atiyoga a lot like centering prayer?

Hello fellow forumites, thank you for your eyes on this, my first post

I am practicing centering prayer as taught by Alan Chapman, and it seems quite similar to Tibetan atiyoga as described in Roaring Silence and Wonders of the Natural Mind.

Centering prayer: use the invocation "i consent to the presence and action of the divine within" or one's personal magic word when one realized one has returned to attention from distraction.

Ati as I see it from those books: same thing. Use visualizations or intone the Tibetan character "a" which looks sort of like 3V when one is distracted, in order to avoid "sleepy shi-ne"

They both have the same usage instructions, and they both involve a devotional aspect. So is centering prayer effectively the same thing, but western rather than tibetan?

Bruce Scanlon wrote: So is centering prayer effectively the same thing, but western rather than tibetan?

Hi Bruce. Glad to have you here.

I don't have experience with the practice centering prayer, so I may not be the best person to answer this question. However, based on your post, I'd say the two practices you compare in your post seem to have a common function within their respective traditions. That said, I think there's a lot more to any given practice than its function(s). Any function implies a view (or principle), so what may look like "the same thing" in terms of Path may not be the same in terms of View and Fruition.

For example, Mahasi Sayadaw's noting method could also be described as a means of avoiding "sleepy shi-ne" (the experiential realization of emptiness in shi-ne -- i.e. the non-thought nature of mind -- is not unlike stable access concentration or first jhana). Both noting an visualizing the Tibetan letter A and Mahasi-style noting serve as a means to arouse enough energy for sustained presence of awareness. That is, they serve a similar function. But I would not say these practices are therefore "the same thing." The respective results depend also on the view on which they are based, and anyone with sufficient experience with both systems would likely notice the differences.

Thoughts?

Thanks Jackson

You have quickly penetrated to the shallowness of my (relatively) recent start of practice. I will talk with Alan about the view when I next speak with him, thanks for helping inform that discussion.

If Ona reads this maybe she will have more information than me.

Though, I see what you are saying about the similarities with noting, and while I do not follow that practice my reading of it does not suggest the same level of functional, or path similarity as I see between atiyoga and centering prayer. It seems to me they are exactly the same functionally, and both devotional, and the only difference is the symbols used.

But maybe you are right-- is it the case with noting that one only notes at the time one is recovering from lapsed awareness? I was under the impression from my reading, mostly Ingram, that it was a continuous process.

Bruce,

Yes - check with Alan about "view." I know his practice was influenced by Dzogchen at some point (and may still be), so he's sure to see the importance of this.

I think you're right that the centering prayer and atiyoga are similar, for the reasons you stated, and perhaps others. What I don't agree with is that they are basically the same thing, and will somehow always lead to the same result. While certain aspects of practice are somewhat mechanical (e.g. doing this should result in that), any experience encountered through practice will - indeed, MUST - be interpreted subjectively. For most people, practice rarely traipses into purely non-conceptual territory. Since we work within the realm of concepts much of the time, it's good to learn the difference between those that are skillful and those that are not. Ignorance can contort just about anything into suffering and delusion. Thus my perpetual emphasis on continually refining your view.

About noting - you're correct. To practice the noting in the Mahasi style means doing it continuously, without pause, regardless of whether attention has lapsed. Other vipassana teachers disagree, and prefer that noting only be used when continuity of moment-to-moment awareness cannot be otherwise sustained. I tend to agree with the latter view, while also seeing the value of learning the Mahasi approach sufficiently before moving on to a less noting-focused practice -- that is, for those who wish to go the viapssana route.

I'm not saying the only function of noting is to stay present. There's also a great deal of "view programming" (or something like that) in Mahasi noting. The Three Characteristics are a huge part of Mahasi's view, and they are noticed continually throughout the process. Even in a practice as basic and seemingly baggage-free as noting is married to a firm conceptual base. I think it's best to be clear about that up front

I'm enjoying this conversation! I'd reply more quickly, but I'm spending just about every waking moment with my two week old daughter. Talk about practice!!! When it comes to methods for facing one's reactive patterns up close and personal, there's nothing quite like sleep deprivation. The natural love, devotion, and compassion I feel for my daughter are also great catalysts. Life is practice, now more than ever for me.

Jackson Wilshire wrote: any experience encountered through practice will - indeed, MUST - be interpreted subjectively. Since we work within the realm of concepts much of the time, it's good to learn the difference between those that are skillful and those that are not.

Thus my perpetual emphasis on continually refining your view.

I'm enjoying this conversation! I'd reply more quickly, but I'm spending just about every waking moment with my two week old daughter. Talk about practice!!! When it comes to methods for facing one's reactive patterns up close and personal, there's nothing quite like sleep deprivation. The natural love, devotion, and compassion I feel for my daughter are also great catalysts. Life is practice, now more than ever for me.

