Got into Jeffery Martin's stuff online. Really good and I feel it throws a lot of light on things.
Points I got from his stuff

• mantra and noting both cause dark nights and this is expected in some paths (ie. - y'all)
• people waste a lot of time on contemplative techniques that don't serve them
• dark night isn't necessary
• realizations can be lost and regained due to triggers like stress
• estimate 0.5% of population enlightened to some degree
• app 70% of his sample didn't follow any method it just happened
• some rare people born that way
• can make people more dogmatic
• emptier levels of enlightenment can mess with the memory for day-to-day things

comments?

Where do you find his stuff online?

I made connections with someone who went through his course and taught me Jeffrey's dyadic self inquiry. Very powerful. I have done self inquiry wlone for some time. This new method deepened my practice

Hi Jack, cool that you explored something useful there. There's a centralised place for his stuff here
http://nonsymbolic.org/
http://drjefferymartin.com/

stick

I recently decided I really like what Jeffrey is doing.  It's part of the movement.  

Jack, what is dyadic self enquiry ? It sounds like partnering up with someone to ask where the real 'I' is, with somoene to witness it ?

Noah, 

I have listened to Jeffrey's stuff and I would do the Finders course if it didn't have the high $$$.  Who are other thinkers I should check out in Jeffrey's movement?  Is he Trans Tech like Mikey Seigel? 

Putting it in polite terms, there are some aspects of what JM is doing that I am uncomfortable with for various reasons. There is clearly an odd mix of elements, some savory, some helpful, some empowering, and some, well, that remind me of a time when I was in San Francisco in the early 90's, and Day Quayle, George Bush's VP, came to speak in China Town, and he didn't realize that there was a very large banner displayed behind him which said, in Chinese, "Would you buy a used car from this man?"

My impressions based on relatively limited data. However, he did stay overnight here at my house and we spoke for about 9 hours about the dharma and his work and ideas. He was a nice enough guy.

Clearly, some people are gaining benefits from the freely available, valid and useful techniques that he has summarized, repackaged, and sold at high price, though aspects of his models, which were already fixed before he had all his data, make my skin crawl at times, and I detect some marketing and idealized elements that contradict real-world data points.

This tech stuff is interesting....

I came in the into Buddhism through the backdoor of some new age woo woo and  the high tech stuff from the early mid 90's.  I worked for a company in the San Diego area that marketed a light sound machine called "Zygon".  It was a test marketing and full of promise, hype, etc.  But the amazing thing was that it did relax the hell out of me.  Later I bought my own L/S machine after reading Michael Hutchinson's "Mega Brain Power ", got into entrainment with binaural beats, hit floatation tanks, then as my perceptions opened up I learned about Reiki.  I got into the subtle energy thang for a number of years but got really put off by the emphasis on all the woo woo.  I meditated a lot when I was single and had many A&P experiences and probably have been in stasis for over 15 years as new work training, marriage, and five kids can do.  Last December, I woke up from a slumber and now practice is fer real, fo sho.

Daniel, I agree with your instincts about Jeffery Martin. I, too, was the subject of "the interview" with him. It was roughly 6 hours of detailed questioning. When he published the results of that study I was aghast at how revealing of the subjects he had made the interview and test data. He was also claiming a closer connection with Harvard than he actually had. He also swore, during my interview, that he had no personal desire or interest in achieving what he calls non-symbolic consciousness.

I think he's a nice guy and probably means well, but some of his methods are a bit off-putting and shaky, IMHO. I suspect he had this commercial path in mind the whole time.

Isn't all the data he published anonymous?

The data he published contains enough identifying characteristics (age, occupation, location, etc.) to figure out who is who if you know the subjects. It doesn't conform to the normal academic requirement of anonymity.

Agreed that's concerning, but what data are you looking at exactly? This is the only published research I could find and there are only two published articles which mention the ages and occupations of 2-5 individuals - of a database of 1200 - but no locations. I've never seen the data of the individuals themselves after looking for a good while hoping to do my own analysis. My understanding is that has not been converted into a useful format for statistical analysis and it remains just a collection of structured Q&A interviews, which remains unavailable.

Please respond via PM if you understandably don't want to spread it around.

Daniel,

What are the aspects of his model that make your skin crawl?

