Reconciling approaches

I have a new challenge. I've reconciled (in my own mind, anyway) the instructions of Mahamudra, pieces of Taoism, Zen, and modern-day Advaita. At their pinnacle is formless practice: do nothing, and everything is done. There can be no object of meditation, no matter how subtle, because any act of meditating is conceptual and effortful. Of course, at the pinnacle, there can be no meditating because there is no meditator, but most instructions suggest getting there via non-meditation.

On the other hand, I think that Ramana Maharshi (a 20th century Advaitin) and Heshang Moheyan (an 8th century Chan monk) are both realized beings, and they have a very different idea of what to do. Moheyan's teachings may have been banished from Tibet, but Longchenpa and Jigme Lingpa hold him in high regard. Jigme Lingpa says:

During the debate, Kamalaśīla asked what was the cause of saṃsāra by the symbolic action of whirling his staff around his head. [Hashang] answered that it was the apprehender and apprehended by the symbolic action of shaking his robe out twice. It is undeniable that such a teacher was of the sharpest faculties. If the non-recollection and non-mentation entail the offense of rejecting the wisdom of differentiating analysis, then the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras of [the Buddha] also entail this fault. Therefore, what the view of Hashang actually was can be known by a perfect buddha, and no one else.

 So what was his teaching? From what we can gather (not much of his teachings remain):

Moheyan held that all thought (thinking and ideation) prevented enlightenment.

...
To rid oneself of all conceptions, one must practice meditation, trance, and contemplating the mind: “To turn the light [of the mind] towards the mind’s source, that is contemplating the mind.”

Maharshi says:

If one then enquires `Who am I?', the mind will turn back to its source [the Self] and the thought which had risen will also subside. By repeatedly practising thus, the power of the mind to abide in its source increases. ...

As and when thoughts rise, one should annihilate all of them through enquiry then and there in their very place of origin.

With my current limited abilities, turning the mind toward its source and keeping it there is still an act of meditation. It feels very different than practicing non-meditation, in which experience is not manipulated in any way. Maybe the key to the conundrum lies in this bit:

Question: And so rejection of thoughts is not necessary?

Ramana Maharshi:  No. It may be necessary for a time or for some. You fancy that there is no end if one goes on rejecting every thought when it rises. It is not true, there is an end. If you are vigilant and make a stern effort to reject every thought when it rises you will soon find that you are going deeper and deeper into your own inner self. At that level it is not necessary to make an effort to reject thoughts.

Question: Then it is possible to be without effort, without strain? 

Ramana Maharshi:  Not only that, it is impossible for you to make an effort beyond a certain extent.

So both non-meditation practice (I think of this as "fake it til you make it non-doing") and self-enquiry lead to true non-doing. The question is, how does one decide which to practice? Actually, come to think of it... zomg... Alan Wallace teaches a method from Padmasambhava, in which one inverts the attention back toward the source, and then releases it, periodically. The point of this practice? To break through to rigpa!

Withdrawing from all appearances and really focusing with effort, invert your awareness on being aware. Utterly relaxing, release your awareness into space with no object. Invert on your sense of being the meditator, the agent doing the inversion. Invert on your sense of being the observer or subject experiencing your own awareness, and observe closely. ...

In other words, Padmasambhava is suggesting cycling between the Maharshi/Moheyan approach and the classic "just rest" approach.

Welp, that's my epiphany for the day.

Edit: actually, it occurs to me that Adyashanti has said something similar before. He advocates non-doing as well as introspection. I'll have to go back and re-listen to his True Meditation series. That really nailed it.

Living the dream

We're so busy trying to "live the dream" that we fail to notice: we are living in a dream! It's true. Maybe not in the way Beyonce means it, but still.

Radical Dzogchen

Thought I'd post a bigger section from Keith Dowman's intro to Longchenpa's Radical Dzogchen:

Initiatory experience* is present in this very moment and nothing can be done to facilitate its advent. Any kind of preparation or fore-practice muddies the waters in its assumption of a goal to be reached. Access to the clarity and the zing of reality, on the contrary, is more likely to be found in an innocent pristine mind that has not been conditioned by the cultural and religious assumptions of a “sophisticated” tradition. Purity of karma, putative rebirth, guru-relationship, degree of meditation-concentration, facility in visualization, levels of attainment, and so on, are all issues pertinent to acceptance and success within a hierarchical cult wherein a particular ideal form of social and psychological behavior is a goal to be achieved; but to the formless experience of Dzogchen such considerations have no relevance. Striving in any kind of preparatory endeavor is an exercise in shooting oneself in the foot, or at least running after a mirage. In fact, to reach the point of relaxation in the moment that provides intimation of rigpa, nonaction is the sole precept. This perspective in radical Dzogchen is exclusive to those who have no need or inclination to exchange their inbred cultural norms and mores for those belonging to a more exotic or “spiritual” tradition, or to reject their cultural legacy and educational conditioning in an effort to change their psychological make-up. Recognition of our lived experience, just as it is, in its miraculous immediacy and beauty, without any yen for change, is the praxis of radical Dzogchen and belief in personal development and improvement, progress towards a social ideal, moral evolution of the species, and so on, is deviation from the pure pleasure of the unthought timeless moment.

