Practicing for Life

If I hear you correctly, Chris, we could say...
Howling Wolf--authentic!
Robert Cray--NOT!
But I guess we're getting into subjective territory with something like that.

Chris, I get the idea of seeing intent clearly and acting accordingly. But I think jgroove has a point. Here are four versions of a song:






Are some more authentic than others? Or is it just taste, something subjective, something one intuits that others may well see differently, or some kind of socially-constructed category?

Ron asks: "but how do we describe "authenticity" to those who don't know what we're talking about?"

Acting without one's delusions controlling one's behavior [as much as before] seems possible to explain. Other parts of what some of us consider authenticity to be may not be something that can be conveyed for the reasons above...

jgroove was joking

Don't take my music example too far, either. It was just one example that came immediately to mind.

I've laid the thing out as much as I can. It's like me explaining to you what my coffee tastes like right now. At some point you just have to experience the thing. I'll defer to anyone else here who has this same sense of authenticity because I know some who post here do as we've compared notes, both face to face and online. Maybe they can do a better job.

I think jgroove had a good point, joking or not.

As I said, I understand what it means to act while seeing one's intentions clearly. I also understand the intuition of authenticity (as a matter of taste, or a socially-constructed category). Not really sure if I understand much else.

So, perhaps this highlights Ron's point; how can it be explained to others? I've been doing this practice along with the rest of y'all and still don't get it. Maybe it can't be, and that's fine, but then, that's worth knowing. (Trying to explain what can't be explained will probably not cast the practical dharma in such a positive light, because the attempt may come across as silly or inarticulate or fundamentally confused.)

Maybe we can start by knowing that some experiences just can't be explained adequately to others. I know folks like certainty, or at least something very close to that. And I know people assume, even if intuitively or innately, that everything can be described such that it is clearly communicable to another person. My version of that is that words are at best only approximate, sometimes wholly inaccurate, representations of our actual experience.

One of the most wonderful things this practice has helped me realize is just this very thing -- the universe is mysterious and uncertain and yet wonderful and beautiful, in large part because it is mysterious and uncertain. I believe it requires a certain "sense" to appreciate this and that sense seems to have come along as part of my practice.

So as uncomfortable as it can sound, and I know it can because it did for me for a long, long time, it really is that way. Things are inscrutable to a large extent and we pretend we "get" them and have it all figured out. We tell ourselves stories to assuage our fears and make ourselves comfortable, so that the apparent chaos is "explained away." I get that. But all that explaining and feeling of control over the flow of our experience are just stories that we create afterward.

This sense of "authenticity" is like this. You can assume it does't exist if you like, or that it's just another form of taste or appreciation or something similar. I'm okay with that. Maybe you need to do some other kinds of practice? They do exist, you know.

EDIT: spelling

"(Trying to explain what can't be explained will probably not cast the practical dharma in such a positive light, because the attempt may come across as silly or inarticulate or fundamentally confused.)"

I'm very happy too take that risk, obviously. And of course this depends on what you mean by "positive light." I think it's practical to talk about everything that happens in one's practice, not just the details of noting practice. Practice, in my experience, inevitably touches every aspect of life, physical, experiential, emotional. We can pretend it doesn't but that's ignoring the obvious, IMHO.

"Maybe we can start by knowing that some experiences just can't be explained adequately to others."

Of course. I'm not saying that we need some kind of explicit description that will make sense to everyone automatically. I was coming at this from the angle of how to present practical dharma in a way that would be more attractive, and more accurate, than the way it often comes across (which is something like "immersion in experiential minutia"). That was sort of where I thought this discussion had gone. Talking about something that won't necessarily be understood, even among people who are supposed to get it, doesn't seem to me like the best way of doing that.

Of course, I agree that people should talk about this in their practice journals / etc. if they see a change related to it manifesting and think it's important.

