Insight practice - the path of most expedient means?

Hey guys!

I was wondering what you all, particularly Kenneth, consider to be the most efficient method of insight practice - the most direct, hardcore and expedient means? The reason why I ask is because there are a number of varieties of insight practice from different traditions. If we were to sit back and take a meta-view of these paths - and even a meta-analysis of the evidential outcomes of these practices - what would we conclude is the essential core practice - stripped of everything else - that has the greatest effect in seeing through the sense of separate self and realizing enlightenment?

Put another way. If we had one week left to live, and we were going to spend it on retreat, what exactly would we do that would provide the greatest conditions possible to realize enlightenment?

Thanks guys!

In kind regards,

Adam.

I think I might just rest in Buddha nature and enjoy the weekend!
Presumably you meant to try for a Rinzai Zen type sudden enlightenment experience.
Didn't the Dalai Lama say that "Tantra is the path for those who are so compassionate that they can not wait to become Boddhisattvas."? I think he was implying that that was the quickest route.
But you specifically asked about Vipassana - I think I'd vary the techniques over the weekend to shake things up, or else pick *one* and work the hell out of it.

So if pressed, and not going for a direct path experience - I'd start off the weekend with some intense magick, erm... I mean Tantra, then I'd cycle through every Vipassana technique I know changing every hour until I cycled through everything three times, and then literally roll the dice to see which technique I'd use for the rest of the time. Oh - I wouldn't sleep or eat the whole time.
D

While I understand the nature of the question and I love practice as much as the next person, with only a week left I'd go for the satisfaction of human interaction. Call it direct experience practice, wife and kids version.

This is the kind of question that can really help to clarify things.

Like are you practicing for a benefit while you're alive or for a benefit after you die?

I'm admittedly quite ignorant at this point in my life. But, you know, that's almost the very point.

I feel that I practice as a way of living. It's not like, 'whew, thank goodness I did that, now I can die.' I know there's a whole rhetoric around reincarnation and rebirth and such. And I don't know anything near enough to make comments on that. (Anyway, even if one were preparing for rebirth and was practicing for that reason, if you had one week left to live the wise course might be to go to a place of very holy people and just immerse yourself in the name of the Buddha for that week with love and gratitude. But it wouldn't be about enlightenment as much as about trying to die under optimal conditions for an auspicious rebirth.)

Nevertheless, I see practice as a right way of living. For me, I guess, enlightenment is a process that facilitates right living.

I guess I believe that life is by its very nature already a prayer. That's just what it is. But I'm allowed to be unconscious of that and to pretend life is anything else. For me, enlightenment is just becoming solidly, viscerally, and unequivocally aware of the miraculousness that already is.

Do I want to participate in the prayer with awareness or without awareness? If I want to participate with awareness then I attain enlightenment. If I want to participate in the prayer without awareness then I just go on as I've been going. Either way I'll be participating.

Haven't addressed the question of expedience because I don't have a good solid answer for that one at all. You probably have a better idea of that than I do, Adam. But this is what your question makes me want to say.

Well said, Nigel!

I certainly don't have the answer to this one, but your question reminds me of a related issue that I've often pondered. If I understand the basic concept of rebirth, there is no intact Self that carries over to the next life, no memories or traces of any previous lives, etc., etc.

If that's the case, then isn't each new born essentially a "new" life, starting from scratch? I think the concept provides for some minimal carry-over of impressions and traits but not for memories or consciousness of former lives. In other words the new "I" won't have a clue that "I've" been through this before, and now "I" have to suffer all over again.

So other than a benevolent concern for whatever being that inherits one's...essence (?), what would be the motivation to spend one's last week frantically trying to reach enlightenment? If "I'm" not going to be affected one way or the other - why would I make this such a priority under these circumstances?

I don't intend for this to come across as callous or uncaring - just curious about the concept.

Thanks,

John

"Like a fish which is thrown on dry land, taken from his home in the waters, the mind strives and struggles to get free from the power of Death" (Dhammapada, 34.)

This was to main concern of early Buddhism. This is the reason why I find absurd the DhO controversies about what an Arahat should be in terms of moral or psychological perfection. An Arahat is done in the sense that he will not have to wear silly baby diapers anymore. He has reached the other shore and is free from birth and death.

