Devotion and awakening

If sankhara is taken as 'fabrication' of mind, and we take fabrication of mind to be any 'objects' mentally assigned 'form' and 'name' , we can discover how to simply cease giving rise to these 'objects' and see something quite suprisignly freeing.

A mentally fabricated 'object' overlays and is assigned to empty atoms now with name and form, now the 'object' of consciousness to be evaluated as good, bad, meh! co-triggering for example ****** sensations in the chest to then be reacted towards with aversion with the mind assigning all blame for such aversion to the 'object' of consciousness.
(or alternatively sankhara as the mental urge to fabricate a co-arising mental overlaying 'object' with a lunging consciousness on that same 'object' to then be assigned a co-arising 'form' and 'name' to then trigger co-arising ****** sensations in chest to then be reacted towards with aversion for the created 'object')

If one simply trains the mind to operate and function without construing 'objects' to mentally overlay and cut up the experience of the whole field of experience (sight, sound, touch, smell, taste, thought) at once, then the whole sequence of DO comes crashing down in my experience. A mind that continues to operate in the world, to study, to speak with the wifey, to do this and that, poop, shower, but does not overlay any of it with the mental overlay of 'object'. will see that it is quite freeing and exposing of much inherent immeasurable friendliness to operate like so.

Disclaimer: this is not my permanent condition although it is what I am continuing to train the mind to do i.e. drop the construing of mental overlayed 'objects' over the whole field of experience while functioning consciously.

More 2 cents.

@Nikolai #123

Nick, what you are describing is a passing phase, as well it should be. Check back with us in 6 months to tell us what the next phase is. If you were to report the same things 6 months from now, I would be worried that you are stuck in a cul-de-sac. I believe it is possible to sustain such a viewpoint for a long time, possibly even a lifetime; but that would not be ideal. To emphasize one perspective (in this case the no-self of the 1st person) at the expense of the 2nd and 3rd person perspectives is indeed a kind of progress and can even be considered the ideal of old-school Buddhism. But it is an impoverished kind of existence, devoid of relationship and love. There are modern day exemplars of that approach and they are indeed as impressive as they are tragically flawed. We no longer have to settle for a kind of one-dimensional awakening that leaves behind the very things most of us value about this human life. 21st century awakening has room for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person perspectives. This is precisely why I say that we have already left old-school enlightenment in the dust and will continue to evolve our understanding of what awakening can be as we continue to evolve as a culture.

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

I first learned about the connection between NS and anagami from U Pandita in Rangoon in 1993. To paraphrase from memory, he said, "those noble ones, the anagamis and arahats, have access to a special kind of peace that is not available at lower levels of attainment." He then went on to speak of a special kind of cessation called nirodha samapatti in which the yogi enters and dwells in nibbana. I later learned that it was a truism in the Mahasi camp that only anagamis and arahats could access NS. I turned that around to realize that NS was therefore the diagnostic criterion for 3rd Path.

As for the Pure Land jhanas, this is a little trickier since I never even heard of them until I discovered the first two (of 5) in the mid 90s. I dubbed them the Pure Land jhanas because I was doing a Pure Land invocation ("namo Amitabha") when I stumbled upon the first of them. Since then, I've taught them to many people, including Daniel Ingram, who wrote about them in MCTB. Bewilderingly, he got the attribution wrong again, claiming that "we [Kenneth and I] have come to call them Pure Land One and Pure Land Two, as this seemed as good a thing to call them as anything..." In fact, Daniel had nothing to do with the naming, as I had been calling them Pure Land jhanas since I first accessed them. In any case, I remembered a map of the 31 realms of existence that used to hang on the wall in a monastery in Penang that mentioned some jhanas beyond the first eight. And then I found the map online! It lists 5 "suddhavassa" (pure abodes) that only anagamis can access. And these 5 special heavenly realms correspond to jhanas (Circa 2008, I gained acess to the remaining 3). By this map, to have access to Pure Land jhanas is to be an anagami.

