Comments about "Are We Redefining the Four Paths of Enlightenment?"

A question:
I am under the impression that the Buddha indicated that 4th path was enlightenment. That doesn't seem true here. If it were why would there be another 4 stages tacked onto the end? Why would people find the 4th path(as described here) as unsatisfactory and not the end of suffering? Curious, not confrontational.

B.

"A question:
I am under the impression that the Buddha indicated that 4th path was enlightenment. That doesn't seem true here. If it were why would there be another 4 stages tacked onto the end? Why would people find the 4th path(as described here) as unsatisfactory and not the end of suffering? Curious, not confrontational. - B.Rice

B."

The reason seems to be an 'historical' one, as in the beginning of the 'Pragmatic Dharma Scene' and the start of the Dharma Overground, both Kenneth and Daniel thought that what they have attained is the 'End of the Path' in terms of insight, and dubbed it 4th path.

Since then, Kenneth has realized further progress is possible and desirable, and has came up with another stage model, in which the previous '4th path' is actually not the last stage, and does not correspond to the 4th path of the Fetter Model, but rather it is called '4th path Technical Model'.
Complex huh?

Daniel, so it seems, still believes what he attained is 4th path as described in the suttas.

When the Buddha attained enlightenment at age 35 did he stop developing? Did his insight no continued to deepen over the next 50+ years? "Perfection" is such vile concept - it cannot possibly exist even in the realm of meaning. Lets stop propagating the myth that enlightenment is difficult to attain.

"When the Buddha attained enlightenment at age 35 did he stop developing? Did his insight no continued to deepen over the next 50+ years? -Orasis"

I'm not sure, he aint around to say,
but the definition of 4th path Arahant, according to the suttas, is:
Uprooted completely: sensual desire, ill will, material-rebirth lust, immaterial-rebirth lust, conceit, restlessness, ignorance.

4th path as spoken here, does not seem to correspond to this definition, and thats why Kenneth later said that "4th path technical model" (as spoken here as 4th path), actually corresponds to 2nd path according to Sutta definitions.

In regards to whether or not Enlightenment is difficult to attain, depends on the meaning you attribute to that word.
If the meaning is: completely uprooting all mental defilements from one's stream of consciousness, it does not seem to me to be easy, though it does seem to be possible, according to some individuals who have done this - which are quite rare.
Paraphrasing Kenneth: the good news is not that its easy, but rather that it is possible.

This is one of those times it would be nice to have Kenneth posting and explaining himself on a regular basis. That said, last I know directly from Kenneth he believes the so-called "technical" 4th path, when crossed, is "enlightenment" or, using a word I prefer, awakening. I believe he thinks anything after that path is icing on the cake -- but the real work, the crossing over into awakening, happens then.

Kenneth?

Well that just depends on where you draw the line.
I recently sat a retreat with Shinzen and he calls first path , ' enlightenment'

I really dislike these discussions because they are like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It really doesn't matter all that much, frankly. We should just practice and worry a lot less about maps, stages and when this or that is "officially" true. If we practice diligently and help each other this all becomes moot.

"
I really dislike these discussions because they are like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It really doesn't matter all that much, frankly. We should just practice and worry a lot less about maps, stages and when this or that is "officially" true. If we practice diligently and help each other this all becomes moot.

"

Well said

Kenneth created this thread for these discussion...I assume. I'm just confused about how my understanding and Kenneth's are so off. From my view Buddha stated 4th path was the dropping of the 10 fetters. According to Kenneth 4th path is not the dropping of the 10 fetters but something else. My confusion is that he then states nothing is being redefined, I don't get that at all. It's entirely possible that I am at fault, or mis-understanding. Which is why I asked the question. Is it redefined, or am I confused?

