Message Boards Message Boards

The Maps in General

Joko Beck's Six Stages of (Zen) Practice

Toggle
Joko Beck's Six Stages of (Zen) Practice
zen dark night maps loss of self
Answer
4/4/13 12:20 PM
In "Everyday Zen" Charlotte Joko Beck (probably my favourite zen teacher) describes her psychologically orientated version of the zen path, similar to the ox-herding pictures.

I was reflecting on her perspective and what you sometimes see on the DhO - where there is an emphasis on really getting to stage 3 and beyond as quickly possible. Elsewhere she emphasizes that to make progress or to be ready to reach more advanced stages you have to move from a position of relative unhappiness to relative happiness, to lay the foundation to real practice. I wonder how many of us (myself included) want to make rapid progress based on the belief that skipping ahead will solve the happiness problem, and without really working through the ego-stuff off the cushion...and thus leading to the dark night, where the ego is still battling for existence.

I have paraphrased and summarised this chapter below. She says the stages are non-precise, a matter of emphasis, and you can regress to earlier stages. Years and years between stages. Most difficult stage is from 1 to 2 - good therapy could be useful at this stage. Transition is marked by a choice to live a dramatic self-centered life or a life based on practice.

prepath
- wholly caught in our emotional reactions to live - life is happening to us
- can go back to prepath in times of stress and painful confusion
- normally no practice at this stage
- no awareness of another way to live life

first stage
- becoming more aware of feelings and internal reactions (labelling helps this)
- first 6 months/year can be painful as we begin to see ourselves more clearly
- elements continue 10-15 years into practice as we see more and more of ourselves
- recognising what is going on with our ego and harm it does

second stage
- typically 2-5 years into practice
- motivation to break down emotional reactions
- breaking down of emotional states into their physical and mental components through experience and labeling
- increased compassion, and appreciation of others
- still in stage one if we have thoughts like "that person makes me angry"

stage three
- beginning to encounter moments of pure experiencing without self-centered thought
- so-called enlightenment experiences
- 5-10 years? depends on person
- moving away from dualistic state of judging

stage four
- slowly moving to non-dual state of living
- basis is experiential rather than domination of false thinking

stage five
- 80-90% of living from an experiential base
- life of no-self, as little self is largely gone
- pre-path living now impossible
- compassion and appreciation for life high
- possible to be a teacher
- intuitive understanding of mystical texts or sayings

stage six
- theoretical stage of buddhahood, where experiential living is 100%
- doubt that anyone can or has reached such a stage

Summary (In her words):
The first stage is becoming aware of what we are
emotionally, including our desire to control. The second stage is
breaking down the emotions into their physical and mental components.
When this process becomes a bit more advanced, in the third
stage we begin to have some moments of pure experiencing. The
first stage is now quite remote. In the fourth stage, we move more
fully from the effort of practice into experiential living. In the fifth
stage, the experiential life is now strongly established. One’s life is
eighty to ninety percent experiential. Prepath living—being caught
in our emotions and taking them out on others, thinking that others
are to blame for our troubles—is impossible in this stage. From stage
two on, compassion and appreciation begin to grow.

RE: Joko Beck's Six Stages of (Zen) Practice
Answer
4/4/13 2:27 PM as a reply to sawfoot _.
I wonder how she come to the conclusion that it's possible to loose the sense of self almost entirely but possibly not entirely. There is not lack of people that claim experiencing non-duality. Is here position that those people are deluded, are fraud or that some sense of self must remain in them and they fail to notice it? The people the most open about their Enlightement aren't saying "I almost don't experience a sense of self". Delusion and fraud is common enough in humans to warrant some scepticism but as non-arahant, how do we approach such issue? When do we assume good faith in people? As big is the danger of worship, so is the risk of bias from our own failure and limited achievement.

That being said, we can only welcome more integration of non-duality concepts in western psychology, even if it's generally edulcored. There is a long way to go. Zen being arguably the most secular Buddhist school, it's no surprise we see the name attached to psychology. From the little I know about Zen, it doesn't offer a very elaborated framework and is highly reliant on a close relationship with a teacher.
That make Zen more malleable than other schools and sometimes only the brand is kept.


