It seems to me enlightenment as a mental state and not a stage on the four path model continues to ring true. In the Hurricane Ranch talk with Daniel Ingram and his friends, the conventional boundary's of enlightenment and it associated vows, are questioned and discredited (enlightened people may drink alcohol and can still enjoy sex as an Anagami e.g.). We have a history of people like Chogyam Trungpa or Kalu Rinpoche and others that have challenged our ideas of what enlightenment is in their roles as teachers (by being examples of people who have mastered mental states, rather than all the defilements), by failing to live up to perfect super human standards of enlightenment. These roles of the gurus have failed throughout history and there have been many sex scandals in many spiritual traditions.

I recently, had Daniel's Ingram's final Teacher (the teacher I recall him saying he attained 4th path with on retreat) come on to me, quite strongly. It was awkward as not only was he my teacher but he is also a traditional Monk, with traditional dharmic teachings, such as an Arhat being free from defilements, (Daniel once described him as a likely example of an Arhat, and I was quite enamoured and a bit devoted to his equanimity and stunning grasp of the sutta's becuause, of his traditional Burmese training).

I wonder even from a contemporary perspective, of enlightenment being the mastery of a state (like an elite athlete), how lonely and lustful does an Arhat get (how much defilements remain)? I say this because he once described himself as lonely, and I wondered what he might mean by that, because at the time I considered him a likely example of an Arhart?

Thoughts, contributions, should I be sharing this as I don't really wont to go into a long story, to justify the truth of my claim, should I just leave it and take down the thread (It turned out I can't quite do that 2024, though it appears I can edit the first entry, but not every other persons entry. I didn't think at the time when I wrote this post in the spirit of a flower rather than a mushroom hiding in the dark, that a post from 2011 would still be following me around for so long)?

I'm sorry but I'm a little confused-- who is Daniel's final Teacher??


I am not an arahat, not even close, not even a stream-enterer as a matter of fact... but from what I understand, arahatship is simply the elimination of the gap between "self" and "experience," ie no Watcher, no Agent, nothing like that, just a field doin' its thing, sensations unfolding according to the laws of cause and effect naturally and effortlessly. Sensations that can be labelled as "lonliness" and "lust" may still manifest in arahats but they are simply sensations, no center-point or self is involved at all.

From what I undertand, the four stage model in Buddhism holds true. In a fully enlightened mind anger will not arise, where can it arise from? What is there to get angry about anyway? A stubbed toe pain sensation? There is no longer a self delusion concept for anger or greed to arise from. What mental formation has to exist to think it is lonely? Physiologically speaking, the human body still creates glandular excretions, which have cause and effect, pleasure sensations, etc, but... if there is no clinging or attachment , there would follow, no lust. Even a not fully enlightened being can use mindfulness to dismiss sednsations for what they are before the craving starts.

So, if one is attempting sexual misconduct, then it would follow that one would not be fully enlightened. But, hey, recognition, no blame, and change, humans.

Does not look as there is a dogma or super human standards, there just is a path and results.


Not claiming anything, just sayin'.

And, hey how ya been, anyway?

Metta


Sigh Fi

Hi Neem,

I usually don't respond to threads like this. But because I respect you and your practice, I've made an exception.

While this may be true for Wilber, it is, however, not true for myself. From my understanding of the Dhamma, awakening is more a maturation of the mind than an impermanent state. But perhaps that's just me. While Mr. Wilber is very intellectually accomplished and a prolific writer, there seem to be areas of his personality that are deficient in one manner or another. 'Nuff said. (Possible disclaimer: I've never been very impressed with any of the ideas that Wilber has expressed. Just my personal opinion. That's not to say that he hasn't a very astute and inventive mind.)


That action by the Teacher (depending upon the context, which has not been explained here) was quite inappropriate from a multitude of levels, and would seem to demonstrate an immature mind that has not learned restraint, and is still in the process of acquiring maturation.

Just because someone is able to achieve a basic awakening doesn't mean that they have had time to work on eliminating the asavas (sensual passion, states of being, the taking of views, and ignorance). Or perhaps, according to the definition that proclaims that arahants are no longer bothered by the asavas, perhaps the person is not an arahant. Whatever the case, one still has to deal with these underlying tendencies before he can truly be free of mental defilements. Anyone who still clings to sensual passion, to craving for being, to the taking of views, and to ignorance (or denial of any of these), still has some work to do (whether they think so or not).

The asavas, according to an explanation given by Ven. Analayo, are mental influxes (or more familiarly, underlying mental formations) which can "flow into and thereby influence the perceptual process. As with the underlying tendencies, this influence operates without conscious intention. The influxes arise owing to unwise attention (ayoniso manasikara) and to ignorance (avijja). To counteract and prevent the arising of the influxes is the central aim of the monastic training rules laid down by the Buddha, and their successful eradication (asavakkhaya) is a synonym for full awakening."

So, the question might be asked, can a person be awakened, but not fully awakened? I think so. I see no reason why this shouldn't be possible. This would explain the anomalies of the people you have mentioned above (I'm thinking of Trungpa primarily; am not that familiar of Kalu Rinpoche's exploits ). Trungpa has written some powerful passages that suggest a mature understanding of Gotama's Dhamma. I've been impressed with many of the things I've read of his. And yet many of his actions contradicted a mature understanding of these passages.

This, then, becomes a matter of personal choice as to what definition of "awakening" one wants to accept as one's own standard of awakening. Some people are more lax than others. I think we can agree on that. That doesn't mean that the person is any the less enlightened about the dangers of not being aware of anicca, dukkha, and anatta. For did not Gotama once utter: "Formerly and also now, I make known only suffering and the cessation of suffering." That's a pretty tall order for most people to accomplish in itself. And working on the asavas may just be icing on the cake. You think?

This is a problem with power. Power and access to people can create great temptations (serotonin). This is a problem in all systems where a human has to be responsible for others.

It's something that people have to watch out for in any hierarchy. (Business, Government, Teachers, etc).

The following book has helped me reduce my expectations with other people. I have a razor sharp awareness now of what people are doing.

Meet your happy chemicals

As I have claimed elsewhere, I have fully completed the path of insight, overcome all dualistic confusion, and reached the state of complete enlightenment, the final stage. There are several things I want to address in response to your post: enlightenment being a state versus a stage, and the standards, or ideas we have regarding the behavior of enlightened individuals.

First, I just want to say that we need to be very clear in what we mean by enlightenment, and why we are on this path to begin with. It should be clear to any serious practitioner that the purpose of the path is not emotional perfection. Instead, the purpose of the path is to overcome our dualistic confusion. The reason we suffer is because we hold to the wrong belief that we are inherently existing individuals, separate from all else. This is what the path seeks to correct. If we are not clear about this, and we seek instead self-perfection, we have deviated from the true purpose of the path. Self perfection is extremely attractive, but it is not realistic. The path consists not of building ourselves up, or selectively stripping away our faults, but seeing through such conceptual delusion.

As for the stage versus state debate, stage implying final and lasting change, and state implying temporary experience, my position is 100% that enlightenment occurs in gradual stages until the end, all of which are lasting. Attainment of genuine insight is stable and lasting, as can only be attested by personal experience. So while this can be extensively debated, let me just state that enlightenment as I define it occurs in stable and lasting stages, and temporary 'state' experiences of non-duality are simply temporary meditative states. Experience of 'state' enlightenment experiences may help to provide valuable direction, but do not affect your mind in a lasting way, or overcome suffering. As the overcoming of suffering is the goal, clearly such states fall short.

Secondly, addressing emotional standards of enlightenment, I want to be clear how enlightenment fits into the broader picture of our emotional life. Ian brought up the idea that while this teacher may be somewhat enlightened, the reason he acted in such an inappropriate manner is that he is not fully enlightened*. However, as a fully enlightened individual, I can tell you that emotions do not cease upon enlightenment. I still get angry, jealous, sad, lustful, you name it... Enlightenment does not affect the spectrum of emotional experience.

(Edited for clarification) While this may be tempting to dismiss, as 'well, you're probably not actually fully enlightened', hear me out. From a metaphysical perspective, we are souls on looong spiritual journeys, with near infinite past incarnations, and likely near infinite more in the future. What's more, there are many other planes of existence outside our universe. Our experience here on Earth is one small part of the overall picture of spiritual development. Earth is unique however in that we exist in the delusion of separateness, which could be likened to a training program. Enlightenment is the end of this program, however it is not the end of soul/ spiritual development. The end of duality does not mean final perfection, but merely the accomplishing of a specific challenge. Thus our search for 'perfection' goes on.. To clarify, what exists after enlightenment, and might be called the 'soul', could be likened to our basic personality structure.

Hope this helps, and I didn't loose you with that last paragraph, ha.

