Nikolai's Practice notes, Phase .2.

"If somebody could end suffering, why wouldn't they?"


Owen, that appears as though it cold very well be a false choice. A few things come to mind:

1. Until I have more information the claim that you can truly end all of your suffering it seems a bit, well, unlikely. I'd like to have a more rigorous definition of "suffering" to go on here because I suspect you still feel pain and I suspect you are still capable, if pushed hard enough, to feel anger, frustration, and so on. Of course I don't really know. I only suspect.

2. If in the process of ending my own suffering (and that's what I'd be doing, ending my suffering) I had to give up something that facilitates my functioning the world that my family and others rely on then I'd have to think twice. Whose suffering? Of what type, and at what cost? I perceive that there are tradeoffs going on, which is why I asked about downsides earlier.

3. At a certain juncture in my practice it became very, very clear that what occurs in awareness just IS, and I thus have choice. That choice allows for and includes the idea that I can fully see what's happening right here, right now, and choose not to react out of ignorance but from compassion and wisdom. I'm not even close to being perfect. I think perfection is a pipe dream. I like the highs and the lows. I always wanted to know what it meant to be a human being and my practice has been a wonderful avenue through which that is being revealed to me. I'm not interested in modulating my existence right now and may never be. I just don't see that existence as inherently painful, certainly when viewed from the perspective of awareness.

In the end it may just be that our individual constitutions determine where we go in our practice from that certain point.

I don't frankly know but those are just a few thoughts.

Hi Chris.

A few thoughts in return...

1. If you can see things arising in consciousness as they are, it may be that you are deeper in 3rd gear in a certain way, certainly at least than myself. I can't most times, and if I could in a stable way perhaps more pushing wouldn't seem necessary.

2. I agree that "perfection" isn't possible--that word is an abstraction. Let's call it strongly predominance of a certain state instead. Then let's make a distinction between subjective and objective views. Subjectively it may be quite possible to have a strongly predominant emptying out/dissolution of individuality and decrease in negative emotions. Objectively I don't see that this would make one perfect--I think the moral history of many teachers bears this out--but one's experience on the "inside" might be greatly improved.

3,. Let's distinguish between conscious mental functioning and unconscious mental functioning. We know that most psychological functioning is carried out unconsciously; conscious experience is a small sliver. It might therefore be possible to have the conscious experience of no one being there while those unconscious mental processes that help one navigate the world are still functioning quite well.

4. How much suffering does one need to relate well? Does memory get eradicated? My sense would be no. I was sitting with an adolescent client the other day and I can very vividly remember what that is like. In neurological terms, episodic memory is highly resistant to degradation. They just don't go away.

5. Finally, I fully agree that context matters. I think the higher the pressure and more engaged one is with the world, the less ability to hold any state. I think this is reflected nicely in the householder vs. monastic discussions that Hinduism often engages in. The bar is lower for householders in that discussion.

I tend to think that these differences in perspective ("eradicating all suffering is what this is all about" vs "doing so is dangerous") can be seen in the different motivations people started out with.

Jackson once wrote to me that he started practice because he had a strong will as a child to "be one with god" (I hope I remember correctly. Please correct me if I'm wrong, Jackson), while Chris writes that he started practicing because he wanted to realize what it is to be human.
And then Nick, Owen and Kenneth say that they were always in it for the end of suffering.
So, different motivations / pursuits are what I see here. Some people want to end all suffering, and believe that doing so would be not only appropriate, but will benefit others tremendously, while others believe that doing so would be getting rid of an essential and required part of one's life, and also that getting rid of one's suffering would be detrimental for one's close relationships, or perhaps an 'egoistic' act. Getting rid of one's suffering and making others suffer a bit more. (Looks a bit like the Mahayana vs. Theravada view to me - 'getting rid of all suffering isn't helpful for others' Vs. 'its the best way of helping others')

Chris: You say that you think that it would be good to wait months or years to see how this progresses. My question is: Do you think that in 10 years time, if Kenneth will still say: "Yes, this has been very worthwhile and my life has tremendously improved. I can still function as a great human, and even better than before" Will you change your opinion about this being a dangerous and untested practice? Because I suspect that the descriptions of effects are likely to remain the same (No affect or no negative affect).

Am I making sense here? I hope so

Hi Yadid,

Just to confirm, you're more or less right in regard to the reason why spiritual practice became so important to me at such a young age. Though, it was more of a longing to "go home" (be with God in heaven) than to be "one" with God. Not a huge difference, though.

