Mahamudra and neo-Advaita: meeting in the middle?

Hello!

I find myself drawn to Mahamudra. It feels natural for me to let my empty cognizance be as it is, and so that is my main practice. I haven't received a pointing-out instruction, so I can't be sure I've ever recognized rigpa... but I suspect I have.

I recently read Greg Goode's "Standing As Awareness" (and part of his companion book, "The Direct Path"). Brilliant work, I must say. Part of the neo-Advaita tradition. In it, he gives lots of practices on how to observe reality so that it starts seeming less separate from awareness. Loosened the chains of objective reality for me.

So, while practicing Mahamudra, I'm not generating any thoughts about how the "external" world is separated from awareness itself, but the sense is there. I'm thinking that between sessions (insofar as there are still sessions... I don't have a firm dividing line) it's useful to further "loosen the chains" by practicing Greg's suggestions.

From the pure Mahamudra instructions, there's not a lot of talk about how to go about recognizing that perceptions are made of rigpa. So instinctively, it feels like these two approaches are complementary, and will meet in the middle. On one hand, I just let awareness rest in itself. On the other, I "deconstruct" things from their own side. I know that the two traditions, as a whole, are complete in and of themselves. But this Frankenstein approach seems useful.

Does anyone have any advice on this? Anyone ever tried it? Anyone advise against this particular mix-and-match?

(Actually, come to think of it, I already see one danger: in Mahamudra / Dzogchen, they ask you repeatedly to notice that awareness is like space. In Greg's approach, you are repeatedly reminded that awareness has no physical characteristics. This feels like toggling.)

I'm currently playing around in this area - no clear results to share.

I have also been mixing in this practice to allow experience to destroy me:

awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/11/...no-cold-or-heat.html

hmm... Greg's sounds a lot better, if you start identifying awareness as something then you always have to get back to a certain mindstate or cultivate more of a certain sensation, but if you recognize that awareness is no different than everything you perceive then you are free despite conditions and can recognize that freedom simply by noticing that you have the *ability* to cognize things in every moment.

Thanks Adam. Do you have much experience with Mahamudra / Dzogchen? I ask because I don't want to second guess what I've been told are excellent methods. Indeed, in Mahamudra, you do remain in the recognition of the freedom of empty cognizance (itself called "Mahamudra").

Well, when you put it like that, it is different. Noticing the empty cognizance might be the exact same thing as what Greg Goode describes... or it might be noticing some sensations of space or something like that. I don't really have a ton of experience with mahamudra/dzogchen so I don't know whether it is pointing to *actual consciousness* or if it is pointing to sensations which might be *wrongly* labeled consciousness. (what is conscious of those sensations?)

I know that Antero describes recognizing *actual consciousness* in this thread kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/thread/49...+Presence+Meditation
which seems like a better idea than noticing sensations of space/thoughtlessness/other experiences (rather than the quality of being able to experience)

So, maybe noticing that consciousness is like space is the same thing as noticing that it has no characteristics of its own. If you really think about it you can't imagine space and it has no characteristics. You might even notice that sensations of space are occurring in a sort of mental space which itself has absolutely no characteristics. Here is a relevant quote from Ajahn Fuang in the thai forest tradition...

"Whatever you experience, simply be aware of it. You don't have to take after it. The primal heart has no characteristics. It's aware of everything. But as soon as things make contact, within or without, they cause a lapse in mindfulness, so that we let go of awareness, forget awareness in and of itself, and take on all the characteristics of the things that come later. Then we act out in line with them '” becoming happy, sad or whatever. The reason we're this way is because we take conventional truths and latch on to them tight. If we don't want to be under their influence, we'll have to stay with primal awareness at all times. This requires a great deal of mindfulness."

Hi Monktastic,

For most people there is a developmental sequence. At first, it's hard to find anything that might be called awareness. Later, it becomes possible to turn the mind back on itself and identify what seems to be a witnessing consciousness. Next, that witnessing thins out and feels less and less like "me" and there is the sense of a pristine awareness that pervades and infuses everything but can still be seen as distinct from material things. Later still, it becomes tedious to take awareness apart from things, and the act of filtering awareness from form is seen as unappealing. At that point, things are just as they are.

