Nikolai's Practice notes, Phase .2.

"Anxiety and stress are closely related in terms of how they are experienced. Anxiety is, basically, the result of an intolerance to physical sensations. The empirically supported treatments for anxiety have one very important factor in common... exposure. Anxiety is often treated by gradual exposure to the sensations one is intolerant of. Over time, tolerance increases, and the sensations no longer rule their lives.

If emotions are causing stress or anxiety, just deciding not to deal with them is just going to make the problem worse. I have heard numerous times in the forums that the more the PCE people do their thing, the more "painful" emotions become. Duh. That's how it works. The more you avoid something, the worse it feels when it arises.

Meditation works a lot like exposure therapy. Giving one's self the context and tools to meet their emotions with mindfulness and equanimity reduces the intolerance of the associated sensations. Anxiety/stress/suffering decreases over time by repeated exposure. Emotions become less and less of a problem. If your practice is causing emotions or any other sensation to become MORE of a problem, it might be a good sign that you should re-evaluate your decision.

Please. Think. Clearly."

Jackson, would I be out of line in suggesting that we look at this from the point of view of practice in this moment? What lies behind these condescending rants? Is it your absolute, unshakable certainty that you are right and those who oppose your views are wrong? If so, I would would take that as a red flag; no one possesses such absolute knowledge. One remedy for that would be to repeat a few refrains of "I don't know."

Or, is it fear, anxiety, frustration, annoyance, grandiosity, righteous indignation, dismay, contempt, disgust? Note that, because noting is exactly the mechanism by which we make the mind transparent. When the mind is transparent, things look different.

"(Jackson/awouldbehipster)
[1] This view flunks when subjected to reality testing.
[2] I don't see how suppressing* emotions from arising can possibility lead to growth. It will either lead to regression or stagnation. I don't see how it could be any other way.
"

[1] Jackson, could you please fundament this sentence? I personally never had or witnessed an episode of violence, greed, selfishness or cruelty that wasn't fueled by passionate emotion.

In what reality testing are you basing this "flunk," exactly?

[2] But you not seeing how it could be any other way isn't an actual objection, right?

What is actually surprising in this regard, and this is what got me thinking that this PCE thing can't be all that bad, is that among the practices leading to a PCE, there are quite a few which are wonderful to do, and very nice, healthy, natural, etc. One of these practices, which involves no suppression at all, is the practice of sensuous attentiveness ( www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/article...apperceptiveness.htm ). When I do it it during a nice sunny day, it leaves me in an emotional state, supposedly the affective state closest possible to the PCE, called naiveté; and it is really so wonderful and so natural and healthy and joyful, that experiencing it first hand helped me see how things could be different (and great!).

The fact is that emotions eventually vanish if one continues to do these practices. Happiness becomes perfection (or so it is described), and then it seems there is no place for anything else. The PCE, cultivated in this way, is not about suppression at all, would you agree? It might be the "grounding" aspect which Kenneth describes is causing you the impression that the point is to suppress emotions.

(contd.)

But Tarin, back in 2006, understood that wasn't the point at all ( www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/listafc...ndence/listaf108.htm , February 1, 2006):

TARIN: (...) I really know [now] that the felicitous feelings are worthwhile in and of themselves, and now I also see how, while only being an imitation, they are related to and really do lead to the PCE.
RICHARD: Aye ... I mean it when I say a grim and/or glum person has no chance whatsoever of allowing a PCE to occur.

That was the most ground-shattering revelation for me: the practice of actively and determinedly maximizing felicitous feelings will lead to a PCE (it is another one of the practices leading to the PCE which does not involve suppressing anything). Then I thought: maybe I'm missing out on something good.

(PS. Chris I will get back to you, I am pondering on a more adequate response to your four examples)

"
If you want to see someone who is really in touch with his emotions, look at a toddler. No one is more passionate than a two-year-old. He throws an apoplectic fit when he is unhappy and he becomes positively manic with joy at the very mention of ice cream. Yet few adults would trade their own more refined emotional life for that of the toddler; far from being richer, the toddlers emotional life is seen as limited as the grosser emotions crowd out the subtler. It is not so hard to imagine that this trend continues with enlightenment."

