Forum: Dharma Overground Discussion Forum

These questions arise because I am trying to doubt something that seems like doubt is not applicable to, so I am looking for outside opinion and perspectives more experienced than my own. Hopefully some which will validate or invalidate my situation. My main reason for asking the questions is basically to answer whether there’s something specific “left to do,” or whether the phrase “there’s no reason to continue carrying the boat once one is on the other side” is now applicable.

Of course I will continue my practice regardless of the outcome, so in the end, that's still all things come down to. But any feedback on any of this is greatly appreciated!

--Does or can the eye of wisdom open through an A&P?

--If we partake in being immersed in story-based content, is the immersion actually a “hint at duality” which will fade with continued investigation? I imagine that would be some sort of ever-present awareness of no-split (which seems like concentration practice to me). Or is this immersion simply a normal aspect of life in respect to a voluntary wish to partake in a perspective which contains story-immersion as a component characteristic? To add to the situation a bit, immersion instantly fades and no doer is present if attention is turned that way.

--Is a permanent “ditching of the doer” the “end,” or are things such as the immersion asked about in question #2 an example of “work left to be done?”

Thank you.

One thing that happens is you suddenly understand a lot more than you ever did. It can be almost a giddy feeling of "so that's what this is all about". There is a sense of understanding of how "this and that" are created at the same time, how suffering is caused by a false solidification, and there is a lot less self-defining (I'm not really my body, thoughts, mind, story, etc.)

Unfortunately, this understanding seems to be still bundled in with a lot of subtle self-assumptions... and this is where the Dark Night picks away at our suble lack of wisdom and equanimity. Basically "bad stuff" happens and we take it personally... and then all the old doubts come back a thousand times worse than ever. ("I did all that work and it still goes/feels like this?") And there is nothing to do but care for oneself enough to accept difficulties and keep gently practicing.

A&P can be crossed several times, too. Re-crossed. Which makes it confusing to know exactly where you are. I've overestimated my practice many times, especially before reading Daniel's book.

The good news is that when the tension lifts and it feels like a new stage of understanding has been reached -- that's a great time to practice! Enjoy the new-found openness and practice very gently. And don't worry if difficulties come back, that's just showing you new areas to explore.

Thank you for your reply, I appreciate it.

I was wondering specifically if the last major shift from self does or can open through an A&P; or if the very nature of an A&P can lead one to false assumption. Said another way, I cannot find the dual self I use to use as a "check" against my progress, but am wondering if certain things "still count" as duality, or if those things will always be present regardless of one's level of realization.

I think the answer to that question is probably no. The A&P does not necessitate major shifts, including the last shift. It's fruition that "does the damage" and it's highly unlikely to go from the A&P event to completely enlightened. The path really does tend to be more gradual then that. It often takes years and even decades (assuming one doesn't quit in the dark night or get held up somewhere else down the road) to go from the first A&P to arhantship. And there's a ton of stuff that happens in between. Stream-entry, then cycling, then seeing emptiness in real-time, and having emptiness become more and more the ground of one's experience. Then there's the shift that Daniel talks about, but which I don't have 1st hand experience with (yet). There are many, many A&P's from start to finish (probably 1000s if you count all the sub-cycles) and it is really easy to think that one has it. States, especially experienced for the first few times, can fool us into thinking we've got something lasting, but skepticism and further testing will reveal what lasts and what doesn't. :-D

Thanks for the reply--

I am not saying this is the first A&P. This is one of many and it was distinctly different from the others. Similarly, it is very different and easily distinguishable from high-equanimity, which has nearly fooled me a few times in the past. Also, from what I have experienced (and perhaps this is simply me not correctly interpreting what is going on) is that shifts in the later paths are not really "done" by fruition. To be honest, fruition while meditating these days is almost a distracting annoyance more than a sign of some sort of change. The deepest, permanent shifts I have felt were typically while I was just going about my day, thinking about some dharma. If I recall correctly, I have read of similar experiences even within Daniel's book. This shift was similar (was laying in bed staring at the ceiling), except that it had distinctly A&P characteristics mixed in. Due to its peculiar nature and the profound clarity which has not receded, I ask the questions above.

Anyhow, I appreciate your response. :]

Thought of perhaps a better way to ask this question: can the sense of a watcher permanently fade but a doer (not a "seperate doer") remain? Is that sense of doer-ship apropos of duality, or is the "doer" that remains when mindfulness is low simply a perspective that will always remain in some intensity depending upon the current phase while cycling?

Dear Yabaxoule,

As I read your posts, I get the sense that you are saying that you have been hanging out in anagami-like territory and by your assessment are wrestling with the final split territory. If in fact this is where you are, then I can tell you this is slippery territory, complex, not straightforward, difficult for even the best, most obsessive mappers to map in real-time, and notoriously seductive in terms of the amazing twists and turns the mind can undergo in an attempt to convince one that one has finished the thing. Openings can be profound, the sense of everything being simply luminous, or empty, or just where it is, or centerless, etc. can be so nearly complete so often and then fade that one can be fooled again and again.