My motivations have changed quite a bit since then. Sometimes I don't even know what they are, to be honest.

With regard to what you asked Chris, I think that subjective reporting is only one piece of the puzzle when deciding whether or not a practice is worthwhile, or even safe. It should be coupled with reason, and behavioral observation, and other stuff I can't think of right now. In other words, just because someone says, "This has been really great for me!", it doesn't mean I'm going to want to do it, or even consider it valid. Just my opinion, whatever it's worth.

Thanks for chiming in.
Jackson

"My question is: Do you think that in 10 years time, if Kenneth will still say: "Yes, this has been very worthwhile and my life has tremendously improved. I can still function as a great human, and even better than before" Will you change your opinion about this being a dangerous and untested practice? Because I suspect that the descriptions of effects are likely to remain the same (No affect or no negative affect)."

Hi, Yadid.

Of course I would re-evaluate based on longer term practice reports. That doesn't mean I'd adopt the practice for myself, however. My decision, and my description of this "new" practice are entirely speculative. I know that. My decision is based solely on what *I* will do. It's based on what in investment theory is called my "personal risk profile." I'm not telling anyone here what to do, nor would I. If you want to do this practice, you should. I will, however, tell you how I made my decision and what it's based on. I also believe there is something we all owe each other here and that is an adequate description of not just the positive aspects of a given practice but the negative, too.

Make sense?

I'm enjoying how Nick's practice thread is turning into friendly idle banter

As for motivations, I found mine to have changed a number of times. First I wanted my depression to go away (it did), then there was a phase I wanted to live as constant love-making between shiva and shakti (I had an effervescent imagination during that period), and then there was a phase I didn't want to do it at all (and didn't actually meditate) because I was afraid of loosing my emotions, and then there was a (very recent) phase when I just wanted to get rid of insight disease, and finally, after having read the actual freedom site more carefully, and after my mind having understood (approximately) that perspective, and what it entails, I am more and more inclined to see that as a worthy goal.

I guess I could clearly state my present goal as: being as happy as it is possible for a human being to be, all the time. I have become disenchanted with anger, fear and sadness, and although I have (really!) tried, I can't come up with any good argument to justify their existence anymore. And nowadays this whole existing thing seems so wonderful, so incredible! Really! How amazing it is that I can be typing these words into a computer right now! That such a thing can even happen at all! And it doesn't end there: there are ducks! Trees! You know?! What sense does it make to be sad, or angry, or afraid, in such a wonderful world? (that question is NOT hypothetical! if you know of a good reason, I'd love to hear about it) And if it makes no sense, then why not get done with those things and enjoy being here as much as possible all the time? *sipping wine*

>1. Until I have more information the claim that you can truly end all of your suffering it seems a bit, well, unlikely. >I'd like to have a more rigorous definition of "suffering" to go on here because I suspect you still feel pain and I >suspect you are still capable, if pushed hard enough, to feel anger, frustration, and so on.

---

Chris, you hit on a good point. We haven't really defined out terms and that's probably making this conversation more difficult. My current working definition of suffering these days is simply "stress". I want to keep it distinct from physical pain, which I believe is unavoidable so long as one is in possession of a nervous system.

Stress (dukkha), at least according to standard Buddhist dogma, is the result of greed, hatred and delusion. But to have greed or hatred or delusion, you have to have an individual self, since all of them are in some sense protective mechanisms for that individual self.

Kenneth and I were talking about Ramana's statement: "It is said that the I-activity is the root of all activities" and that according to Ramana eventually the I-thought stops arising. There is also the orthodox Therevada view that conceit eventually falls away. I'm thinking of conceit being the perception of the self-contraction or the I-thought, if anybody has a better translation, please let me know.

So when the self is gone, and it appears to be the case at least temporarily in a PCE, suffering (stress) doesn't arise. According to the AF folks, Eckhart Tolle, Ramana and Bernadette Roberts the I-thought can be permanently eradicated. The million dollar question, is it possible to replicate their results and end suffering? That's where the experiment seems to be heading.

"Kenneth and I were talking about Ramana's statement: "It is said that the I-activity is the root of all activities" and that according to Ramana eventually the I-thought stops arising. There is also the orthodox Therevada view that conceit eventually falls away. I'm thinking of conceit being the perception of the self-contraction or the I-thought, if anybody has a better translation, please let me know." ~Owen

That seems to be a common way to look at the relationship between the I-thought or self-sense and what I call the Big Three: greed, aversion, and delusion. I disagree with this position, because I see the relationship in the reverse. From what I gather based on my experience and my preferred interpretation of early Buddhist literature, the Big Three are activities that give rise to the contracted sense of "I" - not the other way around.

