Dear Sara (not her actual name),

The Direct Path Teaching In A Nutshell

In this teaching:

1. The only thing we’re investigating is the nature of direct experience.

2. For analytic purposes, we can see experiential understanding unfold “in three ways”:

• a) Your direct seeing reveals, or exposes, a “superimposition”: the error or confusion. For instance, when I ask you to stay only with sensation, you don’t find a “me,” a “my,” or a “mine” in the sensation. If a thought arises, it may say, “Ouch! That’s my pain!” Here is the confusion, the error, the superimposition. Drop it.
• b) Your direct seeing reveals, initially, the “raw” objective experience (sans superimposition in a) above): just seeing, just tasting, just smelling, just hearing, just touching, just sensing, just feeling, just thinking. Or: X-arising, etc.
• c) In fact, your direct seeing doesn’t reveal “raw” objective experiencing arising. The very nature of this arising–of all arisings–is nothing but aware presence.

Difference?

What’s the difference [you ask] between embracing any felt experience that arises vs embracing thoughts? 

No difference!

1. When perceiving (e.g., seeing or hearing) is arising, aren’t you aware of seeing? Yes!

2. When sensing is arising, is there any direct evidence that shows this sensation to be “inside the body,” let alone “mine”? No. Isn’t it just arising to awareness? Yes.

3. When thinking is arising, is there any evidence that there’s a thinker, a knower, or a doubter? No! Isn’t it just arising to awareness? Yes.

Looking For The Looker

[You wonder:] Could you guide me further into this exercise: look for what’s looking?

1. There are two ways that this pointer can be understood: looking for an ego and opening to awareness.

2. Start with the first: looking for an ego. Let’s take looking to mean seeing. Ask yourself, “In my direct experience of seeing right now, can I find an ego-seer? That is, is there any entity that’s directly involved in seeing?” No. The same holds for hearing, tasting, touching, smelling, sensing, thinking, and feeling. There is no ego-looker.

3. Go further by turning to the second: opening to that which is aware. 

• Go back to “just seeing.” Ask yourself, “What is that to which seeing is appearing?” Or: “What is this that is aware of seeing effervescently arising?” It’s awareness. But I’m awareness. So, be knowingly aware of seeing. And be, knowingly, aware when seeing is not appearing.

The Essential Point?

One thing to be clear about, in your daily practice, is that you’re not just letting go of experiences. Gently treat every objective experience as a “pathless path” that reveals awareness (you) at the very heart of experience. This is the crux of the direct path.

Otherwise, simply letting go of attachments and aversions is endless. For this reason, being that to which all experiences are appearing is the way.

Pain And Suffering?

You asked about whether a jnani is beyond suffering or beyond pain.

1. A jnani is beyond dukkha. By definition.

2. Is a jnani beyond pain? That really depends.

• Non-technically speaking: No. A jnani’s “body” is still subject to all that ails human bodies.
• More technically speaking: Yes. A jnani no longer superimposes “pain” onto experiences like intense sensations. In fact, because she no longer feels that this body is “me” or “mine,” there’s no sense in which she can legitimately say that she is “in pain.” 

In what you’ve just read, don’t make the mistake of thinking that a jnani has “transcended” all human experience. Statements like these can be misunderstood. That’s why Advaita Vedanta underscores the following: the jnani sees the same appearances that everyone else does. Only, she–when she sees these appearances–knows them all to be Brahman, and Brahman alone.

With kindness,

Andrew