Relating Buddhism and the PCE

"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." -- JLaurelC

we should probably move your question to another topic. JLaurelC, but yes, this is a very legitimate one. What one's goals are in practice have a forming effect on the results one achieves, for obvious and not-so-obvious reasons.

I'll start a new topic hoping that we can weigh in on this.

EndInSight, I know what you meant. It's all cool and fine.

Laurel, I think your question is a good one, and very fair to ask. When I started meditation, I didn't want to get stuck in some pleasant state; I wanted to *understand*! So the prospect of a permanent PCE, which can sound just like some pleasant state, may not be very appealing.

All I can do is share my own perspective. I think the PCE is the final insight into emptiness. If everything is truly no-self, impermanent, and suffering, why would we ever hold onto it in any way whatsoever? No matter how clear this may seem to us outside the PCE, It's as if some deep part of ourselves refuses to let go, because it doesn't truly believe that the nature of things is empty. In the PCE, one lets go, and that letting go is identical with the deepest understanding of emptiness. That letting go is also identical with perfect happiness. As the suttas say, nirvana is the foremost ease.

Your questions about the path are also good. I want to clarfy: I'm not an actualist. I don't practice according to their method (mostly because I don't completely understand it). My practice is oriented along the lines of the pali suttas, which are as close to the original words of the Buddha as we're going to get. But I think nirvana is the same as actual freedom, and that the actualists have figured out a lot about it that the consensus on the pragmatic dharma community hasn't figured out (but that seems to be changing nowadays). So I take any of the advice from them that I understand and apply it to my own practice however I can. (cont)

As far as practicing actualism (or trying to cultivate PCEs) without pre-existing insight, I really don't know where that leads or how it works. I'm glad not to be a teacher, because I don't have to figure that one out. I consider myself to have reached the end of traditional, gradual insight (technical 4th path), and it does strike me that having done so made the transition to this new practice very smooth and easy. Lots of people with the same attainment seem to make fast progress, so I think there's certainly something good about doing gradual insight, as Kenneth teaches it, as MCTB teaches it, etc. first. I never thought much about actual freedom before 4th path, so for me the insight-first method wasn't a choice, just how the cards played out.

A friend who hadn't previously been interested in meditation turned out to be interested in this, and the advice I gave her was to aim for stream entry, and then assess where to go (in terms of cultivating PCEs vs. continuing the gradual insight path). I'm not an authority on this, but I'd say it's the best way to proceed.

As far as what you want out of practice, only you can decide what your goal is. From my perspective, having seen the PCE, I think every other kind of experience is a form of suffering conditioned by clinging (which is conditioned by ignorance), and the PCE is the way to the end of that ignorance. You can decide for yourself when the time comes. But don't give up on anything you're doing; the traditional practices help a lot, no matter what Richard thinks.

Chris, I think Laurel's question belongs here. It's directly relevant to the topic of the thread, "Relating Buddhism and the PCE." One common conception of Buddhism is that it's a practice aimed at the end of ignorance, not some kind of permanent happy state independent of that.

However, if your judgement as a moderator is otherwise, that's fine too.

"'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. "


You are right. I was only trying to explain what I mean when using the term "awareness" (that I personally displace) in a Theravada Vipassana context.

I did study a bit with Sogyal Rinpoche people, but my understanding of Rigpa (or its Mahamudra equivalent to the sem-de serie of Dzogchen) came from the step-by-step practice of Mahamudra shamatha-vipashyana and pointing out instructions/introduction to the nature of the mind following Dakpo Tashi Namgyal's instructions in 'Clarifying the Natural State' together with a few Dzogchen books from the Bonpo tradition.

Thanks to both of you. I'll be watching these threads with interest.

"
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 am actually encoring emotions within the body on a continuous basis since yesterday and will see where it leads me. In this respect, your descriptions are very interesting.

The problem is I think that the PCE is sometimes described as something that I know very well (seeing everything fresh and crispy, as if seen for the first time, getting in a state of flow), but also as becoming aware of consciousness without a sense of self, and sometimes as a heightened state where feelings and emotions are experienced as physical sensations within the body. For me these are three different things, but they are certainly connected.

