Meta Stages and Development Before, During, and After Awakening

I'm starting this thread as a follow-up to the commentary Kenneth Folk posted on the thread called "AugustLeo's Commentary." I will post the comments Kenneth made and then we can discuss them openly and free of the issues that present themselves in the original thread.

Kenneth posted second:

5. Acceptance and integration. Deep understanding of what it means to say "I don't know." All perspectives are valid. The problem wasn't that the personal perspective was substandard, the problem was having only the one (personal) perspective. We need the whole range of perspectives in order to be sane, so we work hard to cultivate those we don't yet have. But once all perspectives are available, there is no need to choose between them. They come around according to their own nature. Desire to help others find access to all perspectives so that they don't have to choose between them. "One taste," meaning you you don't have to prefer even not to prefer. You prefer to help others because your own life is otherwise rudderless. Re-embrace of karma (cause and effect), which was shunned and systematically invalidated in the 3rd stage. It matters. There is now enough confidence to allow it to matter. You can look your own suffering squarely in the face without flinching. No need to escape into emptiness or to rationalize away the suffering of oneself and others. No preference to notice Truth or to not notice it. It's fine either way, and Truth with a capitol T becomes a meaningless concept. Everything is just as True and Real as everything else. Freedom in any circumstance, any perspective. Full circle. Everything can be taken on its own terms.

(cont)

Kenneth posted first:

Hi Michael,

In response to your post #71, I must say I think you have overlooked something. I'm willing to be wrong, of course, and always eager to hear your views. But here's what I see so far:

There is a developmental process. It looks like this:

1. Not enlightened, never heard of it, don't believe it exists.

2. Not enlightened, but would like to be. (Workin' on it.)

3. Fully Enlightened. All is one. (Or all is nothing.) Nothing matters. Karma doesn't apply. There is only one correct point of view, a "trump card" Truth with a capitol T. Willing to fight about it. Personal perspective is shunned and vilified. Other people are deluded. People who are espousing the points of view of stages 4 and 5 (below) are hopelessly wishy-washy. Self-righteousness. Impatience with other people who don't "get it."

4. Fall from grace. Yogi is unable to consistently sustain himself above karma (the law of cause and effect) and steps in big bucket of dukkha. Suffering, embarrassment, humiliation, apologies, determination to "never plant the flag of Truth again." Softening of the rigid concepts characteristic of stage 3.

(cont)

Kenneth posted third and last:

So, this is what I see so far. It will change and grow and cycle around. In fact, I don't see this as a linear model. I see it as a spiral. The 5th stage is actually the spiraling ever deeper through the 3rd, 4th, and 5th stages. But there does come a time, at least in my experience so far, where one is very reluctant to plant the flag of Truth or issue grand declarations about "the way it is." This comes as a result of having been bitten enough times by the 4th stage, the fall from grace. Seeing that if he continues to be open to development he will be arguing against his own position six months from now, the yogi gets wise to the trap of bold pronouncements of Truth. In fact, the only thing that can slow down a yogi's progress at this point is his own collection of non-negotiable ideas. He watches his favorite guru's wisest proclamations spinning around the bottom of the toilet bowl along with all the other ideas. Having painted himself into a corner one too many times in the past, he finally surrenders his most cherished Understanding and abandons himself to free fall. "No fixed position" is at last understood. Enlightenment was never about possessing the Truth. It was about letting it be.

Lovingkindness and friendship,

Kenneth

"... the only thing that can slow down a yogi's progress at this point is his own collection of non-negotiable ideas."

I would only add to Kenneth's comments one other thing that might slow a yogi down -- an unwillingness to engage with other human beings so as to allow one's tightly held view to be challenged.

I really like this explanation. it helps put things into perspective for what I seem to be going through. And I find a lot of refuge in just realising I really know jacksheet about stuff.

