Ron's Stream-Entry Journal

no advice here but just an encouragement.
i tend to believe that 'stuff doesn't just happen', its just my devotional/religious buddhist side so good luck !
let us know how its going.

maybe elaborate a bit on the first attempt?

Oh yeah - so for this first attempt I had a whole hour, and when I asked folks in the room if they had ever meditated and how much etc. I found that one person had a "regular" practice of once a week. So a whole hour of sitting was not an option. On the other hand, this was a group of psychologists, so dividing it in half with a dharma talk wasn't really an option either. So what I did was I had them do three 12 minute sits, each with a different technique. We started with a metta meditation, then did a Pa Auk Sayadaw style concentration meditation on the breath and finished with a noting meditation a la Kenneth. At the end folks reported that they liked the metta meditation best but had the fewest questions about it. They had the most questions about the noting practice.

"Oh yeah - so for this first attempt I had a whole hour, and when I asked folks in the room if they had ever meditated and how much etc. I found that one person had a "regular" practice of once a week. So a whole hour of sitting was not an option. On the other hand, this was a group of psychologists, so dividing it in half with a dharma talk wasn't really an option either. So what I did was I had them do three 12 minute sits, each with a different technique. We started with a metta meditation, then did a Pa Auk Sayadaw style concentration meditation on the breath and finished with a noting meditation a la Kenneth. At the end folks reported that they liked the metta meditation best but had the fewest questions about it. They had the most questions about the noting practice."

hm, in my opinion, it would seems like metta would be the better choice for this particular scenario. I feel like insight meditation may have some unwanted "side effects" for those who do not really know what they may be getting into (I can see lots of people loving me at first for leading them into the A/P, but wanting to lynch me after they enter and spend some in the Dark Night). Again, that is only my opinion
I would think pure concentration (samatha jhana) could also help, since one has to learn to stabilize the mind to try to attain to1st jhana. Again, 2nd jhana may manifest and it may bring A/P, so it could also become a sticky situation. Although most people get so taken by being absorbed in the 1st samatha jhana that they may just want to hang in there and enjoy some awesome relaxing time.
I think it's awesome that you are teaching meditation nevertheless, Ron. I have been wanting to start teaching in a more organized way for a while now (family members and friends as students has made it a bit harder for me to bring out a more formal approach to things). Keep on teaching!! and continue plowing your way to 4th path!!!
Metta,
JF

Those are good points. I wonder if it is even ethical really to get someone started down the path with a noting practice without first giving them at least a brief message that some of the stages that it leads to are very unpleasant. I decided not to tell them about that, but the ethics of that choice ran through my mind at that moment. However, it was also a matter of gauging whether anyone there would want to hear about such a thing. Some of them might have thought I was a little crazy, others might have thought I was a religious nut, still others might have understood it and taken it in but would not even get to the first nana.
It is tricksy, this teaching thing...

"Some of them might have thought I was a little crazy, others might have thought I was a religious nut..."

Ron, that's a really good point and I think you made a wise decision, IMHO. Outside of this little community and maybe one or two others a lot of what passes for "normal" here would be seen as ridiculous, maybe even borderline insanity. It's really easy to develop an "inside baseball" way of thinking and then assume it's the only real way. What we can point to in contrast, however, is the almost infinite malleability of the human mind. We can convince ourselves of almost anything and we do so on a regular basis. That's why it's a good idea to get out, put one's self in other folks' shoes and look around a bit. I think it's called reality testing and it's a worthwhile endeavor.

I also agree that there are very serious ethical issues involved in taking up the teaching mantle, especially outside of any real structure. I observe an awful lot of folks who, upon getting some realization or another decide teaching is their life's calling. Is that really the case and are that many folks thusly talented, or is the ego subtly entering into the situation, seeing an opportunity?

I try to keep in mind the likely fact that the Buddha calling this path the "Middle Way" was not just for marketing purposes.

Hi Ron.

I've taught meditation a number of times to beginners and non "Inside Baseball" people. Also, I sat in as something of a T.A. all last year in an open meditation group at a mental health clinic, where all kinds of people showed up. Kids, adults, people with mental health issues. It was fascinating.

