Fruitions

I have a bigger question for you guys: I have no idea what a fruition is, and I don't really care. I'm completely uninterested in any habit of identifying, mapping, charting, you name it, what's going on in my meditation practice, beyond identifying the qualities I experience—good awareness, good concentration, et cetera. I have tried to wrap my head around the four paths, and the fruitions, and I have tried to read that Mahasi Syadaw book, and none of it sticks. It just seems totally separate from me, like trying to figure out what my Dungeons and Dragons alignment is. The only thing that I can do is just keep going back to my meditation, keep trying to practice the precepts, keep trying to cultivate the parami, and when I meditate, to try to cultivate concentration, awareness, keep my mind on the meditation object. Et cetera.

So: am I missing something? Do you guys feel that an understanding and awareness of this sort of thing is essential to meditative practice? Am I going to be keeping myself from enlightenment if I put my fingers in my ears and go NANANANANANANOTLISTENING every time somebody brings up the difference between a stream enterer and a once-returner?

EDIT: I should note that I say this as a Theravadan Buddhist, myself. None of the guys I read ever mention stuff like this, but knowing that so much of this vocabulary did originate in Theravada, I still worry that I might be missing something.

...
So: am I missing something? Do you guys feel that an understanding and awareness of this sort of thing is essential to meditative practice? Am I going to be keeping myself from enlightenment if I put my fingers in my ears and go NANANANANANANOTLISTENING every time somebody brings up the difference between a stream enterer and a once-returner?
EDIT: I should note that I say this as a Theravadan Buddhist, myself. None of the guys I read ever mention stuff like this, but knowing that so much of this vocabulary did originate in Theravada, I still worry that I might be missing something.


-cruxdestruct

This was sort of where my question came from, because with the exception of a few incidents, I was pretty sure I'd never experienced these fruitions others were talking about. Now after this discussion I see that I've probably had more than a few instances which for others would have been considered fruitions, but they happened spontaneously and my not knowing what they were called made zero difference.

Do what you are called to do, and you'll get where you are (not) going.

Sorry, I can't hold my tongue. Here's where I think the detailed technique mapping and naming of states and experiences is useful:

1) sometimes during meditation things will get really ugly, scary and depressing. this doesn't mean you are failing or are a miserable loser. it's called a dark night, and it's normal in any mystical practice. ignore it as best you can and keep practicing.

2) sometimes during meditation things get really amazing, expansive, blissful and wondrous. this doesn't mean you are "enlightened" or special. it's normal. keep practicing.

3) sometimes during meditation you'll have realizations or insights about the nature of Reality, and these are the point of it. they will arise by themselves when the time is right and are the fruits of your practice. studying other people's realizations (ie working with a teacher or studying a tradition) can help point the way and keep you from getting too lost in 1 or 2 but is not actually necessary. everything will take care of itself if you just keep practicing.

thoughts?

Zach, that's a great question.

First, have you read Jack Kornfield's book "A Path With Heart"? If not, buy it. Read the section on his description of "The Map of the Elders". It is, perhaps, the best trans-theoretical description of the insight map followed by many of us post-Mahasi vipassana types. Reading it may clear up why so many of us find it useful. Personally, I've done away with the Four Path Model beyond acknowledging stream-entry as a valid stage. Beyond this, it doesn't seem useful to classify levels of awakening. No one really agrees upon the criteria, anyway. Best to just keep practicing.

That said, if something isn't useful to you, then it isn't worth doing. If your meditation practice is really working for you right now, by all means keep it up!

I think that anyone who is serious about awakening/realization needs to spend time with the practices from their chosen tradition that goes beyond rules about ethical conduct. Inquiry is crucial to awakening. If your practice includes cultivating clarity of attention and looking into the nature of things (Four Noble Truths, dependent co-arising, three characteristics, Emptiness, awareness/citta/mind-essence, etc.), than you're on your way. Whatever map/model/system/framework that helps you do that is probably the right one for you at this time.

Ona, good points.

In addition to acknowledging the ups and downs of practice, it can also be helpful to point out that extreme lows tend to follow the extreme highs, and that this, too, is "normal". In fact, it is expected. This piece of advice is, by far, one of the most useful for all meditators everywhere.

Good answers, guys. I will get that book for sure. Ona, I think that is a map even I could get behind.

Couple of points:

-- The fruition that I am talking about in this thread is the "technical Thervada"one.