The aspects of his models that make my skin crawl are his emphasis on emotional elimination as the optimal state, borrowing heavily from Gary Weber. I don't want to rehash the curious history of some experiments related to actualism from some years ago, just to point out my reaction to those models.

Gary Weber was Jefferey's "uber" and iconic awakened person. He used Gary's experience, one that is not common, as THE reference for his models - back in the mid-2000's.

I find this interesting because I was super into Barry Long (which I've moved past), and he had an emphasis on non-emotionality, as well as a map of several different stages of enlightenment that I've been looking at to see how it matches with other maps. It sounds very much like he was acquainted with what JM calls location 4 (I don't know what it would be in Theravada), with the associated personal idiosyncracies. I saw that there was some interaction between actualists and Long, and they sounded like they were at similar places. I think I've benefited from checking out JM's stuff in that I can see now that there seems to be a state in which some people dwell which is non-emotional, it's not just an idiosyncrasy of one guru.
I do wonder what the difference is between this and psychopathy or low empathy autistic spectrum (not to equate the two) or if there is some sort of relationship there ?
ie., what happens when someone who already has low affect (bit of psychological jargon) starts to progress through those awakened states, finds little in the way of emotional turbulence/defilements because they are simply not very emotionally turbulent in the first place - but expects others to be able to do the same ? Or maybe only people who are already emotionally flat really get into that sort of emotionless state, or more easily ?

cheers

Hi Dan I watched most things he has online, and read through academic papers like his dissertation, and I didn't see that sort of emphasis, though I may have missed it. I only saw that he has as number 4 in his location scheme a state in which there is no emotion, which (he says) is quite rare, and which sometimes people voluntarily leave because it makes ordinary worldly life a bit difficult. Do you know where I can find this sort of emphasis ?

One takes 20-30 minutes with one person asking questions of the other. Then switch roles for another 20-30 minutes. The one asking the questions can really bear down on the other and take them to a deeper dimension. At least, that is my experience.

Thanks Jack, the info at the end of Rainbow's link explains some more about this.

To all: aside from debate about academic integrity, and such, I think the really important thing is the bottom line, not the $$$ one but the rate of awakening.

Is there a reliable figure for the number of people awakening from the disparate methods employed in standard buddhism, including all the methods tried by DO people, and other traditions ?

Is that figure better than the Finder's Course ?

His definitions of awakening should be taken with a good pinch of salt.

1) He sets out with a clear-cut distinction between persistent non-symbolic experience (> 1 year) and ongoing non-symbolic experience (< 1 year), but then he treats those two terms almost interchangeably in practice.

2) Do not assume that his "locations" correspond in any way to MCTB paths, although his descriptions might make it look like he is implying as much.

3) If I understand correctly, during the Finders Course, "location attainments" are essentially self-reported, which sheds some dubious light on the scientificity and reproducibility of the experiment.


-----

EDIT one year later. This comment of mine has been included in a review of the Finders Course. I should point out that I did not take part in the Finders Course.

Summary of the review:
https://old.reddit.com/r/streamentry/comments/98e7gd/practice_my_review_of_finders_course_exposing_the/

Full text of the review:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mBoiFi1zbtP1ewUCjoTtAabG67GjsLICuceAjl4nHWE/edit#

Hi Neko, thanks, nice to see you again. Quick response to points.

That's OK I take buddhism and it's maps with a pinch of salt too.

1) I think he does a bit of that, yeah.
2) Don't worry, I don't assume that, but as the locations are derived in part from realisations on the buddhist map I think there should be plenty of correspondence.
3) Aren't all attainments self reported ? If you mean it takes a qualified person to verify the attainments, to make them "proper", good, but who qualifies the qualified ? Who verified the original buddha ? I don't think we should expect official buddhist approval from a non-buddhist course.

I thought his locations sounded very much like so many reports of what various people experience, but they are broad categories and I don't expect 1:1 mapping with detailed maps (that may themselves be incomplete).

I think it would be nice to have, as I see some have suggested, double blind trials, control groups, etc. A control group could be a group of Theravada noobs so a proper comparison can be made and we can see which has the best hit rate for awakening. I'm not much directly involved with Theravada beyond my interest in this forum (which I well appreciate), so I have no idea even anecdotally how many people are succeeding in the quest along that path. If someone has some figures I'd like to see them. The same criticism would apply, though, regarding control groups and all the other stuff, when assessing how effective Theravadan methods are.
Overall, from what I've seen, Finder's seems a very positive thing.

