Dzogchen is the main practice of Nyingmas, generally speaking,
while for Kagyu it's Mahamudra. In Theravada, anapanasati can be
practiced both way: as samatha, and as vipassana, depending on
whether they are focusing on the in and out of the breathe or on
the pure sensate reality and the 3 characteristics of the breathe.
In Tibetan Buddhism however, even in Mahamudra, even if they are
taught as the main practice for a beginner, they will at most be
treated as a samatha technique to stabilize the mind before moving
on to pointing out the nature of Mind. There is also less emphasis
in samatha jhana in Tibetan Buddhism, where many teachers only
advice their students to reach 1st Jhana and no more, before moving
on to Insight. However to put it in perspective, Zen bashes samatha
jhana even more than Tibetan Buddhism, sometimes even devaluing it
into a state of Makyo (illusion). Anyway you can get a very good
look at the Mahamudra meditation system in a book I and Thusness
highly recommends: Clarifying the Natural State.
In my understanding, Theravadin Vipassana (Myanmar and Sri Lanka
style -- Thai Forest is a little different) is not exactly similar
as Zen koan training or Tibetan Dzogchen or Mahamudra system. Why?
Vipassana emphasize the gradual unfolding insights, going through
16 nanas before culminating in a Fruition event which is a form of
cessation. This is what I, Kenneth and Thusness calls the Gradual
Path practice.
Then there is the Direct Path teaching, which emphasize pointing
out and realising the nature of Mind. Since the nature of Mind is
timeless instead of developmental, it is ever present regardless of
what states, experiences, nanas you have been through, it can be
discovered in the here and now. It is not the result of having
progressed through certain experiences or insight stages and thus
having achieved certain stage of experience, because it is always
this Mind which is the basis of All experiences, that is why it is
beyond effort but can only be realised or recognised. The methods
of Koan also aim at this. This does not mean that there is just one
final insight and that's it -- however, the practitioner of, for
example the 'Who am I' koan will first get an initial realisation
of the I AM and from there, they can do more koans and move on to
Non Dual, etc. That is why Zen is known as 顿悟 (Instantaneous
Awakening) -- there must be the sudden, intuitive, unshakeable
'eureka!'-sort realisation of the 'I'. Awaken to this ‘I’, the path
of spirituality becomes clear; it is simply the unfolding of this
‘I’. The Vipassana practitioner of the Gradual Path (i.e. Mahasi
Sayadaw style Vipassana, not Thai Forest style which did teach
Direct Path in some way) however, will not realise anything of
'intrinsic luminosity of Mind', 'primordial Awareness', etc, until
Anagami. That means the Fruition event in Sotapanna &
Sakadagami has nothing to do with the I AM or Non-Duality. But more
on that later.
I should also mention, the practice emphasized in Gradual Path
(i.e. noting, observing 3 characteristics of phenomena) is also
different from the practices emphasized in the Direct Path
(depending on tradition: self-inquiry, koan, pointing out nature of
mind and sustaining recognition, formless meditation, etc).
The Theravadin tradition, following the gradual system of
samatha-vipassana combined, as I said earlier basically climbs up
the 16 nanas, and then reaches the Fruition event and attains
Sotapanna.
What is the difference between realising Mind, and attaining
Fruition? It's different. I'll paste some excerpts from Kenneth
Folk on the difference at the bottom of the post.
However where it all converges is: Anagami. An Anagami who
followed the traditional Theravadin path may not go through certain
stages of experience in the Direct Path, like the I AM, but at the
Anagami level the person will realise non-dual awareness beyond
subject and object division, even if he follows strictly the
Gradual Path, similar to a practitioner who follows Direct Path and
eventually lands up in Non Dual insight. That practitioner or
Anagami will then be able to apply his insights more and more into
daily lives rather than in the cessation event, and be able to
perceive emptiness, impermanence, selflessness, non-dual intrinsic
luminosity, etc. in real time in his entire sensate universe. The
most subtle dualities and attachment to a Self agent in any subtle
way/the final knot of the centerpoint is finally removed at
Arhantship.
By the way, I do not think Direct Path is necessarily 'better'
than Gradual Path, and it simply depends on the practitioner -- one
must guage one's conditions. Kenneth recommends somehow ballancing
both (though it is not the same as practicing both at once: you
cannot possibly do that -- one is abiding as the Timeless I AM
without investigation, whereas the other is investigating the three
characteristics of passing phenomena, but you can flip flop between
them), however for me right now, I am focusing on the 'Direct
Path'. In terms of statistics, I do not have them, but basically I
see very successful and highly attained Gradual Path practitioners
as well as Direct Path practitioners. No matter what path you
practice, you still end up having to practice 10-20 years and more
to realise and mature the insights. The initial glimpse is faster
but it is not the end.
p.s. about Fruition of traditional Vipassana vs Primordial
Awakeness/Rigpa/Buddha-Nature/Fruition of Direct Path, Kenneth Folk
says:
http://kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/page/Q+%26+A+on+the+Non-dual
Question: What is the relationship between primordial awareness to
fruition?
Answer: Experientially, not much. Fruition, according to the Mahasi
school of Theravada Buddhism, is total cessation of the mind/body
process. Subjectively, it's very much like being asleep. Primordial
awareness is pure awakeness. It’s important to note here that
Tibetan Dzogchen masters also use the word fruition, but they are
not talking about Mahasi fruition; in Dzogchen, fruition
is synonymous with rigpa, which is the recognition of
primordial awareness.
