Has anybody read him, particularly "Standing as Awareness" and "The Direct Path: A Users Guide"? I am interested if anybody has applied his approach of systematic inquiry and how it has worked for them. 

I've read both. Can't remember much about Standing As Awareness, so I won't comment on that. I intended to use the "User's Guide" as such, but couldn't stand it. Found it an insult to intelligence. Although I like Greg, his work just isn't aimed at the right targets for me. Many of the things I could have learned from his books, I already understood; but the things I most wanted to learn from him are not directly addressed. (ETA: which is not meant to be a criticism of his work, just an explanation of why it didn't help me much with where I was at).

For example, I've never been able to understand how the notion of a global, unbroken awareness in which individual minds appear as objects, can be reconciled with lack of omniscience. If Consciousness is not individuated, and if that is my true nature, and if the individual mind is not the seer but is itself an object unto this global unbroken witnessing consciousness, why can't you taste the food in my mouth, and why can't I witness your thoughts? Where does that boundary of ignorance come into it, under that model? It makes no sense to me. I'm sure there's a simple way of explaining this to someone who doesn't get it, but I'm yet to see it. The closest I've seen to an answer is: when you understand, the question disappears. (Which may well happen, but hasn't yet).

I've found this (http://holybooks.lichtenbergpress.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/Teachings-Atmananda-Krishna-Menon.pdf) a much more helpful guide to the Direct Path of Atmananda (Krishna Menon).

But still on the subject of Greg, I was once having a conversation with him about actualism (www.actualfreedom.com.au), and I was trying to explain actualism's notion of the PCE (pure consciousness experience). Greg said that, to him, all experience is pure consciousness experiencing. I was about to object that, no, he didn't understand what "pure consciousness" means in actualist terms -- which indeed he didn't. But then I stopped and reflected on his meaning instead.... and was glad that I did, because it opened the door to a whole new way of looking at experience.

Greg also shared recent insights into emptiness of awareness. For example, he told me,

"It
looks your Bahiya Sutta experience helped you see awareness in a
different way, more .... empty. You had a background in a view that saw
awareness as more inherent or essential or substantive?

I
had an experience like this too. I was reading a sloka in Nagarjuna's
treatise about the "prior entity," and I had been meditating on
"emptiness is form" intensely for a year. These two threads came
together in a big flash. In a flash, I grokked the emptiness of
awareness as per Madhyamika. This realization is quite different from
the Advaitic oneness-style realization. It carries one out to the
"ten-thousand things" in a wonderful, light and free and kaleidoscopic,
playful insubstantial clarity and immediacy. No veils, no holding back.
No substance or essence anywhere, but love and directness and intimacy " - http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/greg-goode-on-advaitamadhyamika.html

That's really cool... and I suspect that may even be what Atmananda himself was talking about when he said that, in the end, even awareness is seen through. This may be Advaita's version of "the stick that stirs the fire". I.e., through the technology of the teaching, everything is subsumed by awareness... but when that process is complete, it too collapses into [choose your description]. The above is beautiful.

I can't say whether Atmananda is or is not talking about the same thing as I have not read his stuff myself (apart from Direct Path book by Greg), however I should also add that the emptiness insight is not so much about collapsing one pole to another, be it object into subject or subject into object. This is why Greg calls emptiness a "non-reductive non-duality".

Excerpt from http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/2014/07/the-pathologies-of-insights.html :

10/22/2012 9:09 AM: John: To me is just is "AEN" an eternal being...that's all. No denial of AEN as a conventional self

10/27/2012 2:48 PM: John: All is just him is an inference too. There is no other is also an assumption
10/27/2012 2:48 PM: AEN: That's what I said lol
10/27/2012 2:48 PM: AEN: He didn't see it
10/27/2012 2:49 PM: John: But other mindstreams is a more valid assumption. Don't u think so?
10/27/2012 2:50 PM: John: And verifiable
10/27/2012 2:50 PM: AEN: Yeah