*It may indeed be the case that he is not fully enlightened. Arhatship, or 4th path as defined on this board, is very much the beginning of the journey to full enlightenment. At 4th path, one has an extremely superficial understanding of emptiness. From 4th path to full enlightenment, one must come to understand that oneself is inseparable from emptiness, which is a long way to go.

Do these emotions come out in your behavior and harm other people? Do these emotions harm you?

Well Adam, hopefully not. The point I'm making is that I may have overcome the delusion of separateness, but I'm still so far from perfect that there is effectively no difference between myself and unenlightened people.

Frankly, a belief in enlightened supremacy on my part would simply be arrogance, the same as anyone else believing that they are better than others. The point of enlightenment is realizing you are one with everything, which in practical terms means realizing that you and everyone else are just the same, and no one is any better or worse than anyone else. Sure, in the myraid situations of life, some perspectives may lead toward greater reconciliation, some toward greater divisiveness.. but this is just the facts, how things are. Ultimately, we all make decisions based on our current life perspective, which is constantly evolving, so everything that occurs produces growth. No one can claim to be fully growthed out, or perfect.

As I said above, life is a spiritual journey whether you're enlightened or not. While we all may strive to conquer our demons, such as 'negative' emotions, these are things which go deeper than, and are somewhat tangential to, the issue of our dualistic confusion.

You hope that they don't harm you and others? But do they? And if your hopes conflict with the reality then why not do something about it?



ok



Does it have to be a matter of being better/worse than others? Can't it just be the decision that things are better for me and everyone else without my disturbing emotions (any emotions that aren't based on contentment and enjoyment of things as they are)?



This is true I think. For me inner peace + peace between myself and others is more valuable than overcoming dualistic confusion. You seem to have labeled the overcoming of dualistic confusion as "enlightenment" and emotional changes as not enlightenment, which is ok with me, as that is just a matter of how you choose to define the word "enlightenment." However you seem to talk of emotional changes as though they are way less important, which i can't agree with at all, but to each their own.

If you genuinely, just straight up don't value being free of emotional discontent and malice towards others, then I guess we just part ways here, and there is little else to say. I would only point out all the war, depression, suicide etc. on this planet (as well as subtler forms of the same in your own life, such as being bored, irritated, melancholic, anxious etc.) and ask whether you genuinely don't wish to find a way past all that to happiness. (I am assuming that you don't, or at least it is not a major concern of yours, because of the way you talk about emotional changes being largely irrelevant)

Overcoming dualistic confusion is peace. It is final peace because you know you have done all you can, you have overcome all that need to be overcome. So many of our worries which cause us angst as just projections of our own minds, and to be enlightened is to see overcome these false projections. So much concern over needing to do this and create peace... are simply conceptual baggage's which are totally false and unnecessary to believe. To be enlightened is to have unshakable contact with compassion for self and other despite the arising of negative emotion and circumstance.

When we are confused about who and what we are, we do not truly have faith that the world is a benevolent place. We see so much evil around us, wars, famine,.., and we feel that it needs to be eradicated, that we need to fix the situation. Truly however, the universe, all of creation is a benevolent and loving. The core matter of all things is inseparable from unspeakable joy, or bliss. We don't need to fix the problems in the world, and frankly for the most part we can't. To work all your life in service of others, to put ceaseless effort into re-mediating a 'broken' situation is to turn a blind eye to the fundamental joy that is present always, from which none are ever truly separate. No situation is truly black, but always a mix of colors, the whole spectrum represented in even the harshest of circumstance.

The problem is truly that we do not see this. We do not see and feel the boundless joy in us and all around us all the time, irrespective of circumstance.



Adam, of course it seems the situation would be better for everyone without disturbing emotions. I feel the pain of these emotions, and I too feel I would be better off without them. I agree with you. I was extremely bothered by my experience, I had a glimpse of enlightenment, and saw a better way. I struggled though the path, persevering because I wanted more than anything else to conquer my darkness. Never satisfied at any step, I pushed on until finality, until I could go no further. And now here is where I report to you.

Believe me friend, if I believed an end to the evils of the world possible I would strive for it. But I see that it is not to be. I am in the position of enlightened persons before me who reported back that things were actually fine, and there really wasn't much cause for alarm. And again, who could believe them? Clearly evils exist to be remedied.

Everyone exist in different life situations. If everyone were as enlightened and seemingly apathetic as myself, who would be the doctors that we need? Who would help the poor? Everyone has a unique life mission, and enlightenment is not in the cards for everybody, and need not be; to each his own, in his own time.

Emotional perfection cannot be done, and the greatest way to remedy the ills of the world is to overcome your own delusion so that you can act inline with the way things truly are. This helps people in a spiritual way, in a way that no material help can. When I die, I will be at peace, because I have done all I could, do you understand? Everyone gets sick, and some get treatment and get better. Everyone dies. Everyone has come to this life for different reasons, to learn different things, at different places on their spiritual journey. I cannot say what is best for anyone, and ultimately they will decide for themselves. All I can do is point to the truth of things, and thus act a reference of sorts. Sorry if I'm rambling..

Thank goodness more people aren't enlightened!

What are your thoughts on the bodhisattva vow, T DC? I thought you were into Tibetan Buddhism, where Mahayana perspectives seem pretty important.

I am only talking about one changing oneself, this is not about some mass movement or "fixing all the problems in the world".

Would you free yourself from disturbing emotions if you did think it were possible?

Yes, sure I would free myself from afflicting emotions. Ha, they're painful.. However it is not to be. Again I want to say I made such great progress on the path due to strong motivation; strong motivation to be free from suffering driven by intense experience of suffering, such as pain over afflictive emotions.

However, if myself, at the end the path, say to you that afflicting emotions are not to be conquered, this can be interpreted several ways. I'm lying, I'm wrong.. However I truly am not wrong or lying. The way I wish for you to consider this is that if I, someone in your same situation, got to the end of suffering and saw emotional perfection to be a futile pursuit, yet was at peace, what does that tell you about enlightenment? Emotions, seemingly such a great issue, are just part of life upon enlightenment, an accepted part of life at that.

The path does not get rid of anything, it simply changes your perspective. It will not change your personality! However, better than that, it will allow you to know and accept yourself totally, beyond all doubt. That is the gift waiting for you. It is a different way to think about progression than emotional perfection, but it is much more realistic.

My path is the path to the end of discontentment, anger, frustration, uneasiness, fear, depression, melancholy etc. so you might be at the end of a path but not the end of the path.



Emotions are also just an accepted part of life for 99.999% of human beings.

Also you keep talking about "emotional perfection" which sounds moralistic and based on lots of self-control or something like that. That's not really my path, my path is enjoying every moment come what may such that I have no need for self-control.

I think we are at an impasse here, you are completely firm in saying that changing yourself emotionally is not realistic and even not particularly desirable. I am saying it is possible and it is desirable (for example to avoid becoming "lonely and lustful" and acting inappropriately as in the OP). I guess we just have different opinions, and our conviction in them seems pretty firm so I don't know if much more can come from this conversation.

I think the big cause of "controversy" with this topic is that there are two differing viewpoints in this forum.

Viewpoint #1-- Enlightenment means uprooting all the defilements, e.g. no more lust or craving for formless realms or anything like that. The suttic perspective.

Viewpoint #2-- Enlightenment doesn't eliminate anything, it is a change in perspective, emotions still manifest but there is no self to do the manifesting, "there is no suffering because there is no sufferer." This is the MCTB arahat, or perhaps it would be better to call it a Burmese arahat.

My personal opinion is that I ought not to form any opinions, that I should get to MCTB arahatship and see if I need to do anything from there. I am not an arahat. That said, I do have some thoughts...

There are many on this board who say that MCTB arahatship is actually just a sakadagami in the fetter model. I'm not sure where this comparison comes from, but not being very enlightened I don't really feel justified in commenting. Actualism is, apparently, the way to "finish" the process. However, isn't it odd that the Buddha gave four stages of enlightenment, and that vipassana practice (4 Foundations of Mindfulness, anapanasati, etc etc) prescribed in the suttas results in four distinct levels of reduction in self? It is quite a coincidence, and this ought to be considered when trying to compare the MCTB model with the fetter model.

Furthermore, with post-suttic texts like the Vishudimagga and the Abhidhamma, we find fairly detailed discussions of path moments and whatnot, including three moments before nibbana, the mind taking nibbana as an object, the three doors, and so on. All these things line up with the actual experience of vipassana mastery.

In other words, the four paths of the suttas have been studied and elucidated in great detail. The four paths of the suttas, the four paths of the Vishudimagga, the four paths of MCTB, and even some of the maps described in other traditions (e.g. Alchemy), all seem to line up.

And yet... MCTB arahats are just sakadagamis now? Why? Because of emotions?

Taking a look at the opposing viewpoint, that enlightenment involves elimination of specific emotions, we cannot help but run into Actualism. This is not a bad thing. Being mindful of one's emotions was recommended by the Buddha, and if I recall correctly, Dr. Ingram experimented with Actualism with positive results.

