Just a few points: I assume you have read the blog I and
Thusness run, and are familiar with his articles.
You asked, what is one 'certain of' when one is realised? First
of all there are a few different realisations and experience -
mainly the I AMness, One Mind, No Mind, Emptiness. Each insight are
complementary are important as they relate to different insights of
the nature of reality and deconstructing certain mental constructs.
As Thusness described,
1. If you de-construct
the subjective pole, you will be led to the experience of
No-Mind.
2. If you de-construct
the objective pole, you will be led to the experience of
One-Mind.
3. If you go through a
process of de-constructing prepositional phrases like "in/out"
"inside/outside" "into/onto," "within/without" "here/there", you
will dissolve the illusionary nature of locality and
time.
4. If you simply go
through the process of self-enquiry by disassociation and
elimination without clearly understanding the non-inherent and
dependent originated nature of phenomena, you will be led to the
experience of “I AMness”.
(see Thusness's reply in Mind and Self-Liberation)
If you follow the path of self inquiry, you ask 'Before birth
Who am I?' or just 'Who am I?' - This koan will lead to the
realisation of I AMness. There is certainty about the luminous
aspect of one's Being. One knows without a doubt that there is an
undeniable luminous essence that is aware and present as a sense of
pure beingness or a pure sense of existence, presence and
knowingness. Then one may practice another koan, or further
investigations to deconstruct the objective pole resulting in the
insight of non-duality or One Mind where one is then 'certain of'
reality as not divided in terms of subject and object, followed by
further deconstruction leading to the experience of No Mind and
insight of Anatta. Each insight brings a new insight and certainty
about reality and deconstructs a different level of mental
construct.
However this path is different from Daniel Ingram, who follows
the path of vipassana. It climbs the insight stages (nanas),
results in fruition, and leading to the No Mind experience and
Anatta insight. It bypasses the I AMness stage of realisation.
So if you 'choose' to go through the I AMness experience, to
have the certainty and conviction in your luminous essence, you can
start with self inquiry like what the Zen tradition (especially
emphasized in some Zen masters like Master Hsu Yun) or the Advaita
tradition teach. However in Buddhism, the I AM is not the final
stage of enlightenment, since insight into Anatta and Emptiness
does not come automatically, though in itself it is an important
realisation and experience.
If you prefer to practice Vipassana, it is a slightly different
path but also eventually leads to realisation of non-dual
luminosity and anatta. I do have some experience with it and
experienced some of the insight stages (nanas) but currently I do
not focus on this path.
As for realisation vs experience: Realisation is just clearly
and directly seeing a fact of reality that is so obvious and clear
as to be beyond doubt.
In my undestanding, passing states and experiences are not
realisation since they may not be related to seeing/realising the
fundamental nature of reality which is eternal and ever-present. If
it is simply an experience that comes and goes, that is not
insight. Insight is 'seeing' something that is a fundamental truth
of reality and ever-present at all moments (though it is not a
dualistic seeing, not a 'me' seeing something) and hence is not
something that comes and goes, not something that can 'leave' or
'be lost'.
As Tejananda said in his article Pure Awareness (which is quite a good
read):
Is there any way to
distinguish between non-insightful states of openness, stillness
etc and pure awareness? One way would be to note whether these
qualities are arising or not – i.e. are they objects that come into
awareness; or is it unarising (undeveloped, natural)
emptiness-clarity which is not an object (or subject) but which is
just ‘there/here’ by its very nature?
As I am far from realising everything and can only speak from
what I've learnt, hope Thusness and Longchen can comment
further.
Oh and regarding teachers, teachers and views, I wrote based on
what Thusness said in my forum: I have to agree with
you that a teacher is important - an experienced and enlightened
teacher who can impart the Right View. This is to help us 'see' how
a non-dual non-conceptual direct meditative experience is being
reified into a metaphysical essence without even us noticing it.
Ignorance goes far deeper than a non-dual, non-conceptual
meditative state. Hence, a teacher is necessary to point out the
right view, otherwise we will reify our meditative experience and
get stuck on the monist view that you mentioned.
Like what Thusness said and I quoted previously:
if the path consists of practice without the right view,
almost without fail it will result in Advaita sort of
experience.
Buddhism is very subtle and without proper guidance it is
difficult to grasp what the Buddha wants us to know.
But of course as Thusness said in On Anatta (No-Self), Emptiness, Maha and
Ordinariness, and Spontaneous Perfection:
Before proceeding any further, it is of absolute importance to know
that there is no way the stanzas can be correctly understood by way
of inference, logical deduction or induction. Not that there is
something mystical or transcendental about the stanzas but simply
the way of mental chattering is a 'wrong approach'. The right
technique is through 'vipassana' or any more direct and attentive
bare mode of observation that allows the seeing of things as they
are. Just a casual note, such mode of knowing turns natural when
non-dual insight matures, before that it can be quite
'efforting'.
Self Inquiry too, leads to direct experience and
observation of of the I AMness without conceptual overlay.
Any method must lead to "direct and attentive bare mode of
observation that allows the seeing of things as they are" in
order for insights to arise.
I wholeheartedly agree that 'Buddhism is very subtle and without
proper guidance it is difficult to grasp what the Buddha wants us
to know'. Such is my experience thus far. Indeed there is
'there is no way the stanzas can be correctly understood by way
of inference, logical deduction or induction'.
If anybody were to possess an Arahant's psychic eye
abilities or even that of the Buddha's, they would probably see
that since time immemorial, very few humans out of the whole world
population would be able to achieve true Dharma insight (that which
will immediately allow you to know beyond doubt you will
be fully liberated from future rebirths after this present
lifetime) in one single lifetime, regardless of the era they
live in.
That is why samsaric existence will continue to be for most of
us for a very long time until conditions for Dharma learning and
insight come and stay together at right time. We can cultivate
countless conditions for the quick achievement of Dharma Insight,
but most of us will hardly be able to know exactly when such
conditions will ripen.
