my idea of pragmatic dharma

jake wrote: ... evidently for some folks to whom these things show up there is yet, as Ona pointed out, not a lot of transformation that I would consider evidence of 'awakening' and I have friends who do evidence those qualities and insights who have never really experienced a classical progress of insight, cessation etc. Whole 'nother can of worms as well lol

But a very interesting can of worms for me for some time. Can of peaches in heavy syrup instead maybe. Yum.

I think historical context is also useful for the Daniel and Kenneth path models - both took these models from Mahasi Burmese tradition. The Mahasi people had already done a 'modernist' job on Enlightenment in that they said it was possible for ordinary people, and that you only had to do noting-style vipassana to get there (although they do also teach metta as important). But their criteria are much stricter than what afterwards came to pass in the PD scene, so I don't think classical Mahasi teachers would recognise most of the 'paths' claimed by PD yogis or think that you could do this without doing frequent, long intensive retreats and rigorous daily practice. So we have the Pali canon as the originating locus of the 4-path model, related to the removal of fetters - then refracted through modernist Mahasi, refracted through early Daniel and Kenneth, refracted through the developing PD scene (in MCTB for example Daniel also seems to think that there's no way this can be done without a lot of serious retreat practice). What this means for the usefulness of that model is up for grabs.

Certainly, there are lots of Buddhists who share Ona's belief about the completeness of the path but you don't find many of them in the PD scene

I also find the idea that a path has happened without being noticed to be odd, i.e. if there was no noticeable change, what is a 'path' exactly? For myself I no longer find the path model useful at all and sometimes I see it causing suffering in people which looks to me to be unnecessary. Having said that it was very very helpful for me to work with a teacher who took me through first and second, even though it was that very process which led to my disillusionment with the model (i.e. if I have second path why hasn't it helped me more?)

@Ona: me too, me too...

One more thought, this one regarding 'self-diagnosis'. It's totally possible I'm completely deluded about this but here are my ponderings...

There may be an interesting paradox here-- if a teacher I'm working with diagnoses me as 'done' in some way, yet there is still a fundamental dissatisfaction and confusion, what is that worth?

And if on the other hand, without working consistently with one teacher or being validated by anyone else, one has come to a place where (though there is still more to learn, more to see, more growth and development possible) yet still one has come to a place where there is a.. a certain something dropped, in terms of seeking, seeking for a special experience, or external validation.. well then, that is something worthwhile, in my experience. Something authoritative even.

Maybe, ultimately, the only 'diagnosis' that counts on a certain level is the self-diagnosis that one is no longer seeking validation in passing experiences or the judgments of others', and in the end, this will always be something one discovers in the authority of one's own experience. I'm not sure how one avoids responsibility for discovering this confidence (which can shine right in and as confusion) whether or not one is working with a teacher who could provide external feedback about 'done-ness'.

(And anyhow, 'doneness' itself seems like more of a proper starting point than a finish line, just sayin').

@jake - did/do you work with a teacher?

I guess it tends to come down to misery. If someone is ramming their head into a wall, struggling and flailing, and part of the conditions contributing to that is that someone told them that they had this or that spiritual attainment, then it seems worth offering some correction of view. On the other hand, such struggles are never due to a single cause, if only because our own personality attributes, neuroses, etc contribute enormously to how we respond to teachings (as well as everything else in life). I've rewritten this six times, because everything I write seems either really self-evident, or incomplete, or only reflecting my mood of the moment, or quite possibly not true at all if seen in another context. So there ya go.

Ona Kiser wrote:

DreamWalker wrote:

Ona Kiser wrote: Since it relates to pragmatic dharma, but is otherwise a bit random, can I ask: is there any real value to this "path" system popularly in use in pragmatic dharma? I have - over the years - run into people who have Path X (so they say), but whether or not they show any "fruit" - ie actual transformation in behavior, life, etc - is really arbitrary. I'm wondering if either there is a lot of misdiagnosis/self-diagnosis going on OR the "paths" don't actually have much to do with the development of realization/insight/wisdom.

