the season of giving

That's half the point of this forum, no?

Well, what I'm pointing to in my 3) and 4) above have a very inexplicable relationship to causality. Encountering 4) for the first time is certainly amazing, Ona, but for me it was the impetus to practice rather than the result of practice. Although subsequently I think I've gained some existential understanding of that view and the mysterious dynamics by which it illusorily appears to be veiled, which has informed my "baseline" mode to some extent. But I would say there is a big difference between innate clarity and anything that is "trained", even/especially trained to the point of second nature...
Just thought I'd reiterate that, as it seems to address what you were pointing to up thread, although now I wonder if perhaps it doesn't!

Actually that's a really good example, Jake (assuming I've got the right idea of what you were saying) - I remember the first time I was out on a walk, and the whole world had this amazing radiant clarity, and I was just walking down the road like a child, awestruck. And then I remembered being there at that same spot on the road with my husband in the past (who had been traveling for work and I had not seen for several months, and missed very much). I began to cry. And then I was further astonished, because there was grief, and there was radiance, and neither contradicted the other. Grief was also radiant. And I stood there crying and laughing at the same time.

This was not something I practiced for months and finally memorized. I couldn't have even conceived of it to practice it. It was just out of the blue, and the most fascinating thing I'd ever experienced. I spent the evening reading really horrifying news on the internet and listening to really sad nostalgic songs, because it was so incredible to experience grief, horror, sorrow, etc in this previously unimaginable way.

That's the type of experience (and there are myriad others that happen at all levels of our practice) that doesn't feel like it has anything to do with learning a skill at all.

"Out of the blue" indeed

There are definintely some differences in the ways in which we (me, Ona, Jake) conceptualize what we're all trying to communicate. I don't know that we're all that far off in our lived understanding, though. Hard to say.

With regard to learning something to the point that it no longer relies on deliberate intention...

I don't think learning to "let go" is much different from learning to "grasp." I think there's a word-knot sort of thing happening here, do to the way language works. Both grasping and letting-go are verbs, so they are treating as things we "do" in the English language. But there's a qualitative difference to letting-go, relaxing, letting-be, that doesn't feel like grasping, tensing, trying-to-change.

It seems that we can learn both kinds of "verbs" through practice, and that both become more or less automatic/spontaneous/unconscious/or-whatever through continued practice. At first we may need to remind ourselves to let go. But after a while, letting go just happens, and the experience of life without clinging dawns upon us with the utmost clarity.

Still, I think process is similar, in terms of both practice and result. At least some of the confusion seems to be embedded in our basic linguistic categories.

Or, I could be missing something. It may not even be worth exploring much further, and you guys can let me know if that is the case. I'm always happy to learn

-Jackson

Yes.

Going to lunch...

But, I think I'm on track with you now. Thanks, Chris

Not to be annoyingly cryptic... but what I'm talking about is probably more like something, due to which, a practice "just showed up, unexpected". What that practice is, is hard to describe. I would say it's less about a process of making a deliberate skill automatic and more about restoring a sense of openness and freedom in the face of what is automatic. Particularly what I'm referring to in 4)... I am curious how what I'm reffering to their would show up (or not?) on an fMRI, for example. If I recall correctly, Mathieu Ricard may have talked about this a bit in the unedited version of his "Speaking of Faith" interview. I'll look up the podcast and link it here if I find it on second listen.

(Ricard is sometimes called "the happiest man in the world" by the popular press. He's been the subject of some of the most extensive of the early (i.e., more than a few years ago!) brain research on long term meditators. As I recall, he was saying the most dramatic changes in his brain were due to effortful practices having become second nature... specifically the four immeasurables, I think... while the most amazing part of his practice, the buddhanature training, didn't seem to have such an impact on his brain (although it was in some ways the most profound aspect of his practice). Something like that, paraphrasing from vague memory here...

It's interesting. I wonder where this type of research will lead in a few decades? We're still at such an early stage of understanding the brain. As for commenting on the relevance of that article to what I was saying, I'd have to be fairly confident that I knew exactly what Gary Weber's own understanding of "awakening" is and then see how that lined up or not with what I am talking about. It seems to line up more with something like my 2) above, but I'm not sure. The deactivation of selfing centers along with the simultaneous activation of "observe and control" centers sounds like what i was talking about in 2), doesn't it?

"2) They [mental-emotional selfing reactions] can arise along with a "rider" of cultivated observation, a sort
of bystander that's just noticing "oh, wow, there's anger doing it's
thing". This "noticer"-self is less personal than the "angry-self" and
when it arises alongside the angry-self it can neutralize it somewhat or
open other options, like waiting for the strong angry reaction to pass
without acting it out, or becoming more familar (noticing more details)
of how that reaction coalesces and functions. Some forms of practice
really rely on cultivating this impersonal noticing and training the
mind to produce this neutral reaction whenever a strong positive or
negative reaction arises, and the better one gets at this, the smaller
the gap between "anger" and "neutrally-noticing-anger", and thus the
more leverage one has to choose which reactions to perpetuate or
express."