However, I do have some reservations. I realize I may be beating a dead horse here, but I feel that it is pertinent to the discussion.

First we have Richard, the "founder" of Actual Freedom. He claims to be free of any kind of affect, and others report something remarkable about his presence along these lines. And yet, he appears to manifest emotions in certain situations. His negative reaction towards the "spread" of Actualism on the DHO and his claim that Peter (who wrote most of the AF website?) was no longer Actually Free, are two examples. I'm certainly not saying that he's a bad guy, there has been far worse in Buddhist circles (I see Chogyam Trungpa's name up there somewhere), but it is a bit disconcerting when the man claims to be free of all affect.

But enough about the people, what about the practice? Unfortunately, I have never had a PCE, at least that I can remember, but they sound nice, and plenty of other folks have had them and can attest to their niceness. But temporary PCEs are hardly the goal-- permanent elimination of affect is the goal. Let's look at the practitioners who have done this.

...And there's a problem. There honestly don't seem to be any. A look through the past posts on this board indicate a pattern that seems to go along the lines of claiming actual freedom, renouncing the claim to actual freedom, and then disappearing from cyberspace. Tarin greco and Tommy M come to mind, though perhaps it was more personal and Actualism didn't play a big part.

It's not enough to turn me off completely from actual freedom, but it's enough to make me nervous.

Furthermore, there are other spiritual traditions with perfectly valid goals that more or less take the opposite path of actualism. I'm thinking of things like Western Magick, Vajrayana, shamanism, and occultism in general. For people in this boat, actualism would be a pretty poor choice, for obvious reasons.

There is another more complex dimension with regards to the above paragraph-- what if we have a psychic healer who chooses to pursue actualism and "loses" his power in the process? Is he selfish for doing this? Other people can no longer benefit from his abilities, but his own personal suffering is eliminated. In many ways it's like the old bodhisattva vow vs. getting enlightened debate, but this is a pretty heavy subject.

Actualism basically eliminates the axis of development regarding powers. I'm not sure if this is a wise decision, considering the powers can be used to help others.

I should go ahead and say that I have some personal experience with "the powers," and offer no further comment other than our materialistic society may not quite have it right. ;)

This post is turning out longer than I expected, so I will try to wrap it up, but before I do let's talk about MCTB arahatship again. At that level of attainment, there is no self, no Watcher, no Agent, no Perceiver, no Doer, nothing like that, just a field of sensations. Furthermore, there is no choice. Sensations unfold according to causality, there is no "self" making decisions or anything like that. Therefore, the decision to pursue actualism, at a high insight level, is not a decision at all, it is simply the inevitable unfolding of experience. Along these same lines, there is no self to have emotions.

I should also point out that Theravada has its own system for working with emotions called the Sublime Abodes.

What I'm getting at is, while actualism may be nice, arahatship is more ultimate, even perhaps the most ultimate realization one can have.

Daniel himself mentions this in his essay regarding his experiments with actualism:


That whole section is great, Daniel talks about working on emotions while still being an arahat and how those things fit in.

In conclusion--

The MCTB view regarding Arahatship being a change in perspective, where emotions still manifest but are seen for what they are, lines up remarkably well with later commentaries on the suttas, and on this basis seems fairly sound.

The suttic or fetter view, which is closely tied with Actualism practice, doesn't seem to line up with reality, as there don't seem to be any persons that are free of emotions. There is an unsettling tendency of claiming actual freedom, renouncing that claim, then vanishing, at least off cyberspace.

All this said, we are all mature adults here, we can make our own decisions regarding practice, goals, and even interpreting suttas. If emotional freedom is what makes you happy, go for it! Never sell yourself short when it comes to enlightenment.

Again, I'm not an arahat, just a guy who has put a lot of thought into goals and practice, who has read some of the suttas and contemplated emotional models, and to a lesser extent has followed the political shitstorm surrounding Actual Freedom.

Peace,
E

Let me quickly add that I hate the term "MCTB arahat," but use it for the sake of clarity. The arahatship of MCTB is the selfsame arahatship of the Buddha as far as I can tell.

There are a multitude of places where I disagree with you. I will focus on the disagreements regarding facts mostly.



Richard's "negative reaction" was clearly about what seemed to him to be misinterpretations of actualism. (which is pretty reasonable)

He doesn't claim that peter is no longer actually free that i know of. (please provide a source from the AFT homepage, as it stands, there are numerous references to peter's becoming actually free still there.)



I think those two cases are really, really different. Tarin said that he maintained his claim of being free of emotions but didn't see fit given a message Richard sent him to maintain that his freedom from malice and sorrow was "actual freedom." This is the reason that he stopped posting as he explains (not because his way of experiencing reality free from malice and sorrow changed).

Tarin:


Tommy said something completely different, that he renounced his claim to being free of emotions (he did this twice actually).

Also, Trent, Peter, Vineeto, Richard, Grant Brisset, Pamela, Grace, Tom (these last three from the AFT homepage) have never renounced their claim in any way as far as I know.



if that's enough for you, fine.



if ultimateness is what your looking for then don't look to actualism in that case

I thought these were the mental "defilements" that are gotten rid of on the path to full enlightenment.

Friends,

I feel it is important to consider the following from http://www.beyondthenet.net/calm/nibbana19.htm:

"When no more firewood is added to a blazing fire, flames would subside and the logs of wood already burning go on smouldering as embers. After some time, they too get extinguished and become ashes. With regard to the arahant, too, we have to think in terms of this analogy. It can be taken as an illustration of the two Nibbàna elements. To the extent the living arahant is free from fresh graspings, lust, hate and delusions do not flare up. But so long as he has to bear the burden of this organic combination, this physical frame, the arahant has to experience certain afflictions and be receptive to likes and dislikes, pleasures and pains.

In spite of all that, mentally he has access to the experience of the extinguishment he has already won. It is in that sense that the arahant is said to be in the Nibbàna element with residual clinging in his everyday life, while taking in the objects of the five senses."

Also, during one of the last days of his 10-day courses in his evening discourse regarding the ten paramis, Goenkaji says something like (paraphrasing here): "If you want to be liberated, you have to keep filling your ten jars drop by drop. If you want to be a Buddha (or reach Full Enlightenment), the jars are too big. Otherwise, full liberation can come with smaller jars."

Just some food for thought.

Peoples,

As one who has incessantly obsessed about what is what in the past, consider simply getting to what is being called "MCTB 4th path" and using that as a base for discussion instead of rampant speculation based on dogmatic leanings, faithfulness to whomever or whatever and whatever else is triggering the empty ponderings.

Get yourself a new baseline, a permanent shift in perceptual baseline, which stays likes so even post-honeymoon period, which gives one much more to play with, more stability to see cause and effect in play, and such incessant ponderings about what at the moment lays within the realm of locked-in-thought loops (belief) for most of you no doubt (which in hindsight probably can't be avoided, maybe 'stage' specific behaviour) will begin to seem silly, or simply not be seen to arise anymore.

"Post-MCTB 4th path" or whatever you want to title it, if so inclined, one can move in the direction of compoundings ceasing to compound. This compounding arises because of that. Well, what triggers the arising of that? This does. Ah! I see. Seeing this and that leads to this and that's cessation and all that follows this and that. If this compounding still arises, and one has simply established a relationship with it, whether based on notions of 'emptiness' or 'equanimity' or whatever, well, they are relationships, in otherwords, fabrications of mind. If that is your cup of tea....

In the end, each to his/her own. I don't think we can have it any other way.

Arahat shmarahat!

P.S. Bodhisattva Shmodhiratsva!

P.S.S. Getting it done VS locking in the the loops to condition this moment of experience, and the next...

Nick's current subject to change 2 cents.

Beeeeeeeeeeeee haaaaaaaaaap...........yyyyyyyyyy!

Edited as per usual.

Good post, Nikolai.

It's amazing how much time we can waste speculating about certain goals and ends, and what happens when this happens, when the best thing to do is practice doing nothing.

Speculating and choosing certain models over others just creates more tension and reaffirms the sense of self's need to become somebody better, in my experience.

To quote Ajahn Chah (more here):

"All states of mind, happy or unhappy, are called arom. Whatever they may be, never mind - we should constantly be reminding ourselves that ''this is uncertain.''

This is something people don't consider very much, that ''this is uncertain.'' Just this is the vital factor that will bring about wisdom. It's really important. In order to cease our coming and going and come to rest, we only need to say, ''This is uncertain.'' Sometimes we may be distraught over something to the point that tears are flowing; this is something not certain. When moods of desire or aversion come to us, we should just remind ourselves of this one thing. Whether standing, walking, sitting, or lying down, whatever appears is uncertain. Can't you do this? Keep it up no matter what happens. Give it a try. You don't need a lot - just this will work. This is something that brings wisdom.

The way I practise meditation is not very complicated - just this. This is what it all comes down to: ''it's uncertain.'' Everything meets at this point.