There is the risk of changing the aim of the practice from Enlightenment to a linear development of happiness. There is indeed a part of the reprogramming that is linear but it cannot be said to happen on the scale of happiness, the dark night being the main reason for that. So, I'm curious to know what she mean by improvement of happiness outside of the path. This is a subject that is worth to discuss. We are taking a practice that was geared toward monkhood and integrating with wordly life. Should someone make the goal of Enlightenment his compass in every aspect of his life or some other concepts on morality, personnal development and so o forth must be kept in mind? Is there a form of conditionned happiness that can actually help the practice? When we live in a world enginered to distract us from our suffering, where such happiness is to be found? Should you let the comfort and warmth feelings of holding your newborn permeate you or use that moment in time to be aware of how unsatifactory it is? When do we "go for it" and when do we "forget about it"?

How to maitain a positive mental narrative when the practice of paying attention interrupt or decompose that narrative?

As much as psychology as a long way to go, I believe the pragmatic dharma community has some homework to do.

RE: Joko Beck's Six Stages of (Zen) Practice
Answer
5/17/13 12:06 AM as a reply to sawfoot _.
sawfoot _:

I was reflecting on her perspective and what you sometimes see on the DhO - where there is an emphasis on really getting to stage 3 and beyond as quickly possible. Elsewhere she emphasizes that to make progress or to be ready to reach more advanced stages you have to move from a position of relative unhappiness to relative happiness, to lay the foundation to real practice. I wonder how many of us (myself included) want to make rapid progress based on the belief that skipping ahead will solve the happiness problem, and without really working through the ego-stuff off the cushion...and thus leading to the dark night, where the ego is still battling for existence.


It is a different perspective, but at least in my experience this type of progression doesn't have to be the case.

I started on the path to deal with unhappiness and stress from a failing startup. Got quick insight attainments based contemplation and meditation. And then started truely dealing with the psychological stuff, after having a fairly high level of attainment.

I do think the psychological stuff is very important. And I had tried to work on it before with relatively little success.
sawfoot _:

stage three
- beginning to encounter moments of pure experiencing without self-centered thought
- so-called enlightenment experiences
- 5-10 years? depends on person
- moving away from dualistic state of judging

stage four
- slowly moving to non-dual state of living
- basis is experiential rather than domination of false thinking

stage five
- 80-90% of living from an experiential base
- life of no-self, as little self is largely gone
- pre-path living now impossible
- compassion and appreciation for life high
- possible to be a teacher
- intuitive understanding of mystical texts or sayings


The best teacher is the one that teaches you the most, not the one that knows the most.

That said, some comments...Not meant to be too critical. Just to point out a couple of things plant a seed of an idea at the back of your mind that may germinate in the future...

She is talking about little self vs Self, and views enlightenment as a experiential base, that is separate from regular thought based reality.

With the type of attainment she is talking it about, she is correct to point that it is impossible to rest in this 'Self' fully and remove suffering. However it also indicates a lack of insight into Annata, which is a fundamental part of the Buddhist path.

This insight then removes the subtle duality between the base and experience.

From the point of view of Annata...
eg. In seeing only the seen, in hearing only the hearer. No base. No self. No Self. No experiential base.

Infact it is understood that Annata has always been the nature of existence. And the mind just imputed a self or Self based on interpreting input from the senses using a set framework.

Edit: I was wrong regarding Joko Beck's attainment, and the value of the path she is suggesting. I have come to appreciate the value in what she is saying about letting go of the psychological stuff first.

RE: Joko Beck's Six Stages of (Zen) Practice
Answer
4/5/13 4:17 AM as a reply to (D Z) Dhru Val.
DZ
With the type of attainment she is talking it about, she is correct to point that it is impossible to rest in this 'Self' fully and remove suffering. However it also indicates a lack of insight into Annata, which is a fundamental part of the Buddhist path.

Simon T
I wonder how she come to the conclusion that it's possible to loose the sense of self almost entirely but possibly not entirely.


My guess is that her understanding of anatta was pretty deep. But even if you fully understand it (which I don't), the question I would ask is how does that insight (off-cushion) change your responses in everyday life? If someone were to spit in your face, what emotional reactions and behaviours would that trigger? So the mythic version of Buddha, or Jesus, the 100% realised, might respond differently from us mere mortals, even if you somehow got rid of duality in your thinking, or believed you had lost your sense of self (completely).

