doc benway

Thanks Kar3n!

You know it is not simply torpor because of the vibrancy and clarity. Letting the mind rest does not mean to fall into dullness, that is one of the two basic obstacles to meditation, it is not resting the mind. The other obstacle is agitation. It's important to make the distinction between mind and the nature of mind. There's a priceless teaching in the tradition I follow called the 21 Nails. The first chapter focuses on this distinction in detail. When I say resting the mind I mean to allow the thinker, the observer, the subject to rest. That resting is what allows awareness of the underlying nature, especially in the beginning. When the mind is not resting, duality is present. Yes, pure and impure vision are both the energetic display of the base. With enough stability and confidence in the base, all appearance can be seen effortlessly, at all times, as empty and vibrant... all is bliss. I'm not quite there yet... The way to "get there" is to rest the mind, to get to the point where no effort of any kind is necessary, which is precisely why dzogchen is referred to as non-meditation. One does not meditate, one rests, and meditation occurs, it's referred to as self-arising or self-illiuminating meditation (gompa rangsal). As the pure and impure visions arise, the mind is always allowed to rest hence the ubiquitous instruction to "leave it as it is." Edited to add - Sorry about all the Bön/Buddhist talk. If it's annoying anyone I'm happy to bow out.

The mind can play all kinds of word and thought games with it's essence, with non-duality - it's endless. Until it allows itself to simply rest. It was fun for me for a while, now it gets tiresome pretty quickly. When the knowing is there, no words are needed and none are adequate.

Yes, I can see how that might turn you off. From a practice point of view, rather than inhabiting an I that might interfere there is a letting go of the I and resting in that space/presence.

Lately I find myself using the term 'non interference' for wu wei.

It's made a huge difference in my life.

Quoted for emphasis

Yes, that is my opinion.

Practices themselves are a "doing" and as such they reinforce duality, and yet they can be a doing that is far more conducive to finding the state of "non-doing" than many other random activities we tend to engage in. While non-doing is the core path, it is quite elusive and to the extent our practices support our recognition of and practice of non-doing, they are worthwhile to me. Too many practitioners abandon practices before they are adequately prepared to go beyond and end up in a dead end. Not saying that relates to you dawei, just a general observation.

For me, this does not imply that someone on the path should avoid listening to music. It's not about the sounds, it's about the listener.

I'd be interested in seeing the source and context if you are willing to share. Thanks

Unfortunately true and has something to do with exportation to the West and the associated mystique and exoticism, not to mention the unfamiliarity with culture and language. It's far easier to deify a teacher than to actually dig deep into the practices and into oneself to see what is really going on. It also allows us to feel that we're spiritually superior without actually having to do anything. Easterners "get it" culturally. They deeply respect teachers but as representatives of the "word," as community leaders, as healers, and true spiritual guides, not so much as celebrities or superhuman. That's a gross generalization of course but somewhat accurate. I won't get too deeply into this here for fear of derailing a good thread but I'd like to say a few words about this point. There's a method to the seeming madness but it has not translated or travelled well. You're referring specifically to the tantric path. We don't see this so much in the sutric or dzogchen path. In the dzogchen path it takes on a meaning much closer to that of zen. In the dzogchen path, the guru IS the nature of mind. The living guru embodies that nature, as do we as practitioners. If one gets it, they see that the guru is no more or less perfect than they are. All is seen as the enlightened mandala. As Gunther alludes to in some of his posts and quotes, a characteristic of the nature of mind is that of perfect equanimity. There is no right or wrong, no preference or judgment, everything is as it is and all is perfected in that unlimited wholeness. This is essentially impossible for the relative mind to grasp. I think the tantric method tries to bring the student closer to understanding this close connection with the guru. Much like the zen master sometimes does outrageous things to shock a student into realization. It does not mean that relative reality is wrong. It's still wrong to sexually abuse a student. The guru can do wrong and make mistakes from a relative perspective and yet they still are of that Buddha essence. This is a very advanced perspective that requires a great deal of careful preparation to embrace and I'm not saying I understand it fully. I think that many Western students have rushed through to receive advanced initiations and teachings without the necessary preparation. It's their fault as well as that of the teacher. I heard a funny story about a practitioner who was hosting a famous teacher from Tibet. She was due to drive him somewhere. Knowing that he was perfect and omniscient, she didn't bother to bring along directions to the location and they had no idea how to get there. The guru obviously wasn't quite a omniscient as she was led to believe. The teacher-student relationship in tantra is extraordinarily close and it's not something that has been very successfully replicated in the West. I'm not so much trying to defend it as trying to share a perspective. It may not be something that is appropriate for Western culture in general. At the very least, teachers probably need to be much more selective and demanding of their students like in the East. Furthermore, unqualified and abusive teachers, like Sogyal, need to be called out and dealt with definitively and publicly, as should all abusive and corrupt people in positions of power. Sad and true. Precisely. I appreciate the dialogue.

