A little clarifying:

By "physioenergetic development"* I refer to the process of insight (i.e. the process of the progress of insight), in other words the development and attainment of paths. And when talking about paths I refer to the possibly limited subset of paths often named on this forum as MCTB paths.


A little discussion:

It seems there aren't anyone who started the process of insight (eg. by practicing Mahasi noting), did AF practices, and while having not attained stream-entry then got AF. In other words it seems that anyone who gets AF either already have stream-entry or more paths under their metaphorical belt or have not attained any path and are also either not interested in getting it or so able to.


A little questioning:

(a) Is AF a superset of the culmination of physioenergetic development?

(b) If not, is it possible to progress in physioenergetic development after attaining AF?

(c) If a is true, does that make AF practice a "shortcut" of sorts, apparently either bypassing the paths or speeding the development of them?

(d) Does AF require any progress in the process of insight?

(e) Would HAIETMOBA ever lead to stream-entry?


A little rambling:

If AF is either a superset of the MCTB paths or does not at all cut off physioenergetic development as defined here, and given that AF practice is either equally time-efficient or more so for any given yogi, then I do not see any reason why anyone should practice anything else while striving for "liberation".

Thank you
---

* Thanks to Kenneth Folk from whose writings I stole this phrase

I'd say there's good reason to consider AF "5th path".



Similarly, I don't see any reason that one should aim at stream entry when one could aim directly for 4th path. It would certainly be more efficient...if one knew a practice that would accomplish that.

(As AF means "actual freedom", how does one "practice AF"?)

Thanks for your answer, EiS. I've read quite a bit of your writing and I enjoy it



What reason specifically is this?



If "practice" is interpreted as a noun, the practice of AF would be any activity engaged in with the intent of getting actually free.

If "practice" is interpreted as a verb, the practice of AF would be an ongoing PCE.

I made this transition by doing a similar thing to what got me previous paths, namely vipassana.

I was surprised when I found out that it was helping. On the whole, no one really recognized that it was possible (in the pragmatic dharma world), but perhaps only because no one ever tried doing an enormous amount of vipassana after 4th path.



The way you phrased it suggested that you thought the relevant practice would be different than what gets "physioenergetic development", which I don't think need be true. Again, I did vipassana. Lots and lots of it. Can't get AF that way before you get 4th (I don't think). Can't get 4th that way before you get 3rd. And so on...



I certainly didn't practice this way (largely due to inability).

I understand.

At the core of these queries is a certain interpretation of what AF (the end result) is in relation to any of the paths and also the journey to it (i.e. AF). An interpretation I'm fully open to have challenged - I'm no expert on this.

I understand AF (the end result) as a certain mutation (change) in the brain, of the brain, that has a very distinct and predictable effect that is experienced by the whole mind/body.

I understand that there are generally two ideals within the schools of Buddhism.

I speculate that maybe AF is the ideal of what is called the Hīnayāna.

I understand that rigpa is a "tool" of the mind.

I speculate that maybe rigpa, together with several other "tools of the mind", when mastered to a certain degree and combined with the other "tools of the mind" in one human, is the ideal of what is called the Mahāyāna.

I speculate that the overall, rough development trajectory of these ideals and also their not-yet-fully idealized, lesser versions (e.g. 3rd path) are similar to such a degree that they have been and will get frequently mixed up.

I speculate that the Hīnayāna ideal does not experienced the world the same way that the Mahāyāna ideal does. The state of the Hīnayāna ideal, speculated by me to be AF, is irreversible and removes certain aspects of human experience that are criterions of the Mahāyāna ideal.

I speculate that the Hīnayāna ideal will technically experience no "stress". The Mahāyāna ideal will not technically experience no stress, but should not be said to "suffer" at all.

I speculate that the Mahāyāna ideal have a broader range of possible experiences available at any time, more so than any other human being and development, but attaining to this ideal is the stuff of several lifetimes.