That is, "awakening experiences" (whether partial, minor, major, etc.) are not directly correlated to the development of insight (actual transformative wisdom, change in understanding that results in change in behavior, comportment, way of thinking, etc.).

What good is it if someone has "fourth path" but is confused, hostile, blind to the nature of reality, and functioning poorly, while another person who supposedly doesn't even have "first path" shows real thoughtful self-awareness, awareness of the nature of phenomena and how reality constructs itself, development of natural inclinations to virtue and morality, and other fruits of wisdom?

I'm going to err on the side of suspecting there's a lot of very loose diagnosis going on out there, and that if everyone were working with a set of teachers trained in the same system there would be less of the erratic quality. Maybe? Thoughts? Regrets?

I believe enlightenment is a deletive process. We "get" nothing from path moments....we untangle confusion about reality/sensations of our perceived reality as SELF. What inherent positive qualities are added to this deletion process? Are there fundamental additions happening or are they all in context of our projection of what we wish it to be....

Speaking in deletive terms, I suppose one could say that those positive qualities are uncovered as the self-centeredness/self-referencing loosens/untangles. The less concerned I am (even mechanistically speaking) about my*self*, the less easily I am offended, for instance, which leads to less aggression, arguing, cantankerousness, etc. Or that being less entangled in confusion naturally results in actions/comportment that happens to be more in line with what is generally referred to as "virtuous" (such as compassion, patience, etc etc.)

I think this could be a useful thought experiment....what attributes are deleted and what probable virtuous results might occur? If the 5 senses, thoughts, proprioception are not you; does it lead to anything positive? What about fourth path effects? Is there even a list of effects agreed upon from pragmatic practitioners? I guess this gets back to the teacher question - " teachers trained in the same system there would be less of the erratic quality" Do we even have an erratic quality that can be pointed to or is this all kept secret due to the uncomfortable nature of the topic?
~D

Ona, I worked with a pragmatic dharma teacher briefly while going through an initial progress of insight but the relationship soured around the time of initial awakening. Subsequently I worked on and off with various mentors in different traditions, some of whom were peers in the pragmatic dharma scene, some of whom belonged to other lineages entirely. But never consistently over time. Prior to engaging Prag Dharma I worked pretty much exclusively in a Dzogchen context and lived in a town with an older practitioner who gave me lots of great feedback. Also from adolescence on I intuitively employed methods that were compatible with/similar to prag dharma shamatha/vipassana but that was entirely untutored.

I've had a lot of difficulty with teachers-- especially baby boomer age male teachers (father/son issues dovetailing, anyone?)-- whether in meditation land or in school for whatever reason(s). I just went on a short retreat with an IMS teacher and had a good experience. I'm a lot more mature around the issues of authority etc than I was five years ago when I was working with the pragmatic dharma teacher, and I can certainly own my part of why that didn't work out, and I think I'll spell out my part a bit below in my 'new rules' for working with teachers.

What was different about this past weekend was that I had learned so much about my own neuroses in this department (and my own sanity) and how these can dovetail with the neuroses/sanity of a teacher. I basically came up with a few rules that address the issues I have experienced working with teachers in the past and it worked really well. I came up with these rules before the retreat and was mentally prepared to work with the situation which really helped.

