing:
I do a practice i call evocative noting, to get a look at something i notice as a vague sense. So, after noticing that there's actually a sense of "this place, this time", i noted that, and got an impression that this sense-of-a-specific-location-and-time is located at the base of the spine (actually, 10cm behind the base of the spine, but see note at the bottom). This time-and-place can then be sensed as an energetic pulsing, which (like with emotions) tends to negate it being experienced as place-and-time. This creates a sense of peace-in-this-moment, or perhaps timelessness. A couple of times, it has instead created a made the sense-of-place (sense of being right here), and the sense-of-time (sense of being right now, in a passing timestream where one is oriented as anticipating the future and analyzing the past) pulsate, which feels *really* wierd.

The above may be influenced by my energetic system being really really messed up atm, probably due to a 4-month and ongoing hypnotic anasthesia that i'm working on breaking (after i get rid of the toothache, hopefully).

@Kenneth: I think it's important to distinguish between the worldview of various traditions, and the qualities of the experiences that their practitioners tend to have. Actualism, the pali suttas, Theravada Buddhism, and so on are dualistic schools of thought insofar that they see suffering in some forms of experience, and salvation as something that does away with those forms. But the PCE, as an experience, is completely nondual. So there's a distinction to be made between philosophical dualism and experiential dualism. Nirvana may be a dualistic concept, but the one who finds it surely sees the nondual.

For what it's worth, I've never noticed that my opinion about things changed them in any way at all. Philosophical dualism? Philosophical nondualism? Just opinions about the world. Ineffectual, except that they may lead to different styles of practice in those who hold them.

I do agree with you about practice. The practices you've taught lead quite smoothly towards PCEs and the like. There's a continuity between these things, regardless of opinions that may place them on one side or another of some imaginary divide. Opinions are a dream; awakeness is real.

Do you see developmental Buddhahood as different from actual freedom (which is probably 10-fetter arahantship)? Apart from any difference, do you expect that your personal practice will lead to that (EDIT: actual freedom) at some point? (cont)

Also, from my perspective there are a lot of communication gaps about the PCE. I don't want to set myself up as the arbiter of which experiences are genuine PCEs and which aren't (how would I know????!), but I am trying to get everyone who's talking about them to say specific, clear things about their properties as they experience them, so we can figure out what it is that we're all trying to talk about. Can you give a phenomenological description of the PCE as you experience it, specifically saying something about the issues of attention shape bubble / attention bounce? If you can offer some insight into the issue of the "final resting places of attention" in relation to those issues, that would be even better!

Just to illustrate how problematic our communication may be...

Kenneth thinks rigpa is the recognition of the essential nature of mind, as is not the PCE.
Adam thinks rigpa is the recognition of the essential nature of mind, and *is* the PCE.
Chris thinks rigpa is an overarching awareness that includes everything whatsoever (so is not *specifically* the PCE).

When Kenneth, Adam, and Chris say "rigpa," they each seem to have a different meaning in mind. How do we know, without a specific, precise phenomenological description of "PCE," that when any of us say it we don't all have a different meaning in mind?

By the way EndInSight, I think your genuine desire for others to experience the amazingness that you have experienced is a wonderful aspiration. Likewise I would love for you to hop on my trip for a day (the "good" parts that is). Gratitude.

Orasis, as much as you might want to attribute my motivations to benevolence, you shouldn't discount the possibility that I'm just really, really anal about precision.

It would be a pretty cool thing to be able to show others what's in our experience. Direct pointing!

I don't know if pce is the same phenomenon as rigpa. However, I strongly suspect it is. Don't know fr sure though. Frequently humans mean different things fr the same words. But remain unconscious of this.

Forget recognition of the nature of mind or recognition of buddha-nature as a definition if it is vague or confusing. I would suggest the actual moment of recognition is anything but vague though. As clearly seeing the true nature of self or being is tautologically clear n obvious. The undue confusion may be the invocation of ontological propositions around what is clearly seen. We could just as easily say one clearly sees (vipassana) the empty n luminous nature of mind or self n the non-dual nature of experience. Reality / experience / self / mind always was n is non-dual despite whether we recognize it or not. In rigpa we simply recognize that experientially fr an instant or more. W out recognition, there is no rigpa.

(continued) edited for spelling.

To quote tsoknyi rinpoche in the restricted text ground path n fruit, 'only when there is no subject-object duality does rigpa arise'. Furthermore, 'when there is just abiding [in shamatha] n there is no insight, u have a dualistic situation w subject n object'. 'when there is a subject-object situation real rigpa does not arise'. 'Rigpa does not need support, does not have conditions on which it depends [as it is always present as the recognised true nature of reality]; it is self-arising'. 'Rigpa is directly resting in the view of unified emptiness n appearance.' 'Rigpa is the cure all'. 'Resting in rigpa is the antidote to drowsiness, excitement, anger, pride n so on'. 'Riga is the single sufficient antidote'. 'Riga has no fetters in [it]'. End quotes.