Here is the link to the Access to Insight map of the 31 realms, which shows the five suddhavasa (Pure Abode) jhanas that are accessible only to anagamis and arahats:

www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html

"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." -apperception

I puzzle over this as well, but it gets easier when I try to put myself in their shoes. Imagine that you have a beautiful facility, the crown jewel of American retreat centers. It costs a million dollars a year to run, a significant portion of which comes from retreat fees. Add to this your mission statement: "IMS is a spiritual refuge for all who seek freedom from the suffering of mind and heart. We offer meditation retreats rooted in the Theravada Buddhist teachings of ethics, concentration and wisdom. These practices help develop awareness and compassion, giving rise to greater peace and happiness in the world."

You better get some butts in the seats! If not, you will neither pay the bills nor fulfill the mission. With this in mind, you might naturally evolve a policy of avoiding mention of things that tend to alienate your base. Who is your base? Mostly cultural Buddhist with casual practice. Most of them are pre-A&P, let alone stream-enterers. Even if you can easily diagnose Path and Fruition, there may be explicit or unspoken rules against it. Why risk it? Pragmatic dharma folks are one in a hundred. Why would you upset the many for needs of so few?

I don't know if this is why IMS teachers avoid straight talk about attainments, I'm just musing aloud. And I don't mean to impugn the integrity of the teachers there; I have a lot of respect for most of them. It's frankly not a matter of integrity, it's a matter of priorities.

cnt'd from above...

Here is another possibility: Even teachers who are trained in the Mahasi system may not be expert diagnosticians. The technical approach doesn't come naturally to everyone. And given that their teaching milieu does not emphasize diagnosis, there is little reason to work on it. You can probably be a successful teacher in that environment without being able to spot a fruition event.

"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." -apperception

To answer your first question more directly, it depends on the teacher. Teachers in Burma are as individual as teachers here. Given your clear reporting, Sayadaw U Pandita would certainly be able to identify your Path moment. You would see him smile and his eyes would light up. As to whether he would tell you "that was magga-phala"... probably not in so many words. He is often not that direct when it comes to naming attainments. But you would know from context. You would be acknowledged and he would help you tweak your practice, perhaps suggesting that you make resolutions to re-experience fruitions.

Sayadaw U Kundala, on the other hand, would probably tell you straight up. In fact, when I described cessations to him after 2nd Path, he said, "That is magga-phala"! (Path and Fruition.) Then, he taught me how to call up both 1st and 2nd Path fruitions. He was by far the most forthcoming of my Burmese teachers. He also pointed out all of the Insight Knowledges all along the way as they developed.

" This is precisely why I say that we have already left old-school enlightenment in the dust and will continue to evolve our understanding of what awakening can be as we continue to evolve as a culture."

Haha, ok. My wife would probably disagree with you. 1st/2nd/3rd person view is a non-issue concerning those I have continuous contact with in the flesh (or skype . I guess in 6 months/a year /years we shall see.

Wouldn't a teacher who played to all motivations and objectives be the ideal teacher? Not just one who narrows the options because he/she says this is better over whatever other option? Why so quick to step on such an objective most probably held by a few of your own students? Aren't you simply alienating people and their motivations in place for forcing another view of the world? Isn't this somewhat like the mushroom factor you once railed against? Isn't one simply deciding for the rest of their potential and current students how they should live and choose to practice based on current 'views' that may seem to change with the wind? If so, then I respectfully withdraw from being the antagonist further and wish you all the success in the current view, Kenneth.

