bliss vs bliss

Right. When my friend talked about that moment what he described was an "out of body rush into the formless realms."

More to the story is that he was a great example of a "spiritual" person -- kind, wise, patient, full of insight, and very caring of others.

This friend and I have considered that this "shaktipat" experience has a lot in common with the sort of initial mystical experiences in many traditions. The incredible bliss of one's first real contact with a guardian deity or spirit, that then becomes your guide/inner guru/object of devotion. Or perhaps, if one is not working theistically, an experience of bliss, light, dissolving of the boundary between "self" and "other," or other such. In the pragmatic dharma scene probably similar to A&P, I'd think? It seems it is often the moment that kicks off a person's spiritual journey, at least for a while.

I suspect that the path of bliss is quite different from the path of insight and is probably more similar to some devotional paths. One way I can see it evolve is through gradual and continuous opening of the heart. It is easier (for some, at least) to open the heart to bliss and as one gradually learns to open up more and more it becomes easier to open the heart to all experiences. This brings up greater intimacy with experience and can lead to all sorts of insights into the way things are. Not having much experience with this practice I can only guess that this would focus more on insights into not-self rather than impermanence which would lead to a very different path of progress.

I suspect that the path of bliss is quite different from the path of insight and is probably more similar to some devotional paths. One way I can see it evolve is through gradual and continuous opening of the heart. It is easier (for some, at least) to open the heart to bliss and as one gradually learns to open up more and more it becomes easier to open the heart to all experiences. This brings up greater intimacy with experience and can lead to all sorts of insights into the way things are. Not having much experience with this practice I can only guess that this would focus more on insights into not-self rather than impermanence which would lead to a very different path of progress.


-eran

How so? (referring to the bit I bolded at the end)

The enhanced intimacy can show the yogi, for example, that the border between self and other is not as clear. More generally, I connect bliss and heart practice to metta (loving-kindness) practice. There are some non-dual teachers that connect metta or love with liberation from self. The reasoning behind this, as far as I understand, is that when we love someone/something the border between "me" and "it" begins to dissolve (think about the connection between mother and child, for example). It no longer is clear where I end and it begins. So this all points in a not-self direction to me. Additionally, if you start wondering about the nature of love and bliss, especially with the help of the right teacher, you'd easily fall into states of unity and oneness leading to either traditional insight into not-self or non-dual insight (is there even a difference? don't know).

Note: All the above is based on trying to explain my intuition regarding the possibilities of this practice.

The enhanced intimacy can show the yogi, for example, that the border between self and other is not as clear. More generally, I connect bliss and heart practice to metta (loving-kindness) practice. There are some non-dual teachers that connect metta or love with liberation from self. The reasoning behind this, as far as I understand, is that when we love someone/something the border between "me" and "it" begins to dissolve (think about the connection between mother and child, for example). It no longer is clear where I end and it begins. So this all points in a not-self direction to me. Additionally, if you start wondering about the nature of love and bliss, especially with the help of the right teacher, you'd easily fall into states of unity and oneness leading to either traditional insight into not-self or non-dual insight (is there even a difference? don't know).
Note: All the above is based on trying to explain my intuition regarding the possibilities of this practice.


-eran

Sorry, that's not what I meant. My own practice actually involved the use of an "inner guru" in the form of the Holy Guardian Angel, so I think the points you make are (edited from here to be more clear) things I can identify with. But I also did meditation on impermanence, noting practice, meditation on koans etc. The implication I got from your previous comment was that people in these two practices not only have different experienced along the way (which is quite possible) but also "end up" in completely different places? Is that what you meant? Maybe this refers to your "is there even a difference" comment above. I don't know either.

Sorry I missed your intention there

The implication I got from your previous comment was that people in these two practices not only have different experienced along the way (which is quite possible) but also "end up" in completely different places? Is that what you meant? Maybe this refers to your "is there even a difference" comment above. I don't know either.

-ona

Ending up in different places - not exactly what I meant. I'm nowhere near being able to comment on where anyone would "end up" assuming there is even an end to all of this. Although people do seem to talk about non-dual realization as something separate from what (some) Buddhisms point at. If there is a difference I'm not sure i'm even qualified to discuss it theoretically.

I was more referring to what Culadasa talks about here about how insight would progress differently when starting from not-self vs. impermanence.

Sorry I missed your intention there
Ending up in different places - not exactly what I meant. I'm nowhere near being able to comment on where anyone would "end up" assuming there is even an end to all of this. Although people do seem to talk about non-dual realization as something separate from what (some) Buddhisms point at. If there is a difference I'm not sure i'm even qualified to discuss it theoretically.
I was more referring to what Culadasa talks about here about how insight would progress differently when starting from not-self vs. impermanence.


-eran

Wow, there's some very interesting material in that link.

Now I think I see what you are saying, or at least what he is getting at. Sort of. I'll re-read it again in the morning, to see if I get more of it. The technicalities of the Buddhist terminology tend to make my brain freeze up on first reading.

the idea of there being "three bodies" to reality - the gross/waking, subtle/dreaming, and causal/witnessing (to use Ken Wilber's Vedanta-inspired terminology) - is woven into the fabric of both the philosophy and technologies of spiritual practice.


-awouldbehipster

Jackson, it's always been my impression that in the "orthodox" pragmatic dharma scene, the technical 4-path model was linked to this coarse/subtle/witnissing/non-dual model of reality. In other words, the sterotypical descriptions of the 4 Paths generally seem to align with this model, moving the investigation (and the practitioner's identity) linearly through these regions of experience. This seems to go with the notion of dis or de-embedding (identity shifting from coarse to subtle and so on...), and I always wondered how much of this was from Mahasi and how much from Wilber (not to discount the possibility that Mahasi is just another data point validating that part of Wilber's theory). Is this a generally acknowledged view of the 4 paths?