She often talks about the difference between acting selflessly, responding to the needs of the moment, living fully present in the moment, compared with acting in self-interested ways. And I think it's a sensible way to think about it - rather than englightened beings, it is case of beings that spend a greater proportion of time in enlightened states than others. Can we point to anyone that claims to have lost their sense of self yet never act in self-interested ways? There are a host of teacher reated scandals out there clearly indicate that even deeply realised people still shows signs of ego-involvement (sleeping with students etc...).

RE: Joko Beck's Six Stages of (Zen) Practice
Answer
4/5/13 5:02 AM as a reply to Simon T..
Simon T.:


There is the risk of changing the aim of the practice from Enlightenment to a linear development of happiness. There is indeed a part of the reprogramming that is linear but it cannot be said to happen on the scale of happiness, the dark night being the main reason for that. So, I'm curious to know what she mean by improvement of happiness outside of the path. This is a subject that is worth to discuss. We are taking a practice that was geared toward monkhood and integrating with wordly life. Should someone make the goal of Enlightenment his compass in every aspect of his life or some other concepts on morality, personnal development and so o forth must be kept in mind? Is there a form of conditionned happiness that can actually help the practice? When we live in a world enginered to distract us from our suffering, where such happiness is to be found? Should you let the comfort and warmth feelings of holding your newborn permeate you or use that moment in time to be aware of how unsatifactory it is? When do we "go for it" and when do we "forget about it"?

How to maitain a positive mental narrative when the practice of paying attention interrupt or decompose that narrative?

As much as psychology as a long way to go, I believe the pragmatic dharma community has some homework to do.


You raise some important and interesting points - one common criticism of buddhism that its focus on dukkha makes it very negative. I personally see the nature of dukkha as not a basic universal truth of existence, but something to be acknowledged and investigated as a means to achieving a specific goal.

Conditioned happiness is sure to help practice - so in various traditions monks will do lots of stuff (like reducing defilements) with the goal of becoming better meditators, but these practices will inadvertently make them happier. And Beck acknowledges that practice will make you happier (in a conditioned sense) over time, despite the challenges. So there is a reciprocal relationship here between on and off cushion practice.

However, for Joko Beck, happiness is associated with giving up the goal of happiness - note the title of one of her student's Barry Magid book "A zen guide to ending the pursuit of happiness" (recommended!)

And so enlightenment is really only achieved when the goal of enlightenment is dropped - the end of the belief that enlightenment will "fix us", and solve our problems. She talks about the dark night as what happens when we really to come to realise that what we thought would make us happy (including the idea of enlightenment) won't make us happy.

I think this makes zen harder to get into - if you are told that there is nothing to gain, then why bother? Whereas with pragmatic dharma the carrots are displayed more clearly. And in some ways I see Beck's secular, western, psychologically orientated and lifelong lay practice type of zen as an antidote to the instant fix achievement oriented approach of pragmatic dharma.

RE: Joko Beck's Six Stages of (Zen) Practice
Answer
4/8/13 1:33 AM as a reply to sawfoot _.
sawfoot _:

My guess is that her understanding of anatta was pretty deep. But even if you fully understand it (which I don't), the question I would ask is how does that insight (off-cushion) change your responses in everyday life? If someone were to spit in your face, what emotional reactions and behaviours would that trigger? So the mythic version of Buddha, or Jesus, the 100% realised, might respond differently from us mere mortals, even if you somehow got rid of duality in your thinking, or believed you had lost your sense of self (completely).


I am familiar with the realization the Joko Beck is describing, it is called 'Self-Realization' in the Hindu traditions. I believe the Buddhist pointer of no-Self or Annata is a direct pointer to a deeper underling aspect of reality.

As far as being selfless goes,

1) Part of the realization is that all actions have always been selfless, without a doer. Enlightened or not that is always the case. The responses are going to be changed both internal and external. But to me that is not the heart of the realization.

2) Further the selflessness of a response is a matter of judgement. Am I being arrogant and self-aggrandizing by criticizing a famous Zen-teacher of many years on the internet ? Or is there a genuine shortcoming of the teaching that I am trying to point out ? It is difficult to know for sure.

RE: Joko Beck's Six Stages of (Zen) Practice
Answer
4/8/13 2:53 AM as a reply to (D Z) Dhru Val.
Joko Beck is not describing Self-Realization.

