Questions About Fourth Path

Laurel Carrington wrote:

Limbic wrote: what does everyone think about knowing about these distinctions before having made any significant advances into experiencing them?

It tends to be really difficult to evaluate such discussions at an early stage. I remember reading them on KFD two and a half years ago and thinking, WTF are these guys running on about? And here I am running on about it.

I think I remember you more specifically stating that all of those post 4th path people were really annoying. . Haha. Here is your official welcome in to the annoying person club!

Russell wrote: I think I remember you more specifically stating that all of those post 4th path people were really annoying. . Haha. Here is your official welcome in to the annoying person club!

Oh, great, so now I'm an a$$hat!

Laurel Carrington wrote:

Russell wrote: I think I remember you more specifically stating that all of those post 4th path people were really annoying. . Haha. Here is your official welcome in to the annoying person club!

Oh, great, so now I'm an a$$hat!

You're ahead of me! I'm still just an annoying pre-path a$$!

Do you think the fetters definition the path to enlightenment is an advanced continuation of the PD path or completely different? I think I could make the case for both.

I was thinking this morning why I feel uncomfortable with path models and realized how I have been influenced by my early Zen training about breaking loose from the moorings of conceptual thought and being homeless. (Homeless doesn’t refer to a physical home but to a mental one.) Other early influences have been Toni Packer and Lao Tzu/Taoism who present the same view..

Here is Jack Kornfield’s take on enlightenment: www.inquiringmind.com/Articles/Enlightenments.html .

Quote I like: "We paint over reality, and then we react to the painting."
- Thubten Yeshe

One thing the fetters mention brings to mind is that some (not all) of the fetters point to "exterior" fruits. That is, some qualities by which a person's insight is evaluated have to do with how they experience (or don't experience) things "internally" (in their own minds) while other qualities are things that -regardless of the internal experience/lack thereof - can be seen externally, in behavior, speech, activity, etc.

Which reminds me of some quote attributed to some Zen teacher (if I recall): "Don't tell me how enlightened you are; show me." or the related "If you think you are enlightened, spend a week with your parents."

Some systems/traditions/individuals seem to emphasize the goal of enlightenment being fundamental changes to ones own internal experience (end of suffering, etc.). Others include or emphasize outward manifestations, or fruits, of whatever interior changes may have taken place.

I wonder if even in terms of evaluating ourselves, if it makes as much sense to focus on exterior behaviors as internal experiences? Obviously the two categories aren't really that divided - we act out of our conditions, and if we are in inner turmoil, we tend to reveal that in our behaviors. But since it is nearly impossible to know another person's interior except by interaction with their exterior (to maintain the division for the sake of discussion), why put more emphasis on one than the other?

Just poking around the subject. Not sure it's useful or even true.... any thoughts on this?

Laurel Carrington wrote:

Russell wrote: I think I remember you more specifically stating that all of those post 4th path people were really annoying. . Haha. Here is your official welcome in to the annoying person club!

Oh, great, so now I'm an a$$hat!

Click here to receive your award.

I think the fetter model is fractal. It can be used to describe the lifecycle of any bad habit, it can work as a guide to initial awakening in practical dharma, and there is another version that works as a guide to lifetime practice. I made up the first version just now... but basically any fixed patter of behavior seems to be like an identity that has it's own expression that becomes more and more diffuse until it is released. In the second place, it is a model that supports seeing through the center of "I" (by focusing us on the experiential energies we would prefer to avoid). In the latter, it is what can be used to describe how, post awakening, interiority continues to fall away over time.

I suspect the Buddha used it as a teaching tool for practical dharma type attainment, but it lived on as the latter.

Edit: well, reading this again it seems like the fractal idea might be rough.... anyway, the last sentence above is my point.

shargrol wrote: I think the fetter model is fractal. It can be used to describe the lifecycle of any bad habit, it can work as a guide to initial awakening in practical dharma, and there is another version that works as a guide to lifetime practice. I made up the first version just now... but basically any fixed patter of behavior seems to be like an identity that has it's own expression that becomes more and more diffuse until it is released. In the second place, it is a model that supports seeing through the center of "I" (by focusing us on the experiential energies we would prefer to avoid). In the latter, it is what can be used to describe how, post awakening, interiority continues to fall away over time.

I suspect the Buddha used it as a teaching tool for practical dharma type attainment, but it lived on as the latter.

Edit: well, reading this again it seems like the fractal idea might be rough.... anyway, the last sentence above is my point.

That's an interesting reflection. The spiraling or fractal quality of things intrigues. Christian Crucifixion/Resurrection cycle has an element of that. It is often applied to the overall spiritual process (dying to oneself, giving up ones entire identity to be reborn in deeper union with God, etc.); but it applies to the cyclical/tidal flux that often occurs day to day and year to year in our lives/practices, where things fall away, we feel broken and destroyed, then we feel lifted up and renewed, transformed, etc.. So the "imitation of Christ" becomes both a practice and a fruit of practice. Anyway, not sure that relates exactly, but in "riffing mode" here...