Edited for spelling and grammar

There is no end to the beliefs I've held and then abandoned as I've pursued my practice but riffing off of what Kenneth posted the critical parts of it to me are:

1. There is no "end" to the process we're engaging with in our practice. It is infinitely iterative.
2. Absolutism of any sort is suspect, even as it masquerades as doctrine.
3. We can't communicate with each other without using concepts and ideas, so to say that this or that or the other thing is "just an idea" is suspect.
4. Reality is not this or that. We can't grasp it so assigning arbitrary values to it, taking positions and holding onto them with ferocity is a sign that we're missing something.

'Develop the mind that abides nowhere'-- those old Zen guys had been around the block a time or two.

For the time being, 'what is true' for me is: if I lose the ability to consider that I may have been, or am, mistaken-- and the sense that there's something sorta funny about this-- I'm in trouble. I can rant with the best of them, with great glee; but there's something a bit silly about that, too.

It's funny, I read the title of this thread as "metta stages..."! And that's actually kind of to the point too. For me, I was never interested in cultivating compassion or other positive feelings, but rather wisdom *only* (haha). I really used to feel a painful painful sense of seeking, all the time, all day long, throughout my twenties, when although I intellectually comprehended the buddhanature teachings I still seemed to lack something, and this seeking for direct, non-conceptual understanding was fuel for my practice until I finally began to glimpse "true nature", buddha nature, what have you.
At first that rather stunned me, since it's so radically simple compared to all concepts of it, and as I began to appreciate it more, one thing became painfully clear: my whole trajectory of seeking had been even more self-obsessed than "ordinary" samsaric seeking. Although I was (and am) still uninterested in cultivating positive vasanas through a practice like metta, I did begin to discover an instrinsic compassion *built in* to Buddhanature's view of my and others' experiencing: a definite concern to sort of authenticate itself which balanced its more lofty aspect of equalizing everything.
Anyway, as gradually but steadily the tendencies which arise in mind are seen to be merely natural factors of (conditioned) human consciousness rather than as evidence of a seperate permanent self, I'm beginning to see a different way of cultivating positive qualities which is not in reference to such an illusory centerpoint. Like a surfer who rests on his or her board as waves lift and fall, not riding every wave, but choosing in clarity of the consequences which waves to ride-- except that when we "ride" mind waves, we re-inforce their tendency to re-arise later, while by choosing to rest while a mind wave rises and falls we deprive it of the energy it needs to continually re-present itself to us.

This is fascinating stuff for someone who is still in the early stages.

Right now I'm fixed on the characteristic of no-self, and how the self seems to aggressively weasel its way into all sorts of things. It may be (likely is) an artifact of where I'm at on the path.

Given where I'm at, what occurred to me when reading this thread was the idea that once awakening happens, the "self" just doesn't go away. Even though it has been seen as a bit of a cosmic joke, it still tries to take over and even starts to be the "awake" self, full of ideas and concepts about how enlightenment happens.

If this is the case, then awakening is just the first step. One still needs to let go of all the little tricks of the self, even the trick of hanging the self on the hook of enlightenment, or "being awake."

Ron, that reminds me of a quote I posted here before (on another thread).

"Arguing about transcending the I-concept, 'reducing' the 'power' of the ego or whatever, is merely evidence of continued belief in the reality of that which, being a concept, is totally unreal.

"It's like a man saying, 'I am perfectly sane: I know that I am not a poached egg, indeed I am busily engaged in unpoaching myself and soon I will not even need a piece of toast in order to sit down.'"

--Wei Wu Wei, "Why Lazarus Laughed" p.18

"
If this is the case, then awakening is just the first step. One still needs to let go of all the little tricks of the self, even the trick of hanging the self on the hook of enlightenment, or "being awake."
"

I would say yep! It certainly was a long, long first step for me. But it feels like I've got a hell of a lot of integrating to do. And there is still the habitual tendency to hang my hat on something. But I find it doesn't stick or rather the hat keeps falling off in my experience. And thus we seem to look for provisional identities that will last only so long until another thing perhaps another activity, like being a teacher, or writing a book, or playing with siddhis, searching for the original mind, or dwellling in the Witness, or perfecting some state or another, or even writing and checking threads on this forum seem to take prominence.