I see the "I" as a projection whose source is one of the diabolical activities of the Big Three. Chasing after the "I" has seldom ever resulted in realizing emptiness or liberation in my practice. But if I notice suffering (and thus "I"-making), and then notice which of the Big Three are causing it to arise, and can relax it through practice and both the suffering and super-contracted, defensive "I"-sense clear away.

(continued below)

Chasing the "I" is a witch hunt, in my view. Suffering itself is a much better - and easier - thing to track down. It will always be caused by one of the Big Three, more likely greed or aversion (mindfulness removes the delusion piece via exposure).

This could be a difference between basic Buddhist and Vedanta doctrines. Not sure. Either way, what I described makes more sense to me, and has proven much more useful.

Thoughts? Anyone?

~Jackson

Thanks for your reply to my post Chris and Jackson.
They do make sense to me.

The reason all this talk about PCE and ending all suffering don't sound dangerous to me is, the practices people report in order to experience this mode of living sounds very simple and well, natural.
If it involved some strange rituals, drug use, brain surgery, or what not, I would be a turn-off indeed.

Yadid, just to be very open about this, I think ill effects can result from practices that don't involved drugs and rituals. I'm not being cautious just because. My reticence about this practice is not purely philosophical so please don't think I'm being cautious just for that reason alone because I think there are good practical reasons,too. When someone says to me after trying a practice for a while, "Well, I am simpler" it makes me stop and think. Again, you need to evaluate this for yourself and I probably sound like I'm erring way too far over on the side of caution, but please notice what effects are being reported on the downside when folks are asked about it.

Jackson, yes, I agree. The self is a chimera. It seems to me that it's created when it's needed, otherwise not there, so chasing after a chimera is bound to create stress. Find the suffering in order to find the "me," not the other way around.

Just to clarify, and make sure I'm getting this.

You are watching the body as a whole with an emphasis on any pain/discomfort that is arising. It is seen that craving/aversion lead to pain. If one observes the pain in real-time craving/aversion eventually drop away (temporarily) and a state free from both is experienced. Because there is no craving/aversion there is also no self-contraction being experienced.

Is this correct?

"Yadid, just to be very open about this, I think ill effects can result from practices that don't involved drugs and rituals. I'm not being cautious just because. My reticence about this practice is not purely philosophical so please don't think I'm being cautious just for that reason alone because I think there are good practical reasons,too. When someone says to me after trying a practice for a while, "Well, I am simpler" it makes me stop and think. Again, you need to evaluate this for yourself and I probably sound like I'm erring way too far over on the side of caution, but please notice what effects are being reported on the downside when folks are asked about it. -Chris
"

Thanks Chris.
I find your point interesting, specifically regarding "simpler". Can you please tell me more about how that makes you stop and think? I think I'm missing something here and I'd like to understand your point better.

Yadid, if you go back and review the last few days' comments on this topic I think you'll find your answer. Basically, I asked Owen about "downsides" to his direct mode practice and that was part of one of his replies:

Me: "Kenneth reported at one point that he felt "simpler" due to this practice. Do you, Nick or Owen, feel that way? Do you notice any issues related to making decisions, sense of urgency about things you care about or used to care about, and things in that regard? One thing that concerns me is that you guys are jumping into something that is not very well known and not proven at the level that, oh, let's say even the Theravada 4 path model is proven. That's why I'm content to wait to see what Kenneth's experiment reveals over the longer term, as measured in months or maybe even years. It's possible that there are downsides we don't know about that don't show up until this practice has been used for some longer period of time."

Owen: "Yeah, I feel simpler. About the only issue I have is if I'm suffering or not. BTW, my previous post was just talking about when I'm not in PCE/direct mode. It does tend to make suffering stand out in high relief."

He goes on to enumerate some other effects, both positive and not so positive, in his reply #174. I suggest we allow Owen to elaborate as my answer will be speculative.

Most of this discussion is well over my dhammic head, but I am following it with great fascination. I guess the thing I want to hear from the ones using Direct Mode is, "Are you disengaging? Are you cutting off relationships and worldly engagements to maintain this practice (which sounds like it requires a nearly constant "striving" to maintain)? Are you still on good terms with the non-enlightened?"