No, I don't mean that. Although I agree with you it'd be comparably flawed, I could still claim that an expert's opinion is potentially more reliable than self-assessment: You could, for example, verify whether the opinions of different experts match or not! This is definitely not something you can do with self-assessments.

Even better: There are some potentially more objective methods, like a questionnaire, but in which the practitioners are not told what the 'right answers' are --- with trick questions, stuff like that.

Ideally it would be some kind of blood test or brain scan, of course. But that's in the future, if ever.



I agree with what you write.

A relevant difference between the DhO and the FC from this point of view: no claims of scientificity here. No attempts to publish stuff on peer-reviewed journals (or claims that we will). I mean, it would be good if someone tried that, if they did it in a scientifically sound manner. The FC may be a step in the right direction, but it is a smaller one than we are led to believe, I am afraid.

I've been reading his online papers, goes into the psychometric tests a bit, and his dissertation which goes into various tests and scales in a bit more detail and some history of attempts to quantify and describe spiritual experience.
An interesting point that someone made is that it would could be unethical to run an experiment using Theravadan buddhism if it includes the experience of a Dark Night as a likely part of the process. I covered experimental psychology ethics a bit on my course but am not really up on it and I suppose it depends on the regulatory regime such a study would be working under.
Also, one thing that I haven't seen (yet) mentioned as a method of finding PNSE is sex, yet many swear this is an authentic route. Surveys on this are going to be even fewer than on standard contemplative practices, but from memory of the only one I have seen I think sex produces more instances of passing the A&P than meditation. If this is so, then it may be that more people find themselves in later parts of the buddhist map, via sex, than with standard meditation, too. And who has the data to soundly falsify such a hypothesis ? I suppose you could apply that line of thinking to other areas of life too, particulalry persistent drug use - what happens when, say, ayahuasca use is a regular practice rather than a one off retreat experience.

Neko said:


I was thinking about this and I suspect there are so many variables to having "success" gaining insight while using any method that this would require a massive amount of data on huge numbers of subjects, some of it likely not even collectible. And there would need to be control groups of some sort, where a placebo effect might be found. Things like individual traits, personality, anatomy and all sorts of other personal attributes probably factor into how one approaches and obtains insight.

Interesting to think about.

You could use artificial intelligence. I wonder what would happen when it got all those data points that told it it is a part of a greater living consciousness rather than being a dead robotic thing.....

Does artificial intelligence have artificial insights?

Thanks for your responses. Looks like the reaction to his work is mixed but, overall, positive. I'm enjoying his non sectarian perspective on things. It's been food for thought, but I won't launch into a load of questions (I have many) here like I usually would because I'm cautious about unwittingly catalysing friction between camps. I do feel like he's thrown light on a few things though (for me, anyway) and it's been thought provoking absorbing his stuff.

There's more information about the techniques and protocol here.

Interesting [edited the rest of my comment, I was assuming you were supporting the reddit post rather than just showing me the info impartially]. Thanks.

Hi, I just finished a Finder's Course in the last month.  Found it really interesting.  I benefited from practices supported my emotional well being like gratitude and goal setting, and by more frequent meditation which was sometime three or more hours a day.  We explored a number of well known practices that included body scanning and actual freedom.  I was somewhat frustrated with the fact that we would often only do these practices for a week before beginning a new one.

i self-reported to my group that i was in pnse at several points.  This was a result of a wonderful lightness as i went about my day.  Felt like i was more aware than ever as i went about life.  Perhaps nothing more than the comfortable way my foot hung over the brake pedal at a red light, or just looking and feeling like i was watching a film, like there was nothing else going on--if that makes sense.  My self reporting was also perhaps part of a heard mentality as i met online with members of a group several times a week, and we encouraged each other on to pnse.  We watched videos where Jeff promised us that we would all acheive it.  I thought to myself that the Zen saying that we were all enlightened finally seemed real.

Anwyay, i recently finished the course.  Have not completed my final Measures as i'm not terribly interested and can find other things to do.  Like file my taxes from last year.

Anyway, i agree that it's a rip off.  I am happy to return to Mahasi practice and read Science of Enlightenment and other books.  But still happy i took the course.