The activities themselves seem to be what the habitual tendency to identify has taken on much more as there really is no "Nick" here to put a finger on. So I wouldn't say the "self" continues but rather the habitual tendency to "identify" with somehting or anything might. It is just channeled elsewhere now. Not sure...I really have no idea what I just said.

My whole slant at the moment is feeling a drive to master a siddhi or two. I know that will eventually be satisfied and I will have to look for something else to do to hang my hat on for a bit. Because if I don't do anything , I don't seem to do anything. I'm not making sense. Hmmm..

" Because if I don't do anything , I don't seem to do anything. I'm not making sense. Hmmm.."

Nick, you are making perfect sense. I'm in the same boat. If I don't find some kind of project, I'll just wind up being really lazy. I think it has something to do with the fact that, since the fundamental suffering of an artificial duality has dropped, there is in some sense nothing to do and nowhere to go.

Everything, right now in this moment is perfect and complete. But there is a downside to that, it's not all good news. I used to have a purpose, the seeking was driving me. Now that's gone and sometimes I don't know what to do with myself. The sense that "It's all good, no state is particularly special" can paralyze me. I could wind up a useless lump of enlightenment. I guess that's why I'm attracted to learning how to teach; if this was all just for me then I've missed the point entirely.

"If this is the case, then awakening is just the first step. One still needs to let go of all the little tricks of the self, even the trick of hanging the self on the hook of enlightenment, or "being awake."" -- RonCrouch


Ron, yes. I've posted about this a bunch of times on my thread trying desperately to make it very clear -- the "I" sense does not go away. You can see it for what it is but it arises as always, no matter what. This can get confusing as people use language in different ways, sometimes rather loosely. Someone may offhandedly say "there is no "I" sense any more" but what that should be translated to mean is "I see the "I" sense arising as it always has but I do not associate with it, I do not invest in it, I do not believe it is anything other than just another process."

Does that help at all? I really, really, really think it's important to communicate this clearly and accurately or folks will think they should be extinguishing their sense of self (which cannot be done for any significant length of time) instead of just seeing it for exactly what it is and just being with it - like they can do with every other object in their experience.


"The activities themselves seem to be what the habitual tendency to identify has taken on much more as there really is no "Nick" here to put a finger on. So I wouldn't say the "self" continues but rather the habitual tendency to "identify" with somehting or anything might. It is just channeled elsewhere now. Not sure...I really have no idea what I just said. " -- Nick

Nick, that sounds absolutely right on to me.

Yeh, Chris is right. I am guilty of that. There really is no Nick here to put a finger on, but the patterns that were previously read as Nick, the sense of Nick perhaps being in the head area or whatnot still arise and pass away. Those patterns are just seen as patterns now and they are just like all the other phenomena arising and passing away. You can still see it as the "I" pattern that was previously given so much importance and status. So i can see when people say that the sense of "I" goes away perhaps mean, but what they should mean to be clearer is that the identification with that pattern as a separate permanent entity of sorts goes away. The pattern doesn't, although there are times when it doesn't arise for a number of moments and it becomes clear that it is just so very substance-less and not-self itself.

I have an idea at stage 2 right now, ready to go to 3 and then fall from grace at stage 4:
One of the best things about really being awakened/enlghtened is to be able to relax and rejoice and play and experience that relative "self" in all its permutations without shame or embarassment or conflict about its existence. Just to put it its proper perspective and live it up.

"Jackson" (the personality) is illusory. There is no fixed, inherently existing entity called "Jackson."

And yet, here I am.