Question: I just finished reading Sam Harris's book, The End of
Faith, in which he claims to describe the universal essence of
contemplative and mystical experience. It's strange, because what
he calls the universal contemplative experience sounds like what
people on this forum are calling primordial awareness or seeing
emptiness, but he doesn't mention nirvana (cessation) at all in
anything I've read by him. I'm wondering why he does that, if he
really experiences emptiness but not cessation, or if he declines
to write about nirvana in his mainstream writing career for other
reasons (although, gee, writing about empty awareness is pretty
weird on the scale of things).
Answer: This is an interesting question, and one that only someone
well-versed in Theravada theory would ask. It would be difficult to
find a reference to cessation/nibbana in the literature of any
other tradition. Other traditions tend to emphasize the awake
no-self experience over the erased-self experience of cessation.
Assuming that people go through the same organic process of
development whether they are targeting it or not, then everyone
will experience the developmental landmark of cessation as defined
by the Mahasi school. On the other hand, if you aren't looking for
cessation and/or haven't been told that it is significant, it's
just another of the thousands of things that can happen during a
meditator's day.
Mahasi teachers love cessation because it helps them locate
students on the map. Furthermore, Mahasi Sayadaw taught cessation
as something to be cherished and cultivated. But even within
Theravada there are teachers who don't believe that cessation
should even be considered Nibbana. There is no one way to
interpret these phenomena. What we know for sure is that First and
Second Path, as defined by the Visuddhimaga, each culminate in a
moment of cessation. So, for map-mongers, cessation is an important
landmark.
I would not evaluate the enlightenment of people from other
traditions based on whether they mention cessation, as to do so
would lead to the mistaken impression that only Theravada Buddhists
get enlightened. In fact, I used to read J. Krishnamurti and
imagine that he was talking about cessation when he described his
no-self experiences. He wasn't. I was just "shoehorning," i.e.
trying to force other people's experience into the narrow framework
of my own limited belief system.
.......
Answer: This is a matter of defining terms, and we'll need some
serious disambiguation in order to make sense of all this. Two
words in particular are problematic as they are used very
differently in different traditions. The two words are fruition and
vipassana.
Fruition, as defined by the Burmese Mahasi school, means cessation
of the mind/body process. They also call this nibbana. It is a
non-experience, a winking out of consciousness. It is nonetheless,
very blissful; upon emerging from this state, you know you were
someplace very nice, you just can't say where. It is this cessation
that marks the Path moment and permanently changes your experience
of the world and your meditation practice.
Fruition in the Dzogchen tradition is rigpa. Not at all the same as
cessation. Rigpa is the wide-awake recognition, in the moment, of
buddha nature within your own mind. Although it is the most highly
prized of attainments according to direct path teachings, it does
not represent any developmental milestone and does not complete any
of the 4 Paths. Rather, it is the the perfect recognition and
expression of what everyone already is—pure, untrammeled,
primordial awareness. Direct path teachings consider this to be
more significant than any developmental stage or phenomenon, as to
recognize rigpa is to know the mind of all the Buddhas. It will be
best if we can specify which definition of fruition we mean at any
given time.
"Vipassana," as used by the Theravada tradition, is a technique for
investigating the three characteristics of suffering, impermanence,
and no-self. The same word (often spelled Vipashyana, which is
Sanskrit as opposed to Pali), is used in the Dzogchen tradition to
mean "letting be in the nature of dharmata" (Shri Singha,
Quintessential Dzogchen, 113, ed.Kunsang & Binder
Schmidt). In fact, the word "vipashyana" is used in various ways
with various qualifiers within the Tibetan system, so it's
important to know the context.
......
Question: I can't help but notice that your two fruitions are in
fact mutually exclusive. If there is no consciousness, then there
is no rigpa. Accordingly, rigpa is not unborn, for it ceases.
Answer: Yes, rigpa and cessation are mutually exclusive. One
doesn't happen from the point of view of the other. But, remember,
rigpa is the recognition of buddha nature in the moment. During
that recognition, in my experience, cessation does not occur. But
that does not mean that cessation does not happen within buddha
nature; of course it does. It just happens at a time when buddha
nature is not being recognized.
You can learn to access either kind of fruition, whenever you want.
In the case of rigpa, the access is instantaneous, as soon as you
remember to notice it. In the case of cessation, it may take a
second or two, or, if you are very distracted, several seconds.
Then you can compare rigpa and cessation side by side.
One practical detail is that you can let be in rigpa while you are
driving, or eating dinner with the family, or in a meeting at work,
whereas, at least for me, cessation usually requires closing my
eyes. I usually roll my eyes up into my head, too, and flicker my
eyelids, so I have to be discreet so people around me won't think
I'm having a seizure. :-)
Back to the theory: you wrote, "rigpa is not unborn, for it
ceases." If by ceasing, you mean that we aren't always aware of it,
the same would apply to nibbana/cessation. So, I don't think that
proves it ceases. Actually, buddha nature cannot be found to cease;
since it is awareness itself, how would we know if it ceased? You
can't be aware of not being aware.
Something I, Thusness and Daniel Ingram (who is Kenneth's best
friend) do not agree with him is that Arhats and Direct Path are
totally distinct insights. We also have a very different definition
of 'Arhat' compared to Kenneth. However otherwise, he provides a
lot of insights on all the systems. I have posted some of his
articles at http://buddhism.sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/378355
Sorry to have gone a bit off topic, but I think this should
provide a general picture of the different systems of practice and
how they relate to the traditions.
Oh and one more final thing... how about Tibetan Buddhism?
Generally as I understand it, there is a balance of gradual and
direct path, but for systems like Dzogchen and Mahamudra,
especially Dzogchen, is very direct.