Adyashanti on Different Kinds of Awakening

Maybe this link was already posted, but I know this is a hot topic here. A great talk from Adyashanti:

Thanks, I really liked the talk.

Awesome talk. Thanks for the link. I would describe my awakening more at the level of mind. The heart level does not fully resonate with me - does it for others?

"Maybe this link was already posted, but I know this is a hot topic here. A great talk from Adyashanti:

<span>;"

That's the best talk in the last year.

These categories (awakening at mind, heart, gut) are potentially useful.

What kind of awakening is principally going on here? Awakening at the mind? Is there much if any awakening at the heart and gut happening with the three gear practices or at any of Kenneth's levels of awakening?

"These categories (awakening at mind, heart, gut) are potentially useful.

What kind of awakening is principally going on here? Awakening at the mind? Is there much if any awakening at the heart and gut happening with the three gear practices or at any of Kenneth's levels of awakening?"

I'm not remembering the gut thing, but I was making breakfast when I listened to it. Might have to listen again. I thought his categories were mind, heart, and self. Is self equated with gut?

I don't feel like I can tell yet which kind applies to my practice, and it wasn't clear to me whether the difference depended on technique. Adyashanti tends to be a little coy about technique, far as I can tell. I did think that the level of heart was probably not getting much attention in my practice.

One can wake up at the level of the mind, the level of the heart, or the level of the gut. The sense of self at the gut level is an irrational grasping at existence. Awakening at this level means no more existential fear, no sense of a self that holds these views or that even achieves awakening. No more saying "no" to life or "no" to death.

"One can wake up at the level of the mind, the level of the heart, or the level of the gut. The sense of self at the gut level is an irrational grasping at existence. Awakening at this level means no more existential fear, no sense of a self that holds these views or that even achieves awakening. No more saying "no" to life or "no" to death. "

My understanding from reading about this in his books and watching a DVD a while ago was that awakening naturally moves through those centers (I thought he at that time tended to say it usually first opened in the mind, then settled into the heart, then to the gut) and this process is the post-awakening integration. From what I know of his techniques (from those sources and from doing workshops with Loch Kelly, who appears in the DVD I watched) is the "method" he tends to is that of inquiry, rather than meditation. The inquiry style that Loch Kelly used combined Advaita and Dzogchen ideas, and is done in the form of a talk mixed with questions for contemplation. I recall Adyashanti in his book saying that he felt it was unproductive to discuss ones own specific experiences in great detail because then others tend to want to try to emulate those experiences rather than looking at what is going on in their own practice right now, creating a tendency to striving and comparison that undermines being aware of what is. So it's quite a different approach than what is typically done by pragmatic dharmists.

There is a lengthy interview on batgap.org where Adyashanti talks in quite a bit of detail about his own experiences, though, which is quite interesting.

"My understanding from reading about this in his books and watching a DVD a while ago was that awakening naturally moves through those centers (I thought he at that time tended to say it usually first opened in the mind, then settled into the heart, then to the gut) and this process is the post-awakening integration."

Though the impression I got from the linked talk is that it is not always linear, and some people wake up at the level of (for example) the heart and continue to think that that is the whole of awakening. Or one might be very awake at the level of mind and easily see they are this open, spacious awareness, but every time they attempt to relate to someone, it's a disaster.

This got me thinking about something that continues to perplex me, which is: what is the relationship between the kind of awakening we're achieving in pragmatic dharma (going by Folk's or Ingram's systems) and the emotions? MCTB presents what Adyashanti would consider a pure mind-based approach. Kenneth's stages above technical 4th path, however, seem to bring in the heart dimension, though I don't understand them enough to say how true that is. I wonder if the heart dimension is something that opens naturally once you take the mind-based approach to its logical end? Or is that not the case for everyone?

I heard an inteview with Adya on Buddhist Geeks where he said he spent 15 years in Zen training. Then when he started teaching he found that he was more effective in getting people forward on the path by his talking to them not by their meditating. At first he kept going back to his traditional Zen teacher for her approval which she gave. Here is a 2 1/2 minute video on him at work:

Very powerful.
jack

I'm really glad to have run into this talk. I think he's talking about something that's independent of technique, and to some extent, independent of "paths" and "stages" like we talk about here; in fact, I feel like it's a useful balance to the misleadingly "linear" appearance of the "path" model.

These days, I can't really find a way in which the four-path model can help me with my present dilemmas; on the other hand, I think that if I'm willing to be honest with myself, I know exactly what I am still defending on the level of heart, mind, and that gut-flinch terror that holds the self in place.

For the record:

Mind: 57.7 % awake
Heart: 39.2 % awake
Gut: 12.3 % awake

'I'm really glad to have run into this talk. I think he's talking about something that's independent of technique, and to some extent, independent of "paths" and "stages" like we talk about here; in fact, I feel like it's a useful balance to the misleadingly "linear" appearance of the "path" model.'

Well, yes and no. He's suggesting that awakening is not necessarily linear, because it's multidimensional, and you can jump around between these dimensions. That's the part that really got my attention and made me wonder, "If I want to wake up at the level of heart or gut, should I be doing something specifically for that rather than expecting it's going to come about naturally from awakening at the level of mind?"

But I don't get the sense that he's throwing out technique. He seems to say pretty clearly that you wake up at the level of mind by progressive disembedding ("I am not the body... I am not feelings... etc."). The way he described mind-awakening sounded like straight-up 1st gear practice like we do here.

I really like the percentages, by the way. Where can I buy my own Awakening Meter to measure my own levels?