On the other hand, about inexpressibility...suppose someone wants to talk about nanas, jhanas, vibrations, paths, or cessations. These experiences can't really be communicated to people who haven't had them. On the other hand, for most people in the practical dharma community, it's about as easy to communicate about those things as it is to communicate about the weather. I'm surprised that people who may share the same experience of "authenticity" don't seem to be able to do that. (cont)

(cont) For a similarly "inexpressible" subject...in the thread about synaethesia, tazmic describes an experience of a smiling person's eyes changing pitch, their earrings providing accompaniment, and their smile being a sustained chord. I've never met tazmic before, but we share the same perception, so his description has the same kind of comprehensibility as if he were describing the weather outside. (Describing the weather doesn't *show me* the weather, but it tells me about some qualities that the weather has; same here.) I could go on to ask him what the pitches he hears are, whether the experience is in his mind or in the visual field or wherever else, and we could have a long discussion; it would be apparent to anyone reading it that we understood each other, and we weren't being silly or inarticulate, even if the reader didn't understand us due to a lack of that kind of perception.

But "authenticity" seems to be different. Because of that, because of the (apparent) lack of a good way to talk about it among people who experience it, I don't know if the community would be doing itself any public relations favors to make that a selling-point for its practices.

"You can assume it [authenticity] doesn't exist if you like, or that it's just another form of taste or appreciation or something similar. I'm okay with that. Maybe you need to do some other kinds of practice? They do exist, you know."

Well, I suspect my failure to get this may be one of those neurotypicality / atypicality things. But, what kind of practices do you have in mind? (I actually have no idea what kinds of things you would mention in this vein, which should indicate the extent to which I'm drawing a blank about the whole thing.)

Your concern for the public relations aspects of practical dharma is duly noted

I don't propose that we filter what we talk about here because it might be hard to do, something might be hard to explain or because some folks just don't get something (yet). That strikes me as a very stilted and unnatural way to approach what we do here. I'm trying to get folks to open up about very natural parts of this practice that are seldom talked about here, not shut things down because they might be PR problems.

Practice suggestion -- go to a park somewhere natural, not indoors. Sit down and assume your usual mediation posture. Resolve to not seek, search, try to find, investigate at all, anything that arises. Just sit with nothing else to do but sit. Let whatever comes up come up and let it go of it as the next thing comes up. Don't seek and investigate, just let go completely and just be.

"I don't propose that we filter what we talk about here because it might be hard to do, something might be hard to explain or because some folks just don't get something (yet). That strikes me as a very stilted and unnatural way to approach to what we do here. I'm trying to get folks to open up about very natural parts of this practice that are seldom talked about here, not shut things down because they might be PR problems."

OK, I think we've just been talking about different things. I think it's valuable to talk about one's life and how one's practice relates to it, just because life and practice are intimately bound up. The ways that people talk about this and the particulars they share are going to be up to them, depending on what's salient to them, but I see no good reason that it shouldn't be done. (Look at how much stuff in my practice thread that I've said about changes in life-experience in relation to my practice; obviously I agree with you about the value of this.)

In many ways, I think practice threads that have e.g. bare lists of what one noted during the day's meditation, while obviously useful to the person who writes them, can be quite misleading to read.

If people wrote about personal changes they experienced, whatever those changes are, however they think of them, that would be powerful to read, helpful to them, inspiring to others already in the community (I'm thinking of an issue Laurel brought up a few days ago), maybe interesting or worthwhile to people outside of it. MCTB's insistence that one ought not to expect any change in one's life is (in my opinion) really good practice advice, an excellent attitude to have...but it's just a convenient fiction.

About your practice suggestion, I'll let you know how it goes.

As I interpret authenticity, it relates to seeing things just as they are, without wishing they were different (clinging/aversion), and this is something that begins to develop when one starts to see how all conditioned phenomena (thoughts, sensations, perceptions, etc) arise and pass away by themselves, including our habitual responses of clinging and aversion. The more deeply this is seen through, the more equanimity develops, until eventually there is such a deep level of equanimity that clinging and aversion, even if faint flickers of them arise, cannot take hold at all. This kind of equanimity is experienced each time one has a "path fruition" or kensho type experience, where for some days after one feels a natural sort of flow in all things, a peace and inability to be upset or caught up in things that used to cause anxiety, fear, frustration and so on. It comes and goes in glimpses as ones meditation deepens. What this ultimately is, I think (and please tell me if this understanding of "authenticity" is not what you all are talking about) is the understanding that things are just what they are. Walking is just walking, pain in the body is just pain in the body, trash is just trash, a flower is just a flower. The layering of delusions, stories, wishes, hopes, fantasies, fears, etc is not part of that, and so there is a truth, purity, realness and honesty to the flow of experience that is...just that. Just as it is. In dealing with ourselves and others this means one can be so much more compassionate, patient and accepting. One can act not from pride, greed, fear, arrogance, judgment, neediness, etc. but from a true heart that allows and accepts everything as it arises. Thoughts?