All that said, here goes my best answer to your question, realizing that even seemingly straightforward language such as "doer", "separate doer", "watcher", "duality" and the like may have subtle differences in personal meaning that may not quite line up even between the most careful and communicative of friends. My answer is this: the sense of will, effort, intention, doing, observation, etc. are all empty, natural, causal, transient, ordinary, and thus, given this, the problem is not with the sense of effort or will or doing, but the fundamental way those are perceived in real-time as one's baseline. The cycles do add complexity to interpreting this, and yet, at the end, even in the strangest, most difficult place in the cycles, when one's attention turns to the perceptual asking of the final question that you ask, the answer is directly obvious like color and space are obvious, "Ah, the knot is untied, the center is seen through, the truth is clear, subject and object are seen through, this field of transient manifestation is aware where it is, this answer is final and satisfying in its simplicity and completeness, there is nothing beyond this."

Thus, the standard advice for any opening that seems major and paradigm or fundamental perception altering is as follows: wait and see. Observe how it holds up under the changes that meditation and daily life throw at it. See how it holds up again in the face of a new insight cycle. See how it holds up to review cycles, if those are going on. See what happens over a few months, a few years, etc. The question is not, "Did the A&P do this to me," or, "Did fruition do this to me," or, "Did some other shift do this to me," but instead a visceral asking right now, at this moment, in this space of awareness, in your sensate universe, perceptually and directly: is this complete and done. Does this satisfy as the final answer. Is all thought, attention motion, conceptual boundary, and manifestation seen to be happening directly on its own in a way that leaves the lasting and ever-repeatable impression: it is done and I know it, this is what I was looking for, this withstands all the most rigorous tests, and is beyond anything else that was bound up in cycles, events, state-shifts, insight stages, openings, etc., being more fundamental in a way that makes itself inherently obvious every single time attention turns to that aspect of things.

I myself blew this many, many times over many years, as some of my friends who knew me during that period will happily tell you. That said, when it finally flipped, it was completely different from anything that had come before, and 5 years later is the same as it was then. Cycles still arise on various scales and depths, life still throws curve-balls and difficulties, but that thing that I was looking for on an insight front still feels as righted or straightened out as it did then and in just the same way, and from this vantage point, it was the only way it could have finally been, so obvious, so straightforward, yet so damned difficult to finally see...

Helpful?

Very helpful. I am wrestling daily with trying to talk myself out of the feeling "this is complete," but that thought itself is seen through as it is, which seems to reinforce the feeling, which is also seen as it is. Hope that makes sense, but that's about as straight forward as I can say. Regardless of whatever outcome may be prescribed, the only recourse I have is to simply continue my investigation, let it sit, and stomp through life accordingly. Thanks Daniel, you are the man.

Well, you are welcome, but to be honest, I got to follow instructions that were worked out long ago, and those who worked them out were the men, and the women, and thanks for them and those who taught me.

Aside from that, you say little here about how you got to wherever you may be now, what techniques, methods, teachers, time, retreats, etc.

What practical advice on the path do you have that got you to the point that you are dealing with whatever aspect of these issues that are discussed above?

I would be happy to answer the question on "practical advice" I would offer up, but the reply I wrote at work with intent of posting now is 5 times too long for a single post, and I'd rather not post 5 disjointed, spammy paragraphs! I would basically assert the importance of the practitioner's relationship with their goal, intuition, and the flavors of "self trust" and "trusting the process." I feel that those topics do not get enough attention, but I am sure that is very biased simply because of how things have happened in respect to my path.

I wrote responses to the other questions you asked, but I decided to not post those either. I realize that what I have to say about myself would probably only lead to confusion, frustration, doubt, etc. and wouldn't really help anyone. And Daniel, we chatted one evening about 3 weeks ago. You helped me through a rut after I had essentially turned my life into an existential crisis. I was in some pretty miserable shape at the time. Relatively humorous to look back on, but who knows how long I'd have been stuck without your advice.

Perhaps after I've sifted through the rubble, I will come to a few conclusions that might be worth sharing. I have a technique I stumbled upon by chance (a synthesis of several simple techniques which build upon a few insights) which seems to have been the most "profitable" of techniques for me, but it's probable that it was simply an issue of timing and readiness, and not of necessarily anything to do with the actual technique itself. Hard to tell.

Anyhow, I'll answer anything specific you ask here or via e-mail, and I also don't mind hopping on Skype to chat.

Well, even given the caveat, I'd like to hear what it was, if only for an idea about mixing and matching.

If that's the case, I will post it when I get the time to put it into a presentable format. It might as well be scribbled on dirty napkins right now!