   

In your opinion, how does the PNSE you self-reported matchup with SE?

From vairied readings about SE, it would be a clear example of PNSE, including element of his locations 2 and 4.  That is to say lots of equanimity (loc 4) and lack of agency (2).  (location 3 characterised by love and 1, mental quietude: my summary)  

I asked a Sayadaw about SE being a realizeable goal and he made it clear that his standards were a 24/7 experience.  Jeff is much more relaxed about things, saying that pnse can come and go and that, if i've got this right, that we might be unaware of the fact that we are in it.

sorry for the late reply as was on staycation last week.

Which Sayadaw was this? Was it in the Mahasi tradition? Did he say anything about what this 24/7 experience was like? Just wondering how it compares to MTCB first path.

U Pannathami from Burma, speaking this January him when he visited MBMC in Penang, Malaysia.  It was a brief comment.  I seem to remember suggesting that was an acheivable goal for me.  He suggested that it was a lofty one as awareness couldn't be dropped for even a moment.

How pnse compares to MCTB first path?  The Finder's Course is much more lenient.  For example, though it stands for persistent non symbolic experience, Jeff allows the claiming of pnse even when the experience is temporary. 

Completed the FindersCourse last December.The expectation of getting something for the money that was paid ,somewhat made the process more difficult.During the 17 weeks there wasn`t a single moment that could resemble an epiphany except near the end when during an noticing exercise in pairs it becamed obvious that the impermanence is absolute and the self not so much.It was rather an organic understanding than an intelectual one.But it had the impact of changing ,not radically but enough the psyche.In the end money are paid for an experience.

i enjoyed the pairs noting also.  i did this maybe a couple times with Kenneth Folk however i found it much more effective doing it with a fellow course participant.  Maybe it was the fact that it seemed less time constricted: we did it for a full hour.  But after doing it, i just sat back and enjoyed the luminosity

Seems like quite a swing between benefits and things you don't care for in the same course.

The benefits at times, and even within the first few weeks, included good equanimity and happiness.  I actually was already on a programme of sorts, having just returned from 11days at MBMC and with a number of unread Mahasi books and other meditation manuals.  But this is what i did, and it deepened my practice while i continued to live my life.

Note that i was a bit broken when i started the course.  My wife had left with our two daughters my six months earlier and was still dealing with that (ironically, she told me about the Finders Course and sent me a 'special' invitation).  Practices like gratitude, goal setting, forgiveness and prayer helped my well being.

its probably fair to say that he oversells his course.  Saying that we are participating in a study (for which we pay).  Saying that everyone will hit pnse and that his course has the highest success rate of anything available.

Thanks for your reply. I was reading
https://www.reddit.com/r/streamentry/comments/5fvata/practice_dr_jeffrey_martin_holding_a_qa_webinar/
and some people have very good results and don't think he's the conman that others think he is.

The results as collated here seem excellent.
http://nonsymbolic.org/Yale-Presentation3-StatsVer.pdf

According to this, some participants entered what he calls an ongoing nonsymbolic experience but that just means they've had it less than a year, I think. I wonder if there is any follow up data on whether those ongoing nonsymbolic experiences turned out to be persistent ?

This course was good for me.  I think i made a good participant, as i lived alone and had good working knowlege of most of these techniques.  It's not free but I would say that i got good value for the course both in terms of the $ value (vs. retreat).  The fact that I contiinue with my regular life was a bonus. 

i think Jeff's sincere.  and sure others derived value.

He says the participants from his first group are still in pnse, presumably going about there lives effectively.  I expect to be invited to his follow up group if i ever finish my final measures.  i can let you know if there is anything worth sharing about the persistency of experience.

So, I read in his stuff that he tested people for evidence of stress and emotion which they claimed not to be experiencing, and reported that some people felt stress and muscular tension that they didn't seem to be aware of.

Is this so, and are there other people who have found this ?

I sometimes wonder if enlightenment is simply a process of making parts of the psyche unconscious, rather than expanding consciousness (which it is often said to be). So for example losing a sense of personal agency yet still being able to perform in the world means that an individual's emotional and mental activity is still present but no longer in the direct awareness of the individual, it becoimes hidden yet is still active.
Something akin to blind sight in which someone is not conscious of things that they are actually seeing - but affecting other functions of the brain, which are to do with emotion and mental activity, instead of vision ?
Maybe this is addressed in one of the various books on contemplative neuroscience ?

