Recorded Talk on Pragmatic Dharma

Finally got the chance to listen to the MP3. Nice talk, especially the part about Jack Kornfield learning "he now had more things to let go off". If I had been there listening to you Vince, I'd have been the annoying beginner asking you: "but what do you actually mean by the word enlightenment?"

"Finally got the chance to listen to the MP3. Nice talk, especially the part about Jack Kornfield learning "he now had more things to let go off". If I had been there listening to you Vince, I'd have been the annoying beginner asking you: "but what do you actually mean by the word enlightenment?" "

Yep, I think that would be a very relevant question, and I'm sure I would have done my best to give you a complicated and ultimately insufficient answer. ;-D

That said, at the core of the difference between Ajahn Chah and Mahasi Sayadaw's approaches--one which is more interested in letting go right here and right now and the other which is interested in keeping the developmental spectrum in mind--is a difference between a more sudden and more gradual approach to awakening. One is interested in the Natural Mind of non-clinging (which is an awake mind) and the other seems to be more interested in seeing the three characteristics and having insights that lead one to an ever-deepening understanding of Nirvana. I think Jack's point was that both approaches, although quite different from one another, were totally valid, and perhaps even complimentary.

"

That said, at the core of the difference between Ajahn Chah and Mahasi Sayadaw's approaches--one which is more interested in letting go right here and right now and the other which is interested in keeping the developmental spectrum in mind--is a difference between a more sudden and more gradual approach to awakening. One is interested in the Natural Mind of non-clinging (which is an awake mind) and the other seems to be more interested in seeing the three characteristics and having insights that lead one to an ever-deepening understanding of Nirvana. I think Jack's point was that both approaches, although quite different from one another, were totally valid, and perhaps even complimentary.
"

This is fascinating.
Is the basic nature of the two approaches (while possibly complimentary) actually fundamentally different?
Does the natural mind of non-clinging also naturally see the 3 C's, or not?
Does the developmental approach develop the capacity for a natural non-clinging mind? (if not, what is it clinging to and how is it not "natural?" )

I have an opinion, of course, that hasn't been tested enough for me to really know what I'm talking about.

"Is the basic nature of the two approaches (while possibly complimentary) actually fundamentally different?
Does the natural mind of non-clinging also naturally see the 3 C's, or not?
Does the developmental approach develop the capacity for a natural non-clinging mind? (if not, what is it clinging to and how is it not "natural?" )

I have an opinion, of course, that hasn't been tested enough for me to really know what I'm talking about. "

Hi Michael,

I think I can take a shot at your questions by using Kennenth's 3-gear model. The mind that sees the 3 characteristics, has insights, and develops in wisdom is related to the 1st gear. The mind of non-clinging that Ajahn Chah points to is the 3rd gear. One is developmental, one is timeless. With 3rd gear as a basis, one can choose to see the three characteristics or not, it makes no difference. From that vantage point the 3 characteristics are a means to an end, but they are not the end themselves. Just as Kenneth (I think) would say, 3rd gear can't be developed. It just is.

But oddly, that recognition seems to shine forth more automatically and more effortlessly, when there aren't (trying to think of a good word... confusions, obscurities, ignorance, misunderstandings) that hinder this effortless recognition. But even to think of confusion, etc. as a problem, and make it a problem, is missing the point from the vantage of 3rd gear. There is nothing that can stand in the way, and that's the whole point. That's why in the Dzogchen tradition it's said that, "confusion dawns as wisdom." Everything can lead back to the timeless, including the 3 characteristics, including love, including stillness, including the body, including confusion, including anger, including (fill in the blank)....

"@vjhorn: Hi Michael,

I think I can take a shot at your questions by using Kennenth's 3-gear model. The mind that sees the 3 characteristics, has insights, and develops in wisdom is related to the 1st gear. The mind of non-clinging that Ajahn Chah points to is the 3rd gear. One is developmental, one is timeless. With 3rd gear as a basis, one can choose to see the three characteristics or not, it makes no difference. From that vantage point the 3 characteristics are a means to an end, but they are not the end themselves. Just as Kenneth (I think) would say, 3rd gear can't be developed. It just is.

But oddly, that recognition seems to shine forth more automatically and more effortlessly, when there aren't (trying to think of a good word... confusions, obscurities, ignorance, misunderstandings) that hinder this effortless recognition. But even to think of confusion, etc. as a problem, and make it a problem, is missing the point from the vantage of 3rd gear. There is nothing that can stand in the way, and that's the whole point. That's why in the Dzogchen tradition it's said that, "confusion dawns as wisdom." Everything can lead back to the timeless, including the 3 characteristics, including love, including stillness, including the body, including confusion, including anger, including (fill in the blank)...."

Sweet.