"
I puzzle over this as well, but it gets easier when I try to put myself in their shoes. Imagine that you have a beautiful facility, the crown jewel of American retreat centers. It costs a million dollars a year to run, a significant portion of which comes from retreat fees. Add to this your mission statement: "IMS is a spiritual refuge for all who seek freedom from the suffering of mind and heart. We offer meditation retreats rooted in the Theravada Buddhist teachings of ethics, concentration and wisdom. These practices help develop awareness and compassion, giving rise to greater peace and happiness in the world."
"

One more for the road,

What if at sankharauppheka, traditionally known as equanimity of 'formations', the 11th nana, it was to be about equanimity of fabrications (sankhara) as I have described above? Mentally fabricated 'objects'. If one was to cease 'noting' and pay attention to the tendency of the mind to fabricate 'objects' and due to seeing such a tendency, the mind was to cease fabricating them, what sort of path moment or brain change would that result in? A simple 'blip'? A profound conscious absence of all misery? The same results?

Perhaps Chelek (chuck) was right when comparing Mahasi noting to Achaan Chah's method. The noting technique if kept up continuously, may lead to a continuation of the tendency of fabricating 'objects (to then note) as the mind is leaning towards the next 'thing' (mentally fabricated 'object') to note, and such an approach may then lead to the 'technical paths' as talked of here whereas a mind becoming aware of how fabrications (objects of consciousness including the subjective reaction towards them) are arising and how their cessation comes about, will see a different change?

Flogging a dead horse,

Nick

"Wouldn't a teacher who played to all motivations and objectives be the ideal teacher? Not just one who narrows the options because he/she says this is better over whatever other option? Why so quick to step on such an objective most probably held by a few of your own students? Aren't you simply alienating people and their motivations in place for forcing another view of the world? Isn't this somewhat like the mushroom factor you once railed against? Isn't one simply deciding for the rest of their potential and current students how they should live and choose to practice based on current 'views' that may seem to change with the wind?" -Nikolai

These are good points, Nick. I'll carefully consider what you've said. My sense is that I wouldn't be much of a teacher if I kept quiet when I thought someone I care about could use a nudge, but I may be wrong. The hope is that if I am right, you won't have to spend as much time as I have chasing a chimera.

My current belief is that the awakening that will work best for us nowadays is a balanced one, less like a power lifter and more like a decathlete. It's still possible to be a spiritual power lifter, a kind of throwback to the days of yore, but it's such a poor fit with our culture that I think it will bring as much suffering as it alleviates. If you are still able to feel love, then you are fine, and my fears that your practice is becoming unbalanced are unfounded. If you say that you no longer relate to love as such, but that you are gentle and loveable and present with other people, I would say that it's now possible to both love and be loved... and we have the technology to develop that kind of balance. Our enlightenment won't look exactly like that of the Buddha or Ramana Maharshi, but that is a good thing, not a bad one. Their time is past. It's a brand new day.

"I first learned about the connection between NS and anagami from U Pandita in Rangoon in 1993." -kennethfolk

A little bit of internet research tells me that this connection was made as early as Buddhaghosa.

www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/n_r/nirodha_samaapatti.htm

"Most of them are pre-A&P, let alone stream-enterers." - kennethfolk

I don't know why, but this still surprises me. Probably because they're teaching real vipassana there. There's a lot of life philosophy stuff, especially in the dharma talks, but they're teaching the Mahasi noting technique. I felt like the teachers sometimes talked directly to the psychological stuff, but they also encouraged students not to spin in it and to focus on some of the technical aspects. And I saw a lot of people who at least appeared to be working hard.

I guess appearances are deceiving. I, too, left with the impression that most of the people in my group were pre-A&P. Beth had the same impression of her group, which consisted in people who had done many retreats.

As for your explanation, yeah. Between that and what beta said in the other thread, it does make sense on a certain level. And no, I never got the impression there was a question of integrity. I think there's something deeply misguided and maybe unkind about letting people flounder in deeply unpleasant states without saying, "Hey, look, up ahead!" and showing them how to get there. But that's the opinion of a non-teacher with little experience who has never had to run a retreat with 100 people.

"You would be acknowledged and he would help you tweak your practice, perhaps suggesting that you make resolutions to re-experience fruitions ... Then, he taught me how to call up both 1st and 2nd Path fruitions." -kennethfolk

Really curious about this. Is the technique he showed you the one you wrote about on this site (rolling the eyes into the back of the head)? I've tried this repeatedly at various stages of my practice and have been unable to pull it off.

