Interesting exchange between Charles Tart & Shinzen Young

blog.paradigm-sys.com/

Not with a bang, with a whimper

"The other problem is that the changes are not necessarily best measured by insights that occur, but rather in most cases best measured by the amount of suffering that a person would have gone through but didn't go through because of the path. But since that measure is both hypothetical and a measure of absence, it's difficult for most people to realize how HUGE it really is."

I remember Lama Ole Nydal saying something like this. What often feels like a plateau is actually a slightly inclined plane on which things continually improve at a rate just slow enough for us to adapt to. It's like watching your baby grow into a toddler, you don't notice changes day by day, but when someone who hasn't seen him/her for a few months points out the difference, or when you deliberately compare "now" to some picture from months past, the difference can be quite dramatic!
-Jake

That is how I typically measure things.

"The other problem is that the changes are not necessarily best measured by insights that occur, but rather in most cases best measured by the amount of suffering that a person would have gone through but didn't go through because of the path. But since that measure is both hypothetical and a measure of absence, it's difficult for most people to realize how HUGE it really is." -Young or Tart (not sure which)

Playing devil's advocate, this is exactly the sort of thing you would hear in "soft Buddhism" circles, aka the mushroom culture. In other words, "forget about enlightenment; you can't do that anyway. Instead, focus on how much better off you are than before you started drinking our conceptual Koolaid."

If you pay attention to your experience, you can be free in heaven and in hell. You can know, every day of your life, the happiness that is independent of conditions. You can "get" or "realize" enlightenment, depending on how you like to frame it. Let's not sugar-coat it or smile complacently while others sugar-coat it. Meditating for any reason other than enlightenment is like eating berries to get blue teeth.

""The other problem is that the changes are not necessarily best measured by insights that occur, but rather in most cases best measured by the amount of suffering that a person would have gone through but didn't go through because of the path. But since that measure is both hypothetical and a measure of absence, it's difficult for most people to realize how HUGE it really is." -Young or Tart (not sure which)

Playing devil's advocate, this is exactly the sort of thing you would hear in "soft Buddhism" circles, aka the mushroom culture. In other words, "forget about enlightenment; you can't do that anyway. Instead, focus on how much better off you are than before you started drinking our conceptual Koolaid."

If you pay attention to your experience, you can be free in heaven and in hell. You can know, every day of your life, the happiness that is independent of conditions. You can "get" or "realize" enlightenment, depending on how you like to frame it. Let's not sugar-coat it or smile complacently while others sugar-coat it. Meditating for any reason other than enlightenment is like eating berries to get blue teeth.

"

I never ever ever forget Krishamurti's almost constant admonition that all one needs is to "know how to look"

"I never ever ever forget Krishamurti's almost constant admonition that all one needs is to "know how to look" "

That is a totally excellent thing to remember, I'd say. Back to 'birdwatching', again and again-- they're there, if you learn how to look.

Part of what intrigued me about this was the pointing to 'what doesn't happen'; personally, I've experienced both phases [this I have in common with Shinzen, I gather]-- the subjective 'big bang' [and concomitant not giving a rap what anyone else would say about it] AND a subsequent belated noticing of 'dogs that no longer bark in the night' [my personal code for subtler developmental changes]. So I appreciate anything said about the complementariness, rather than the opposition, of these two manifestations of progress of practice.

The intention, it seems, is less to discourage those who HAVE had the Big Bang-- as if you could!-- than to ENcourage those who haven't, and may never, experienced anything more dramatic than their lives flowing along completely simply and nonproblematically.

"Meditating for any reason other than enlightenment is like eating berries to get blue teeth."

I agree that for you, me and others like us Kenneth, Awakening is the one true value of meditation. There are exceptions, however. There can be value in meditation for reasons other than what we here see. For example, for folks who suffer from depression or severe anxiety just being mindful through meditation can be a major positive step. It need not lead to Awakening to be very, very useful to those folks.