Thanks for the replies. Actually I felt a bubble of gratitude for Daniel & co for all the work they have done here

I'm not familiar with Jeffrey's models, so I can't speak to that. However, I can't seem to find a single peer-reviewed journal article authored by him (please feel free to point me in the right direction if I'm wrong). I also didn't turn up any peer-reviewed literature searching for 'Center for the Study of Non-Symbolic Consciousness' or 'Center for the Study of Intent'. His PhD in 'Transformative Studies' was completed in 2010 at the California Institute of Integral Studies. 

Independent academic research centres are viewed sceptically. Any research that isn't peer-reviewed isn't considering worth its time by working scientists. In a manner of speaking, peer-review is a low bar. There are lots of sub-standard journals that aren't particularly difficult to publish in. If research can't even get past the peer-review stage it's a big red flag. 

In science there needs to be criticism and accountability. I don't see where this would come from in a privately funded, self-created organisation, particularly when the people involved are actively trying to make money from the research. 

All of Jeffrey's stuff may be very good, just pointing out that it's not going to be taken seriously by most credible working scientists, despite the veneer of science-like aesthetic that's all over his websites. Moreover, working scientists almost always make it clear what they don’t know and hedge their limits of their knowledge, it’s rare to find credible ones making hyperbolic claims.

IMHO, some of this stuff does a disservice to awakening being taken seriously by the scientific community. Thank god for Willougby, Jared and Jud. 

As a caveat, it may be the case that the type of research that Jeffrey wanted to pursue wasn't possible with mainstream science funding, in mainstream science journals; it may have been to only want to achieve what he set out to do; in which case it may be looked back upon helpfully when it is more widely accepted. 

Hi I don't know what the quality control and accreditation is like for US higher ed system so I don't know about that, but I don't think he bought his qualifications over the internet. Nor do I know what the rest of the scientific community makes of it, in as much as scientists are paying attention to awakening at all, which in my experience many of them are loath to take seriously. He seems to talk to audiences full of scientists and tech heads.
I was watching some of his stuff online and he said that it was actually parapsychologists who pushed the envelope on rigourous experimentation (double blinding etc) because they were given such a hard time by mainstream scientists. Interesting, is that true ? I don't think that lack of an official stamp of approval from peer review journals necessarily means his research is wrong - I don't think Galileo or Archimedes had that either. I can see how peer review is a good thing as a quality filter, though, even if it's somewhat corrupt in pharmaceutical science and not very effective in sociology and psychology which I believe have problems with reliable replication of results.
I did like his debunking of 'The Secret' and quantum woo in one of his vids, it seems like he is concerned to some degree about scientific integrity.

But none of that really answers my questions about whether his claims about methods, ease and speed of awakening are true, I suppose I will have to wait for further verification or denial.

@Stickman. I'm worried that my above post may come across as having more vitriol than was intended. As I said, I'm not very
familiar with his work so I can't judge it specifically; I do plan to look into it at some point though. I think the above more reflects my ongoing general frustration that awakening isn't being taking seriously as an object of study, for the most part. Clearly I believe in it, being here, with my own experiences matching those of others, as well as how they're described by Daniel, Kenneth, Ron and others. 

I'm not sure about the claim about parapsychologists being on the vanguard of double blinding, which would be quite fascinating if true. I see the scientific method itself as evolving and becoming better through building collective knowledge, in much the same way as other technologies and bodies of knowledge progress. I remember as an undergraduate it struck me how randomisation was something that had to be invented. It was popularised by the Cambridge statistician R. A. Fisher in the early 20th century, where, from memory, he was doing experiments on crops. Nevertheless, it drastically improved the quality of experiments as well as the knowledge gained from them. It's always been fascinating to me that these methods don't appear out of a vacuum, but are there for a reason and due to people attempting to make things better over time. It's still happening today, with moves towards better statistical testing (e.g. less emphasis on p values), pre-registration etc.