I say this from my experience that all the dead-end paths I've followed in practice have been the ones that pulled me toward disengagement from others, toward feeling I possessed some secret that held me above the common herd. The progress I've made came when I forgot about the notion that I was "escaping" anything. I am pre-any Path, and I know that Paths bring about fundamental changes in that perspective, but I can't really imagine that this test is invalidated by any Path.

This sounds more accusatory than I mean to sound- it's more that I am trying to draw out a description in different terms, that I can understand from my earthbound perspective. I haven't heard the clear distinction yet between "I don't suffer, even among all the best and worst of the experience I've always lived with" vs. "I don't suffer, just as long as I avoid things that disturb my beautiful mind".

"The progress I've made came when I forgot about the notion that I was "escaping" anything ....I can't really imagine that this test is invalidated by any Path."

In my experience you are correct to hold this view.

"In my experience you are correct to hold this view." ~Chris

I agree as well.

Rob, it might be helpful in forming your description (from your earthbound perspective) to know how the mind becomes disturbed in the first place. Psychological suffering is an internal reaction to external stimulus; this can be seen very clearly with the help of vipassana, as one slowly becomes able to discern what is external stimulus (sensory input) and what is internal reactivity (craving, aversion and ignorance).

As one subdues internal reactivity, then there are progressively less things which can disturb, and thus less things to avoid. If reactivity is eliminated, there is no psychological suffering to avoid. The real question then becomes whether living without reactivity is or is not something one wishes for oneself. (The other question, whether it is at all possible to completely eliminate suffering --- I am personally convinced --- has already been positively answered by Richard, Peter, Vinetoo, Tarin, Trent, Stephanie, and Christian)

Now, one might not be interested in pondering this question, but if one is interested, then I see two ways to go about it. One can get a taste of what the state of no-reactivity is like, by doing the appropriate mental practice to the point of having a PCE. Nickolay and Owen are doing this. And one can look at those who have actual experience with this state; this involves, for instance, reading what these people write, or meeting them in person.

Only then one is in a position to make an informed choice. Hypothetically calling it an "escape," while using a derogatory tone with the voice inside one's head while thinking the word "escape", is just the reactivity mechanism protecting itself (at least that was the case for me), and adds no understanding whatsoever.

(contd.)

Furthermore, since it turns out that it IS possible to eliminate reactivity altogether, then I think it is appropriate using the word "escape," since one "breaks free from the control of the reactive mechanism of the mind." (1)

From what I could ascertain, people who have done so report that they are still able to maintain demanding jobs, still interact with friends and spouses, and still maintain various interests in worldly affairs (such as hobbies). They further report to be enjoying their life more than they ever imagined possible --- albeit in a different way than what I imagined enjoying life would be like ("getting the prize and the girl").

So who knows?
Bruno

(1) In the dictionary, "escape" is defined as "break free from confinement or control". And thus "breaking free from conditioning," an expression which I so often heard in buddhist writings, can then be correctly classified as an "escape."
(2) Yes, I am doing footnotes because I have been reading the actualfreedom website a lot, as well as Tarin's posts

Bruno, there is a fine line between a desire to escape suffering and resistance to experience (i.e. aversion). The flipside to escape-desire (if I can compound the two terms) is fear. I think the question that I and some others are asking is simply this: what is there to be so afraid of?

In all honesty, sometimes I think that some of these contemplative practices can manufacture the suffering that we believe is expelled through the implementation of the very same practices. What a silly game. It's almost like cutting yourself and then watching yourself heal, all the while thinking you're doing something special that allows the healing to occur. I wonder how much better things would be if we didn't keep propping up imaginary enemies to conquer with woo-woo mind gymnastics.

That's my cynical side coming out. It's worth pondering, though.

~Jackson

P.S. I'm not saying that all suffering is imaginary. We suffer enough. Why make more of it, just to say that you destroyed it after the fact?

Thanks, Bruno, that does help me understand something that is probably key (and that I certainly can't make any decisions on from my present position).

The view I hold these days is that I have never eliminated or even dented my reactivity, at least at the first layer. There's just a sphere of awareness that has grown to the point where my initial reactivity *sometimes* falls inside that sphere, and being caught by awareness, fails to proliferate into second, third, ad infinitum, orders of reactivity. This does result in a tangible reduction in suffering.

In the past, I have thought that I had reduced my reactivity, and I later discovered, usually only after inflicting a bit of damage, that I was really only (1) repressing my reactions, or (2) adopting a passive-aggressive stance.

So it seems skillful, at this stage, to regard my reactivity in itself as fixed and untouchable. I'm quite prepared to believe that this view changes as the practice evolves. If reactivity can actually be reduced, that would indeed be good news.

