Shi-ne, Aro, and Dzogchen

Tomo, I'm at work so must just bookmark this and get back to you. There IS a free meditation course available at the arobuddhism.org site, with weekly lessons and the opportunity to interact with more qualified instructors than I...

I don't know about Shi-ne or Aro, but the quote you posted:

Sit in a posture of comfort and alertness. Find the presence of your
awareness only in your exhalation. Allow your inhalation merely to
happen. Allow yourself to dissolve your experience into emptiness with
each exhalation...

Sounds dead-on like Chogyam Trungpa's Shamatha advice:

The attitude towards breathing in meditation is to become the breathing. Try to identify completely rather than watching it. You are
the breath; the breath is you. Breath is coming out of your nostrils,
going out and dissolving into the atmosphere, into the space. You put a
certain energy and effort towards that. Then, as for in-breathing,
should you try to deliberately draw things in? That’s not recommended.
Just boycott your breath; boycott your concentration on the breath. As
your breath goes out, let it dissolve, just abandon it, boycott it.




So in-breathing is just space. Physically, biologically, one
does breathe in, obviously, but that’s not a big deal. Then another
breath goes out—be with it. So it’s out, dissolve, gap; out, dissolve,
gap. It is constant opening, gap, abandoning, boycotting. Boycotting
in this case is a significant word. If you hold onto your breath, you
are holding onto yourself constantly. Once you begin to boycott the end
of the outbreath, then there’s no world left, except that the next
outbreath reminds you to tune in. So you tune in, dissolve, tune in,
dissolve, tune in, dissolve.

the similarities are no big surprise, I guess, since these are both Tibetan sources, but still, in trying to find an overlap between this and past practices, perhaps this is helps. I will say I don't think what is taught of KFD as "concentration/shamatha" practices is the same thing as what Trungpa means by "shamatha" but perhaps some link can be found there.

Oh, and for the record, I don't quite get what he means by "boycott", nor have I ever had any luck with "becoming the breath", which is something my zen teachers pointed out as what I should be focused on. Just FYI.

(Chogyam Trungpa quote from here )

"I need to process that a bit but it may be the answer to one of my
questions, and it sounds even more like "equanimity", or the fourth
jhana."-- tomo

You've done a more efficient job at finding that little description of 'finding the presence of awareness' than I could have, Tom. And I meant to remark on how directly to-the-heart-of-the-matter your question was. I have not encountered that precise meditation instruction in any of my explorations outside of Aro. 'Precise' is the key word: no 'rough equivalent' has the same galvanizing effect. 'Looking for/searching' or even 'experiencing' don't carry that little inexplicable surprise of 'finding' something that is just where it has always been. And 'awareness' is much more blue-collar pragmatic than, say, that old warhorse abstraction, 'consciousness. Beyond that, it is not found as a conception, an idea-- it is found in a more vivid 'presence' via all the sense-fields [not excluding the conceptual/mental sense field].

This instruction, as you have noticed, is brilliantly subtle, elusive-- frickin' impossible, if you think about it, if you try [another word that does not appear in the instruction!] Until it is neither possible nor impossible-- it is 'as it is.' It's your experience-- you don't know how, but you're not in doubt, either. The example Rinpoche often uses is that it's like finding your car keys: first you go through all the useless repetitions of looking for them in your pockets, the top of your dresser, the hall table, or wherever-- often more than once, because that's where you always put them. And then you find them on the top of the refrigerator and you remember you went to the hardware store for light bulbs because the kitchen one was out, and you put the bag and your keys up there while you were changing the bulb. What is profound about this banal experience is that once you find [whatever] you can't really resurrect the experience of NOT knowing where it was.

I would suggest that you give this very different approach its own space; I haven't seen much correlation between the Theravadan maps and Vajrayana method. It would be a shame to lose the freshness of your encounter before it has done its magic.

In terms of discovering Shi-ne, the postures and mantra stuff would only be relevant if you couldn't discover shi-ne through sitting practice. They would be like remedial methods. I'm not suggesting that's the only purpose of them; just that in terms of where you are at in the process, that's one way they could be employed. But it sounds like you're able to work with the sitting practice just fine. Looking forward to hearing your further explorations! There's something so fun about seeing someone discover this way of experiencing practice. Your skepticism is wonderful and as long as you balance it with engaging the new approach on its own terms and letting it unfold as it will, I think you will be in for a delightful adventure.

I came to Vipassana after having some experience with shi-ne and I too noticed some kind of connection with 11th nana/4th jhanna, Tom, but coming from the other side. I said hmm, this is kind of like shi-ne. But as my experience of 11th nana became more 4th jhanna-like (Iwas going through the nanas in a pretty dry way), it occurred to me they are very different.

Keeping it simple, I notice that the jhannic states are like a distinct sequence of attentional patterning, and fourth is like a panoramic flow of attention. It's almost like a magnetic field of attention, a powerful and obviously "altered" state which seems to clearly arise due to applying attention in a certain way, and it seems to in turn condition the kinds of patterns which can arise, inhibiting many of them in some subtle way.

