So the thesis of my theory is basically there are two separate components to developing spirituality 1. Vipassana 2. Nonduality,

Geoffrey B
Hello everyone,

For a bit of background - I've been spending the last 4 with Thervada monks and after growing a discontent with all the Dogma,

The theory I came up with
--------------------------
So the thesis of my theory is basically there are two separate components to developing spirituality 1. Vipassana 2. Nonduality,

and that Theravada practice, really doesn’t do 2 well and that’s the failure point. (But also most other traditions do 2 and fail to do 1). 

 Now I think there is a lot to be gleaned from Kenneth’s grand unified theory. I remember reading somewhere on dharmaoverground a student of his said he suggested basically using vipassana more for 1st and 2nd path, and then “who’s watching the watcher” type inquiry for deeper paths, and then eventually switching to surrendering to everything. And this made a bunch of things click. I think the secret to 3rd and 4th path (and beyond) is nonduality.

I’ve been a mixed non dual and Theravada practitioner, and one thing that is blindingly obvious is that Theravada doesn’t have much in the way of non dual and it shows. Like they always make a big deal about how non-self is the hardest of the three characteristics to observe and you can usually only infer it from the other two, and I’ve always been like “what are you talking about? You just go into spaciousness awareness and it’s obvious”. And they always have issues with the formless realms (like Leigh says in his book he can’t do them, and he is like the main jhana guy in the us), but I’m like “what? You go to the fourth jhana and you switch to spacious awareness, it’s easy!”. And I realized the only form of nondual stuff they do is the formless realms, and suddenly a bunch of observations clicked.

- it’s a pretty common belief that to go all the way to arhant you need good jhanas (mahasi says in his book you need vipassana for 1st and 2nd path, jhanas for 3 and 4). There seems to be indirect evidence for this in the suttas to

- Daniel made this interesting comment one time how, dipa ma was an agami and all the western vipassana teachers we’re obsessed with her and so he speculated they were all stuck at 1st or 2nd path(but jhanas aren’t a big deal in the west) - There are so few arhants in Theravada (but this would make sense with my theory because they don’t really have a deep nondual practice, and the little bit they do have isn’t super emphasized).
 - And the other unitive traditions do seem to get to some other stable goal point that is different than Buddhist enlightenment  - I don’t think nonduality came naturally to the Buddha (like remember he had to get teachers to show him the formless realms), and I think this blind spot got transferred into their practices.

So my speculation is that when you get to 3rd path, one the thing you’re probably subtlety attached to is awareness itself. If you spend time observing it (like say in the formless realms), you naturally disembed yourself from it, and voila! [it’s worth mentioning that Kenneth’s example hints that you need to do to some extent, but you don’t need full mastery, that can come after arhanthood]

The final point worth mentioning is this. In the unitive mystical traditions, there is a fairly consistent pattern that to perform divine union you need to develop essentially 24/7 jhanic capabilities.

Goleman astutely points out in his book that essentially you need to do this because you haven’t done the work of achieving cessation, so you still have hindrances and what not. This also explains why Kenneth was able to do it raw, because he was already an arhant. 
So it seems that there is very compelling evidence there are two aspects to spiritual development, and most traditions miss one part and have to compensate in weird ways. I think developing a hybrid practice model is the way to go.

...

It was then that I realized my new-to-DhO-ass had walked straight into some controversy like a brick wall. And if Daniel and Kenneth can't work it out then I'm going to have to do my own homework on this. Well time to go back to sensory reality manifesting itself at the present moment ... oh wait, that's right we never left. 

It's hard to know exactly what you are talking about here without definitions, but I'm getting the sense that you are calling "vipiassana" the act of objectifying objects in awareness using attention and "nonduality" as alinging with the way awareness is already intimately aware of experience (sometimes called the inherent luminosity of experience)

As practice continues, it's really normal to bounce between the two of these. When we objectify experience, we see it's constructed/empty nature, when we rest in non-duality we see it's inherent luminosity/being, and along the way what we assumed was "the witness/the observer/the self" becomes less and less tangible.

