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.

That brains cause minds

I've always loved this hypothesis: brains cause minds. In some circles, brains are minds.

Well, if by minds, we mean thoughts, emotions, memories, and other objects of mind, I see no problem with this. Objects can and should live in the physical world.

But if we mean the awareness that perceives these things and everything else, then we get into trouble.

See, the existence of brains can be disputed. "How?!," you might wonder, having seen one in the flesh yourself. Well, do you know you're not in The Matrix right now? Or in a dream? Yes, it's farfetched, and Occam's Razor would suggest otherwise, if you needed to invoke it. But that would just give you the most likely answer. You still cannot know for sure. Brains may be the figments of some machine's imagination.

On the other hand, can you deny the existence of awareness itself? I know some people damn well try, but consider this: if you doubt the existence of awareness, how do you know you doubt it? Do you have a thought that says "I doubt it?" If so, how did you "have" that thought without experiencing that thought? Are these even different things? Have you ever had a thought that you didn't experience / witness / know / observe / become aware of? Aren't all thoughts and doubts themselves evidence of awareness then?

This isn't a trick. On the other hand, as I've recently learned, it's not always obvious. The Mahamudra tradition goes through a stretch of calming the mind (shamatha) before it is calm enough to even notice that it is cognizant. This aware cognizance is closer to you than your own face, and it's a bloody miracle. I recommend noticing it.

So if we contend that the brain gives rise to the mind, we're forced to admit that something whose existence is questionable is the cause of something whose existence is not questionable. And the smarter we are, the more likely we are to swallow this one, I think.

The subject-object divide

This is a topic that is central to Eastern spiritual traditions. We are told that there is no intrinsic subject-object divide. It's the punchline behind the joke where the Dalai Lama tells a hot dog vendor: "make me one with everything."

It's not that one becomes one with everything; it's that one notices that "one" was never apart from "everything." Despite the seeming insurmountability of this goal, the idea behind it is fairly straightforward. It goes something like this.

The subject is that which experiences, and objects are those that are experienced. Now, to characterize something, you must be able to experience it. You cannot call something "purple" or "big" or "drowsy" if you cannot experience it. Therefore, characteristics belong solely to objects. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that the subject is free of characteristics. In Buddhist parlance, it is "empty."

And yet, it cognizes. Or maybe you could say it is cognizance. But if that which cognizes has no characteristics, it's not a "thing" at all. It's not even an "it." That supposed dividing line has no-thing on this side of it: there was no division at all. Thus, cognizance itself belongs to "the other" side of the dividing line, the side which contains everything.

Since objects are those that are experienced, objects are nothing other than experiences. The thought or idea that there are unexperienced objects out there waiting to be experienced is itself just an experience.  And it is never verified by experience (go ahead, try to find an unexperienced thing). In other words, everything fit to be called a thing is itself an experience. And there isn't anything that's not a thing.

And yet these words are (probably) not enough to get you to deeply experience this realization. How do we do that? The methods I'm using currently are Mahamudra meditation and Greg Goode's Direct Path. The former basically asks you to rest in empty cognizance (awareness itself) without modification, contrivance, or distraction. Modification implies the existence of a modifier (ego). Contrivance generates hopes and fears about keeping or reaching a state, and hopes and fears also belong to ego. Distraction happens when awareness constructs a divide, by putting something on that side and thus something (ego) on this side. The feeling is of me thinking about something. Meanwhile, The Direct Path gives techniques to demonstrate the absurdity of the notion of unexperienced things, to help you experience all objects as awareness itself.

I'm not sure yet whether these paths will mesh well together, but so far I have hope. They seem not to interfere with each other.

The process

Similar to yesterday's post, I'll write a little about how I see the process unfolding.

1. Start with first principles.

What do you know beyond any doubt? Only that you know (or cognize, witness, experience). If you close your eyes and wait for a gap between thoughts, do you disappear? Do you stop experiencing? No, you experience (almost) nothing, and yet something knows this to be the case.

This is similar to Descartes' "I think, therefore I am," but even that misses the mark by presupposing an "I" and by requiring thought. Really it's more like "awareness is happening."

Next, notice your usual model of thinking about something like "I see a cup." It can be deconstructed into:

Perceiver (I) ---> Perceiving (see) ---> Perceived (a cup)

2. Investigate the Perceived.

Do you know there's a cup there, or just that you see one? If this is hard to answer, let me ask you this: do you know you're not in some elaborate dream right now, or The Matrix? No, you don't. Therefore the idea that there's a cup is a useful one (it helps you drink from it) but not a necessary one.