Don't keep track of the various instances of mental experience. When you sit there may be various conditions of mind appearing, seeing and knowing all manner of things, experiencing different states. Don't be keeping track of them, and don't get wrapped up in them. You only need to remind yourself that they're uncertain. That's enough. That's easy to do. It's simple. Then you can stop. Knowledge will come, but then don't make too much out of that or get attached to it.

Real investigation, investigation in the correct way, doesn't involve thinking. As soon as something contacts the eye, ear, nose, tongue, or body, it immediately takes place of its own. You don't have to pick up anything to look at - things just present themselves and investigation happens of its own. We talk about vitakka, ''initial thought.'' It means raising something up. What is vicāra, ''discursive thought''? It's investigation, seeing the planes of existence (bhūmi) that appear.

In the final analysis, the way of the Buddha flourishes through impermanence. It is always timely and relevant, whether in the time of the Buddha, in other times past, in the present age, or in the future. At all times, it is impermanence that rules. This is something you should meditate on.

The true and correct words of the sages will not lack mention of impermanence. This is the truth. If there is no mention of impermanence, it is not the speech of the wise. It is not the speech of the Buddha or the ariyas; it's called speech that does not accept the truth of existence.

All things have need of a way of release. Contemplation is not a matter of holding on and sticking to things. It's a matter of releasing. A mind that can't release phenomena is in a state of intoxication. In practice, it's important not to be intoxicated. When practice really seems to be good, don't be intoxicated by that good. If you're intoxicated by it, it becomes something harmful, and your practice is no longer correct. We do our best, but it's important not to become drunk on our efforts, otherwise we are out of harmony with Dhamma. This is the Buddha's advice. Even the good is not something to get intoxicated by. Be aware of this when it happens."


Be Happy!

Hi Adam,

My daughter is being a pill this morning so I don't have time for a detailed response, but I wish to say this--

I have nothing major against the Actualism stuff or the AF Movement, I just have some reservations due to the political stuff that blew up on both sides of the debate. I came to the DHO because I am interested in Buddhism, and while some aspects of actualism can be made to sound very Buddhist, I feel it ultimately is outside the Theravada tradition. Thus, while the discussion surrounding emotions can be interesting, I largely regard actualist posts as a distraction. This is my own personal issue, I suppose.

The Sublime Abode teachings have been more than sufficient in addressing my needs for emotional balance and peace, and I have yet to even come close to mastering these teachings, so I look forward to what more Theravada has to offer in this regard.

A Course in Miracles, a Christian mystical text, also talks about dreams disappearing, perception becoming clean, the real world vs. the world of illusion, so it has a lot of very AF-like stuff. In fact if I had more time this could be an interesting discussion, since the book was around long before Richard was.

At any rate, when I get to arahatship I will re-evaluate my stance on these things, but for now I think I'm all set.

Peace,
E

I get where this argument is coming from. But at the same time, it seems to me that the question of "does an arhat have emotions such as anger, jealousy etc" should be a basic question. I think there should be some sort of consensus on the issue. Simply so that we can say we know how these things work.

Of course it is possible that I'm entirely wrong.

There is no such thing as a consensus here. But here is Daniel's take:

http://integrateddaniel.info/my-experiments-in-actualism/

Speculation and "just practicing" probably have to be balanced. Too much speculation can mean getting stuck in constant worries about the best way to live, and never really giving any of those ways a fair chance. Too little speculation can mean pressing onward in a fruitless direction (this is probably the majority of human beings, never really questioning their basic ideas about how to live). I don't think there is any easy way out other than to experiment with too much and too little enough times to know how much is ideal.

Yeah, I thought there might be body lust or biological attraction, but that the mind would be able to chose to act on that or not. So it does seem odd that a monk, who might be an Arhat would enquire into breaching their vows.
The approach wasn't unethical for a gay man, and he didn't breach his vows, besides maybe touching my hand with desire, which was tender and sensual.

But maybe he can manage his desires but he didn't want to?

Oh hello, too by the way, Psi Phi.

PS
I'm going into a one month retreat with him and saw him again today, I'm not overly worried about that though.

Thanks Ian, I'm hoping this site is not only intimate but having people who are open minded about what is enlightenment. Which was my motivation for putting this stuff up here.

Ken Wilber's map or notion of states, seems to be a good but limited way of framing notions of meditation attainment and ethical development. Though it has problems in that it doesn't represent permanent states, it still seems a useful map to use in certain contexts.



Yes that is the dilemma, how much of the traditional definitions should we take to heart and how much should we disregard? I didn't think I would be able to resolve this question but I had to ask it any way.

Thanks for your input TDC. I was thinking something of the sort but not so eloquently put. Thought you have attempted to explain this notion, I wonder if can be explained? If lust remains, but you can chose how and when you engage with it, then its perfectly reasonable that you might chose to want a sexual connection with someone.


Neophytes like myself have to take so much on faith. At least I have been able to measure my development in relation to an insight and concentration map, and I have this confidence to rely on!

Thanks Eric, you seemed to have got it for me in a long nut shell. I guess I wanted reaffirming, that it was quite possible that Sayadaw could still be an Arhat, and that thread of thoughts helped me to resolve my doubt, even though it hasn't given certainty. I had resolved, that even if he wasn't an Arhat he was a good teacher, but maybe at a lower path. But who's to know, though we may have more of a context for measuring this in the future.

I think if you spend much time around enlightened teachers, it's pretty clear that they have issues and quirks like the rest of us, cases in point: Chogyam Trungpa, Mahasi Sayadaw, Crowley...

However, I think it is also clear that beings of high attainment also have a sort of peace about them that is hard to describe.

All this is talked about in MCTB fairly extensively... The big thing to ask yourself is "What are my personal beliefs and expectations about enlightenment in the Buddhist tradition?" And then compare those beliefs with how arahats actually are, or better yet, become an arahat yourself and go from there.

Check out these paragraphs from the section on the Action Models of enlightenment:

@T DC: I am assuming, perhaps inaccurately, that the initial post refers to Sayadaw U Pandita, Jr., though I don't in any way consider him my final teacher, as I continue to learn a ton from lots of people every day, including many here. I know nothing of his sexual habits, so can't comment on those, but I can tell you something of my understanding of his understanding.

When the split is gone, talk of emptiness being separate from phenomena, or emptiness being joined with phenomena, or of any such thing is really missing something important. The phenomenal world speaks for itself, is itself, all the way through, being transient, empty of substantial nature, empty of any abiding self, empty of any observer or controller or doer in that felt, perceived, believed etc. sense. However, the whole point is causality. Causally things occur, on their own, dependent on conditions, naturally, effortlessly. That causality is some stuff, and it includes mammalian causality, which intrinsically involves sexuality and hormones and all sorts of other stuff. Those who imagine that eliminating misperception of duality will so totally rewrite the causality they now deeply understand just by perceiving it clearly at their baseline are in for a rude awakening, to make a perfectly appropriate pun.

To those interested

In the upgrade we seem to have lost my former post. Where I retracted the phrase 'made a pass', because I thought it excessive.

I retracted it because I though the senario was unusual, I felt that I was jumping to conclusions and that Sayadaw is a rightious monk.

The event that lead my to jump to conclusions was a bit awkward and I initial refrained from sharing it because I was unsure how to interpret it at the time or that it would lead to excessive sepcualtion, but not speaking may have done the same?

I was visiting Sayadaw for Friday meditation and had arrived early, he invited me to sit down for breakfast. After conversing and discusssing themes of loneliness, as Sayadaw leads a more solitary life when in Australia. Sayadaw asked to read my palm, he pointed out that the pad of my thumb denotes lustful tendancies, and stroked my palm somewhat tenderly a few times. Some how in the thread of the conversation this lead to him asking to see my penis, I thought I had heard wrong and when I said nothing he repeat the question (sexual curiousity buddhist diagnosis; who knows?) he followed this up by asking if I was shy. To which I relpied it wouldn't be proper. Some people arrrived after that. But in the evening, I took him for a drive to the supermarket to recharge the phone. Later we continued the discusion around sexuality, over this conversation Sayadaw, was insistent to find out if I had ever had sexual relation with a man though I was taking about my experiences with women. Obviously these statements that I paraphrased were in the context of two 15 min converstations. In the morning and the evening.

I did a 30 day retreat two weeks after this with Sayadaw, and at the start of the retreat he had a bad back, so I game him three massages over four days. At one point when he got up, though we had removed his clothes while he was lying down and put him under towels, when he got up he had wrapped himself in the monasiticlion cloth. And when I looked at him to see if he was naked, he meantion proper dress, this made me more comfortable about the the stuff from before. And during the month he also made meantion of keeping the vowels of a monk, and beening on deaths door with malaria in the golden triangle, and consoling himself with the thought that he had kept his virtues and done good things in his life. This rang strongly true for me. There was also the classic reference to the ideas we have discussed in the above thread. Where Sariputtra Jumps like a monkey over a stream, to the chargrin of a a disciple and how this is because of his latent tendancies of having lived 500 lives as a monkey. Habitual beaviour or attractions still remain, in the Arhat and within us all. 