In this way we can see that rigpa is non-duality; that there is no subject-object dichotomy. That there is no subject-object fixation; n that rigpa is free of the afflictive states of the mind, which by definition arise from dualistic subject-object grasping / fixation. Rigpa is free of a self; n certainly free of a self that suffers. Rigpa is free of suffering. We can see Rigpa is the antidote to the fetters. Therefore the essence and nature of mind is present through all states n can be recognized at any moment in any state as Rigpa, but once the fundamental nature has been recognised, the mind is free of mental afflictions. This is because dualistic fixation has ceased. The mind is by definition free of dualistic fixation n suffering. The human is actually free in that moment. Therefore we cannot say that a person is in, or has realised rigpa, or has recognised the nature of mind when they are experiencing dualistic, afflictive mental states. I hope that clarifies my understanding n personal experience of rigpa.

Thanks,

Adam. Edited fr clarity.

I would say that 'Rigpa' is the knowledge (Skt. Vidya/ Tib. Rigpa) or recognition of the fundamental nature of the mind.

As an analogy to explain what is meant by nature of the mind, Tibetan Buddhism compares it to a mirror. Like a mirror the mind is essentially empty and void (what we see in the mirror is only a dreamlike reflection, while the silver coating is fundamentally empty), yet its (luminous) function is to reflect appearances. In this sense, they say that the world of phenomena is a magical display of the mind.

I would not say that the PCE (as described by the AF folks) is Rigpa. In Ripa the mind is not blank; thoughts arise and pass away together with everything else, yet everything is known to be a magical display of the mind. Rigpa is more like experiencing the world as a lucid dream. In a lucid dream everything looks and feel so real, yet we know that it is made of mind-stuff and is fundamentally illusory. The analogy also explains why dream yoga is tightly connected to the Dzogchen teachings.

In modern terms, we could say that Rigpa is the recognition of the empty and non-dual nature of awareness. Everything that we experience is only experienced by awareness within awareness (including waking consciousness, dreaming, and dreamless deep sleep, i.e., the experience of blankness, the absence of reflexive consciousness and memory), yet awareness is empty, as it is not a thing, has no shape, location, color or form. As the ultimate subject, it cannot be experienced as an object.

This also means that we cannot take awareness as an object of investigation during our practice of vipassana. Awareness is that which investigates the three characteristics of phenomena as they arise and pass away within awareness.

Alex, in a PCE the mind is not blank. Normal thinking is possible, albeit quite optional. If you incline towards thinking, then you think, and appreciate that; otherwise, you just appreciate the other senses.

I see your description of rigpa as a perfectly reasonable description of the PCE, wrapped in Tibetan concepts. (Read the AF site on "apperception.") Is it? Isn't it? Do you know? How would you know?

Richard says "Apperceptive awareness can be evoked by paying exclusive attention to being fully alive right now". I am familiar with this state that I have cultivated for years during intensive Soto Zen retreats. Some Zen practitioners call it "direct perception". We observe everything without mental comments as if seeing the world for the first time and, after a while something clicks and everything feels fresh and alive, like a ongoing present, a flow of the Now. One can think, but the mind is generally blank and fresh, wide awake.

Rigpa is not like that. Rigpa doesn't require any effort. The mind is left is its natural state. As such it feels very ordinary, reason why they also call it the "ordinary mind". But gradually, everything is effortlessly experienced as a display of the mind.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I can (or assume that I can) get in both states right now and do see/feel a difference.

The PCE requires no effort when you get into it, but the states that precede it (EEs) may require effort to stabilize in my experience.

The PCE seems very ordinary because it doesn't feel like anything (no feelings of overwhelmingness, otherworldlyness, etc.).

EDIT: Give a phenomenological description of the PCE with respect to the shape of attention and "attention bounce" (go back a couple of pages on this thread to see what this means) and anything else you think is distinctive about it and we'll compare.

EDIT: I personally would not describe the qualities of the PCE in terms of blankness or absence of thoughts and can't quite see why anyone would (unless the person's default state is one of worry / anxiety / mental chatter).

'This also means that we cannot take awareness as an object of investigation during our practice of vipassana. Awareness is that which investigates the three characteristics of phenomena as they arise and pass away within awareness.'

Hey Alex,

Thanks for the great reply. I agree with your point around vipassana. However, in the vajrayana of Tibet, vipissana is the spontaneous realisation or recognition of mind. We go from shamatha with support, then without support, then just resting in the nature of mind, and then the spontanious realisation of mind as vipassana, or insight in the nature of mind. There is no doing in the later. Direct seeing of the essence of mind.

However, there is some cross / political variation on this. Even in Mahamudra. Amounts to different lineages and their emphases. Or perhaps different practices to same end. So we have vipassana as the investigation of the appearance of mind like its colour, shape, thoughts etc as one form of vipassana or there is the other as I just mentioned above. Both lead to the realisation of empty and luminous nature of mind.

EndInSight, I was just ruminating when I posted about "rigpa." Please don't attach a lot of significance to the quick, brief comment I made as any kind of rigorous definition. I have had discussions online and in person with Kenneth and Alex and others and our descriptions of non-symbolic consciousness seem to map to each other pretty well. A few words posted here does not the full story tell. The effort to make all these comparisons and to try to get to some globally agreed upon canonical model is, to my perception, just another mind-driven need that has less value that we think it does. JMHO, of course.