What you do know is that there is the perception of a cup, so we simplify:


Perceiver (I) ---> Perceiving (seeing) ---> Perception (form of a cup)

3. Investigate the Perceiver.

This one is a bit trickier. How do you know there's an "I"? Well, you feel it! But a feeling is just a perception. You've seen it (in the mirror). That was just your body, which anyway is a perception. I don't have enough room to explain this one in detail, but suffice it to say that nobody who's looked for an "I" has found anything other than perceptions, which all belong on the right side of the diagram above.

So now we're down to two:

Perceiving (seeing) ---> Perceptions (form of a cup, hopes and dreams that there is an "I" oh god let there be an "I"...)

4. Investigate the Perceiving / Perception divide.

What does it mean for there to be an unperceived perception? Where is it hiding? Again, it's like an unthought thought, which has the same status as an invisible unicorn or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Yes, materialists, you are die-hard religious fanatics when you insist that there is a physical reality "out there." That's just a convenient model, which is instantiated as... a thought, which falls under the category of "perceptions."

There is no perception apart from perceiving. The two are really the same. So we're left with

Perceiving

5. Profit!

Congratulations. You now directly experience the nature of mind and reality.

Now, you might think "oh, I do that all the time -- I'm very perceptive." But if you still harbor a suspicion that you exist, or that there's a world "out there" that must exist, then there's work to be done. Yes, there's a "bit of a lag" while step 4 percolates.

This is not just a ploy. It's really all you can know, and when it fully sinks in, well hello, Buddha. Do you cease to function as a "normal" person? No, you can still pass the salt. But you have lost the essential hallmark of "normal" people: we suffer (i.e., experience emotions like anxiety, worry, stress, hurt, ...)

With that little snag out of the way, you're free to function as you may long have suspected you could.

A to Z

Okay, I'll distill everything I've learned about how to get from our usual state to the "end goal." Hopefully it's correct, since it's what I'm doing :)

First: "shamatha," or calm abiding, is the aspect of meditation that is aimed at bringing stillness or stability. When one normally talks of "shamatha meditation," one usually means "you focus on something until your mind becomes still." That something could be a real object (a pebble), a sensation (breath), a "perceptual space" (mind), or awareness itself.

If done extremely well (and perhaps continuously for years), this results in a profound absorptive state known as jhana, where one can focus with extreme precision nearly for hours on end without the slightest whisper of a thought or distraction. On the other hand, it won't bring you to the "end goal."

The reason is that it reinforces (or at least perpetuates) the subject-object duality: "I am meditating on this." So, with a relatively still mind, you do some investigation into emptiness (sunyata). I know some would disagree, but the neo-Advaita Vedanta approach seems to nail it. Here is how it's laid out by the brilliant Greg Goode. I won't go into too much detail, because I'd rather you buy his book Standing As Awareness.

Pick an object and a sense modality (a cup, and sight, say).

1. Notice that "cup" is a concept, and all you directly experience is a form (a shape and color).
2. Notice that the form is not distinct from the seeing of the form. An "unseen form" is like an unthought thought. It's an absurdity.
3. Notice that seeing is not separate from awareness itself. There is no seeing living out there that awareness then picks up and observes.
4. (This one I'm introducing from Buddhism) Notice that awareness itself is an unidentifiable, indescribable non-thing. If you wanted to describe it, you could say it is "cognizant emptiness" or "empty cognizance."

In short, all objects are displays or manifestations of this empty cognizance, and nothing more. This results in noticing that:

• All phenomena, both internal and external ("physical" objects, thoughts, emotions) are of that same nature.
• "Mind" (as a "container" of internal phenomena) is itself just a thought.
• The sense of there being a "you" is itself merely an internal phenomenon. In fact, any indication whatsoever that there is a "you" is just a phenomenon that is reducible in the above way.

And thus you arrive at the conclusion that the subject-object divide is unwarranted. Now if you practice shamatha, it will be without all the division and reification ("I'm a real thing, you're a real thing, I'm watching you") inherent in the initial description. "All" you do is remain in this non-conceptualizing non-reifying continuity and let it fully blossom.

The tricky part (for me anyway) is being sure that I'm doing something more like the second and less like the first. I guess a good way to tell is, after practicing a while, see what your experience is like. More dual or less dual? More reifying or less reifying? And there are correlates of a less-dual experience, such as reduced suffering and heightened compassion.

Anyway, looks like I have my marching orders...

Edit: the "tiny" thing I've left out of this is that according to Buddhism, the ability to actually experience sunyata and anatta (emptiness and non-self) and other cool stuff depends on a lot of things outside of intellect, including motivation (both in the sense of dedication, and reason -- selfish or altruistic), karma, and a bunch of other stuff.