And as I stated earlier, I often measure progress by what is not occurring in the mind in times of great stress and I've seen innumerable versions of that same yardstick used here on these boards.

I just took the time to read the post. I thought Charles' letter to Shinzen was very sincere, and I could relate to a lot of what he was writing about.

I'm not sure I liked Shinzen's response all that much. Yes, it's true that people tend to 'acclimatize' (i.e. integrate) their insights or level of meditative mastery. Vince from Buddhist Geeks once described this as being like the experience of getting sick, and then becoming well. It's hard to talk about being sick anymore, because the longer one is well the harder it is to remember what being sick is like.

For me, however, sticking it out during the plateau periods tends to be very rewarding, and not in the sense of just slowly chipping away at my ego. There are valleys, but there are also peaks. There are gradual developments, and there are also quantum shifts. I feel as though many teachers today really downplay the quantum shifts in favor of the daily grind, as if one could place a higher value on one or the other. Both are a part of the practice. And while the practice starts out as a means to an end, there comes a time when practice and realization become integrated to a degree in which they are practically inseparable - or at least finally known to be so, as this is likely always the case. And then practice/realization integrate with everyday life. Deeper. Wider. More inclusive. More complete. In other words, we don't stop practicing. Ever.

That's probably the kind of thing I would have said to Charles, had he written me instead of Shinzen

"That's probably the kind of thing I would have said to Charles, had he written me instead of Shinzen " -awouldbehipster

Would that he had.

"For me, however, sticking it out during the plateau periods tends to be very rewarding, and not in the sense of just slowly chipping away at my ego. There are valleys, but there are also peaks. There are gradual developments, and there are also quantum shifts. I feel as though many teachers today really downplay the quantum shifts in favor of the daily grind, as if one could place a higher value on one or the other. Both are a part of the practice. And while the practice starts out as a means to an end, there comes a time when practice and realization become integrated to a degree in which they are practically inseparable - or at least finally known to be so, as this is likely always the case. And then practice/realization integrate with everyday life. Deeper. Wider. More inclusive. More complete. In other words, we don't stop practicing. Ever.

"

I think that is really interesting and to me at least unique, especially the point that the daily grind and the quantum shifts are BOTH of equal value in practice.

AND, the point about the integration of practice and realization.

Keep moving.

Here's how I read the Tart-Young exchange, boiled down to a few sentences:

Tart: "I'm not getting anywhere in my practice so I get disillusioned and don't work at it. I've seen no Big Bang and there may never be, right?"

Young: "You may be doing better than you think since the changes you may have made have come slowly over time and you may not notice but the cumulative effects could be quite large."

Is that what you all see going on?

Chris, I pick up on that too. But then I read this (by Shinzen)...

"However, it's been my experience that for most people who practice meditation, it doesn't happen that way. Rather the changes are gradual, so gradual that people acclimatize to them and don't really realize how much they've changed."

... and something doesn't sit well with me. I could be reading into it, or I could just be plain "off" in regard to what he's saying. But, to me it sounds like he could be inserting this clause as a way of validating years of ineffective practice.

Let's say you're a meditation teacher, and a long time meditator comes to you and says, "Look, Teacher, I've been meditating for decades, and nothing is happening. I get little insights here and there, but nothing has really changed. I'm doing what you tell me to do, but it seems like it isn't working. I guess maybe I should quit." (or, find another teacher.)

And you say, "Oh, no! Actually, it's quite normal to change at such a gradual rate that you don't actually know how enlightened you've become!" (please don't leave me or invalidate my teachings!)

And the student says, "Oh, I see. I guess I'm more enlightened than I thought. It just didn't happen quickly for me. I'll keep practicing." (albeit ineffectively.)

I'm not really being fair, here. I'm sure there are cases when process is very gradual, without any quantum shifts, and true insight occurs. But from what I can tell, good practice tends to bring both. I'm still pretty new at all this, but that's my opinion at this time.