These groups are one place where the mushroom culture talk is awesome, cause that is what is actually helpful to people. The psychology of meditation--letting go, letting things be. Meditation as a way to calm down, get focused, be in the moment, deal with stress and all that. That stuff just sings to people; they can relate.

Along with that, just teach the basic techniques. Guided meditations. Basic vipassana stuff, basic concentration stuff. I'll have people meditation on sounds or a body sensation, for example, or pick a calming word or phrase and try to repeat it (ala Herb Benson). During quiet sits I usually ring a bell every few minutes just to have them check in on where their attention has gone. Ending with a relaxation exercises, like Sivasana, works wonders for people.

Do people have spiritual experiences in these settings? In my experience, yes, some do, even with short sits. They sometimes see lights, feel kundalini warmth, or whatever. I just tell them it's good stuff and not to worry about it. Most people are not that anxious about it. With more educated folks I might riff on the capacities of the plastic brain. Very rarely do people have adverse reactions or frightening experiences. Many come from a session or a few and drop off (maybe it's me, who knows . If there are people who are really into it and want extra attention, they will make themselves known.

Hope this is helpful.

Mark

PS To avoid the guru trip or those kinds of projections, it can be helpful to talk about your own struggles in real time. For example, you might tell them about getting pissed in traffic in the morning or how you get ovewhelmed being a dad (or whatever it might be for you). That brings it all down to earth and tends to keep people away from that projection of meditation people as airy-fairy etc.

Amazing advice Mark! Thanks so much.

BTW - you are in the Chicago area right? What clinic are you at? I only ask because I worked at a few clinics in that area.

Glad it was helpful! I'm actually Bay Area, just outside of San Jose. What population(s) do you work with?

-- Mark

Children and family therapy. Some adults but mostly the munchkins. That's my job now.

It is good advice I think to stay with the basics and not go to much into the theory or dharma. I'm starting to suspect that if someone is ready to hear about that, or has "little dust on their eyes", then they will let me know somehow. But I also think that you probably need to be open to that as a teacher and welcome it when it comes. It is a balancing act between not pushing people farther than they are comfortable going, and not ignoring those who are asking for more...

Re: " I wonder if it is even ethical really to get someone started down the path with a noting practice without first giving them at least a brief message that some of the stages that it leads to are very unpleasant. I decided not to tell them about that, but the ethics of that choice ran through my mind at that moment."

I think it is a real ethical issue. Even simple things like the relaxation of metta/tranquility can allow things to bubble up that the "meditator" may not be expecting... is it up to the teacher to clean up the mess, can the teach walk away guilt free because it's up to the meditator to fix him/herself?

I kinda think full disclosure is the only way to go. Noting can lead to depersonalization, breath/tranquility can lead to things bubbling up, extended blissful states can deplete happy brain chemicals and cause jhana hangovers, etc.

That said, I've never seen it written up before! I think part of the logic of mushroom culture (from the teacher's side) is that it minimizes meditator problems, albeit at the expense of maximizing progress.

That true betawave. One of the implicit messages of the mushroom culture is that meditation is soothing. The truth is more complicated, but it is also difficult to communicate it to students in a way that honors where they are in respect to practice. A lot of them may be looking for messages of reassurance, but it should be tempered with at least some disclosure that difficulty and unpleasant stuff are part of it all as well. I really need to mull this over and think about how to address it if I end up doing more teaching.

The temptation here is to just say nothing and put it all on the student. I can think of a lot of rationalizations to do so, and I but the writings of a lot of teachers are full of them...

I don't know about others, but even though of the Dark Night, I feel I'm much better off than I was before I started practice.

I think about this ethical issue too. Once you start this process of physio-energetic development, you have a tiger by the tail; no one knows exactly where it will lead or how it will unfold for any given individual. It is hubris to think that we can control it or that we can choose our destiny depending on which technique we practice or which theory we embrace. We are working with an organic process that does not care what we think, just as a caterpillar doesn't get to choose whether to become a butterfly or a moth or even to remain a caterpillar.

Meditator beware! And what would full disclosure look like? "We don't know what the implications of this practice will be for your life," is about all you could say for sure. On the other hand, do we have an ethical obligation to share this with people, and "damn the torpedoes"? Are any of us prepared to take on the father/god role and withhold the information because in our infinite wisdom we deem it in the best interest of the unwashed masses to remain in the dark?