Overall I have, let go of my reaction to this stuff, I often, have put my foot in it with inappropriate words and am far from perfect, and I can easily indulge Sayadaw for one same such occurance. Maybe he was just teasing me to see how compliant I was who knows. And most importantly its perfectly natural to have sexual desires even though that is not allowed to be expressed in a monastic context.

So I hope this, does more to resolve the above drama that inflame it.

Sincerely Neem

Hi, Ian and Neem.

This is my first post, so I'm sorry if I'm bringing back a somewhat old thread. I'll talk here just about Wilber, that is what I can. In no way I'm implying anything about anyone else.

Just for the sake of clarification: Wilber does not think necessarily enlightenment is a state, at least not in a so straightforwad relation. I'll clarify that in a moment. He does differentiate states from stages, but the relationship he sees between those and enlightenment is a little more complicated. Besides, Wilber has changed his mind about some things during his career (they talk about 5 Wilber phases), so we have to be careful not to mix things. I think he is very very misunderstood, even by people who like him. 

To understand that we have to keep in mind what he's trying to do: integrate different knowledges, in this case mystical/contemplative teachings (mainly Eastern) with current psychological understandings (mainly Western). Developmental psychology talks about stages of development and how humans tend to grow through them. For a while in his carreer Wilber used to stack the contemplative descriptions (meditative "stages") on top of the psychological ones. In a sense, it's what a lot of us intuitively does, seeing spiritual practitioners as the top ones.

But after a while, he realized that it didn't work out, specially if you take into consideration empirical data. You have people at lots of different psychological stages having lots of different spiritual awakenings. So he differentiated what he called "states" (contemplatives) from "stages" (psychological). Then he and Allan Combs at what they called the "Wilber-Combs lattice" (see http://integrallife.com/integral-spotlights/integral-spotlight-adventures-wilber-combs-matrix for more info on that). 

Basically, what they did is to say that states are available to virtually anyone at almost any stage. You don't have to be psychologically developed to access a state. State include waking, dreaming and dreamless sleep, so even babies go through states. What differentiates a state from a stage is that states are exclusive, while stages are inclusive. That means that as a rule of thumb, if you are in a state, you aren't in other. If you are awake (in the mundane sense), you're not sleeping. If you are drunk, you are not sober. But for stages, that doesn't apply. That has to do with psychological structures, but the way to see it is similar to this: when you develop the ability to do algebra, you keep the ability to do arithmetic because the ability for algebra engulfs arithmetic, since arithmetic is a subcase of algebra.

I know, I know. But you have to develop the ability to enter different states. And the states tend to come in a sequence. And that is why Wilber started talking about state-stages and structure-stages. The main idea is the same, state-stages are exclusive, but tend to go in a certain sequence. Structure-stages are inclusive and also go in a certain sequence.

The thing is: the Wilber-Combs lattice is basically a way of saying that even though you may be able to access different state-stages (given the right conditions or training), you will interpret that experience by using whatever psychological structure-stage you have developed. But they reinforce each other. Recurrent access to different states, specially since they involve "letting go" of identifications, facilitate growth through stages. On the other hand, higher psychological development makes it easier to access different states, because your self-identify is wider (I'm glossing over some complex issues here).

So what about enlightenment? Well, it depends on what we are looking at. Wilber talks about horizontal and vertical enlightenment. 

By horizontal enlightenment he means the ability to non-dually seeing wharever phenomena is arising. In that sense, it is related to states and is partially equivalent to what most of contemplative lineages talk about. But notice that this is not the same as saying it doesn't involve maturation of insight. But it means that only because you have a non-dual view of reality, that doesn't mean much about what it is that you're seeing. So you might simply be non-dually seeing a "you" doing questionable things. As I said, these state-stages may lead you to develop psychologically since they loosen the grip of identification. But just as being 4th path won't turn you into an pianist or mathematician, it also won't immediately turn you into a nice person (unless, of course you by definition say that to be 4th path you have to be a nice person).

On the other hand, he talks about vertical enlightenment. Vertical enlightenment means you grow in structure-stages, so the phenomena that arises is the leading edge of human psychological development. In that sense, it becomes harder and harder to be a jerk, although not impossible (specially when dealing with shadows, unconscious psychological issues). And that is without touching the ideas of lines of development (like cognitive, moral, etc).

So when are you "fully enlightened", according to Wilber? He says that someone being "fully enlightened" is like being "fully educated", it doesn't mean much. What you have is some really elightened people (maybe way over our heads so we can't even know the difference) and others not so much. What he does talk about is turning temporary states into permanent traits, which is when you have enough access to the different states and enough development, then those things tend to stick more or less permanently. But that doesn't mean you stop maturing insight.

I've written too much already, so if anyone wants to know a little bit more:

http://vimeo.com/12324028
http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2008/10/bg-094-horizontal-and-vertical-enlightenment/

I can also try to answer questions, if interests.

Regards,

Rodrigo

I also once had an experience of sly sexual advances toward me from a Theravada Buddhist monk. In this Asian country (which shall remain nameless), pubescent boys often become novice monks around the age of 15. Their sexuality isn't yet fully formed, and all of a sudden they're required to become celibate, while living among other young men in the same situation. It makes sense that this would distort their sexuality, to say nothing of their ability to form adult interpersonal relationships.

Hey Derek

Yeah I have heard rumour about things like that. And where there are humans there is bound to be sexuality. It hard to know what actually goes on in the monasteries and how many monks live with indiscretion. Though Buddhism monastic Culture could be seen in the same light as the catholic church it is not. In Buddhist there is a a cultural precedent where large amounts of hungry & poor people might find safety and education. Also people with manageable mental illness too, that are sensitive, may find safety from the demand of life and its highly competitive stresses. i.e. Existential AngstSayadaw, wonders why I don't want to become a monk, and in a different time period I would. But in this one I have the Australian disability support pension (anxiety and depression), and I would lose my safety, of being able to hide from the world. Also I would have to live by the strict monastic rules. Though lately in post retreat blues after hitting continual and refined states of mind, life and all its compulsive attachments seem a heavily burdened freedom, a freedom to suffer more. The thing that is so hard for me about becoming a monk is the mono-cultural dogma of one buddhist view. I'm to much of an idealist or to attached to the self in my ideas, to want to monoculture my pluralist views. If I could keep my pension, I'd take the risk, and try to fit in, something I've never been able to do really. Next year, I'll start with asking to be a khappia, while I continue to study. Because this life is pleasure and pain, loss and gain praise and blame and infamy and fame. Life is difficult enough even for people who have everything, some even commit suicide who have all the comforts of being well liked, praised and much gain.

A modern monastic culture would be very attractive to me, but I suspect it will never form in the west.

An Arhat does not get lonely and lustful by definition. Monks do.

Monk is a profession/vocation.Arhat is an attainment.

Curiousilty is killing this cat: Adi how did you stumble on this decade old thread?? I'm honestly curious.

The first post was edited by the OP, which made it a "recent" post and it showed up in everyone's feed.

Ahh, okay.

Yes, the topic creator caused this to show up as "recent" because they changed the original first post.

Indeed. I ceased my study with the teacher after this post.

Yes, good answer. At the time I had listened to the Hurrican Ranch talk ( Daniel, Kenneth Vince and a fourth) quite a few times while on a long retreat and there was quite a bit of discussion here, there and on buddhist geeks, about how traditional models of the 4 paths were idealised. An example of this is in the Vinaya, where an Arhart was able to drink before the Buddha banned it.

https://m.soundcloud.com/daneilmingram/hurricaneranch-pt1

That quote was not a precise theoretical system, just a reference point for an idea. For the concept of state and stage and that people talk about it in psychology and in mysticism. There are stages of enlightenment, where someone's state changes permanently is some manner, though how this is described is debated. State is a mental state that is transitory with ups and downs, such as the Jhanas and from a material perspective cessation also comes and goes. Ken Wilber appropriated a lot of models looking for points of correlation, overall he is way too academic and useless to most people, but I have liked a few lectures here or there. We have stages of development in psychology and states, I used the term in that general sense, and as Wilber probably has when he talks about the human development stages over time and from child through to adult, not his idea exclusively but the theme. ​​​​​​​
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_psychology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_state

So, mr r. hat, does an arhat "by definition" not get drunk after consuming a few liters of beer?


Define "attainment" in some sort of phenomenological way, please, if you can. How do you experience arhathood so that you can say that one experiences no desire?