Toddlers act this way because their emotions are not in touch with the reality around them. They haven't integrated their emotions with all the other information arising around them. Adults better understand their emotions and the place those emotions hold in the world, and hence to do allow themselves to become controlled by them. This is good, and I would agree that it's something that should be expected to continue as humans develop.

However, I asked a question a while back that was not answered. I think it's relevant to this. In DM, when the emotions arise are they listened to and understood, or are they ignored? I am of the opinion that emotions arise in a stressful manner because there is some disconnect between them and the way reality is. If a negative emotion arises at all, it is because we haven't dealt with the root cause. Ignoring the message that emotion is bringing us isn't solving the problem, it's refusing to deal with it, repressing it.

Kenneth,

I know enlightenment is not suppression. I never said it was. I'm not sure why you decided to throw that in.

You very eloquently frame your conception of where you believe this practice leads. You can say "it isn't suppression" all you want. Unfortunately, everyone else who has described their DM practice has made the method pretty clear. The method is what I am opposed to, not your lofty expectations of where it will lead.

You are so confident that this new toy of yours is the "next level." So much so, that you more or less accused me of being opposed to others who wish to get to the next level, as if my mission were to stunt the spiritual growth of my peers. That's a cop-out, don't you think? Talk about putting up a straw man. I want nothing other than for people to grow in their spiritual endeavors.

I'm disappointed in what I see happening here, Kenneth. How many times have you changed your mind about the "next level" over the last year or two? (the no-dog, 24/7 rigpa, divine perspectives, 24/7 noting, and now DM). I guess it's fine when it's only your practice and personal psychology that's at stake. But you have so many students who look up to you, and who will follow your lead regardless of whether the techniques are widely untested (as is the case with this DM business). Take the time to consider the ways in which this sort of flip-flopping might adversely affect their development.

With every change in emphasis, there is an attitude of "Eureka! I finally found it! This is what the Buddha must have been talking about!" I'm not buying it this time around. No hard feelings. I just see an obvious pattern emerging, and I don't see myself as being a part of it.

~Jackson

Kenneth, it's like the discussion we were having on Tuesday about Goenka's take on psychological practices that promote the expression of anger. If I remember correctly, it was explained that expressing anger (say through a primal scream therapy, or something like that) would re-introduce the hindrance of anger into the body. Maybe that's not true to what Goenka says, I've never taken a retreat o his and this is all from memory. But the point is, if the anger comes up, chances are its source hasn't been addressed.

I'm midway through Kornfield's "After The Ecstasy..." and came upon this passage last night:

"We fear the destructive power of our emotions when we haven't seen them for what they really are. We confuse allowing ourselves to be aware of them with the necessity to act them out. . . .Experiencing the full range of these feelings as they come and go in our consciousness, we can begin to ask of each "Is this who I am?" If we can hold our feelings in a spacious and fearless heart, the lonely, broken, spiteful, confused feelings arise in a new way, transformed by our acceptance".

"Spacious and fearless heart" could just as equally be stated as "open accepting awareness". I don't see in DM or the PCE a way for the emotions to be transformed. It seems instead as if an emotionless landscape if being clung to rather than any open engagement with the emotions. If there is no I, then there is no one there to feel the emotions anyway. Who is it that is bothered by these emotions?

I believe a healthy skepticism is really important, but especially critical when the subject matter is, like this one, important to people who have devoted a lot of time to it, whose lives may be affected by it and who thus care deeply about it. I started to detect that skepticism wasn't really welcome here a few weeks ago when I, too, was accused of claiming absolute knowledge and of "planting flags." I thought we might have gotten past that but I don't think we have. It's a major concern of mine and it's making me wonder if the intent is to end the discussion in a way that splits us into two camps -- those who have are perceived to be claiming absolute knowledge and then those who are right.

Kenneth, I know you believe in what you're doing but I also think Jackson is making some valid points. You have, of late, turned this community on a dime. It's a major concern for me in several ways. Once again an online practice community has been split in two over this same issue. Do you see any parallels? I do.

I should probably not venture into the clash of the titans again, but here I go:

(1) It sometimes seems to me as if the 2 "sides" (overly crude delineation, but convenient for the moment) may be talking about similar things but with different definitions of the terms. One person's transformation and acceptance within awareness may read to another as suppression, but is the difference only degree?

