Mahamudra and "fake it til you make it"

(I've asked Kenneth basically this question via PM, but would also like to hear members' responses)

I was struck by Kenneth's description of "fake it 'til you make it" because it may succinctly explain a major difficulty I've been having.

In Mahamudra, a common practice is "resting in the natural state." "The natural state" is sometimes also called "ordinary mind" (Tib. thamal gyi shepa), and is considered synonymous with "rigpa." So in essence, one is being asked to "rest in rigpa." Now on one hand, in a true recognition of rigpa, I understand that there is no experience of time or objects (as distinct from a subject). On the other hand, a novice's experience of resting in the natural state is (hopefully, for my sake) nothing like this -- and yet he is told he is doing it right. I've never been able to reconcile the two. How can one say I'm resting in rigpa without diminishing the meaning of rigpa?

And then I stumbled upon this quote from Kenneth in an interview:

(cont'd)

"You cannot simultaneously worry about your development and surrender to the absolute. So if you are going to start from 3rd Gear, people really have to buy in. They've got to understand that there really isn't any other moment than this. If it does not seem good enough, nonetheless, this is it. And so there is kind of a 'fake it 'til you make it' phenomenon to pure 3rd Gear teachings, where the teacher will keep insisting that this is it and the yogi will get a hint'”'OK. I feel a little bit of a '¦ something.' And then this understanding grows over time. As they learn to surrender more and more, as you say, maybe they are not really getting it at first. But maybe eventually they will. So if you're going to be a ruthless 3rd Gear teacher you have to accept this 'fake it 'til you make it' understanding and encourage people'”'Yeah, you are getting it''”when maybe they really are not getting it."

This sounds very much like what's going on. Does this ring a bell for anyone else? Particularly those of you studying Mahamudra or Dzogchen? I think if they just *told* me this is what is going on, I might respond better. As it is, I've been desperately seeking to understand how to resolve this seemingly huge ambiguity. And I haven't gotten any explanations or help beyond "don't worry." (Then again, I don't have a guru -- and to be fair, I've been told I need one).

Perhaps I'm unique in that understanding that it's a matter of FITYMI helps me. Or maybe I'll soon wish I hadn't found this out . (Or maybe I'm wrong and one really does need a deeper recognition of awareness than I have to even start practicing "resting in the natural state"!)

(And does anyone have a sense of "how much" one needs to recognize before one should try to "fake it"? Clearly *some* recognition of mind essence is a prerequisite, but how much? Can one put it in words?)

Hi MT,

Mahamudra is like playing guitar; it's easy if you already know how to do it. If you don't know how to do it, it's not easy at all. This is why I like to scaffold students into 3rd gear by moving them up through 1st and 2nd; at each step of the way, there is something to hang the understanding on, so by the time you get to 3rd gear, it already makes sense. (Unless, of course, you are one of the rare individuals who just "gets it.")

Hokai Sobol once said to me, "Mahamudra is the best practice. The very best. But it doesn't work." He went on to explain that it doesn't work for most people because they can't do it. Of course it works great for those who can.

I recommend that you nurture your interest in 3rd gear by first becoming expert at 1st and 2nd. In any case, triangulating from all three gears results in a very robust kind of awakening that doesn't come from any one gear in isolation.

Thanks a lot Kenneth, that helps! Still a couple of things I'd like to understand:

"Of course it works great for those who can."

First: how does one know if one "can"? To be fair, it sounds like I'm probably not there (yet), but what are the indications that one should even try? Would you say that there should be no sense of self or time during the experience? Or is it potentially fruitful to sit and let awareness rest gently in itself, even if there is a sense of "self" lingering around waiting to die? I certainly can sit and do the latter, the "only" obstacle being hope and fear (which, admittedly, are no small obstacles).

And second: it sounds like your approach (triangulating) is more robust and fruitful, but would you say that "classical" Mahamudra is largely a FITYMI approach? As I described, some manuals (e.g., from Lama Gendun Rinpoche) basically say "just rest" and let clarity find itself. Would you say this is in line with more recent "ruthless 3rd gear" approaches? And that it is skillful means to tell the practitioner that their resting in the natural state IS resting in rigpa? (Or, alternatively, have I just misunderstood the Mahamudra approach, and ALL "resting in the natural state" is non-dual, devoid of self and time?)