You know, I don't want to put words in Adam's mouth, but I'm guessing the example was simply for illustrative purposes, and the question is more about what technique produces enlightenment the fastest...

You're right haquan - I probably should have saved my question for another thread. Adam - my apologies for hijacking your thread!

I like this question. I'd go for the practice that Shinzen Young calls 'No practice', wherein you simply drop all intention to attend, and be with whatever arises. It's the same fundamental practice that Adyashanti recommends.

Nigel spoke of life being a prayer. I agree with this very much. That is, if we are talking of the same thing: 'prayer' meaning conscious surrender into groundlessness, gratitude, unknowing, on a moment by moment basis. It's how things are in any case.

This 'no practice' practice is simply to practice surrender, and that's what I'd do in my remaining time... surrender....

Edit: Adam: I realize that this 'no practice' is not strictly a noting practice, although, Shinzen is able to integrate it quite smoothly as an 'adjunct' to noting. I myself, find that it emerges/is produced quite naturally from my own noting practice.

Edit 2: I should note that Shinzen's version of 'No practice' is called 'Do Nothing'. Double blush on my part here as he suggests his methods, terms and descriptions be learned 'verbatim'. Which recalls Daniel's rapid-fire outlines of the contents of the various stages.

I don't know, Adam, I think it's a trick question. Because you used the word "insight practices," I think you mean vipassana and similar developmental practices as opposed to "direct path" practices aimed at realization or what is always already the case.

Following that train, I would point out that developmental practices take time, because there is something in the body/mind that has to grow. The psychic anatomy has to develop, and that is usually a slow process.

As a parallel, one could reasonably wonder about the most expedient way to master the piano. If we are honest we would have to admit that:

1. There are many effective ways to go about learning to play piano and none is proven more effective than the others.
2. The most important variable in determining whether a given individual realizes his potential is the amount of time s/he dedicates to practice.
3. It will take a very long time, measured in years and decades, not weeks.
4. We all have varying levels of natural ability.
5. Most people will never master the piano, no matter how hard they try.

With that in mind, if I had just a week to get as far along the Four Paths of Enlightenment as possible, I would do Mahasi noting practice, understanding that I will not become a master overnight any more than I will master piano overnight.

If, on the other hand, we can extend the discussion to all forms of enlightenment, I would go to as many satsangs as possible with people like Mooji and Adhashanti who are expert at pointing out that what we really seek is always already here. That way, I could die a happy man.

Hey guys!

Thanks for your replies! Very cool. It is true that the question was framed for illustrative purposes to provide for the elimination of distractions and drives other than the singular imperative for enlightenment. However, it is not clear exactly what enlightenment is or how we should go about achieving it, or if it is something that is 'achieved', or if a person as such, realized enlightenment; or rather, consciousness realizes that there is no-person to be enlightened and so on it goes. So, philosophy and your implicit conceptual frameworks from which you view your nature and place in the world, and the meaning we ascribe to experience, action, non-action and what-is, is unavoidable and entirely part of the '˜process' of enlightenment '“ as a realization of what-is, or what we are. That being said, must there come a point when it is time to actualize our inner view and step forward, or back as it were, and realize our greatest vision of ourselves here and now? Once that focus comes upon us - chosen or intuited - what then? When we move from conceptualization and or non-discursive intuitive view, to practical, real-world first-person experience; how do we practice?

[cont.]

In the vipassana dimension of practice there are two basic categories as I understand them. Shamatha based, and non-concentration based, a-volitional open awareness of what-is. These two have been mentioned already. I was asking about, but was not explicit, of shamatha-based vipassana; that is, Theravada insight practice. I am wondering what, if we stripped all dogma, view and extraneous details from this practice, would be the essence of its most expedient means? For example, might it be non-stop meditation for a week (until death, or success) where one seeks to be directly and non-discursively aware of all possible sensate experience in every mind moment in unbroken continuity until one sees through to the fundamental realization of non-self and emptiness? I understand Dan's practice naturally culminated in this practice right before his enlightenment.

[cont.]