10/27/2012 6:21 PM: John: Whatever in conventional reality still remain, only that reification is seen through. Get it?
10/27/2012 6:23 PM: John: The centre is seen through be it "subject" or "object", they r imputed mental constructs.
10/27/2012 6:24 PM: John: Only the additional "ghostly something" is seen through
10/27/2012 6:26 PM: AEN: Ic..
10/27/2012 6:26 PM: John: Not construing and reifying. Nothing that "subject" does not exist.
10/27/2012 6:26 PM: John: Get it?
10/27/2012 6:28 PM: John: This seeing through itself led to implicit non-dual experience
10/27/2012 6:28 PM: AEN: "Nothing that "subject" does not exist." - what u mean?
10/27/2012 6:29 PM: John: Not "subject" or "object" does not exist.
10/27/2012 6:30 PM: John: Or dissolving object into subject or subject into object...etc
10/27/2012 6:30 PM: AEN: Ic..
10/27/2012 6:30 PM: John: That "extra" imputation is seen through.
10/27/2012 6:30 PM: AEN: Oic
10/27/2012 6:31 PM: John: R u clear? Conventional reality still remain as it is.
10/27/2012 6:34 PM: John: Btw focus more on practice in releasing any holdings....do not keep engaging on all these.
10/27/2012 6:35 PM: AEN: Ic.. Conventional reality are just names imposed on non-inherent aggregates right
10/27/2012 6:35 PM: John: Yes
10/27/2012 6:37 PM: John: That led to releasing of the mind from holding...no subsuming of anything
10/27/2012 6:39 PM: John: What u wrote is unclear
10/27/2012 6:40 PM: John: Do u get what I mean?
10/27/2012 6:42 PM: AEN: Yeah
10/27/2012 6:43 PM: John: Doesn't mean AEN does not exist...lol
10/27/2012 6:43 PM: John: Or I m u or u r me
10/27/2012 6:44 PM: John: Just not construing and reifying
10/27/2012 6:44 PM: AEN: Ic..
10/27/2012 6:45 PM: AEN: Nondual is collapsing objects to self, thus I am you
10/27/2012 6:45 PM: AEN: Anatta simply sees through reification, but conventionally I am I, you are you
10/27/2012 6:45 PM: John: Or collapsing subject into object
10/27/2012 6:45 PM: AEN: Ic..
10/27/2012 6:45 PM: John: Yes
10/27/2012 6:46 PM: John: U r still unclear abt this and mixed up
10/27/2012 6:47 PM: John: Seeing through the reification of "subject", "object", "self", "now", "here"
10/27/2012 6:48 PM: John: Get it?
10/27/2012 6:48 PM: AEN: Oic..
10/27/2012 6:48 PM: John: Seeing through "self" led to implicit non-dual experience
10/27/2012 6:49 PM: John: Coz experience turns direct without reification
10/27/2012 6:49 PM: John: In seeing, just scenery
10/27/2012 6:50 PM: John: Like u see through the word "weather"
10/27/2012 6:51 PM: John: That weather-ness
10/27/2012 6:51 PM: John: Be it subject/object/weather/...etc
10/27/2012 6:52 PM: AEN: ic..
10/27/2012 6:53 PM: John: That is mind free of seeing "things" existing inherently
10/27/2012 6:53 PM: John: Experience turns vivid direct and releasing
10/27/2012 6:55 PM: John: But I don't want u to keep participating idle talk and neglect practice...always over emphasizing unnecessarily
10/27/2012 6:57 PM: AEN: Oic..
10/27/2012 7:06 PM: John: What happens to experience?
10/27/2012 7:10 PM: John: I hv very important deal that should take place within this month hopefully they go through smoothly...we meet after that
10/27/2012 7:13 PM: AEN: Oic.. Ok..
10/27/2012 7:13 PM: AEN: U mean after anatta? Direct, luminous, but no ground of abiding (like some inherent awareness)
10/27/2012 7:15 PM: John: And what do u mean by that?
10/27/2012 7:20 PM: AEN: Means there are only transient six sense streams experience, in seen just seen, etc
10/27/2012 7:20 PM: AEN: Nothing extra
10/27/2012 7:21 PM: John: Six stream experiences is just a convenient raft
10/27/2012 7:21 PM: John: Nothing ultimate
10/27/2012 7:23 PM: John: Not only must u see that there is no Seer + seeing + seen...u must see the immerse connectedness

Would you say that this collapse of the witness is equivalent to cessation in the Progress of Insight?