To give you my short answer, regardless of the tradition, people just simply tend to stop their meditation when they reach a temporary comfort zone. But neither of these metaphysical/dogmatic views withstand scrutiny and there a people from all traditions that have gone beyond the simplistic metaphysics/dogma of their systems.

Right, because they think that union is a state. This idea that there is a state, a constant experience, that is somehow the right spiritual answer is the basic confusion we make over and over again. But WHAT EXPERIENCES THE STATE? is the question that blows this idea up --- if we are brave/honest about it.

For myself, I used to be cursed with a lot of attainments. Luckily I think I've got rid of most of them now.

Geoffrey B
Terry, I think someone needs to let this wittgenstein guy know we can just make up new and better words :p

Not two, not one

We all have something we cling on to as the ultimate truth - whether it be signlessness, or nonduality or whatever (do you know they are different?).  We crave explanations, correctness, the unlocking of the next secret or inner dharma.  The trick, IMAO (in my arrogant opinion), it to recognize the arbitrary nature of that clinging.  We are humans, we rely on metaphors.  But none of them are right.  Except of course my patented undertanding of the TRUE dharma which all shall love and despair. 

Chris M
Dude, the first rule of pointing is that you don't talk about pointing!

​​​​​​​

 

You have to point, because language is too primitive. 

Geoffrey B

1. When people talk about their experiences in non-conceptual ways, I believe them. When people have good evidence of solid meditation skills, I believe their attainments. 

Perhaps believing in these things is an addiction. 12 steps to conditional freedom. What difference does it make it someone experiences divinity? As nietzsche says, how can there be a god if it is not me? That you are god is no help at all, more like a hindrance. No one leaves the dark side behind, no arhat, no incarnation. 

So one has to ask oneself what need there is to believe at all in anything, though this doesn't deny the extraordinary mystery of life. But belief is one thing and "what is" is another. Belief is a word, a thought, and this is not the thing, any more than your name is actually you.
...
Belief conditions its own supposed proof. What is important is not what you believe but only why you believe at all. Why do you believe? And what difference does it make to what actually is whether you believe one thing or another? Facts are not influenced by belief or disbelief. So one has to ask why one believes at all in anything; what is the basis of belief? Is it fear, is it the uncertainty of life - the fear of the unknown the lack of security in this ever-changing world? Is it the insecurity of relationship, or is it that faced with the immensity of life, and not understanding it, one encloses oneself in the refuge of belief? So, if I may ask you, if you had no fear at all, would you have any belief?

No one leaves the dark side behind, no arhat, no incarnation. 

Chris M
I'd like to hear about how you can talk about anything in a non-conceptual way. An example?

terry


That which can be conceived of is not the tao.
​​​​​​​~textbook

This body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying on food that food is to be abandoned.
...
This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned.
...
This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.

Belief is one of those things that is good or bad depending on time.place and circumstance. A child can be told, ‘believe me until you develop judgment,’ or a rookie or apprentice or disciple. One accepts premisses as true and then tests them, cautiously (the sorcerer’s apprentice)

Belief is a matter of convenience, most often. I believe the sun will rise tomorrow, but on the one hand maybe it won’t, and on the other the sun never rises, rather the earth turns. I believe I’ll take the dog for a walk, and she won’t run away or be naughty; but I don’t know and I am prepared to be wrong.

In this case, singling out individuals as advanced beings aka arhats etc encourages people to compete and to strive. This is foolish because people already have everything they need to be healthy and happy human beings.

Well belief is still a type of object that is fundamentally conceptual and thus the "truthfulness" of it is suspect. Like, how can you say the sun will rise tomorrow when all that exists is the sense impressions Now.