The problem with Rigpa is that Rigpa is not a special state or an experience, even if the direct introduction to Ripa is often a powerful non-dual experience after which one is supposed to be able to recognize Rigpa in the absence of any special state or experience. It is more like these gestalt pictures where we only see the old lady. Suddenly, we recognize the young naked girl with a big "aha!" After this introduction (the first big aha!) it is just a matter of recognizing (rigpa) the young girl (nature of the mind) while looking at the drawing of the old lady (ordinary mind). This is why Rigpa must traditionally be introduced by a senior teacher who has himself been introduced to it, etc.

And here I am not saying that Rigpa is better or higher. It is just that it is very specific and it only found in Dzogchen and Mahamudra, as well as in some extinguished Zen schools like Tsungmi's Hotse line of Sudden Ch'an.

I was avoiding getting involved with this thread, mainly because there's very little I could add to it that hasn't been said already and also because I have nowhere near enough knowledge of Buddhism as a whole, or AF for that matter, to contribute anything worthwhile to the main discussion. This comment is specifically directed to Laurel as I understand where she's coming from right now, and I would like to be able to help put her mind at ease a bit if possible.

Laurel, the majority of this thread is pretty high-level technical stuff being expressed in tradition-specific terminology, and also by people with their own idiosyncratic way of describing things. Don't fret about not understanding it as very little of what's being said is relevant to your current experience or practice i.e. a pre-Path yogi currently in Dark Night territory. I don't mean this in any derogatory way, it's just down to the fact that getting yourself worked up about what a PCE is/is not will do nothing to improve the way you're feeling or practicing right now.

As for the PCE, it is definitely not just a "nice experience". Insight into the way things are certainly does occur, in my experience, and it is very revealing due to the complete absence of any "me" there to experience it. I have recently made the decision to pursue AF as I do not believe that what they're talking about is unique to actualism and I think it's worth further investigation. As you know, I've leaned more towards the anti-AF stance in the past so I hope that you can understand that I'm not trying to convince anyone of it's validity.

Basically, all I want to say here is that there's no point concerning yourself with the technicalities involved here when it will add nothing to your own practice. Stick to what works for you and don't worry about what others are doing. : )

Metta & Karuna

"The problem is I think that the PCE is sometimes described as something that I know very well (seeing everything fresh and crispy, as if seen for the first time, getting in a state of flow), but also as becoming aware of consciousness without a sense of self, and sometimes as a heightened state where feelings and emotions are experienced as physical sensations within the body. For me these are three different things, but they are certainly connected. "

Just FYI, there is a difference between the outcome of grounding emotions in the body and a PCE. When you get to stage 6, everything is grounded. During a PCE, there isn't anything to ground.

I was recently chatting with Ron Crouch about this...PCE-like experience is a continuum, which means normal people will have lots of experiences, probably everyday, that lean in the direction of the PCE. The less affect, the more PCE-like perception is. I have no doubt that you've had experiences in the direction of the PCE before. Perhaps even the full thing.

When I attained a PCE through formal practice, I was able to recall many experiences like it that I had in the past. Funny thing was, they weren't the experiences that I (prior to this) thought had anything to do with the PCE. So that was kind of a mindf*ck.

Thanks, Tommy. Curiously enough, I'm a lot less bothered about the AF question now than I was a month or so ago, and in fact the thing that has "bothered" me more than that recently is the clash between what teachers at IMS were telling me (don't concern yourself with maps at all, they're irrelevant) and what I get on here (I'm dealing with that, though). But I'm finding this discussion thread illuminating and helpful, and am finding people are bridging the big divide somewhat, even if I can't exactly figure out how. Your description of the insight value of the PCE is also helpful.

I know that pre-path Dark Night yogis are prone to doubt and all sorts of other hindrances. "Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know" (Job 42:3).

FWIW, I'm not a moderator here. I just participate.

"The problem with Rigpa is that Rigpa is not a special state or an experience, even if the direct introduction to Ripa is often a powerful non-dual experience after which one is supposed to be able to recognize Rigpa in the absence of any special state or experience. It is more like these gestalt pictures where we only see the old lady. Suddenly, we recognize the young naked girl with a big "aha!" After this introduction (the first big aha!) it is just a matter of recognizing (rigpa) the young girl (nature of the mind) while looking at the drawing of the old lady (ordinary mind)."

Alex, this is very cogent and agrees with my experience. I have at times likened this perception choice to a razor's edge -- we can peer over to one side and things appear solid and "normal," in the relative sense, but we can then peer over the other edge and poof! - everything is empty, yet full of potential.

It's about how we decide to perceive.

