- When you ask "what
sees/feels this," as in "who am I?" or "who is the author of this
experience?" you are practicing the quintessential "direct path"
exercise. That question points to the direct apprehension that the
knowing and that which is known are "not two." This is advaita, which is
a Sanskrit word meaning..."not two." This is not vipassana, but a
complete practice unto itself. You can become fully enlightened, as did
Ramana Maharshi, by continued inquiry into "who am I?" Ramana insisted
that no other technique was required. Of all the practices I have done,
including a great deal of vipassana, "Who am I?" self-inquiry, as taught
by Ramana is my favorite practice. I recommend doing it in conjunction
with your other practices, as it has the power to completely disabuse
you of the notion of a separate self. With this kind of practice, "the
path is the goal." In other words, you are able to see what it is like
to be enlightened, long before your development catches up with your
momentary insight. (KF)
- The confusion arises when we try to evaluate one technology through the
lens of another. Developmental technologies like vipassana begin with
the assumption that you can strip away layers of delusion over a period
of time, eventually arriving at the simplest thing. At that point you
see clearly and are said to be enlightened. Interestingly, those who
have mastered this approach point out that what they "found" was there
all along but was obscured by delusion. The other major approach, the
"realization" school, begins with that very understanding. If the
simplest thing is already here, we can see it now. Their techniques are
designed to cut through delusion in this moment, allowing even beginning
yogis to see what is true. "What is true," or "the simplest thing" is
prior to the arising of time. For that reason, development through time
is either not emphasized in realization teachings or is explicitly
refuted. It is thought that if you are obsessing about how enlightened
you will be in the future you will be unable to see what is already
true. (KF)
- Chinul called the developmental approach the "gradual awakening, gradual
cultivation school," and the realization approach the "sudden
awakening, gradual cultivation school." In both cases, he pointed out,
cultivation is necessary. I know of very few people who teach that you
can wake up in one moment and remain forever awake. If you listen
carefully, even realization teachers are telling you to cultivate your
realization through time. Instructions like "dwell as the watcher,"
"remain stable in the awareness," etc., are all ways of saying that
there is still something to be done even after realization. Ramana
Maharshi spent years meditating silently after his awakening. Eckhard
Tolle sat on a park bench. Adyashanti had already meditated for years
before his realization and continued to meditate afterward. (KF)
- Notice
that both schools are present within Buddhism. The Tibetans, for
example value and teach both systems side by side. There is no reason
why any of us should feel attached to one school over the other. That
would be just more dogmatic thinking. To understand the two schools, we
must approach each through its own lens and stop trying to understand
the timeless through the lens of time. (KF)
- The direct approach is not a subset of Hinayana. It has exactly nothing
to do with vipassana or the three characteristics. It is the direct
apprehension of reality, prior to the arising of your identity. Stop
trying to shoehorn it into a concept that is comfortable for you. And,
by all means, don't make a boogie man out of it. Just try it. (KF)
In a tradition which defines itself as 'wholeness' or non-duality (not two), one often finds a vast array of teachings, concepts, methods, no-methods and ideas.
On the one side of the line there are the traditional progressive paths which lay emphasis on practice, traditional teachings, having a 'teacher', and 'time'. On the other side, one finds absolutist nondual teachings which emphasise no-effort, no-method, no-teacher, absence, and an approach based purely on "pointers" or infusion via knowledge and innate insight. In the middle lie 'Direct experience' type teachings.
The fact that 'people' have 'awoken' via all manner of means along this line shows that there is no 'one right way' or 'one correct' method that can ever be applied for everyone and in every situation. The key that fits my conditioned lock probably doesn't fit his or her conditioned lock.
One balanced way of approaching Non-duality may be to take a two-pronged approach by incorporating the use of both apparent progressive practices and 'pointers'.
I won't go into actual practices here, though some of the more efficacious ones may be found in the traditions of self-inquiry, attention to bare awareness, shikantaza, jnana yoga, and direct-investigation-analysis-contemplations as found in some Buddhist and Non-dual traditions. Whatever works initially and immediately is probably a good indication.
As for 'pointers', again, certain Non-dual pointers will either hit the mark immediately and with a noticeable shift, or not at all. Though contemplating a pointer until one's brain explodes is an efficient practice in itself.
There's no logical reason to dismiss either progressive paths, or intellectually-heavy pointer paths, though one certainly finds a tendency for individuals (read "teachers") who have invested a large amount of 'no self' in either of these paths to dismiss the other side.
Don't fall for this trap.
But then again, if "we" are meant to fall for this trap, we probably will anyway.
Now, back to what we were doing.. :)
