Jason B:
Thanks for the link. I listened to the podcast, and read Chapman's
blog post that initiated the discussion. The blog post has a little more meat than the podcast, which is hampered by a bit of a dismissive or smug tone. It (the podcast) reminds me of a lot of professional skeptic blogs (Quackwatch, etc.) or Atheist-with-a-capital A discussions in which the speaker or author is enamored of his logical argument but grossly inaccurate or vague in characterizing that which he criticizes. Interesting that the interview is preceded by a defense against the accusation of scientism, and I can see why. I don't think they really bothered to criticize, much less describe, the Mahasi (or any other tradition). They just had a good chuckle over how misguided it is. So, that was a little annoying.
He certainly comes across that way. Though I've challenged him in the past, and he's always been receptive, open-minded, and patient.
He admits he doesn't know much about Theravada, and his engagement with pragmatic dharma is somewhat superficial. I still find a lot of what he says valuable.
But the blog post raises some good questions, and it would be interesting to see an in-depth discussion of them. The most concrete remarks are made by Ven. Sujato in the attached youtube videos. His comment that Mahasi-style practice is hampered by providing only one technique seems insightful.
The Sujato stuff was hilarious. I cracked up. It's a whole series of videos where he's dissing other Theravada schools. It's not even other branches of Buddhism. It's just other Theravada schools. I mean, c'mon.
I find
Yuttadhammo a lot more down to earth about the same sort of stuff.
But the argument that stream-entry claims by Mahasi-followers are invalid because they are common is itself a logical fallacy. I don't know what proportion are bogus, or what the situation is in Burma, but I think the claims made here are fairly common and mostly legit because A) the technique is unusually effective, and B ) the definition of stream-entry is a limited, but meaningful, definition. To some it may look like the game is rigged. They just lowered the bar. And yet the outcome is something profound, beneficial, and yes, hard to explain.
Yeah. I can't pay attention to that kind of stuff at all. If I had an opportunity to go sit with Sujato and have him guide me up through the jhanas to a fruition, I'd take it. Who cares what you call it? It might be an interesting experience, and it would be cool to compare. But I could really care less if someone on youtube says I'm not sotapanna because I jerked off or ate a meal after 12. C'mon.
All that said, I have noticed lately that the idea I've attained anything like enlightenment at any stage is a little embarrassing. I don't feel like I have much insight into the nature of being, and I'm not abnormally happy. I just know I went through those cycles (2), and I met those criteria. So I assume others have too.
The other definition of enlightenment that I subscribe to is Kenneth's "happiness that is independent of conditions." For now, that's a matter of faith.
Yeah. And this is the interesting stuff, and this is why I posted it.
Just as a point of discussion, I think Kenneth's definition is useful for two reasons: (1) it just sounds like what you'd expect enlightenment to be, and (2) it turns out to describe perfectly the experience of rigpa or PCE or whatnot (I don't know if they're the same - another interesting question).
If you hear the phrase "happiness without conditions", it sounds abstract. Very lofty. But in those non-dual experiences, it really DOES seem that way! Not in the sense "oh, this happiness will never end", but rather, "this happiness I'm experiencing now is based in unconditioned knowledge of the perfection of being." Perfect fit. Once I put all that together, I started doing Kenneth's 3rd gear stuff.
This kind of goes back to my post on the personality under conditions of awakening. The MCTB definition of awakening is really abstract. Kenneth's definition, by contrast, is concrete. Very easy to describe what one of those is like: "Everything was perfect." "I forgave everyone." You can't get anymore straightforward than that.
Problem is, landing a hard non-dual experience is hard. It's much easier to land a jhana. It may even be easier to get path. I don't know. People keep saying that if you get a few paths, the 3rd gear stuff is easier, but I haven't found that to be the case. I haven't had a powerful non-dual experience since
before I started meditating. Interesting stuff.
Anyway, I'm probably misusing terms. But if Chapman is right, we're all usually misusing terms all the time anyway.