Responses to The Progess of Insight (Part Four)

This is a place for questions or comments about The Progress of Insight (Part Four). I consider this a work in progress and would welcome suggestions for improvement; please let me know if something requires clarification or elaboration. Also, feel free to comment here on the previous three installments including your suggestions for improvement. My goal is to make high quality information available to all yogis and scholars.

Thanks,

Kenneth

Kenneth, I'm curious about the phenomenon called "cycling" and how that manifests. I relate well to the part of your commentary that explains the initial run-up to first path. I relate well to your explanation of a yogi's practice and how it changes after achieving first path. In MCTB Daniel Ingram makes reference to the part concentration plays in recognizing progress and he explains that a person with less concentration (attention?) will be less clued in to where they are and what's going on. Your description below hints at the same kind of thing:

"Third, there is the **possibility** of re-experiencing the 15th ñana, frution; a yogi can **learn** to call up fruition, which is said to be the direct apprehension of nibbana (nirvana) at will. There are three doors to nibbana, namely the dukkha (suffering), anicca (impermanence), and anatta (no-self) doors. Each of these modes of accessing cessation leads to a slightly different experience of entering and exiting nibbana. The fascinating exploration known as fruition practice is only available to post-First Path yogis and consists of systematically calling up, becoming familiar with, and comparing these phenomena."

(I added the **'s to highlight the parts of your comments I was referring to in the above.)

Can you elaborate on the role concentration plays at this stage? I have not been paying very close attention to where I am according to the four path model (or any model) and I think I'm missing some important information due to my self-induced ignorance. I experience fruition, but it occurs infrequently and on the cushion. Is it possible to miss the experience of fruition if it happens during a meeting, walking along, driving, what have you? Will increasing my concentration help me recognize it?

I'm just confused about what to expect and how to better recognize what's up.

Thanks in advance!

Hey Chris!

I wrote an essay in response to your question and posted it as "The Progress of Insight (Part Five)."

Catchy title, huh? It's about the 16th ñana, Knowledge of Review.

kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/page/The+...+Insight+(Part+Five)

Perfect! That's extremely helpful.

Thank you many times, Kenneth.

ditto!

Thanks very much!

Thank you Kenneth!
I just read your posted essay - 16th Nana "The Progress of Insight (Part Five)." The example that you gave regarding a Zen student was so right on. Although I think highly of my Shifu, and have gained much from his teaching style and guidance... There is a lacking of validation for ones progress. I suppose in many ways it is good since it's a way of weeding out those students who lack maturity and are dependent on external validation. On the other hand, it is beneficial for one to have more defined guidelines in order to assess progress and not get caught up in entanglements of this or that along the way.

OK, that all being said, I now have a question for you (or anyone who is advanced).
- Recently, I have come to *(what seems like) the 15th Nana and able to remain stable in this state for about 30 to 45 minutes. There have been many times previously whereby it seemed that I had fleeting glimpses, but never sustainable for any length of time. Interestingly, if I'm understanding correctly what I've read about this stage, fruition is just a burst (like a bubble bursting open) and fleeting. So, if that's the case, then is it possible that those fleeting glimpses were fruition? (I'm inclined to say "no." My teacher has previously confirmed "no" by telling me to keep reaching further and deeper). I haven't told him about these most recent "experiences," yet.
If fruition is so brief, then what is this longer lasting experience?
Also, in regards to 16th Nana - In this stage, you said "make a resolution (Pali 'adhitthana') to call up each state and review it in isolation." My concern is that the meditator is then using conceptualizing and or imagination to falsely duplicate the stage/experience. (This concern likely arises because of my Daoist and Zen training that emphasizes to not seek awareness with a discriminating mind).

"Recently, I have come to the 15th Nana and able to remain stable in this state for about 30 to 45 minutes. There have been many times previously whereby it seemed that I had fleeting glimpses, but never sustainable for any length of time. Interestingly, if I'm understanding correctly what I've read about this stage, fruition is just a burst (like a bubble bursting open) and fleeting. So, if that's the case, then is it possible that those fleeting glimpses were fruition? (I'm inclined to say "no." My teacher has previously confirmed "no" by telling me to keep reaching further and deeper). I haven't told him about these most recent "experiences," yet. If fruition is so brief, then what is this longer lasting experience? -Khara"

OK, Tina, this is where it gets fun. Let's dig in and see if we can identify the experience you are referring to. See if you can describe it as precisely as possible in experiential terms. How long do you sit before it shows up? What happens before it? What happens after it? How is it different from other states? Does it change? Is it pleasant? If so, in what way? What sensations do you feel while you are in it? The more concrete "experience" words you can use, the better. For example, coolness, warmth, pressure, tingling, burning, itching. If none of those things are happening during the state, fine, but see how clearly you can paint a picture of your experience so we can narrow it down and see what's going on with you.

