Naive practice, informed practice, and the balance

I've posted this in the public section, because I think it merits discussion.

A discussion came up on one of the practice journal threads about the merits of knowing too much and too little, specifically in advanced practice (for the sake of discussion I'd use the term "advanced practice" for anything after what pragmatic dharma calls 3rd path, and certainly after 4th path/awakening; or said another way, in the territory in which a heavily method-driven practice becomes less important or even becomes a hindrance. That may be worth it's own discussion.)

It seems that there's a theme which over-analysis and TMI can hinder, which is that one fundamentally needs to really be fully with ones own inner/subjective experience. If one is constantly comparing ones subjective experience to others (from books, colleagues, etc.) that is itself a hindrance. I was reading Bernadette Roberts the other day and she said along these lines that probably far more Christian monastics are awake than realize they are, because they are so saturated in the lives of the saints, and they associate the unitive phase of practice with the extraordinary events chronicled in those stories, such as miracles, stigmata, levitation, etc, not to mention the endless ecstasies and visions and such. Yet a person may have a very quiet spiritual journey, quite banal, and still have the insights into the nature of self and reality that mark awakening. If they are not aware of any examples of that being awakening, they may just be confused and think something's kind of strange or even find the ongoing changes rather disorienting or depressing, since they have no information with which to recognize what's going on. (ETA:) So the saturation in other people's stories can be a big problem. But it can also provide a comfort. Where this line is, is hard to say.

I watched a lay semi-Christian contemplative (with, actually, a rather New Age/comfort practice background) wake up, and she didn't know it. She felt like one day the world sort of slipped away, and everything was just fundamentally different. It was a classic 4th path type experience, if I compared it to many of those I've heard told and my own experience. When I talked to her about it, she was comforted to hear that what was going on was totally normal. She went on into the phase of feeling like something was wrong because old habitual stuff was still being purified, and she felt like she must have ruined it by not doing things right. Again, talking to someone about that being normal was really comforting.

Now the fact is that I know several people, including myself, who went through that same experience from a base of being in a community of other people who had woken up, being saturated in information and having plenty of examples. And I (and the others I am referring to) all still had the same reaction: first feeling like "what is this that has happened?" because it wasn't like we imagined it would be. So one might conclude that that reaction and those questions are extremely typical and that having more or less access to information doesn't entirely preclude being dismayed or disoriented.

The other element in the question is whether discussing advanced practice is detrimental to beginners, for whom the practices or experiences being described aren't useful. Surrender practice comes to mind as one that isn't always useful for beginners at all, because they aren't in a position to understand it correctly or apply it. Similarly "resting in the natural state" or similar teachings are of mixed value for beginners, depending on their condition and tendencies. So should this just not be brought up, or only brought up with copious disclaimers? What if people are not self-evaluating clearly, and try to apply a practice that doesn't apply well to their specific current condition? People tend to over-evaluate themselves: think how many are quick to guess that a strong ecstatic experience is probably awakening, or at least getting close.

Thoughts? Other perspectives?

Well, you pretty much nailed it. Those are the questions and most of the answers.

Taking a big step back: Lately I've been thinking that with so much material out there about practice -- for beginners, for dedicated practioners, for advanced practice, for super-mega practices, for subtle nuanced ultra precise practice -- there is rarely a discussion of freedom from practice. And I just mean living life. The metaphysics of practice seems to we the last thing that gets jettisoned, if it ever does. It doesn't matter if it is "levels of attainment", "purity", "sinning", "compassion", "love", "mindfulness", "no-self", etc. It seems like any one of these very core things can still trap people and close their heart to fully experiencing life. But that's more looking forward in my practice...

Anyway, I agree it's really tricky for beginners. I would say I "wasted" 20 years with advanced "just let go" and "just sit and breathe" practices. The "you are already enlightened" stuff was especially seductive (and is both comforting and fosters complacency, which is why it is good for people going through hard times but bad for folks who need to step up their game). Basically, for me, it was like being on a long road trip, staring out the window and daydreaming. Not bad and a lot of psychological stuff worked itself out -- and I can't argue with reality of what happened -- but perhaps not as wise as it could have been.

Actually more stuff psychologically worked itself out in three years of noting practice. Whether coincidence or part of the process, my psychological health was challenged to my core during this time by real-world stuff and it's clear to me that I couldn't have gone through what I did without the insights of meditation practice.

Ultimately, there are going to be people that sell ideas that are seductive to beginners (cult leaders who want followers, not students who wake up and make them unneeded anymore) and there are going to be beginners that take ideas and bend them to make things as comfortable and non-challenging as possible (the fairly natural greed and laziness of humans).

It seems to me, that the best thing that can be done is to treat the practices like medicine: be clear on when they are needed, what they do, what side effects they have, when use should be discontinued, when the practice has accomplished what it can.

I can understand why traditions have held so deeply to their particular views and practices, they really are a liferaft as the ship is sinking. These traditions needed to be preserved against the onslaught of wars, disease, political revolutions, etc. -- so no wonder they are held tightly. But I do think there are practices that are more efficient for different trajectories of practice and it isn't derogatory to say that practice X may not be appropriate at a particular time.