Related excerpts from 'Everyday Zen' by Charlotte Joko Beck:

I have been asked, "Isn't observing a dualistic practice? Because when we are observing, something is observing something else." But in fact it's not dualistic. The observer is empty. Instead of a separate observer, we should say there is just observing. There is no one that hears, there is just hearing. There is no one that sees, there is just seeing. But we don't quite grasp that. If we practice hard enough, however, we learn that not only is the observer empty, but that which is observed is also empty. At this point the observer (or witness) collapses. This is the final stage of practice, we don't need to worry about it. Why does the observer finally collapse? When nothing sees nothing, what do we have? Just the wonder of life. There is no one who is separated from anything. There is just life living itself: hearing, touching, seeing, smelling, thinking. That is the state of love or compassion: not "It is I," but "It is Thou."

..................

And to substitute one conditioning for another is to miss the point of practice. The point is not that a positive emotion is better than a negative one, but that all thoughts and emotions are impermanent, changing, or (in Buddhist terms) empty. They have no reality whatsoever. Our only freedom is in knowing, from years of observation and experiencing, that all personally centered thoughts and emotions (and the actions born of them) are empty. They are empty; but if they are not seen as empty they can be harmful. When we realize this we can abandon them. When we do, very naturally we enter the space of wonder.

This space of wonder - entering into heaven - opens when we are no longer caught up in ourselves: when no longer "It is I," but "It is Thou." I am all things when there is no barrier.

..................

What does it mean to shatter our usual way of seeing our life? My ordinary experience of life is centered around myself. After all, I am experiencing these ongoing impressions - I can't have your experience of your life. I always have my own. And what inevitably happens is that I come to believe that there is an "I" central to my life, since the experiences of my life seem to be centered around "I". "I" see, "I" hear, "I" feel, "I" think, "I" have this opinion. We rarely question this "I." Now in the enlightened state there is no "I"; there is simply life itself, a pulsation of timeless energy whose very nature includes -or is - everything.

..................

To talk on the razor's edge is to do that; we have once again to be what we basically are, which is seeing, touching, hearing, smelling; we have to experience whatever our life is, right this second. If we're upset we have to experience being upset. If we're frightened, we have to experience being frightened. If we're jealous we have to experience being jealous. And such experiencing is physical; it has nothing to do with the thoughts going on about the upset.

..................

It's not that "I" hear the birds, it's just hearing the birds. Let yourself be seeing, hearing, thinking. That is what sitting is. It is the false "I" that interrupts the wonder with the constant desire to think about "I." And all the while the wonder is occurring, the birds sing, the cars go by, the body sensations continue, the heart beating - life is a second-by-second miracle, but dreaming our I-dreams we miss it. So let's just sit with what may seem like confusion. Just feel it, be it, appreciate it. Then we may more often see through the false dream which obscures our life. And then, what is there?

..................

Since we can only live our lives through our minds and bodies, there is no one who is not a psychological being. We have thoughts, we have hopes, we can be hurt, we can be upset. But the real solution must come from a dimension which is radically different from the psychological one. The practice of nonattachment, the growth of no-self, is the key to understanding. Finally we realize that there is no path, no way, no solution; because from the beginning our nature is the path, right here and right now. Because there is no path our practice is to follow this no-path endlessly - and for no reward. Because no-self is everything it needs no reward: from the no-beginning it is itself complete fulfillment.

RE: Joko Beck's Six Stages of (Zen) Practice
Answer
4/8/13 3:20 AM as a reply to sawfoot _.
sawfoot _:
DZ
With the type of attainment she is talking it about, she is correct to point that it is impossible to rest in this 'Self' fully and remove suffering. However it also indicates a lack of insight into Annata, which is a fundamental part of the Buddhist path.

Simon T
I wonder how she come to the conclusion that it's possible to loose the sense of self almost entirely but possibly not entirely.


My guess is that her understanding of anatta was pretty deep. But even if you fully understand it (which I don't), the question I would ask is how does that insight (off-cushion) change your responses in everyday life? If someone were to spit in your face, what emotional reactions and behaviours would that trigger? So the mythic version of Buddha, or Jesus, the 100% realised, might respond differently from us mere mortals, even if you somehow got rid of duality in your thinking, or believed you had lost your sense of self (completely).

