Nikolai's Practice notes, Phase .2.

""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 hear 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 the 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."

Hehe! Oops, I made an absolute claim. Haha! Sorry Kenneth! My bad. I'm just thinking outloud and sometimes I let my thoughts do what they will.

@ Nick:
Thank you so much for this response. It clears up a lot for me. I completely understand and appreciate the ability to see that trigger as it is and cut off the suffering before it arises. At this point, I'm not sure it's the best solution, but I fully admit to needing to do more work myself before I get to the point where I can make an informed decision about this

What's implied by what you say, though I don't think you mean it, is that by doing this, you are coming more and more to the point where the feelings that lead you to want to kiss your fiance do not arise. And so you will at some point no longer give a sh*t either way about kissing her (which Beth's comment about Kenneth implies is not true). Can you help to clarify that slightly?

@ Bruno:
I think emotions add layers of subtlety to communication, though like I said, I'm not there yet. I see these layers in Kenneth, Nick, and Owen's language, I don't see them in Tarin's (and the others who have taken on his style of communication). Plain speak doesn't have to lack the artistic qualities.

I did not say, nor did I mean, "omg, this person's writing doesn't try to appeal to my affections, how horrible!". I mean it's boring stuffy and pedantic. It lacks style and personally I find it a bit controlling, as in "I know every single way your weak and feeble mind might possibly misinterpret the wisdom that is about to come out of my mouth, but don't worry, I'll phrase it in such a plain and simple way that you poor little earthling will understand it, as best as you are able to with your feeble, emotion soaked mind".

(how's that for some hyperbole?) ; )

Also, thinking that people will automatically come to the same conclusion as you simply by looking at what "really happens" in their experience implies that you are seeing their experience more closely then they are, and that different interpretations are not possible. I also find this a bit offensive, though I would bet you don't mean it that way.

Haha! Yes, it was an example. I am not becoming a robot. I kiss her or she gets mad. I kiss her as it is part of my responsibility at maintaining a loving relationship. I kiss her because I wish her to be happy too, as I am. If I was a robot, she would suffer. I take my relationship seriously and don't want it to suffer at all. But i also take insight and the reality it as it is seriously too.

Oh, and post 4th path, my libido took a nose dive anyway...actually at 3rd path it did. Or perhaps it's becaseu we have been in a relationship for over 3 years, and both of us work long hours.....hehe!

I gave you an extreme example. But essentially yes, You wont have that urge. but you can still kiss if need be. That urge is desire. And desire is what the Buddha talked about being the cause of suffering, right? You will also have a choice. None of this is forced.

"but you can still kiss if need be. "

I wonder, in a relationship where both behave like this(dm),who actually will take the first step and say "hey, we don't need to kiss anymore". Or will both dutifully go on kissing in order to make the other one happy?

I think there might be some confusion here. There is a pretty large gulf between not caring and not being attached. I care that this body is in a position where it doesn't experience discomfort. But if it does, that's ok. I care about my comfort, but I'm not attached to it, because I've seen that when I'm attached to things and they don't go my way, I suffer.
I care deeply about people, but I'm not attached to them behaving in any particular way, because I don't have any control over them and anyway, all of this is gone as soon as it starts. No need to get wrapped up in any drama. That's what the grounding practice does. It puts you in a position to see what is going to hurt you.
This moment is exactly as it should be. It couldn't be anyway else. Think about it? How could this be different? It's only my opinions and judgements that it should different that make me suffer. And when I practice this way for long enough, I can't really get worked up about things that aren't me, are constantly changing and are not ultimately satisfying. So a while back, I decided to cut it off at the root and be peaceful. Doesn't mean I'm a zombie or a robot, it just means that this moment is cool with me, so I can be cool too.

"You wont have that urge. but you can still kiss if need be. That urge is desire. And desire is what the Buddha talked about being the cause of suffering, right? You will also have a choice. None of this is forced. -Nick"

My experience is different. My wife and I hug and kiss constantly. Intimacy is such a deep, biological drive, very much like hunger and breathing. I haven't lost my appetite for food, either. So far, I don't see a relationship between freedom and the loss of those deep biological urges.

What's happening to me can best be described by the dis-embedding model: at 4th Path, you dis-embed from identification with your thoughts. Later, you dis-embed from identifications with your emotions. Finally (and this last is speculative for me because I haven't experienced it yet), it is said that you dis-embed from the very sense of "I am." This is what I believe is meant by "conceit." In other words, conceit in this context has nothing to do with being conceited as we usually use the word. The final dis-embedding, then, is the loss of any self-referencing whatsoever. We'll see...

This is hard to explain...cringe...!

