Not an endless path

"Evidence shoes however that beyond technical 4th path the good old Mahasi noting [flickering sensations] practice doesn't lead to further permanent stages, as it simply induces more cycles, or crystalizes the sense of being a pure non-dual awareness beyond impermanent phenomena."

I have stated that this is false (judging from my own case) so many times. I guess I can state it again.

This is false.

Alex, on what basis do you believe this?

"Well, here's my take:

Emptiness goes beyond being able to observe craving. It is the absence of essence in all things. It is the real time observance of the absence of essence. No thing, nothing, exists separately. All objects lack permanence. No object is fixed or independent of other objects. One can observe the flow of this interdependence and impermanence occurring in real time. It applies to the self and all other objects. Suffering stems from the perceived permanence of those things that have no essence. That perception is in error, in Buddhism we call that error "ignorance." It is the absence of that ignorance that relieves suffering.

JMHO

"

Is craving empty?

Is dualistic / deluded experience empty?

Is suffering relieved by seeing that these things are empty even though they continue to arise, or by (upon seeing that all things are empty) having these things no longer arise?

I would say that your answers to these questions will determine whether we're *describing* the same thing. (However, as I have stated before, I think we're all moving towards the same goal, whether our descriptions are compatible or not.)

"Is craving empty?

Is dualistic / deluded experience empty?

Is suffering relieved by seeing that these things are empty even though they continue to arise, or by (upon seeing that all things are empty) having these things no longer arise?

I would say that your answers to these questions will determine whether we're *describing* the same thing. (However, as I have stated before, I think we're all moving towards the same goal, whether our descriptions are compatible or not.)"

I think by definition deluded experience is empty but *not recognized as such* (thus deluded). Would others agree? After all, things don't just become empty universally because one day Joe Yogi recognizes it - they were always that way, it's just that finally Joe Yogi has recognized it, and now he has a new perspective on experience.

For some reason recognizing emptiness seems to release craving/aversion (and thus suffering), so their arising or not arising just becomes sort of irrelevant. It seems based on my personal experience and that of colleagues that the preliminary recognition/experience of emptiness is followed by a period in which the process deepens and becomes more and more stable, so that the release and irrelevance becomes more and more predominant and the old deluded habits gradually fade. I could guess based again on the experience of various colleagues and some more experienced teachers that this process can take place over years, and can be hindered by poor practices or misunderstandings and encouraged by beneficial practices and good advice. Does this seem true to others?

(Realize you may be addressing one poster in particular, but this is interesting, so forgive me adding some thoughts to the mix.)

"For some reason recognizing emptiness seems to release craving/aversion (and thus suffering), so their arising or not arising just becomes sort of irrelevant. [...] I could guess based again on the experience of various colleagues and some more experienced teachers that this process can take place over years, and can be hindered by poor practices or misunderstandings and encouraged by beneficial practices and good advice. Does this seem true to others?

(Realize you may be addressing one poster in particular, but this is interesting, so forgive me adding some thoughts to the mix.)"

No worries, all are free to respond.

In my experience, I found that thinking about these things as irrelevant (which I did post-technical 4th path for a year or so) led to no progress or extremely minimal progress, whereas, as the suttas suggest, being "horrified, humiliated, and disgusted" upon their recognition (i.e. actively rejecting them, refusing to tolerate their arising) led to extremely fast progress.

"No worries, all are free to respond.

In my experience, I found that thinking about these things as irrelevant (which I did post-technical 4th path for a year or so) led to no progress or extremely minimal progress, whereas, as the suttas suggest, being "horrified, humiliated, and disgusted" upon their recognition (i.e. actively rejecting them, refusing to tolerate their arising) led to extremely fast progress."

That's interesting. Not that the suttas aren't a valuable source of guidance, but it is in contrast to other teachings (of what source I am not sure, as I am not an expert in old texts and schools of Buddhism) that "accepting everything as it is" is also a useful practice. Wouldn't generating aversion to the arising of something be, well, aversion, and thus not equanimity? It may be the suggestion of the suttas is more subtle or specific. It also can be the case that sometimes teachings are one-sided in order to balance something - for example a ski instructor might shout "lean back" because you are leaning too far forward. But that doesn't mean leaning back is actually the solution, just that it is an exercise to correct the leaning forward. In the end you want to be balanced in the middle. Anyway, question being are the teachings that say "respond with horror" from a different school or method than "accept everything as it is"? Or is it meant to be a corrective exercise in order to arrive at acceptance/equanimity?