I prefer being awake right now, as I've said before

Just to add to my last comment -- to the extent that we have the desire to say things like "this equals that" or "this thing is that thing" and "this thing is that thing but the other thing intervenes in-between," we're dealing in concepts and philosophy, creating schemas in our heads, and so on. Is this kind of thing fun? It sure can be! It can also be misleading, IMHO, and send practitioners into box canyons that are difficult to extricate themselves from as they've built an internally consistent world-view from concepts that when challenged actually fights back because one has become emotionally attached to it. I think Kenneth has called this "planting flags." . Maybe, just maybe, we should every so often sit back and just let things be. Accept them just as they are without judgment and classification, if we can. That leads to a very different place, in my experience.

Chris, I respect your viewpoint, but I also think it's totally wrong in this case.

No one here argues about the progress of insight. No one here argues about jhanas. No one here argues about 2nd gear. As a community, we all understand these things. Understanding them pulls the basis for an argument out from under anyone who would be interested in having one.

In the pragmatic dharma universe, people have been arguing about the PCE for years. Arguing, revising their opinions, arguing some more, revising their opinions, having new people join who restart the same arguments...isn't this a sign of a profound lack of understanding, completely and utterly different from everything else that people talk about here? How many people, for example, have stated that actual freedom is garbage, and eventually turned around to embrace it?

You're right that no one needs to make a map to be awake. No one really needs anything. Not the progress of insight, not direct pointing, not even teachers and teachings. But somehow we all seem to have benefited from those things. We have absolutely nothing like them when it comes to the PCE, as evidenced by the fact that so many people disagree and have disagreed in rapidly changing ways for so long. And it is a service to the community to get people to (now) recognize that and (later) clean up the mess that we've made.

With all due respect, there is no "right" or "wrong" here. I'm just trying to present a broader view, EndInSight, and I'm certainly not criticizing those who wish to pursue these things. As I said, it can be great fun. But everyone who reads these boards isn't in the same place and I'm pretty sure there are a lot of folks who really don't follow this discussion closely. And I think it's valuable to express, just every once in a while, the notion you yourself expressed, "... no one needs to make a map to be awake."

Plus... it really IS valuable to sit back and accept things just as they are, whether in addition to another practice or not. It's just another POV, is all.

I'm nervous to say anything here because recently I planted a pretty big flag. But I do think clarifying things for newcomers is important. And I've been here a few months, but I'm still new. So I'm following this thread with interest, and I admit not understanding a lot of it.

But I have a question for you, EndInSight, and anyone else who might care to answer. My concern is that the PCE sounds like a nice experience, not insight into the way things are. A lot of people practicing AF now were on the insight path before. I'm concerned that just trying to get AF without that training leads - - I don't know where. In other words, I don't just want to make myself feel better, I want to do what one of your participants (Gozen) said on another thread--learn to love, and I am not trying to be sentimental here.

Please don't interpret this as trying to argue. I've gotten into two big arguments on this subject already and I don't want to do that any more. But what I'm saying is I don't just want to be happy and harmless, I want to arrive at insight. So I'm suffering on my path here. And like a lot of people, I want certainty, and I want to know who or what to trust and who or what is snake oil. I want a great big boundary clearly marked. And I know full well that I want this and that it's not possible. But I also know there is bad stuff out there, and it pays to avoid that. So wanting direction isn't entirely wrong-headed. I'll end here.

Thanks a lot. I will need to study and train the PCE is order to be able to compare both. Then I will to give a phenomenological description of rigpa and the PCE and we will see if there is indeed a difference. On the outset, I would say that the PCE feels more like an altered state of consciousness triggered by sensory overload (as it is technically described by psychologists), while ripa is not an altered state, but the recognition of the empty non-dual and luminous nature of awareness and its content, moment by moment.

Chris, we will have to agree to disagree. Maps are good. That's a conventional truth, but it's a truth. I have a very strong opinion about this because, as I've said before, without maps I'd still be wallowing in delusion...and from where I'm standing now, that kind of existence is a form of hell.

About where people are at, I'd say anyone who's following this thread has at least a passing interest in the issue. And I've kept the discussion confined to this thread and to my own practice journal for that reason.

Alex, thanks for being willing to participate with an open mind. From my own experience, there are kinds of EEs that I relate to the description of sensory overload (in my practice journal, I described one as the entire sensory field being seen as an endless ecstatic scream). I agree they are altered states of consciousness (on one understanding of what that means). As far as I can see, the alteration in consciousness comes from the affective part that remains. No more affect, no more altered state, and that's the PCE. Very mundane and down-to-earth, though the senses are even richer than "an ecstatic scream." (Hard to give the flavor of it without extreme language, but the extreme language implies some kind of emotional, overwhelming, affective quality that isn't there.) But that's just what I think, so without saying more about it I'll wait eagerly to hear what you find.

I'm happy to agree to disagree!

Chris, I forgot to say that I agree with you apart from the issue of maps. Awakeness doesn't require maps. Awakeness doesn't require anything. That's a non-conventional truth. There's no reason not to be awake, as best as one can, right now.