Devotion and awakening

From last summer, our very own "What is Awakening?" thread:

kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/thread/46...%27s+Characteristics

FULL enlightenment can only be defined with respect to a particular View. All Views are empty, so none has an essential intrinsic value over any other.

The Dzogchen View, as it has been explained to me, is that full enlightenment would be resting in the natural state that is the union of shamata and vipassana 24/7, waking or sleeping. Tulku Urgyen wrote that his mother(?) claimed to have attained such a state before she died.

Note, however, that this ideal is simply an aesthetic, still empty of inherint meaning or value.

So, defining enlightenment is simple, just pick an aesthetic.

In my mind, a simpler is aesthetic is to go far enough that you don't give a fart whether you are enlightened or not as you realize everything is just THIS.

Nik makes a comment about the Flying Spaghetti Monster View at the end of this blog post that I really like:

thehamiltonproject.blogspot.com/2012/05/...abandon-overlay.html

I prefer to avoid the arcane language and the views based on what I suspect is more about mythology than practicality -- but I suppose that's your point, right?

If you're going to try to open a dialog with people in any community other than ours, it's gotta help knowing what they even mean by enlightenment, what they see as the endpoint, and how they're dividing it up. For instance, I think part of the difficulty in communicating with the IMS people is that what they mean by "Stream-entry" is not what we mean by it. Maybe their stream-entry is our 4th path, for instance.

So yeah, I think having an understanding of full enlightenment actually is useful, because it naturally comes out of the discussion of what enlightenment is at all. If you think there IS no such thing as full enlightenment, then that already says something interesting and relevant about what you think enlightenment is. (You couldn't adhere to the 10-fetters model in that case.)

I guess I'm just kind of obsessed with aesthetics and their arbitrariness lately.

"the self narrative is inspired by so many varied things, you could probably teach the recognition of such an awareness within the context of a starwars fanatic terming it 'the force' and spinning it as the true realisation of the jedis of a universe far far away if the self narratives inspired by such a fantastical context were strong enough. "

Just to back up and say a belated thanks to Nik, this is my favorite and most thought provoking (to me) post so far !!!

"So yeah, I think having an understanding of full enlightenment actually is useful, because it naturally comes out of the discussion of what enlightenment is at all. If you think there IS no such thing as full enlightenment, then that already says something interesting and relevant about what you think enlightenment is. (You couldn't adhere to the 10-fetters model in that case.)"

Well, then you're right back to being stuck in philosophy and mythology and arguing about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin, and the inevitable argument over how MY pin is bigger then YOUR pin. I say avoid that, stick to the practical results. Why not try a new approach that has a more secular, behavioral basis and tone?

ooh I think that [edit: that last post of mine] was a synchonicity with Orasis!

"
From last summer, our very own "What is Awakening?" thread:

kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/thread/46...%27s+Characteristics

"

Cool. Reading now.

"
"So yeah, I think having an understanding of full enlightenment actually is useful, because it naturally comes out of the discussion of what enlightenment is at all. If you think there IS no such thing as full enlightenment, then that already says something interesting and relevant about what you think enlightenment is. (You couldn't adhere to the 10-fetters model in that case.)"

Well, then you're right back to being stuck in philosophy and mythology and arguing about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin, and the inevitable argument over how MY pin is bigger then YOUR pin. I say avoid that, stick to the practical results. Why not try a new approach that has a more secular, behavioral basis and tone?

"

I don't think I'd call it philosophy necessarily, though I have no problem with philosophy. It's definitely a model. I think there are a lot of good reasons to have a model. Models give us something to aim for. They let us know something is possible, that something can be attained which perhaps hasn't been attained yet. They allow the imagination to stretch out into the unknown, which allows practice to follow it. I don't think that takes us away from practice at all. I think it adds some structure and direction to practice and allows us to transcend ourselves.

I'm not disparaging models qua models. They have their place. I'm saying that avoiding the usual religious conflicts with others who do not share your version of religion might mean you should stop using religious language.

"
I'm not disparaging models qua models. They have their place. I'm saying that avoiding the usual religious conflicts with others who do not share your version of religion might mean you should stop using religious language.

"

I'm not following. Did I advocate using religious language?

I'm speaking metaphorically. Should I restate?

I'll restate:

If we engage with folks who have a different take on the mythology of awakening - if they like the 10 fetters model and we don't - then we will argue about the accuracy of the models we each use. That is what I was referring to as "religious language." It brings context that is not helpful, and not really very descriptive because we have to explain our terms to each other until we agree, and then we may still disagree about the efficacy of the models anyway.

I'm advocating the removal of that kind of language and those kinds of arguments in favor of a conversation that's based on the practical results that we might be able to agree on in regard to the attributes, observable - both externally and internally - of someone who is "awake." This is why I brought up the thread from last summer. It's amazing how quickly folks will coalesce around something like that as opposed to arguing about their models. Note that the participants were from Theravada, practical dharma, Zen and Vajryana. Yet all of us were able to agree on pretty much the same list of things that can be used to describe awakening.