As paradoxical as it may seem, willful insight practice is required to see clearly what we are unknowingly grasping at, even when trying to let go. This is probably the reason why the Buddha never taught people to "just go with the flow", "don't manipulate, just be" or "there is nothing to do [since I told you that there is no doer anyway]". If I tell beginners to just surrender, they will be lost in thoughts for decades.

If one eventually sees that there is no doer with sufficient clarity, practice becomes effortless by necessity. Until then, there is something to do. That's the way I see it anyway, no?

"That's interesting. Not that the suttas aren't a valuable source of guidance, but it is in contrast to other teachings (of what source I am not sure, as I am not an expert in old texts and schools of Buddhism) that "accepting everything as it is" is also a useful practice. Wouldn't generating aversion to the arising of something be, well, aversion, and thus not equanimity? [...] It also can be the case that sometimes teachings are one-sided in order to balance something [...] are the teachings that say "respond with horror" from a different school or method than "accept everything as it is"?"

I never took being "horrified, humiliated, and disgusted" to be an emotional reaction or the suttas to endorse an emotional reaction...rather, I simply thought, "these experiences are the fundamental problem; these experiences are not to be tolerated in any way; through practice, I will eradicate them and wipe them out of existence; I do not accept the fact that they arise; they are a blight on my mind; I should not have them." As I see it, this is a counterbalance to the tendency to relish them, as well as the tendency not to take them to be as significant as they are (since, in my opinion, they are the fundamental problem, and perhaps the only problem)...because, as I see it, our tendency is to mistake many things that are very serious for things that are innocuous.

If one is more inclined to react to one's experience of these things with more aversion, then simply accepting them may be a useful counterbalance. But, on my reading of the suttas, it is clear that one only needs a *reaction* of equanimity towards things, not what I call an attitude of equanimity. The suttas unequivocally endorse an absolute rejection of all defilements...and if one is "horrified, humiliated, and disgusted" in terms of attitude, that is an absolute rejection. Equanimity and absolute rejection are compatible.

"
As paradoxical as it may seem, willful insight practice is required to see clearly what we are unknowingly grasping at, even when trying to let go. This is probably the reason why the Buddha never taught people to "just go with the flow", "don't manipulate, just be" or "there is nothing to do [since I told you that there is no doer anyway]". If I tell beginners to just surrender, they will be lost in thoughts for decades.

If one eventually sees that there is no doer with sufficient clarity, practice becomes effortless by necessity. Until then, there is something to do. That's the way I see it anyway, no?

"

Sure...but, to return to the point of interest, Mahasi noting (or dry insight in general) worked just fine for me. I see no limitations whatsoever with that method, though it may not be optimal for everyone. The only real limitation is that one gets technical 4th path and decides to no longer pursue dry insight seriously. That is a limitation of the maps or of the person's resolve, not of the method.

How many people here, upon attaining technical 4th path, continued 1st gear practices 1) as if their life depended on it, and 2) as if they expected to see some fundamental truth about their experience through the assiduous and dedicated pursuit of those practices, analogous to their pre-4th approach in terms of intensity and precision?

"Is craving empty?"
"Is dualistic / deluded experience empty?"
"Is suffering relieved by seeing that these things are empty even though they continue to arise, or by (upon seeing that all things are empty) having these things no longer arise?" -- EndInSight


Yes. Yes. And yes. All empty.



"If one eventually sees that there is no doer with sufficient clarity, practice becomes effortless by necessity. Until then, there is something to do. That's the way I see it anyway, no?" -- AlexWeith

That's the way I see it, too.

"How many people here, upon attaining technical 4th path, continued 1st gear practices 1) as if their life depended on it, and 2) as if they expected to see some fundamental truth about their experience through the assiduous and dedicated pursuit of those practices, analogous to their pre-4th approach in terms of intensity and precision?"

I only know of you.

"... I simply thought, "these experiences are the fundamental problem; these experiences are not to be tolerated in any way; through practice, I will eradicate them and wipe them out of existence; I do not accept the fact that they arise; they are a blight on my mind; I should not have them." As I see it, this is a counterbalance to the tendency to relish them, as well as the tendency not to take them to be as significant as they are (since, in my opinion, they are the fundamental problem, and perhaps the only problem)...because, as I see it, our tendency is to mistake many things that are very serious for things that are innocuous." -- EndInSight

I don't see things this way any more but I used to. I used to think "problems" were to be gotten rid of, eradicated, eliminated, stomped on and killed. It was my dream for my practice, actually, so I really get this as a desire to fulfill. Turns out, though, that it's just not necessary. Turns out problems aren't really problems.