I would like to learn how to call up fruitions and how to differentiate between 1st and 2nd path fruitions. I've had a few experiences that seem to fit the description of fruitions, but I'm never 100% sure. They always only occur without warning and when my mind is at its most subtle and powerful. I'm not likely to have one now, for instance, though I've gotten the impression that sakadagamis are able to call them up whenever.

Are there any resources on this site or elsewhere that might help me explore this dimension of my practice more?

"I read quite a bit of the thread that Nikolai linked to, in which Ron very patiently responds to a lot of criticism and skeptical questioning... Kudos to Ron for his patience and ability to be articulate in unfavorable conditions."

Thanks someguy!

I'm jumping back into this conversation kind of late, but I wanted to bring this up again because it goes to an original point that Chris was making - are we becoming isolated and intolerant?

I really believe that a pragmatic view of the dhamma is valuable and worth sharing. There is a potential that it could stay locked in a silo, so to speak, on these specialized technical forums and the larger mainstream community wouldn't hear about it at all or only hear that it was "dangerous" (as that teacher apperception describes has no doubt heard).

So my opinion is that those of us that are comfortable with it should put ourselves out there and get involved in more mainstream buddhist communities as openly pragmatic folks.

The key is, as Chris has said and Kenneth is alluding to: respect. My goal in engagement isn't to convert people to my way of thinking, but to humanize a pragmatic approach. You have to put up with a lot of just plain madness when you do this, what my wife has called "sticking your hand in the crazy" - but I think it's worth it if you keep your cool.

I've done this on a couple of other forums and in three meat-space communities, and so far it has been fun, frustrating and rewarding. Every time I've done it I've had people contact me privately wanting to know more and expressing a sense that they are dissatisfied with the mushroom effect. So, it feels like I'm offering a perspective people may need.

I have Kenneth to thank for this gutsy approach - he is the one who originally really put himself out there.

"The hope is that if I am right, you won't have to spend as much time as I have chasing a chimera.
"

It is simply one's opinion that it is a chimera and probably not very pragmatic to compare one's own failed attempt to others. I equate apperception to what I've described not anything else, not the original 3rd gear approach nor direct mode. In the spirit of what I've been doing all these years, I jump into the deep end. So far, I have not come to any conclusion you have. It's a good thing this place is called Kenneth Folk Dharma due to the new direction then, no? Hehe

Just for data, I act more kind, a better listener, more open and 'lovable' towards my wife and loved ones than i ever have been in my life. Thus I continue, not for some projected idea of clinging to noself. Simply because of the results I see in daily life. To be able to turn and give up one's train of thought or sublte desire to do this or that, intention to do this or that for the benefit of another luminous being within the field of experience (my wife, my little 3 year old nephew, my sisters, my parents, my 19 year old cat who I give shiatsu to for example) is priceless compared to the 'Nick' who needed to feel a certain way to be able to simply do that. And more than often he didn't feel like it. There was always some 1st person viewpoint there to get something from the 'relationship'. In the absence of a 1st person, 2nd person and 3rd person viewpoint, I see nothing but benefits for all. I assume one is simply guessing as to what I've talked about concerning what I do. It is undeniably the best option for myself. It seems the disagreements always come back to attachment to subjective reactions of affect. I can only speak from experience, the immeasurable friendliness in the absence of 'love' on a pedestal, trumps it manifold. But can't prove it beyond in-the-flesh interaction.

Nick

So I continue. Not to poke kenneth with my irritating stick, nor to impress on others but simply because pragmatically, Nick when he ceases to objectify the 'world' and the 'beings' within it (including Kenneth in whatever manifestation), is a much better Nick by far.