I hope this makes more sense....

Maybe I should restate and give examples.

In MCTB, Daniel Ingram gives a 4-path model of enlightenment. It's a finite path, meaning, once you hit 4th path, it's done. Obviously integration is lifelong, as is sila, but the enlightenment process itself is not. He's got a model there of what he thinks enlightenment is, where it begins, and where it ends (i.e., when it's complete or fulfilled).

Kenneth used to believe in the same model (I think). He referred to it as a finite "psychophysical process". I don't know what a psychophysical process is or what it would mean to complete one, but that's what he thought it was. Full enlightenment consisted in completing it. Now he doesn't think that, though. He thinks there's stuff beyond 4th path. Maybe he doesn't know what full enlightenment is now. I don't know. Does that mean the concept has become meaningless for him, or has it just gotten bigger or more open-ended? I don't know.

If you talk to someone else from a different tradition, they'll have their own idea about what enlightenment is, what the process is about, where it's coming from, and where it's going to. I don't see it as religious necessarily (though it could be). It's just a question that naturally arises when you talk about what something is.

And you know, I guess there are people like yourself who don't care about those questions. Your approach is completely open-ended, completely empirical, and doesn't involve any expectation whatsoever about the future. Maybe that's more mature - isn't part of all this becoming more secure with uncertainty? Maybe you're just super-enlightened, Chris. But the rest of us mere mortals might still care about the subject, and it doesn't necessarily make us religious or counting the number of angels on a pin.

"I hope this makes more sense....
"

I'm down with all that.

Look, I think the basic thing is that we have to base it in phenomenology (1st person, objective description). It's all we've really got until we get a complete reverse engineering of the brain processes underlying this.

At the same time we can't simply ignore everything outside phenomenology. First of all, it's rare that you're going to encounter someone who's been doing this a long time who doesn't have some theoretical framework that they're using, no matter how minimalist. Theoretical assumptions (models, concepts of enlightenment or final enlightenment) are going to enter anyway, even if they're not stated explicitly. I could see the point in addressing that directly.

Secondly, everyone here knows the models are useful in many ways. It's how many of us got attainments: by reading the "cheats" given in excellent works like MCTB.

So, I'm not sure. I would say we should base ourselves in empirical description, but basing ourselves in something doesn't mean throwing out everything else or trying to make believe it doesn't exist. Insofar as models/concepts/theories are part of the practice (directly inform it), then they ARE practical/empirical things that have to be reported on.

Okay.

But all the ideas are just ideas. That may indeed sound frustrating and ridiculous but it's accurate. I get that the concepts matter to people. I know that. They matter to me to some extent, but I've given up on basing anything on concepts and maps because they always, always, always change. People, using poor Kenneth as an example, are all dynamic, ever-changing beings whose version of awakening is only as good as what they see right now. Kenneth's views and models of awakening have changed at least three or four times since I've known him. So... what does that tell you? It tells me to be circumspect about where I build my house -- or maybe just avoid building a house in the first place

Models are best thought of as tools, IMHO. I'm glad we agree on that.

"My guess is that they believe in progress and stages, they just think stream-entry is what we'd call 4th path, and maybe sakadagami is what Kenneth would call stage 6. But I don't know." -apperception

I respectfully disagree. Having spent a lot of time in the IMS community, I'm reasonably sure that what they call stream entry is exactly the same as what we call stream entry. Same with 2nd Path. There is no reason to think otherwise; at U Pandita's monastery in Rangoon, that's how they do it, and that is where Bill and I got our model. It's also where IMS teachers got their model.

The idea that classical stream entry equates with my 5th stage/technical 4th Path arose within our own community, and is, in my opinion, completely misguided, based on very little experience of what is going on in the larger Buddhist world, especially Burma.

It's at 3rd Path that our model diverges from the IMS model. Instead of using technical criteria like nirodha samapatti and Pure Land jhanas to diagnose 3rd Path, the IMS community uses the 10 fetters model. They can't find anyone who has eradicated desire and aversion (neither can I) and therefore they can't find an anagami. My response to that is to dump the 10 fetters model as useless. Their response is to resort to hagiography.

Hagiography = religious language

"f you're going to try to open a dialog with people in any community other than ours, it's gotta help knowing what they even mean by enlightenment, what they see as the endpoint, and how they're dividing it up. For instance, I think part of the difficulty in communicating with the IMS people is that what they mean by "Stream-entry" is not what we mean by it. Maybe their stream-entry is our 4th path, for instance." -apperception

Not to beat a horse... but I really want to beat this horse because it is so important. No, the IMS teachers are not defining stream entry differently from pragmatic dharma stream entry. How do I know this? Because they are trained in the Mahasi Sayadaw system by Mahasi Sayadaw's disciples. Because of the Progress of Insight map, stream entry is not a nebulous concept in the Mahasi system; it's what happens when you complete the 16 Insight Knowledges for the first time. Not hard to diagnose for experienced teachers, which many of the IMS teachers are.