"... As I described, some manuals (e.g., from Lama Gendun Rinpoche) basically say "just rest" and let clarity find itself. "

Not the mahamudra expert, but did include the practice of "resting in the natural state" in my practice. Similarly to what Kenneth mentions, my teacher did not give me this instruction until "the natural state" began to be recognized spontaneously. Because if you tell someone who doesn't yet recognize the natural state to rest in it, they have to try to find it or look for it or conjure it, and that's not resting, thus it's one of those practices that one can't actually do until one can. That said, that's also true of other types of practices- that's why they're call practice - doing metta practice, for example, is a strain and an effort and full of "oh but I can't this isn't working" moments until eventually one recognizes that compassion/loving-kindness simply already always is. The recognition comes in fits and starts, and then becomes more pervasive. And then it's just an acknowledgement of what's true rather than an aspiration. FITYMI.

Thank you. I think I'm doing a bad job of asking my question (or else I'm just dense!). Specifically what I am still missing is:

> Because if you tell someone who doesn't yet recognize the natural state to rest in it, they have to try to find it or look for it or conjure it, and that's not resting

When it is said that someone recognizes the natural state, does this imply that they recognize an experience in which there is no self (and no time, no duality)? When you say that the natural state began to be recognized spontaneously, does this mean that there were flashes of non-duality? And that this was the point at which the teacher advised resting in it?

This would serve as a somewhat clear marker.

Right now I can rest in "a" natural state, where I'm not actively contriving anything, following thoughts, or purposefully meditating (what is sometimes called "undistracted uncontrived non-meditation"). And by my reading, some traditions / teachers say that this is enough, without saying that one must *first* have an experience of non-duality (FITYMI). But if properly "resting in the natural state" or 3rd Gear practice implies / requires an experience of non-duality (non-separation from objects, timelessness, etc.) as a starting point, then I can be sure I'm "not there yet."

(And I guess I already have a partial answer to my own question: anyone *can* try to rest in an uncontrived, undistracted state and YMMV. But I guess I'm trying to understand it in the context of 3rd Gear practice here, in Mahamudra's "natural state", and in others' learnings.)

Hm. Is an "an experience" of nonduality required. I guess I'd say probably yes. Not *abiding* recognition of non-duality (what I personally tend to term "awakening" and might be called here by some "fourth path"). But I'd be surprised to meet a meditator who could even approximate this practice without having had at least some shifts in their practice that might be termed "paths," "openings," or "non-abiding glimpses of nonduality" depending on the verbiage and tradition. Partly because before that the typical meditator is too busy just trying battling with technique, time management, daydreaming and concentration, and partly because the recognition of anything resembling resting or a natural awareness or rigpa or whatever just isn't going to be evident at preliminary stages. But it would be normal for the resting in awareness to be intermittent/unstable/sporadic for some time. Kenneth's 3-gears strategy is rather useful in that regard. I didn't do that (I studied with a different teacher) but my teacher's instructions were not dissimilar.

Ah, thanks!

So (in your interpretation), one would first have some recognition of the nondual state (characterized by absence of a self-other distinction, a sense of timelessness, etc.), and *then* one might be advised to attempt 3rd Gear practice? One would then be equipped to abide in something resembling the natural state, with perhaps increasingly clear / frequent glimpses of it?

I've had a variety of "interesting" experiences prior to meditating, but none that I could identify or remember as glimpses of nonduality. So for me it would be interesting to characterize the experience of a 3rd Gear meditator while one is *not* glimpsing nondual awareness, to match against my experience. This may be impossible, but it's worth asking.

If one is not battling anything obvious in one's practice, but is calmly resting one's awareness without noticeable distraction or daydreaming or dullness, are there other easy-to-describe obstacles that one could look for? I've had quite a bit of experience with shamatha (calming) meditation, and my mind is rather stable, vivid, and clear. The only obstacle I can identify is a subtle sense of hoping for something to happen (such as an experience of nonduality, which is obviously going to block it). As the MM manuals suggest, I have (long before I became a meditator) identified my mind to be an empty cognizance, but that is not itself an experience of nonduality.

So although I don't recall having had any experience where duality wasn't present, I also can't tell if my experience while meditating is substantively different from someone who has had such a glimpse and is merely resting, allowing for it to re-appear. If it is at all possible, using words, for such a comparison to be made, it would help me immeasurably.