Hehe! When in PCE mode/Direct mode, I feel so present. So very present. I am not craving anything. No kiss, no sex. But My fiancee is right there next to me. She is part of that being ever so present. and I am ever so present with her. And she goes in for the kiss, and I reciprocate and the kiss is great...the senses dig the kiss...the most present kiss ever. No mind wandering here and there....just so there with this other human being. I still joke and laugh in PCE mode. I'm just calm as. I just don't crave stuff. I'm not craving that kiss. But my fiancee is right there. And I always, always reciprocate. If she was frigid, then perhaps nothing would ever happen..hehe! (although i am not always in direct mode..wink!wink!) Lucky she's a latina.

Before, I would have my mind go here and there, and was never 100% with her when I was with her, you get me? Not like when i first met her when the passions were running high. I think the biological clock on the relationship expects us to be looking after babies by now...but we just have a pet hedgehog. But in PCE mode...I am so present for her in those moments. So intimate but without the loopy craving that colours all that. So hard to explain.

After the fact like now, I am not in a PCE, I think back to those moments and I think...man, that is what I picture to be real love...being so very very present for someone without any self-desire getting in the way, without any selfishness influencing what I do.

A really potent PCE/dose of direct mode (there seems to be differing degrees) while in a relationship yourself is truly the best convincer for this argument on what is good and what is not good.

Nick

Thanks for taking the time to answer Owen, Kenneth, Nick. I think this kind of dialogue will help make it more and more clear how this practice is necessary and how it is not. I appreciate this greatly, because, yeah, I do love you guys and really want this to work out for the best.

"
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?
"

Hi Rob,

Maybe, maybe not. Either way...onwards and upwards. Yes, I have no idea what it's all about. Life actual sometimes doesn't match up to life written down

Yeah, heh heh, I guess. Looking at it that way... I suppose if someone had asked *me* a question like that... I'd be like "I dunno, like, sure! How about Beatles or Stones? *That*, I can answer!"

I resolutely quit reading suttas and Theravada literature before I joined up on KFD... sorry if I still get the urges sometimes

Don't apologise. I have been getting back into it myself. Beatles!

Beatles!!!

Let it be!
(as it is?

"@ Bruno:
[1] @ Bruno:
I think emotions add layers of subtlety to communication, though like I said, I'm not there yet. I see these layers in Kenneth, Nick, and Owen's language, I don't see them in Tarin's (and the others who have taken on his style of communication). Plain speak doesn't have to lack the artistic qualities.

[2] I did not say, nor did I mean, "omg, this person's writing doesn't try to appeal to my affections, how horrible!". I mean it's boring stuffy and pedantic. It lacks style and personally I find it a bit controlling, as in "I know every single way your weak and feeble mind might possibly misinterpret the wisdom that is about to come out of my mouth, but don't worry, I'll phrase it in such a plain and simple way that you poor little earthling will understand it, as best as you are able to with your feeble, emotion soaked mind".
"

@Ian: [1] when I look at the process that causes emotion, aka the attention wave, two things are clear (1) it adds layers to perception and cognition, and (2) this adding of layers actually tarnishes subtlety, it actively distorts sense input and cognition.

Although I agree that Tarin's (for instance) way of writing lacks what is usually called artistic qualities --- but, as you will find if you try to emulate it, is an art in its own right.

[2] Maybe you were turned off by my use of the word horrible. How about "This person's writing doesn't appeal to my emotions, how boring, stuffy and pedantic." If I look at what happens in my mind, when under the impression that something is boring, I will quickly realize that the sense perception or cognition of it isn't boring at all, but rather that "boredom" is one of those layers added to perception.

(contd)

"[3] Also, thinking that people will automatically come to the same conclusion as you simply by looking at what "really happens" in their experience implies that you are seeing their experience more closely then they are, and that different interpretations are not possible. I also find this a bit offensive, though I would bet you don't mean it that way."

I suggest (and I mean it as a friendly suggestion, don't feel demeaned or anything silly like that) that you do vipassana while you do something that causes you to feel bored. What I have observed, and maybe you will observe the same, was that the sense-input/cognition that is happening is one thing, and the added layer of boredom is something entirely different, which isn't on the "meaning of what is happening" itself, but which was being actively generated inside me, and overlayed on the perception of what is happening, to make it seem as if it was the events which were boring themselves. That is why I asked the question, in my previous post: "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?" (creepy can be replaced by boring, stuffy, pedantic, lacking style, controlling, and as in "...")

I do this sort of exercise all the time with everything that happens to me. I always took it as part of the practice, and what "investigating reality" means.

[3] I don't think that at all. I do think you are writing this sentence because of my former sentence: "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?"

(contd)

Notice how that was actually a question, not an implication that I am seeing your experience more closely than you are (heck, I'm not seeing your experience at all! Why would I imply such a thing?!). Do you think that maybe it was an emotional reaction of being slightly offended that caused you to assume that I "think that people will automatically '¦"?