Anyone?

"I only know of you. "

Hence, before pronouncing such a practice ineffective, one (Alex) should give it a fair shake

"I don't see things this way any more but I used to. I used to think "problems" were to be gotten rid of, eradicated, eliminated, stomped on and killed. It was my dream for my practice, actually, so I really get this as a desire to fulfill. Turns out, though, that it's just not necessary. Turns out problems aren't really problems."

Having had both experiences, I personally found that not having problems (to the extent that I have so far been successful) is much better than not minding problems / not seeing anything as a problem.

However, to the extent that your practice removes things that you previously-but-no-longer consider to be problems, it seems we're both going in the same direction, huh?

"I don't see things this way any more but I used to. I used to think "problems" were to be gotten rid of, eradicated, eliminated, stomped on and killed. It was my dream for my practice, actually, so I really get this as a desire to fulfill. Turns out, though, that it's just not necessary. Turns out problems aren't really problems.

Anyone?

- cmarti"


The problems can be seen clearly with Vipassana and they melt away.

The problems can be seen empty with Mahamudra and they melt away.

Either way, good riddance

@end - re: I only know you, I should clarify that in part that is because though many people I know have had some exposure to either Ingram or Folk's methods, they generally also have had other practices before, during or since their use of Ingram or Folk's methods. So I can't say I know anyone who very specifically used 1st gear, etc. post awakening. That said, everyone I know who is awakened (from a wide variety of traditions, number just over a dozen people who I know on a one-to-one basis/in person) does indeed have a practice of some kind or another. By and large what practice they have tends to depend a bit on what tradition(s) they are/have been trained in; but in general their seems to be a tendency to move away from technical forms of meditation and towards more inclusive/inquiry type of practices. I do think people should listen to their intuition and their teachers (if they work with one) and do what is right for them, and that won't be identical for everyone.

Yes, Antero, and giragirasol. To the extent that there is more than one road to the top of the mountain we should celebrate that and not insist that others take the path we took. It may not be their way or suit their nature. Each of us has to decide, hopefully with the help of a qualified, awakened teacher. which path is our path.

"but in general their seems to be a tendency to move away from technical forms of meditation and towards more inclusive/inquiry type of practices. I do think people should listen to their intuition and their teachers (if they work with one) and do what is right for them, and that won't be identical for everyone."

Agreed. I'm not recommending or pitching any particular kind of practice. (Everyone is different; minds have different inclinations and strengths / weaknesses). I'm just standing up for a practice that has worked for me...watching the flickering stuff in an ultraprecise way.

On the recent Rigpa thread the interesting analogy of a street filled with people was given, where the people represented kleshas (sufferings/defilements/unwholesome emotions). Talking each person into leaving, resulting in an empty street easily crossed, was contrasted with quietly finessing one's way through the crowd disregarding the crowd and also making one's way across. These were given as two possible methods to the subjective end of suffering which result in an empty street (AF, traditional Arhat) OR which resulted in a street still full of people (yet, no longer an obstruction, since the practitioner has still crossed the street to the "other side" beyond suffering (mahayana and other versions of "end of suffering"). To fine tune it a bit to fit my experience: What if we know, from a radical opening into clear seeing (Path?), that each of these klesha-people is upset because they believe they are poor, but we know they are rich and are just confused and upset. Instead of ignoring them, or talking them into leaving ("You're so upset, but it's silly to be upset for whatever reason, so will you please get out of the street and stop obstructing traffic? ) whenever we bump into one, we "introduce them to their true nature". We explain by any means necessary that they are not poor but in fact are rich and we work with them directly until they experientially get it. Then they are still there, but are no longer confused and agitated. This might be a way to extend the analogy to my understanding of dzogchen and vajrayana practice. As one gets better at introducing kleshas to their true nature, one develops a sidhi of sorts, becoming more and more able to directly transmit this knowledge to ones own kleshas (the people in the street) so as soon as we encounter one, they recognize true nature and release their dualistic tension. Perhaps others can relate to this?

I kind of like the analogy. I'd have to ponder whether it holds up to my own experience or not. But on a gut level I think it kind of works.

"Sure...but, to return to the point of interest, Mahasi noting (or dry insight in general) worked just fine for me. I see no limitations whatsoever with that method, though it may not be optimal for everyone. The only real limitation is that one gets technical 4th path and decides to no longer pursue dry insight seriously. That is a limitation of the maps or of the person's resolve, not of the method.