"Though the impression I got from the linked talk is that it is not always linear, and some people wake up at the level of (for example) the heart and continue to think that that is the whole of awakening. Or one might be very awake at the level of mind and easily see they are this open, spacious awareness, but every time they attempt to relate to someone, it's a disaster.
"

That makes sense. Everyone brings different needs, baggage and personality. And people are generally (I assume?) attracted to practices that resonate with their personalities or current needs. Which makes me think the great diversity of methods and styles in the world is a good thing.

Yes, I didn't mean to suggest that he's throwing out technique- just that you can apply this test regardless of whether you use his techniques or not. And this test is a good way of examining those questions that are not even asked by the "path" approach.

When he pointed out "you can be awakened one way, and not in another", that really clicked with me. Hence my tongue-in-cheek "Awakening Meter" readings. I feel like day-to-day, I can feel anything from quite awakened to absolutely not at all awakened. But if I look at it from the point of view that there are these aspects of me, each awakened at differing levels, and each coming to the fore at different times, it kinda resolves that ongoing neurotic questioning of the value my practice. Different walls are crumbling at different rates.

Perhaps there's a Four Paths of Mind, Four Paths of Heart, and Four Paths of Gut but, oy vayzhmir, let's not go there!!

"Different walls are crumbling at different rates. "

Nice!

The walls sometimes seem to rebuild themselves (at at different rates), too!

"Nice!

The walls sometimes seem to rebuild themselves (at at different rates), too! "



Sorry, couldn't resist...

"That makes sense. Everyone brings different needs, baggage and personality. And people are generally (I assume?) attracted to practices that resonate with their personalities or current needs. Which makes me think the great diversity of methods and styles in the world is a good thing. "

Well that's the thing that kind of concerns me. My basic way of getting around in the world is to detach and build intellectual models of things. Of course this practice with its maps and disembedding would appeal to me. Of course it's doing me some good, but I wonder if the things I really need to work on are in the heart or gut areas (so to speak, holding these categories lightly now, etc.).

To put it more generally: maybe we seek out the spiritual practice that best supports our characteristic fixation, and maybe that's not always a good thing.

Rockin out to Floyd... that song will be in my head for the next few days...

I'm pretty sympathetic to that concern. I've added in some Tibetian stuff (dakini meditation) --- which is something I never resonated with because it was so woo-woo mythic blah-blah --- but something told me I should be looking at "how" I was fixating and not just "what". It's too early to tell if it is doing me any good, but it does seem to be exercising/exorcising some part of my psyche that doesn't normally get touched. Kinda like learning a new workout technique and getting sore in a whole new way. I haven't dropped noting, though.

Heart stuff seems to be the stuff of raw, primal, even proto-emotions -- things that create pre-tensions. First metta type stuff to strengthen the muscle and deal with how we even push away goodness. then things more like 6 realms meditation or maybe give-take practices (accept all sufferning, give away all relief) and deal with how we avoid negativeness.

Gut seems like it would be the last to go (except maybe if we've had near death experiences). Seems like it is so basic, it can't really be "approached". Seems like just being ready to die and then dying.

Just thinking out loud...

I'm recalling this from memory, but I believe in Hinduism there are thought to be 4 different spiritual personality types. One comes to God through knowledge, one through devotion, one through works, and one through something I don't remember, ha.. In the Buddhist sects outside of the Theravadan, the Mahayana and Tibetan, the work that is focused on here is seen as the first step before the work of heart can begin. I remember when it was said on this message board that when one reached certain stages of development compassion was no longer accessible. It was a weird time for me, as I feared that upon reaching certain realizations things like compassion and warmth would be gone. That that has not been my own experience. I understand the perspective that allows a view like that to arise, but it remains a perspective. After my most recent signifigant shift things like metta and compassion became more accessible. Antero put it very succintly in his journal when he wrote about metta as a natural law of the universe. I'm paraphrasing, apologies. I find that I can't do metta practice anymore, but that by thinking of metta whatever I look at seems to be alive with that energy. I can't feel it as a mindstate, it's more the physicality of it. My own process is continuing to explore what really satisfies. For me, I probably tend more towards the connectivity side, but it's different for everyone. Also, Apperception ******* killed it with his last line in post 17. Great thought.

"To put it more generally: maybe we seek out the spiritual practice that best supports our characteristic fixation, and maybe that's not always a good thing."

Yeah, I think that can happen. Sort of like the guy I met once who was on work release from jail for selling drugs. He had a new (legal) job selling vitamins via a multi-level marketing system. Kinda the same idea, right? I think discernment comes into play. Probably in the beginning most people don't have enough awareness of their own baggage to identify those fixations or be comfortable working on them. When you have a little more self-awareness of your weaknesses, fascinations or dysfunctions you can bring in practices that work to loosen those things up a little.

I am increasingly of the opinion that there are many flavours of awakening to be found. Someone might manifest their awakening in joy, another in poise, another in precision and clarity. Jack Kornfield's "Enlightenments" article is good on this, but I wish he had included some examples of enlightened folk who weren't Asian men in robes/fancy titles.

www.inquiringmind.com/Articles/Enlightenments.html

Well, one of the people he uses as an example is Dipa Ma, who is not a man nor was she wearing robes or having any fancy titles, so that's pretty good I think

Oops yes, I forgot her! But it's frustrating that he glosses over the awakenings of himself and his fellow teachers. He inadvertantly ends up suggesting that awakening only happens to revered Asian teachers.

"Yeah, I think that can happen. Sort of like the guy I met once who was on work release from jail for selling drugs. He had a new (legal) job selling vitamins via a multi-level marketing system. Kinda the same idea, right? I think discernment comes into play. Probably in the beginning most people don't have enough awareness of their own baggage to identify those fixations or be comfortable working on them. When you have a little more self-awareness of your weaknesses, fascinations or dysfunctions you can bring in practices that work to loosen those things up a little. "

What do you mean by "discernment"?