Unfortunately, sometimes that whole spiritual tradition will fight that idea. It's interesting that Shinzen Young's teaching evolved from comparing success rates between Vipassina and Zen students. The Vipassina kids were waking up more quickly and more often. In his wisdom, he didn't throw away zen as a teacher, but rather added Vipassina to his skill set. That's the direction I hope we can go in our western society, a more refined and comprehensive path of practice, both for beginners and more advanced practioners.

Since I was the one who introduced the concept of "too much information," let me expand and refine it a bit. The major "danger" of TMI about awakening is that of clinging to the familiar comfort of being a "knower" (or, conversely, a "not-knower" who "isn't there yet.") It seems to me-- and I can quote only the Zen folks with phrases like "only don't know" and "beginner's mind" as support-- that the whole issue of knowing/not knowing information about awakening is across an infinite gap from awakened experience. What Tsoknyi Rinpoche from the Dzogchen tradition calls "naked fresh awareness."

AFTERWARDS, one can compile a roster of evidence and speculate about the trajectory of how it happened-- the leap across the gap-- but it seems to me that it isn't necessary, or necessarily useful to anyone else. My past trajectory isn't prescriptive-- even for me! There really is no taming, or regulating, the unprecedented. There's just getting used to living it. Not as "The Awake Person," with my diploma and transcript; but as someone under a new, keenly felt obligation to engage, and to meet the world "more than half-way"-- because now that is possible.

So, the danger is of wasting time, and of introducing the endless and peculiar confusion of having encyclopedic irrelevant knowledge. "Awake" isn't an identity, or an abiding-place; it's the necessity, in the moment, of venturing forth. The question of whether or not you're awake is Mara's. The last temptation is to "admire your achievement." Or to doubt it and try to replicate it to prove it.

Here's where the religious have the advantage of saying: it's none of my business; it's God's.

I find myself reading these various points of view and thinking, "Yeah, that sounds good."

If I comment on this issue based on my personal experience, I must side with as much openness as possible. At the same time, I recognize that part of why this has worked for me is because I've engaged in honest conversation with others at the same time. Without open dialogue, open source information is easy to misinterpret.

And yes, a lot of what could be considered "mapping" or "modeling" is extremely personal. I think some of it is somewhat universal, too. I mean, while there are many differences between us, we're all human. It makes sense that some of this stuff is built into the dynamics of being human, at least in part. Sorting this out is part of the journey.

Ona Kiser wrote: So should this (i.e. advanced practice) just not be brought up, or only brought up with copious disclaimers?

I don't think the "advanced" in "advanced practice" is useful. Those whom we call the "advanced" practitioners in this discussion - who are they? How can we tell who is advanced? I know, third or fourth path, different configuration of perception, the proper place of the self, suffering, compassion and all that. But those are all correlated to talking about advanced practitioner, rather than caused or conditioned by something, because there is no something there to cause or condition them. These things can arise. They don't mean, "caused by advanced practitioner". So much for my ideological rant

So in other words: there are no advanced practices. I say, let's put them all out in the sunlight for people to play with. If there is anything to teach, then it is how to be critical and self-honest, and how to do the "learn it, do it, evaluate it, repeat" cycle, and how to find good companions in this endeavor.

I did, and still do, self-inquiry again and again, with long gaps in between. The results are always different. The differences are always enlightening. This is just anecdotal. Let's not pretend it means anything significant for everybody.

What if people are not self-evaluating clearly, and try to apply a practice that doesn't apply well to their specific current condition?

Good question. Here's the thing: Maybe they don't need a different practice at all, but instead some hugs, or money, or a therapist, or coffee, or a change of climate, or a divorce, or a better job, or something else not immediately related to spiritual practice.

I think the crux is just as you say, to look at the specific current conditions. Spiritual practice is one way to do this.

People tend to over-evaluate themselves: think how many are quick to guess that a strong ecstatic experience is probably awakening, or at least getting close.

They aren't even particularly wrong in guessing that, in my opinion. It's that they need to get over the notion that there's anything special to these experiences, or to the one who thinks is having them.

Thoughts? Other perspectives?

"The light is better over here" (referring to the advanced practices as well as the special experiences and special experiencers), like in the Nasruddin story where he is looking for his house keys under the street light, when he actually lost them in the front yard where it's dark. But it's no good to keep telling people to stop looking in the light. Once or twice is enough, and they'll remember it when they are fed up with not finding anything there. The point in time when that will occur is not something we can influence to any great degree, at least in my own experience. Not in ourselves, so how can we expect to do it in others?

Cheers,
Florian

What comes into focus for me when considering this is: 1) I possibly would never have tried to really do this stuff if I wasn't assured there are real baseline changes and 2) that pragmatic dharma is a little lopsided towards taxonomy of advanced practices, and it could do a better job of describing early on progress in the same step-by-step building block way it does with advanced stages. I think this could address the possible disruption of 'knowing too much'.