Mixing and matching for me is a case of two variables coming together. Those two variables are: your short-term goal and a preferable (to you) simple technique. So, for example, lets say your goal is to deeply understand cause and effect, dependent origination, and similar ideas revolving around causality, and that you are comfortable and "skilled" with simple noting. Well, to synthesize the two could take several forms that would still be simple and useful. Lets say instead of just noting each arising as it comes, also note one of the causes of the effect you noted. Eg: "Anger due to computer, attention due to technique, technique due to yabaxoule, yabaxoule due to forums, forums due to internet, internet due to (ETC)." This is a dumbed down version of the technique I'll post later, but basically you're using noting technique to affirm dependent origination each time a sensation predicates another. You could compound on top of that, even, like telling yourself that in between each iteration of two notes, you are going to sense the vibratory qualities of each sensation in various areas as they arise; or perhaps in real time.

actually i have a question about that.. do you ever try to practice that continuous immersion? to retain it, with or without a sense of separation from it?

tarin

Tarin,

I'm not sure what you're asking. I work a long day and have a relationship with my girlfriend to take care of, both of which are examples of situations I am almost always immersed in stories. I don't think "practice" is what I would call it, but I partake in those where it's appropriate. The difference now is that when I turn awareness toward whether or not there is a separation, the answer is self evident. To add to that a bit, I feel way more ordinary now than I ever have in my life-- prior to and during any of my practice-- and I now feel that immersion is just the quality of another sensation which makes up an experience.

Is that what you were asking about?

sort of. my question rested on the assumptions that you feel some sense of separation - or doership - within the immersion when your attention isn't turned toward the issue.. and that you have a feeling that this separation maybe shouldn't be there if the work is really done, even when you don't turn to it. are these things so, or have i misunderstood?

Well, that was definitely my original reason for this post. I think I was originally confusing sensations like "do this," "intend that," as the underlying doer that was previously inherent in all sensations. The paradoxical nature of a "doer thought without doer" confused the hell out of me, especially when it arose when I was not being mindful of it.

After the discussion above and some investigation the past couple of weeks, I'm seeing the doer I originally wondered was duality as another sensation that arises on its own and passes on its own, but paradoxically "is doership" itself. Though I am hesitant on whether or not that is going to stand up to continued investigation, this seems agreeable so far.

I feel like when I sit and my concentration stabilizes decently, that confusion fades utterly and it is a non-issue, so that helps me feel that I am stabilizing this opening and the questions were simply due to confusion stemming from entering into very foreign territory.

thanks for the explanation and update. if dan's right and you're in late-anagami territory then im far from having any practical experience here. yet your concerns resonated with me, and seemed to mirror, perhaps in a fractal-like way, some of my own.. and that's why i responded. to clarify my question earlier, i was thinking that there might be something to being lost in story-like immersion, and instead of turning your attention so far as to see separation's absence, turning it more carefully might, i dunno, reveal its presence in a way that's not problematic, part of the story, even. and getting totally lost in that could be good.

Whoa, Nelly! I never implied any such thing. I said, "If you are where you think you are, then blah blah blah...", not "I think you are a late anagami, so..." I didn't presume to pass judgement at all, just tried to answer the question given the poster's assumptions, but didn't try to critique those except indirectly. These are critical distinctions. Sorry if I caused confusion.

The sense of separation comes and goes dependent on conditions. The sense of connection and integration comes and goes dependent on conditions. These are empty. The sense of them being empty comes and goes depending on conditions. All qualities are transient. All states are transient. None of it lasts or holds up. Beware solidifying even the most desirable or profound states, as the most unitive fades, the most non-dual doesn't hold up, peace vanishes, concentration comes and goes, mindfulness comes and goes. Beware and investigate. That's my advice.

whoa there yourself nelly, what's the difference between 'i get the sense that you have been hanging out in anagami-like territory .. wrestling with the final split', and 'i think you are a late anagami'? i'm not sure i understand that distinction.. or where you think you caused confusion.

Tarin, no problem on the explanation. I think in your last post you said best what I was trying to articulate, so read it again and thank yourself!

Daniel, I get the feeling your advice is in regard to what I said about "stabilizing." I did not mean stabilizing in the way it seems to have been taken; I simply meant a stability in understanding a confusion which arose. I feel as though I'm becoming acquainted with Bill Hamilton as I draw a parallel to your book's description and the continuity in your advice =). He must have been a helluva guy to leave such an impression.

Read carefully, please.

Ah, that previous post should have been addressed to Tarin.

For Yabaxoule: tell me what you mean about Bill?

whoa! oops indeed.

'..that you are saying that...'

Daniel,

From what I can tell, each individual's behavioral personality is the sum of various experiential imprints. Some impact us more, some impact us less, the result is an amalgamation traditionally said to be "me." I am my mom, dad, brother, girlfriend, a car crash, the schools I went to, the dharma, you, and so forth. Some of the traits I've latched onto more than others may be minor-- I hold myself like a friend I knew in high-school, sometimes I laugh like a friend I've known all my life, the face I make when I cry is my mother's.

My comment was alluding to the similarities in your personality which I see as a parallel to what you wrote of Bill's personality, at least in the contexts I've seen. That could also be coincidence, or what drew you to him in the first place; but in essence I was saying "you seem a lot like your old teacher."