---

What worries me is to what extent human experience is limited for someone who attains AF. Not necessarily made impossible, but severely improbable (someone actually free will lose several kinds of motivations to do certain things, effectively limiting their experience of life).

I think that both the Hīnayāna ideal and the Mahāyāna ideal are attainable from the platform of MCTB 4th path, but once you attain AF/the Hīnayāna ideal, you have permanently disabled the route to the Mahāyāna ideal and certain parts of human experience. What exactly those certain parts are and what exactly the Mahāyāna ideal comprises, I don't know.

(I do know, second hand, that jhana is not experienced pleasurably in AF and I speculate that the "space-travelling" that one can do in the 4th jhana (the malleability of a highly concentrated and one pointed mind combined with strong will of mind/intent and imagination) is either effectively disabled (by lack of motivation, etc.), severely diminished or actually disabled).

These are not statements of fact but my own personal interpretation of things that currently interests me. Treat them as such.

---

In this thread what I'm looking for is someone who are actually free and at least were able to do physioenergetic development to try and see if they can still do things that would indicate that physioenergetic development is not disabled for them and share that here

I used to think similar thoughts, until I realized that the thing that goes at "early AF", and the thing that I speculate goes at "late AF", is one big unredeemably bad bundle of suffering.

In other words, I haven't lost any faculty of mind or any capacity that isn't, in itself, a form of suffering.

I don't see how such things could exist without a person suffering by the very fact of the existence of those things.

Along these lines, I would ask that you consider whether your experience of jhana is as pleasurable as you think...in particular, whether some of what you count as pleasure is actually suffering, while the rest of what you count as pleasure will remain after AF.

About limitations of human experience...feelings are incredibly dull. Reflecting on my life, things have always been fresh and interesting only to the extent that feelings were not manifesting.

I don't consider myself as having traded some good things for other better things. All I see is that I got rid of a lot of junk. I was a lunatic in the past and thought I owned a great treasure horde, when it was really just garbage.

About Hinayana vs. Mahayana...in my cynical moments I think that's just about 4th path vs. AF. I would say a lot of Mahayana texts make a great deal of sense to me.

These are just my personal reflections, and I present them only as that, not as an attempt to convince you. A PCE (a "big" one) may clarify these issues for you if you haven't had one already.

You mean vipassana? I can do that, sure.

My working theory prior to this conversation was actually that, if I do even more vipassana, I will get to "late AF" (what Richard describes). That was my plan for practice.

EDIT: I should say, in having done this for a week or two, I continue to see progress towards all the good things that I believe characterize "late AF".

Okay. I understand what you're saying and it is (sort of) what I am looking for (more on that below). As I haven't read all of your practice log: do you claim VF, AF, technical/MCTB 4th path or suttic/fetter-free 4th path?


I understand. My point was that the experiences that constitute "suffering" are still experiences (that AF disables), and in my speculation the Mahāyāna ideal still has access to these experiences. Rather than having removed them completely as in AF, the Mahāyāna ideal has "transcended" them (whatever that means...).


What you are saying is that in the definition of someone who does not suffer (like the Mahāyāna ideal) these experiences are not possible, and this renders some of my speculation "wrong" (like the speculation just above this). I consider you to be more advanced in this than me, so this is very helpful, or in the very least presents a different point of view.


By 4th path, do you mean technical/MCTB 4th path or suttic/fetter-free 4th path?

Would you care to elaborate on what you mean by "early AF" and "late AF", please?


If we agree that "vipassana" includes the ability to willfully move between the different nanas, then yes, I think that that would be a measure of ability to do physioenergetic development (defined specifically in this thread as the ability to develop and attain to paths).

And with that I feel I have theorized a little too much, and actually practiced a little too little, so I will end with this nugget:

Right now I claim "early" AF which I associate with sutta anagami (5 weakened fetters remaining).

I take the fetter model literally.

In the past I claimed MCTB 4th path.