(2) I was inspired by this discussion to look up Ajahn Maha Boowa's defense of why he cried when describing arahantship. He talks about emotional manifestations such as tears and laughter as being the department of the khandas, which persist after arahantship. As a teacher I heard once said, "the dhamma will always be the dhamma, the khandhas will always be the khandhas". One never becomes the other.

In that, (allowing for the moment that Ajahn Maha Boowa is actually an arahant!), there seems to be plenty of space to allow for 4th pathers to continue to call themselves that while they experience emotional manifestations, and to continue to work with them *using* dhamma. On the other hand, there seems to be no room for the idea of *eradicating* emotional manifestations (i.e. the khandhas will never be the dhamma). But is that really what you guys are saying, anyways? Is this not really just about how much dhamma-space you put around emotions, and therefore just an argument over degree?

I am personally very glad there are two points of view, A discussion does not happen without two points of view, "two camps" so to speak, so why talk about disappointment, or be concerned about splitting of anything? Let me cite Chris:

"By the way, I think we should congratulate ourselves because this may just be the longest running entirely civil and reasonable discussion about this topic. Ever. In the history of the subject matter. Right here. On KFDh. It's enjoyable and informative and pleasant and I thank you all for that."

So let's keep it that way

(btw I didn't feel there was any splitting at all to be concerned about; dudes, we were group hugging just a few days ago Relax.)

--- back to the topic ---

Jackson: "the method is what I am opposed to"

There are several practices leading to the PCE, namely:
(1) Investigating "How am I experiencing this moment of being alive," while maximizing felicitous feelings. ( actualfreedom.com.au/richard/articles/th...mentofbeingalive.htm )
(2) Cultivating apperception ( www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/article...apperceptiveness.htm ), and
(3) Grounding emotional energy in the body, followed by attentiveness to sensuousness (Kenneth's technique: kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/page/3rd+...t+Tolle,+and+the+PCE ).

Are you opposed to every one of these methods?

Bruno

GROUP HUG!!!!

Today, I made my students laugh becasue I was calm and collected and my jokes rocked. I was in direct mode all day. I am happy. I make my students happy. We talked about their passions (what they really want to do) and if they were following them or not and how they could follow them if they weren't. I believe some left quite inspired. I felt calm and happy all day. I feel calm and happy right now. My fiancee asked me to come home early to help her study for an English test. Usually I would have grumbled, gotten annoyed and said no, I can't. But I did come home. She has been more in my thoughts now in direct mode than previously. I actually feel closer to her now than previously. I don't get annoyed by anything she does. I am always there for her these past couple of weeks. This is amazing! Huge progress!

I came home so I could help her. I attribute this to not being so conceited and self-centred as I was still after 4th path. Yes, you see the self as illusory. But the habitual patterns of reactivity still persisted to a degree, a lesser degree than before 4th but still enough for me to make someone else suffer. That was enough for me. That helped make it obvious what I wanted to do. I don't want to make anyone suffer ever again. And I use this as my motivation. What is truly your motivation here when telling me that doing direct mode is wrong? Think long and hard and be completely 100% honest. I seriously doubt it is concern for me.

GOUP HUG!!!

"What is truly your motivation here when telling me that what I am doing with direct mode is wrong? Think long and hard and be completely 100% honest. I seriously doubt it is concern for me."

Nick, you can believe what I've said or you can assume I'm making stuff up: lying. From your comment it appears you believe it to be the latter. I'm not sure why that would be your operating assumption since I don't think I've ever said anything that would make anyone suspect I'm prone to making stuff up. So my question then becomes, why is your comment necessary or even advisable at this point? I'm genuinely happy that you're happy. I'd be disappointed if harm came to you, whether through your practice or by some other means. I'm disappointed that you would think otherwise.

"What is truly your motivation here when telling me that doing direct mode is wrong? "

First off, I second the group hug!

However, to answer your question, I am acting out of concern for you and everyone here who's . The same concern I would have for someone who started taking heroin because it made them feel good all the time and made their problems go away. The same concern I would have for someone who wanted to cut off their arm because of the horrible wound it had, rather than care for the wound and wait for it to heal. Maybe one day you're going to want that arm back, but from the descriptions people are giving, coming out of direct mode becomes less and less possible as time goes by.