I did read The Direct Path.  I learned that thoughts aren't a self and I could identify with the background consciousness.  It's a bit like 2nd gear with Kenneth Folk.  As it develops as you notice more and more what consciousness can be aware of.  Yet we can cling to consciousness and have it appear as a "witness" or "meditator"..

Direct Path first leads to the Witness (distinguished into the 'lower' and 'higher'), then from the higher Witness it leads to what is called 'collapse of the witness', however it does not mean insight of anatta. It is nonetheless nondual.

http://www.nondualitymagazine.org/nondualitymagazine.4/nonduality_magazine.4.greggoode.interview.htm

"
    NDM: Can you please tell me what brought on the
"witness
collapsing" in your case?  Why do you think this happened?

Greg Goode: Well, what I mean by the collapse of the witness is the total dissolution of
the gestalt of objectivity and subjectivity.  The total cessation of the
sense of seen-ness and seer-ness, the falling away of the impression that
anything appears at all.  
 What I'm
not referring to by "collapse" would include the temporary
loosening of the subject/object dichotomy, as in "zone" moments, "sunset"
moments, orgasms, or expansive, oceanic feelings.  That happens to
everyone.  The person always returns from these moments, so that's not
what
I'm talking about.
In my case, what led to this collapse was enabled by a very solid
establishment in the higher witness.  And at the same time a wonderfully
sweet, loving immersion to the very question of the witness itself.  The
witness was very sweet and non-entitified, but it didn't seem 100% nondual.
I had no stake in this question -- it was like being drawn to light.  The
inquiry into this was like a lizard lying on a warm rock.  And it came to a
peaceful, joyful conclusion.
 This inquiry is not necessary, because the collapse will happen on its own.

I think John Wilde will give you a more thorough answer, but in short, nope: cessation in PoI is a momentary blip where all consciousness blanks out (followed by a majestic after-glow). However it does not permanently resolve subject/object sense (however, a momentary subject/object dissolution happens right before PoI cessation), for the most part subject/object sense remains intact after that momentary cessation.

Collapse of witness in DP is the permanent dissolution of subject/object dichotomy through non-dual realization while fully awake in non-dual consciousness.

Thanks.  I do remember now in the book him talking about how it deepens further on it's own.  But as you say there's no description of anatta like Buddhists talk about.

Yes, it's different, the experience of subsuming and deconstructing subject-object leads to what I call One Mind (substantial nondualism). Then eventually, it is briefly mentioned that at the end of the path even that sense/construct of 'Awareness' dissolves, but there is no mention of realization of anatta or emptiness. I reckon that is similar to what I call 'No Mind', and indeed after one has gone to the peak of One Mind, it is natural for one to start experiencing peak experiences of No Mind. Realization of anatta is another matter however. (Those wondering what I meant: I explained my terminologies in http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com.au/2014/07/insight-diagnosis-simplified.html )

Greg also said in my dharma group before on a thread where someone wants to realize anatta and hopes to utilize the Direct Path,

"Hi, this is Greg Goode, author of The Direct Path. Stop
reading the Direct Path. I'm serious. It's not about anatta, except very
indirectly at the very end. But very few people have the patience to
stick it out that far. Put that book down and anatta will make much more
sense more quickly. It will come into clarity both theoretically, and
experientially through meditation."


That being said, I still do highly recommend Greg's 'Direct Path' book - it can be very helpful especially to those who resonate with the Awareness/Advaita teachings.

Also, I personally advise or recommend the path of self-inquiry to those who resonates with it (personally I spent years self-inquiring that led to Self-Realization). Self-Inquiry leads to the Self-Realization (aka 'I AM', 'Higher Witness', etc etc) but of course my path didn't stop there.

How did you switch from I AM onto anatta without a noting method?  Was it just a bare awareness approach?

It is a direct mode of extending the immediate taste of luminosity in Mind (the thought realm, as realized in the I AM realization) to all sense doors plus contemplating on non-dual and anatta in direct mode (I incorporated pointers from neo-Advaita which was helpful in leading to One Mind, and Buddhism -- especially Bahiya Sutta was crucial that led to Anatta realization) that dissolves the construct of a background Self, agent, etc and led to natural, effortless, uncontrived experience of gapless direct experience of 'in the seen just the seen' -- just the self-luminous aggregates/elements/transience alone without a knower (this is not a state but a truth realized to be always already the case), and even that is just the beginning with regards to anatta.