Ought we infer the above practice is the peak of shamatha style vipassana? Would this be an insurmountable task for the beginner? Or would one simply work on it and get there rather quickly regardless, due to the efficacy of the practice? What do you guys think about that? Just curious ;-P

Personally, I practice the no-practice method spoken of. Having been involved in various practice methods for years, the no-practice, a-volitional awareness of what-is has simply developed of its own course and active methods seem contrived to me now. I don't assume superiority of one or the other though. Whatever organically develops and works for you seems to be the way to go. However, we might argue that privileging personal intuition is unjustified also. Perhaps we just need to do the work regardless of how we feel about it - kind of like training to be a brain surgeon - no room for questioning the curriculum, just hard work and in the end we get real-world results.

Thanks guys and gals!

In kind regards,

Adam.

Hey Kenneth!

Ahh... interesting. So it is not considered possible to see-through (as in cutting through ala trekcho) via working with sensate experience into an immediate realization of what is? Necessarily, it must be a developmental a pscyho-energetic process? Perhaps I am intuiting a hybrid shamatha-vipassana style sensate direct path option? Possible?

Thanks mate!

In kind regards,

Adam.

"Ahh... interesting. So it is not considered possible to see-through (as in cutting through ala trekcho) via working with sensate experience into an immediate realization of what is? Necessarily, it must be a developmental a pscyho-energetic process?" -Adam

Hi Adam,

Yes, this is exactly the point I want to emphasize. It isn't as though one could "break through" to the final vipassana insight, because the mechanism has to be in place for that to happen, and that takes time. There is no technique that would allow a caterpillar to fly. It doesn't have the hardware. After the hardware develops, flying is inevitable.

This is why all of the emphasis on "hardcore" vipassana is a double-edged sword. People hear about this or that technique and imagine that if only they were doing it right they would already be enlightened. It isn't like that at all. Vipassana insight is jhanic attainment, plain and simple. And while some people are jhana geniuses who already have well-developed jhanas/chakras/kudalini when they walk into their first retreat, such people are very rare. So, when we hear about someone who became an arahat on her 1st two-week retreat, we shouldn't assume that it's because she knew some special vipassana technique that the rest of us don't know. She was just ripe.

This came home to me again on my last retreat, just a few weeks ago. When I got to the retreat, I had access to four jhanas above the usual eight. I knew that according to the maps, there should be one more. Where was it? I couldn't see it because I didn't have access to it. I then found myself going through another Progress of Insight, and when it was finished, the fifth suddhavas jhana was there, plain as day. I hadn't seen it before because it wasn't there to see. Now that the psychic anatomy has been built, I see it every time I sit. It's always like that.

"Vipassana insight is jhanic attainment, plain and simple." - Kenneth.

Thanks for that Kenneth! Could you elaborate on the above statement. When you say Jhanic, what exactly do you mean by that? I wonder if you would make your assumptions and thinking explicit. For example, does this mean vipassana insight necessarily involves the shamatha jhanas and their corollary kundalini phenomena? Or do you just mean the Vipassana jhanas? Might one go through the complete process in a 'dry' fashion without experience of the shamatha jhanas?

Fascinating stuff my Dharma brother!

In kind regards,

Adam.

"There is no technique that would allow a caterpillar to fly. It doesn't have the hardware. After the hardware develops, flying is inevitable."
This lines up nicely with my view that all of the kundalini-type episodes that we beginners undergo is simply a by-product of the phyisical body being "rewired" to accomodate higher levels of perception than is not available to the general, non-practicing population. I have felt for a long time that certain changes are being made in my body that facilitate the flow of this kundalini/chi/what-have-you energy, and that access to higher (different?) levels of awareness are dependent on these physical changes.

.".. So, when we hear about someone who became an arahat on her 1st two-week retreat, we shouldn't assume that it's because she knew some special vipassana technique that the rest of us don't know. She was just ripe."
Or, said another way, these physical changes were already in place a priori to her attending the retreat - whether or not consciously developed ?

"...When I got to the retreat, I had access to four jhanas above the usual eight. I knew that according to the maps, there should be one more. Where was it? I couldn't see it because I didn't have access to it. I then found myself going through another Progress of Insight, and when it was finished, the fifth suddhavas jhana was there, plain as day. I hadn't seen it before because it wasn't there to see. Now that the psychic anatomy has been built, I see it every time I sit. It's always like that..."
Interesting - are you saying that you discovered that even an arahat may not necessarily have access to all of the exisisting of levels of jhana after nailing 4th Path? That there is "something more to be done" even after attaining the level of Arahat? (i.e. there are levels beyond Awakening along the vertical axis of your model?)