I see issues with peer-review and problems with replication as separate. As I said above, peer-review is a kind of minimum requirement. It doesn't guarantee that a study is good, but it's kind of a first quality check; which means that studies that can't muster that are suspect. In this situation, it's very possible that there simply aren't any good, reputable journals who would be willing to take a look at something like awakening, which would render my criticisms void! With replication, it's definitely an issue in science, but that's not just true in psychology (sociologists rarely seem to conduct experiments, I think?). It's also a real problem in basic biomedical research too. I see the move towards greater replication studies, as well as the criticism that led to it, is part of the evolution of science becoming better. Pre-registration of trials will also help remove a lot of dodgy practices. 

In a way that's relevant to us, a question that interest me is... well, I think we can get so caught up in this stuff that we might forget what it's like for people who aren't on the ride. How do we work together to make awakening accessible and acceptable to those people? 

Apologies if I'm getting off topic from what you want to explore Stickman. The intersection of science and awakening is just a passion of mine at the moment. I'll report back when I've delved into some of his work!  

Hi thanks for your thoughtful reply, I used to scratch my head over how scientists can do science once they have awakened to the degree that they have lost their sense of subject/object separation, which is fundamental to many scientist's outlook. I now see that they can pretty much just get on with it as before, as far as the practicalities of scientific work go.

JM's stuff about scientific support or lack thereof for quasi-spiritual ideas (or even siddhis) is here -
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3LV5P7E6JZmH0MEZDGqj5A

I just read his God Formula book and was surprised that it's mostly a discussion about manifesting via intention and doesn't mention god much. I always thought most of that Secret style stuff was wank, basically, and it seems so does he. So he made a fun little Hierarchy of Needs type of model with wish fulfilment at the bottom and nirvana at the top. I thought it interesting that he dispenses with a lot of parapsychological claims as overblown, but he still retains a few bits of evidence in support of things like healing, manifesting and mind over matter.

Oh, Jeff Martin says there is a national leader who has PNSE. Any idea who that may be ?

He has usually referred to Gary Weber in that regard:

Gary Weber Bio

Sorry I meant leader of a nation

Trump may be a Tantric deity. 

Yeurgh!

When I go to the Centre for PNSE website I get a redirect telling me I have won an iPhone 7
What is the universe trying to tell me ?

JM says that people in PNSE are often not in touch with their own bodies. For example a person with PNSE,  although feeling high states of wellbeing subjectively, may have a body that is in a state of tension or stress.

(Aside from personal anecdote, he references a study by Richard Davidson that said college students are more aware of their bodies than Tibetan Lamas).

So using gadgets like skin conductances galvanometers he can show that an enlightened person is stressed when they don't actually feel so.

He wants to use tech gadgets to bridge the gap between perceived state, and actual bodily state.

What this sounds like in plain English is that enlightened people disconnect awareness from the nervous system, and he wants to restore that connection using a new electronic nervous system (biofeedback, smartphones etc.) to tell enlightened people when they are stressed out.

Enlightenment is commonly thought to be a relaxed state, and a more bodily aware state. Are these just assumptions or myths ?

Does cutting out all the self referential thinking and feeling just a cutting of awareness, not a transcending or transforming ?

Is this even healthy ?

Is it bullshit just to sell more silicone ?

Anyone got insight into this ?

Where can we find this study?

Dunno I'll let you know when I find it.

In my experience, muscle tension is conditioning.  My mind is composed of millions of seperate sub minds, each with its own narrative and goals.  Essentially, every narrative I have ever believed to be true and have not resolved or actively let go of is still being "performed" in my subconsious. The thread or submind processing that narrative creates muscle tension.  As I release tension, those threads are released as well.  

There is no controller or prinicpal thread.  There is a "rational" mind that holds the vanguard view, or what my brain perceives to be the truest model of reality.  It is not in any control, but feels the most true when it emerges.  For me, that view sees everything as nirvana.  I am working to attain a state of zero muscle tension and am fairly confident that in that condition the vanguard view will be entirely stable, but who knows!


 

Hmm...

finished Jeffery MArtins Finders Course a few months ago.

2000 USD

Benefits: 1) Exposure to many techniques
                
                2) Solidified the habit of meditating/practice every day. 

Cons: did not even got a glimpse of non symbolic experience.


If 2000 USD is not much to you, try it, i liked it.







 


 

May I ask whether, even though you did not find an established PNSE, his claim for +70% success rate of people doing his course credible ?

in my group of 6 people, not even close to 70%.


cant talk about the other groups/courses.