And to your thread-related point, I think you're onto something. in Vajrayana generally there are three classes of experience which are often considered: bliss, clarity and emptiness. These correspond to craving, aversion and ignorance respectively. In the unconditioned suchness dimension, the "three bodies" are simultaneous facets of each moment of experiencing. All experiences are actually in the suchness dimension, but when "viewed" through a dualistic lense, bliss appears as craving and so on. Then there are spectrums of less-deluded more-awake experiences possible arrayed between the extremes, which would be conditioned experiences of bliss, clarity and emptiness such as respectively bodily/emotional bliss, energetic-visionary clarity, or profound cessations of mental-emotional formations. It is said that these mid-region experiences arise due to the practitioner relaxing body energy and mind, like side effects, and are signs that things are happening practice wise. (The other major sign that things are happening, of course, is that previously hidden layers of ignorance, aversion and craving surface due to this same existential relaxation!) So these relative blisses, moments of clarity, or of emptiness/no-mind/cessation, or alternatively of "purification" (i.e., dark night) are definitely utilized in Vajrayana.

Generally Vajrayana seems to employ a typology which recognizes different tendencies in individual practitioners. So for example, a desire type may be magnetized into the mandala of a charismatic teacher who radiates compassion, experiencing various levels of bliss. An aversion type may find themselves in an encounter with a cool clear teacher, finding moments of vivid clarity which point to the nature of mind. A confusion type may find a teacher whose emptiness-logic brings their doubts and skepticism crashing down for a moment of pure openness. And so on and so forth. Naturally a good Vajrayana teacher will be able to work with all three tendencies, in the same individual, even the same moment.

That's insightful and interesting Jake. Thanks for the details.

Another thing that occurred to me about this notion of spiritual typologies of teachers and students is how this relates to group dynamics depending on the dominant mode of a given group. This is based on my observations of the two vajrayana groups I'm familiar with personally (in 3-d life, not online) as well as conversations with friends who have practiced in these and other groups.

A lot of this has to do with how the teachers work with the student's projections. With the desire-type groups, wherein the teacher is often perceived as a transmitter of bliss, the teachers generally seem to accept and work with the heavily idealized projections of students. So when a student approaches such a teacher and projects the "Guru" archetype onto them, this sort of teacher willingly carries that projection.

This is dangerous and many of the groups which have made mixed impressions-- I'm thinking of Adi Da's and Andrew Cohen's, for instance-- have a teacher like this, but wherein there is some question about how the teacher worked/works with those projections-- and whether they may have gotten into an ego-inflation type situation by absorbing those projections rather than holding them until the student is willing and able to take them back (and teachers who fall into this trap are also notable for, in addition to producing a lot of dissaffected students, apparently NOT producing colleagues who graduate into positions of autonomy and peership with the Guru). IMO the mark of a healthy group which is based on bliss, attachment types, and devotional hierarchies is that students are actually progressing and being recognized as colleagues of the central teacher. There is the sense here that the group continuing over long periods of time is more important than any particular charismatic leader's tenure, and the leader usually shows strong devotion to his or her own teachers.

On the other hand, "clarity" type teachers often react with irritation and impatience (fittingly) rather than pleasure at these types of projections, and in effect just immediately take the projection and reflect it back. The experience is more direct, and seemingly unreachable from the point of view of trying to hang your guru-projection onto them, but if you can drop your projections in the presence of such a teacher, there can be a powerful transmission of cool, equanimious clarity. These groups often have a more rag-tag, anarchistic sort of vibe, whereas the bliss-attachment type groups seem to have a more cohesive vibe, in both time and space.

Just a few more vajrayana reflections on this topic Would love to hear from anyone else with similar or different experiences. I'm particularly interested in whether practitioners in non-vajrayana, non-tantric lineages (like Theravada, for instance) have noticed transmission-like phenomena, in which practicing or otherwise interacting with a teacher or senior practitioner with a very strong practice seems to have the effect of "rubbing off on you". My own experience suggests that everyone/everything is transmitting its state to each other all the time, whenever crossing paths, but usually that state is rather lo-fi and often negative, and we often notice this as others' draining our clarity and happiness or vice versa. In which case an interesting yogic take on the bodhisattva attitude is to aspire to always have clarity, bliss and openness to share no matter how confused, negative or fixated the beings one encounters in life.

Great stuff, Jake. I think this is a genius observation:

"IMO the mark of a healthy group which is based on bliss, attachment
types, and devotional hierarchies is that students are actually
progressing and being recognized as colleagues of the central teacher.
There is the sense here that the group continuing over long periods of
time is more important than any particular charismatic leader's tenure,
and the leader usually shows strong devotion to his or her own teachers.
"

Regarding this: "I'm particularly interested in whether practitioners in non-vajrayana,
non-tantric lineages (like Theravada, for instance) have noticed
transmission-like phenomena, in which practicing or otherwise
interacting with a teacher or senior practitioner with a very strong
practice seems to have the effect of "rubbing off on you"."

Though my practice is way eclectic, I suppose it really does fall closer to vajrayana/tantric in forms. In any case I have felt "transmission" in various scenarios for years. From the energy of priests in Santeria, to total blissed-out conversations with my own teacher and mentors (via skype no less) in which I felt both a sort of altered state and/or had insights or understanding while talking with them.

Can I suggest this may or may not relate not to the vajrayana/tantra aspect so much as training in the ability to sense and experience "energy" (chi/kundalini/that sort of thing)? I had a long history of trance work and more recent practice of energy work. I'd be curious if *that* is the factor that makes people sense transmission, rather than the specific school of practice they are in. Or maybe most people with the ability to sense energy end up in devotional or tantric practices eventually anyway, as it appeals to their nature.