I'd push back against this hard. I had pretty bad mental health issues before getting into meditation, that was a pretty big hard block to being happy. To say people already have all the tools to be happy, both 1. Marginalizes the real suffering people have 2. Undermines the substantial meditative work people have to do to let go of attachment

Geoffrey B

The Nun Bhikkhunī Sutta; (AN 4:159)

Geoffrey B
Developed might be a bit of a strong word for it, but acknowledgment is definitely underplaying it. Like I'd say in 99.999% to get someone developing a practice that works well enough you're (ie the teachings or a teacher) going to have to get them to the point where they think like "I can become enlightened!", "my meditation is great, I should keep doing this!", "this seems to have so many benefits for me.", "if I practice hard I can learn how to control my mind, and I'll be happier.", etc. So I'd say them relying on or developing conceit is not a bad way to phrase this.

Chris M
It's not really a difference in degree (too strong of a word), but in kind - Buddhism doesn't suggest that people develop defilements they don't have just to see through them afterward. It assumes we all come with plenty of them and focuses squarely on the reason to address them, the methods to use, and the fruits of that process. So I'd say it's about 90-degrees off  

I, and maybe most Buddhists, would call what you describe as "confidence" and not conceit. Quibbling, maybe, but more accurate.

Geoffrey B

   

... whether one can through thought design an ideal character toward which one may strive or whether this is merely a conceit.

Chris M

That I would call a conceit.

​​​​​​​(And thought design is the opposite of what would allow conceit to be seen through.)

Chris M
I think I'd start with these two questions:

1. What is insight?
2. What is conceit?

terry


1.  light
​​​​​​​2. shadow

Chris M
I think I'd start with these two questions:

1. What is insight?
2. What is conceit?

terry


or perhaps insight and conceit are a continuum...

​​​​​​​in practice shades of grey...

terry
Huike wrote:

Originally deluded, one calls the mani-pearl a potsherd
Suddenly one is awakened---and it is [recognized] as a pearl
Ignorance and wisdom are identical, not different.



Even so, I like to tell my customers, 

"Every gem is a stone, but not every stone is a gem."

Geoffrey B
Hello everyone,

For a bit of background - I've been spending the last 4 with Thervada monks and after growing a discontent with all the Dogma, I found this blog where Kenneth talks about achieving satcitanada (and it was actually in a different post) about doing it post arhant. This sent me on a bit of a spiritual quixotic adventure as I tried to use my book knowledge to figure everything out. Anyway I thought my theory was so good (ha!) that I promised Daniel I'd make a post about it when I emailed him, so here you go.

The theory I came up with
--------------------------
So the thesis of my theory is basically there are two separate components to developing spirituality 1. Vipassana 2. Nonduality, and that Theravada practice, really doesn’t do 2 well and that’s the failure point. (But also most other traditions do 2 and fail to do 1). 

 I come at dharma from a more western secular view. I want to be up front - here are two of my biases that have heavily influenced this idea. 

1. When people talk about their experiences in non-conceptual ways, I believe them. When people have good evidence of solid meditation skills, I believe their attainments. (So in my book Daniel Ingram, Kenneth folk, delson Armstrong, mahasi, and u pandita are all arhants). [retrospective note, Im actually a bit more suspect on KF being an arhant after all this.]
2. Theravada Buddhists aren’t the only people who do meditation. The Buddha wasn’t the only advanced meditator. Lots of valuable things can be learned from other traditions. 

So let’s talk about the varieties of spiritual paths. Basically every religion has a mystic component, they are all doing different stuff and have different concepts, a natural question comes up of - what do these spiritual paths have in common? (Side note - the meditative mind by Daniel Goldman is the best resource I’ve found comparing these) 
 Well you usually hear one of three answers  
1. All spiritual paths are the same but expressed differently (this is what I used to think. And I had the idea that since there are natural stopping points, other paths just didn’t go as far as Buddhists)  
2. The goal is the same, the paths are different
3. These things are deeply rooted in their cultural context and really do different things (I’ve always thought this is the weakest one because a huge part of this journey is going beyond concepts) 