Very good points. There is a lot of truth in what you say. Nevertheless there is a credibility and value in an unbroken tradition. at least for me. While you're right that tradition and rituals of transmission and initiation can and do cause problems, especially in the West, there is great power in deep devotion and respect. The key is that it must not be mindless, it must be clearly understood and informed. It is very easy to get infatuated with the exotic and mysterious aspects of the messenger and completely miss the message.

Such a loaded topic. I think the intent of the OP and title of the thread contain valuable advice. I have some thoughts I'd like to share. It's rare to come across 2 people who agree on the definition of enlightenment, let alone have a meaningful discussion about it in a heterogenous group of practitioners. That said, I can never fully know the experience(s) or level of attainment of anyone other than myself so I see little value in judging what others have achieved or where they are at. I certainly do judge, I try to be aware of that, and we certainly can tell a difference between those who talk the talk and those who walk the walk to some degree. Finally, we have certain expectations and assumptions regarding monastics. It's important to remember they're just people like us. Some have profound realization, others are sexual predators. We see a monk sitting in the 5 point posture or louts and automatically assume they are in deep meditation. They may be and they may well be thinking about football, sex, or food, or half asleep, no way to know. Anyone can have a profound experience of the nature of mind, very few are capable of integrating that into every waking, dreaming, sleeping, and dying moment, lay or monastic. I don't really see enlightenment as a destination or goal, more a process and direction that can be supportive of a fulfilling and meaningful life and death. Only officially the first according to Buddhists. The Bönpo lineage of enlightened masters goes back earlier. If we open up our definitions a bit, we can see that there have been many realized masters in many traditions that go back to the beginnings of human experience - just my personal preference. To postulate that whatever we are pointing at as enlightenment is restricted to a narrow, Buddhist-only definition doesn't work for me. From the sutric and tantric perspectives, there is a state to be reached and the effort required is enormous. From the dzogchen perspective, the state is already here and now in every moment, reaching that state is quite literally "effort-less." Very, very valuable advice. While I'm aware of my tendency to by contrary and critical, I'd like to over an alternative perspective. I try to be a bit careful on considering my spiritual practices as hard work. This already sets up an aversion, a challenge, an expectation of difficulty and unpleasantness. It creates a dynamic where I may tend to punish or think less of myself if I don't meet a certain level of effort. That can be very discouraging. Furthermore, my own practice involves non-practice: resting rather than doing, noticing the one exerting effort and letting that one rest, and so on. So this point is important for me, maybe not so much depending on your specific practice. While it certainly can be hard and feel like work, the choice of different words can change my relationship to my practice. We can call it joyful practice, healing practice (that's a good one), skillful living, resting in our true nature, embracing the divine, whatever... so many positive and supportive options.

So interesting to see this argumentative pattern in me... Thanks everyone for your dialogue and camaraderie.

My point is that conceptualization, even accurate or "correct" conceptualization can be an obstacle to direct connection. Direct experience transcends conceptual understanding. I recognize this is not an absolute but I encounter so many people trying so hard to understand with the mind when what they really need is a little time away from understanding anything and simply resting...

Destruction is not always bad.... I think it may be possible for correct understanding to be an obstacle. I appreciate your reply

I'm not very knowledgable about Vishistadvaita. Perhaps my views are closer than I know. Buddhism, Hinduism, Daoism.... just words and concepts. While I do find it useful to practice within a specific tradition for consistency, I also see value in looking for the common essence in the variety of traditions.

I do not hold there to be any underlying One so I don't think Vishishtadvaita would apply.

I often wonder whether there is any definitive correlation between practice and a true 'awakening' of the non-dual awareness? I suspect there is but some practice a lifetime and never experience that connection, while others have it spontaneously with no training whatsoever. A close friend had such an awakening at ~9 years of age. It's very interesting to hear her description of it. Similar in the Mahayana - I vow to liberate myself so that I may effectively assist others...

I once again will have to disagree. Whether we put currency in the relative reality or not, it is as it is and it is our experience for most of our lives. Non-dual experience does not involve "going beyond" duality any more than the ocean goes beyond waves. I don't mean that we should indulge ourselves in ignorance by embracing duality, neither should we indulge ourselves in ignorance by denying its presence and influence in our lives prematurely. Like you said, the truth of nonduality is always already there - our fundamental nature. We do not reach it by going anywhere or beyond anything. We get there by letting go - surrender - into our essence. And yet that does not negate the dual aspect of our life experience. If we are blessed with non-dual insight we have the opportunity to integrate the two truths. Perhaps with enough devotion and commitment we will someday be able to rest in that essence fully and permanently in every waking, dreaming, and sleeping moment until this body dies. That's my practice. Until that moment, I don't see value in denying that much of our life experience is that of subject-object experience. Far better to accept that aspect ourselves as equally real, true, and valuable and make the most of the opportunity it affords us. In the Bön tradition it is our opportunity to work for the benefit of others. This has two important effects - through the lens of non-duality we see that helping others is helping ourselves and through focusing on the needs of others we de-emphasize the primacy of the relative self, weaken it, and come closer to that non-dual essence.