This community is especially at risk for hubris: a bunch of ambitious, intelligent folks who like to understand and control things. Nature doesn't care how smart we are and it does not care about our careers or our relationships. We might do better to keep this fact more in the forefront of our thoughts, because the idea that we can "have it all" is one we are just now experimenting with. In other words, enlightenment throughout the ages has more often been associated with renunciation than with worldly success. While full disclosure may not even be possible, it might be wise to at least stop telling people they can be yuppie sages. I am increasingly skeptical of that likelihood. My own development is toward more interest in being present in this moment and less interest in my career. There may well be a trade-off for some or even most people regarding success-in-the-world vs enlightenment.

I'm not sure where this comment lands in the discussion, but I think the dangers and drawbacks of meditation can and do really get overblown. I think a lot of downsides that long term meditators attribute to meditation have much more to do with life than meditation--it's a kind of biased read. When you devote your life to meditation, what are you going to associate your problems with? Meditation! When I look around at my friends who do and don't meditate, the same amount of issues exist. And pretty much are all are life stage or existentially related.

In a similar vein, I think physioenergetic development can be trusted, The body knows best and is wired for it. So if people do a little bit here and there, the likelihood of that harming them is just about nil. That's my experience having taught and swam in "let's meditate a little" circles as well.

One can also think more objectively as this point because we've got the data. Thousands and thousands of people over the past 20 years have done Kabat-Zinn's mindfullness courses, for example, which require 45 minutes a day (no small amount). Where's the large outpouring of damaged persons from that? Or from short sits at hatha-yoga classes? They aren't there. The result are pretty soundly positive. In addition, other meditation research--which is very often looking at short-term, minor meditation interventions taught to newbies--also almost never report negative results. Neutral or positive.

Anyhow, I think meditation is not an all or nothing thing and it is a little too much to make it so. A little bit helps, and helping people get that is a positive social good.

"it might be wise to at least stop telling people they can be yuppie sages. I am increasingly skeptical of that likelihood. My own development is toward more interest in being present in this moment and less interest in my career. There may well be a trade-off for some or even most people regarding success-in-the-world vs enlightenment. -Kenneth."

I see your point, Kenneth.

So do you find that with more and more presence in the moment, the desire to seek 'worldly-happiness' becomes weaker?

PS. Just to be more specific, I think the issues are a bit more if people experience a kundalini awakening or A&P--though I think the downsides of both are overestimated as well (due to the "it's meditation, not life" effect mentioned above). However, unless you can give shaktipat, the odds of someone getting an A&P through a short sit now and then are pretty low.

"I see your point, Kenneth. So do you find that with more and more presence in the moment, the desire to seek 'worldly-happiness' becomes weaker?-yadidb"

Yes, I think the desire for worldly happiness becomes weaker because when you already have happiness you don't have to seek it.

And riffing off of Mark's post #90, I agree that developmental enlightenment is not an all-or-nothing affair. I think his point about all the people who essentially dabble in meditation with no ill effects is a good one. It may be people like us who ought be given the warning. What I am pondering here is the question of the yuppie sage (a term I just dreamt up): people who want to take enlightenment as far as it goes but also would like to continue to lead the same lifestyle as their less enlightened peers.

"What I am pondering here is the question of the yuppie sage (a term I just dreamt up): people who want to take enlightenment as far as it goes but also would like to continue to lead the same lifestyle as their less enlightened peers."

Yuppie Sage!!
LOL Awesomeness!

Kenneth, yes, I agree--I think the warnings probably get a bit more in order towards the end of the bell curve. I think this is an interesting discussion topic.

I think there are both developmental as well as contextual and additional training questions surrounding this. I remember this story from Autobiography of a Yogi where Yogananda goes into samadhi and immediately after his teacher sends him outside with a broom to go sweep. That is, he is training to mix meditation with the world. He got quite a bit done in his life. In Integral terms, we could think of this being about Integral Life Practice, which really encourages people to grow in multiple domains as well. I know a lot of people in that community who practice pretty seriously and live pretty robust , busy lives. Before Wilber himself got too sick, here was a very serious practitioner and produced like mad.

Also, on context: How ambitious was the person before enlightenment? A lot of people I know (maybe most) who go whole-hog into spiritual practice were never really that ambitious, not in convention terms anyway.

