Realization & Development

...

Hi Michael,

I think of Realization as what happens when we stop creating time, which is a construction of thought. When we just notice what is always already the case, we cease to be distracted by our thoughts and the true nature of reality is revealed. Because of this, we could say that Realization is prior to the arising of time. And since all development requires time, Realization can't be said to be a function of development.

If development is the laborious task of deconstructing a mistake on its own terms, i.e., using delusion against itself, then Realization is the moment of not buying in to the mistake in the first place.

Jed McKenna writes about "spiritual autolysis." This is a great metaphor for developmental enlightenment, because "autolysis" is the destruction or dissolution of dead or dying cells by the action of enzymes already present in the cells. Developmental enlightenment is similar in that it uses time, which is part of the subject/object "mistake," to unravel itself.

Because it is part of the human experience to live within the world of time, it makes sense for us to use the tools we have and allow our "selves" to be dissolved by their own "enzymatic" action. Whenever we are viewing the world through the lens of time, we see cause and effect, and will therefore assume that our efforts led to development, which led to enlightenment. But, from the perspective of the Absolute, which is prior to the arising of time, causality becomes nonsense, and we must admit that Awakening has no cause.

Thanks for the great topic!

Kenneth

Cool topic, Michael.

I went to a conference last weekend at which there was much talk of something called the "Singularity." At that conference the word singularity meant the point at which machine intelligence exceeds that of human beings, leading to a point where the future is entirely unpredictable. We cannot know what will happen because it is beyond our experience and ability to understand.

I think of realization in a similar way. There came a time when it was utterly and absolutely clear that the truth was outside of individuality (me), outside of concepts, outside of the way I think of time. The only thing that matters is everything, but it's extraordinarily simple and clean. This is an all-encompassing singularity, and nothing is the same. This singularity makes it obvious that whatever I think is happening from moment to moment is not individually driven or caused, and that, by definition, includes practice and any discoveries, attainments or realizations.

It's weird in many ways to watch the human experience and know it is not what it appears to be. I'm prone to falling back into the fog and the confusion of "normal existence." I'm working like hell to see that confusion as often as I can. But note that I'm still using the wrong words right now. "I." "Me." Those things do not ultimately exist. It's a bizarre paradox that takes a lot of work to penetrate, and the obvious thing to do is credit ourselves with achieving something, yet ultimately there's no one doing the work and no one getting anywhere

Diamond Sutra

...

...

"Since Realization can't be said to be a function of development, and arahatship is a function of development, that seems to imply that an arahat is not Self-realized. If so, does attaining arahatship position one (within duality) to dissolve the mistake in perception that duality represents (paraphrasing Nisargadatta)?"-AugustLeo

This is a controversial topic. My opinion is that arahatship has nothing much to do with Realization. As you say, "arahatship is a function of development." Arahatship is jhanic attainment, a developmental landmark on the spectrum of human potential. When a yogi has accessed and penetrated all the strata of mind, arahatship results. As I look around, I see that people I consider to be arahats may or may not be "realized." Realization is available to anyone, irrespective of their jhanic attainment, but it doesn't come as a consequence of arahatship. In fact, arahatship is a double-edged sword when it comes to Realization. On the one hand, the highly developed mind of an arahat gives him or her an advantage when it comes to remaining undistracted. Such a person should be able to take the final step with relative ease. On the other hand, an arahat is so highly trained, often so highly indoctrinated, and has such facility with altered states, that s/he may never take that final step and simply surrender. Where is the motivation? An arahat has a pretty good life, all things considered. If anything, an arahat has a tremendous ego-investment in his or her remarkable accomplishment and may be resistant to the idea that they have worked so long and hard to polish a turd.

(cont)

(cont from post 5)

Equally fascinating and important, though, is the flip side of the question: is the "realized" individual really complete without the developmental attainment of arahatship? In one very real sense, the answer is a resounding "yes!"

But reality testing reveals a more complex tale. Those who take the purely nondual route often find themselves unsatisfied with the instability of their daily lives. Such folks often find themselves back in the dharma scene, seeking a way to understand the developmental aspect of enlightenment and a practical method for coming to the end of the maddening process of insight disease. I see this everywhere, hidden in all kinds of language. Certainly we see it here on this forum, where advanced nondual practitioners diligently apply themselves to what they might previously have considered the somewhat low-brow practice of samatha/vipassana. And in reading Adyashanti's fine book *The End of Your World*, I hear Adyashanti recommending that awakened students go back and flesh out the developmental aspect of their practice. Granted, the author couches this advice in language of his own creation, but his "advanced practice," which he insists is only for those who have "already awakened" to the Absolute, sounds suspiciously like vipassana.