But over time I’ve started to get the idea that there are two different things going on. Namely, basically all the other paths do seem to be going for “unity”, but Buddhism does seem like it’s off doing its own thing. One thing monks love to point out is that Buddhism is the only religion that doesn’t believe in a soul, and I think this is getting at something very deep. Like if the other paths were getting to stream entry, wouldn’t their religious teachings be way different? Shinzen tells this story about Teresa of Avila, who was a phenomenal jhana practitioner, and one day apparently she got stream entry because she was like “wait, how could there be a soul this doesn’t make sense??” (My hunch is this is in her autobiography, but that’s on my mystic reading list). 
And the two other pieces of external evidence I’ve found to support this are

1. This paper where he talks to about 300 mystics, and post equanimity it seems like two paths open up
2. This where Kenneth folk talks about how post arhant he went and basically developed unity consciousness by dwelling in the witness (basically 6th jhana type awareness, but notable he did this not in a jhanic state, he was just looking for that quality of awareness). This seems to imply they are two relatively separate things.

 Now I think there is a lot to be gleaned from Kenneth’s grand unified theory. I remember reading somewhere on dharmaoverground a student of his said he suggested basically using vipassana more for 1st and 2nd path, and then “who’s watching the watcher” type inquiry for deeper paths, and then eventually switching to surrendering to everything. And this made a bunch of things click. I think the secret to 3rd and 4th path (and beyond) is nonduality.
 I’ve been a mixed non dual and Theravada practitioner, and one thing that is blindingly obvious is that Theravada doesn’t have much in the way of non dual and it shows. Like they always make a big deal about how non-self is the hardest of the three characteristics to observe and you can usually only infer it from the other two, and I’ve always been like “what are you talking about? You just go into spaciousness awareness and it’s obvious”. And they always have issues with the formless realms (like Leigh says in his book he can’t do them, and he is like the main jhana guy in the us), but I’m like “what? You go to the fourth jhana and you switch to spacious awareness, it’s easy!”. And I realized the only form of nondual stuff they do is the formless realms, and suddenly a bunch of observations clicked.

- it’s a pretty common belief that to go all the way to arhant you need good jhanas (mahasi says in his book you need vipassana for 1st and 2nd path, jhanas for 3 and 4). There seems to be indirect evidence for this in the suttas to
- Daniel made this interesting comment one time how, dipa ma was an agami and all the western vipassana teachers we’re obsessed with her and so he speculated they were all stuck at 1st or 2nd path(but jhanas aren’t a big deal in the west) - There are so few arhants in Theravada (but this would make sense with my theory because they don’t really have a deep nondual practice, and the little bit they do have isn’t super emphasized).
 - And the other unitive traditions do seem to get to some other stable goal point that is different than Buddhist enlightenment  - I don’t think nonduality came naturally to the Buddha (like remember he had to get teachers to show him the formless realms), and I think this blind spot got transferred into their practices.

So my speculation is that when you get to 3rd path, one the thing you’re probably subtlety attached to is awareness itself. If you spend time observing it (like say in the formless realms), you naturally disembed yourself from it, and voila! [it’s worth mentioning that Kenneth’s example hints that you need to do to some extent, but you don’t need full mastery, that can come after arhanthood]

The final point worth mentioning is this. In the unitive mystical traditions, there is a fairly consistent pattern that to perform divine union you need to develop essentially 24/7 jhanic capabilities. Goleman astutely points out in his book that essentially you need to do this because you haven’t done the work of achieving cessation, so you still have hindrances and what not. This also explains why Kenneth was able to do it raw, because he was already an arhant. 
So it seems that there is very compelling evidence there are two aspects to spiritual development, and most traditions miss one part and have to compensate in weird ways. I think developing a hybrid practice model is the way to go.
---------------------
Daniels Response:

Thanks for reaching out.

