A Very Streamlined Enlightenment Protocol Part 2
- rogerthisdell
- 2 days ago
- 12 min read
If you haven’t already, I implore you to read part 1 first.
So part 1 was a bit of a tease, being just the set up and forewarning. Essentially, the main idea of this shortcut is we go straight to - or as soon as possible - (de)objectifying the priors at the second from the first row of our constructed, fabricating mind. This layer is where the opposite of (de)objectification begins.
Now, what are these low level priors in question which generate a non-enlightened mind? They are no other than the concept of thing and its subsequent co-arising, counter concept, nothing. Let us start with ‘thing’.
Thing
Once the mind constructs the belief in ‘thing’ (that is, a static noun with independent existence) and affirms it, it then subsequently builds a world full of things. To deobjectify the concept of ‘thing’ itself, is to de-thingify the mind as a whole, leading us to enlightenment. However, before we can deobjectify, we must first objectify; this means to find and isolate it, to recognise it as not the subject of experience, but an object for the mind to model. Basically and ironically, we have to thingify ‘thing’ in order to see that it is not a thing! So to isolate it, it is not enough to work with any-thing, or just the vague concept of thing, but to get the job done sufficiently (and leave no doubt) we need to find the pure concept of thing.
How to objectify it?
Objectifying the pure concept of thing is an experience that requires distilling a single signal within the mind, that presents only one clear message: ‘thing’ and nothing else. (I’m reminded of an idea Andrés Gomez Emilsson and I discussed about creating a periodic table of sorts, of different ‘pure experiences’ that would be deeply edifying and transformative for an individual to have.)
The problem with trying to have this experience of the pure concept of thing is that the qualia it is presented through* must be so minimal, so minute, so as not to be confused with merely an example of a thing (as opposed to the concept of ‘thing’ itself), that it can hardly be said to have any recognisable form at all. Most people will only ever experience examples of things (i.e. higher level, objects of form like shapes) and not access the more generalised ‘thingness’ in all things. At this point the concept of ‘thing’ has already built itself into grosser abstractions of sensory perception. In which case, were we to objectify and deobjectify here, we would be objectifying and then deobjectifying content too high in the fabrication stack and not targeting the root of the problem. This makes it very hard to experience, but I can personally assure you that it is possible.
So, to pull this off, we need to be incredibly phenomenologically fast and precise.
Fast means we need high noticings per second (NPS), to see comings and goings very quickly. (My estimate is that the five to 10 NPS range is a good goal to achieve in order to pull off this shortcut.)
Precise means we need extreme sensory clarity and discernment, to single out the pure concept of thing from any extraneous information present in experience at the time.
In order to catch the pure concept of thing, before it binds to other sensory data and starts forming more complex objects, it has to be detected in amodal perception. This is content in experience which is so fleeting and has such little phenomenological richness to it, that it is perceived as (almost) just aspatial information.
For example, recognise the instantaneous sense you have for the presumed weightiness of an object when you look at it. It’s such a subtle feature of experience. It’s hard to say where and how in experience you detect the prediction of how heavy/light an object seems before picking it up - this is an example of amodal perception.
Referring to the image above, you’re probably wondering what the axial aspect is. ‘That looks important!’ It’s one’s deepest not yet deobjectified aspect of experience. The deepest we have not yet realised emptiness. It’s one’s perceived ‘ground of being’ or presumed fundamental essence and is seemingly the most stable and consistent feature of experience across all conceivable states of mind. This is unlike amodal content which is very inconsistent. One’s axial aspect could land on a number of things, like simply the egoic sense of self, consciousness, God, love, fullness, nothingness etc. Ironically, the axial aspect, despite seeming so glaringly obvious, is actually a massive blind spot of the practitioner, which hasn’t yet been fully perceived and integrated.
For enlightenment, it is essential to dispel the axial aspect, however the pure concept of thing, although will be a feature of the axial aspect, may not actually be most easily found and distilled there. That’s why I suggest working in the amodal range; because thinginess may be easier to locate in simpler phenomena which we are less attached to. The content in amodal perception and in one’s axial aspect seem to share similar properties in terms of not being easy to define, despite them existing at opposite ends of a spectrum. But like many ends of extremes there is a looping function and they are actually not so far from one another. So by becoming familiar with and working within the amodal range, this can actually act as a backdoor into our axial aspect, so long as we take the insights we gleam amodally and also apply them to our perceived ‘ground of being’ (axial aspect).
To learn how to recognise amodal content, you need to have fast enough noticings per second. The best way to increase your NPS is through the meditation technique of noting. Noting is great for training both our NPS and sensory clarity. So I consider it an essential preliminary technique for this method to awakening.
You’ll want to start noting within simple and obvious categories of phenomena, like the 5 / 6 senses, slowly getting faster and faster, while maintaining sensory clarity. There is often and predictably a tradeoff between speed and clarity, here. The priority is clarity - so don’t run before you can walk.