I'll have to disagree with you on this point. Awareness is a relatively ambiguous word. All awareness is not non-dual in my definition, that is a very specific and special case. I like the ocean analogy, the nature of water is the same throughout and yet ever wave is unique and individual. The tradition I practice does a wonderful job of exploring and describing the differences between mind and its essence. Both have the characteristics of awareness but both cannot be said to be in a state of non-duality. If awareness was never not non-dual all humans would exhibit perfect compassion. That's not our experience. There is a beautiful scripture called the 21 Nails which describes the distinction between mind and its essence form 21 different perspectives. It's an amazing teaching and where I learned to apply the method of understanding through considering the converse statement. From the perspective of non-duality one sees that they have never been separate by so much as an atom. From the perspective of duality, one spends a lifetime deluded by the self-differentiation. Both are legitimate perspectives and to deny either is inaccurate in my opinion. The fact of non-duality does not negate the fact of duality and vice versa. Both coexist as the two truths.

Another factor at play in the arising of duality is having the capacity for language. It seems to me that humans distinguish the "self" from "other" as a function of language, at least in part. All living creatures need to be able to distinguish threat from asset but I wonder to what degree the distinction between self and other arises in living creatures other than humans. Do lions eat water buffalo because there is the sense that "I" must survive? Or is it simply a natural consequence of experiencing hunger and having the appropriate physical characteristics to hunt and eat along with learning from their parents and pride... Perhaps our primary distinction between self and other resides in our capacity for abstract thought. Abstract thought is predicated upon the capacity for language. For me, a practical and effective way to define duality is the conceptual discrimination between self and other. Non-duality is simply non-discrimination between self and other. This is not conceptual, however, it is experiential. Understanding what non-duality is has nothing to do with resting in non-dual experience. In fact, I suspect it may be an obstacle for many people. All speculation on my part. I'm not as interested in understanding as I once was although that curiosity and tendency to think and analyze is still there. I've found that, for me, my "understanding" of non-duality has little to do with questions and answers and far more to do with having adopted what seems to be an effective practice that encourages, cultivates, and reinforces a deeper level of non-dual experience. Over time there is more familiarity with that absence of self - other distinction. It gradually comes off the cushion and into action and interaction. I feel that it can be cultivated into a very high level of application and consistency. I also agree with those who emphasize the importance of things like devotion, surrender, trust, gratitude, and so forth. Those are the fuel and the context within which blessings tend to manifest. I've never seen this play out more clearly than in my practices of dream and sleep yoga. It's quite astonishing at times.

Even the most secretive of Buddhist and Bön teachings, dzogchen, are very clear and direct expositions of base, path, and fruition as they see it. The Daoist writings are far more symbolic and elusive - filled with metaphor and euphemisms. I suspect the Daoists wrote in that way in order to hide the meanings from the uninitiated whereas the Buddhists and Bönpos relied on the fact that the teachings were only made available to select individuals. In my own tradition, the dzogchen teachings were only passed down from one master to one student in the early days and then only to monks and lay people who demonstrated a particular aptitude and profound dedication after that. That was often determined by signs and dreams and so forth. With the Chinese invasion and occupation of Tibet, these highly secretive methods are being spread as wide and far as possible to prevent their loss. In retrospect it's almost like the transmission over time was a way to maintain these teachings, in a time when they were not as critically necessary, to bring them forward to the present day when they're desperately needed on a wider scale to avert large scale human catastrophe (my biased perspective, of course). Edited to add: In the dzogchen tradition the teachings are also considered to be self-secret, meaning that if a person is not adequately prepared or does not have a proclivity for them, there will be no understanding even if they have access to the most direct instruction possible. I've seen the truth in this. It's fascinating.

Unfortunately, there is much "Daoist thought" that is not Daoist at all... I think much of that arises from a lack of deeper understanding. Most Daoist writings are not very clear or direct and not very easy to penetrate. The very nature of the Chinese language is quite ambiguous and it is easy to misunderstand the original sources, let alone the translations into Western language which is far more concrete. In addition, most people studying and practicing Daoism in the West are doing so through books and similar resources without the benefit of a credible master to help them decode and interpret the writings. Finally, the Daoist method is not one of studying and reading and understanding. It is one of being, eg meditative practice. If one doesn't spend the majority of their time in skillful practice, all the information in the world is of little value. That last criticism (and all the rest) are equally valid for Bön and Buddhism, lest someone feel like I'm being sectarian.