-- That first time a practitioner has this fruition moment it is "stream entry" and connotes a mostly non-intellectual understanding of the three characteristics.

-- One can practice bare attention so skillfully that they will have fruition(s) with no awareness of any "map."

-- Practicing dharma will cause certain things to happen to a person (the knowledges of mind and body, the three characteristics, etc. the A&P event, the dark night, eventually equanimity and then fruition/stream entry) depending on how well and when they are applying themselves whether they know about the maps or not. I'm actually not sure at this point how important knowing the details of the map really is -- if a person just practiced bare awareness while sincerely working on the eight-fold path wouldn't they traverse the various points on the map as well as one who had the map in front of them? maybe even better? For example, if one where practicing intently and encountered the dark night knowledges of disgust or fear or whatever if they kept practicing (sincerely) they'd eventually get to equanimity no matter how creepy things got. Of course, the danger at this point is that a person might give up and quit at this point and stay forever a "dark night yogi" while if they had map knowledge they might better know how to move on with more confidence that things would get better.

-- I think I am in agreement with Jackson that "stream entry" seems indisputable but beyond that I have less confidence in any mapping or identifying of stages.

Just to be blunt, no one needs to "have fruitions" or give two shits about them. I don't think it matters. Just practice as you believe you need to practice and what happens will happen. Be diligent and care about your practice. Be an adult human being. That's what matters, IMHO.

-cmarti

I guess I agree with this in a way, and also disagree. Sure, the most important thing is to be diligent and care about your practice and this is more important than something specific like a "fruition" but -- I have no doubt that apprehending the three characteristics (and thus fruition) is a huge deal and makes a huge difference in a person's life and I don't understand how you could say that it doesn't matter. And, I don't know what being "an adult human being" has to do with this particular issue.

So I like Ona's map, which is very, very high level and very, very practical -- Bad stuff happens to you in your practice. Try to just keep practicing. Really cool stuff happens, too, but just keep practicing. Insights happen, and those are why you practice. It all tends to work out if you keep practicing.


-cmarti

I'll go write a book.

Just to add, the understanding of the cyclical nature of experience in spiritual practice would indeed have saved me a lot of trouble. I got into a unitive/dark night cycle hard in Santeria, and I didn't know how to talk about it and no one ever suggested it was normal. I eventually walked away from spiritual practice altogether for a long time. Then again, had I figured it out and stuck out that practice, perhaps I never would have taken up my current practice, which has done me a world of good. So be it.

So that's one reason I'm grateful that there is *some* mappy stuff out there. I have found it useful and interesting in certain contexts. When I got into tough spots, I could say "stick it out, it'll work itself out soon enough" or when I got into blissy periods I could remind myself "this will also pass soon enough, don't get excited". At one point I went back and color coded an entire year's worth of practice notes with red for contractive periods and blue for open periods, to see what the pattern looked like. It wasn't quite as A-B-C as something like the Progress of Insight map suggests, but it certainly followed a general broad pattern of alternating...

Well ... I have an opinion that I feel relatively strong about (meaning that I am open to being wrong) that the basic Theravada map is a fixed thing that will happen if one practices bare awareness. So, my opinion is that the awakened zen person who knows nothing about the "maps" is still somewhere on the map -- it doesn't matter if he knows it or not.
I don't think the "paths" are different, the only difference is whether or not you are
1. Aware of the maps and care about them
or,
2. Aware of the maps and not care about them
or
3. Not aware of the maps.

The brain doesn't know if you are zen or vipassan or Tibetan or MBSR or a Christian contemplative -- do certain things with that brain and certain things will happen. Stay aware of what is going on with bare attention with the right amount of continuity and momentum and you will have insights into the basic marks of existence and you will have something called a "fruition." I am convinced that sincere zen practioners who go on sesshins and/or who live in centers, temples and monasteries and really practice as instructed -- are on the map. Same map, different context in way.

I'm certainly the only person on this forum who thinks this way, and I'm starting to wonder if I'm the only person who believes this.
but, it is definitely my opinion and is behind what I write here and it is why I disagree with some of what is being said in this thread.

Now, all this is said based upon my own experiences with practice. As mentioned earlier, back in the 1980s I devoured Krishnamurti and a little Vipassana by way of Kornfield's early books and I practiced a sort of "choiceless awareness" with wild abandon (part of my recovery program of just watch, let go, and do the next right thing). I didn't know about the insight map. However, I can look back and see that I what I was doing was bare disembedded attention with great continuity and momentum and that I went through each of the stages up to and including "path/fruition," including a good insight into the three characteristics. And, it changed everything about how I saw things.

