Comments on “The Mind Illuminated, a journal: Day 12”

Wish to take a very mild exception to this passage, viz. “ This intensely concentrated ‘time-reduction’ method associated with mindfulness is alien to Vajrayana. Rather than breaking time into smaller and smaller pieces, with minute attention to the detail of passing moments, Vajrayana leans into an expansive experience of continuity. Tantra, ‘rGyüd’ in Tibetan, means ‘continuity’. The Sutric path perfects the mind moment technique, possibly at the expense of a wider view. Vajrayana, particularly in the inner paths of Anuyoga and Dzogchen, emphasizes ‘all-seeing’ awareness, possibly at the expense of relevant detail. In Sutra, awareness is slowed to encourage conscientious response. In Tantra, awareness is expanded to encourage congruent activity. “

I would claim that at least some Vajrayana teachings do emphasize the momentariness.
Specifically, Trungpa’s early teachings about “the gap” and later teachings of tha.mal.gi.shes.pa (ordinary mind) emphasize DIScontinuity, not continuity. In fact, he once spoke of tantra as being the “continuity of discontinuity.” Also, Namkhai Norbu often used the phrase “instant presence” to translate rigpa. Also practices such as “Distinguishing Mind (sems) and Rigpa” (Khenpo Gangshar in Crystal Cave) only work if you are….well… distinguishing, which is moment by moment by moment.

Arise, abide, cease. The closer we look, the quicker it gets. That direct presence that in a non-spatial manner encompasses the act of experience and its contents (qualia or not) is rigpa translated variously as awareness, instant presence, direct insight. Initially, on it being pointed out to us, we experience it as a flash, a discontinuity in our solid world. This is like a flash or “instant presence” because the flimsy stage drop of ego-laden experience is cut. Not cut by an intentional act but by finding ourselves released. However, it is only a flash because we habitually bracket it by a before and an after. Instant presence did not begin a second ago and will not cease a second later because positioning between a before and an after is a clunky misstep not the direct contact of naked awareness. Absent the futile imposition of these brackets, like trying to dam and contain the ocean with pieces of string, instant presence encompasses no less than space and time. Is this an ontological or an experiential claim? Not sure.

A “ moment” is a slippery construct - not that you were building any castles on it. There is nowhere in the continuum to anchor and nothing other than the continuum itself to separate out. We chop them into manageable chunks such as subject and object, this and that. We have a series of moments that blur in our confused perception to become something solid, perpetuated by tenacious, fear-based clinging. This blur is not the continuum of totality. The concatenation of moments that creates the seeming solidity and regularity of our world can be cut. In fact that concatenation is in a state of “already cut.” This is khregs.chod.

So sometimes it works to “expand” as you write, sometimes to “cut.”

Nowhere in what you have written in this series do I detect a valorization of the moment. That’s good.

Thank you for your response. Good points. IMHO, or should I write, “in my humble experience” the “overall framework” in either of the two domains you indicate wears pretty thin as one deeply engages. Yes, in some sense, it’s accurate to talk of the “methodological direction” to Vajrayana or Sutric practices. OTOH, there’s no direction and any felt sense of direction is just more stuff. Ro.gcig BTW, I am not implying valuation and judgement are bad and their absence is good. If I understand what you are doing in your “experiment,” you are comparing two different methods of cultivation. You are noting similarities, differences, etc. Really good, juicy, honest stuff. But both methods of cultivation, if sincerely trod, will see through/bring into question/deconstruct/drop the “overall framework” and their “methodological direction.” That’s a feature, not a bug. So, perhaps, at one point in time, one point in the cultivation of the yogini, there’s a difference between what you are calling Vajrayana and Sutric cultivation. And, at another point in the cultivation of the yogini, there’s not so much difference. Does that make sense?

When I write, “there’s no direction,” I am not sure if I am making an ontological claim (you know how some dharma folks say “well, ulimately xyz.) or a cultivation/experiential claim. A lot of conceptual mischief gets done with the weasel word “ultimate.” I guess my statement is bringing into question “stages of the path” or developmental landmarks, etc. Stuff/nyams/shit happens. Threading it into a progression is subsequent - both in a temporal and logical sense and should be questioned.

This sounds like what I was doing the last time I had an hour-a-day meditation practice; take up the center of attention with the breath sensations, peripheral awareness is still a thing but confined to the periphery, you start to feel the “vibrations” of sensation and thought, as in, you perceive a periodic flicker in some sensations or mental phenomena that I’d guess is the actual speed of one of the perception levels in the brain.

I’m kind of confused by how this is different from shi-ne – how do you get to a state of “no thinking” without the forced-attention-on-sensations thing?