Eventually, you’ll want to branch out into different categories of phenomena to note, working towards less obvious and abstract noticings, like: the emotions, or “arising/passing”, “form”, “pleasure”, “expansion/contraction” etc. until we have the subtlety and discernment to pick out and note something as vague as “thing” itself, leading to an experience of the pure concept of thing.
Once your NPS are fast enough, you’ll start catching phenomena very close to the moment they appear in consciousness. This content hasn’t yet fully bloomed into 3D, spatially locatable objects, and if your sensory clarity isn’t sharp enough you’d think it’s not of a sense modality. At this point, we are becoming metacognitive within the amodal perception range - and this is where we find our culprit.
Now that you have metacognitive access to phenomena coming and going within amodal perception, we need to find the pure concept of thing, at this level. To do this you need to set a strong intention to notice pure thing-ness. As cheesy as it sounds, this will direct the mind and do some of the weeding for you. For the most part, this is a yellow car case, not a finding love case (so it appears when you actively start looking for it, as opposed to it only coming when you stop looking, kind of thing).
Other tips for experiencing the pure concept of thing are:
Get into states of mind as defabricated as possible.
A calm, concentrated, equanimous and bare state of mind will lend itself best for pulling off this move.
Look for locating the pure concept of thing via thinking/somatic feeling.
It’s not that it can’t be found in the other sense channels, but somatic feeling tends to be what really thingifies/reifies phenomenal reality in a way the other senses don’t, and is often the most rudimentary makeup of conscious experiences (hence very low in the stack).
The other senses, like hearing and seeing, are normally experienced after there is already somatic sensation in consciousness.
Seeing is too likely to be registered as a shape (if not with colour) and so has too much form to it, meaning it won’t be the pure concept of thing; and hearing although more formless is unpredictable and 99% of the time triggers seeing qualia anyway.
So this means another prerequisite is to be able to have pure perception experiences - specifically pure feeling
(I told you, this wouldn’t be easy).
IMPORTANT: Don’t go in search of the pure concept of thing with the top-down incentive that you already know it’s not an object, or the preloaded sentiment that you are trying to disprove it. You have to meet it genuinely, trying to see what it is for itself, as you are ontologically open and just want to know the truth - whatever that may be. It’s like going to shake hands for the first time with an uncontacted tribe. Both parties must feel safe and assured enough to meet and truly connect with one another. So approach without attitude.
Hit it hard and put in a lot of dedicated time to this!
How to deobjectify it?
So now, let’s say you’ve clearly experienced a moment of the pure concept of thing, unmarred by any specific example of thing - just ‘thing’ in itself. You’ve objectified it! You’ve noticed it as a discrete object of the mind. How do you then deobjectify it?
Well, the good news is that the objectification and deobjectification will likely happen immediately one after the other. This is because, as mentioned in part 1, another way to describe what deobjectification means is to recognise its empty nature.
Let me explain.
Emptiness in Buddhism refers to phenomena: lacking inherent, independent existence, being untenable and not ultimately suitable for describing reality accurately & absolutely. Emptiness is the uniting theme of the three characteristics (impermanence, no self and unsatisfactoriness). The three characteristics point to emptiness. And so it is through the recognition of phenomena having (or acting as if they have) the three characteristics that we realise its emptiness - its none thingness.
Now technically we need see only one of the three characteristics deeply enough in a phenomenon to learn of its emptiness. All three interrelate and can be inferred from each other. And, a fond point that Marcin Kowrygo makes is that impermanence tends to be the easiest of the three to grok. This will be especially the case if we’ve been doing a lot of noting meditation and really training the mind to recognise phenomena of all sorts ‘arise and pass’.
So when having an experience of the pure concept of thing and objectifying it (which already speaks to the no-self characteristic of it), we will perceive it appear and then disappear. We will clock its impermanence. By noticing it come and go, and reality not breaking, despite its absence, the mind learns that reality is not ultimately dependent on ‘thing’ and so not defined by ‘thing’, thus deobjectifying it. Therefore, when we objectify the pure concept of thing, we are very likely to also deobjectify it in the next moment - granted you viscerally/experientially recognise impermanence well.
The less good news is that it’s often not a case of ‘one and done’. Meaning, we may very well have to keep noticing this insight to deepen before its significance causes the critical ramification of prolifically deobjectifying a majority of conscious content. What can be very likely to happen, even if we have an impactful experience of this, is the mind builds a protective barrier around the insight and compartmentalises the emptiness of thing, not applying it to lots of things. This will be applicable to the next steps of this protocol.
Nothing
Ok and now what about the co-arising, counter concept, ‘nothing’? The pure concept of nothing really is no other than the 7th Jhana. However, this is supposed to be a streamlined protocol and asking people to jump to the 7th Jhana would require them to first be able to attain Jhanas 1-6 first, which is no shortcut at all (plus, this is already tricky enough). Luckily, I’m thinking that where Buddhism takes one through to the pure concept of nothing (and beyond), via the Jhanas, my method is approaching the same place and insight, though from the other side, via the route of the pure concept of thing.