I think that the point of dharma practice especially is to get to some real equanimity with things and then to realize who one really is and that is what the maps are about. For everyone who wants to be free and awake.

In spite of my attempt to be open to being wrong, I feel so sure about this that I'm surprised that I never seem to find anyone to agree with me.



Love.

It just seems totally separate from me, like trying to figure out what my Dungeons and Dragons alignment is. The only thing that I can do is just keep going back to my meditation, keep trying to practice the precepts, keep trying to cultivate the parami, and when I meditate, to try to cultivate concentration, awareness, keep my mind on the meditation object. Et cetera.
So: am I missing something?

-cruxdestruct

I'm gonna throw something out, but definitely feel free to throw it away! I don't think there is a 'one right way', but only because you asked I feel open to at least babble this...

Probably the most counter-intuitive thing about Saydaw method is that the method seems so intentional and the results seem so map-able. Niether are really like that. When you try to describe it, it just winds up getting articulated that way.

First of all, noting-a-la Saydaw is so momentary that it actually is pretty damn close to formless practice. The only difference is that when starting up, it is clunky and slow and seems stupid and remedial. "coolness, tingle, thinking, planning, calmness, heat," etc. How could that ever amount to anything, right?

But the real meditation kinda happens on it's own. It isn't the noting that is DOING it, it kind happens as you continue to pay attention between the noting. And after (let's say) 30 minutes, concentration builds on its own, and pretty soon things do get fairly vibratory, precise, and sometimes surprisingly vivid. Something that is clearly new terrain, something clearly born from the method.

Then it becomes a matter of adjusting to the terrain, you just continue to follow all this stuff that is arising. And like hiking, you could never describe to someone what each step was like -- it's way to complicated (stepping a little on the toes, more on the heel, foot angled this way then that) -- when someone asks you could say, oh yeah I walked up and down the hill. Even though there were all sorts of micro movements, it is described as "walking up and down a hill" when you explain it to someone. Same thing with the terrain of this kind of meditation. All these micro-movements of the mind, just becoming aware of each, one after the other.

Same thing with moving through the maps. Even though people say "I went through the misery stage"... the actual experience is so variable between people that usually you need to understand the whole of their sit to be able to tease out which part "seems" like it "could be" misery. It looks nothing like hitting a wall of misery (although that can happen). Some people really can distinguish clearly, but usually it only makes sense in retrospect or after going through it many many times.

The only reason I mention any of this is that the Noting approach solves one of the biggest problems: trying. I just noticed you used the expression "trying" a lot -- "keep trying to practice the precepts, keep trying to cultivate the parami, and when I meditate, to try to cultivate concentration, awareness, keep my mind on the meditation object".

What is amazing about noting is you don't have to try at all, you just note what is already there. You don't even need to stay on the meditation object -- every object that arises is the meditation object. Concentration builds on it's own. The energies of the paramis become more evident. The energies of right and wrong are more vivid and you find yourself following precepts because it feels better. etc. By giving you one small task (noting), you mostly stay out of the way of "it" happening on its own.

Hmm, I'll stop there. No need to reply, feel free to disregard. Hope it helps -- even to just entertain!

I actually don't disagree strongly with either of you (Mike and Chris). I'll try to state my assumptions carefully...

I think that there are some very deep features to the path of awakening, and that these deep features can be found in the stated experiences of the dedicated yogis and mystics across the greater and lesser traditions. The particulars of the path are another story.

Where I agree with Mike in paritcular is that if someone cultivates a particular way of looking at things, what I might like to call a mode of experience, then certain organic mind states or other experiences will likely follow. The vipassana mode some of us practice (whether exclusively or not) involves looking into the nature of phenomenal appearances, noticing some distinct characteristics. This seems to be what leads to the cessation moment we refer to as "fruition".

BUT, I don't think that this "fruition" is necessarily one of the deep features I mentioned above. I think that it happens as a result of the particular type of practice one engages in.