Jackson, first, CONGRATULATIONS! Second, the speed and depth of your replies is admirable, even without the extreme circumstances you are experiencing, thank you, with what I have quoted above I feel like am beginning to understand the concept of view, which has until this point been a mystery to me.

I am quite happy with the asynchronous nature of e-discussions and, as is the nature of the beast, long pauses in replies or even lack of reply are par for the course. At least that's my "view"

At your leisure, should you have any in the next few years, if you could point me towards, or expound upon practical techniques for exploring the concept of view further, I would be most appreciative.

Again, congratulations!!!

Hi Bruce! Nice to run into you again. I hope you are well.

I haven't done the Tibetan practice you describe, so I can't really comment on that.

My thoughts on your question would range more in this regard: a practice like the one you describe (I consent etc...) will lead to insight. I find that when I have a question like the one you asked (how does this compare to that), the question itself is not as important as identifying why you are asking the question. That is, is the real question "can I trust this practice to lead to some kind of goal or insight I desire to attain?" for example? or "if I do this practice will I end up getting lost in some confusing place I can't understand?" or "what will happen to me if I commit to this practice?" - in other words, if doubt is arising, consent to doubt.

I find this kind of noticing of what is catching your attention and producing questions (whether it be doubt, anticipation, desire for specific results, wanting to intellectually understand something, wondering how long something will take, etc.) is a really productive place to look and a really productive thing to consent to/include/surrender to.

Is that helpful?

Hugs, Ona

Thanks Ona that is very helpful, and a lot to chew on, so it's taken me a while to respond.

My surface belief that it had been an interest in the cross cultural "deep structure" of differing techniques that prompted me to ask the question, but after reflecting on your comments I think I see how it was also as you suggest, a questioning and lack of faith in the technique.

The genesis of the idea was several months ago, and at this point I don't think the faith in the technique is an issue any longer, but that connection remains, possibly as a valid idea, though from Jackson's comment I see now the connection is not as profound as I thought.

It's interesting for me to ponder whether this is a discarded artifact of restless mind activity which was masking something else more important or at least personal, or whether it still has merit within some kind of useful analytical framework

I don't think there's no point to intellectual inquiry or any other interest we may have. I just think it's helpful to those with contemplative practice to notice how there may be layers of attachment or delusion involved with our life activities, interests, etc. It would be a sad world if we had no scholars, historians, theologians, etc. But intellectual inquiry into spiritual traditions is not the same as practice and can be a popular evasion. Noticing attachments, delusions, clinging, evasion, etc. in all activities is helpful for awakening. If you were a beginner I wouldn't bother nagging on the point.

The same practice can be brought to our craving for a cold beer, arguments with the wife, wishing we had trendier shoes or whatever. Doesn't mean we have to give up those things, just that when our practice is developed enough we can take advantage of all kinds of activities to observe how our mind plays.

If you look for similarities, you'll find similarities.

If you look for differences, you'll find differences.

That being said --

I believe the key similarity is the practice of letting go of thoughts and desires rather than mindlessly following them.

Over time, this serves to "de-stickify" the mind.

I'm also coming to the view that this de-stickifying is the main point of these practices. "Insight," "realizing the nature of mind," and so on are by-products which, depending on the practice, may or may not be produced. Whether or not they are produced is not the point. It's the de-stickifying that's important.

It took awhile to contextualize this as a question broached a year ago, which I somehow never noticed. I would say that Derek is right that the goal of both practices is similar.

However, view and practice are both quite unlike. Shi-ne is not strictly speaking Atiyoga (Dzogchen) itself: it is one of the four preliminary (ngongdro) practices of the 'sem-de' series of preliminaries. There are other preliminary approaches: there is 'long-de' which is yogic/energetic; there is the tantric preliminary practice, which is where mantra recitation, prostrations, and visualizations come in. That might seem somewhat similar to centering prayer.

Atiyoga-- in itself-- is more similar to Zen: "direct introduction, outside the scriptures." The preliminaries acknowledge that very few people can make use of so direct a teaching.

Yes, after the letting go stage, the practices diverge.

Here's the terminology out of that book mentioned by Bruce. I don't know how standard this is:

• shi-ne = the letting go stage, practiced until one consistently sees no-thought
• lha-tong = vivid, spatial awareness of thoughts arising, persisting, and passing away
• nyi'med = discovering that no-thought and thought have something in common
• lhun-drüp = continual, effortless, integrated nyi'med

Derek-- that's a good summary of the "Four Naljors of Dzogchen Sem-de" as elucidated by the authors of Roaring Silence. They are Ngak'chang Rinpoche and Khandro Dechen, whose student I have been for about a decade, now. Of their series of books, Roaring Silence is the one I have studied most, because Dzogchen has always interested me more than Tantra.