That's where I seem to be stuck is that when I apply the Bahiya Sutta I think I'm doing it improperly.  I find that thoughts drop yet I need thinking to operate properly.  It's the thinking just being thinking that's harder to realize.  Though letting go to the aversion to a wandering mind really helped alot for equanimity.

Anatta is a dharma seal, so in thinking just thoughts, no thinker is always already the case. There never was a thinker, a watcher, behind thought... thought thinks and is luminous on its own. Any sense door is equally valid and plausible for this sort of investigation. After realization just allow the integration of all sense fields with this insight and continue refining the view. Having quality time to drop thoughts and experience the intensity of non-conceptual experience is also important, however, insight is a different matter.

Thanks.  It just shows that the intellectual part of the practice can't be done without.

Would you consider the the self-inquiry path and the POI path to be different axis of development? Or, are they fundamentally at odds with each other, or can they be synergistic? I am interested in both and haven't found much (besides Kenneth Folk's 3 speed transmission) advice on how to integrate the two in a mutually supporting manner. 

As AEN explained in his reply, the collapse of the witness isn't the same as a cessation... but the effects of these on our everyday human experience might not be all that different. I don't know. From what I've read here in the DhO, the effects of cessation vary quite a bit from person to person, but there are some clear common themes... in that suffering-inducing aspects of default-mode consciousness fall away (perhaps at different rates, in a different order, etc). To me, what Greg describes in the quote above doesn't seem essentially different from what Daniel Ingram describes... albeit with a different descriptive flavour (being a different person, and having followed a different path).

I dunno. From too great a distance everything looks the same. From too close up, important commonalities are overlooked and lost in the minutae.

Different axis of development in a sense which eventually meets somewhere -- as obviously, one is focusing on the luminosity and realizing Self right from the start (nondual and anatta comes later), while POI is focusing on the three characteristics of all sensations and for Daniel the non-dual luminosity and anatta only begins to appear in 3rd and 4th path, while I AM is bypassed. If you want to focus on self-inquiry then maybe just focus on that first. Personally I never went through POI path but I think it is going at a different direction.

As Thusness said before in 2009 in DhO 1.0:

http://www.dharmaoverground.org/discussion/-/message_boards/message/87075

Hi Gary,

It appears that there are two groups of practitioners in this forum, one adopting the gradual approach and the other, the direct path. I am quite new here so I may be wrong.

My take is that you are adopting a gradual approach yet you are experiencing something very significant in the direct path, that is, the ‘Watcher’. As what Kenneth said, “You're onto something very big here, Gary. This practice will set you free.” But what Kenneth said would require you to be awaken to this ‘I’. It requires you to have the ‘eureka!’ sort of realization. Awaken to this ‘I’, the path of spirituality becomes clear; it is simply the unfolding of this ‘I’.

On the other hand, what that is described by Yabaxoule is a gradual approach and therefore there is downplaying of the ‘I AM’. You have to gauge your own conditions, if you choose the direct path, you cannot downplay this ‘I’; contrary, you must fully and completely experience the whole of ‘YOU’ as ‘Existence’. Emptiness nature of our pristine nature will step in for the direct path practitioners when they come face to face to the ‘traceless’, ‘centerless’ and ‘effortless’ nature of non-dual awareness.

Perhaps a little on where the two approaches meet will be of help to you.

Daniel says that subject-object sense remains mostly intact after first and second path even after the momentary blip of cessation, only at the third path does it get significantly attenuated and finally, completely, removed after 4th path. Daniel also says that at 3rd and 4th path, although the cycles and cessation still goes on by itself, he was no longer focused so much on those states but began to look at something more fundamental and everpresent, which is the non-dual, immediate, centerless, luminous etc aspect of things in real-time. But that is not so much directly the result of 'cessation' or cycles or states but something else, being the characteristic of all experiences including and not limited to those cycles/states.

Thanks! This has all been very helpful. 

You're welcome. There's a chapter dedicated to self-inquiry in my e-book: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-e-booke-journal.html