"I'm not a moderator here." -- me

Clarification:

I see now why you thought I was a moderator, EndInSight. Kenneth once gave me moderator authority for those times when he is unable to monitor these message boards.
I never use that authority unless Kenneth asks me to but... my profile does say "moderator." I had not seen that in m,y profile before. Sorry for the confusion.

Please carry on....

"Just FYI, there is a difference between the outcome of grounding emotions in the body and a PCE. When you get to stage 6, everything is grounded. During a PCE, there isn't anything to ground.

I was recently chatting with Ron Crouch about this...PCE-like experience is a continuum, which means normal people will have lots of experiences, probably everyday, that lean in the direction of the PCE. The less affect, the more PCE-like perception is. I have no doubt that you've had experiences in the direction of the PCE before. Perhaps even the full thing.

When I attained a PCE through formal practice, I was able to recall many experiences like it that I had in the past. Funny thing was, they weren't the experiences that I (prior to this) thought had anything to do with the PCE. So that was kind of a mindf*ck."


Thank you. You must be right. I am trying to ground emotions throughout the day -which is starting to become effortless- and will see where it leads. When I will start to experience full blown PCEs, I will be better equipped to discuss its relation with other states and Buddhist teachings.

Fact is that we are all pushing the limits of what has been described in Buddhist books. It reminds me of the ex-Carmelite nun Bernadette Roberts who discovered what looks like Kenneth's 6th and 7th stages of enlightenment, and could not find anything in the Catholic mystical literature mentioning anything like that.

This idea that we can "get beyond" our philosophical underpinnings, essentially find ourselves "out there" in a Never Never Land not covered by what we have always believed to be "true" is discussed in the latest Buddhist Geeks podcast, Jeffery Martin Session #2:

www.buddhistgeeks.com/2011/07/bg-225-the...of-self-referencing/

"
Alex, this is very cogent and agrees with my experience. I have at times likened this perception choice to a razor's edge -- we can peer over to one side and things appear solid and "normal," in the relative sense, but we can then peer over the other edge and poof! - everything is empty, yet full of potential.

It's about how we decide to perceive.

"


Yes, Chris, you agree with the fact that Rigpa cannot be compared to any experience, stage of insight, jhana or mystical experience is that it is not an experience, but only the recognition of the empty and self-aware (luminous) nature of ordinary mind, in the absence or any form of concentration, meditation, visualization, deep investigation or special stage of enlightenment. This recognition of what is already present in mundane ordinary consciousness vs a stage or particular non-dual experience might explain why discussing how it relates to other Buddhist paths is so difficult.

I experience an interesting state sometimes which I haven't been able to categorize. Might it be rigpa as the term is used by some of you?

"... i refer to a noticeably distinct state i enter into sometimes, though seems like i only distinguish it with any confidence when high. basically it feels like there's a shift into it, perhaps with a discontinuity (fruition-like cessation). the senses are different - visually, for example, i often notice that light appears dimmer than usual. what's weird is that 'being' is still there, except it's much, much less sticky - it seems like everything is slippery and just slipping away on its own. it seems like a great state from which to contemplate from. it requires some effort to maintain, not in terms of doing anything, but in terms of not doing something to exit from it. i haven't really observed the exit from it very carefully so i'm not sure what ends it.

i mention it because it seems different from an EE, having a noticeable shift into it, different from a PCE, as there is being, but seems to have some qualities of PCE... perhaps it is the fruition-attainment as ayya khema describes."

any thoughts? the best description is that everything is there that was there before, but perceived slightly differently, in a 'lighter' way in a sense, less slippery/sticky. quite subtle... definitely not a PCE.

"... in fact the thing that has "bothered" me more than that recently is the clash between what teachers at IMS were telling me (don't concern yourself with maps at all, they're irrelevant) and what I get on here (I'm dealing with that, though). "

this is one of the reasons communities like this have sprung up - are you comfortable saying more about this conflict? I think that a lot of us who have moved to new concerns forget just how crazy and confusing messages from "mainstream" dharma communities like that can be.

In fact - it may deserve its own thread...

@beoman - what you are describing may be a one of these states that allows you to recognize the nature of the mind. Yet, Rigpa is not a state but the recognition of the nature of the mind at it here and now, in the absence of any special experience or state.

To see what I mean best is to sit and allow everything to be as it is. No meditation, no concentration. The thinking mind may be silent or in movement, it doesn't matter. You soon realize that when you don't do anything the mind naturally settles in its own natural state. Thoughts cease to be a source of distraction and one reaches a natural state of objectless samatha.