Kenneth, then I am assuming this new viewpoint changes the way one sees GW? If not, then you might want to ask about whether GW 'loves' anymore. (Second hand hearsay: I heard in NH he said he did not love his offspring anymore since the change, i.e. no self narrative thought, to a large group of meditators in the university. This is useful info to know.)

Nick

@NIkolai 140, 141

Here is the problem I am having, Nick. You are telling us that "Nick when he ceases to objectify the 'world' and the 'beings' within it (including Kenneth in whatever manifestation), is a much better Nick by far." (post 141)

In fact, you have been telling us this for several years now. I don't spend a lot of time with you lately, so all I know is what you post here. And that is the source of my cognitive dissonance. Because even as you assure us of your "immeasurable friendliness" (post 140) you are posting in a way that makes me question it.

For example, "It is simply one's opinion that it is a chimera and probably not very pragmatic to compare one's own failed attempt to others" seems to me unkind and presumptuous.

Also, "So far, I have not come to any conclusion you have. It's a good thing this place is called Kenneth Folk Dharma due to the new direction then, no? Hehe ..." This strikes me as snarky.

"To be able to turn and give up one's train of thought or sublte desire... to do this or that for the benefit of another luminous being... is priceless compared to the 'Nick' who needed to feel a certain way to be able to simply do that..." (post 140) sounds grandiose and self-serving.

Overall, the tone of some of your recent posts strikes me as narcissistic. You are asking us to believe that someone who is doing a great deal of public self-promotion has overcome the attachment to self. Maybe so, but I just don't see it yet.

Important note! I am not attacking you personally or impugning your character in any way. As far as I know you are a good and decent human being with much to offer. I am, rather, pointing out that some of your recent behavior appears to be at odds with your claims.

Disclaimer: imagine a calm, tranquil, soft jovial aussie accent as you read on, actually please maintain this mental overlay for all my writing.

Actually the 'objectifying' part is quite new, a number of months only. Isn't this a 'straw man' argument? Though i admit, all past shifts have led to a 'better Nick'. I'm referring to the 'objectifying' part. That is not something I ever talked of nor had insight into before.

K: This strikes me as snarky, self serving, and grandiose

Ok. It was certainly not the intention behind what I wrote. It was however how you read it. So I appreciate the feedback. I'm just responding to stimuli truthfully. Pragmatically, I'm sharing. How would it look if such sharing was acceptable to you?

Again, there is no need to keep doing this if neither of us can't change what is triggering nor triggered from these exchanges, in public or out. I write as I do naturally without the insinuations you have expressed. I re-read what I wrote and I don't see any grandiose nor snarky nor self serving threads through it. Unless the emoticons or the 'haha' are triggering the wrong response for you. i.e. I stopped using them awhile back due to such misunderstood emotive cues and the way they tried to hook the reader. I was experimenting with that again. But it would be interesting to know if others had the same impression, as impressions aren't always universal. Our past exchanges are most probably influencing interpretations.

Apologies for any hard feelings on your part. I'm simply sharing. if this is unacceptable from now on, do please say so before you trigger more exchanges from me.


Nick

Grandiose, self serving, snarky, I don't see it. After reading Kenneth's post I reread Nicks because I was surprised at the reaction. Still don't see it. I see over sensitivity however, perhaps a sore spot was struck.

B

" But it would be interesting to know if others had the same impression, as impressions aren't always universal. Our past exchanges are most probably influencing interpretations."

I think it always *sounds* like you two (Nick, Kenneth) are pretending to be polite through gritted teeth to someone you don't really like when you are engaged in conversation, which inevitably leads to long back and forths about what words exactly were misunderstood, which goes nowhere.

But what is perhaps interesting is that this suggests that even when one feels no sense of agency or engagement with emotions, there are levels of response to things happening that would have in the past been seen as "feeling annoyed" etc. but no longer trigger that response and thus don't get edited? I have no idea. In other words, just because we feel happier/more peaceful/detached/etc do we really change in terms of our personalities, quirks, habits, preferences? Everyone I know who has been awake for some years still has pretty distinct tastes, preferences, styles, likes and dislikes (ie they'd rather eat eggs than tuna casserole, or like jazz better than r&b, they vote for this or that political party...). Like, you know, human beings. </can'twealljustgetalong>

"I think it always *sounds* like you two (Nick, Kenneth) are pretending to be polite through gritted teeth."

