Matthew Horn:
To paraphrase Reggie Ray, Theravadin vipassana begins with 'chipping away' at delusion by perceiving the three characteristics in a particular meditation object [end paraphrase], whereas mahamudra/dzogchen points directly to the corelessness & impermanence of phenomena in the entire field of awareness. The practices converge at high equanimity, where Theravadin vipassana meditators must perceive the three characteristics in the entire field of experience, otherwise insight won’t happen, without exception.
I'd say it is a different path...
Mahamudra introduces the nature of mind as the inseparability of luminosity and emptiness gradually. In the four yoga schemes, in the first yoga of one-pointedness there is an experience of the luminous clarity aspect of mind. In the second yoga of simplicity there is an insight into the emptiness of mind (emptiness here does NOT mean 'fruition' but realizing the 'empty nature' of mind in conscious experience). In the third yoga of one taste there is an insight into the inseparability of samsara and nirvana, and perceiver/perceived dichotomy is penetrated such that everything (all thoughts and perceptions) is experienced to be mind or cognizant-emptiness. In the last and fourth yoga of mahamudra the trace of effort is dissolved into non-meditation, in the yoga of non-meditation there is neither a meditator nor an object of meditation. There are varying interpretations on how the four yogas correlate with the general Mahayana bhumi maps. Dakpo Tashi Namgyal, whose book I very highly recommend along with Thrangu Rinpoche's commentary, considers one taste as first bhumi onwards. Each of the four yogas can be separated into three sub-levels - e.g. lower simplicity, medium simplicity, higher simplicity, etc.
In Dzogchen, one is first introduced into the unconditioned clarity or radiance of Rigpa. Here one recognizes one's essence of luminous clarity, which is the pure knowingness of mind or experience. This is not yet the full entirety of rigpa, but it is a basis for practicing trekchod (cutting through). Without recognizing this unconditioned clarity of rigpa, there can be no Dzogchen practice. However, for those who have not yet recognized through the master's direct introduction, there are self-introduction practices like semdzins and rushan. When trekchod is realized (as distinct from merely practicing it), the Kadag aspect of rigpa is realized - kadag as referring to the primordial purity of the basis and its emptiness (emptiness here, again, not referring to 'fruition' but the 'empty nature' of everything free from extremes or any self/substance that can be pinned down). With Trekchod as basis one can start practicing and progressing along with the path of thodgal. In the path of Thodgal, emptiness is realized at 3rd vision and rainbow body in the 4th. In the path of Thodgal one also realized Lhungrub, which is natural formation, in which everything is experienced as an unceasing, unobstructed, self-luminous display of rigpa (rigpa = knowledge). A friend of mine Kyle Dixon who is a Dzogchen practitioner describes lhun grub in this manner: "Alive without self/Self a.k.a. autopoiesis a.k.a. lhun grub a.k.a. spontaneous natural formation a.k.a. auto-luminous". Finally, all the three wisdoms of Rigpa are realized and fully actualized and at that point one achieves the rainbow body.
The 16 nanas don't really apply in this scheme, they have their own maps that is relevant to their path. As for how three characteristics come in - in my understanding at the level of one taste there is a direct penetration into no self... in these paths there may be an emphasis on realizing the 'luminous essence' first, followed by its non-dual and empty nature. This is somewhat akin to Thusness and my experience.
You could conceptualize progress through the nanas as improving the quality of attention up to the A&P; this attention then widens in each of the dukkha nanas until it’s supremely wide & encompassing at high EQ.
No, this is not how direct path practitioners practice. I do not focus on improving attention at all, mine is a form of direct inquiry into the nature of mind until there is a direct realization. Take Who am I for example. By contemplating on this question, thoughts dissolve into one's source, one is directed into a clear and doubtless realization of I-I - a formless, all-pervasive and doubtless presence-consciousness. One realizes one's pure sense of existence or presence and it is unshakeable. But that is just the I AM realization. There is no going through a&p and so on.
Now for anatta, take Bahiya Sutta for example. I do not practice improving attention up to a&p before widening it etc before insight happens. I do not experience equanimity nana. There is simply contemplation of what it means by "in seeing only the seen, in hearing only the heard" until the very notion of a hearing apart from heard, a hearer apart from sound, a seer apart from seen is completely penetrated by insight-realization. There never was a seer-seeing-seen, seeing is just seen, seen is seeing, just one perception that is self-felt.
The practices are seemingly different for beginners, since Zen or mahamudra vipassana meditators observe phenomena in the whole field of experience (but for beginning meditators they'll be observing arising phenomena as attention shifts randomly between them, since formations won't always be perceivable as a whole) whereas Theravadins are more likely to deconstruct a particular meditation object (e.g. the breath). At the end of a path, the practices must converge on awareness of the entire field of experience (formations).
Why do you assume that every path has to follow the nanas? Do you think for example, the AF teachings lead a person through 16 nanas to fruition to gradual ascendance of four paths?
Now, I'm not suggesting that my path is exactly the same as AF - but I'm suggesting that there are more ways a person's spiritual path can unfold depending on how he/she practices.
If you recall, there was a thread in DharmaOverground where Daniel wrote about how the PCE mode and Cycling mode with its "attention wave" is vastly different. In PCE mode there is no "tunable thing"/"attention wave" involved, only the direct luminous immediate sensate perception.