For instance, I've heard Adyashanti characterize his ongoing state as something like a highly, highly refined and nearly instantaneously reflexive version of this which is triggered automatically by the proto-arising of such a reaction, and which thus nips it in the bud before it can fully emerge, which would be one way to carry this cultivation, as I pointed to in the last sentence of my quote above. If that impersonal watchfulness sees the very earliest stirrings of a selfing movement and inhibits it, and if that state is trained through repitition, "neurons that fire together wire together"-- that is, the default network in the brain will change. I'm not sure whether I'd characterize that as awakening or as being a highly accomplished meditator. I honestly don't know, it's an interesting question. Either way it seems very different from what I'm referring to. I think it's early days for this sort of research, and I'm not ready to put all my eggs in the neuroscience basket on this one. I am open to a variety of scientific approaches to "measuring" awakening, and a variety of phenomenological definitions of what "awakening" is. I don't want to tie myself down to one approach, or one definition, in this conversation. I'd rather say "I don't think we know enough to say much about this yet in a definitive way", although it's quite fascinating to discuss it all.

Yes, Gary's stuff is interesting, and I don't doubt that he comes at this from many angles. I just meant that as far as the example he gives of brain mechanisms in the article, that seems like an excellent neuroscience perspective on 2). Also, I don't think anyone is trying to tie me down to anything (nor would it matter if they were...). I just don't want to tie myself down here. I think the difference between 2) and 3)-4) is interesting, but probably especially so if one's personal experience began with 4) prior to formal practice. Seems that has pluses and minuses, too, like everything else. It's fascinating stuff!

It's interesting information. I guess what I wonder is: how if at all does 4) show up in the brain? If there's anything about experience that really makes me question whether every experience has a correlate in the brain, it's 4). Because everything is the same in terms of the skandhas and their function. But everything is yet... different. Profoundly!

@jake - I know a couple of people who had such experiences without having a meditation practice - for example one person I know was sitting at the bedside of a dying friend when she sudddenly "saw" that everything was of one substance, radiant, infinite, unconditionally loving. Only years later did she start a meditation practice, and that brought back the memories of that event.

Chris: I think it's called that by some. It could be described in a lot of ways. I guess the salient thing is utter nonduality of unconditioned and conditions. Take your most profound insight into the unconditioned... primordial awareness, NS, cessation, clear light, whatever.... and that's the very "wetness" of the waves of body, speech, mind and Universe. So things like no-separation, wholeness, perfection, freedom, timelessness, etc. are qualities or facets of this. Yes, awareness, because it's wide awake-- that's its nature. But it's also every thought, feeling, and perception, as well as the nature of the perceived. For the latter reason, I tend towards terms like "is-ess" or suchness to avoid an implication of solipsism. But whatever works No description or other phenomena in any way contradicts it, any more than a wave can contradict wetness. As one Dzogchen teacher said to me, somewhat curtly and repeatedly to every question I asked in an email, "every concept and experience has the exact same perfect wisdom quality".

Ona: yeah, I've noticed this is a fairly common theme amongst people who are attracted to Vajrayana. I'm not sure why, it just seems to be a common story. In contrast, lots of people seem to go into very very deep meditative cultivation and become very liberated, accomplished practitioners and yet seem to be utterly indifferent to this, insisting on the radical difference between the unconditioned and conditions. It seems to correlate to whether people feel an affinity for a path of renunciation or a non-renunciate path (and I'm referring to renunciation as a disposition to phenomena, not a behavior, per se. Traditional Theravada is a good example. On the path, all phenomena are seen to be unsatisfactory, in contrast to the unconditioned, which is (ultimately) not a phenomenon, and is the true refuge. The end of the path comes not with Arhatship, but with the dissolution of the skandhas, when the Arhat's conditioned being completely dissipates-- no more experience, just oblivion/the unconditioned/paranibbana).

There's a teacher named Steven Tainer who calls this insight 4) a "back door to enlightenment" and he describes the dillemma of one who has this insight before practice very well: the big pitfall is to not understand the use of practice. So until the existential gap between the glimpses of 4) and the ordinary baseline becomes really excruciating and embarrassing, it can feel like there's no need for practice. It's tricky. By the way, I'm not quite talking about one or two experiences. I'm talking about a proclivity for regularly (say, several times a year in a big way, maybe once a week in a little way, sometimes once a day) opening into that insight which is inexplicable, i.e., it's not related to a formal practice. Sometimes people like this will find some set of conditions: jamming with their band, falling in love, parachuting, or even less wholesome things which seem to be associated with the insight, and that activity can maybe become a kind of practice. For me, at a certain point that *gap* between the natural state and the baseline default state became a source of consternation and frustration, particularly in terms of how difficult it was to act from the view revealed in 4) in the context of difficult interpersonal situations or deeply rooted habitual patterns of my own--- and that's why I began formally practicing.