I wasn't going to say anything, but giragirasol's statement is really how I hear it, too.

But I guess I wouldn't say "always". I would say "often". (I'll be g. doesn't think "always" either, but is just pointing strongly in that direction.) Sometimes I think you guys really appreciate each other.

>shrug<

I appreciate you guys.

That will be my act of devotion for this thread!

" I would say "often". (I'll be g. doesn't think "always" either, but is just pointing strongly in that direction.)"

Yes. "Often." Like slightly competitive brothers who know right where all each others buttons are.

But perhaps another thread (or private skype call) for further discussion on that tangent? This thread had some really good and interesting discussions in it...

In my experience, internet discussion boards make everyone (sound?) a little ******** than they really are. Which is why I usually prefer to avoid them.

I certainly don't grit my teeth nor harbor any ill will towards Kenneth or anyone else here as I sit in front of the computer and type responses. Just giving my 2 cents, responding to what is typed according to how this mind interprets and thinks.

However, it doesn't always get communicated in a way which triggers pleasant vibes in the chests of others. Often what I have to say is either counter-intuitive, misunderstood culturally, socially, etc, denied as a possibility or worthwhile, disliked or liked for a variety of reasons, run through a mental filter where the 'object' of Nick has been pre-evaluated in some way with the read text tinged with that evaluation either positively or negatively or neutrally and/or I just am not using typed/written language which plays to the emotional motivations of the reader in a way which garners their admiration, praise, fondness, agreement and other pleasant type emotive responses. I guess I don't have that 'urge' arise to try and trigger emotive responses via the written text these days except to share what I have personally found liberating. I have tried though to find a balance, but it still seems some simply take issue with it. Can't do much but keep trying and refining the means by which i communicate via the written text.

This no doubt happens to everyone from time to time. I may come off as worse for not having any 'urge' to get some specific emotive response, not playing to the emotional needs of the reader or not having any worried reaction towards how others read what I write arise. Not much of an emotional agenda when communicating here so to speak. *

I hope one read all this with a relaxed, jovial aussie accent mentally overlaying it. If you had a mental overlay of 'teeth gritting' fake politeness, then go back again and re-read what I wrote with the new overlay.*

* Last post on this subject. Moving on.

""Most of them are pre-A&P, let alone stream-enterers." - kennethfolk

I don't know why, but this still surprises me. Probably because they're teaching real vipassana there. There's a lot of life philosophy stuff, especially in the dharma talks, but they're teaching the Mahasi noting technique. I felt like the teachers sometimes talked directly to the psychological stuff, but they also encouraged students not to spin in it and to focus on some of the technical aspects. And I saw a lot of people who at least appeared to be working hard.
"

I'd like to return to something apperception said in post 137. I too noticed that the IMS teachers are really teaching vipassana, and it seems to me that people who sit for days on end in a retreat doing the practice, or who are going to local sanghas where they have opportunities for focused practice on a daily basis, should be getting beyond A&P. So why do they stay in the early nanas? Are those of us who practice pragmatic dharma and who post on this forum on to something that could work for anyone if they would only do it, or are the people who are attracted to this practice just particularly gifted at this? If Kenneth or Daniel went to IMS and took over the place, sat down with the students who go there, and taught them what they teach here and on DhO, would a lot of those people pack up and leave, or would they actually get enlightened?

This may be a useless question, but I'm putting it out there. I'm also curious about another thing: what are the long-term effects for meditation students who never progress beyond the early nanas? Are they benefiting in a substantial way, or do they just enjoy talking about their wonderful meditation practice? What keeps them in the game?

I guess both questions have some relevance as I think about how to talk about my own practice with such people.