Reading Dan's revised four path model https://www.dharmaoverground.org/dharma-wiki/-/wiki/Main/MCTB+A+Revised+Four+Path+Model

says -

"It was only when I had gotten so sick of the cycles and realized that they were leading nowhere that I was able to see what has nothing to do with the cycles, which wasn't anything but a strange untangling of the knot of perception of them."

Which sounds like what a lot of teachers say about meditation not being the cause of enlightenment, or that the seeker is the problem obstruction, that sort of thing.
For example what Shinzen Young says here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sCj9PDyPsg

So (and maybe Dan if you're reading) is that description of the four path model basically a summary of the reason behind self inquiry and direct pointing ?

Well, not necessarily. It didn't imply those, though it doesn't explicitly contradict them.

Rather, the point was a mix of factors, maturity, time to integrate, time to get used to insights, as well as a very high level of high sensate clarity that finally saw those last little patterns of sensations that were not perceived clearly enough, as well as a very high degree of dispassionate disenchantment with specifics, and that included cycles, stages, states, and all of that, as, having been through them thousands of times, I realized they all ended and thus, while contributory to the clarity that finally made it happen, they themselves were not the answer, though, as the answer was whatever was happening (albeit perceived in a totally different way, a way that did require very high degrees of clarity and other factors that those states and stages did make possible). 

That help?

A bit yes.

I'm a big fan of Rogers model. 

It's 4 path but in strictly phenomenological terms without any classical lingo. 

https://youtu.be/9hyJxphAPZ8?si=z00ld8ZHk80hgk03

Thanks for sharing!

That guy seems to do something for me.

He's a good guy. He teaches some, donation based. Had a good chat with him a few months back. I endorse him wholeheartedly. 

Thanks for your reply. In answer to the locked thread - it would be great if there were a league table to show which schools, traditions, communities, techniques produce the best and quickest results. As far as I know there have only been a couple of efforts at that, and not here, so it's impossible to know what is or isn't likely to be a waste of time. I'd have thought a responsible tradition would offer some measure of it's effectiveness before people spend their time following it.
Ta.

It's not that simple. Different practices work for different folks, so you can't say what's effective for one will be for another.

A tradition offering a measure of effectiveness would essentially be offering promises, and they would never be able to live up to those consistently, since you can't really promise anything when it comes to these things, and again, everyone's different.

If a group or tradition promise you great things it's more than likely a scam or a cult.

I can understand being frustrated. I was frustrated with my first choice of traditions. None of us can know ahead of time which practice will help us most, and in the most efficient way. As Nihila said, everyone is different. This means you have to see it as your job to figure out what works for you, and then give your chosen practice the ol' college try. Dedication and consistency are key.

​​​​​​​

Yes, very true. Also, different traditions tend to produce different results. Part of the work is looking at the practitioners and adepts and asking yourself if that looks appealing. For example, not everyone wants effortless celibacy. 

Yes. And even further, what has worked before, might stop working, or vice versa; what hasn't worked before, might work when you try it again. There's a lot to take into consideration.

I think an open and pragmatic approach built on a foundation of honest phenomenology is best. 

Honest about experience and open to drawing from any dharma tradition. 

I think finding teachers, guides and comrades who really know what they're talking about is a very effective way to do this stuff. Though it takes trial and error to do this. 

There isn't necessarily a path that's best... But being able to work in a post-traditional meta-inclusive framework that can adapt and piece together information from disparate traditions, is, in my opinion, a candidate for the best approach. 

And it works even if you want to spend a year in a monastery or hit up your Zen spot every week. 

From my personal experience this is what worked best for me. It is also what worked best for others I know and the inability to have this kind of flexibility was a sticking point for a number of people I know too. 

​​​​​​​I know a couple of people whose fetishisation of Tibetan Buddhism led them to seeing Vipassana as inferior even though some of the stuff they most needed to practice with was real core Vipassana stuff. When me and others pointed this out they weren't able to accept it, they weren't able to adapt, they were too bound up in their tradition and the ways they believed it was superior.