Gradual Path and Direct Path
Chat took place on 15th April 2011. Slightly edited.
Participant 1: So gradual method is more
stable, while direct method allows you to skip stages, but may be
unstable and disconcerting.
Me: You can skip stages (referring to
Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment) in gradual
methods (depending on which method you practice) as well. Means if
you practice Vipassana alone, you will not go through I AM.
Participant 1: I see. Is it possible to do
meditation when walking?
Me: Yes.
Participant 1: But it is very distracting. A
lot of noise. Scenery, movement, and heat even, these days. What
kind of meditation is best while walking?
Me: If you read Thusness's Vipassana
instructions ( http://www.sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/419870?page=1
) you would see that his instructions were given to 'Truthz' who
asked, 'john, how to practise vipassana in daily
life?'.
He also stated that you do not need to concentrate. If you need
to concentrate on something, like a particular object, or breath,
then you will not be able to focus on your other work in daily
living. It is not necessary to focus or concentrate in Thusness's
Vipassana. You just need to immerse yourself in sensate clarity,
whatever it is that appears at the moment.
Noise, scenery, movement, all becomes sensuous and delightful.
They are all part of your Vipassana practice. You must sort of
'trip on' sensuousness, on sensate actualities. Then even traffic
sounds become clear, incredible, wonderful, delightful.
Participant 1: So basically, just try and
immerse yourself in the sensations. But there are so many different
sensations.
Me: Yes, but at each moment, there is one
global sensation so to speak... if we do not hold on to separative
constructs. Not a state of oneness, but it is diverse multiplicity
being seamlessly experienced.
Participant 1: You can only direct your mind to
one sensation at a time?
Me: You don't have to direct your mind to
anything. It is best to let go of control and just let whatever
manifest, manifest in its vivid clarity.
Participant 1: What about traffic lights?
Me: Traffic sound is part of what manifests.
And what manifests is vividly clear, luminous, alive. It is 'aware'
of its own accord. There is no 'you' being aware, the sound is its
awareness.
Participant 1: I mean it requires some thinking
and awareness to be aware of crossing the road, etc.
Me: Then thinking and focusing would
happen.
Participant 1: You can't just let go, at least
not in my experience.
Me: You don't have to let go. What I meant was
letting go of contrived effort to focus on some particular thing
all the time. This is not necessary (unless you are practicing
something like mindfulness of breathing in sitting meditation). But
focusing, thinking, happens on its own accord according to
circumstances. You need focusing to cross the road, drive the car,
listen to a lecturer, etc. In any case, there isn't an actual
thinker. They just arise according to conditions. But before
realization we feel ourselves to be the thinker of thoughts, the
doer of deeds, the feeler of feelings, the seer of sights, etc.
Participant 2 joined the conversation.
Participant 1: So far from what I have
understood from your articles, the gradual path consists of three
stages. The normal deluded stage, then the I AM stage where you
feel in tune, interconnected with the world, but there is still a
sense of self, a sense of presence, a sense of substance.
Me: The I AM stage is the realization that You
are that Presence... and this Presence is the universal ground of
all beings and all phenomenon. But to answer your question, no, it
is not the case that all gradual paths consists of three
stages.
There are many types of gradual path, just as there are many
types of direct path. Gradual paths are any path that 'is like
polishing the mirror to reveal the luminosity' while the direct
path 'aims for direct realization straight away' as stated in my
previous conversation. Gradual path focus on the experience first,
the realization happens later. Direct path focus on investigating
and getting a direct realization.
For example, Michael Langford's 'Awareness Watching
Awareness/Turning Awareness upon itself, to the Pure Presence, to
Pure Being' - this is a gradual path leading to I AM.
Self-inquiry, asking 'Before birth, Who am I?' is a direct path
leading to I AM.
Vipassana is a gradual path leading to Anatta realization.
Whereas, contemplating Bahiya Sutta, Ven Buddhaghosa's verses on
Anatta, or Thusness's two stanzas of Anatta, or Ruthless
Truth/Ciaran's contemplation on 'There is no you, Look!' are all
forms of direct path leading to the realization of Anatta.
So in short, if you practice Vipassana, you do not enter I AM.