Now, if somene practices something more like moment to moment recognition of awareness (e.g. mind-essence, citta, rigpa, Witnessing, etc.), the way the path unfolds at the level of particulars may be quite different. There are strengths and weaknesses to both approches. And, what I tend to see in our postmodern, post-traditional culural landscape are practitioners who end up incorporating a little of both at some time or other, because moth "modes" of experience are good at helping us keep moving through sticky spots. But each of these modes can also become sticky spots themselves, which is why it's nice to have more than one way to practice.

Oy. I thought this was going to be a short post :-/

Am I making sense?

Excellent remarks, Shargrol! I think you describe the process quite well

I'm actually not sure at this point how important knowing the details of the map really is -- if a person just practiced bare awareness while sincerely working on the eight-fold path wouldn't they traverse the various points on the map as well as one who had the map in front of them? maybe even better? For example, if one where practicing intently and encountered the dark night knowledges of disgust or fear or whatever if they kept practicing (sincerely) they'd eventually get to equanimity no matter how creepy things got.

-michaelmonson

Maybe or maybe not. I've noticed a lot of dark night yogis take the events of the dark night as personal signs that they are not practicing the eight-fold path. It's very easy to think that something is wrong at that stage and start looking for things to fix. It can be a sidetrack that eats up years and years. You can go on a renunciate trip for years and when that doesn't work you can go on a hedonistic trip for more years... etc.

Yes, eventually you would get there, just like if you tried really hard you could create the recipe for kung pao chicken if you tried long enough... but having the recipe is a lot easier.

It seems to me this is what Ona was saying above, understanding the existance of the dark night is really important.

thanks for sharing Jackson, but -- my conviction about this is based upon what happened to me when I practiced "choiceless awareness" rather than any kind of strict vipassana. You know what I mean? I wasn't trying to notice any distinct characteristics -- in spite of my reading of some of the vipassana material second hand through Kornfield, I wasn't looking for the "three C's."

Now, that said -- I wonder. Before or maybe simultaneous with my Krishnamurti immersion I did sit down and diligently practice some of the vipassana techniques outlined in Kornfield's book "Living Buddhist Masters" and distinctly remember having an experience that looking back was definitely "knowledge of mind and body" and that certainly opened a real door into something original and new for me, plus, those books certainly talked about no self, impermanence, dukka, so I was certainly aware of those things as being important. So, maybe I got oriented that way without realizing it?

but, again -- I don't think "vipassana" is "noting" necessarily. Vipassana to me (and this is a minority opinion I guess) is any time one is practicing bare disembedded awareness of experience. (Rather, I guess, than being highly concentrated on one object like the breath or a kasina or something -- that would be samatha). So, the proverbial zen student can sit in zazen and if he or she follows instructions I think will wind up doing one or the other at different times. The instructions often are -- "stay with the breath" or "stay with whatever is going on" doing either of these things sincerely with no other guidance will or can cause one to practice vipassana or samatha. And, I think the lack of knowledge about these distinctions could be the cause of a lot of bizarre misunderstandings by zen students.

So, practice samatha you will get some peace and joy and better concentration abilities and maybe enter all those jhana things. Practice vipassana diligently and you will get all the "knowledges" up through dark night, equanimity and path/fruition -- or at least somewhere along that way.

Practice shamanism and you will maybe meet up with spirits and stuff but you won't become awakened to the three marks unless some kind of vipassana work is incorporated somehow.

Just sit and daydream and you will have daydreams.

Just sit and "be with what is happening" and what will happen will vary widely based upon how that attitude is apply, how disembedded one is, how good the momentary concentration is, how much continuity and momentum is developed.

Sit zazen with a keen concentration on every in berath and out breath and you may either get into some strong samatha stuff, or, if, maybe, depending, get into vipassana and insights. Or, like I think I said, a little of both at different times.

Of course, the danger at this point is that a person might give up and quit at this point and stay forever a "dark night yogi" while if they had map knowledge they might better know how to move on with more confidence that things would get better.

-michaelmonson

Ha! Sorry for the itchy trigger finger. You said it better than me in your post!

Chris said: "... I think
the really detailed maps, when used religiously (no pun intended), tend
to lead people to expect what's on the map..."

I think the biggest weakness is not just people expecting what's on the map, but people trying to make the map happen.

Now the question is, effort and intention do play a role in practice. If one didn't put the effort into bothering to sit, with the intention to meditate, one might watch TV instead (or whatever). But trying to run the show all the time is just ego-feeding-frenzy, and not productive. So that's one weakness the maps can create for some practitioners, I think.