I would love to see someone try the same experiment backwards. Can anyone let go of DM, allow the somatic charge to rise, and sit in it, be with it, to see what comes up?

In the insight stages, it's impossible to go backwards. You just don't do it, the ignorance has dropped away. With DM, the charge still rises when the practice is dropped, the affect can still be felt, and it is felt as painful. This seems to be a case of being embedded in a state, the same thing that we're always warned about with the Insight stages.

If the somatic charge were to cease to rise outside of the cultivated experience of direct mode, I'd be a lot less worried.

And again, GROUP HUG. I am glad we're exploring this seriously.

Hi Chris,

Not aimed at you really, just anyone and everyone saying they are worried about me. I seriously doubt when people say they are worried about me personally doing this practice. My skeptical side, I guess. I think all this disapproval is more to do with having one's views challenged. No-one likes to have their views challenged. Not when it make one so uncomfortable. But what is uncomfortable?

(My experience)
The "I" is uncomfortable or rather the "I" (which is more like a sense of being rather than a centre point of sensations or thought in the head) IS the uncomfortable feeling. And this only became clearer to me after seeing the difference when "I" (now equated to my feelings=sense of being) am not here . Just seeing in the seen, just the senses. Do you feel like you exist as something? Do you sense a feeling of being, Chris? Not the self we saw through at 4th path. But a sense of existing?

That sense of exisiting (not as a separate self, but as something like awareness or beingness) IS the emotions (affective feelings) arising. No emotions arising=no sense of exisiting as anything. Just the senses working much better and peace and stillness. Much more space to be a nicer human being. And no conceitedness in the moments of direct perception.

When "I" comes back up, it only comes back up (as a sense of being) in the form of an affective feeling. And when this was seen enough times, it became really obvious to me that the sense of being that "I" am IS the very emotions as they arise. "I" am my emotions, my emotions are "me". Much subtler than pre-4th path. Can you see this?

From no suffering, peace and clarity, pristiness of the senses and the stillness and calm of direct mode to seeing the self-contraction arise, which I am equating to all affective feelings, it becomes obvious where suffeirng is born. Desire. And desire IS "me"...desire is that sense of being. Desire IS the self-contraction. They are all the same thing.

Every time there is an emotion there is a sense of 'being'. If you can't see it, then you will have to get into a PCE and perhaps remain in direct mode for a longer period. Then it will become clearer. Because in the absence of any sense of being, there is an absence of affective feeling as they are one and the same. One more thing to see as an object. I see it clearly. Craving arises, and immediately there is a sense of being. Aversion arises and immediately there is a sense of being, of existing. That sense of being is what is felt to be the "me" left after 4th path has been landed. A sense of existing as something more, awareness, the ISness. No longer identifying with phenomena, but now with a sense of being. I only really saw this clearly after a number of weeks of direct mode practice. The PCE allows this to become quite obvious. Owen sees it too.

I can only ask people to practice direct mode for a number of weeks, dedicated to it, to experience enough of the PCE for it to become clear. THe PCE is the convincer. Not these words I write. But each to his own.

Peace and love

P.S. Sense of being=emotions=self-contraction=affective feelings=desire=craving=aversion=suffering

This conversation is a bit of a tar-baby.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_baby

The more we struggle, the more stuck we get. I keep seeing my best attempts to communicate sinking like the Titanic and I am powerless to do better. I admit it is my fault; I just cannot seem to express myself about the direct path and recent changes in my own practice without freaking everyone out. Maybe it will get easier with time.

One thing that may be helpful is to distinguish between practice and attainment. If someone is doing a practice, whatever effects they are experiencing from that practice will wear off when they stop... in which case there is no reason to be concerned for their welfare as it will all work out in the wash and we can all laugh about it later. If, on the other hand, yogis have attained some level of enlightenment that results in their being more loving and less reactive... there is also no need to fear for their welfare. We should all be so lucky!

If I am shirking my responsibilities to this community, I apologize; I will try to do better. Shirking is certainly not my intention, and I spend many hours each day working with yogis at all levels of development. I am committed to that mission and will continue to work at it.