Then you can investigate it and realize that everything that you are experiencing right now is happening to the mind within the mind (not the thinking mind, but what we would now call 'awareness') and that, consequently thoughts, perceptions, sensations and feelings are all made of the same mind-stuff. Like waves on top of the ocean, thoughts (an other phenomena) arise, abide and pass away within this mind-stuff. Everything that you see including the world outside, your body and your mind is a magical display of the mind. Looking at mind itself, you cannot find its location, color or form. It doesn't abide on anything, and itself is not a thing, nor an object. Both subject and objects are made of that and that is no-thing: empty and self-aware, luminous and void. When you learn to recognize it during formal sitting sessions, you then become able to recognize it everywhere anywhere. It is like waking up to realize that what we had assumed to be a solid material world is nothing but a magical display of the mind (regardless of the possible reality of a material world out there, that cannot be known as such anyway). This recognition does not require any practice, technique or posture. It comes naturally when we have seen it clearly. And this moment-by-moment recognition is Rigpa.

Since Rigpa is the view, the path and the fruit, there is no progression, maps or clear stages. The recognition is in itself the (philosophical) view, the practice and the goal. Yet there are stages of integration in the sense that this recognition gets easier and easier, until it becomes permanent and integrates waking, dreaming, deep sleep and ultimately death.

Now this is more or less what Dzogchen and Mahamudra are all about even if it is way more sophisticated. But we should keep in mind that if it is considered to be the highest teachings of Tibetan Buddhism it doesn't mean that it is the best and fastest method for everybody, proof of it the fact that people on this forum made much faster progress with hardcore Theravada Vipassana. But at a stage it can be an option.

Now back to the PCE and Buddhism...

Great summery Alex!!

Adam.

It's great to see a civil, useful, uncensored discussion on the topic happening here at KFD.

"this is one of the reasons communities like this have sprung up - are you comfortable saying more about this conflict? I think that a lot of us who have moved to new concerns forget just how crazy and confusing messages from "mainstream" dharma communities like that can be.

In fact - it may deserve its own thread..."

Hi, Ron,

I wrote about this briefly in my practice thread when I got back from the retreat. Here's the relevant comment:


"First of all, the teachers of the retreat weren't much interested in hearing my theories of where I am on the insight map, although one of them did ask me what I thought was going on when I told her about my shaking and vibrations. This was on the second day. At that point, I'd been battling torpor the entire time, and was finding it an uphill battle. She didn't confirm or refute my answer (that I'd gone through the A&P), but told me that any opening is apt to be followed by backlash from the hindrances, and said I might even be in for a whole week of spacing out, but not to worry, not to try to get back any particular experience just to get back to it. . . So I signed up for an interview with one of the other teachers. This particular teacher had a strong affiliation with the Thai Forest tradition and Ajanh Chah, and told me outright that he was extremely sceptical of all maps, advising me to retain a complete suspension of expectations."

That's it. If people think it's worth pursuing on another thread, feel free to open it up. I could say more about it if you'd like.

@EndinSight - After a few days of intensive practice, I am pretty sure that I am starting to run into genuine PCEs. At least Richard's description of apperception is a perfect description of the state:

"Apperception is an awareness of consciousness. It is not '˜I' being aware of '˜me' being conscious; it is the mind's awareness of itself. Apperception '“ a way of seeing that is arrived at by reflective and fascinating contemplative thought '“ is when '˜I' cease thinking and thinking takes place of its own accord '¦ and '˜me' disappears along with all the feelings. Such a mind, being free of the thinker and the feeler '“ '˜I' as ego and '˜me' as soul '“ is capable of immense clarity and purity ... as a sensate body only, one is automatically benevolent and benign".

And I agree that cultivating PCEs is perfectly compatible with Dzogchen and Mahamudra. As such, what triggers the PCE is technically a kind of forceful objectless 'Shine' (Skt. Shamatha), "evoked by paying exclusive attention to being fully alive right now". But when the sense of self dissolves, one can relax and remain effortlessly in this interesting non-dual state within which we cannot fail to recognize Rigpa.

At the present stage, I therefore do not see anything contradiction between the method promoted by AF and Dzogchen. The difference is more philosophical, considering that AF seems to be philosophically based on materialist realism, while the Dzogchen and Mahamudra are closer (but not identical) to the absolutist idealism of Yogachara Buddhism.