"... maybe interesting or worthwhile to people outside of it. MCTB's insistence that one ought not to expect any change in one's life is (in my opinion) really good practice advice, an excellent attitude to have...but it's just a convenient fiction."


If we're are not practicing to generate some sort of change in our lives then I suppose it really is only about the amazing special effects.

"
"... maybe interesting or worthwhile to people outside of it. MCTB's insistence that one ought not to expect any change in one's life is (in my opinion) really good practice advice, an excellent attitude to have...but it's just a convenient fiction."


If we're are not practicing to generate some sort of change in our lives then I suppose it really is only about the amazing special effects.



"

Don't knock the special effects! Mucho fun! But as most teachers will tell you: pay no attention to the special effects, keep practicing. This is both good advice and a potential trap. Good advice because one must not and cannot grasp at "states" (ecstasy, bliss, visions, etc) because...well, that's clinging, and undermines the whole point of practice, which is to release clinging and aversion. Yet at the same time one can also end up clinging to one's practice method! The general best practice seems to be that beginners in particular need to focus on effort, technique and intention, where more advanced practitioners need to focus on letting go, surrender, and release. Thoughts?

I think that's right. Plus, as I'm suggesting to EndInSight, trying a smattering of different practice techniques after a certain point is a good idea. I think there's less value in being a one-trick pony

"
I think that's right. Plus, as I'm suggesting to EndInSight, trying a smattering of different practice techniques after a certain point is a good idea. I think there's less value in being a one-trick pony

"

I agree, for advanced practitioners this can be really beneficial. I think for relative beginners, it can be a distraction, though. Myself I thought I benefited at times from the occasional visit to different kinds of practice groups - Tibetan, Tendai Buddhist, and some others. It's interesting and illuminating to do traditional practices, once ones own practice is firmly established, as it sheds fresh light on what one is dealing with in ones own practice, besides being an interesting chance to meet people with different perspectives.

Chris,

How does your personal experience directly relate to Kenneth's current model? Does it fit?

If not, how does it differ. If yes then how is it the same? Do you endorse Kenneth's current model? Do you endorse the Actual Freedom point of view?

Most importantly, are you at peace with your daily experience?

Hugs, Michael

PS: Questions ....

first paragraph - that sounds a bit like how some of the iddhis begin to manifest - "anxiously awaiting your reply"
h a n s e n

""Selfless compassion" is just another concept and rightfully met with skepticism unless it becomes an experiential truth in one's life IMO.

I say this not to disagree with Chris, but for the sake of those who dont yet feel it in their hearts."

ha! this is funny - since "self" is merely a false concept! orasis, I'll bet my last dollar that if it wasn't for sellfless compassion on someones part you wouldn't even be here today (?) right ?? wrong??

"As I interpret authenticity, it relates to seeing things just as they are, without wishing they were different (clinging/aversion), and this is something that begins to develop when one starts to see how all conditioned phenomena (thoughts, sensations, perceptions, etc) arise and pass away by themselves, including our habitual responses of clinging and aversion. The more deeply this is seen through, the more equanimity develops, until eventually there is such a deep level of equanimity that clinging and aversion, even if faint flickers of them arise, cannot take hold at all. This kind of equanimity is experienced each time one has a "path fruition" or kensho type experience, where for some days after one feels a natural sort of flow in all things, a peace and inability to be upset or caught up in things that used to cause anxiety, fear, frustration and so on. It comes and goes in glimpses as ones meditation deepens. What this ultimately is, I think (and please tell me if this understanding of "authenticity" is not what you all are talking about) is the understanding that things are just what they are. Walking is just walking, pain in the body is just pain in the body, trash is just trash, a flower is just a flower. The layering of delusions, stories, wishes, hopes, fantasies, fears, etc is not part of that, and so there is a truth, purity, realness and honesty to the flow of experience that is...just that. Just as it is. In dealing with ourselves and others this means one can be so much more compassionate, patient and accepting. One can act not from pride, greed, fear, arrogance, judgment, neediness, etc. but from a true heart that allows and accepts everything as it arises. Thoughts?"

This is fantastic. Thanks, Ona!