Looking forward to the detective work,

Kenneth

"Also, in regards to 16th Nana - In this stage, you said "make a resolution (Pali 'adhitthana') to call up each state and review it in isolation." My concern is that the meditator is then using conceptualizing and or imagination to falsely duplicate the stage/experience. (This concern likely arises because of my Daoist and Zen training that emphasizes to not seek awareness with a discriminating mind). -Khara
"

Tina, your Taoist and Zen training tell you to to not seek awareness with the discriminating mind because they are what I call 3rd Gear practices. The adhitthana practice of reviewing and comparing mind states is something you would only do in 1st Gear. Once you surrender into a 3rd Gear, non-dual practice, all comparing and contrasting is over. There is no subject/object split at that point and therefore no basis for comparison.

So, when we talk about calling up mind states in the 16th ñana (Knowledge of Review), we're only talking about 1st Gear.

As for the problem of inventing or imagining experiences, it is a real concern. In fact, it's one of the primary reasons given for not telling people about the maps and the experiences that predictably arise when they meditate. However, even when people are thoroughly indoctrinated, they aren't able to imagine what these states are really like, so working with a good teacher will almost always clear up this problem, assuming a student is willing to listen. With practice, most of the stages are so clear that you wouldn't mistake one for the other any more than you would mistake your living room for your kitchen. There are some exceptions where it is possible to confuse one state for another, but this can usually be resolved by looking at the context in which the states arose.

OK, I'll try to describe the experience... however, it seems to become something different than what is actually experienced when I try to put it into words. The experience varies in intensity from one sitting to the next... sometimes not as intense as this most intense experience that occurred on 7/31/09. I don't know how else to describe other than by giving some sort of imagery to the experience. Just keep in mind that this is not what I felt or saw, it's merely my best shot at giving some sort of description:

Imagine being gently submerged in a pool of clear water that has no boundaries, it's simply smooth, still, silent... there's no longer a body being submerged, but rather it becomes the water... resting on a rising smooth tower of glass whereby seeing clearly in what seems to be eternity.


In this space, I am the space, but there is no I/me anything... no separate anything, no thing-ness. It's just this pure Awareness... yet, somehow in this Awareness there's an awareness that there is form (the body and the physical environment stuff... sounds, etc) which seem distant, but present. There isn't any discerning of pleasant or not, but simply that it's "smooth" and a sense that (I/this) could stay in such state for a long time.
Periodically, I notice a shift in awareness... hear my breathing - which stays slow and steady, but very distant. During the most intense experience, I was aware of my son and his friend playing their guitars in the next room... noted that his friend was playing a bass... it wasn't distracting to the state I was in, it merely dissolved into the Nowness. Also, during these shifts of awareness, I sometimes notice body sensations like an itch, but it's dull, distant and irrelevant. Notice that the body feels heavy, yet simultaneously light... kind of like just energy... fuzzy vibrations.
[continued -->
(edit typo)

I guess it takes me about 10 or 15 minutes to get to this state. Beginning with regulating my breath to what's normal for me during meditation - deep, slow abdominal breathing at about 4 breaths per minute. I generally focus on the rise and fall of breath, then do some body breathing. When concentration is good and "solid" and I feel a tension sensation in forehead, mid brow area, I then turn focus inward... equanimity... continue dissolving until I get to this awareness state.
I end meditation practice with (mentally) circulating qi with microcosmic and macrocosmic orbit, then a few more little neigong qigong things. These are usually mental visualizations, but recently they seem less visual and maybe a bit more "sensing" like.
I usually meditate 1 hr or maybe an hour and a half every day.
How is this (these recent experiences) different from other states? I would say that the most significant thing is that it's stable and relatively long lasting. It's completely still and silent. No thoughts, no visual thingyness. My biggest "problem" that I previously had in my meditations was fragments of visual imagery... no verbal thoughts, just random visual stuff. This stopped being a prob when I incorporated concentration practice, and can finally maintain solid concentration.
As for getting to this new state, it seems to just be something I just slide into. I can "feel" a shift, it's hard to describe in words.