You can say that my practice is this "direct luminous immediate sensate perception" without a "tunable attention wave". I have never practiced based on attention wave ever since setting on the direct path, and so naturally I do not experience those nanas, fruitions, etc. See: http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/600967
Much of what Zen and Tibetan Buddhism teaches does not deal with attention wave either.
If direct path is the fastest, what’s your rationale for working in vipassana and mindfulness? How do direct path and ‘vipassana’ complement each other, exactly?
Vipassana (the way I define it) only comes in after the experience in August 2010. So the entire practice shifted from just abiding as a formless Self/Presence to experiencing the pure sensation, scenery, sounds without a perceiver/perceived dichotomy.
However without insight that could hardly be effortless. Then with further contemplation that challenge the view of subject-object, self/Self, seer seeing seen, awareness-manifestation etc - non-dual insight and realization arose, and by anatta realization it becomes quite effortless. At that point there is no need to deliberately practice vipassana as all moments of experience becomes naturally 'vipassanic'.
Theravadin practitioners also experience insight observing sensate reality while walking among people. Sitting balls deep in jhana isn’t a prerequisite, although it’s debatable whether having a very still mind immediately preceding insight, as you describe above, is distinguishable from the 4th jhana. Can you describe exactly what was happening in your mind just before, during, and after the ‘anatta realization’, like really precise phenomenology: exactly what you were thinking or not thinking, where your attention was directed, and what you perceived?
I do not remember having a very still mind preceding anatta realization as I was not even doing sitting meditation but marching in my uniform, but there was some level of effort directed at penetrating bahiya sutta's instructions, a form of contemplating on what exactly is 'seeing', 'seen', 'subject', 'object' etc. I would say it was definitely not 4th jhana at all, not a jhanic state at all. Just contemplation in a normal state of consciousness.
In other words, you experienced no fear, sadness, or revulsion for worldly things at all the whole time you were practicing up to the anatta realization?
Not really a lot of it. I do not remember having experienced 'dark nights' or maybe I have misunderstood what it means. I was kind of a happy person.
What are the qualities of mind right before and after these fetters are broken? Does the breaking of any fetters, or the total elimination of certain types of thinking, coincide with the attainment of any of the stages you and Thusness describe? The nondual angle can be useful for describing insight, but what other ways of thinking, unskillful behavior, and suffering disappear forever after each insight? Which characteristics of attainments did the Buddha emphasize, and what might his reasons have been for doing so?
Interesting, that should be a question directed to Thusness as he is probably much more experienced than myself. I can only say that afflictive emotions have tremendously lessened. The seven factors of enlightenment are experienced to a certain degree, those are the qualities of mind after enlightenment (or even before, to a certain degree, but after enlightenment it becomes intensified).
From what I’ve read of the material you and Thusness have produced, you place huge emphasis on the nonduality, luminosity, and selflessness of an advanced practitioner’s sensory experience, without defining those terms precisely or presenting them in a manner that could make sense to anyone who hasn’t realized the same insights.
I defined them very clearly in my e-book. Thusness's 'must read articles' are also very clear IMO.
The hyper-circular arguments with Jackson Peterson on your Facebook group, basically debating whose emptiness is the emptiest, are symptomatic of the same problems. Word games will proliferate like tribbles, and beginners will have no idea what you’re talking about at all, unless you’re willing to observe and discuss your moment-to-moment experience in really precise terms.
Jackson Peterson is at the "One Mind" phase of non-dual in my terminology. It is super obvious to me and many others because we've been through it. He is always talking about I AM and One Mind. There are peak experiences of No Mind but no clear anatta insight yet. Again, all these terminologies are explained in my article http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/2011/12/experience-realization-view-practice.html
Here are some terms from your book and website that could use precise paragraph-long definitions: statements of exactly what they are and aren’t in terms of ongoing mental experience.
Non-dual luminosity
Non-dual Pure Presence
I AM (stage 1 and 2)
Entering into a state of nothingness (stage 3)
Non-dual (stage 4)
Anatta (stage 5)
Shunyata (stage 6)
Presence is spontaneously perfected (stage 7)
Consider applying the following descriptions of mental processes as they relate or don’t relate to your stages:
|The mind struggles to solidify a separate & permanent mundane self.
The mind struggles to solidify the “ground of awareness” (perceived as a boundless, utterly still and stainless field of awareness or background), as a separate, permanent, unchanging self-like thing.
The mind struggles to solidify the absence of any ground of awareness as a separate, permanent, unchanging self-like thing.
The mind struggles to reify the spontaneous arising and disappearing of phenomena as a separate, permanent, unchanging self-like thing.
The mind doesn’t struggle to solidify or reify anything self-like at all, which could be said to have various interesting effects on moment-to-moment sensory experience.|
See http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/2011/12/experience-realization-view-practice.html
Are you really certain that you, Zen, and Dzogchen meditators never experience cycling or fruitions, or is it possible we’re just emphasizing different aspects of our shared experience? Improved phenomenology and brain science will bring about some syncretism between paths whether we want it or not. If seemingly disparate practices and attainments converge in the future, how might those changes benefit beginning meditators who are unsure whether to enter the dharma because they don't know if attainments are possible or desirable? What practices, aspects of our experience, and benefits of insight could we emphasize right now to maximally benefit beginners?
I have never read about Zen/Dzogchen cycling or fruitions. Have you?