What I have seen for myself, in my own experience, is how the attention wave distorts perception, how it makes me rush to imagined assumptions, how it makes me offended, bored, angry, judgmental, and unhappy, and how it turns the world as-it-is (pristine, delightful, wonderful and oh-so-fun) into a distorted second-rate experience. Do you see this in your own experience? (don't be angry dude! )

I could be wrong, but I think this last paragraph is what this discussion we're having is about.

EDIT: I notice some people actively label this contribution as "non-valuable;" I hesitated to post it because it might seem like I am teasing Ian into a flame war (which is not my intention at all), but thought it was an interesting contribution (and thus posted it) precisely because it confesses how I have investigated my own process of reading PCE-literature, and how the very same aspects which this literature points a finger at are engaged in negatively evaluating what is written. Thus it is eminently practical, about my own practice, and thus I think "valuable" for this forum. I don't know if the people who found it non-valuable have some suggestion they would like to give --- I would be happy to know through a private message, such feedback may help me improve the way I post, and when I decide is adequate to post.

I have a little question. Kenneth said, in the end one ends up dis-embedding from the 'I am.' So, with this absence which I do not comprehend, and Kenneth admits to not knowing what it is either, is there any source anywhere which describes what faculties actually remain functioning, beyond existence presumably, which allows one to remain 1. engaged with the world in terms of what is moral and just and 2. engaged in intimate relationships? If there is no aesthetic sense of the world, does motivation completely lapse to the point where there is no interest in the world, ie, learning, exploring, sharing, trying to eradicate hunger for example, or protect kids from **********, or is motivation and engagement a faculty that still functions when 'I am' existence is gone? Sorry....that was more than one question!
Paul

"I have a little question. Kenneth said, in the end one ends up dis-embedding from the 'I am.' So, with this absence which I do not comprehend, and Kenneth admits to not knowing what it is either, is there any source anywhere which describes what faculties actually remain functioning, beyond existence presumably, which allows one to remain 1. engaged with the world in terms of what is moral and just and 2. engaged in intimate relationships? If there is no aesthetic sense of the world, does motivation completely lapse to the point where there is no interest in the world, ie, learning, exploring, sharing, trying to eradicate hunger for example, or protect kids from **********, or is motivation and engagement a faculty that still functions when 'I am' existence is gone? Sorry....that was more than one question!
Paul"

Yep:

www.amazon.com/Experience-No-Self-Contem...03166&sr=1-3-catcorr

Hi guys. Is what Bernadette Roberts calls "self-reflexion" the same as the attention wave, and is a PCE therefore temporarily self-less in this sense while AF is the permanent attainment of this condition, what she calls no-self as opposed to the no-ego experience?
-Jake

Yes, at least that's my current working assumption.

Hmm, OK. Makes sense. I think part of the confusion around this conversation has to do with the fact that the leaders of this community-- and its sister community at DHO-- seem to have started out with a dogmatic, extreme stance regarding traditional accounts of Enlightenment as mythic nonsense, and have apparently now swung to what appears to be a fairly traditional or classical notion of enlightenment, except they seem to be struggling with how to articulate it in a way that doesn't simply boil down to saying "well, maybe we were a bit cocky as young western realizers about the possibility of classical liberation." Instead of just saying that and trying to revisit some of the classical sources of Pali, Sanskrit, Tibetan and East Asian traditions with a more open mind, they seem to want to rediscover the whole thing in their own terms, and this zig-zagging seems a bit extreme to say the least. Also, this tendency to ignore thousands of years of tradition seems to be what's leading to the funny ways of expressing the states and realizations involved which seem to be turning people off and leading to so much confusion, especially around the issue of emotivity. I don't know, just thinking aloud.


The issue of dualistic tension building up as a psychophysical charge or backlog predisposing one to reactive emotivity is a central issue for Dzogchen as I've experienced it for example. This could certainly be expressed in terms of attentional distortion or refraction of a more primal layer of experiencing, which indeed dissolves upon relaxation of the dualistic tension. Repeatedly practicing this way indeed seems to shift one's baseline tension level to subtler and subtler levels, making it easier to relax completely. Conversely, one can move in the opposite direction and build ever more layers of dualistic tension resulting in more complexity of the attentional distortion or warping of experience. Seems kind of similar.

"Yep:

www.amazon.com/Experience-No-Self-Contem...03166&sr=1-3-catcorr "

Here is a good summary of each chapter of that book:

www.nonduality.com/berna.htm

Yes, Jake, the zig zagging is a huge issue in my mind. When it starts to look like the view of enlightenment changes on a regular basis you have to question it, but when you do question it you are condescended to. So the skeptics are denied or dismissed. When that happens I've learned it's time to pay very close attention.

" When that happens I've learned it's time to pay very close attention.
"

Hi Chris,
Could you elaborate on what you have to pay close attention to?
Nick