How many people here, upon attaining technical 4th path, continued 1st gear practices 1) as if their life depended on it, and 2) as if they expected to see some fundamental truth about their experience through the assiduous and dedicated pursuit of those practices, analogous to their pre-4th approach in terms of intensity and precision?"

So one question this leaves, though, is what, if anything, changes significantly at this "technical 4th path"? I mean, I guess, if for so many people it seems to specifically weaken drive/desire/resolve, but in some cases (you suggest in your case) that particular thing didn't change, what did change?

"I think by definition deluded experience is empty but *not recognized as such* (thus deluded). Would others agree?"

If by delusion you mean ignorance... then no.

I learned the definition of "ignorance" from reading Thanissaro's study guide on the four noble truths ( www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/truths.html ).

Buddha defines ignorance as simply not seeing things according to the four noble truths:

"And what is ignorance? Not knowing stress, not knowing the origination of stress, not knowing the cessation of stress, not knowing the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: This is called ignorance."

And in the definition of the four noble truths (in the same study guide), the word "emptiness" appears once, in the section on concentration and discernment.

"Suppose that an archer or archer's apprentice were to practice on a straw man or mound of clay, so that after a while he would become able to shoot long distances, to fire accurate shots in rapid succession, & to pierce great masses. In the same way, there is the case where a monk... enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born of withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. He regards whatever phenomena there that are connected with form, feeling, perception, fabrications, & consciousness as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a dissolution, an emptiness, not-self. He turns his mind away from those phenomena, and having done so, inclines his mind to the quality of deathlessness: 'This is peace, this is exquisite '” the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all mental acquisitions, the passing away of craving, dispassion, cessation, Unbinding."

Seeing the emptiness of phenomena seems to be mentioned as a useful skill in dispelling ignorance, but nothing else.

"Seeing the emptiness of phenomena seems to be mentioned as a useful skill in dispelling ignorance, but nothing else." -- Bruno

Bruno, is that your personal experience of the effects of seeing emptiness? Again, I think it's easy to pick and choose passages from the suttas but I fear all we do thereby is reinforce our pre-existing judgments.

... (never mind) ...

"So one question this leaves, though, is what, if anything, changes significantly at this "technical 4th path"? I mean, I guess, if for so many people it seems to specifically weaken drive/desire/resolve, but in some cases (you suggest in your case) that particular thing didn't change, what did change?"

Well, when I first got technical 4th path, I saw that everything was inherently empty, and was satisfied with that perspective for awhile. Eventually I saw that it wasn't satisfactory in the sense that it didn't resolve the fundamental problem of suffering, even though it made it very easy to be indifferent to the fundamental problem. I quit 1st gear because all the maps told me that there was no further fundamental insight to be had, I believed them, and I couldn't imagine what else I could possibly learn via such a practice. (I also made some small attempts to continue at it and noticed nothing valuable.)

Later, I tried Kenneth's Direct Mode practice (which was good), and did seem to be addressing suffering itself.

Later, when I decided to aim at the end of the fundamental problem of suffering specifically, I found (by coincidence, at a point in practice during which nothing else worked) that 1st gear dry insight actually was useful in terms of revealing more and more about how suffering is produced...and seeing that in a direct way was sufficient to eliminate it to some extent. So I asked myself why I gave up on 1st gear, realized it was due to blindly following what everyone else said and my own half-*ssed post-4th approach to it, and decided to treat it seriously and try again. And it proved fruitful.

As for why I did any of this...I have been interested in happiness and suffering for a long time. Eventually I realized that 4th path never resolved my interest in the problem, so I realized I had to shake off the 4th path complacency and see what else was going on in the world / in my mind.

To add one thought to my last comment...at one point, I asked myself "why should I be satisfied with acceptance and equanimity towards everything (including the unpleasant-yet-empty dualistic stuff) when there could be something better?"

When, in every moment of experience, the nondual shines forth, I see that acceptance and equanimity are just caricatures of real peace, and to the extent that they (or the experiences which they are reactions to) *ever* stand in the way of 24/7 nondual experience, I find nothing good in them.

Looking at my experience now (a clear and constant 24/7 experience of nonduality, with some dualistic stuff floating around but unable to obscure it), I could simply accept and be equanimous towards the dualistic stuff. But, again, I ask myself, "why be satisfied by this when there could be something better?"

I can't find a reason.