In a way, one may say that, in AF, various experiences are not eliminated but "transcended". (The affective part disappears, but the actual part remains).

It may not be the most accurate way to think about it, but it isn't unreasonable either, and occasionally I think it's the clearest way to explain the state.



I meant MCTB 4th path.

I can't really elaborate on the early vs. late distinction right now, as I am pressed for time, and will be away for a number of days. If you ask Nick, I'm confident that he will give you an answer that agrees in all relevant ways with what I would say.

A summary is that I equate "late" AF with sutta arahant (all fetters destroyed). Again, I take the fetter model literally.





I can do that just fine. However, there is a caveat: it's possible at "late" AF that I won't be able to do that.

Think of it this way. I quite literally believe that AF is the summit of "physioenergetic development". Going through nanas and attaining paths are signs of physioenergetic development. But, it doesn't go on forever. There is an end to it. When one reaches the end, nanas may no longer arise, because there is no more development which would give off these signs.

Many people seem to have a pre-occupation with the idea of "life-long development". At least in the spiritual sense, I don't get it. When there are no fetters, there are no fetters. Nothing left to do besides whatever comes naturally.

I believe jhanas will always be possible, but only in the sense of being able to cultivate the jhana factors / concentration. (See my thread "Jhana FTW" for some information related to this.) However, I also believe that this is what "jhana" means in the first place, and all the other stuff (absorption / etc.) is not what jhana is about, despite the fact that we as a community have thought otherwise for a while.

Something very bizarre happened to the formatting there. Hopefully you can read it!

You are probably missing a or something.

Fixed, thanks.

Stian, to clarify my position about the fetter model and its relationship to MCTB paths and how literally I take it...I believe that MCTB 4th path is no more advanced than stream entry. (Not that it is stream entry, although it might be, but it isn't anything more advanced than it.)

It surely isn't sakadagami in my opinion, despite what others have claimed. These two things were commonly equated when some of us were trying to figure out how to relate the 10 fetter model with what we knew...but we were not at the point where we were willing to take the 10 fetter model literally. And equating 4th path with sakadagami appears simply to be a manifestation of that unwillingness (trying to fit MCTB paths to the "distorted not-literal 10 fetter model"), rather than any natural similarity between the two.

If the model is taken literally, a sakadagami could not experience ill will or sensual desire in any "normal" way, ever, in any circumstance. This is not true of 4th path, even though 4th path makes a person much nicer and much less likely to experience strong periods of ill will or sensual desire very often. So, I associate sakadagami with "out-from-control VF", in which most or all feelings could only manifest in a limited way (in my experience of it).

EiS, how is your claim that AF is "5th path" compatible with Richard's claim that AF and Vipassana are 180 degree opposite? Is he confused?

Hi N A


Depends on how the term 'vipassana' is read, how it is practiced and what the results of the practice are. Also the whole 180 degrees thing is true when considering many spiritual traditions and their 'objectives' and practices versus AF. Yet, there is another old school school of thought that also seems 180 degrees opposite to all the other spiritual traditions.

Vi = intensifier

Passana = from passati, to see

so a literal translation of vipassana is not 'insight', but seeing in a focused or a more attentive than usual way (a clearer way perhaps).

What is one doing when one is attentive to sensuousness?

There are many different techniques taught in the name of 'vipassana'. If tweaked and right effort and view is incorporated, some of them may result in AF, in my opinion. Some of them may not.

Nick

I did vipassana and that's what I got; so, for me, the claims simply have to be compatible. But, you aren't in my position, so I have to offer a better explanation than that.

First, let me say that I simply can't see into Richard's head, and it's possible that his thinking on this issue is simply bizarre. (I have no idea.)

Second, the experience of vipassana is quite different from the experience of practicing the actualism method (except that one can get PCEs out of both). Perhaps 180 degrees different. Cultivating felicity is fun. Vipassana tends not to be, directly in relation to the "dryness" of one's vipassana practice.