You think? We have a very step-by-step map of the early stages in the progress of insight, no?

Florian Weps wrote: ... it's no good to keep telling people to stop looking in the light. Once or twice is enough, and they'll remember it when they are fed up with not finding anything there. The point in time when that will occur is not something we can influence to any great degree, at least in my own experience. Not in ourselves, so how can we expect to do it in others?

It does seem not very influence-able to any degree, yes.

Yea. I think there's a larger gradient with more categories than 1) people who are immediately suited to the progress of insight. That is the pie slice I am slinging into this conversation.

Limbic wrote: that pragmatic dharma is a little lopsided towards taxonomy of advanced practices, and it could do a better job of describing early on progress in the same step-by-step building block way it does with advanced stages.

Hmm... I think I agree with Navad... The early stages are pretty well mapped out, including how to correct for difficulties that are encountered. (That's one reason it's really good to do noting practice and post about practice, the early terrain is well mapped and getting feedback really moves things along.)

If anything I would say the later stages are a bit of a free for all, and could benefit from more descriptions... mostly diagnostic, when to stop trying, when to do inquiry, when to do jhana, etc.

FYI, I'm a relative beginner in PD though I think I experienced stream entry in June.

"It seems that there's a theme which over-analysis and TMI can hinder, which is that one fundamentally needs to really be fully with ones own inner/subjective experience. If one is constantly comparing ones subjective experience to others (from books, colleagues, etc.) that is itself a hindrance."

Hmmm... I was more anxious about meditation itself and maps at the beginning of practice and definitely tried to incorporate various tips and tricks into my own practice without any advice from anyone more experienced other than books/internet. Things seemed to work out eventually. I just kept meditating. I can tell you at this point I can sometimes feel the need for some sort of external perspective on my own experience and less need to know about the advanced practice of people who are already awake. At the same time, I still read all this awakening stuff sometimes regardless of its apparent appropriateness to my level of awakening.

"So the saturation in other people's stories can be a big problem. But it can also provide a comfort. Where this line is, is hard to say."

Which is why the variability of experience despite maps should be emphasized by anyone claiming to know anything about awakening. I think you do that well, Ona. And I definitely get comfort from reading about people further down the path. But I have little idea as to how a teacher would determine whether a student could benefit from an info fast and only some idea of how to determine that for myself. I guess the student and teacher would have to determine that together. Is dharma info saturation harmful in my personal practice? Maybe. I can tell you another problem with dharma info saturation: I'm starting to wonder whether some of my insights are insights or parroting stuff I've read. Is that insight my personal experience or a belief? I think that will be worked out eventually in practice.

"So should this just not be brought up, or only brought up with copious disclaimers? What if people are not self-evaluating clearly, and try to apply a practice that doesn't apply well to their specific current condition? People tend to over-evaluate themselves: think how many are quick to guess that a strong ecstatic experience is probably awakening, or at least getting close."

I don't know if these are appropriate questions or not for me to ask. But who are you concerned about and, more importantly, why? Is this a general concern for the awakening of others? Is this a concern coming from your place as a teacher/advanced practitioner? Are you concerned about giving appropriate instruction to a specific student? Are you concerned that people won't awaken in their lifetimes or will encounter more suffering without personal instruction? Do you want a more private forum for advanced practitioners to keep the newbs out of stuff that's not appropriate?

As a self-evaluator myself, I'm more and more grateful for Daniel Ingram being public about his experience and giving his book away for free after sales slowed down. I take most of his warnings/advice seriously. And I'm also very grateful for Kenneth and that people are still discussing pragmatic dharma despite/because of all the schisms fomented by Chris And I'm grateful for all those moments in the past that got me to keep a private practice journal and that others have chosen to be public with theirs.

Could I be self-evaluating incorrectly? HELL YES. I'm choosing the "give it a year and a day" evaluation path at the present time. Does that make me want to seek out a teacher or be more public about my personal experience? Not yet, for various reasons. I don't know how these choices will impact awakening for me. I'm comfortable with my choices on some days and uncomfortable on other days. So it goes.

It seems like my contribution went over your head or you need to tune the volume up to actually audible levels. I am not entering into an argument, but rather making an observation. "Agreeing" with Nadav on this "issue" bears zero utility, I am reminded of the Wittgenstein argument that the "big problems" of modern philosophy are only problems because they are formulated as such. Like everyone knew what justice is until Socrates showed up and asked what justice "is". I.E. With my post, what I am talking about is one actual group of people out of a number of groups who would find their way to pragmatic dharma for good reason, and then find any little progress they do make warped by the modalities of the maps. I'm talking about people who don't get to find their way "onto the ride", as they say when someone crosses the A&P. I.E. I was never critiquing pragmatic dharma but rather considering the interests of those who need help. I was talking from a different perspective than a lot of this thread, and to a different echelon of pragmatic practice.

So I suppose the question in this corner of the discussion is, do these people actually exist? