Dimensions of Human Development

You've got the right thread, eran. Your question is really aimed at the core of this - what are the interactions among the dimensions? Are there any? What has been helped, what has not been helped? What makes it worthwhile, and can that be described adequately?

BTW - "it" = contemplative efforts, like meditation.

It seems like what happened was, there was a backlash against the 10-fetters model and the greed/aversion/delusion (GAD) model. I'm thinking of the claims in MCTB and things Kenneth previously espoused but doesn't anymore. But now some are realizing that perhaps these initial reactions went too far, and there's something in the middle. In other words, there ARE psychological (emotional) changes that come directly from this process. It's just not clear what they are and how general (or universal) they are for practitioners and exactly at what parts of the path they occur.

Does this sound like a correct assessment of where we are with this?

As far as fostering psychological development in conjunction with contemplation, I have found behavior modification to come with relative ease since beginning to meditate seriously. Also, just down-to-earth self-analysis seems a lot more fruitful than before, if only because of a willingness to admit shortcomings and be wrong. But having begun this project, it's clear that it is a big one and I wonder what would be a more systematic approach for the yogi (short of therapy, which is not always an available privilege).

Florian, your list looks like a good start. I know I've been guilty of putting challenges off until the next path. Although to some extent that kind of works, I know it's weak sauce.

Eran, there was a thread here recently that Kenneth started about people's experiences overcoming depression through meditation. It was only a week or two ago. Should be easy to find.

For me, there seems to be a split between moment when I'm paying attention or noticing what's happening and moments when I'm completely caught. When I'm caught in reactivity, I'm just about the same person I've always been. A little wiser, a little older but just as caught in fear, self-judgement, projection, etc. OTOH when I'm paying attention at the very least there is more equanimity so that I'm able to stay with strong emotions for example. At times I find that letting go of a self that has arisen (usually around some role or view) is much easier and sometimes even automatic - I can have an intense experience and very quickly after it ends I'm back to "normal". I categorize most of the above as psychological dimension.

In the interpersonal dimension I find that my heart more readily opens to other people (and to parts of myself that are 'othered') and when it does there is compassion and acceptance even when there's anger. This is still an area that requires a lot of work, especially in pulling back my projections and noticing the times when I get reactive.

This one may be more on the cognitive side - I find that I'm more open to ideas that are outside my comfort zone and possibly contradict the way I believe the world works.

What still remains: strong negative emotions, getting stuck, some reactivity, some attachment to views, low moods, self doubt, sometimes acting out of old habits and views without awareness and probably a whole bunch more

Maybe a good way to process this topic is to observe your practice, to compare the you of before to the you of after (and we know there is a new you arising all the time). What has changed for this new you? What hasn't? Why do you think that is, and can you reliably correlate any changes to your practice?

Eran's post is a good template to work from, I think.

I don't know. I don't feel as though I've been doing the practice long enough or have gotten enough attainment to say anything useful.

Last year someone gave me the book Radical Acceptance by Tara Brach to read. This was before I did vipassana. I read the book, and it made sense to me, but I wasn't able to internalize any of the lessons of it. It's not Brach's fault. She includes exercises in the book, and I didn't do them. But now that I have been meditating for awhile and have gotten two paths, I think some of the message of that book is more meaningful to me.

For example, she talks about RAIN, which Michele McDonald came up with. That's Recognition, Acceptance, Investigation, and Non-Identification. I'm kind of at this point right now where I recognize and accept that there is a lot of aversion in my experience, and I've spent a lot of time investigating it on a microscopic level. The effect is that when it comes up, I don't take it personally. "Hey, there's hatred again." It's like a sprinkler on a lawn that turns on at a certain time every day, soaks things for awhile, and then turns off. I don't feel like it's me or not me (something I have to fight). It just is. There's aversion, but at least there's not aversion to the aversion to the aversion...

But that's how things are now. I'm still rockin' the review stage of second path, and I'm practicing jhana now. It's kind of like my inner self always has a cocktail in its hand. I might feel differently in a few months.

I still have a lot of the same problems, but I see them more clearly now. As difficult as things continue to be, I know that there's a key to spring me from the prison of my own mind. I have had some initial tastes of what freedom is like. I can never go back to seeing myself in the world as I did before. I will never again envy others who have more accomplishments or goodies in the world, because I know the quality of one's inner life trumps everything. I might have thought this sort of in the past, but I couldn't yet walk the walk.

