Nikolai's Practice notes, Phase .2.

"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."

Thanks for that, Jackson. Reading that provoked an "OMFG!!" reaction in me. That's probably something every spiritual practitioner starting out should tape to their foreheads.

Part of what attracts me to Buddhism is the feeling that existence can feel like a series of self-justifying games we all agree to play without questioning, so that we can have our egos fleetingly validated over and over, but whose purposes just don't bear up under scrutiny.

Ain't no reason spirituality couldn't just become another game.

I still have no idea what's in the world outside those games, but it seems likely to have something to do with love, connection, and compassion. So the most appealing among all the flawed tests of a spiritual practice I've found is to see whether it tends toward or away from those.

PS- none of this is meant to reflect on the subject at hand. I am still very much in an "I don't know" position and expect to remain so for a while!

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

There are legitimately things to be afraid of. It's not simple fact of the existence of fear that's at issue. What's at issue is the CAUSE of your fear.

Owen,

Thank you for providing additional information to support your perspective.

One of the reasons that things continue to be confusing is that we are constantly redefining and re-modeling in order to fit our experience. According to the oldest Buddhist texts, 4th Path was the end of suffering. Period. The Buddha didn't teach that arahantship was anything but full liberation. So, if we're going to take those texts seriously, if you're suffering, you're not at 4th Path.

Normally this wouldn't matter too much. If we want to reframe the Paths, cool. But why use the old terminology, and then add some new level that we define as being what the old 'final level' was supposed to be in the first place? I have a problem with this. We can't say we're enlightened according to the Buddhist tradition, and then say, 'but the Buddha taught this extra thing,' when in fact he probably didn't.

I say if we're going to actually believe that the classical attainment of 'no more suffering at all' is possible, we should restore that to its 4th Path/Arahantship title. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not there.

~Jackson

"That, I think, is Jackson's point." ~Chris.

Yes.

Jackson,
This is something I've been thinking about for a while now. I see a few options.

1. The end of suffering isn't possible. Given that, the 4th path definition as "the end of insight disease and the end of suffering being a problem" is the best we can do.

2. The end of suffering is possible. That leaves open a couple of possibilities that I can think of.

a. We aren't actually arhats and we are deluding ourselves or have changed the definitions to fit our practice.
b. We are, but the loss of a centerpoint and subsequent suffering is made possible by the physio-energetic infrastructure that is in place at 4th path, it just takes specific practices to root them out. The choice as to if one wants to do that is up to the individual arhat.
This makes sense if you think of all the Roshis and Rinpoches who act like they still are suffering.

What do you folks think?

"[1] 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. (...)
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?

[2] 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.
"

[1] But suffering is a real problem. Gross craving, aversion and ignorance are the causes of war, rape, misery, depression, etc; so I think gross craving, aversion and ignorance is a "real problem," which is legitimate to focus on. Surely you are not saying that depression, for instance, isn't a real problem?

[2] But as one focuses on the gross manifestations of these three phenomena, they become diminished, and the process unfolds exactly as you describe.

And, as you surely know, the increased sensitivity isn't selective. My sensitivity and awareness have globally increased through meditation, not only sensitivity to and awareness of suffering. The colors are more vivid, the sounds more detailed, my imaginations and fantasies more visible, etc...

Owen,

I'll go with option 2.a. Here's why...

If the complete end of suffering is possible, why on earth would we equate an attainment that is NOT the complete end of suffering (what we've been calling 4th path) with a title that has, for millennia, been used to describe those who HAVE completely ended suffering?

This "4th path" thing should really just be re-termed. The whole model should probably be revised or scrapped. That is, if we're still operating within any sort of Buddhist framework. If not, than we shouldn't use Buddhist terms at all.

I'm not saying that there aren't shifts in our practice that end seeking, and that result in a better framework for working to alleviate suffering once and for all. I just don't like calling it "4th Path" if we're considering the end of suffering as described by the classical Buddhist literature in any way, shape, or form.

~Jackson

Jackson,
Do you think the end of suffering is a possible and realistic goal?

"Do you think the end of suffering is a possible and realistic goal?"

Yes I do, hence my endorsement of option 2.a.

"Yes I do, hence my endorsement of option 2.a."

Cool, so... how?

This is the crux of my experiment. If in a PCE there is no self and no suffering, and we have the Buddha's description: "All thy rafters are broken now, the ridgepole is destroyed", can direct mode be stabilised in?