Finally, most of what we are discussing lately on this thread has very little relevance for the majority of yogis in this community; I recommend that people attain to 4th Path before getting embroiled in questions of advanced practice. For advanced yogis, I recommend that you continue to practice in a way that makes sense to you. My own experience is that my perspectives, views, and attitudes continue to evolve as I continue to practice. And the more willing I am to consider that I don't yet know all there is to know, the deeper I go. I'm pretty sure this is how it works. So while I may not be offering much stability, I am trying to set an example.

Hi Everyone,

I'm Kenneth's wife, Beth. I've heard from Kenneth that some of you have been concerned/ alarmed/ disgusted by his recent shift in his outlook and experience. I thought that it might be helpful for me to write in and share a bit of what this shift has been like from my end. I'd been away for six weeks on retreat and just returned home 5 days ago. In these last 5 days, I have experienced Kenneth as radically different than he was before I went away. He is more patient, more kind, more open-minded, more easy-going, more helpful, more generous, and more flexible. He has not seemed distant or detached, and has been very loving, affectionate, and supportive of me. I know that it hasn't been very long, but so far, I can't think of anything that Kenneth has lost (in losing his ability to experience emotional charge) that I miss or would want him to get back. What seems lost are his neurotic patterns, his complaints, and his dogmatic ideas. Without these things, he is so easy to be with and so easy to feel close to. I feel delighted and inspired by what has happened in Kenneth, and it's great with me if he wants to keep on letting go all the way. I plan to follow suit.

Kind regards,

Beth

Hi Beth,
I am so delighted that you posted this wonderful message. I was just about to launch a series of relational questions to both Nick and Kenneth about impact on spouses. See I was a little confused as to exactly what emotional states vanish and it appears now from your perspective it's all the silly stuff. So, delighted to hear from you. I think my wife will ask Kenneth soon enough how the hell I can get into that state asap!! Thanks for posting.
Paul

My current playing around with a theory.

We definitely (perhaps would have been a better word to use are not pali canon arhats. But perhaps we are well-developed 3rd pathers. Nirodha and pure abodes are there. But there is still a subtle attachment to existing. Not as a seperate sense of self, but as something else. We are still holding on to an existence as something else. Exisiting through emotions perhaps. Makes sense to me. I'm just putting this out there to cook for a bit. Thinking out loud.

Perhaps, the conceit free mode when it sticks is truly the arhat of the pali canon. I'm leaving it open for myself.

Edited: The arahant of the pali canon comes out of the following

6. material-rebirth lust (I WOULD press a button to return for another life if i could so what does that tell ya)
7. immaterial-rebirth lust (perhaps this would be the sense of being I'm talking of. I have a desire to "be". "Be" awareness, the ISness, "be" something, "be" my emotions)
8. conceit (I see the self as empty and nothing but sensations but I can still be conceited)
9. restlessness (yes, I can get sensations of restlessness)
10. ignorance (Well, I was ignorant of this sense of "being" being equal to the affective feelings but I'm still working on this area)

Why do we want the emotions to keep existing? Is it because perhaps they are one and the same sense of being? And being's job is to be. It does not initially want to not exist. So thus it comes up as fear, aversion, agitation....no! I do not want to not exist! How horrible to not exist!. But without those affective feelings there, there is no sense of being, no fear, no restlessness, no conceit, no lust for neither material nor immaterial rebirth, no ignorance...just the seeing in the seen, the hearing in the heard,...and peace....hmmm.

Hmmmm....

One thing I will happily say is that i do not see any of the horrible AF robot speak that I notice over at DHO. That's refreshing. Playfulness (or at least spontaneous joy, or something like that) is important, enlightened or not.

I just think we should be careful how we talk about this stuff. There's ignoring/suppressing/getting rid of all emotional charge and there's smoothing out emotional flareups. One comes off as creepy, the other, not so much. Enlightened beings may not be subject to conceptual ideas, but they shouldn't ignore them either, even if only for the sake of us unenlightened folks!

Nikolai,

I posted yesterday the line I'd heard from a teacher that "the dhamma is the dhamma, and the khandas are the khandas; the khandas will never become the dhamma and the dhamma will never become the khandas".