"greed/aversion/delusion (GAD) model"

Where can I find more info on this? It there a group/tradition that particularly promotes this model as a "The Model" or is it just a general recognition that suffering is born with GAD?

It seems like mediation provides insights, but understanding the implication of those insights only occurs within the rest of "life". So I've seen through certain things while on the cushion or through a retreat, (this sensation I associate with insecurity, this sensation I associate with pride), but it takes them being re-triggered off the cushion LOTS OF TIMES and remembering that initial seeing through LOTS OF TIMES before the insight really sticks. Sometimes the coal gets dropped and that's it, but usually it's more gradual cultivation.

I actually think the reason Sanga is so important is because we need to have our insights tested. Sanga is often talked about in some kind,loving way, a community that fosters practice and teachers which give us knowledge... but really most insights are initially made in solitary investigation. But that's a hot house flower kind of insight. The real insight comes when it can manifest in a community. Not in a happy perfect community, but in a nitty gritty real life community. I have to admit that I don't even like saying "Sanga" because it is taken as something different than the nearest pub or the morning commuter train. I just mean community. But the practicing community is important, too, because it's really hard to even talk about this stuff unless you're doing this stuff. So despite what I said, I can appreciate the idea of Sanga, I just don't want to pretend that the Sanga can do your work for you!

"I actually think the reason Sanga is so important is because we need to have our insights tested."

Yep, I agree.

"Where can I find more info on this? It there a group/tradition that particularly promotes this model as a "The Model" or is it just a general recognition that suffering is born with GAD?"

I'm not sure. I'm the wrong person to pose doctrinal questions to. Greed, aversion, and delusion are traditionally considered the "three poisons", so if you look that up, you're liable to find answers. Daniel Ingram covers this under the "Emotional Model" in MCTB, where he argues that extinguishing GAD is in some ways a worthy ideal, but it's not necessary to be an arahat. John Peacock seems to be fond of the GAD model, as he mentions it many times in his lectures on paticcasamuppada. I'm sort of curious to know what the relationship is between GAD and the 10-fetters model (if there is a systematic one in Theravada).

I think a lot in terms of GAD, and I was tempted to give my thoughts on this in reply to this post, but I thought it would be considered off-topic. Basically, one of the teachers at the retreat I just went on says everyone seems to prefer one of the trio, and it makes up their personality. So you have the greedy personality, the delusional personality, and "the hater".

I observed that everyone seems to pursue two of these strategies for happiness. One is like the dominant hand, the other like the non-dominant hand. And then one is backgrounded (not pursued very much).

My hypothesis is that the process of awakening is a little bit different depending on what your "poison" is, so to speak. When aversion is extinguished, it's replaced by anatta, or the mind-as-mirror. When greed/attachment is extinguished, it's replaced by compassion. When delusion is extinguished, it's replaced by whatever shows up in that fruition (can't remember).

Something like this must be true. When people become highly attained, they keep their personality. Mahasi Sayadaw and Dipa Ma are great examples of this. Mahasi's nickname at IMS (behind his back, of course) was Mr. Void. He didn't reveal too much. His answers were very short. He had a habit of unintentionally sneaking up on people. I get the impression of a person who probably wasn't that emotional to begin with. It comes across in his writing, too. He's technical and sharp. It's like reading Immanuel Kant.

Dipa Ma on the other hand was very effusive. She blessed everyone she met. She arrived in the states on a plane and blessed the pilot and everyone on the plane as she was getting off. She radiated so much metta, people would break down crying just from her walking into the same room they were in. She had that kind of overflowing heart. You know someone like that didn't start out like Mahasi Sayadaw and become like that. She brought herself with her.

It seems like whatever defilements you have, those become pivots or doors through which one reaches awakening. Obviously if you're a sonuvabitch, that's not a strength. But the aversion fueling it becomes the door through which one enters nibbana. This happens during individual fruitions, but my guess is that there's a larger version of this happening within each personality as it traverses the path.

Dang, really good thoughts. I think you're on to something.

But now you've added another question to my list: I want to know what delusion transforms into!

(I'm probably delusional-greedy type, if I had to guess.)

Doesn't it just make sense that we work with what we have in front of us?

"My intent here is to collaborate on this, so I'd prefer you differentiate away" - Chris

All right then. But FTR, some of us are unifiers, but me? I'm a splicer!