Third, Richard claims that enlightenment is "not going all the way" or something along those lines. He models the default state of humans as one in which there is a "self" (thinker) and a "Self" (feeler / soul). Enlightenment gets rid of the former, and, as the latter remains, and if one has wrong view, one is inclined to identify with the latter. (Read the way that people have lauded "awareness" and see if you don't think that some of them are identifying with the "soul".) When one gets rid of the latter, all is well.

The map from the suttas in relation to this:

Stream entry = "self" gone

Sakadagami = "Self" damaged

Anagami = "Self" gone (early AF)

Arahant = outside of Richard's self / Self model (although he admits that the early / late distinction exists); late AF

So, in this sense, Richard would appear to agree that AF is the culmination of enlightenment...and vipassana is a good way to get enlightened...if vipassana can eliminate the "self", perhaps it's also a good way to eliminate even more?

How would Richard know if he hadn't tried?

And now we are back to my experience...I did vipassana, and I told you what happened.

For clarity, when I say "vipassana", I literally mean the practice of things like noting, choiceless awareness, etc. Modified in some ways (just as one would practice differently when aiming for MCTB 4th path as compared to when aiming for MCTB stream entry), but literally the same "genre" of practice.

Nick, if there is a form of vipassana that leads to MCTB stream entry (= clarifying the attention wave somehow, keeping certain "heavy" affective self-y experiences from being produced in it), do you see a reason that the same basic practice wouldn't lead to further clarification and ultimately AF?

Final thought. I have (pre-AF) gotten very very strong EEs from very very dry insight which was not even "modified appropriately". Literally the same practice I had done in the past. Something to think about.

funnily enough, that is the etymological breakdown of 'insight' as well:

1150–1200; Middle English; see in-1 , sight

in-1: a prefix representing English in ( income; indwelling; inland , etc.), but used also as a verb-formative with transitive, intensive, or sometimes little apparent force ( intrust; inweave , etc.).
sight: we know this one.

so, root to root, insight is an accurate rendering of vipassana. but the words might have come to mean different things in different circles.

Depends on right view and right effort or in AF speak, pure intent to take it further. Right view, in my opinion, is understanding and knowing how to walk on the path to the cessation of being and becoming. Right effort is doing the appropriate practices in order to thin out 'me', discerning how the sequence of 'me' arises and cutting the sequence at its root temporarily (PCE, apperceptive awareness) and/or then cutting it and ending it for good (early and then late AF).

If the senses are being paid attention to and one is aware that mind states are not to be clung to, any of them, even the highest of equanimous mind states, then any technique aimed at 'paying attention', coupled with the right view and right effort or pure intent, tweaked appropriately for the stage, could result AF in my opinion.

Like Richard's and the pragmatic dharma scene?

Nick

Heh, yes. I should have said "have definitely come to mean different things". i agree that it is helpful to use different terms, depending on the context. i was just pointing something out on the linguistic side, though perhaps not practically useful...

To chime in: Richard seems to have interpreted the goal of any form of Buddhism and any Buddhist practice (like Vipassana) to be Enlightenment, with the Self still existing, e.g. by calling it Awareness. (Incidentally, this was the only goal of the pragmatic dharma community until recently.) Aiming to land in a condition with Self still around, vs. aiming to land in a condition with no Self whatsoever, is pretty different.

Richard also seems to think that being Enlightened does not help one to attain AF. This seems to not necessarily be the case, going by the reports of Tarin, Nick, Jill, Owen, End in Sight, etc. However, it might also be true, going by some of the resistance to AF that Enlightened people have had.

Like Nick said, I think the important thing that sets apart the former group from the latter is Right Effort / Right View.

My take is that Enlightenment probably helps, given you have Right View... but it also seems to be a lot more painful than the direct AF route.