I don't have a problem with attainment, only with hypocrisy. I don't think someone free of lust or loneliness would seek acknowledgement of their attainment. Broadly speaking. Yet you have exhumed this thread.





from "it's alright ma (I'm only bleeding)"
​​​​​​​by bob dylan


An’ though the rules of the road have been lodged

It’s only people’s games that you got to dodge

And it’s alright, Ma, I can make it



Advertising signs they con

You into thinking you’re the one

That can do what’s never been done

That can win what’s never been won

Meantime life outside goes on

All around you

Hello Sir (Terry)

I first wrote to you using my mobile phone. My reply simply disappeared. For some strange reason my replies on this particular thread from my mobile phone isn't getting posted. Now I am at my laptop. I did not exhume this thread. It self exhumed . I did not see the vintage of this thread, nor the conversation that had happened on it. I only read the toplinne post, and I replied to something specific in OP's writing.

"I don't have a problem with attainment"

Well good to know!

"only with hypocrisy."

I approve. And  it  gives me great joy to know that there are others in this world who share  my values
Oh .... wait ..... you are in effect calling me a hypocrite ??!!  ..... Oh shit!!

"Define "attainment" in some sort of phenomenological way, please, if you can"

Nope. Try again. Be polite. Be respectful. Avoid irony and sarcasm if it is possible. Make an attempt to not call me a liar and I might humour you.
Or dont Either way is fine with me.

I would like a response .... sir!

I tried to respond, guess I should have backed it up because it disappeared.

Hello Sir (Terry)


"Define "attainment" in some sort of phenomenological way, please, if you can"

Nope. Try again. Be polite. Be respectful. Avoid irony and sarcasm if it is possible. Make an attempt to not call me a liar and I might humour you.


=============


So I have to say this all again, these old threads don’t work right. My apology was more gracious the first time.

I regret that you took offense. I apologize for speaking carelessly in a way that might cause offense. I honestly meant no disrespect, only a challenge. I sort of expected any claims would expect some pushback, so try not to be too offended. Let us assume we are persons of goodwill sincerely interested in discussion, on a basis of mutual respect. I hold all beings equal, including microbes and inanimate objects.

You have asserted that you are an arhat several times. You have never explained it and it seems to me that you want to, and so I was asking you. We have approached this conversation before a couple of times, that is, a discussion of why any person would want to be acknowledged as spiritually attained.

The word arhat means nothing to me, you could be saying you had achieved unicorn status complete with cutie marks. If you claimed to be a zen master I would be skeptical, but I know nothing of arhats but what is in the scriptures, and you could hardly mean that.


So, sir, with all due respect, how does your attainment make any difference to another? Not saying it doesn’t,  mind. Only that ego always wants recognition, so how is claiming attainment different from ego seeking fame and gain?

Don’t take it personally. I’m sure your ego is perfect. And all the egos of those reading this.

I can’t avoid irony but I’m not often sarcastic. And if I am it is a joke.




from song of the bird, anthony demello

​​​​​​​
THE DREAM CONTRACT

 It was nine o 'clock in the morning and Nasruddin was fast asleep. The sun had risen in the sky, the birds were singing in the trees, and Nasruddin s breakfast was getting cold. So his wife woke
him up.

He woke up in a towering rage. "Why did you wake me up just now?" he shouted.

"The sun has risen in the sky, " said his wife, "the birds are singing in the trees, and your breakfast is getting cold. "

"Breakfast be damned, " he said.
“I was about to sign a contract worth a million grams of gold. "

With that he closed his eyes
to recapture his shattered dream and those million grams of gold.



Now Nasruddin was cheating in that contract and his busi­ness partner was a tyrant.

If, on recapturing his dream, Nasruddin gives up his cheat­ing, he will become a saint.

If he works strenuously to free the people from the oppres­sion of the tyrant he will become a freedom fighter.

If, in the midst of his dream, he suddenly realizes that he is dreaming, he will become awakened. Enlightened.

What kind of saint or freedom fighter are you if you are still asleep?

Hello Sir (Terry)

"My apology was more gracious the first time."

Very kind of you. Much appreciated.

"I regret that you took offense. I apologize for speaking carelessly in a way that might cause offense"

Thank you for your graciousness. In turn if I have come across as abrasive in any way, which is very likely, I apologize.

"I sort of expected any claims would expect some pushback, so try not to be too offended"

I will make a sincere effort to not be offended, Knowing that I am talking to a thorough gentleman will greately reduce this effort for me
I am assuming that our to and fro now will be a conversation as opposed to an interrogation In the spirit of healthy conversation I will speak freely trusting that you too would assume that you are talking to a gentleman and not a lout And in the spirit of conversation (as opposed to interrogation), I too am curious about you and I too have questions for you. I trust you will supply me answers.

I dont understand the use of the word claim. For me inside of my head, one can claim ownership of a piece of land. If one does so then there are land records, local government, district courts that would arbiter in case those claims are challenged. This is needed because the ownership of land is a zero sum game. If one claims and occupies a piece of land, they are in effect denying anybody else the use of that land without extracting rent. Such claims if illegitimate can and will be challenged and there are set processes of dispensing of either the claim or the challenge.

I am not being anal about this. I have made an assertion - 'I am an Arhat', either implicitly or explicitly. On this forum I dont remember being that blunt. Which probably means that you have seen me in action on reddit. But that's fine. You wish to challenge that assertion. My questions to you:

1. To what purpose or objective do you wish to challenge that assertion?
2. How does it serve you?
3. How does it serve the larger polity on this forum?
4. Do you believe that you are qualified to form an opinion on the topic? Yes I know this sounds combative. I am not being combative. You will have to take my word for it.

Before we proceed I wish to restate that we are two gentlemen having a conversation. I am not trying to browbeat you. I am genuinely curious to know where the confidence comes from

One more question:

5. Could you please briefly describe to me your practice and your practice history? - when I say practice it does not include engagement with concepts in an intellectual way. I could go into defining what I mean by practice, but I strongly suspect you do know what I mean.

"You have asserted that you are an arhat several times. You have never explained it and it seems to me that you want to, and so I was asking you"

Again sir, I dont think I have asserted that explicitly here on this forum, and if I have I dont remember it. I have most certainly asserted it on reddit. I know that there is an overlap of readership/authorship between this forum and reddit as well as other forums that I haunt. I have explained it in great detail in many topline posts on reddit and in many interactions in comments on reddit. I have explained it in great detail on discord particularly the forum that I own and manage. But you see sir, the thing is ...... when a practitioner or yogi engages with me the side of my personality they see is vastly different from when a non practitioner engages with me. When a lady or gentleman engages with me the side of my personality they see is vastly different from when a lout engages with me. I seamlessly segue between naughty and nice

To directly respond to your statement. I tell people I am an Arhat not because I want to explain it, not because I seek validation of any kind, but because I wish to leave footprints in the sands of time.

Footprints, that perhaps another,
Sailing o'er life's solemn main,
A forlorn and shipwrecked brother,
Seeing, shall take heart again.

~ H W Longfellow

A second reason that I tell people that I am an Arhat is because from time to time I take on students to whom I teach very very technical Shamath and Vipashyana. These public statements of mine accompanied by the verbal violence that usually follows means that only the most courageous and perhaps the most wise actually walk through the filter and reach me. This means that at any point of time I have only one or two students with whom I engage deeply over an extended period. I am not a professional full time teacher nor do I plan to be one currently. I dont do it for the money. I do it for the love of the craft of awakening and awakening practices. Because this is not a source of income for me, the contention and controversy actually works in my favour. Had it been a source of income, I would be singing a completely different tune Yes .... I am very street smart

"If you claimed to be a zen master"

If I knew what it meant to be a Zen master, and if in my absolutely honest self assessment I fit the criteria, I would promptly declare myself to be a Zen master. ......................... Just to fuck with you!! I am joking sir. No offense intended.

On a more serious note. There are people with whom I am friends and whose practice I greatly respect. Who in my considered opinion are so advanced that they have the skills to self assess their attainment. I greatly respect these people. Some of these people either in speaking/writing to me directly or opining in general on the fora that I haunt (knowing that I am reading) have from time to time opined that they dont know why an Arhat would call himself an Arhat. Said opining done to express disapproval. Those people out of respect towards me dont speak up. To them I usually say .... in the privacy of my own mind ..... "you are an idiot!" I would never say this out aloud by the way to those people. I respect them too much. The reason I say this, even though in my own mind, is because I see the hubris. What makes someone think that they live inside in somebody else's head? Beats me!

"how does your attainment make any difference to another?"

Lives of great men all remind us
We can make our lives sublime
And departing leave behind us
Foot prints on the sands of time

~ Longfellow

Obviously sir, you and I dont share the same set of values when it comes to awakening, awakening practices, personal conduct in awakening practice forums. And ...... I dont mind! ..... Do you? .... Mind?

"Only that ego always wants recognition, so how is claiming attainment different from ego seeking fame and gain?"

Sir I dont understand the word ego. I believe when multiple people have a conversation using that word they do not have a shared understanding of what that word even means. Let me translate this statement in the form of an imaginary conversation.