[ continued -->

I feel that it's important to mention here that I've been a meditator for several years. The past two years has been mainly Zuowang meditation. Also, there's been some definitive experiences that occurred a few years ago... things that equate to "arising & passing away" and "dark night" stuff. Also, there's been a lot of work and processing through the various emotions such as anger, fear, etc. I'm now pretty equanimous.

I hope this is enough info to be helpful. I really appreciate you taking the time to take on this "detective work."
Do you need me to give description of those numerous brief "glimpses" that I mentioned in initial comment above?
- Tina

Thanks, Tina, these are excellent descriptions. Although I can't be sure based on just this exchange, it sounds to me as though you are describing the Witness. The smooth, long-lasting, timeless imperturbability of it all seem to point to the Witness. This is not what is meant by "fruition" in either the Theravada or Dzogchen traditions--but it is an extraordinarily significant discovery for two reasons: First, the Witness leads directly to the true non-dual experience; it is the "stick that stirs the fire and is eventually consumed by it." Second, the Witness is one of the most empowering tools in a yogi's toolbox, as it allows you to stay at the threshold of the infinite while also remaining functional in daily life. You can learn to do most of the things you normally do in a day while dwelling as the Witness. I often keep the Witness in the foreground while doing other tasks in the background. For example, as I type this I'm keeping most of my attention on the Witness. Another way of saying it is that awareness turns back to take itself as object. "It knows itself."

If your shifu urged you to keep looking, it may be because like many Zen/Chan teachers he wants you to recognize nothing less than non-duality. Some schools don't acknowledge the Witness as having value and in fact see it as just another place to get stuck. Nonetheless, the Witness is the workhorse of Advaita Vedanta practice and is considered by many Advaita teachers as the most efficient way to go from our ordinary deluded state to the recognition of what is true in our own stream of experience. My own feeling is that there is little danger of becoming stuck with the Witness as long as the teacher is clear about what it is and what it is not; the Witness is invaluable as both a bridge to the recognition of the non-dual and as a way to stay focused and happy in daily life both before and after true non-dual realization.

Kenneth

Thank you, Kenneth. This is helpful info, but at the same time prompts additional questions as well as maybe needing some clarification on my part.
In my description, I referred to a "shift in awareness..." I failed to mention in which way this shift occurred. It was a shifting (down) from what seemed to be a non-dual state. In other words, it went from what I can only describe as "non-dual" (I honestly can't describe it in words... even now as I'm trying to conceptualize it, my brain is trying to fabricate images that simply were not there at the time of the experience), from this seemingly non-dual state there was a shifting down to an observation state whereby I noted breath and etc seemingly in the distance.
I could easily dwell in this (lower) state, then stop "observing" and return to the "non-dual" state.

As "non-dual" as the experience seemed to me, I'm not trying to claim "enlightenment." I guess I'm misunderstanding what is meant by "fruition." Based on some of the descriptions that I've read... such as described by Daniel Ingram in his book (MCTB), chapter 25 #15. Fruition "...the first attainment of ultimate reality, emptiness..." He then describes it as "non-state"...no time... no space... etc. He further goes on about stuff like "initial aftershocks," awe, and so on. Based on that description, the experience I had seems to match up. However, I don't interpret his description of fruition as full enlightenment. It seems to me to be the spark that leads to more progressive sparks until one finally attains non-dual realization.

[ continued -->

Alright, now back to this Witness state... yes, it does appear that my experiences for the most part do match up with this state. So, where does this fit in according to the Theravada progress of insight maps? How does it fit in with Dzogchen, Zen, and Daoist? I realize it's harder to relate it within the Zen and Daoist perspectives, but it would be helpful to have some correlation.

How does one utilize the Witness as a tool for further progression?
It seems that this can be a useful tool for enhancing qigong energy healing, too. If this is true, then I definitely would like to learn to do qigong practice in this state.