Finally, however, when a person reaches the point you or Adya or someone like Bernadette Roberts, I think maybe there is no fighting it. But that is kind of end-process stuff. Didn't Bernadette hang out for 25 years in a somewhat lesser state before going totally empty?

"Didn't Bernadette hang out for 25 years in a somewhat lesser state before going totally empty?"-mdaf30

Yes, Roberts has written that after 40 years as a Christian contemplative, she "fell outside her frame of reference." (Quoted from memory.)

"Yuppie Sage" pretty much sums up the shadow side of a lot of what we are doing I think. Especially me. I'm starting a new career, just had a new baby, totally upwardly mobile type guy, and here I am trying to "get" what people have dropped out of normal life to dedicate decades to. I really like that phrase Kenneth, because it helps me to be aware of me own striving in all of this.

At some point does it become impossible to lead a "normal" lay life and pursue enlightenment? Is there a point at which you really have to choose one or the other?

I was asked to lead a meditation class again this week! They sprung it on me at the last minute, so I didn't have time to think it through, however, I asked for feedback about the last one at the beginning of the sit. Folks really responded to the Metta meditation and some expressed difficulty with the noting, saying that it was not relaxing. One person requested a body-scan in place of the noting, so we did Metta, breath/concentration and body scan. I encouraged folks to note their sensations during the body scan, and this seemed to give them an anchor for their attention that made vipassana more accessible. However, I don't think it was as powerful as pure noting practice.

So, what does this all mean? Am I becoming the resident Yuppie Sage at the hospital? We'll see!

Practice related stuff:
I'm still working up to third path and the equanimity that I was feeling toward it only a short while ago has faded (just going along, know it will happen on its own). Now I'm starting to feel the anticipation and what I would describe as a sort of "nervous energy" when I sit. A sense that path may happen at any moment.

When I sit I move up the jhanic arc fairly quickly and get to high equanimity within ten minutes or so. Oddly I'm finding that I continue up the arc even if my concentration is poor or my noting is not very good. As if there is a momentum moving me along. Once in equanimity I tend to stay there rather than move further up the arc. However, a few times a week I automatically shift upward into the arupa jhanas. The first arupa jhana feels stronger than it used to and the shift is very discernible now. There is a movement of my attention from the crown or third eye area, where the action is in high equanimity, to a spot that feels to be slightly below and behind my eyes. The strong vibratory sensations of equanimity suddenly diminish, and I'm left with this expansive feeling.

Cont.

The expansive feeling isn't really a one-to-one correspondence to what I consider "space" but I can certainly see why it was called that. It feel like a diffusion of something into vast emptiness. If I continue up to the next arupa jhana the attention shifts again to a spot further back behind the eyes and slightly upward. Closer to the back of the head than to the eyes themselves. This one I'm still fleshing out, but there is a sense that I am letting go of an "object" of meditation and instead the focus is on the very thing that takes an object. There is a distinct sense of doubling-back and turning around.

My suspicion is that we (all dharma practitioners of the modern era) just don't have the collective wisdom to judge the "normal" vs. "spiritual" life balance. Personally, I feel that the Buddhist culture that I've wandered through is heavily compromised by misleading precedents, such as

(1) Christian defintiions of virtue and asceticism (real and misperceived)
(2) 19th-century Romantic "man-in-the-state-of-nature / noble savage / primitive world" ideas that are absurd but still have great force in this culture
(3) Partial and selective absorption of the classical Asian tradition
(4) Information brought over by Western dharma pioneers, who basically had to re-make all the Buddha's mistakes, which then created a guilt-complex on the part of their students who weren't called to make the same level of sacrifice
(5) Other things

...all of which have conspired to create a tangled myth of "The World" and Renunciation and Sacrifice that render all of us incapable of making an informed judgement. I like Kenneth's "psycho-energetic" viewpoint, because it (at least temporarily) suspends the need to worry about untangling all that baggage!

When the Buddha got enlightened, he then went on to create an organization whose problems would make any modern CEO want to sit down and take a sedative. So obviously enlightenment is not something that has to be protected by a shell. Maybe it's not the "Yuppie" part that we have to drop, but the "Sage" part- what, other than some myth-based expectations, says that an enlightened being has to have any special posture in this world?