The important thing to remember as you go through this process is that your own development is just where it is. You can't skip a step by knowing intellectually that there is a "right" answer. The various techniques given by teachers are, ideally, designed to walk you through the developmental process, cultivating and ripening your current understanding even as they stretch you into the next recognition.

Like you, I favor an eclectic approach that synthesizes instructions from many teachers and traditions. I find that triangulating among various practice orientations results in a robust kind of growth that doesn't happen when one viewpoint or practice is emphasized to the exclusion of others.

Thanks for the replies!

Kenneth, that's very helpful -- on other forums, to no surprise, I've been advised not to mix and match. Really glad I found your community.

The thing is, from about age 4 for ~20 years, I had frequent lucid dreams. In them, I'd marvel at the sheer bliss, clarity, and vividness of the awareness that seemed to be capable of such wonder. Ever since, I've sought an understanding of that experience, to no avail. Having stumbled into Mahamudra without a legitimate master to guide me, I've been groping around in the dark for some time.

So I'm pretty sure I've recognized rigpa before, and will be attending an online Direct Introduction by Namkhai Norbu tmrw night. Not sure how successful that can be, but what other way to confirm that I'm on the right track? Until I have a better approach, I'll continue to rest in my closest facsimile of what I think the "natural state" is.

I must say that I don't have any of the more "advanced" experiences that abiding in true rigpa would surely bring. As such, I'm following a developmental approach of raising Baby Rigpa (Tsoknyi R's words). And then it occurred to me that i could start deconstructing from the other side.

Nowhere else can I get guidance on this hybrid approach, so hopefully I can suss it out here. If you think 1:1 guidance is appropriate, I will spring for that.

Hi that's very interesting Kenneth.

What I am doing right now might be knowing intellectually that there is a right answer but at the same time I really am recognizing it in daily life and am feeling liberated by it. To what extent is it necessary to go through those developmental phases so that you can eventually work on what you know (intellectually) will eventually cause 'true' liberation?

I have not dissolved the witness and I am not even sure what the stage of "there is the sense of a pristine awareness that pervades and infuses everything but can still be seen as distinct from material things" even means... but I totally can still recognize the fact of awareness being not separate and being everything that one experiences and feel liberated in that recognition. There are quite a few teachers who would suggest recognizing this as the only thing one needs to do, you are clearly not one of them, so in your opinion, if it is possible to "skip steps" at all, how would one know whether such a thing will be fruitful?

I have often gone with the intellectually right way and eventually had everything pulled out from under me and been lost for a while, and each time i take on a more developmentally appropriate teaching I eventually go back to the intellectually right way and the process repeats (and yet there is some 'upward' trend regardless).

Right now, it feels like "this is the right way, the direct way, it will always be the right way, the direct way, and so I can just recognize this perfection here and now and forget about development" but I know I felt like this before. What to do?

I have basically been debating with myself how to practice for 2 years mostly for the sake of debating. I am pretty sick and tired of debating for debating's sake(which is a big development in itself). yet... I can still find people I highly respect on both sides of the debate so maybe at some point I should just flip a coin, or several coins because there a few permutations I have seen suggested...

Direct non duality all the way vs. Developmental Model

Stream entry through noting then Direct nonduality vs. full Developmental Model

2nd path through noting then witness till 4th then Direct non duality vs. Note through the 4 paths, direct mode, note self referencing then direct non-duality

you get the point hehe. Sure it would have been faster if I just started noting like a fiend from the beginning... but maybe if I had just trusted in direct non-duality from the beginning it would have been even faster!

adamhu,
No offense meant, but:
Stop the mental masturbation! Sit down, Shut up, Practice!!!!!!

B.

yea yea ok! I'll go with direct non-dual stuff