" Sometimes people like this will find some set of conditions: jamming
with their band, falling in love, parachuting, or even less wholesome
things which seem to be associated with the insight, and that activity
can maybe become a kind of practice. For me, at a certain point that
*gap* between the natural state and the baseline default state became a
source of consternation and frustration, particularly in terms of how
difficult it was to act from the view revealed in 4) in the context of
difficult interpersonal situations or deeply rooted habitual patterns of
my own--- and that's why I began formally practicing."

Someone was talking about this once recently. Maybe it was in a video or podcast, I don't recall. But the way a person might have this amazing experience after climbing a mountain. So then they think "wow, that experience was due to climbing this mountain at 4pm on a Monday" and they keep trying it over and over, trying to make it happen again. Maybe it does. Sometimes. Or often enough. But they aren't getting "it" - they are mistakenly thinking the experience was solely due to the activity they did immediately before it happened.

It was interesting, for me, that at certain points in my practice I have had sudden memories of times long ago (as a child, for example) which I in retrospect recognized as that kind of glimpse. It moved me deeply. The way I articulated it was a recognition that "my Holy Guardian Angel is beyond time, and has always been with me" - a way of saying that awakeness is always there, always has been, just not always recognized.

I'd love to hear more about your experiences (off-forum if you prefer - Chris has my email address).

"There's a teacher named Steven Tainer who calls this insight 4) a "back
door to enlightenment" and he describes the dillemma of one who has this
insight before practice very well: the big pitfall is to not understand
the use of practice. So until the existential gap between the glimpses
of 4) and the ordinary baseline becomes really excruciating and
embarrassing, it can feel like there's no need for practice. It's
tricky."

Clearly, you pay really good attention, Jake; this is something I think I would do well to ponder.

Someplace in Spectrum of Ecstasy, Ngak'chang Rinpoche is discussing 'the mandala principle'-- that is, that sense of being the center of a web or network of relationships. He suggests that [supposing that you're out in a bucolic landscape] the hedge and field and sheep are part of your mandala; but you can flip that and consider yourself, the hedge, etc. to be parts of the sheep's mandala. That passage really struck me, because the big AHA! for me included this sense of how arbitrary and unnecessary the usual obeisance to self/other, inside/outside, now/then, here/there, is/is not, dualities are. How they can be played with; how figure and ground can go all op-art and start do-si-do-ing. In the book on 'vajra romance' he makes an even more startling suggestion: that a 'concave' definition of gender is a useful practice. That is, that male or female could be defined by appreciation of the other gender, rather than having any list characteristics as a measure.

I'm wandering a bit here; getting to be bedtime for this bozo.

Kate: I LOVE the reverse mandala idea, that is incredibly profound. And NCR's teachings on Vajra Romance are really beautiful. I listened to a podcast where he was talking about that practice while during the same time period I was doing a weekly class with a Jungian teacher on "finding your inner partner", i.e., your anima or animus in Jung's terms. The two dovetailed profoundly. I really resonate with the idea that each person is both. Norbu's basic definition of the fruit of Tantric practice is the complete integration and balance of masculine and feminine energies in a single bodymind, which has always struck me as profound. Jung (and Western Alchemy) always strike me as very resonant with Tantra.

Chris: as the Tibetans say: Eh ma ho! Wonderful!

Ona: Sure!

Yeah, NCR is brilliant at this sort of completely unexpected suggestion; it has something to do with his art-school education, I think. It's like having Magritte as a lama.

It's the clearest I've been able to get about 'relativity', personally. Charts and equations don't do it for me.

This practice has continued interesting; one of the first things to notice is how site-specific opportunities are! Downtown in one of the small Marin towns where I work presents no one at all with whom this sort of exchange is possible; partly because they're so sanitized, and partly because I sort of fly out to do errands in a brief window of 10-20 minutes. Downtown Petaluma presents more opportunities, but not early in the morning or after dark-- which is when I'm there on weekdays. Also, a basic presumption of the practice is that I'm a pedestrian, not a driver. It is interesting to contemplate how infrequently that is the case-- except that I fell into the habit, after a retreat with Steven Tainer a year and a half ago, of wandering semi-aimlessly on the weekends. I had no particular idea why that might be a useful thing to do. This context illuminates some unexpected effects: there are many ways of being walled off from others, and being in the car is a big one.

The other interesting thing is developing a sense of the reciprocity of giving and receiving; it's a dance of interdependence. There are gracious-- and less gracious-- ways to do both. It is possible to be a grudging recipient and tarnish the exchange thereby. I know because I have definitely done it. In all kinds of ways. And I have encountered some truly brilliant recipients to school me.