(Edit) Reply to Ona:

How interesting! My mind actually went there as well, but since it isn't my turf I didn't say anything.

Only recently am I'm starting to understand the crucifixion as the opening up to raw experience and the suffering and growth that goes along with it --- and could see the fractal nature of that as well. It's clear that in the Christian tradition there are experiences/thresholds that marks a union with divinity, yet the ever receding nature of divinity also means that the practice goes on.

(Of course, me being a Ken McLeod fanboy, what put me down this path was KMcL interview where he riffs on the images of Buddha and Christ: www.thenakedmonk.com/2013/09/21/4-ken-mcleod/ )

shargrol wrote: (Edit) Reply to Ona:

How interesting! My mind actually went there as well, but since it isn't my turf I didn't say anything.

Only recently am I'm starting to understand the crucifixion as the opening up to raw experience and the suffering and growth that goes along with it --- and could see the fractal nature of that as well. It's clear that in the Christian tradition there are experiences/thresholds that marks a union with divinity, yet the ever receding nature of divinity also means that the practice goes on.

(Of course, me being a Ken McLeod fanboy, what put me down this path was KMcL interview where he riffs on the images of Buddha and Christ: www.thenakedmonk.com/2013/09/21/4-ken-mcleod/ )

Thanks for the link, I'll take a look. I wouldn't say the nature of divinity is "ever receding". It's more like at first divinity is all about what you want (self-centered), but also seems distant/unreachable (other). But over time the distant-quality becomes "the infinite" and the "all about me" quality becomes "intimacy". And over time those "two" are understood to be undifferentiated. One may lose (over and over) the "grasp" one has on an image of God as being bounded by specific traits/experiences/qualities/imaginations. But that-without-qualities also becomes not-other. So the things which were perceived as bounded (self vs other) become unbounded. If that makes any sense.

@Ona:
I tend to agree with you about the external stuff, and increasingly so - I kinda went on a journey where I started off being about that as an ideal, moved toward the opposite end, and am now moving back toward that in terms of, as we put it in AA, if someone 'has what I want' then that is the person I want to take as a teacher or role model. At the same time, though, it depends what your practice goal is or what is important to you - for example, the main thing for me starting out, which is somewhat different now but continues to shape my trajectory in various ways, was 'the end of suffering' which is obviously an internal thing...

@Shargrol
I'm not so sure that the fetters teaching was reified only by the later tradition. The Pali canon, which is the closest we have to the historical Buddha, teaches the literal removal of the fetters by arahantship consistently throughout. Again, while the fetters model seems like a big ask, I'm wary of reading anything that doesn't fit with our present society's understanding of what's realistic or possible as 'a later addition' or 'supernaturalism' or whatever, with a 'pure' original founder who looks more like us (not to say, of course, that the latter doesn't happen). Clearly the Buddha's fetter model didn't preclude wanting to not experience physical pain (he had a sore back and wanted to stop teaching for the night), or finding something a hassle (trying to decide whether to teach people who mostly wouldn't understand would be burdensome), etc.

@Chris
I mentioned somewhere else, the person I know of who seems like they might have achieved this is Ajahn Brahm. Another possibility is that the fetters model is possible, but it DOES actually take extreme efforts beyond the 'householder' model - meditating 8 hours a day for 20 years, following a strict moral code, living in seclusion, or whatever. In which case, there wouldn't be that many people who'd achieved it who could talk to us about it, and fewer who would be involved with the PD scene or online. I don't want to practice that way or hold that up as some kind of ideal necessarily, but I think it should be considered as a possibility when evaluating these things.

I agree. On the other hand, there has to be some kind of difference between someone who meditates for thousands of hours and someone who does an hour or so a day for two or three years. And there's a lot of ground between the forest monk and the untrained mind that a person could occupy. So I'm thinking of maybe, maybe, getting back on that cushion, although now that my routines are thoroughly upset I have to work on putting thought into action.

To get back to the beginning of this thread, you talked about Daniel stating this:

3) No cycles change or stages or states or anything else like that do anything to this direct comprehension of simple truths at all.

4) There is no deepening in it to do. The understanding stands on its own and holds up over cycles, moods, years, etc and doesn't change at all. I have nothing to add to my initial assessment of it from 9 years ago.

Things seems to have changed since then. See: integrateddaniel.info/my-experiments-in-actualism/ I know this has been posted before, but I thought I would bring it up again because it seems people definitions always change over time.

To me, the 4 Fetters model is worthwhile as a goal and has nothing to do with whether others have totally eradicated them.. That is, through my practice am I getting more compassionate, getting more accepting of myself and others, have fewer angry moments and so on.

jackhat1 wrote: To me, the 4 Fetters model is worthwhile as a goal and has nothing to do with whether others have totally eradicated them.. That is, through my practice am I getting more compassionate, getting more accepting of myself and others, have fewer angry moments and so on.