Meanwhile, shi-ne is more oriented to discovering something already present in the ordinary waking state function of the six sense fields. It is approached in a very ordinary way, and to me feels very simple and clear and present and normal, if you know what I mean. They are both equanimous states, but one is generated through directing attention in such a way as to enact an altered state different in many ways from the "normal" waking state, while the other is discovered as naturally present in the sixfold sense field. My two cents. Plus, what Chris and Kate said

Maybe the first thing that Rinpoche goes over, very thoroughly, every time he gives a public teaching is that 'Buddhism is a religion of METHOD, not Truth' and 'every method can be understood in terms of principle and function.' If you can get a feel for these premises, it is both clarifying and liberating: no need for heated arguments about which is 'right'-- Sutra or Tantra, Christianity or Buddhism [from the Buddhist perspective, that is: Christians might not agree!] or yoga of one type or another. Each has its own internal logic, and there are so many methods because there are so many people. In semi-mythological terms, it's said that there are 84,000 methods for the 84,000 kinds of beings-- so that liberation is possible no matter how a being is constituted. And when you can get a sense of the principle and function of any practice, it is clearer whether it is likely to suit you. Given that there are so many, there need be no fear that anyone has to master them all-- just the precisely right-for-you single practice can do it.

As to the yoga posture you're referring to, read the follow up beginning with pg. 102. No sense in my reprising the very good explanation of how this supplementary practice functions. I've always intuited that it can serve as a 'short-cut' to identifying 'the presence of awareness;' but I can't speak from experience, because it's not something I do well, or often, enough: my balance is rather poor. But the description of being left in a wordless, clear, energized, refreshed state suggests this outcome to me. [Actually, as I write this, I'm thinking I ought to persist in my attempts!]

The Aro Lamas preference for using the Wylie transliterations, and Tibetan words for what they find no precise English equivalents for [and the Tibetans have been doing their own refinements and developments for hundreds of years, to what yogis had been developing and refining for thousands, so they have quite the technical vocabulary]-- takes some getting used to. The short, and easy answer about any of the small letters that make an unpronounceable sequence of consonants before the capitalized consonant at the beginning of words like rDzogchen, or gTerma-- is that they're silent! They exist only to differentiate the similar-sounding words with different meanings. I expect it has to do with Tibetan having a different alphabet, and even a different way of putting a word together, than the European languages we're used to. I spent the first year thinking I was NEVER going to be able to deal with this stuff-- and then wishing I had time to really study Tibetan, because of what I intuit is possible to say about dharma if you're not trying to find crude equivalents in an unsuitable language [there are invisible barriers to understanding, in the language we're used to].

If you're enjoying your consternation about this strange new world, don't let me stop you! If you're feeling overwhelmed, remember that that particular book is a practice manual first and foremost-- to be engaged with over a period of time, allowing yourself to come up with questions, explore, find your own answers in terms of your own experience... The Lamas are extraordinarily cautious of short-circuiting students' practice and experience by laying out 'the answers.' The 'non-duality' that anyone could 'wrap their head around' is just philosophy; and, unless teaching philosophy is your job, it's of little interest.

The overview is that shi-ne, lhatong, nyi-med, and lhundrup are a sequence of four preliminary practices that enable a person to approach Dzogchen. Shi-ne and lhatong are more-or-less equivalent to samatha and vipassana; they form a pair, usually approached in the sequence given [but not always] and nyi-med isn't possible without them, nor lhundrup without nyi-med. Vajrayana is vast; to my knowledge, only the Aro teachers and Namkhai Norbu emphasize Dzogchen, and teach this approach to it. Most other schools and traditions go the Tantric-preliminaries route [prostrations, mantra accumulations, and such]

As best I can understand it, the Theravadan maps/descriptions are minutely detailed renderings of the experience of Vipassana-- which roughly corresponds to lhatong; or lhatong-as-formal-practice. One of the things I like about the Dzogchen way of approaching these practices is that it seems to recognize that what you do on the cushion is the equivalent of playing scales. You're training your ear and mastering the basics of the instrument; making music takes you beyond that. So, too, lhatong is not limited to what you do on the cushion-- any activity that you become totally immersed in can be an occasion of lhatong. And there are specific practices of 'sky-gazing' and 'integrating with the elements' [of fire, or water] that function this way; as does the experience of various kinds of artists in a 'flow state'.

For myself-- and I think probably others who share my tendency toward painful self-consciousness-- all the practices that require a very heavy-handed intention, very explicit expectations of results, are rather unworkable. They just take a person bound up in knots of her own creation and show how to wrench them even tighter. [Remember that NY mayor who used to go around saying,'How'm I doing?'...] Dogen's lines about 'to study the self is to forget the self; to forget the self is to be enlightened by all things' rings much truer-- and just FEELS more liberating-- to me.

When I was new, the Lamas' frequent advice to 'try it and see' seemed maddeningly evasive; it took awhile to see the confidence and generosity in it. And to ease into that same confidence and generosity in myself.