As a pragmatic concern, I'd say if your meditation is going as you describe, then just work with what's there and don't fuss about how it lines up with any particular theories or concepts. For me personally "resting in awareness" type experience developed naturally from "just sitting with everything just as it is" (which developed naturally from an earlier verbal noting practice) and was not divided by some sharp line. If I happened to be resting in the natural state, I was; and if I wasn't I was "just sitting with everything as it is" but there wasn't some notable experiential shifting back and forth nor any attempt to keep track of it that way. I also was never given the term "nondual" to use, so in retrospect I can say when I had moments of "oh my god it's all the same" or something like that that was what people call nondual experience, but at the time I just used plain english. So I might have written something in my journal like: "just sitting, resting in awareness, effortlessness, then a burble of thoughts, some body pain, frustration". The natural state includes everything else that comes up, so isn't necessarily (especially later on) something that's "there" and then "not there", though at first that might be how it is experienced. Probably a good way to be clear about it is that the natural state is always effortless. A useful pointer my teacher offered was "how much effort does it take to be aware?" I know I'm not exactly answering your questions, but that's the best I can do at the moment! (edited for grammar)

Anyone here do 3rd gear practice before 2nd or 3rd path? When? Curious if my take on it is consistent with others?

Interesting!

> A useful pointer my teacher offered was "how much effort does it take to be aware?"

For me it takes no *noticeable* effort to be aware, and awareness seems to be resting in itself. But given that I don't have moments of "oh my god it's all the same" it's possible that there's some tiny clinging there that has to fall away before this can happen. If so, instructions to stop expecting anything make perfect sense. But then instructions that say you _must_ have a clear glimpse before attempting this do not. Oh well, I guess that's what I get for mixing traditions

FWIW --

My experience was that 3rd gear (non-dual awareness) found me - I did not find it. It just appeared one day while I was on a plane, looking out the window. I had been listening very intently for a few weeks to a series of Christopher Titmuss podcasts and had managed to get extremely focused, and extremely frustrated, by not being able to grok what he was talking about when he was referring rather coyly to "that place in between subject and object." I was at that time past stream entry, no further. When it appeared there was no experiencer, no experienced, just IS. I have since been referring to it as IS because words fail. Even that one word spoils the thing. It did not come upon me slowly, sneak up on me, nor did I slowly train myself to find it or experience it. One moment was like all those preceding it, the next moment... just IS. I humbly theorize that the mental conundrum I was struggling with somehow ripped mind wide open, but that's probably just BS. I really have no idea of cause and effect in regard to what happened.

I had the experience validated by a Zen teacher who is awakened,and have been able to compare it with others who have similar experience.

Awesome, thanks for sharing! Indeed it is hard to identify cause and effect, but your story matches others I've come across. When one's mind is relatively calm and supple already, and directs itself to such questions as "who/what am I?", "where is the gap between subject and object?", etc., it seems one is more likely to "pop."

I probably haven't attained stream entry (although I have no idea), but given that my mind isn't plagued by random wandering throughout the day, but is instead calm, stable, and vivid, and that I have long marveled at the recognition that awareness is empty cognizance, perhaps all that's left for me to "pop" is careful investigation of questions like those.

Would love to hear if others have different opinions (such as other prerequisites to consider). I will certainly take Kenneth's suggestion to heart and try to deepen my first / second gear practice.

I don't really know what I'm talking about... but it seems like the closest I've felt to what seems like 3rd gear is just by noticing how everything just is, everything is already present. That's it. It doesn't seem like something that would lead to a "pop". It seems like it's own answer.

I think just living "awareness is empty cognizance" is 3rd gear.

I have no credentials for making any of these statements...

"Anyone here do 3rd gear practice before 2nd or 3rd path? When? Curious if my take on it is consistent with others?"

Me.

Your experience in your last post above is almost exactly like mine.

jack

I ran accross an old post by Jackson that is relevant to some of this conversation, To quote some lines from it:

"In other words, if you want to discover your true nature as primordial awareness, try practicing the techniques that the non-dual guys and gals do. Let go of your assumptions and just give it a shot. I'm not saying you'll experience anything, or that you'll change camps. But it's the only way to find out."

jack

> I think just living "awareness is empty cognizance" is 3rd gear.