I'm sorry if I didn't address the original question according its intended purpose.

I was listening to the Hurricane Ranch discussions today on the plane. They popped up at random on my iPhone. I hadn't listened to them in their entirety and there is a lot in them that's very relevant to this conversation. I suggest people listen carefully to them if they really want to understand the topic of what I'd call "when versus how." Kenneth's model of arahat-ship, explained in those discussions, is very apt and clear. An arahat is one who has completed a physio-energetic circuit. That's it. It does not mean that person is "done" in any other sense, vertical or horizontal.

There is also a description of second path in there by Daniel Ingram that I could have said almost verbatim from recent experience, and those few paragraphs hit me like a ton of bricks today. It made me realize all the more that I am simply not in control of this process. No matter how hard I try to access some things, no matter how much motivation I muster, until the physio-energetic circuitry is there I will never be able to do it. I'm learning; this path just takes its own sweet time and I'm just along for the ride, on the conveyor belt, being pushed in the direction of insight, no matter what.

hokai.info/2009/02/dharma-discussion-at-hurricane-ranch.html

Chris, thanks for the Hurricane Ranch discussion link. It is certainly relevant to this discussion.

" When you say Jhanic, what exactly do you mean by that? I wonder if you would make your assumptions and thinking explicit. For example, does this mean vipassana insight necessarily involves the shamatha jhanas and their corollary kundalini phenomena? Or do you just mean the Vipassana jhanas? Might one go through the complete process in a 'dry' fashion without experience of the shamatha jhanas?"-Adam

I see this as a process of accessing a finite number of strata of mind and deconstructing them via the vipassana technique. I call that "setting 'em up and knocking 'em down." There are several words commonly used to refer to the strata of mind. They can loosely be referred to as "jhanas," and it's in that sense that I speak of "jhanic" attainment. Some, including U Pandita and Bill Hamilton, have spoken of "vipassana jhanas." This is a way of talking about developmental stages, and refers to broad swaths of territory. The 1st VJ, for example, contains the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd ñanas. I don't use the VJ word because of its imprecision. Instead, I talk about the 20 major strata of mind and I show how the ñanas and jhanas line up as part of a single continuum:

kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/page/20+Major+Strata+of+Mind

The word "ñana" is usually used to refer to the actual Insight Knowledge gained from performing vipassana at a particular stratum of mind, and by extension, the stratum of mind itself. As you can see from looking at the map, some ñanas have corresponding jhanas. For example, the 1st stratum of mind contains both a jhana and a ñana. Some strata of mind, however, contain Insight Knowledges, but no jhana. How, then, are ñanas that have no corresponding jhana different from those that do? Both are strata of mind. (cont)

(cont from post 19)

But some strata of mind are "stable,"and some are not. A stable stratum is mind is one that you can take as object and rest in pleasantly. Presumably, this has to do with the pattern of energy in the body; stable strata probably correspond to chakras. Stable strata of mind are "jhanas." Unstable strata of mind, probably because of the way energy circulates in the body, don't allow you any place to hang your hat. There is no pleasant resting there. So they aren't jhanas, per se, but they are strata of mind nonetheless. When people do jhana practice, they tend to ignore or gloss over the unstable strata that they pass through on their way to the stable jhanas.

It is possible to access the strata of mind via the dry vipassana technique and gain the insight knowledges there even before the strata of mind are fully developed as samatha jhanas. This, in fact, is the essence of the Mahasi technique. Because of this, some have misunderstood the relationship between samatha and vipassana, believing that jhanic attainment is unrelated to developmental enlightenment via the Progress of Insight.

The fact that Theravada insight is directly related to jhanic attainment, however, is explicit within the Theravada maps. The most obvious example of this is the truism that only anagamis and arahats can access the 5 suddhavasa jhanas. To be able to access even one of the suddhavasa jhanas is to be an anagami by definition, and so we have clear textual support for the assertion that Theravada enlightenment is not other than jhanic attainment. In addition, and more importantly, yogis who practice vipassana/samatha soon find themselves moving through an iterative process of development that reveals ever more subtle strata of mind, including both stable jhanas and unstable ñanas.