* He clarifies earlier that this means introduction to the nature of mind, in which rigpa is glimpsed. This is THE crucial initiation into Dzogchen.

A return to the Source

I entered the above search ([a return to the source]) into Google, because it fairly well describes what it is I've been searching for all my life. I think it also matches what some religions might call "a return to God's love" or somesuch.

One of the results on the first page is from Shinzen Young, a Buddhist teacher. Read page 7, "How to do nothing":

http://www.shinzen.org/Retreat%20Reading/Return%20to%20the%20Source.pdf

"In other words,you don’t have to try to get to the Source—you just stop doing anything and wait for it to get to you!"

Then recall the Taoist phrase "do nothing, and everything is done." And here's a quote from the translator's intro to Longchenpa's Radical Dzogchen:

In fact, to reach the point of relaxation in the moment that provides intimation of rigpa, nonaction is the sole precept.

Recall that in Dzogchen, resting continuously in rigpa is equivalent to the full enlightenment of a Buddha.

And watch Tony Parsons here at 15:00: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GqpXmjxE2Q.

Q: So in order to come out of the dream, I have to do nothing?

A: No, no, because if you think you have to do nothing, then there's someone doing nothing. All you end up with is someone doing nothing, and that has no relevance to awakening at all. Because what you are is someone very busily doing nothing.

Q: So what can I do?

A: (Smirks, eyebrows raise, and shrugs with hands raised. Much laughter from the audience, and someone blurts out, "nothing.") I'll tell you what you could do, you could start a club. There's a guy over there... you could call it the "I'm f*ing pissed off club."

He's a teacher in "neo-Advaita," which is a somewhat maligned tradition for good reason. If you suck at it, you'll end up like character B here without realizing it.

But if you catch the fundamental gist of what all of these pointers are about, I can't imagine that you end up in different places with each of them. That's certainly what some (most) proponents of the traditions would have you believe, but I just don't buy it.

After all, how many different ways can there be to truly do nothing?

This experience

Are you aware of the experience happening in this moment?

Okay, trick question.

The experience isn't happening. It is.
The experience isn't in this moment. It is this moment.
You aren't aware of this experience. You are the awareness that is this experience.

Yes, you are this experience.

Resting concepts

Are concepts required for meaning and intention?

Thoughts seem to be what guide our understanding and behavior. For example, suppose you see a truck barreling at me. You think "there's a truck barreling at me!" (meaning) and "I better get out of the way!" (intention).

Two questions worth investigating are:

(1) Just how much thought is required in such a situation? Certainly not the full verbal manifestations given above. Does the concept "truck" need to be formed?

(2) What about for less reactive situations, where deeper thought seems to be required?

Is a conceptual overlay of reality necessary for survival (or for thriving)?

You know the computer in front of you exists "in reality," right? And yet, you cannot be sure that you are not living in a simulation (a la The Matrix) or an elaborate dream. How do you reconcile the two?

Is it possible to have a conventional belief in physical reality without having an absolute belief? Given that you can't be sure of the existence of a physical reality, wouldn't it make sense to remain agnostic about such a thing? Or would that somehow impede your ability to act normally? Could there be any benefits to such a strange personal philosophy?

If you were willing to give up conceptual overlays, how would you even do that?

It's pretty hard to figure out on your own. A few brilliant people seem to figure it out. Most brilliant people end up ensnared much more deeply than when they started. Trying to think your way out of concepts is like trying to fight your way out of quicksand.

Here's a brief outline of how it might be done.

First, where does the visual experience of dreams take place? Is that mental screen the same as or different from the one where the image of physical reality resides?

What about the other senses? Can you find a sense in which they take place on "mental screens"? How are these screens oriented with respect to each other? They don't seem to intersect. In fact, they don't seem to occupy physical space at all, so the concept of "orientation" doesn't make sense.