These are old discussions and debates, going on for thousands of years.
I would briefly say that the Theravada without the Jhanas, particularly the 4th and 6th, meaning without much in the way of developing the second of the Three Trainings, nor without most people having much of an appreciation of the profound meanings of the Three Characteristics and the Greater Discourse on Mindfulness, nor of the Six Elements, nor of practices like the Limited Space and Limited Consciousness Kasinas, and in some of its related stripped down, reductionistic, incomplete interpretations definitely does a poor job with non-duality.
This is like saying the non-dual traditions do a poor job with details and specific technical and analytical and jhanic skill sets, which they actually do well if you actually progressively trained in them in their greater contexts, but wouldn’t if you just read some pop Vedanta, Sutta Mahamudra, or Dzogchen books.
So, yes, both traditions in their partially neutered forms are not that great at various things. This should come as no surprise.
Yes, a hybrid model of two partially broken things definitely works better than either partially broken thing on its own, or a regular model of the full things in their full forms, if you can find these, which admittedly is rare, as you think best.
-----------------------
Then only afterward after just reading random threads, I found Daniels post compilation the ones that stuck out to me are

Here

Here
And finally the straw that broke the camel's back came from here where they are talking about basically find a permanent stable grounding called Rigpa and how DI disagrees with KF


It was then that I realized my new-to-DhO-ass had walked straight into some controversy like a brick wall. And if Daniel and Kenneth can't work it out then I'm going to have to do my own homework on this. Well time to go back to sensory reality manifesting itself at the present moment ... oh wait, that's right we never left. 

MT:  So let me just unpack Nondual 1 in another way that will shed light on this issue of awareness. And I’ll just use the most common metaphor that’s used everywhere. But I’ll update it just slightly, although it will still be out of date. So let’s postulate a movie being shown on a movie screen. And on the movie screen, there is a person and a train. And conventionally, we would say okay, especially if I’m the person, I’m here, there’s a train over there. And I’m looking at it. But from the light of awareness, from the viewpoint of awareness itself, the person and the train are simply appearing in the field of awareness equally, right. They’re both on the screen, so to speak. And in terms of being on the screen, they’re not separate at all. And so seeing that person and train are not separate in any way. They’re different. This is another reason it’s not monism. The train and the person aren’t the same damn thing. One looks like a person and the other one looks like a train. So one of the main things about nonduality is it retains the difference. But we see that they’re appearing on the same screen of awareness, they’re arising as contents in the same field of awareness. And so that’s Nonduality 1.

MT:  Yeah. And the way that we’ve explained and gone through Nondual 1 makes it obvious, I hope, what Nondual 2 is. It sets it up. It begs the question because of course, in Nondual 1, we’ve ended up creating a strong dualism between experience, or awareness, and the contents of experience. But in Nondual 2, we then collapse that duality as well and emphasize the nondual nature the not-two-ness of awareness and its contents, or experience and its contents, or if we use Buddhist language, emptiness and form. And this is actually quite a bit deeper and also collapses any need for this renunciative transcendental mood because we’ve just collapsed the vertical dimension here that the transcendent move was trying to create.

Geoffrey B

Funnily enough, I think that would actually make the whole thing monistic, because I think Michael Taft misunderstand monism. It not one thing in the sense that there is one object (although if you consider the collection of all things a thing, I think you might be hitting on Brahman), but it's one thing in the sense that it's made from one substance (experience or consciousness if you will), ie nondual 2.

Well monism just means everything is made from one substance. 

Geoffrey B
Okay, to clarify for my Mahasi phenomenological positivist brain - you're both getting at this idea that awareness isn't a 'real' thing correct? Like in Mahasi terms, you'd say there isn't an object you can note as awareness. Like when new things pop into existence, there isn't a "you" scanning over there with some magic spotlight of the brain, the thing is just popping in and being known by itself. What we think of as awareness is just an illusion created by temporality and variability in sharpness of the appearance of objects. Am I following?

Funnily enough, I think that would actually make the whole thing monistic, because I think Michael Taft misunderstand monism. It not one thing in the sense that there is one object (although if you consider the collection of all things a thing, I think you might be hitting on Brahman), but it's one thing in the sense that it's made from one substance (experience or consciousness if you will), ie nondual 2.

"If there is a gap between a sense power and its object,
Where would they meet?
And if there is no gap, they would be fused as one,
So the meeting would be of what with what?"