Here's my current thinking which is subject to change at the drop of a hat:

Mahasi noting (a type of vipassana) does not seem to be aimed at breaking the sequence of dependent origination, at least not how it is practiced in the pragmatic dharma scene or in my own experience. It seems aimed to watch the flow of 'me', of being, as it arises and passes away of its own accord as any mind state. In the process of watching the flow of becoming, a disidentification process results, objectification of phenomena results, and an affective equanimity towards it all seems to take the place of all the identification with a sense of illusory self. This seems to be the trap of MCTB 4th path in my opinion. The resting laurels on this type of equanimity.

The 'cessation of the senses' version of stream entry will also result from observing the flow as will the following technical paths that don't line up with the fetter model very well. This all seems to lead to the physio-energetic development discussed in this thread. This development seems to result in the flow of becoming getting purified somewhat, refined and softened and more pliant and malleable. The jhanas are easily accessed by will of mind, as are any of the nanas. Resolutions become quite easy to make things happen. Unfortunately it also means the flow of becoming may manifest as all the shitty dukkha that can jump off of the shitty vedana arising during the dukkha nanas while one cycles.

In all this process, in my own experience, there was no looking at the chain or sequence of dependent origination, or not that I can remember. Not in detail. Not until I began to practice towards triggering a PCE. A PCE is basically, in my opinion, a temporary halting of the sequence of dependent origination that leads to the arising of being and becoming. I am not of the opinion that the 'early stage of AF' halts this process of becoming for good. End might be able to elaborate on this better than me.

On the other hand, the practice of continuous attentiveness to sensuousness (via a felicitous base to jump from) and the resulting apperceptive awareness seems to cut the sequence of dependent origination continuously as one attends exclusively to sensuousness, and the flow of becoming is sort of cut up continuously. This seems to not allow said flow to arise as the potential dukkha flavoured being of the dukkha nana mind states. As it arises and passes while getting continuously cut up with a practice that aims for 24/7 attentiveness to sensuousness, the flow of being and becoming gets more refined (EE), until it is bordering on almost a PCE, and not arising at all. The potential unpleasant manifestations of being seem to not be as much a problem.

The attentiveness to sensuouness route lubed up with felicity or joyous or calm states of mind (jhanas) seems to be a much happier path than allowing the flow of becoming to get refined via the route where the possible manifestations of being and becoming can arise in the dukkha nanas.

Thoughts?

Edited a number of times for clarity

How do you distinguish this from the type of vipassana that does lead to AF? How does that type of vipassana differ (if at all) from the actualist method of attentiveness to sensuousness? Perhaps EndInSight and Jill can also chip in here.

I would say it is a vipassana that may result in AF is a vipassana aimed at attentiveness to sensuousness with the aim of triggering apperceptive awareness.

If one practices with the view to 'purify the flow of becoming', which seems to be the case within the Goenka tradition, will one aim to break the sequence that leads to the arising of said flow? Probably not.

Does Mahasi noting have this objective? Jill seemed to have this objective in her descriptions of her practice, fueled by her 1st full blown PCE.

It seems to come back to intent. Does a practice intend to just watch the flow of becoming arise and pass of its own accord and not go further than developing equanimity towards it, or does a practice aim to cut the sequence that leads to its arising? Or is a practice using both approaches, refining/purifying then discerning/cutting the sequence?

I personally believe that all forms of paying attention can eventually lead to AF, but to the extent that a person has wrong view or relishes their mental states or doesn't practice renunciation and dispassion for their experiences, that is the extent to which their practice is likely to be slooooooooooooooow.

From my experience, I believe that anything that makes the progress of insight go 'round, anything that makes more cycles, anything that produces cessations and pathlike cessations, is definitely leading to AF.

I have found (in retrospect) that the "bliss wave" after an MCTB path often has an element of "lightness" to it apart from the bliss, and that lightness is a temporary reduction in feelings / EE. These paths appear to be connected with AF in many ways, of which that is merely one example.

My own dry insight practice, at times, was like Mahasi noting on steroids. (Wasn't Owen's practice advice "note everything at every waking moment"?)