I've asked more than enough questions, thank you so much for your time in discussing this topic. I'm most grateful and appreciative.
- Tina

"I could easily dwell in this (lower) state, then stop "observing" and return to the "non-dual" state."-Khara

This is consistent with downshifting from 3rd Gear (non-duality) to 2nd Gear (the Witness), so let's keep working with this over time and see if we are talking about the same things. The witness and non-duality are two different situations that are interpreted differently by different people. Non-dual teacher Anadi seems to value both and possibly even considers them equal in status. Ramana Maharshi valued both but considered the Witness a means by which to get to the non-dual. Ditto for Advaita teacher Jean Klein. Tsoknyi Rinpoche (Dzogchen master) considers the Witness a trap to be avoided; he wants you to let it go of it immediately in favor of rigpa (the non-dual). Zen master Shodo Harada Roshi, as far as I can tell, considers the Witness to be that which the Buddha awakened to. On the other hand, most Zen masters, to my knowledge, consider the Witness something to be let go of immediately in favor of non-duality. So...the pattern that emerges is that although non-duality is considered by most non-dual teachers to be the more important of the two situations, the Witness is highly valued by some teachers and pooh-poohed by others. My own feeling, which is reflected in the 3-Speed Transmisssion, is that if you had to choose one you would choose non-duality...but you don't have to choose one! So, practice both. And, while you're at it, master the Four Paths of Enlightenment and become proficient in the jhanas. One man's opinion...

I'll address some of the other questions and comments you've raised in my next post.

Kenneth

"How does one utilize the Witness as a tool for further progression?"-Khara

Advaita teachers, e.g., Ramana Maharshi and Jean Klein explicitly teach the Witness as a transitional step to the non-dual. The non-dual cannot by approached by an act of will; it's already here and it is precisely our "will" that is distracting us from recognizing it. But it is possible to create conditions that make it more likely for the non-dual to be recognized. One of those conditions is the Witness. Advaitists teach students to ask "Who am I?" as a pointer to turn awareness back on itself and recognize the Witness in this moment. After all, in any moment of conventional consciousness, there is this sense of "I". It seems that "I" am the one who is doing the noticing. When we inquire by asking ourselves who or what is it that notices this experience, we come to this clear sense of Witness. Awareness turns back and takes itself as object. Awareness is splitting itself in two so that it can act as both subject and object. But this could not possibly be non-duality: it's this very condition of splitting awareness into subject and object that has caused all the confusion in the first place! So, we are most of the way there when we dwell as the Witness, but there is one more step to take. And that step cannot be taken by an act of will. How could it? An act of will can only be taken as long as we pretend to split awareness into two. So, what can we do? We can surrender. A question can help with this: Who knows about the Witness? Aha! The game is up. Even the Witness is known, but it is not known by another supposed Witness...it is known in the same way that everything is known, prior even to the Witness. The entire Universe is known by and is not other than pure, non-local, cognizant emptiness. This empty, inherently existing wakefulness is the "simplest thing," aka non-duality. It's here now.

"As "non-dual" as the experience seemed to me, I'm not trying to claim "enlightenment." I guess I'm misunderstanding what is meant by "fruition." Based on some of the descriptions that I've read... such as described by Daniel Ingram in his book (MCTB), chapter 25 #15. Fruition "...the first attainment of ultimate reality, emptiness..." He then describes it as "non-state"...no time... no space... etc."-Khara

When Daniel uses the word "fruition," he is using it the same way that the Mahasi Sayadaw school of Burmese Theravada Buddhism uses the word. This is one of two completely different ways to define "fruition." Both are correct within their context. The other meaning of fruition is that used in the Tibetan Dzogchen tradition and I'll talk about that in a moment. In the Mahasi tradition, fruition is the moment of "cessation." There is no conscious awareness during cessation. It's like being deeply asleep in the sense that when you come out of it, you can't say anything about what happened during that time. But, in the case of cessation, you know you were someplace very nice, because you feel wonderful upon emerging from cessation. According to mainstream Therevada Buddhism, during the moment of cessation, the mind has taken nibbana (Sanskrit "nirvana") as object. That's as good as it gets. And this is why conservative Theravada Buddhism is criticized as being nihilistic. "Nihil" is Latin for "nothing." People criticize Theravada by saying that they put "nothing" (nirvana) ahead of "everything." Adept Theravada practitioners will be quick to point out that the actual experience (non-experience) of nibbana is wonderful even if you can't remember having been there. So, often the criticism is being made by people who don't really understand what is being pointed to by the word.