"One of the reasons that things continue to be confusing is that we are constantly redefining and re-modeling in order to fit our experience. According to the oldest Buddhist texts, 4th Path was the end of suffering. Period. The Buddha didn't teach that arahantship was anything but full liberation. So, if we're going to take those texts seriously, if you're suffering, you're not at 4th Path."-Jackson

Hmm. Sort of. I see two different interpretations of the 4 Path model, both of which can be justified using Buddhist texts. One is what I might call the technical model, and it's the one we use here. It says that only an anagami or above can access nirodha samapatti or the suddhavasa jhanas. From there, it is straightforward to say that the big completion that happens next is arahatship. If not, one would have to ignore the most significant experience of his or her life because it isn't on the map. In other words, once you accept that NS and/or suddhavasa jhana equals 3rd Path, the "technical" map is just as we have been saying it is, which puts arahatship not at the highest levels of enlightenment, but somewhere in the middle.

The other interpretation of the 4 Path model might be called the "rigorous" model. In this version, 3rd Path is the di-sembedding from gross emotions (anything other than Brahma Viharas) and 4th Path is the dis-embedding from "conceit," which can be interpreted to mean any "I-sense" whatsoever.

I have been using the technical model and still prefer it because it is more detailed; the finer resolution allows more targeted teaching and learning. But like the Tibetan and many other systems, I do not consider arahatship to be the be-all, end-all of enlightenment.

As for motivation to deepen practice, for me it gets ever simpler; I trust this process. And what may seem a catastrophe from one point of view is liberation from another.

"But like the Tibetan and many other systems, I do not consider arahatship to be the be-all, end-all of enlightenment." ~Kenneth

I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that the Mahayana systems don't consider arahantship the final attainment because it is confined to the alleviation of one's own personal suffering. It's similar to the idea of the "pratyekabuddha", who achieves enlightenment on their own, and doesn't bother trying to help others attain it.

Full and complete Enlightenment (Buddhahood, or whatever) is usually described as having perfected certain qualities beyond compare (compassion, altruistic intention, etc.). The end of one's suffering comes much before this in such traditions.

I know there are lots of ways to look at this process. I don't claim to have it all figured out, by any means. But I do sense a great deal of dissonance between how folks describe it here compared to tradition. I'm not about to say that tradition is important for its own sake. But there is a consistency to tradition that safeguards some of the mucky-muck that we're running into here. That's why I've more or less dropped using attainment language, save for "stream entry" - which is the easiest to achieve and define. I think that it makes things more confusing than they need to be.

I'm comfortable with my current positions being in conflict with the going ethos of this site. It happens

Jackson

"This is the crux of my experiment. If in a PCE there is no self and no suffering, and we have the Buddha's description: 'All thy rafters are broken now, the ridgepole is destroyed', can direct mode be stabilised in?" ~Owen

I do not have faith in the idea that stabilizing any state or mode of experience will lead to eradication of what are traditionally called "root defilements." Supression is not the same as eradication. The PCE/Direct Mode thing presents itself as a way of surpressing tendencies. You can keep this up for a long while. It can become a habit - a strong one. Fine. To me, it still reeks of possible regression, and I'm not interested in derailing my own development.

I think that if the acitivies of craving (the Big Three) and witnessed, seen for what they are, and relaxed, over time they will become less and less prominent. Not through supression, but through wisdom. Big difference. Noticeable changes have occurred at different times throughout my pracitce. These tendencies are growing weaker and weaker, and it has absolutely nothing to do with stabilizing any state or mode. It's about choosing another response, deliberately. The habit force of the Big Three will eventually die out, but I don't think supression will do this. Otherwise, I'd just chill out in jhana all day.

To each their own. What I'm doing appears to be working, without the risk of regression or the effort invovled in stabilizing a state. I get to be a fully human adult in this way, and I like that.

~Jackson

"It might also be a bad idea to talk about it as a "total lack of emotions". The emotions do exist in a PCE, they just seem to be much more attenuated. The predominant feelings for me are a deep peace and wonder. 4th path was the end of seeking, this is the end of fighting.

"

I've been staying pretty much out of this whole PCE/DM discussion since cutting-edge is pretty much synonymous with out-of-my-league at this point. My sympathies, however, lie with Chris and Jackson on this one.

The crux of the matter for me is the idea of "lack of emotion/affect". For me, emotions are both short-hand communication/action strategies. They are ways to know about what's going on and they motivate us to take an certain actions. Being controlled by them without consciousness is problematic, but choosing not to have them at all would be a kind of self-crippling, in my mind. I'd like to learn about them and use them skillfully, rather than uprooting them altogether.