Would it be fair to say (@B.Rice) that there are a variety of opinions on the matter depending on the specific tradition (or eclectic mix) a person is working in, and that especially when people are not working within a specific formalized school with a systematic theology/scriptures/etc (such as being an ordained member of a specific zen order, for example) there is even more room for people (like Dan, Kenneth and many others) to explore the territory and come up with independent ideas based on their own experiences. And since those experiences change over time, what they thought three years ago or even one year ago might not be what they think now. And if they write down a "wow, it seems to work just like this" kind of essay at point A, then three years later they might say "Hm. That seemed true, but now things seem different, so here's a new perspective." It's better if that kind of writing is always in the "seems to me from where I stand" style rather than "I've got it right this time and now I know it will never be different" style. But we are human beings, and sometimes people get excited and write stuff that seems final and finished, only to be surprised later when they change their minds. Which then leaves some people confused, because they were taking it all as dogma...

Does that help?

It would be very helpful if Kenneth would clarify his current thoughts on the matter, of course! And for everyone else to remember that the path will teach you everything you need to know, and you don't need gurus and dogma to practice.

This is going to sound a little harsh, but here goes:

It is a complete and utter waste of time to try and debate what the Buddha actually taught. He lived and taught in a pre-literate world and for hundreds of years his ideas, techniques, maps, etc. were passed on orally. Think about that. What if Moby Dick were passed on orally for a few hundred years - what would happen? Would it be the same book? And don't say that everyone memorized the same chants. Imagine a chant be memorized by a 100 monks who then start sanghas and each teach it to a hundred monks, who each start sanghas and so on. For literally hundreds of years. Ever play "telephone" as a kid? Then once the undoubtedly distorted chants were finally written down they passed through so many hands, with so many agendas... the picture is very cloudy to say the least. Then take these hundred times removed concepts from a pre-literate feudal culture and transport them to a radically different industrialized culture in the future where people try and understand them through their particular biases and rationalizations and agendas and now the whole circus can start again...

Given the historical context of this stuff, it is pretty ridiculous to try and stake out an idea and claim it was the real or actual idea of someone we literally can never ever ever verify it with. It will result in nothing but debate. And while debate can be kind of fun, it is useless when it comes to waking up.

Happily, there are texts written by enlightened people that we can go to and read. There are actual enlightened people alive today. There are solid techniques that work and you can check it out for yourself. Why waste time trying to figure out what we literally cannot know?

"From my view Buddha stated 4th path was the dropping of the 10 fetters. According to Kenneth 4th path is not the dropping of the 10 fetters but something else. My confusion is that he then states nothing is being redefined, I don't get that at all. It's entirely possible that I am at fault, or mis-understanding. Which is why I asked the question. Is it redefined, or am I confused? - B.Rice"

Hey B,
Basically, as I wrote before, '4th path' as referred to here, actually seems to line up with 2nd path from the Fetter Model, it is called 4th path not because it is the end of the path, but because in the past Kenneth thought its the 'End of the Line'.
Here is his new revised stage model, in which '4th path Technical Model' is actually stage 5 out of 7 (now 8? Not sure.)

"1) A&P
2) 1st Path by the technical model
3) 2nd Path by the TM
4) 3rd Path by the TM
5) 4th Path by the TM
6) Emotional transformation
7) End of self-contraction"

"I really dislike these discussions because they are like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It really doesn't matter all that much, frankly. We should just practice and worry a lot less about maps, stages and when this or that is "officially" true. If we practice diligently and help each other this all becomes moot.

"

Well said. If you experience dukkha, keep working.

"Well said. If you experience dukkha, keep working."

Or, as Kenneth would say. If you can meditate, keep meditating. If you can't meditate, then for now, you are done.

"
I really dislike these discussions because they are like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It really doesn't matter all that much, frankly. We should just practice and worry a lot less about maps, stages and when this or that is "officially" true. If we practice diligently and help each other this all becomes moot.

"

Hi all,

There is some very good advice in what cmarti says above , in that we are best not to get attached to and obsess over maps and stages, as it all ultimately has to be let-go of. However, the Buddha also wanted us to be discerning about what is Dhamma and what is not, and so the two points of view are therefore not mutually exclusive, but both actually have validity. So in the interests of genuine investigation, and as a Theravada practitioner of around 3 years now, I am genuinely interested in how the the two models align, and would much appreciate and find it helpful if Ken could personally compare and contrast this model, with the traditional fetter-view of the stages of awakening.