The other use of "fruition" is that of Tibetan Dzogchen teachers. For them, fruition is rigpa, the non-dual experience. They understand what the Theravada Buddhists are saying, but they prefer to believe that when the Buddha talked about the "unconditioned" he was talking about the wide-awake recognition of the non-dual as opposed to cessation. Rigpa is the moment of recognition of buddha nature within one's own stream of being. For Dzogchen practitioners, this is as good as it gets. In the moment of recognizing primordial awareness, described as "cognizant emptiness," the mind is not other than the mind of all the buddhas. There is no enlightenment outside of this. But this is not what you might call "brass ring enlightenment." In other words, there is no end point in this system; in any given moment, you are either awake (recognizing buddha nature, being rigpa) or you are deluded (not recognizing buddha nature, not being rigpa). That's it! There will never be a time when you can rest on your laurels and say "I accomplished this and that and now I'm enlightened no matter what." Enlightenment *only* happens in this moment, so if you want to be enlightened, be rigpa now.

In the Theravada system, on the other hand, once you have completed the Four Paths of Enlightenment and become an arahat, you are forever enlightened, no matter what you do or don't do. And completing the Four Paths means seeing fruition/nibbana/cessation from each of the four levels.

Two different definitions of fruition, two different conceptions of enlightenment. I encourage students to become familiar with both of these "fruitions" rather than choose between them.

Kenneth

"Alright, now back to this Witness state... yes, it does appear that my experiences for the most part do match up with this state. So, where does this fit in according to the Theravada progress of insight maps? How does it fit in with Dzogchen, Zen, and Daoist? I realize it's harder to relate it within the Zen and Daoist perspectives, but it would be helpful to have some correlation."-Khara

How does the Witness line up with the various maps of insight?

Theravada: The Witness is not on the map. It isn't considered important or frankly even worth talking about. It's just one of many ways that conditions can arrange themselves to create a false sense of self.

Dzogchen: Witness bad! Don't dwell as the Witness; it's just keeping you from surrendering into rigpa.

Advaita: Witness good! Abide as the Witness during every waking hour, understanding that it will eventually lead to the non-dual.

Zen: Depends on whom you ask, but I believe the vast majority of Zen masters would say "Witness bad!" Forget about it! Hopefully Gozen will weigh in here and give us his perspective as a Zen priest and long time Zen practitioner and teacher.

Daoist: Not sure, but my guess is they see the Witness as something to let go of.

It would be cool if Gozen could weigh in on the non-dual front, but great discussion!

Khara, my newbie's experience of the Theravada version of fruition is this: it was sort of like the anesthesia I received when they took my galbladder out in that the lights just went out and along with them absolutely everything else. There was nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing at all. Then everything reboots and comes back online. It lasts for just a brief instant. The test I would offer up for Theravada fruition or cessation (a word that far more descriptive of what it's like IHMO) is that if you can recall anything from the actual event then that wasn't it

Kenneth wrote:
"Zen: Depends on whom you ask, but I believe the vast majority of Zen masters would say "Witness bad!" Forget about it! Hopefully Gozen will weigh in here and give us his perspective as a Zen priest and long time Zen practitioner and teacher."

I'm a Zen priest who is very critical of many Zen teachings being propagated these days, but not in this case. Here I have only some clarifications to add to what Kenneth wrote. Separately, let me explain the reason I am critical of so much contemporary Zen: It only LOOKS real. Fact is, your average lay Buddhist who's just starting out does not have sufficient insight and wisdom to distinguish between the genuine paradoxes of REAL Zen and a bunch of illogical gibberish parading as profundity. Sadly, many "big name" American Zen teachers muck about the latter swamp.

Notice that I said above "Zen teachers" not "Zen masters." Although those terms are often used interchangably, they are most assuredly different animals! Zen teachers can teach basic meditation, Dharma, and precepts for living practice. And that would be OK if they themselves did not attempt to present themselves as knowing more than they do. Instead, they inflate their egos and imply that they are beyond ego. They solemnly intone "Just This" when they don't know what in the world "This" truly is in Reality!