-- I should add, that Aro, and Dzogchen generally, are not for everyone. While some of us are very enthusiastic, because it speaks to our experience and intuition-- that may not be your experience. Clearly, the more precisely-described palpable results orientation suits a bunch of people. So the advice to 'try it and see' includes the possibility of concluding-- 'Nah; not for me.' You're the one in charge and no one else can tell you what you 'should' want, experience, or what that experience 'means.' The important thing is to have a practice, and supports for it, that suits you-- that you feel at home in and that helps you live a happy life.

Thanks for the awesome replies, Jake and Kate. And if you do end up in the vajra pose, Kate, be sure to post a pic here!
So then on the topic of overlaps, where, if at all, does "cessation" fit into this? Would one ever get a stream-entry type fruition from shi ne and/or lhatong? Or does the comparison just break down totally?


-tomo

-- funny: I just realized that 'Vajra Posture' produces what could be described as a 'cessation'! Ironic, huh?

But consider this, from the page that I listed:"The principle of this practice is nalma, or exhaustion. Through a highly specific method of exhaustion we are able to exhaust our neurotic involvement with thought as the definition of being. In the state of nalma it is difficult to conceptualize. Through nalma it can become easier to enter into a condition in which we can drop our frames of reference. In a state of nalma we find ourselves far less interested in generating thought merely to identify and fix reference points."

And yet, it seems that the reality of "precisely-described palpable results" turns out to have a high "YMMV" component. Mike and I were talking about this yesterday (in person!), how so much of the described experiences in the "hardcore path" were elusive to myself and him, and others I suspect.
-- tomo


-tomo

In my own practice, I found that some qualities I'd misunderestimated in myself, were very useful: a stubborn refusal to take anyone else's word for anything that wasn't accurate in terms of my own experience; a willingness to be the lone voice saying,'Nope; that's not going on for me.' An impatience with hackneyed language.

I suspect you and Mike may be my kin in this way...

I've noticed the same issue with the more detailed maps of states and stages in the Tibetan lineages as well. I think the point of such detailed maps is that they include as many variations on possible sticking points as possible to be a handy reference for a practitioner in retreat, but the problem is when we look at all the various experiences and conclude each individual must have them all. Even some of the stuff that's made into a distinct stage in certain maps could be no more than a brief blip on the screen for a given practitioner. The great use IMO of the detailed maps is as reference if you feel stuck, you can look for hints or clues about a way through in the absence of detailed feedback from a mentor.

Brilliant! That explains everything: a list of all the possible 'symptoms' of a process underway.

Yes, and from an writing composition and memorization standpoint, emphasizing linearity makes sense too, even if an individual's path will likely be more circuitous and open-ended!

Thought I'd share this from Dilgo Khentse Rinpoche, one of the twentieth century's great Dzogchen masters:

"In meditation we can see through the illusion of past, present and

future - our experience becomes the continuity of nowness. The past is only

an unreliable memory held in the present. The future is only a projection of

our present conceptions. The present itself vanishes as soon as we try to

grasp it. So why bother with attempting to establish an illusion of solid

ground? We should free ourselves from our present memories and

preconceptions of meditation. Each moment of meditation is completely

unique and full of potentiality. In such moments, we will be incapable of

judging our meditation in terms of past experience, dry theory [or] hollow

rhetoric. Simply plunging directly into meditation in the moment now, with our

whole being, free from hesitation, boredom or excitement, is - Enlightenment."

And DKR on the everyday life aspect of Dzogchen practice:

"The everyday practice of Dzogchen in simply to develop a complete carefree
acceptance, an openness to all situations without limit. We should realize
openness as the playground of our emotions and relate to people without
artificiality, manipulation or strategy. We should experience everything totally.
Never withdrawing into ourselves as a marmot hides in its hole. This practice
releases tremendous energy which is usually constricted by the process of
maintaining fixed reference points. Referentiality is the process by which we
retreat from the direct experience of everyday life. Being present in the
moment may initially trigger fear. But by welcoming the sensation of fear with
complete openness, we cut through the barriers created by habitual
emotional patterns. When we engage in the practice of discovering space,
we should develop the feeling of opening ourselves out completely to the
entire universe. We should open ourselves with absolute simplicity and
nakedness of mind. This is the powerful and ordinary practice of dropping the
mask of self-protection. We shouldn't make a division in our meditation
between perception and field of perception. We shouldn't become like a cat
watching a mouse. We should realize that the purpose of meditation is not to
go 'deeply into ourselves' or withdraw from the world. Practice should be free
and non-conceptual, unconstrained by introspection and concentration."

The boldface emphasis is mine. A lifetime's practice, the practice of life.
Amazing to see how my everyday life is pretty much the inverse of this-- most of the time. I just do my best to unconditionally open to that, to experience that completely. What a vision of what is possible!

I love DKR! "We shouldn't become like a cat
watching a mouse. We should realize that the purpose of meditation is not to
go 'deeply into ourselves' or withdraw from the world. Practice should be free
and non-conceptual, unconstrained by introspection and concentration."

Now THAT is really radical: what could you possibly hope to attain, simply being present in your life?

I was reading something by someone who practiced with Mel Weitzman, who gave her the koan/enquiry: "What is it?" I didn't get the feeling that anything she could SAY would be 'the answer.'

Ha!