And so, from this angle of approach, I hypothesise that the attainment of 7th Jhana may not be necessary, though I do contend that the Jhanas and cessation are critically important reference ‘experiences’ for informing a mind on the nature of reality - so I also can’t totally rule them out.
‘Nothing’ only really needs to be (de)objectified so long as it’s made into a new kind of thing. Put another way, just as there are no things there is also not nothing; because ‘nothing’ is not an actual thing and to declare anything is to attempt to actualise it, to thingify it, and we mistakenly do this even with ‘nothing’ when we proclaim or believe ‘there is nothing’. But if we have really realised what the (de)objection of thing has revealed, then although the mind may temporarily side to nothingness, the insight of no-thing should soon percolate into this nothingness as neither being a thing either. Which leads into the next part of the process and final layer; the final construct of the mind (because remember this only tackled the penultimate layer).
Emptiness can correlate with nothingness, though importantly even emptiness is empty; which is to say emptiness as a view or property should not be made into a thing that has inherent existence and cannot ultimately describe reality, either. But again first objectify, then deobjectify. Get it first to then see through it - include and transcend.
Continual Refinement and New Beginnings
So (de)objectifying ‘thing’ doesn’t quite fully complete what I call the (de)objectification process; because one still needs to ‘emptify’ the realm of neither perception nor non perception (8th Jhana), dispelling the delusion of the four extremes, establishing a permanent connection with Nibbana/Nirvana, finding the middle way and the dissolving of any axial aspect.
And even Nibbana (‘the unborn’, ‘the unconditioned’, ‘the deathless') is to be deobjectified if it is being subtly reified, which it certainly will be.
Now comes the re-scripting and integration of the insight as we encounter ever subtler, more abstract perceived ‘things’ (such as: relations, systems, forces, knowledge, notions, existence, non-existence, mind, space, time, consciousness, waves, quantities, levels, degrees etc., etc.) and recognise that those too are not actually things either. And of course remembering to go meta, so (de)objectifying (de)objectification. Yes we can perceive and understand them, but what they are and how they are is nowhere to be found. We can’t not reference things, but now when we do the mind is never fully epistemologically bought-in.
However, fortunately that should naturally and inevitably follow in time, as a consequence of having done the hard work of (de)objectifying ‘thing’ and subsequently ‘nothing’. By this point, it’s as if enough unraveling has happened that these are just the last threads to unwind and a critical turning point has already been achieved.
Unfortunately, however, the cleaning up of one’s shadow (unconscious trauma) doesn’t all immediately follow suit and less enlightened parts of ourselves may elude self-awareness and correction, seemingly indefinitely. I remind you all of part 1. Also the (de)objectification process as discussed here is very mind focused (perceptual and conceptual) and can neglect other very important aspects of fully awakening; like opening the heart (the unlocking, valuing and processing of emotions and connection to pervasive ways of loving) and embodiment (the unlocking and valuing of physical, intuitive intelligence). Though, I don’t ultimately see any of these as unconnected, they can tend to disconnect if we aren’t careful.
People may really stall in their development after achieving a permanent nondual realisation. As at some point it is clear as day there is just nothing more to do in that regard and one literally/physiologically cannot practice in the same way they used to, because there structurally isn’t the same setup of mind anymore. So although I do contend the (de)objectification process does have a very definitive end, one should continue to find new ways to practice.
Factoring all of the above in, the importance of sila (ethics/right conduct) as a continual, forefront practice cannot be understated and the acknowledgement of the infinite path of ever greater and new valence harmonisation is key.
After all:
“You are never fully enlightened until everyone is.” This should be intuitive by dint of the no-self insight which entails not separation from anyone else.
“Be a bodhisattva unto yourself.” which means rescuing all your subminds (all the aspects of your psyche that are still caught in conflict and unresolved tension), even if some major portion of your personhood has already ‘broken through’, as it were.
Being a bodhisattva to others organically follows. The better we are within ourselves, then the more capacity, love and compassion we have to share with others.
These are two tenets I choose to live by and believe, kept in mind, help prevent complacency and spiritual bypassing.
Releasing the mind’s tendency to contract reality into perceived absolutes/definitives (nouns/things) and this includes making ‘the relative’ into a truism too, is what gives way to anatta (no-self), right view (no view)/ the middle way; a point not between two extremes, but having slipped between the gap and beyond the beyond.
“Gate, gate, paragate, parasamgate, bodhi svaha.”
-The Heart Sutra
The non-nouned life is what allows for vast ontological freedom as we no longer concretise to a degree we previously did and yet obtain the liberty to entertain the panoply of reality. Thank you for reading and lots of love.
-Roger Thisdell