You will just realize Anatta.
Participant 2: I heard of this term, 'non-dual
luminosity'. Exactly what does it refer to?
Me: It means if you see something, there is no
you seeing something that is separate from you. There is no
perceiver-perceived, subject-object duality, dichotomy. There is
just pure awareness of whatever is, without distance, without
separation, from what is perceived. There is just pure seeing,
hearing, without a separate seer, hearer.
However, non-dual luminosity may not be Anatta. It could be like
Thusness Stage 4 kind of insight, substantial non-dualism. (check
my last reply to S in the first post of http://buddhism.sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/390582?page=15)
Or it can be a temporary experience of NDNCIDMOP or PCE, which is
like a peak experience.
Participant 2: Ok, with regards to Master Sheng
Yen's article which you posted yesterday in the forum, 'When
you are in the second stage, although you feel that the ‘I’ does
not exist, the basic substance of the universe, or the Supreme
Truth, still exists. Although you recognise that all the different
phenomena are the extension of this basic substance or Supreme
Truth, yet there still exists the opposition of basic substance
versus external phenomena. Not until the distinctions of all
phenomena disappear, and everything goes back to truth or Heaven,
will you have absolute peace and unity. As long as the world of
phenomena is still active, you cannot do away with conflict,
calamity, suffering and crime.'
How should I understand Master Sheng Yen's use of "everything
goes back to truth or Heaven", especially the word Heaven?
Me: I think it is a Chinese phrase, or
expression. I need to see the Chinese words. But the 'Truth' here
is this: ...One who has entered Ch’an does not see basic
substance and phenomena as two things standing in opposition to
each other. They cannot even be illustrated as being the back and
palm of a hand. This is because phenomena themselves are basic
substance, and apart from phenomena there is no basic substance to
be found. The reality of basic substance exists right in the
unreality of phenomena, which change ceaselessly and have no
constant form. This is the Truth...
You can replace the word 'basic substance' with the word
'weather', or the word 'self' with the word 'weather'. For
example:
...This is because weatherly phenomena (rain, lightning, wind,
etc) themselves are weather, and apart from weatherly phenomena
(rain, lightning, wind, etc) there is no basic substance to be
found. The reality of weather exists right in the unreality of
weatherly phenomena (rain, lightning, wind, etc), which change
ceaselessly and have no constant form. This is the Truth...
The problem with us is that, even if we have a transcendental
glimpse of luminosity, of non-duality, and so on... due to our
framework of viewing things inherently, we treat luminosity as
something ultimate, as something inherent.
Just like the word 'Weather'... Ok, weather is undeniable. But
is weather a thing? An entity? If yes, then where is it located as
a fixed position?
It cannot be located, and is not other than these ceaselessly
changing phenomenon. The same goes for 'self', 'awareness',
'luminosity', 'basic substance'. They are something being directly
realized and experienced, yet reified into something independent
and permanent and ultimate... but what we need to see is that the
so called 'self' is merely a label collating the conglomerate of
five ever-changing aggregates (matter, feelings, perceptions,
volition, and consciousness) or the five skandhas, and 'awareness'
is merely a label that denotes the six modes of cognizance (Visual
consciousness (cakkhu-viññāna), Auditory consciousness
(sotā-viññāna), Nasal consciousness (ghāna-viññāna), Taste
consciousness (jihvā-viññāna), Tactile consciousness
(kāya-viññāna), Mind-consciousness (mano-viññāna), the same goes
for 'luminosity' and 'basic substance'.
There is nothing ultimate to be found. After realizing Anatta,
you should apply the same insight onto objects: chairs, tables,
weather, all are like the 'weather' analogy... unlocatable, apart
from a stream of insubstantial activities. Vivid, luminous, alive,
yet like a mirage, like bubbles, like a dream.
Participant 1: To borrow Thusness's words, the
realization of "I AM" is to be able to perceive without
intermediary, the perceived?
Me: In the realization of "I AM", you are able
to have direct perception of I AM without intermediary. Means there
is just that, I AMness, no concepts, no division, no dualistic
separation. And not only that, there is a realization and utter
conviction of something undeniable. So you no longer have
doubts.