Can it be that the dhamma is "your" flawless vision and comprehension of the khandas, but that "your" remaining emotion / conceit / desire for existence is actually the residual energy that perpetuates the khandas themselves, that will persist until their breakup?

i.e. just as the material body doesn't just vanish in the rapturous light of Nibbana at arahatship, why should the other khandas?

I speak from a theoretical POV to someone for whom this is not theoretical- please forgive me- but from my curious-bystander position, you sound like you might still pass the Pali Canon test

Dunno Ian, if you notice where the "creepy" aspect of what you call "AF robot speak" actually happens, won't you find that it only really happens inside yourself, as an emotional reaction? ("omg, this person's writing doesn't try to appeal to my affections, how horrible!") Once I put that reaction aside, I really came to admire Tarin's clear way of writing without adding any fluff, and his ability to never distort my words, or make assumptions about "what's behind" the words I'm writing (which, in my thirst to make a point, I was unable to do with Chris, earlier in this thread); not to mention the utter lack of unfounded accusations, moralizing, taking offense, impatience to get a point across...

"We definitely are not Pali canon arahats."-Nikolai

What do you mean 'we,' kemosabe? ;-D

newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Alt/alt...007-11/msg05570.html

The Pali canon is LARGE and contains the suttas, vinaya, abhidhamma, and the commentaries. Many interpretations of the word arahat can be justified using the Pali canon, and I believe the one we use here is as good as any and preferable to most. See my post above about the "technical" vs the "rigorous" models of the 4 Paths.

Still, it is true that by our model there is much to be done after arahatship, which is why I'm so pleased to see advanced yogis still practicing and why I'm still practicing too.

"Hi Beth,
I am so delighted that you posted this wonderful message. I was just about to launch a series of relational questions to both Nick and Kenneth about impact on spouses. See I was a little confused as to exactly what emotional states vanish and it appears now from your perspective it's all the silly stuff. So, delighted to hear from you. I think my wife will ask Kenneth soon enough how the hell I can get into that state asap!! Thanks for posting.
Paul"

Hi Paul,

You're welcome. I'm glad that you liked my post and found it helpful. It will be interesting to see how all of this shakes out over time. I'll keep you posted on what it's like from my end, especially of any challenges that arise.

Have a great day,
Beth

There is definitely no ignoring of emotions going on, Ian. When an emotion arises, it arises as a sensation (a bubbly pleasantness in the chest mixed with a sensation of sexual horniness) and is read and named (love, lust), evaluated(awesome!) and reacted to mentally (I think I love her), if strong enough, verbally ("I love you!") and if stronger still, physically (**kisses her lips**). In direct perception mode, the sensations are looked at directly. It just happens that the rest of the sequence doesn't arise because of this. It just doesn't. The trigger is being looked at and when it is being looked at , it's no longer a trigger for the mentioned sequence. Ignorance of this trigger causes one to roll in the mental reaction of an emotion, strengthening it. If one does not look at the trigger, the sequence occurs, and we have a full blown emotion arise. One can then see it as still empty and do the whole "one taste" thing (which I think is still just marveling at the ISness of everything...a subtle attachment to "being"). Or one can see the trigger as it is...just a sensation, equanimously.

And the sequence of reaction is automatically cut off. What suppression or ignoring is going on? It is essentially very similar to noting. You are dis-embedding from the emotion at a much deeper level. At the root of it!

Getting rid of...hmmm....it just happens. You practice the direct mode...and it just happens. And things become apparent as I have previously explained. If the emotions/sense of being ("me")wishes to "be" it will. If it doesn't , it goes into abyenace. And PCE's result. Peace and stillness. And I tell you, I am a better human being than i ever was because of it. What getting rid of? That would mean there is aversion to it all....well, yes, there is aversion to suffering. "I" do not wish to suffer. But when the sensations associated with affective feelings arise, the natural tendecy now is to see those sensations as they are. The rest of the sequence just doesn't occur that much anymore, and getting less and less. Like I have stopped putting firewood on the camp fire, the fire continues to burn, but since it has no new fuel (reaction and strengthening the habitual tendencies to react) the fire is growing less and less.
If an emotional flare-up occurs, it is because i am not present with reality as it is. Direct mode is being with reality AS IT IS! No running away from anything. The results just happen!

Keep going, get a path!!!