She often talks about the difference between acting selflessly, responding to the needs of the moment, living fully present in the moment, compared with acting in self-interested ways. And I think it's a sensible way to think about it - rather than englightened beings, it is case of beings that spend a greater proportion of time in enlightened states than others. Can we point to anyone that claims to have lost their sense of self yet never act in self-interested ways? There are a host of teacher reated scandals out there clearly indicate that even deeply realised people still shows signs of ego-involvement (sleeping with students etc...).
This question is something related to Daniel's old understanding and his MCTB 4th path.

After realizing no-self of MCTB 4th path, Daniel claims to experience emotional afflictions and was not so open to the so called 'mythical version of enlightenment which eradicates emotional afflictions' or 'fetter model'. He says its hard to map his MCTB 4th path to anything beyond the fetter model first path. So he did not believe in the 'literal version' of fetter model.

But later he came across Actual Freedom, followed by further shifts that make a difference in terms of how affects arise/not-arise/etc. Then perhaps, one starts to see that it might not be a 'mythic version of Buddha' after all. Perhaps some contemplatives do in fact, experience such changes, and are simply reporting from experience as it is.

Kenneth Folk's stages of enlightenment also include changes to emotions or the elimination of afflictive emotions.

We know from texts that supposedly, thousands of arahants in Buddha's times not only realized no-self, they have achieved the 4th stage which is the complete elimination of even the slightest trace of sense of self forever (i.e. khemaka sutta). The Buddha was very clear that there were distinct stages of enlightenment and it was related to how the defilements are progressively eliminated. The four stages of enlightenment was also very clear about the fetters being eliminated including any residual trace of self or conceit of I am (which may be likened to a residual smell after the contents of a jug is poured away), and it is one of the core teachings of Buddha. Would Buddha have taught it if he didn't think it was important or possible? I think not, and I think the fetter model enlightenment is definitely possible. Whether people are achieving it today as they should, might be another matter.

When the residual trace of conceit of I Am is removed in arahantship, then that is equivalent to Joko Beck's 6th stage.

RE: Joko Beck's Six Stages of (Zen) Practice
Answer
4/8/13 12:09 PM as a reply to An Eternal Now.
An Eternal Now:
sawfoot _:
DZ
With the type of attainment she is talking it about, she is correct to point that it is impossible to rest in this 'Self' fully and remove suffering. However it also indicates a lack of insight into Annata, which is a fundamental part of the Buddhist path.

Simon T
I wonder how she come to the conclusion that it's possible to loose the sense of self almost entirely but possibly not entirely.


My guess is that her understanding of anatta was pretty deep. But even if you fully understand it (which I don't), the question I would ask is how does that insight (off-cushion) change your responses in everyday life? If someone were to spit in your face, what emotional reactions and behaviours would that trigger? So the mythic version of Buddha, or Jesus, the 100% realised, might respond differently from us mere mortals, even if you somehow got rid of duality in your thinking, or believed you had lost your sense of self (completely).

She often talks about the difference between acting selflessly, responding to the needs of the moment, living fully present in the moment, compared with acting in self-interested ways. And I think it's a sensible way to think about it - rather than englightened beings, it is case of beings that spend a greater proportion of time in enlightened states than others. Can we point to anyone that claims to have lost their sense of self yet never act in self-interested ways? There are a host of teacher reated scandals out there clearly indicate that even deeply realised people still shows signs of ego-involvement (sleeping with students etc...).
This question is something related to Daniel's old understanding and his MCTB 4th path.

After realizing no-self of MCTB 4th path, Daniel claims to experience emotional afflictions and was not so open to the so called 'mythical version of enlightenment which eradicates emotional afflictions' or 'fetter model'. He says its hard to map his MCTB 4th path to anything beyond the fetter model first path. So he did not believe in the 'literal version' of fetter model.

But later he came across Actual Freedom, followed by further shifts that make a difference in terms of how affects arise/not-arise/etc. Then perhaps, one starts to see that it might not be a 'mythic version of Buddha' after all. Perhaps some contemplatives do in fact, experience such changes, and are simply reporting from experience as it is.

Kenneth Folk's stages of enlightenment also include changes to emotions or the elimination of afflictive emotions.