I'm not sure why Chris is (I think?) a little frosty or maybe dismissive of this being brought forward, but I think it might get at your question. It isn't intended as some criticism of other traditions. 

Chris M

Chris M There's a podcast out on the net from Ken McLeod that captures this as well. He holds up his cell phone and asks someone to tell the audience exactly where the phone is given that it's only apparent because it's a mind object. So is it in Ken's hand over there, or is it here, in your mind? Is the answer is both, or nether? One, or the other?. Logic breaking logic, poetry, or what I'd call the mystery of existence and consciousness....

Case 29 Hui-neng: “Not the Wind; Not the Flag”

The Case

Two monks were arguing about the temple flag waving in the wind. 

One said, “The flag moves.” 

The other said, “The wind moves.” 

They argued back and forth but could not agree.

The Sixth Ancestor said, “Gentlemen! It is not the wind that moves; it is not the flag that moves; it is your mind that moves.” 

The two monks were struck with awe.

There is ONLY awareness. It is the only thing that is always present. Everything else is impermanent and constructed. There are no subjects, only objects. This includes what you think of as your "self".

"The concentrative mind that grows from the field of exmination
Is the food of yogis."

"Being, non-being, both, neither: none of these applies to characterize the way of being of anything". This also implies, technically speaking, that saying "there is no flag, no mind, etc." isn't right either ;).

Chris M

Yes, and I think that's the point of the weirdness of the logical contradictions and the weirdness of the sideways descriptions. We can experience this, but if we think about it, evaluate it, explain it, or try to express it, we lose it. To me, this is where Zen gets it right. No mind means no evaluating, no describing, no thinking conceptually, descriptively. Just experience this as it happens. The ultimate clarity and stillness. And to truly appreciate this, then we can think about it, evaluate it, or describe it.

Olivier S  And it is interesting that the tetralemma is expressed quite clearly in the pali suttas...

And they always have issues with the formless realms (like Leigh says in his book he can’t do them, and he is like the main jhana guy in the us), but I’m like “what? You go to the fourth jhana and you switch to spacious awareness, it’s easy!”.

“This is how he attends unwisely: ‘Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what did I become in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I become in the future?’ Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the present thus: ‘Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where will it go?’“

When he attends unwisely in this way, one of six views arises in him. The view ‘self exists for me’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘no self exists for me’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘I perceive self with self’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘I perceive not-self with self’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘I perceive self with not-self’ arises in him as true and established; or else he has some such view as this: ‘It is this self of mine that speaks and feels and experiences here and there the result of good and bad actions; but this self of mine is permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and it will endure as long as eternity.’ This speculative view, bhikkhus, is called the thicket of views, the wilderness of views, the contortion of views, the vacillation of views, the fetter of views. Fettered by the fetter of views, the untaught ordinary person is not freed from birth, ageing, and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair; he is not freed from suffering, I say.

“Kaccāna, this world mostly relies on the dual notions of existence and non-existence. But when you truly see the origin of the world with right understanding, you won’t have the notion of non-existence regarding the world. And when you truly see the cessation of the world with right understanding, you won’t have the notion of existence regarding the world.

The world is for the most part shackled by attraction, grasping, and insisting. But if—when it comes to this attraction, grasping, mental fixation, insistence, and underlying tendency—you don’t get attracted, grasp, and commit to the notion ‘my self’, you’ll have no doubt or uncertainty that what arises is just suffering arising, and what ceases is just suffering ceasing.

Your knowledge about this is independent of others. 

This is how right view is defined. 

‘All exists’: this is one extreme. 

‘All does not exist’: this is the second extreme. 

Avoiding these two extremes, the Realized One teaches by the middle way: ‘Ignorance is a condition for choices. Choices are a condition for consciousness. … That is how this entire mass of suffering originates. 

When ignorance fades away and ceases with nothing left over, choices cease. When choices cease, consciousness ceases. … That is how this entire mass of suffering ceases.’”