Always, reality testing points up the importance of the "package." Whether we begin with Realization or with development, a given individual is unlikely to be satisfied until they have deeply grok-ed both sides of this coin.

Kenneth

edit: punctuation

...

"Edit: I'd like to read other points of view on this, also."

Hello Michael,

Reading this thread brought to mind a metaphor regarding Development and Realization. It's not perfect, but it's kind of fun.

Let's say someone is inside a room, and the only source of light is through a dirty old window. The person may start to clean and polish the window in attempt to let more light shine through. Cleaning, scrubbing, waxing, polishing, on and on and on... one may finally get some clarity as to what is going on in the little room of theirs.

Then, for one reason or another, perhaps during the process of cleaning and polishing (but not necessarily DUE to the work), the window becomes unlocked. A gust of wind blows the thing open, and the light is perceived directly. Realization.

The problem is, if s/he wants to keep cleaning the window, they have to close it. So if they want to keep DOING something, the light will not shine through in the same way. If s/he would just release their hold on the window and allow it to blow open, the light will just flood in. It was always there, and not amount of work is going to polish the window enough to let the light in fully and completely.

Like I said, it's not perfect, but fun nonetheless.

~Jackson

EDIT: for clarity.

...

This thread is being extremely helpful in clarifying the details of my own experience-- which I have described (more often to myself than others who might be outraged) as coming at practice 'bass-ackwards'. First the 'accidental, undeserved' Big Blowout Insight, then the question of 'this being so, how shall we live?' and as extensive research into anything that looked promising, as I can manage. This has included going back to square one with silent sitting meditation practice, exploring a fair sampling of what's offered locally-- and now there's the whole internet beckoning, yikes!-- with an eye toward what it is FOR, and how it works, in my own life.

In one of the conversations on the DhO site, Trent and I had words: he appearing (to me) to be wanting to dismiss 'Rigpa' as of no value in ordinary, daily life; and me leaping to the defense of 'the Precious.' On later reflection, it seems to me that I was drawn into the exchange because (although in overstated form) he was voicing one of my own 'burning questions.' Likewise, when someone has quoted Ken Wilber's dictum that morality and enlightenment are separate lines of development, I find myself troubled and wanting to really tear into that matter.

Kate

" And in reading Adyashanti's fine book *The End of Your World*, I hear Adyashanti recommending that awakened students go back and flesh out the developmental aspect of their practice. Granted, the author couches this advice in language of his own creation, but his "advanced practice," which he insists is only for those who have "already awakened" to the Absolute, sounds suspiciously like vipassana. "

Hello,

Great discussion!

Do you remember where in the book he writes this? I have the book and would like to have a closer look...

Thanks!

Hello. What an excellent topic! Thanks, Michael, for getting this started.

Now, I'm inclined to play devil's advocate here, or in the Buddhist version, Mara's Mirror. I'm reminded of Nathan (TripleThink) from the Dharma Overground, and his position in debates with Kenneth. I had a great deal of respect for the sincerity of his efforts there, so I'll take up a line of questioning he might appreciate with some degree of enthusiasm.

In short, what about liberation? In other words, it's all well and good to say "Nirvana is Samsara," but what about actually cutting through the fetters and actually being liberated from Samsara? From the orthodox Theravadin perspective, Kenneth, your earlier quote from above would be rather naive, right?

"Equally fascinating and important, though, is the flip side of the question: is the "realized" individual really complete without the developmental attainment of arahatship? In one very real sense, the answer is a resounding "yes!"

I mean, realization is all well and good, until you're reborn as a rat, and you don't have any ability whatsoever to realize anything beyond, "Boy, doesn't this trash taste great!" ....Now, my own personal opinion on the matter is unsettled at the moment, but the 'problem' if you will of actually being stuck, trapped, chained, imprisoned through karma to the wheel of becoming is a very real one for most people, right? And - please correct me if I'm wrong here - but realization doesn't DO what development unto arahatship DOES, right? Namely, it doesn't cut the fetters, because from the standpoint of realization the bondage we're talking about is illusory to the point of not being apparent, not relevant, no bondage to speak of (no one to be bound, nothing to be bound to). Main point: are we upholding myths here? If so, what are they?

I believe what Kenneth has already said in posts #5 and #6 in this thread addresses your questions very well.

...