Terry: You are seeking recognition
Adi: Yes!

Terry: You are claiming attainment
Adi: I dont like the word 'claim' but its just a personal niggle so it doesnt matter .... but .....Yes!

Terry: You are seeking fame
Adi: Yes!

Terry: You are seeking gain
Adi: Yes! but the 'gain' I seek is  a very very specific kind of gain an RoI that only few people understand 

Terry: What the fuck!!!
Adi: Speak softly, politely, respectfully ..... otherwise this conversation is going to go south very very rapidly

Terry: Fine!!! What precise gain are you seeking?
Adi: Lives of great men all remind us, we can make our lives sublime, and departing leave behind us ....... etc etc etc and so on and so forth


Pleasure talking to you Sir. Please do write back and I promise will respond.

So... what about those defilements? Yes? No? Maybe?

This thread made me feel horny for some reason! Why is that a problem? Dunno. So ... Not sure ... lemme assume ... ehm ... ugh ... nah ... I think I will just go to bed now. 

replying to adi   


Well, sir, you have always projected respect for both the status of individuals in a spiritual sense, and for discussion itself. I agree with you in respect to discussion, that it is worthy of attention and worth engaging in. I disagree on the footsteps thing, I think, and the status of individuals.

   Good discussions require patience, eh? Some definition of terms.  Establishing mutual respect is a start. I still have the feeling you are a bit testy, ready to pull out the old six shooter and blast away at perceived insult. Eggshells, minefields. But hopefully our sincerity will be enough to avoid blame.

    As for “reddit” I assume that is some sort of social medium platform. I have assiduously, sedulously avoided ever darkening the website of any social medium with my presence. No one follows me, no one likes me. And that is the way I like it. I only post here, and I feel fortunate to be allowed that much sincerity and honesty. When available.

    Your assertions have been explicit enough. I even once asked you about being an arhat, whether it was a good thing. I think if you use an arbitrary word presumably describing a notion, you should be able to explain that notion or stop using the word which describes nothing coherent. Now, that is a challenge, and some people hate this slight awakening, much as socrates’ interlocutors hated their notions being challenged. A gadfly, he was. I’m willing to apologize for poking the unwary, but you expose yourself to challenge in a discussion, ne-ces’t pas?

=============

Hello Sir (Terry)

"My apology was more gracious the first time."

Very kind of you. Much appreciated.

"I regret that you took offense. I apologize for speaking carelessly in a way that might cause offense"

Thank you for your graciousness. In turn if I have come across as abrasive in any way, which is very likely, I apologize.


============


The biter gets bit, from time to time. No worries. I was too careless with a person whose very politeness exhibits sensitivity. My bad.

===============


"I sort of expected any claims would expect some pushback, so try not to be too offended"

I will make a sincere effort to not be offended, Knowing that I am talking to a thorough gentleman will greately reduce this effort for me emoticon


I am assuming that our to and fro now will be a conversation as opposed to an interrogation emoticon In the spirit of healthy conversation I will speak freely trusting that you too would assume that you are talking to a gentleman and not a lout emoticon And in the spirit of conversation (as opposed to interrogation), I too am curious about you and I too have questions for you. I trust you will supply me answers.


====================


   I asked you to assume sincerity and genuineness. Not sure what you would regard as “interrogation.” I suppose you do have a right to a lawyer. It may be that what I regard as a challenging but appropriate question you might regard as out of bounds.

   On the other hand, you may presume to interrogate me in a manner I consider uncomfortable. I think all you social media people throw away your privacy with both hands in a way I consider truly astonishing and so foolish as to literally threaten humanity. 

   My life is public and it is private. I have a business, I have associates, I have home and family, and without giving personal details I am willing to tell stories which reveal my spiritual state at the moment and serve as an analog of the global state of consciousness as well, insofar as they do. I am uncomfortable relating a linear, detailed history because it is boring and irrelevant, not to mention unnecessarily revealing and mainly utterly useless for any purpose but to reinforce ego. If I were to detail my “progress” as a practicing adept it would be completely false as all such narratives are.

   
As for self-assessment, honestly I think it is profoundly ah, incorrect, to attempt such a thing. What is the ego? An error that must be overcome. To ascribe achievement or success to an individual is a profound mistake in terms of spiritual practice. So, you might say in my heart of hearts I regard such assertions as counter productive, to say the least, and more accurately there is no greater error for a spiritual person, no thing more destructive than hubris. So I’m against them in principle, ego assertions. No self ever achieves anything. “No-self”is the true achievement. Waking from the dream. Refusing to be conned.

———————————

I dont understand the use of the word claim. For me inside of my head, one can claim ownership of a piece of land. If one does so then there are land records, local government, district courts that would arbiter in case those claims are challenged. This is needed because the ownership of land is a zero sum game. If one claims and occupies a piece of land, they are in effect denying anybody else the use of that land without extracting rent. Such claims if illegitimate can and will be challenged and there are set processes of dispensing of either the claim or the challenge.

I am not being anal about this. I have made an assertion - 'I am an Arhat', either implicitly or explicitly. On this forum I dont remember being that blunt. Which probably means that you have seen me in action emoticon on reddit. But that's fine. You wish to challenge that assertion. My questions to you:

1. To what purpose or objective do you wish to challenge that assertion?

—————————————


I’m addicted to truth. I like to see bullshit called out and genuineness and authenticity prevail. Some people respect the buddha and the saints. Some people claim to be the buddha, or the saints. Lets say 99% of these claimants - charitably we could call it the dunning kruger effect - are wrong, and are neither saints or buddhas. It would seem fair to me to wonder why the one per cent shouldn’t explain why they are the real deal. It being so unlikely, eh? And again, honestly, I felt that you were looking for the opportunity to demonstrate your status, establish your footprints as significant. Longfellow no doubt was speaking of his poetry. My footprints are the jewelry I make, and the way I make it. How does an arhat make an impression? Virtual sand?


========



2. How does it serve you?

   ================


poorly

===================

3. How does it serve the larger polity on this forum?


================

fabulously


======================

4. Do you believe that you are qualified to form an opinion on the topic? 

——————


opinions are as cheap as dirt and worth less


we are speaking of the great matter, die sache selbst


my qualifications to speak of the great matter once again fix an ego where none exists, none is relevant and nn one really cares (or if they do it is an error)

==============

emoticon Yes I know this sounds combative. I am not being combative. You will have to take my word for it.


============


yes, same here….


(en garde, touche)

=============

Before we proceed I wish to restate that we are two gentlemen having a conversation. I am not trying to browbeat you. I am genuinely curious to know where the confidence comes from emoticon emoticon


————————————


not from an ego, son


how could you browbeat me?

I'm not susceptible

=====================

One more question:

5. Could you please briefly describe to me your practice and your practice history? - when I say practice it does not include engagement with concepts in an intellectual way. I could go into defining what I mean by practice, but I strongly suspect you do know what I mean.

___________________________-


I doubt I would be willing to do that. You could tell me what you mean, because I truly don’t know. And in words I could only say the more I learn, the more I don’t know.


=======================

"You have asserted that you are an arhat several times. You have never explained it and it seems to me that you want to, and so I was asking you"

Again sir, I dont think I have asserted that explicitly here on this forum, and if I have I dont remember it. I have most certainly asserted it on reddit. I know that there is an overlap of readership/authorship between this forum and reddit as well as other forums that I haunt. I have explained it in great detail in many topline posts on reddit and in many interactions in comments on reddit. I have explained it in great detail on discord particularly the forum that I own and manage. But you see sir, the thing is ...... when a practitioner or yogi engages with me the side of my personality they see is vastly different from when a non practitioner engages with me. When a lady or gentleman engages with me the side of my personality they see is vastly different from when a lout engages with me. I seamlessly segue between naughty and nice emoticon


=================


I tell you what, kiddo, if you really want to know, come to hawaii for a week or two and you can observe my behavior. I can’t say fairer than that.


Everything I do is spiritual and nothing I say.

==================
-
To directly respond to your statement. I tell people I am an Arhat not because I want to explain it, not because I seek validation of any kind, but because I wish to leave footprints in the sands of time.

Footprints, that perhaps another,
Sailing o'er life's solemn main,
A forlorn and shipwrecked brother,
Seeing, shall take heart again.

~ H W Longfellow

==========


So, you are giving people heart. Well, that is admirable, heart is what they need, courage is the most spiritual of virtues. How does asserting arhathood - whatever that is - accomplish that?