Zen masters tend to speak plainly. They do not parrot the words of others, nor do they claim or imply that they have Realized more than they have (and they KNOW that there are levels or degrees of Realization). So a genuine Zen master might say something like "Who knows the Witness?"

The Witness position is invaluable and wonderful, but it is still a "point of view." Beyond it is...what shall we call IT? IT owns no name. As soon as I give it a name, I open myself to being misunderstood. [more]

[cont'd] First line of Lao Tzu's "Tao Teh Ching":
"The name that can be spoken is not the eternal name."

Without naming IT, we can describe some of ITs aspects:
- IT is unconditioned: IT exists of ITself without being dependent.
- IT is foundational: all things depend on IT for their own existence, which is derivative or dependent on IT.
- IT is not causal: IT did not create things, but all things arose from IT by a mysterious process of emanation or wilfull descent.
- IT is unthreatened: nothing could harm IT
- IT is complete: nothing could help IT
- IT is joy: what Kenneth calls the Happiness with no opposite
- IT is non-separate: you are already IT but you just haven't Realized IT yet!

So IT is WHAT or WHO is beyond the Witness. (And I'd advise you to think WHO rather than WHAT because this Great One is Love beyond all boundaries.)

"The other use of "fruition" is that of Tibetan Dzogchen teachers. For them, fruition is rigpa, the non-dual experience. They understand what the Theravada Buddhists are saying, but they prefer to believe that when the Buddha talked about the "unconditioned" he was talking about the wide-awake recognition of the non-dual as opposed to cessation. Rigpa is the moment of recognition of buddha nature within one's own stream of being. For Dzogchen practitioners, this is as good as it gets. In the moment of recognizing primordial awareness, described as "cognizant emptiness," the mind is not other than the mind of all the buddhas. There is no enlightenment outside of this. But this is not what you might call "brass ring enlightenment." In other words, there is no end point in this system; in any given moment, you are either awake (recognizing buddha nature, being rigpa) or you are deluded (not recognizing buddha nature, not being rigpa). That's it! There will never be a time when you can rest on your laurels and say "I accomplished this and that and now I'm enlightened no matter what." Enlightenment *only* happens in this moment, so if you want to be enlightened, be rigpa now. -Kenneth""

This description of fruition seems more in line with the Daoist tradition, or at least how I understand the definition of it.

You said you encourage students to become familiar with both (Dzogchen & Theravada) of these "fruitions" rather than choose between them. - This makes a lot of sense to me, particularly if a meditator is in one way or another practicing methods of both traditions.

Also, I just want to say thank you Kenneth, for answering all my questions so thoroughly. Definitely valuable and informative.

I'm appreciative of info that Chris and Gozen have added to this discussion, too. It's all really helpful. Thank you!

hello Kenneth or to anyone!

I just got stream-entry 2 mondays ago (Aug 3.), then I was able to review cycle for a while, though only remembering a handful of fruitons (maybe just 4.) I do Vipassana noting, though this weekend tried a weekend zen seshin. I notice that I can't review cycle anymore and my mind stability is terrible now. I feel like a beginner, and its sort of frustrating. missing the equanimity or the better control of myself. Been feeling edgy, with weak self-control. Though I did notice my over-all awareness seems to be more intact, and that i can see my thoughts arise and pass away unlike before. So, I can see my thoughts, and awareness is better, but the control seems weak

My questions are...

Am I in Mind/Body stage?
Is there a way to access pre-first-path equanimity and master staying in it, to apply it to everyday life situations. or am i stuck here and need to progress in this path, without the aid of the jhanic lubrication.

don't know if i should be posting in the DhO or here but Im here right now so posting here
= ) Thanks.

Hey Mindful, it's great to see you here. Seems like a good question to post here since this site encompasses various traditions and methods.

Your question (and the await for an answer/discussion) is of particular interest to me since I seem to be going through a similar thing. I had good progress in doing a mix of samatha (concentration), Zazen, then moved directly into Zuowang (resting in a choiceless awareness which is not dependent on self reference). It was through this practice that gave rise to what I described earlier in this thread. However, since I didn't sequentially (technically speaking) go through each of the nanas, I've recently tried practicing just Vipassana. Now, my meditations seem scattered and instable...

I'm looking forward to the feedback that you receive pertaining to your question.

*[edited: changed a misleading word in first sentence]