This is how I see it. Each of the 4 dimensions of development are held together by the social structure in which they exist. I'll use a personal example. In the area of spiritual development I used to train in the zen tradition (actually, two separate zen traditions). If you and I were to join their weekly study group and started talking about states, stages and attainments we might be tolerated once, but not twice. We'd be asked to leave or told to shut up. These sanghas had and have incredible virtues, but looking back those environments stifled my spiritual development.

In another example, now in the arena of life experience, and here I'll use the example of work. Imagine a work place in which duplicity, heedless ambition and politicking are necessary skills. It's not hard to imagine the impact of such an environment on one's overall development.

I guess my point is that social context matters and it matters a lot.

I agree with Alvaro on this point, but I put my own spin on it. I see this as a necessary fifth element, not as a "whole other ball of wax".
Sooner or later all our awakenings get tested "in the marketplace". I include that aspect as a necessary part of my own development.
Intimate relationships, jobs, family, friends, finances, shelter, food, transportation, local and world politics, environmental problems. I don't get to evolve endlessly in a bubble separate from the rest of the world.
Put another way, can one person in a spaceship have complete freedom, happiness, and actualized potential, while people in another room of the spaceship get raped, murdered, and tortured?
Does oppression of others limit my own development?
I always thought I would deal with those problems better after I finish with my own enlightenment. But I never seem to finish it. At what point do I have enough awakening?
I understand the monkey wrench this throws in your model. It not only complicates the model. It causes the model to break down in ways I don't know how to fix. But I know for me, if I don't acknowledge it, then it becomes a blind spot.

I'm not proposing a model, actually, other than to spur conversation. I am proposing that we talk about human development in the context of contemplative practices. Since we're now doing that, I'm happy!

BTW - regardless of whether we do this meditation stuff alone (some folks try it that way) or together, in face to face sanghas, on the Internet via Skype or on the phone, we all face the same issues eventually. We all get into a practice hoping to grow in some way (another term for develop) and then.....

So, in terms of human development, has your practice moved the needle? How?

"But now you've added another question to my list: I want to know what delusion transforms into! "

The permanence of ultimate reality.

I got those transformations from page 242 of MCTB. I'll use them until I find a compelling reason to reject them.

"
Doesn't it just make sense that we work with what we have in front of us?



"

Yes. My hypothesis is that, more generally, the mind colors experience with its "pet poison". It's an automatic process, and it is not-self.

One quick question -- is there an effective way to separate the dimensions of development (four, five, ten) from the things that cause human beings to develop or regress (isolation, peer pressure, meditation, classroom teaching, therapy)?

"My hypothesis is that, more generally, the mind colors experience with its "pet poison". It's an automatic process, and it is not-self."

Yes, I agree. I'd say it this way -- we are creatures of genetics, habit and history. We all have some preferred ways to approach a world that we perceive as being "out there" and and often prone to hurt us in some way. So we do indeed develop preferred poisons, probably because they work at some level. A meditation practice allows us some space, eventually, to see these habits in action, see them as not-self (everything is not-self) and deal with them from that space. They will be no longer automatic if we work with them sufficiently.

And that can foster development on several dimensions

One thing I've observed from my own experience is the non-discriminating nature of the outflow of the poison. If aversion is particularly high one morning, there's a tendency for the mind to perceive the flaws in nearly everything. There will be a running commentary in the background about whatever is prominent in experience. If the sensations composing self become prominent in experience, the aversion is turned toward those.

It's probably common at this point for a person to think, "That's screwed up. I'm attacking myself. I need psychotherapy." And maybe they do. But I think the trick from a psychological health perspective is to not take it personally. The mind is averse to the self because it's averse to anything at the moment. Same goes for attaching/grasping and ignoring things.

It's a blind, automatic process. Everyone suffers from it to one degree or another. It's the nature of the mind. But you have a mind. You are not identical with your mind. Growth means learning to become disillusioned with the mind and finally non-identified with it, not siding with one part of it over another.

(And of course, "IMO," "YMMV", etc...)

"If aversion is particularly high one morning, there's a tendency for the mind to perceive the flaws in nearly everything. There will be a running commentary in the background about whatever is prominent in experience. If the sensations composing self become prominent in experience, the aversion is turned toward those."

Thus we have "moods."

"I got those transformations from page 242 of MCTB."

Ah! Thanks for that, I'll check it out...

"...if I don't acknowledge it, then it becomes a blind spot." - Gary

Agreed! And here be dragons.