"
I'm not really being fair, here. I'm sure there are cases when process is very gradual, without any quantum shifts, and true insight occurs. But from what I can tell, good practice tends to bring both. I'm still pretty new at all this, but that's my opinion at this time."

At a bare minimum effective practice should bring someone from the basic suffering of still believing they are a permenant separate entity that can get stuff that will make it happy -- to an initial and unfolding freedom that comes from seeing through this illusion.

And how could one miss THAT?

I don't get it.

If Mr. Tart had written to me:

Dear Charles,

If you are sitting around year after year and nothing is happening, you are doing it wrong. You may as well watch television. Schedule a Skype session with me and I will teach you a noting technique that leads to enlightenment. Don't settle for fatuous platitudes from pundits or disempowering condescension. You can do this. Every week I talk to people who have just attained 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and even the 4th Path of Enlightenment. It is possible. It is not rocket science. You just have to consistently apply a simple technique. Ready? Let's do this!

Kenneth

"...folks who suffer from depression or severe anxiety just being mindful through meditation can be a major positive step. It need not lead to Awakening to be very, very useful to those folks." -cmarti

The acknowledgement that some people are not ready to do intense contemplative practice because of underlying mental health issues is important and undeniable. Unfortunately, what should have been a footnote has come to dominate the conversation in mainstream Buddhist culture; nearly everyone now seems to be too fragile to do serious practice.

My own history seems relevant here. I suffered from annual bouts of crippling and occasionally suicidal depression from my early teens until the summer before my 46th birthday, when, in 2004, after a 22 year quest, I came to what could reasonably be called the end of seeking. I have not been depressed since that time. Bill Hamilton, my teacher since 1990 and dead since 1999, never told me that because I suffered from depression I should content myself with the momentary relief that comes from a daily sitting practice. He told me to get enlightened. He told me that would cure my depression. I didn't believe him, but neither did I abandon my quest. Bill did not flinch when I cited my faulty brain chemistry; instead, he encouraged me to continue to practice.

I was frankly surprised when my depression stopped coming around. I had already reconciled myself to the belief that I would have to take antidepressant and anti-anxiety medications for the rest of my life in order to be even quasi-functional. And to tell the truth, I don't know for a fact that it was my enlightenment that cured my depression. But it is a remarkable coincidence...

Noting mind-states as I write this: righteous indignation, petulance, defensiveness, wry humor, irritation, compassion, annoyance, aversion, self-justification, joy, fear, worry, anxiety, interest, curiosity, awe, wonder, freedom.

whoa-- guess 'interesting' was a gross understatement.

A vigorous discussion is always useful, in my view; but would you believe me if I said I wasn't expecting to foment controversy...? I just like both Charles and Shinyen a lot, and appreciated being allowed to eavesdrop.

Jackson, I'm struggling with this just a little bit. I'm not sure that meditation must of necessity lead to being Awake or it's otherwise a waste of time. Please don't get me wrong, being awake the only reason I have ever practiced. But I'm not smart enough to say it's the only reason *everyone* should practice. I can see reasons to practice that might be very valid for some folks and that do not include awakening. I posited two examples in an earlier post. I just don't know the answer to this and I'm not sure there is one right answer that fits all cases. I'm willing to live with the ambiguity, I guess. The reason to meditate could legitimately be something other than awakening, and for valid reasons. I visited the local Zen Center last night for one of these reasons. A vipassana/Mahasi-style noting practice might even be dangerous for some folks and a simple mindfulness approach might suit them better. I'm living with a person who I believe is an example of this. You can accuse me of citing examples outside the mainstream of those who practice and I will admit to being guilty as charged.

I may also just be more sensitive to this due to my unique situation. I freely admit that it's very important to me right now and is no doubt skewing my view.

That said, after re-reading the exchange between these two particular people again I'd have to agree with Kenneth's comment ands exhort Tart to try an effective practice and actually follow the instructions.