Not picking on you, Jim. Actually, I'm picking on my good friends Owen Becker and Nick Halay, who started this particular misconception, based on a misunderstanding both of what is going on in Burma and what is going on at IMS. Sorry, Owen and Nick, but you are completely out to lunch on this issue.

cont...

Jim, you are absolutely correct, however, in believing that the quasi-consensual understanding of anagami used at IMS is not at all what is meant by technical 3rd Path in the pragmatic dharma community. Likewise, 4th Path. To a mainstream IMS teacher, 4th Path virtually never happens.

"People, using poor Kenneth as an example, are all dynamic, ever-changing beings whose version of awakening is only as good as what they see right now. Kenneth's views and models of awakening have changed at least three or four times since I've known him. So... what does that tell you? It tells me to be circumspect about where I build my house -- or maybe just avoid building a house in the first place " -cmarti

Right! As long as we are alive and growing, our understanding will change. And this is really exciting! This is why 21st century dharma will (has already) gone beyond anything from days gone by; we live in a post-modern world. We get to peak under the hood! Everybody talks to everybody. We have access to all the information ever recorded. 21st century awakening can leave old-school awakening in the dust! As long as we don't cling to obsolete ideas and feel compelled to defend something just because we have said it in the past or because some dead saint allegedly said it.

"Look, I think the basic thing is that we have to base it in phenomenology (1st person, objective description). It's all we've really got until we get a complete reverse engineering of the brain processes underlying this." -apperception

Right! And this is precisely why there is such near-consensus on 1st and 2nd Path: there exists, in the Progress of Insight, a clear, phenomenological model for these attainments. Beyond this point, you either have to accept more phenomenology, e.g., nirodha samapatti and Pure Land jhanas as criteria for 3rd Path (technical model) or you have to resort to hagiography and myth (10 fetters model). I believe that the 10 fetters model is pure rubbish precisely because there are no phenomenological markers; the entire model consists essentially of 10 words. Worse yet, those words are Pali and it isn't clear to most of us how to translate them into English.

I believe that if one was to seriously consider what the following term 'atammayata' is referring to, one may get an idea (further conceptual overlay ;-0) of what it might be like to be 'fetter free'.

thehamiltonproject.blogspot.com.au/2012/...tion-atammayata.html

I'm not claiming a fetter free stage just speaking from ongoing experience of continuously dropping all of what I have termed 'objectification'. If such a term (atammayata) is supposed to be descriptive of permanent ongoing situation of mind equivalent to the fabled fetter free arahat, then I understand how it leads to no fetters arising.

All the craving and aversion gross or subtle, only arise (to riff of of Wilbers 1,2 ,3, approach and kenneth's commentary on it) in 'relationship' to some 'thing' else. This 'thing' is if not always a conceptual mental overlay over soemthing the mind has give 'form' to. Empty atoms being assigned form, name, meaning. A thought, a sensation, the visual field, sound, taste, smell. All of these are given 'form' by the mind , or even a 'formless' form so to speak and here is where the relationship of aversion and craving leaps from. They can only arise when there is some 'thing' for there to crave and feel aversion for.

I speak from ongoing experience. One does not have to be in deep samadhi, or semi-unconscious, or in NS to experience a awareness that does not give name and form and cut up the field of experience into 'things' to then react towards. If one simply allows or trusts that the brain of this mind/body organism can cognise and operate perfectly fine without the need to assign form to co-arising 'things' then one may become more open to the notion of the dropping away of all craving and aversion (the fetters of the later paths).

Just my own 2 cents.

"Not picking on you, Jim."

I don't take it as picking at all. I'm glad to have this explained to me as I've been really curious/confused by it, and that confusion was only amplified by the retreat experience.

This makes the experience I had on retreat even more mystifying, though. Before I had the teacher interaction I complained about, I described in group, to a different more experienced teacher, an experience which, to my mind, perfectly accords with climbing up into high equanimity and having fruitions. The response to the experience from the teacher was, "Keep up the great practice!"

I get the impression from what you've said that if I described that experience in a Burmese setting, it would probably have been identified as a path moment. Am I wrong about that? Am I overestimating how clear I am or how much my experience accords with the Mahasi Sayadaw system? Because it was that experience with the teacher at IMS that made me think, "Hey, maybe they just don't mean the same thing by first or second path."

" Instead of using technical criteria like nirodha samapatti and Pure Land jhanas to diagnose 3rd Path, the IMS community uses the 10 fetters model."

Kenneth, what's the basis for diagnosing 3rd path using nirodha samapatti and pure land jhanas? Where does this tradition of defining 3rd path this way start?