I also continue to engage in the Tibetan teachings of the bardo and Dzogchen trainings. I'm not sure of the efficacy of reading about them without a teacher, but pursuing a teacher in this lifetime is something I've long rejected. I didn't even realize I'd been exposed to Dzogchen trainings until I started picking through random books on Tibetan teachings and finding remarkably similar things being said. That's because they've all received the same training and are trying to convey the efficacy of that training, and it is the Dzogchen method, philosophy and teachings.
Am I a Dzogchen practitioner? Without a teacher I'll err on the side of not (er . . . no). But still, I'm open to the idea that in past lives I've had a teacher and I've already been initiated in these practices and that's why they resonate or are acceptable to me in this life.
Most recently I've been attacking the concept of "I". "ME". Mindfulness training teaches to be aware of oneself – what we're doing, what we're feeling – at all times. Aware of external stimuli from all five senses and aware of the amalgam of the stimuli which renders our perception and consciousness. At each point of awareness I tell myself to not be attached to it, not be attached to this, not to cling to any idea that this is "ME". It's all construct like in "The Matrix", but in reality there is no malevolent force or a war against artificial intelligence. It's just the nature of physical, manifested reality that has naturally developed on this planet.
It's a matter of focusing on my senses and abiding in how my perception of "I", myself, is falsely created by my senses. Is what I'm perceiving through sight me? Is it me? Is it my identity? Same with sound, smell, taste and touch. I have these perceptions and they create my picture of reality, but what is the "I" they seem to be feeding? When these senses are destroyed, the perception is gone and then what is reality?
It's not easy. I'm still here, so I'm still very attached to something.
I've also been attacking my attachment to music and the desire that emanates from listening to music – the idea that music is a source of enjoyment. This is the hardest thing possible for me. Other people may have trouble detaching from the concept of self and I, which most people consider absolute reality, but their trouble with that translates to me in my perception and reaction towards enjoyment of music. One main thing that I have not been able to remove from my perception of SELF is that music is a source of great enjoyment. It may be this enjoyment that is my greatest failing, which is that I'm still here. But this enjoyment of music is not ultimate reality. It's subjective, it's constructed, it should be the easiest of things that can be taken apart under scrutiny of the nature of reality and mind.
I've been using the techniques to analyze other areas of attachment to and debunking of perceived, physical reality to music. What is it that I'm listening to? What is my reaction? Why am I reacting this way? Why do I find this pleasure in what I'm listening to? I take music apart, focusing on the rhythm, the melody, the individual instruments and how they come together and there is nothing I can point to that I can attach with the feeling of "enjoyment". That enjoyment is just fact, separate from any deconstruction or analysis.
Yet, I know it is not like that. Enjoyment is fleeting. This kind of enjoyment is by its nature also suffering. The intellectual answer is clear: there is no reason. Music and the pleasure I take from it isn't some objective phenomena that is able to be recreated and passed on and explained. My emotional response is something I need to take apart and understand for what it is. It doesn't mean not enjoying it, but rather not being attached to it.