1) learn the teacher's language, connect the teacher's vocabulary to my own experience. this involves not asking questions until I understand the teacher's vocabulary and style. I found this worked extremely well as I was able to get a lot of great feedback in a short time instead of spending time being misunderstood (which I observed occur for lots of others on the retreat who had a looser relationship to the language-- and I've learned in school especially that it is totally unrealistic to expect a teacher to notice, reliably, when their words aren't connecting precisely with a student; most teachers-- maybe all except the great ones-- just have a very flat relationship with language; this word means this, not that, and they often miss it when someone is using the same word in a different way or using a different word for the same experience. Actually I think people in general do this all the time, but I have often been frustrated because it seems to me what makes a great teacher is they really dig into that whole issue and learn to connect with individuals without getting hung up on words-- either by enforcing a certain vocabulary and being sensitive to when folks aren't using words the same way or, if less controlling personalities, by meeting people where they are at and finding understanding despite different lingo).
2) only ask questions I am actually perplexed about-- and ask them using the teacher's language. Especially ask questions if I can't connect the teacher's language to my experience- ask experiential questions about the term I don't understand. This rule includes not asking questions that critique the teachers framework, and not asking questions that I think I know the answer to: in other words, working with my tendency to be the 'smartest guy in the room' which is definitely an identity I developed from a young age. But it also means working with the teacher's possible need to be in control of defining what is happening and what it means for the students, by not confronting that need, but just being respectful and taking the feedback and trying it on for size. This wouldn't have worked when I was more insecure about my own experience.
3) following the teacher's instructions- giving it a chance to unfold, trusting that there is something to learn there either way even if it means I learn I don't want to work with that teacher. Unsurprisingly this has been very fruitful lol if nothing else in terms of shaking me out of some complacency and opening up new perspectives and inspiration.

So long story short, great question, obviously pertinent to me at this time. I have recently been experiencing a real shift around the issue of how to work with a teacher and why to do so, and am pretty happy about that. I'm excited to try out my new understanding of how to engage this kind of relationship and experiment with some different teachers and see how it goes.

@jake - way more answer than necessary, but really interesting! thanks for sharing.

DreamWalker wrote: ......Is there even a list of effects agreed upon from pragmatic practitioners? I guess this gets back to the teacher question - " teachers trained in the same system there would be less of the erratic quality" Do we even have an erratic quality that can be pointed to or is this all kept secret due to the uncomfortable nature of the topic?
~D

I think this was my point. There don't really seem to be huge amounts of agreement, in part because "pragmatic pratitioners" embraces such an enormous diversity of views and practices. So there's much less consistency in evaluating people (this is what I meant by erratic quality) than there might be if you had everyone doing the same general stuff and being taught in the same general way by teachers all trained in a similar system.

I have interacted with people over the past 6-8 years who self-evaluate or were teacher/colleague-evaluated as "having fourth path" or "having first path" or whatever and they seem to be all over the map. That's not true when talking to students who have all worked with the same (pragmatic dharma) teacher - then there tends to be some consistency. But what does "first path" mean, or "fourth path" mean, if you meet several people who supposedly have reached that level of realization, but they have no views, realizations, wisdom, fruits of practice, etc. in common?

My suspicion is not that the "path" terminology is useless in itself, but rather that it tends to get rather loosely applied, particularly when people are self-evaluating or being evaluated by colleagues/friends/teachers who have very limited interaction with them (ie via a thread online, but not having had any in-person/skype interaction).

I'm not sure it really matters either, though. The people who are suffering around things like "I'm supposed to be Path X, why do I still feel like crap" will work through that. And would be unhappy even if they were in another system with a different vocabulary.

Ona Kiser wrote: @jake - way more answer than necessary, but really interesting! thanks for sharing.

On my mind lol

"You met a lama, the embodiment of all the Buddhas,
You received his profound and vast instructions.

As the result of having listened to the Dharma and contemplated its meaning,
Your body, speech, and mind should have become tame and serene,
But they didn't. They got worse!

Your obscuring emotions should have diminished;
But they didn't. They got worse!

Your mind should have evolved,
But it didn't. It got worse!

...

Toward the vast and profound instructions,
You lack the diligence that spurs one to practice.

Lacking faith and respect,
You are a longtime samaya-breaker,
Lacking pure perception,
You are shameless.
Lacking compassion,
Your heart is rotten.
Lacking meditation practice,
You are utterly lazy.
Not seeing your faults,
You are blind.
Proclaiming others' faults,
You have a big mouth.

You are a stone anchor dragging to the depths of hell:
You have collected such bad karma,
O Dharmaless accumulator of evil."

(It goes on for several pages. This is the self-accusation poem of some Tibetan Master, quoted in a book by Matthieu Ricard. I read it outloud in a stern theatrical voice while my husband was doing filing this morning and we were both in stitches. Has not everyone been there at some time, beating themselves up for having a shitty meditation practice? I put it here because it references disappointing ones teachers.)