I found out-from-control VF completely continuous with MCTB 4th path. Out-from-control VF was a "deepening" of MCTB 4th path. If getting 4th path is like traveling to the Moon, getting out-from-control VF is like traveling to Pluto. But I see them as literally the same kind of experience...forms of development that are "in the same direction". I was not doing something differently when I started working on AF via vipassana...I was doing the same things, albeit with right view informing them.

In general, I don't believe that there are multiple processes at play here. This is where I disagree with Richard and perhaps Nick, and perhaps what's causing our different takes on what's effective. This stuff about"self" / "Self" doesn't capture what's going on at the most fundamental level. What's going on at the most fundamental level is the attention wave (becoming). Clarifying it to some extent gets MCTB's paths; clarifying it more gets AF. When it's not clarified at all, that is "self" / "Self"; when it's clarified significantly, that's no-self / "Self"; when it's clarified even more, that's no-self / no-Self; and (I believe) when it's gone, that's arahantship.

These are my current views.

Also, mindfulness of the body is way more important than people give it credit for (as many affective experiences are in the body, and they need to be discerned). My previous advice was "as a rule of thumb, include the body or the arupa qualities of experience or both in your attention", and I stand by it.

The method I used does not avoid the dukkha nanas, that's for sure. For better or (more likely) worse.

If one can figure out my jhana method (see "Jhana FTW"), that will probably minimize or avoid all obvious manifestations of the progress of insight, as one will be in an EE or PCE most of the time. But, I was not so good at concentration, so I didn't employ it (or think about it much at the time).

Also, as a parting thought, keep in mind that I did a lot of dry insight and Nick didn't. Even when I applied his methods (such as actualizing jhanas), whatever I was doing was very "dry insight-y", as that's what my mind leans towards (in a very extreme way).

Richard does not know about the glories of vipassana because he apparently never tried it.

Similarly, Nick may not know about the glory of dry insight because he likely never tried it in the extreme form that I did.

I'm not arguing that dry insight is better, merely that I think it works. There are obvious disadvantages to it. The main one is that it can be PAINFUL depending on how one holds their attention. I found that there was a painful way of holding my attention which also seemed to lend itself towards the absolute fastest progress (for me); I made the decision I made; not everyone will find that decision suitable for them.

One more interesting point I thought of.

Dan Ingram's advice for getting a PCE (from the DhO thread "Tips on cultivating a PCE - a compilation"):



Dan Ingram appears to have gotten "big" PCEs via pure dry insight. I'm not the only one.

(I very deeply relate to seeing the attention wave as a spatial distortion. For me, seeing it that way would be a sign of having been doing really, extraordinarily precise vipassana.)

Mmm. As someone without any attainments doing daily vipassana practice (and going on a 10-day retreat in a month) hoping to get stream entry, this sure doesn't help my resolve Although I can't really imagine any scenario under which all this effort is fundamentally futile. Training mindfulness seems important pretty much no matter what, even regardless of any extraordinary claims like AF or Arahatship.

Hehe. I didn't mean to say it was futile.. not at all. Given my relative inability to cultivate felicity, I think stream entry + later paths definitely helped me. And you are right - the skills you are cultivating by going for stream entry will come in very handy later, whatever path you take. And, stream entry itself is quite nice. I just meant the side effects of that path can potentially be unpleasant.. though a liberal dose of equanimity during the dukkha nyanas should help tremendously.

I feel going through dark nights also tends to help your resolve.. the knowledges of suffering - namely that suffering sucks =P. Tends to really orient one to the ending of said suffering.

at what point do we say "hey, wtf is this metaphor we are using"

You don't like it? Metaphors are the grafitti of the dharma world.

Noun 1. lube - a substance capable of reducing friction by making surfaces smooth or slippery
lubricant, lubricating substance, lubricator
substance - a particular kind or species of matter with uniform properties; "shigella is one of the most toxic substances known to man"

Enlightenment is faster for many people, and you should consider how painful not being AF is.