Lots of metta,
Chris

"On a much lighter note, my favorite story in the Suttas is that of Ven Mahogallana fighting a giant, fire-breathing dragon with his psychic powers. Simply kick ass, and a wonderful example of the hagiography of those ancient texts."

This isn't at all relevant to this thread, but I'm curious which sutta is that in?

The models we discuss here are based on practical experiences that partly draw on the Mahasi interpretation of the Visuddhimagga. I'm curious to know how the other non-Visuddhimagga Theravada branches, like the Thai forest tradition interpret things. What are their path events? Do they have same ñanas, or any ñanas? Do their paths match the fetters models? How do their vipassana & samatha systems work?

So.. A couple years ago Kenneth had 4 "stages" to enlightenment, then it was 7, then 8, now 9. I'm thinking of getting a pool going as to when he makes double digits, any takers? $5 bucks per date, closest takes it all?
I'm only half kidding, I realize we change, and develop, but it's starting to feel like clown college up in here!
If "I" can't fit my experience into what has been the gold standard for 2600 years maybe I'm the problem, not Buddhism. Hint, hint...

How many stages of enlightenment are there by the gold standard?

The criticism of "stage inflation" is fair, IMHO. I think even Kenneth might agree at this point that some of the stages might really be states that last a while, then fade.

lol. how many stages are there to the top of the himalaya?

It depends where you rest. And this depends on where your body needs to. And where the people before you left their tents and built a house and this depends on which path they took. And how the weather was.

Here's a slightly different perspective, offered for general entertainment:

There's the whole entirety of our experience for us to explore. It would be a bit of a shame if we restricted ourselves to exploring only the maps of the Pali canon.

In other words: are we exploring some old texts or our lives? Not to poopoo on the old texts too much - they are useful and surprisingly accurate and inspiring and great objects for geeking out and fun to obsess about and so on. But, you know, they are highly condensed bits of advice and suggestions for one's own practice. They are like the exercises at the end of a chemistry textbook: you can try this, then that will happen, but that doesn't mean that every single possible reaction is described there. If the process for making baking soda is not in there, well, that doesn't mean that there is no baking soda.

The cool thing about being alive as human beings on planet earth is that we can do really cool stuff with this set of conditions. When they say that waking up is kind of pointless, that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to wake up, just that it doesn't exhaust the possibilities of living this life at all.

I notice that the four stages don't comprehensively describe what it's like to paint a picture, or generally what's it like to live a good life doing interesting and useful stuff at all. That particular map describes what it's like to lose the fetters, which is a worthwhile thing to do, but it's definitely not all that can be done, and not all that should be done either.

It's a description, not a prescription.

If we make a prescription out of it, we end up trading everything for a "Buddzie-Pack 1": dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussio...ards/message/3103273

Cheers,
Florian (edited for clarity)

Those are good thoughts, Florian, and IMHO yet another reason not to take the maps and stages all that seriously.

Yeah, though saying "don't take the maps and stages too seriously" is probably not equally useful to all people in all places.

Waking up is serious business. If you use a map to do it, you'd better take it seriously.

It's a map of awakening, not a map to the awakened experience.

Don't walk around with a raft on your head once you get across, and all that. Don't let go of the raft before you get to the other side! Build a raft, for goodness' sake, not an ocean liner, if you want to get across in this lifetime. Build your raft out of whatever junk that's at hand, it's a one-time make-shift thing for scrambling across, it doesn't have to be perfect. Put your raft in the water, don't put it down on the beach and make splashing noises with your mouth. Hey, the raft simile is a lot of fun! Let's codify it into an orthodoxy! Here's another one: you can't get across using your collection of miniature model rafts.

Cheers,
Florian

Keep in mind, I didn't say, "Don't pay attention to the maps."

Yes I certainly agree with Florian. There's a whole more than blips, bliss waves etc.