(Kenneth slipped in with a very cogent post addressing my concerns)

Kenneth,

Thanks so much for your teaching. I didn't realize you had your first sort of opening in 1982. That's the year I was born.

Anyhow, I've been doing what you are writing about here since we last spoke, and it has been sooooooo beneficial. Thanks so much for sticking with it and showing us that it can be done and helping us along the path.

Even though there is aversion, anxiety, anger, disgust, longing, sadness, annoyance, searching, dullness, judgement, etc., I am learning to love myself despite my faults and in turn that love has been flowing to others more as well. I cannot thank you enough.

"The acknowledgement that some people are not ready to do intense contemplative practice because of underlying mental health issues is important and undeniable. Unfortunately, what should have been a footnote has come to dominate the conversation in mainstream Buddhist culture; nearly everyone now seems to be too fragile to do serious practice."

I hope it's clear that I'm speaking to a tiny minority of cases and that one of them is here in my house.

"Jackson, I'm struggling with this just a little bit. I'm not sure that meditation must of necessity lead to being Awake or it's otherwise a waste of time. Please don't get me wrong, being awake the only reason I have ever practiced. But I'm not smart enough to say it's the only reason *everyone* should practice." ~Chris

I'm with you there, Chris. I think that meditation can be used for all kinds of beneficial results, for a wide spectrum of people.

To me, it didn't seem like that's what Tart was taking issue with. He was more or less struggling with the fact that insights weren't coming as he wanted them to. He reached a plateau. He wasn't struggling with the fact that he wanted to practice meditation for reasons other than awakening. At least I don't think so.

I'm starting to feel like I'm misunderstanding some things, and should probably bow out of the conversation until I can get a better grip on what's going on.

As always, I enjoy our conversations
~Jackson

Jackson, I think I'm the one out of sync here, not you

"I hope it's clear that I'm speaking to a tiny minority of cases and that one of them is here in my house." -cmarti

I know, Chris. I don't mean to be insensitive to that. I'm just trying to strike a balance between protecting those who need protection and empowering everyone (including those who need protection).

My sense is that mainstream Buddhist culture, or what I think of as "IMS Buddhism," has swung way too far toward what Trungpa Rinpoche called "idiot compassion." They have done such a good job of protecting all of us that they forgot to mention that Buddhism is about *our* enlightenment, not the Buddha's.

My own stance is probably too far to the other side in an effort to redress the imbalance. I think about all of the people who may just happen by and read this thread. The only thing our little corner of the internet offers that is different from a hundred other communities is open dharma and a culture of empowerment. In other words, there are lots of places people can go to be protected and nurtured. Here, they can find a shameless discussion of how to get enlightened along with unabashed enthusiasm for the project! I worry that that message might be buried in a sea of well-intentioned sentimentality.

That's why I act like such a di_k sometimes. Or at least that's how I'm rationalizing it in this moment.

Kenneth

Well, I'm very focused on some unique issues right now and those are coloring my view, without question. I'm introducing nuance that's not present in the Tart/Young exchange and I know that. And, of course, I know very well what you're trying to do here and I agree with you about the vast majority of cases.

I think another way to spin a response to Charles would be to answer from a 2nd or 3rd gear approach.

That is, instead of saying he should use a different technique (which may indeed do the trick), perhaps he needs to question the story that he is telling himself in a more fundamental way.

IOW, I believe that there are times when people can't make good use of techniques/1st gear because their attitudes are not set-up well for growth. This was certainly true of me at certain points. Having known Charles for some time as a faculty member, I can say that his story "I am not good at meditation" and "I am not getting enlightened" is an old one.

So...

"Who is the one who knows you aren't enlightened?" or "Who is the 'I' who wants to progress in meditation?" (2nd gear)

or

"You are already enlightened. There is nothing to achieve and no one to achieve it." (3rd Gear)

If Charlie meditated on those, reflected on those, maybe it would "pop" him, or maybe it would just lessen the fixation enough to allow him to use the techniques more effectively.

Mark