This is what I've been trying to convince myself, but recent evidence has dissuaded me from this interpretation. That is, unless "awareness" in your sentence is free from all dualities. As it is, I experience objects as being real, solid entities as separate from this "subject," and experience time to actually flow. I've never had an experience to the contrary, and several sources indicate that this is a prerequisite for "proper" practice.

"In other words, if you want to discover your true nature as primordial awareness, try practicing the techniques that the non-dual guys and gals do. Let go of your assumptions and just give it a shot. I'm not saying you'll experience anything, or that you'll change camps. But it's the only way to find out."

Thanks, that's a useful quote. I dug up the thread in which he said it, too. What's funny is that I'm currently following Adyashanti, and his approach seems to basically be "rest in the natural state" minus the requirement of having recognized rigpa first. It's sort of heretical Mahamudra, which is also why I'm not getting much love at traditional Buddhist forums. My hope is that combining this with inquiry (which is also part of Adya's path) will produce the "pop" I seem to be so desperately seeking (with great irony, it being my primary obstacle).

"> I think just living "awareness is empty cognizance" is 3rd gear.

This is what I've been trying to convince myself, but recent evidence has dissuaded me from this interpretation. That is, unless "awareness" in your sentence is free from all dualities. "

Here's a question for you: why do you call it "empty cognizance" instead of "cognizance"?

"Here's a question for you: why do you call it "empty cognizance" instead of "cognizance"?"

An excellent question. I call it that because "it" has no discernable qualities other than this cognizance. And yet it feels like the subject in a world of objects.

But more to the point, my mahamudra background has made me do investigation to be sure it is empty of characteristics, and they call it an empty cognizance.

"An excellent question. I call it that because "it" has no discernable qualities other than this cognizance. And yet it feels like the subject in a world of objects.

But more to the point, my mahamudra background has made me do investigation to be sure it is empty of characteristics, and they call it an empty cognizance."

How did you finally know when to stop investigating? When were you were sure it was empty of characteristics?

"How did you finally know when to stop investigating? When were you were sure it was empty of characteristics?"

I guess I stopped after the traditional Mahamudra questions: www.mahamudracenter.org/MMCMemberMeditat...de.htm#_Toc420995640

It was already obvious that mind has no shape, size, color, form, location, etc. No physical characteristics. I guess I still harbor the subtle sense that it does things like "decide" (e.g., where to direct the attention), even though I can't find anything that I can label a "decision." I'm probably still attributing intention to it.

When it's resting in itself, it feels like intention and decision are out of operation.

You could bring that to your daily sitting practice. If "it rests in itself" just rest. If there is any movement in the mind, use something like 1st gear to label the movements of the mind or other sensations, experiences ("attention, intention, deciding, wanting, thought" or whatever). That might help refocus your practice in a productive way.

"You could bring that to your daily sitting practice. If "it rests in itself" just rest. If there is any movement in the mind, use something like 1st gear to label the movements of the mind or other sensations, experiences ("attention, intention, deciding, wanting, thought" or whatever). That might help refocus your practice in a productive way."

Yes, thanks, that sounds reasonable. I think I've been hung up on recognizing rigpa due to quotes like these:

"The crucial difference between fruitless states of meditation and true meditation is the presence of this awake and relaxed self-awareness of the mind, because only in this state of recollection is it possible for our mind to change over from mere mental calm to intuitive insight into its true nature." -- Lama Gendun Rinpoche

"Under all different circumstance, in meditation and post-meditation, maintain mindfulness. Mindfulness of what? Mindfulness of ordinary mind. Is this not just like a non-practitioner at the time? Yes, if that non-practitioner is mindful. However, something continues into this practice, like a spice flavors an entire bowl of cereal, something very subtle continues to operate. This little something makes all the difference." -- Mahamudra Meditation Manual

"In the beginning, when we start this training, the master will say, 'Look into your mind! Look into your mind!' This watchfulness is necessary until you are used to it. Once that has happened you don't need to look here or there. You have caught the '˜scent' of the nature of mind." -- Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche

Basically, my hang up has been on crossing this subtle but crucial threshold everyone keeps talking about, or making sure I'm at least aimed right. Resting I can do