Participant 1: Is "I AM" and luminosity
synonymous with each other?
Me: Yes and no. I AM is only an aspect of
luminosity pertaining to mind consciousness. There are 18 dhatus
(the six sense objects, six sense faculties, and six sense
consciousness) - see http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Eighteen_dhatus.
'I AM' is simply pure consciousness of the mind realm. It is
luminosity pertaining to the mental realm. Therefore, I AM is only
the luminosity of a single dhatu. In particular, it is the
luminosity of non-conceptual thought. Not the entirety of mind
consciousness as mind consciousness can refer to a myriad of mental
experiences like conceptualization, emotions, remembering,
imagination, etc.
Participant 1: Then the realization of Anatta
'extends' the realization of luminosity from mind-consciousness to
eye... ear... nose... tongue... body... consciousnesses?
Me: Yes.
What people realize as 'I AM' is simply the non-conceptual
thought which is a particular manifestation of mind-consciousness,
and this realization and experience is being reified into something
ultimate, independent, permanent, Self. It is seen to be something
special and more ultimate than other phenomena.
In Anatta, all realms become 'flat'. Because if in seeing there
is just the seen without seer, then everything becomes implicitly
non-dual and luminous (without reifying a non-dual substance or
Absolute). There is no more hierarchy, no more treating a
particular dhatu as something more ultimate than another. There is
no more 'treating a speck of dust as ultimate and making every
other phenomena dusty' to put it in Thusness's way of speaking.
Participant 2: If a person claims to not feel
anger when insulted, even thanking the person who scolded him, for
example, does that indicate No Self? (I have my own opinion, but I
wanna hear from you guys)
Participant 1: Not necessarily, because
realizing not-self does not mean the fetters are completely cut
off. So if the conditions are right for anger to arise, then it is
unavoidable. Only arhats and above are incapable of feeling anger.
But realizing anatta is only stream-entry.
Me: To Participant 2: Well first of all, No
Self is not a state. It is a fact about existence. It means always
already, there never was a self. There never was an agent. So this
is about a realization. It is like what I said just now regarding
'weather'. All along, there is no 'weather' to be found. It is just
a convenient label for a conglomerate of ceaselessly changing
phenomena. So how can there be an entity called 'weather' to be
found anywhere? So having realized this, do you say that suddenly,
there is no more weather? This is obviously not the case. 'No
Weather' is not talking about the disappearance of weather. It is
simply pointing out a fact about reality, that there is no
independent, unchanging, locatable entity called 'Weather'
anywhere. 'Weather' is simply a convenient label for the
everchanging weatherly phenomenon. The same goes for No Self. No
Self is not a state, it is simply pointing out a fact about
reality, that there is no independent, permanent, locatable self or
agent. And Self is a mere convenient label for the five
skandhas.
A fetter-model first stage Sotapanna realizes Anatta or what you
call No Self, whereas a fetter-model fourth stage Arhant has
removed all traces of defilements, afflictions, attachments,
passionate emotions, and sense of self. That is the difference.
To Participant 1: Even the fetter-model third stage Anagamis
have already stopped cravings for sensual pleasures as well as
anger, worry and fear... needless to speak of the fetter-model
Arhant.
Participant 2: It (realising No Self) is about
realising a fact.
Me: Precisely... you simply realize that it has
always been so. All along, in seeing always just the seen, no seer.
In hearing always just the heard, no hearer. So it is not the case
that you dissolve the seer or hearer, it is that there never was a
seer or hearer to begin with, and you realize that this has always
been the case. However for those who experienced a peak experience,
aka a NDNCDIMOP or a PCE, these people haven't realized anatta as a
dharma seal, as a fact about reality. So they may be under the
impression that suddenly, the self disappeared, and then returned
later on. That is because the bond of 'self' temporarily goes into
abeyance. But without the insight, it becomes just a state that
comes and goes... he does not realize anything. So he might think
that 'I became the sound' or 'I suddenly dissolved for a moment',
not realizing that all along, there never was an 'I', a perceiver,
an agent.
Participant 1: I still can't believe you can
memorise the acronym NDNCDIMOP lol.
Me: Non dual, non conceptual, direct, immediate
mode of perception. Easy to remember.