Perhaps if you were convincing…


===========


A second reason that I tell people that I am an Arhat is because from time to time I take on students to whom I teach very very technical Shamath and Vipashyana. These public statements of mine accompanied by the verbal violence that usually follows means that only the most courageous and perhaps the most wise actually walk through the filter and reach me. This means that at any point of time I have only one or two students with whom I engage deeply over an extended period. I am not a professional full time teacher nor do I plan to be one currently. I dont do it for the money. I do it for the love of the craft of awakening and awakening practices. Because this is not a source of income for me, the contention and controversy actually works in my favour. Had it been a source of income, I would be singing a completely different tune emoticon Yes .... I am very street smart emoticon


——————————————


Here then is how we differ - I feel stupid and awkward quite frequently. I continually become aware of new ways in which I have been stupid or foolish. I daily struggle. But I wouldn't compare myself to st paul. My footprints aren't biblical in scope. My peoetry isn't self ambulatory. And when it is it will walk by itself.


==================


"If you claimed to be a zen master"

If I knew what it meant to be a Zen master, and if in my absolutely honest self assessment I fit the criteria, I would promptly declare myself to be a Zen master. ......................... Just to fuck with you!! emoticon I am joking sir. No offense intended. emoticon

————————————


You seem by your lack of response to expect people to accept you as the equivalent of the saints of old, themselves likely an exaggeration at best. Maybe you would willingly detail an history of tasks and accomplishments in the spiritual line. Perhaps they would impress the sand.

I have no use for advanced meditation practices. I can barely practice simple meditation.

————————————

On a more serious note. There are people with whom I am friends and whose practice I greatly respect. Who in my considered opinion are so advanced that they have the skills to self assess their attainment. I greatly respect these people. Some of these people either in speaking/writing to me directly or opining in general on the fora that I haunt (knowing that I am reading) have from time to time opined that they dont know why an Arhat would call himself an Arhat. Said opining done to express disapproval. Those people out of respect towards me dont speak up. To them I usually say .... in the privacy of my own mind ..... "you are an idiot!" I would never say this out aloud by the way to those people. I respect them too much. The reason I say this, even though in my own mind, is because I see the hubris. What makes someone think that they live inside in somebody else's head? Beats me! emoticon

==============


That’s why I ask of your attainment, rather that dismiss it out f hand. You could be that one percent, the catcher in the rye.

Unlikely, especially since you can't apparently respond coherently to the question. I'm still "challenging," eh.

===================

"how does your attainment make any difference to another?"

Lives of great men all remind us
We can make our lives sublime
And departing leave behind us
Foot prints on the sands of time

~ Longfellow

———————————————

This is the self-evident greatness I am not perceiving. Not denying it mind you. Maybe you and the buddha are one person.

The lives of great men remind us of the persistence of the myth of ego and its pernicious effects on the human mind.

==============

Obviously sir, you and I dont share the same set of values when it comes to awakening, awakening practices, personal conduct in awakening practice forums. And ...... I dont mind! ..... Do you? .... Mind?


========================


I don’t understand your values, if that is what you mean. No. I don’t mind if you want to dodge the question and stand on making an unsupported assertion. You have a right to be a lawyer and defend your ego.

————————————

"Only that ego always wants recognition, so how is claiming attainment different from ego seeking fame and gain?"

Sir I dont understand the word ego. I believe when multiple people have a conversation using that word they do not have a shared understanding of what that word even means. Let me translate this statement in the form of an imaginary conversation.

Terry: You are seeking recognition
Adi: Yes!

Terry: You are claiming attainment
Adi: I dont like the word 'claim' but its just a personal niggle so it doesnt matter .... but .....Yes!

Terry: You are seeking fame
Adi: Yes!

Terry: You are seeking gain
Adi: Yes! but the 'gain' I seek is  a very very specific kind of gain an RoI that only few people understand 

Terry: What the fuck!!!
Adi: Speak softly, politely, respectfully ..... otherwise this conversation is going to go south very very rapidly emoticon


==================


Since I didn’t say what the fuck, let me say now, “what the fuck?”


A capitalist wants money, a politician wants votes, a preacher wants souls. The greed is the same, but the preacher does the most damage, as souls are not a commodity, and their commodification is the gresatest error in spirituality.

=======================

Terry: Fine!!! What precise gain are you seeking?
Adi: Lives of great men all remind us, we can make our lives sublime, and departing leave behind us ....... etc etc etc and so on and so forth emoticon emoticon


Pleasure talking to you Sir. Please do write back and I promise will respond. emoticon



=====================



The concept of “great men” is problematic, and your obvious self identification with the same even more so.

You might ask, do I think there are “great men” and what might they be like?

In chinese philosophy, “the great man” is the geist of the age, the human intellect as collectively manifested in the mass of humanity.

When we embody that geist so thoroughly no trace of ego remains, that is the mature human mind. As an oak naturally develops from the acorn, the fortunate human achieves maturity, becomes "great." Mainly through longevity.

Arguably gwh hegel achieved this eminence, and explained how it may be done. It takes a lifetime of work to penetrate. Hegel likens human development to a plant, where there are “moments” or stages in which the truth appears, now distinctly and wholly as a flower, now distinctly and wholly as a fruit.



from the song of the bird, anthony demello


CHANGE THE WORLD BY CHANGING ME

The Sufi Bayazid says this about himself:

'1 was a revolutionary when I
was young and all my prayer to God was
'Lord, give me the energy to change the world. '

':As I approached middle age and realized that half my life was gone without my changing a single soul, I changed my prayer to 'Lord, give me the grace to change all those who come in contact
with me. just my family and friends, and I shall be satisfied. '

'Now that I am an old man and my days are numbered, my one prayer
is, lord, give me the grace to change myself. ' If I had prayed for this right
from the start I should not have wasted my life. "





from the phenomenology of spirit, gwf hegel, preface


36. The immediate existence of Spirit, consciousness, contains the two moments of knowing and the objectivity negative to knowing. Since it is in this element [of consciousness] that Spirit develops itself and explicates its moments, these moments con­tain that antithesis, and they all appear as shapes of consciousness. The Science of this pathway is the Science of the experience which consciousness goes through; the substance and its move­ment are viewed as the object of consciousness. Consciousness knows and comprehends only what falls within its experience; for what is contained in this is nothing but spiritual substance, and this, too, as object of the self. But Spirit becomes object because it is just this movement of becoming an other to itself, i.e. becoming an object to itself, and of suspending this otherness. And experience is the name we give to just this movement, in which the immediate, the unexperienced, i.e. the abstract, whether it be of sensuous [but still unsensed] being, or only thought of as simple, becomes alienated from itself and then returns to itself from this alienation, and is only then revealed for the first time in its actuality and truth, just as it then has become a property of consciousness also.

37· The disparity which exists in consciousness between the 'I' and the substance which is its object is the distinction between them, the negative in general. This can be regarded as the defect of both, though it is their soul, or that which moves them. That is why some of the ancients conceived the void as the principle of motion, for they rightly saw the moving prin­ciple as the negative, though they did not as yet grasp that the negative is the self. Now, although this negative appears at first as a disparity between the 'I' and its object, it is just as much the disparity of the substance with itself. Thus what seems to happen outside of it, to be an activity directed against it, is really its own doing, and Substance shows itself to be essentially Subject. When it has shown this completely, Spirit has made its existence identical with its essence; it has itself for its object
just as it is, and the abstract element of immediacy, and of the separation of knowing and truth, is overcome. Being is then absolutely mediated; it is a substantial content which is just as immediately the property of the 'I’ , it is self-like or the Notion.

With this, the Phenomenology of Spirit is concluded. What Spirit prepares for itself in it, is the element of [true] knowing. In this element the moments of Spirit now spread themselves out in that form of simplicity which knows its object as its own self. They no longer fall apart into the antithesis of being and knowing, but remain in the simple oneness of knowing ; they are the True in the form of the True, and their difference is only the difference of content. Their movement, which organ­izes itself in this element into a whole, is Logic or speculative philo­sophy .

Between the truth of the flower and the truth of the fruit, all sorts of hanky panky goes on. The birds and the bees.

tao te ching, trans lin yutang


​​​​​​​20.  The World and I

Banish learning, and vexations end.
   Between "Ah!" and "Ough!"
   How much difference is there?
Between "good" and "evil"
   How much difference is there?"
That which men fear
   Is indeed to be feared;
But, alas, distant yet is the dawn (of awakening)!

The people of the world are merry-making,
   As if partaking of the sacrificial feasts,
   As if mounting the terrace in spring;
I alone am mild, like one unemployed,
   Like a new-born babe that cannot yet smile,
   Unattached, like one without a home.

The people of the world have enough and to spare,
But I am like one left out,
   My heart must be that of a fool,
   Being muddled, nebulous!

The vulgar are knowing, luminous;
   I alone am dull, confused.
The vulgar are clever, self-assured;
   I alone, depressed.
Patient as the sea,
   Adrift, seemingly aimless.

The people of the world all have a purpose;
   I alone appear stubborn and uncouth.
I alone differ from the other people,
   And value drawing sustenance from the Mother.



 

The Owl Of Minerva Spreads Its Wings Only With The Falling Of The Dusk.
​​​​​​​~hegel