there was a very interesting conversation daniel started called something like "again with the arahat,anagami rigpa thing"
and the impression on me was it was sort of a challenge to the ideas of
rigpa before arahatship
nondual vs. development
there actually being something like rigpa, as if this rigpa kenneth and his page often talk about is just a cool state that there making a big deal about or something like that.
SO, most of us here (or at least I thought) are bgeeks listeners, so Im sure most of us heard the discussion with the author of zen and the brain, for those who havnt here are two main points for this conversation.

1top down attention, 2bottom up attention.
top down attention being dualistic attention and bottom up being associated with some sort of lobe on the right half of the brian that acts as a sort of "constant concousness", "choiceless awareness" etc. it is subtler and can be aware of what are usually identified as subjects.

since this is a part of the brain already it does not really need to be developed to be used, "everpresent" I guess. this would be very good for kenneths side of the argument.
However I think the two paths of nondual/development cross paths where surprisingly I haven't seen anyone mention and that is in the later nanas before and around fruition, weather first path or later, the ENTIRE SENSATE FIELD becomes the arising and instantly vanishing subject object totality that is identical to what kenneth describes as his third gear, or at least part of it.

Im not for any particular side and have enjoyed the debate very much and just thought this piece was very good for the conversation. sorry if this was already discussed.
love,understanding and best wishes, Robert h. , aka ngakpanorbu

Hey Robert!

Interesting ideas for consideration. I'd make the point that a simple neuo-reductionist model to specific brain structures, functions and phenomenology is highly problematic and not compellingly supported, in my view - we just don't have the science to conclusively demonstrate such theories in any kind of meaningful manner. Western society has been well primed to accept physical and psychological reductionism as a general theory of everything since the enlightenment of the 17th century, to this day, there remains very large gaps that are impossible to account for given the needed evidence to meet the needs of an empiricist epistemology. It's easy to be seduced by a sense of security, meaning and control that we might derive from such certainty, and the implications for social and technological progress that might follow were it true. At this point, these models remain one among many, but simply get a lot of press given the secular society we live in, and the modern scientific priesthood that dominates it.

Practice on, my brother.

In kind regards,

Adam.

well, I wouldnt consider it only a scientific physical perspective seeing as how the dzogchen and mahamudra traditions stand by this as the only existential reality, I was just making a correlation to some more recent western discoveries.
Another thing to add to this dialogue that might support the idea of there being two forms of enlightenment is in the descriptions of the stages of progress in the mahamudra tradition, at the third stage (one taste) it is explicitly stated that( dan p browns pointing out the great way) that there is no cessation or dissolution. This is completely contrary the theravada four path model where the momentary cessation of consciousness is the only real indicator of having attained a path or not. however this could very well just be focusing (as hokai says) on the intrinsic qualities of awareness rather than the opposite side of the spectrum impermenence, no self, suffering. as kenneth says, cessation is always known, so since the mahamudra tradition is more focusing on awareness, one would still be aware weather cessation happened or not. what Im saying is, maybe they mean awareness does not cessate, even though there is nothing to be aware or aware of (would be a little bit silly way to speak of something). in that light both perspectives are speaking of fruition.
In my own experience, focusing on the I am or everpresent awareness leads me to a fruition very quickly (however right now Im doing a new dark night which is SUCH a let down for my super enlightened ego personality). But NO awareness or anything continues. But I guess since I know that, that would be awareness.