I think these sorts of things (descriptions of ideals of experience/comportment/etc) are often useful as practice tools (when X arises, there's a good place to go do some investigating to see what that's about, as attested to by generations of practitioners in tradition Y). They are probably also intended to be motivating. They are probably least useful if considered as badges of honor to give ourselves or others.

Chris what do you think about the 'condition' that a teacher such as Adyahshanti claims, in that he doesn't see it as likely that any thought could pull him into division (he admits that he doesn't know, but says he can't really see it happening)? He seems to be saying that natural emotionality may arise, but basically that he doesn't ever act from greed, anger anymore. (A lot of people hang round him a lot of the time, and no-one seems to be saying anything very contrary.)

I take this to mean that like a concert piano player who masters a certain piece. there may, for a split second, be a tiny teeny slip onto a "wrong note", but they would recover so fast that no-one but an expert would hear their mistake. It's simply so ridiculously unlikely that they would play a whole wrong phrase of music that we can sort of rule it out.

A teacher I have been to see 3 times claims to have seen through all her 'stuff' in a similar fashion. I was asking her if it's possible, and how, when certain things seem so ingrained, so fast, so thickly entwined in us.

Her take basically is yes it is, as soon as you believe it is possible, that is, believe across your whole subconscious that it is possible for you, and therefor you stop resisting it, it can happen. Any form of questioning or doubting "is it / isn't it possible?" it is simply resistance of the ego, manifesting as confusion/doubt. These fixed doubts like "it is not possible for a person to be X or Y", if they are fixed beliefs, are the very things which cause people to get stuck at certain stages of development. That is her take anyway and I feel like I might as well believe it. She claims it took about 7 years of being on semi-retreat, during which time she had a relationship and other things.

Chris wrote:

I think it should be considered a possibility, too, but it would be nice to have evidence. Experiential evidence that comes from being near such a person for an extended period of time. Like shargrol and some others, I'm of the opinion that the dropping of all fetters is an ideal. Human beings, by their very nature, are far from ideal. If extinguishing all the fetters requires being alone in the forest for 40 years and not interacting with others then of what value is the attainment? Kind of interesting to ponder that, I think.

This is not meant to be cheeky, this is a serious and (I think) interesting question which I think applies to everyone who is skeptical of full-blown, real-deal, quasi-mythical-level Enlightenment.

Chris wrote (re: are there people who have totally de-fettered, or some version thereof):

I can only reiterate my previous comment - it would be interesting to see for myself.

Why do you think it is that you haven't put yourself in circumstances to go check it out for yourself yet?

Previously at some point in the past, you (tech 4th pathers, not just Chris) actively went to seek out the truth, to see if there really was the possibility of enlightenment in the non-dual perception (tech 4th path) sense. You actively sought out people on forums, teachers, I don't know how. And you ended doubt about whether non-dual perception was possible or not, and then, with ending your doubt, that cleared the way so you went ahead and did it yourself. So why not the same drive to find out the truth about the idea of full de-fettered enlightenment now?

It is like saying "I'll believe it when I see it", and then not making an effort to go see it!

I think what some of us have been saying in this thread that after 4th path that whole 'making an effort' changes completely. Totally different journey that seems to unfold on it's own. No doer, no one making the effort.

Tom Otvos wrote:

shargrol wrote: I think the fetter model is fractal. It can be used to describe the lifecycle of any bad habit, it can work as a guide to initial awakening in practical dharma, and there is another version that works as a guide to lifetime practice. I made up the first version just now... but basically any fixed patter of behavior seems to be like an identity that has it's own expression that becomes more and more diffuse until it is released. In the second place, it is a model that supports seeing through the center of "I" (by focusing us on the experiential energies we would prefer to avoid). In the latter, it is what can be used to describe how, post awakening, interiority continues to fall away over time.

I would like to press you to elaborate on this, even if it is only half-baked. I am particularly intrigued by the "bad habit" part because we all have our shadow sides to a greater or lesser degree (full disclosure: greater).

Well, I guess what I'm pointing toward is how bad habits are linked to a sense of self, so dropping bad habits are like mini awakening. A friend was talking about quitting smoking... basically she had to look at the withdrawl symptoms as not-self in various ways. In away it reminded me of awakening. First it starts off as an identity as a smoker. Then there is the first insight of not-identity, which makes everything else that follows possible. Then it goes through levels of seeing the emptiness in the withdrawl symptoms -- basically the drug makes you think you are going to die if you don't smoke, but the sensations are just what they are, the rest is stories. Finally toward the end, there is a complete release from ever being a smoker or having a habit --- and this results not in a new identity, but a sense of freedom from any aspect of that kind of thinking. So the last thing that goes is the final conceit of being a non-smoker. After that, there's just life without the habit or identity of not-having-the-habit.

Make sense? Same thing could be done with getting angry about a particular issue, not brushing teeth, really whatever. It starts off by seeing how it is not really self and a source of suffering.... and then it goes from there.

Hope this helps.

Thanks, Russell. I was wondering about that piece, and here it is.