This is the first I've seen of anyone saying that emotions do exist during a PCE, and I was wondering if Owen could expand on this statement, or if Nick or anyone else could say if they feel likewise.

Just my opinion, but restricting the definition of enlightenment and the end of suffering to lie strictly within the Theravada Four Path model is a major potential limitation in our thinking.

"Not through supression, but through wisdom."

That says it all for me.

"Just my opinion, but restricting the definition of enlightenment and the end of suffering to lie strictly within the Theravada Four Path model is a major potential limitation in our thinking."

I agree. I just hope that if we use terms from a particular tradition, we should probably use them appropriately and within the context of whatever other traditions we're using as a reference. Right now it all seems very "à la carte."

Also, I offer up this distinction for consideration: there is, IMHO, a difference between feeling something and suffering from it. I've tried to articulate that, as has Jackson, and to a large extent that may be the only real difference we have here. If feeling anger is suffering then to end suffering you need to end anger. But, if you can feel anger and yet not suffer then.... guess what?

I don't recall seeing anyone (Nick, Kenneth, Owen,...) who practice Direct Mode/PCE and have said that their current practice includes any sort of suppression.
Do you?

Yadid, when something gets started and is subsequently stopped in mid-growth what would you call it?

"This is the first I've seen of anyone saying that emotions do exist during a PCE, and I was wondering if Owen could expand on this statement, or if Nick or anyone else could say if they feel likewise."

Best answer I can give is "sorta". I guess it depends on what you mean by emotion. There is no somatic charge in the body during a PCE. The chest feels like a spacious and cool cave. It's very nice.

Suppression (Psychoanalysis): consciously inhibit (an unpleasant idea or memory) to avoid considering it.

Eradication: destroy completely; put an end to.

Suppression, as used in this context, assumes that something remains which is being suppressed, forcibly ignored or inhibited (to avoid considering it). While the point might be instead eradication, so that the thing doesn't arise at all, then there is nothing to surpress, and nothing to avoid considering.


Chris: If feeling anger is suffering then to end suffering you need to end anger. But, if you can feel anger and yet not suffer then.... guess what?

Are you talking about transcending anger? In that you feel anger just as before, but don't act angry in any way? And if so, isn't anger redundant?

I think your main objection is that emotions actually convey useful information, is that right? What information exactly do they convey, which you couldn't pick up some other way?

Bruno, I think we all know how to use a dictionary. Posting defintions in every comment comes off as, well... kind of ostentatious. Just saying.

(1) Ostentatious: intended to attract notice and impress others.

"Best answer I can give is "sorta". I guess it depends on what you mean by emotion. There is no somatic charge in the body during a PCE. The chest feels like a spacious and cool cave. It's very nice. "

What I mean by "emotion" is how I described it in my post:
"emotions are both short-hand communication/action strategies. They are ways to know about what's going on and they motivate us to take an certain actions."

The Tibetans (Chogyam Trungpa, at least, from what I've read) talk about the wisdom in emotions. Is the information still coming through? If there's no somatic charge, it would seem to imply that the energy behind the emotion is drawn back into the body. That energy is there for a reason, it is a communication. In dispelling the somatic charge, is the emotion still understood and able to be acted upon, or is it being shooed away like an annoying child?

And it's not just the Tibetans. This, from a recent interview with Zen teacher Charlotte Joko Beck at Tricycle:

"What we need to learn to do is to see the thought as a thought, and then feel the body tighten. The body is going to tighten if you're angry with somebody, right? So just be the tightening. Forget the thinking at this point, and just be the anger, the tension or vibration. When you do that, you're not trying to change your anger. You're just being with it, totally. Then it is able to transform itself."

<cont>

"That's transformation as opposed to change - a critical difference. Religion always is trying to change you: you know, 'You're not a good girl; be a good girl.' But here, in labeling and experiencing, you're learning to be less emotional, less caught by every passing thing that goes on in your head. The anger gets a little weaker, a little less demanding, and at some point, you begin to notice the difference. Something that would have made you jump with anger - you can watch it. The observer is beginning to grow. And in experiencing the bodily tension, you're not suppressing the emotion; you're feeling it. You're transforming the dualism of self-centered thoughts, opinions, and emotions into the non-dualism of direct experiencing. "

from: www.tricycle.com/feature/lifes-not-a-problem