Awakening opens up the possibility of living in the space beyond self and no-self. You see things how they are, and you let be. This is why integration takes so long. It doesn't take long to see the truth. The habits of trying to nail down a formula or precise explanation of that truth take a while to fizzle out.

See, then let be. (I just made that up. Ha!)

I was in the dentist chair yesterday. I looked up and there were the dentist's eyes three inches from mine. At first I moved mine away and closed them for some reason. Then I decided to go ahead and look at them.
I saw that her eyes were just the biological materials that made up "eyes." they weren't Dr. Nguyen herself. But, I am really used to thinking that eyes are the person.
Then I thought of looking into my wife's eyes. Her eyes are just "eye material" yet when she smiles her eyes seem to brighened up and and her face changes at the same time and it seems like she is contained there, in that face, in those eyes.
but it is just flesh and blood and bone and stuff and none of it is my wife.
But all of it is a hell of a lot!

Mike, it's fair to say that the flesh and bone and stuff contains no inherent "wife". But are you sure that there is only flesh and bone and stuff? All material? All "flatland"?

I'm not saying I know. I guess I'm saying I don't know.

EDIT: Sorry to derail the thread.

When I'm walking around in any kind of expansive environment now days, or when I just notice, I seem to flip between two "modes".

1. Everything in my perceptual field seems like me and I feel whole
2. Nothing in my perceptual field seems like me and I feel free

In some bizarre way, they both are kinda the same perspective. Anybody else run into this?

"Mike, it's fair to say that the flesh and bone and stuff contains no inherent "wife". But are you sure that there is only flesh and bone and stuff? All material? All "flatland"?

I'm not saying I know. I guess I'm saying I don't know.

EDIT: Sorry to derail the thread."

Well, that is the mystery to me right now.
When I said, "but all of it is a hell of a lot" I was trying to say that it appears that all of it together is something way beyond "flesh and bones" but still made of flesh and bones and other stuff.
I mean right now I think that is what the temporary "sense of self" is -- it is real, it is here, it exists, and it is the temporary coming together of everything instant by instant all creating the feeling, the idea, the patterns, the stuff of all our different selfs.
It all arises and passes constantly in these changing patterns. Eventually the things that arise and pass and appears to some of us to be "mike monson" or "jackson wilshire" will pass and arise no more

"In some bizarre way, they both are kinda the same perspective. Anybody else run into this?" ~Owen

Yes.

We live in illusion and the appearance of things.
There is a reality, but you do not know this.
When you understand this, you see that you are nothing,
and being nothing, you are everything.
That is all.

~Kalu Rinpoche

"When I'm walking around in any kind of expansive environment now days, or when I just notice, I seem to flip between two "modes".

1. Everything in my perceptual field seems like me and I feel whole
2. Nothing in my perceptual field seems like me and I feel free

In some bizarre way, they both are kinda the same perspective. Anybody else run into this?
"

Reminds me of this quote by nisargadatta:

I find that somehow, by shifting the focus of attention, I become the very thing I look at, and experience the kind of consciousness it has; I become the inner witness of the thing. I call this capacity of entering other focal points of consciousness, love; you may give it any name you like. Love says "I am everything". Wisdom says "I am nothing". Between the two, my life flows. Since at any point of time and space I can be both the subject and the object of experience, I express it by saying that I am both, and neither, and beyond both.

The mind creates the abyss
The heart crosses it
-nisargadatta

I often think lately that I can just call that fleeting, temporary "feeling" of there being a self -- my self. In simple terms that is what it is -- the temporary combination of all the different parts (mind, flesh, blood, neurons, memory, feelings, patterns, DNA instincts, traits and on and on and on) all rising together for a certain period of time and feeling like something. So, sure, there isn't a permanent separate entitiy that is a "me" but there is that feeling, that thing that arises that feels like a me for a while. that's it. It's definitely there. just prick it with a pen or threaten it's children and you'll see how real it is. right now.
SKANDAS