... " sometimes I think that some of these contemplative practices can manufacture the suffering that we believe is expelled through the implementation of the very same practices. What a silly game. It's almost like cutting yourself and then watching yourself heal, all the while thinking you're doing something special that allows the healing to occur. I wonder how much better things would be if we didn't keep propping up imaginary enemies to conquer with woo-woo mind gymnastics." -- Jackson

That's more or less what I see going on, too. What starts out as not a real problem becomes a problem when it's sort of re-defined as a problem. It's then focused on and that focus creates the desire to eliminate the object, which causes more focus on it, which causes more sensitivity to it, which causes the desire to remove it, which causes more sensitivity, which causes more desire to remove, which causes more sensitivity, and so on,and on, until, I suppose, the object is eradicated. But it started out as not really a problem. We defined it as a problem to start the process. So where did we really go but in circles?

Again, this hinges on our definition of suffering. That definition is different from the perspective of the direct mode practice. That much is clear.

My thoughts, anyway, limited as they are.

I don't think escape is right word. I prefer to think of it as ending suffering, which is I believe the entire point of Buddhist practice. And there is a big difference between ending suffering and reducing suffering. At 4th path, suffering was immensely reduced, and it stopped "stacking" which is very nice, but if I'm honest with myself, stress still does remain. It's not a problem, which is probably the biggest 4th path insight, but it is there. And the sense of an individual self is still there, which is also not a problem but ultimately it is an pain filled illusion, one which I'd like to be rid of.

Here is something I found from a Robert's interview:

---

Initially, I gave up looking for this experience in the Buddhist literature. Four years later, however, I came across two lines attributed to Buddha describing his enlightenment experience. Referring to self as a house, he said, "All thy rafters are broken now, the ridgepole is destroyed." And there it was - the disappearance of the center, the ridgepole; without it, there can be no house, no self. When I read these lines, it was as if an arrow launched at the beginning of time had suddenly hit a bulls-eye. It was a remarkable find. These lines are not a piece of philosophy, but an experiential account, and without the experiential account we really have nothing to go on. In the same verse he says, "Again a house thou shall not build," clearly distinguishing this experience from the falling away of the ego-center, after which a new, transformed self is built around a "true center," a sturdy, balanced ridgepole.

---

When the sense of an individual self is not present, stress is also absent. Completely. The body feels very much what the classical descriptions of Nibanna point to.

So my question lately is "Does Buddhism actually work for permanently ending suffering?"

"[1] Bruno, there is a fine line (...) so afraid of?

[2] In all honesty, sometimes (...) mind gymnastics."

[1] The whole reason that "resistance to experience" is so cautioned in buddhism is because the phenomena of suffering is a form of resistance. So let's erase the line --- is the fact that desire to escape suffering equals resistance to experience (the experience of suffering) something to be avoided? By resistance one can mean two things (dictionary): "the refusal to accept or comply with something; the attempt to prevent something by action or argument" --- which is to say, mental struggle against what is already arising, and applied effort at changing something. These are two definitions, and while I think it is futile to resist in the first sense, I think it is valid (and surprisingly possible) to resist in the second sense.

Suffering is (at least in me, presently) part of experience. And I do "resist" it, not in the sense of struggling even more when suffering arises, but in the sense that I do not want to stand by passively and do nothing about it. I see that I suffer, and I don't see why I should (the world is so nice ), so I do something about it.

Precisely because there is nothing to be afraid of, why should I be subject to fear?

[2] But I'm not talking about an imaginary enemy. I actually do suffer, really, and I would rather that I wouldn't, since I see no advantage in doing so (and the world is so nice ). And furthermore, I found that after I began doing meditation, I am suffering a lot less. Compared to 2009, 2010 was a breeze, and I'm hoping meditation will make 2011 even better. Isn't that the case with your practice? And if so, why be cynical at all?

To the point about dependent origination: following the established chain of it,what arises in what order, the ignorance and delusion or the self-sense, I believe it's the delusion. Which becomes a problem only if we identify with it. If we don't identify with it, it may indeed arise but not be a problem.

That, I think, is Jackson's point.

To that end:

On ignorance depends karma;
On karma depends consciousness;
On consciousness depend name and form;
On name and form depend the six organs of sense;
On the six organs of sense depends contact;
On contact depends sensation;
On sensation depends desire;
On desire depends attachment;
On attachment depends existence;
On existence depends birth;
On birth depend old age and death, sorrow,
lamentation, misery, grief, and despair.