(Not being enlightened is pretty painful too.)

(For what it's worth, if we believe AF = arahantship, let's not muck up the waters, and remember that "late" AF is full enlightenment. Enlightenment isn't some weird side-track, whether or not Richard thinks so, whether or not some people have managed to skip some of the early stages of enlightenment.)

And the reason for this caveat is...


You are saying that one would not in any way be prematurely cutting off development by getting AF, but exhausting/completing it.

This seems, in my mind, to crash with the idea of nanas being layers of mind as suggested by Kenneth Folk. Nanas themselves are not so much a sign of development as the actual movements between them is. But I might be wrong about this and it might also just be a matter of formulation (read: "the style of expression").

I don't have much invested in either of these points of view, but I like the idea of exhausting/completing development.



A bold claim worthy of consideration, me-thinks. You are effectively saying here that jhanic absorption might not be possible for someone actually free. Nick talked about this in a recent conversation I had with him, and agreed with what you wrote as far as I understand (it's posted in his practice thread on The Hamilton Project blog). This is something that I pointed to earlier, of AF maybe disabling certain experiences.


---






Very interesting. This is in my opinion worthy of investigation.

Have you investigated whether absorption is pleasant, or whether absorption is suffering disguised as something pleasant?

I haven't investigated it myself, but there is plenty of literature to support such a claim (that pleasure is indeed suffering).

EDIT:

I find it very exciting to be a part of this community in this day and age. A lot of interesting developments happening. Hopefully it will all come together more seamlessly than it is right now and making that happen is very exciting stuff

A PCE may give you a different perspective on what's suffering and what isn't compared to the one you have now.

Good luck!

It sure does! For example, you cannot suffer anymore... no more feeling so miserable that you just want it to stop. Actually, you probably can't do that at 4th path either. Is that a loss, though?

I will opine:

I will just throw this in also - I am pretty sure that the first four paths make it much more possible to get beyond. This particular quote:

"I personally believe that all forms of paying attention can eventually lead to AF" - may be true but in my experience I know many people personally who have been trying to pay attention to direct reality as best they can for many years (more than 30 in some cases) - and NONE of them have gotten even close to where you are pointing (unless they aren't talking about it which is another problem entirely). I think that in itself is telling. I think its important to remember how each person got where they are, not just at some end-stage but along the whole process. Its also easy to assume that 'just because I can do it' it must be doable for some, if not most - but this may not be true... The best test for any 'method' is if it works on the worst student, not the best one

Bill, I don't think that my quote can be fully appreciated unless read in its original context:



A correct understanding of the situation (the fact of, the origin of, the cessation of, and the way to the cessation of suffering) is really important. It would be hard to overemphasize how much difference it makes.

I do see your point in a more general way: what I did may not work as advertised for someone else. However, keep in mind that I never proposed that anyone do exactly what I did. Rather, I described the broad outlines of what I did, and suggested that anyone who wants to try something like it should try a practice that fits within those broad outlines, because AF is attainable through traditional Buddhist insight practices...but, such a person should experiment and adjust all the variables to see what suits them and their mind. And my meta-advice was for a person to examine different methods (not just the "pay attention" method), and try to figure out which is likely to be best for them.

This is very off-topic, but I just can't for the life of me read that sentence and not hear Miss Teen South Carolinas voice in my head.

"I personally believe that [yogis] are unable to do so because some people out there in [the dharma world] don't have maps..."

lol

"A correct understanding of the situation (the fact of, the origin of, the cessation of, and the way to the cessation of suffering) is really important. It would be hard to overemphasize how much difference it makes."

-Yes thats a very good point. It also kind of makes me wonder how many long time meditators out there would be capable of going farther if they just knew it was possible - kind of like the whole stream entry thing (very few people I know IRL think such a thing exists). Sorry for the rant.