We know from texts that supposedly, thousands of arahants in Buddha's times not only realized no-self, they have achieved the 4th stage which is the complete elimination of even the slightest trace of sense of self forever (i.e. khemaka sutta). The Buddha was very clear that there were distinct stages of enlightenment and it was related to how the defilements are progressively eliminated. The four stages of enlightenment was also very clear about the fetters being eliminated including any residual trace of self or conceit of I am (which may be likened to a residual smell after the contents of a jug is poured away), and it is one of the core teachings of Buddha. Would Buddha have taught it if he didn't think it was important or possible? I think not, and I think the fetter model enlightenment is definitely possible. Whether people are achieving it today as they should, might be another matter.

When the residual trace of conceit of I Am is removed in arahantship, then that is equivalent to Joko Beck's 6th stage.




It seems there is 3 components found in this discussion: non-duality, emotion and culture.

-Non-duality is 4th path MCTB
-Emotion, or the end of it, is AF. AFers will correct me if I'm wrong but I see emotions as a bodily reaction that isn't action but mere contraction that cause discomfort. Those pattern of tension are labeled in different ways to give us the palette of emotions. While non-duality is equanimity of consciousness first, AF is equanimity of the body first.
-Culture: How we act and react. Morality.

The axe of non-duality is quite straight forward. The experience of non-duality being uniform in every context. (Again, I invite the elders to correct me).

On the axe of emotion, progress could be made in a linear way but some kind of emotional reaction might be much stronger than some other, but ultimately, full equanimity is expected.

Culture and morality is much more complex.For the sake of the discussion, I will limit it to this polarity: killing vs letting yourself be killed.

2 x 2 x 2 give us a total of 8 kind of realization. From the highly emotional samourai that assault people to the totally free of emotion highly-realized Tibetan monk that immolate himself (I speculate here but you get the idea).


Maybe the progression happens like this: First you realize non-duality. You are punch in the face and are very emotional about it and puch the guy back. You didn't suffer. Next you are punch in the face, don't suffer and don't have emotion about it. You punch him back because that's what is American to do. Finally, you are punch in the face and invite to be punched again. You are Jesus, Gandhi.

RE: Joko Beck's Six Stages of (Zen) Practice
Answer
4/8/13 11:13 AM as a reply to sawfoot _.
One way to think about enlightenment is that it is a skill that you learn. Like juggling 3 balls. There is a point where you can't juggle, and then, you get it, and you can "juggle". You can still get better at 3, and you still can drop balls. And then you can progress to 4 balls...And living an awakened life is like juggling all the time, except, sometimes you can still drop a ball or stop juggling altogether.

I was reading about Ranama Maharshi, who seems like somebody who you would want in your deck if you were playing "mystic top trumps". Apparently a few times he tried to escape the ashram built around him, as he got fed up with all the attention and just wanted to hang out in a cave.

Going back to Joko Beck's way of talking about it, she places a great emphasis on acting in the needs of the moment, and not selfishly. But that doesn't mean you can't hit the guy back. Sometimes the situation/life would suggest that you act that way. As D_Z says though, it is a matter of judgement, and I was never really satisfied of her explanation of this.

RE: Joko Beck's Six Stages of (Zen) Practice
Answer
4/8/13 12:20 PM as a reply to sawfoot _.
sawfoot _:
One way to think about enlightenment is that it is a skill that you learn. Like juggling 3 balls. There is a point where you can't juggle, and then, you get it, and you can "juggle". You can still get better at 3, and you still can drop balls. And then you can progress to 4 balls...And living an awakened life is like juggling all the time, except, sometimes you can still drop a ball or stop juggling altogether.

I was reading about Ranama Maharshi, who seems like somebody who you would want in your deck if you were playing "mystic top trumps". Apparently a few times he tried to escape the ashram built around him, as he got fed up with all the attention and just wanted to hang out in a cave.

Going back to Joko Beck's way of talking about it, she places a great emphasis on acting in the needs of the moment, and not selfishly. But that doesn't mean you can't hit the guy back. Sometimes the situation/life would suggest that you act that way. As D_Z says though, it is a matter of judgement, and I was never really satisfied of her explanation of this.


There is this tendency of making the teachings prescriptive, maybe because of the judeo-christan influence which is heavily prescriptive. There is no moral absolute. Morality is an emergent property of this conversation humans have on what we ought to do. Sam Harris wrote an interesting book on the matter.

As long as you still have a self, you still have that suffering in you, you can use that as an indication of the direction to take. That's the training in morality. I don't know how training in morality keep going on after 4th path. Is it in the awareness of suffering in others? Can we say that the meaning of "selfishly" change after 4th path?

Announcements Announcements