"Are you saying that you discovered that even an arahat may not necessarily have access to all of the existing of levels of jhana after nailing 4th Path?" - N8sense

Yes, this has been clear for some time. It's also written about in Theravada commentaries. Arahats don't necessarily have "the power of jhana," which requires a level of concentration beyond that required to access and penetrate the relevant strata of mind via the dry vipassana technique. So although you have to be an anagami or arahat to attain to suddhavasa jhanas, for example, you can apparently become an arahat without being able to access any "hard" jhanas whatsoever, let alone the Pure Land (suddhavasa) jhanas. You have momentary access to the strata of mind, but have not yet developed them as jhanas.

I've done an informal survey of the handful of people I would confidently call arahats, and none of them have developed all five suddhavasa jhanas, so it's clearly optional.

[Are you saying] that there is "something more to be done" even after attaining the level of Arahat? (i.e. there are levels beyond Awakening along the vertical axis of your model?) - N8sense

I don't know, John. My model may be wrong on this point. I've previously written that arahatship is the end of physio-energetic development along what I think of as the vertical axis, upward through the body and the chakras, and that all further development occurs on a horizontal axis, spreading out from the various strata of mind.

Arahatship is an easy call to make, as I define it, because after that the yogi never again suffers the excruciating tug of "insight disease," as Daniel calls it. That's why the old time monks used to walk up to the Buddha and say, "Done is what needs to be done." That's exactly how it feels, and it's very clear. (When people prematurely diagnose themselves as arahats, it's because they are using a model other than the "I'll know when I'm done with insight disease" model. They misdiagnose because they think that the inability to find a "self" is arahatship. In fact, almost anyone can see that there is no inherently existing self, so that is an unreliable criterion for enlightenment.)

But all Buddhist traditions acknowledge a distinction between arahats and buddhas, so clearly there is more to be done. But is the further development happening on the vertical, physio-energetic continuum, or is it horizontal development and further refinement of already-accessed strata of mind? It may not be important by the time a yogi gets to that point and I think all models eventually break down. The most important thing I want to show with my model is that there is order to the developmental process and that developmental enlightenment is possible, even in our "degenerate" age.

Hey Kenneth!

Thanks for the great elaboration!! Loved it.

"I don't know, John. My model may be wrong on this point. I've previously written that arahatship is the end of physio-energetic development along what I think of as the vertical axis, upward through the body and the chakras, and that all further development occurs on a horizontal axis, spreading out from the various strata of mind." - Kenneth.

In my past, I've encountered models that suggest the vertical plane - up through the chakras and strata of mind - planes of being - are infinite all the way the GodHead or undefinable absolute. If this were true Kenneth, the model you are describing would suggest enlightenment upon completing the energetic pathways up to the crown and thus one complete circuit at that level. However, it may be that in the scheme of things, that is first or perhaps metaphorically, baby enlightenment; or enlightenment relative this very low human world of physical incarnation. In the grand multiverse of worlds and planes of existence, the vertical circuit may be ongoing through a vertical axis on up through infinite chakras, strata of mind and planes of being; on up into undifferentiated Divine Mind itself. Something similar to a Kabbalistic model. Has your experience lead you to believe something of this nature may have some truth to it?

Thanks Kenneth!

In kind regards,

Adam.

"The most important thing I want to show with my model is that there is order to the developmental process and that developmental enlightenment is possible, even in our "degenerate" age.
"


I think that this is the main point and the main reason why we are on this forum. Thank you Kenneth for your deep and enlightening comments. Thanks Adam, for starting this thread and to all for sharing your ideas on the subject. I personally don't feel qualified to try answer these questions.

From what I can tell from my understanding of Mahayana sutras, their is no higher stage than Arahatship as far as the realization of the Dharmakaya is concerned. The path leading to Buddhahood after Arahatship is mainly focused on the integration of the absolute with the relative in order to realize and manifest the Sambhogakaya and the Nirmanakaya, together with the mastery of countless virtues, samadhis and salvic expedients (upaya).