Now notice that thoughts, memories, emotions, and everything else we think of as "mind" takes place on a screen as well. Does this screen have special privilege over the other 5?

These six "screens" seem to be subdivisions of a larger "space" in which all perceptions arise. If you had another physical sense (say, echolocation, like bats), another such screen would appear. And just like smells are never confused for sights (unless you're a synesthete), the perceptions on this new screen would be distinct from those in all the rest. Is there any limit to the kinds of perceptions that could arise?

What are the characteristics of this "space"? It seems cognizant, or in other words, it illuminates perceptions. It is the perceiving quality itself. But characteristics belong to the realm of perceptions, not to the space itself. This space has no characteristics of its own.

This space is the nature of mind, sometimes called an "empty cognizance." If you could find a way to rest in the nature of mind, instead of on particular phenomena, you might find a way to rest the conceptual overlay.

Stages of meditation

Here's a summary of what I've discovered so far about the progression of meditation in various traditions. At the end is an idea of my own.

1) Shamatha with object

Sometimes this is done with a physical object (e.g., a pebble). Usually, it is done with the sensations of breathing. This is true in Theravada (anapanasati), Mahayana (Zen has "susokukan" as the introductory zazen), and Vajrayana has it too.

In Theravada, anapanasati alone is considered enough to attain enlightenment (from Wikipedia).

2) Shamatha without object, "with attributes"

This is variously called "shamatha without a sign," "unsupported shamatha," "awareness of awareness" etc. One rests one's mind without any particular support. This can be practiced in informal settings to some extent, for example while walking one might think "I am maintaining presence of mind." As such, there is still a subtle clinging to a meditative state, and a definite subject-object duality (I am meditating on something).

3) Shamatha without attributes

Sometimes called "released shiné" (by Dzogchen Master Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche) or simply "resting in the natural state." Similar to the previous, except there's no longer an explicit sense of resting on or in anything.

In Dzogchen, this is sometimes accomplished by first resting in shamatha (Tib. shiné), then investigating into "who is resting," and then releasing. For some time, one is able to rest in rigpa (which has already been pointed out by the master in the Direct Introduction, which is essential in Dzogchen).

In Mahamudra, the Direct Introduction / Pointing Out Instruction is optional. Alternatively (per Lama Gendun Rinpoche), one may simply practice by releasing all fixations (including the sense of meditating or a meditator) and rest in "the natural state." As one progressively relaxes deeper, one comes to know one's true face. Another approach (Thrangu Rinpoche, Vivid Awareness) is to do analytical vipashyana to determine that the essence of mind is a cognizant emptiness (that's the "who" that's resting), and then just rest in that. The key point is to abandon all hope and fear, all idea of something to get and someone to get it.

In this way, one practices "undistracted nonmeditation," where one's self-aware presence of mind simply sustains itself for some time. Over time, it starts occurring spontaneously while off-cushion, and eventually the barrier between meditation and post-meditation blurs more and more. At its culmination, one is spontaneously (non)meditating all the time, and there is no longer any sense of a subject as distinct from objects. This is the first realization of emptiness of phenomena, which marks the dawning of the first Bodhisattva bhumi.

How does this happen? Basically, all distraction is distraction from awareness. Since awareness is the (non)thing doing the "watching," this means that distraction is awareness distracted from itself. It is characterized by determining phenomena to be external to awareness, and then awareness entering into a dualistic relationship with them. This is what gives birth to the ego, and is known as grasping. As it becomes clearer that there is nothing apart from awareness itself, there is no longer anything to grasp, and hence no possibility of distraction.

This practice seems similar to Zen's shikantaza ("just sitting"), although without careful guidance one runs the strong risk of meditating (stage 2). This is also known to be a major stumbling block for those trying to practice Mahamudra / Dzogchen without guidance.

4) Sky-gazing

Sometimes called "mingling the threefold sky" or "namkha arted." This is an important Dzogchen practice to enhance one's released shiné. Basically, one mingles one's consciousness with the infinitude of the sky, thereby actively undoing the subject-object duality.

Here's where I try something of my own invention. In sky-gazing, one has to have a clear and unobstructed view of the sky. Even clouds are obstructions. Since that's not easy, I'm considering experimenting with the Ganzfeld Effect, where one's visual field is immersed in a white haze. One site describes the effect as "Ganzfeld creates the illusion of an open field of vision of infinite depth." Bingo! Typically this leads to hallucinations, but I suspect most people aren't practicing released shiné while wearing them...

So I'm going to build my own Ganzfeld Goggles (swim goggles augmented with glass frosting spray) and see what happens.