A Simple Model

I often wonder how many people read MCTB, and what "read" means to people

my idea of pragmatic dharma -
I was reading a bit of Ken McLeod and the Pragmatic Buddhism stuff on wikipedia. The entry on Pragmatic_Buddhism was deleted....therefore there is obviously no such thing as Pragmatic Buddhism until it gets redefined.
Anyone up for the task of defining it???

From Ken Mcleod entry on wikipedia - The intent of “pragmatic Buddhism” is to preserve the essence of the teachings, unchanged, but to make them more directly accessible to the Westerner. It does so by bypassing the Eastern, cultural overlay and using simple, clear language and methods that elicit direct experience in the practitioner. Also, it emphasizes an individualized practice path – with a key element being ongoing practice consults that allow the teacher to shape a path that’s tailored to each practitioner’s specific needs and makeup.

I tend to think of the primary attribute of pragmatic dharma/Buddhism/practice is - results oriented.
1)
2)
3)
...
anyone else want to chime in or even create the new Wiki article?

Edit - found the old wiki article....now I know why it was deleted.... link - article
Reason for deletion

Jake:

Sure, I can explain my impression anyhow (and I really invite those who have spoken with both of them about this to chime in, especially those who've had 4th Path confirmed by both of them).

Whoa, hold on. Daniel pretty much said to me that he doesn't confirm anyone's attainments. He doesn't even really consider himself anyone's teacher (although, um, he calls himself a teacher 3 times on the first page of the section on "Teachers" in MCTB2, which was quite the BOOYAH for me to politely comment on in my little editorial queries after he exploded the Teacher before my eyes).

More precisely, he says he would consider himself someone's teacher only if that person were on retreat with him, and then only temporarily, during retreat. If you don't retreat with him, sit with him, have him study your body language and energy in person, he ain't going to "confirm" Anything. What he will do is doubt you have anything at all. That he'll do by email, no problem.

Actually, I have no idea whom he has taught to fourth path--in other words had seen reach fourth while on retreat with him.

Okay, now I'll go back and read what you were saying.

"Actually, I have no idea whom he has taught to fourth path--in other words had seen reach fourth while on retreat with him."

Maybe Vince Horn? Maybe 'Tarin Greco,' aka ? My memory is hazy on this...

Maybe Vince Horn? Maybe 'Tarin Greco,' aka ? My memory is hazy on this...

Yes, those two came to my mind, too, but I just don't know and don't want to ask him, given our recent, um, difficulties over that topic, about which he seems a little touchy.

Well, I believe there was conversation on the subject of TG (possibly very oblique) on the Hurricane Ranch sessions. And that VH wrote or said something himself somewhere...

How's that for helpful?

Yeah, I don't know, I guess I was under the impression that he considered Tarin and Vince to be 4th path-- but you may be right. It's a fine distinction in some ways (that is, between- did he just not contradict their claims or did he validate them?) but it is an important one I think.

I guess my point applies more to the (possible) difference(s) between two very prominent definitions of 4th Path, and I was trying to be polite and practical by suggesting anyone with concrete experience of having a realization confirmed by both of them chime in as they would be in a good position to terminate speculation on the issue

Abre is the one who verified my 4th path. I don't qualify according to Daniel's description, although I have had experiences of what he's describing that lasted for days. I'm not concerned about it.

The interesting thing about Vince is how he doesn't seem to identify with 4th Path particularly:

"Which means to me that those of us who have gone deep in the progress-of-insight-practice-and-model have been training ourselves not to see "reality as it is" but rather as this particular lens-and-practice enables us to see things. Which also implies that there are other ways of experiencing things--other kinds of awakenings. That moves me both toward a multi-dimensional and more open-ended model what awakening is. But to me we're still in the stone ages of understanding what is going on here... Just my opinion. "

awakenetwork.org/forum/105-reading-liste...ening?start=25#13541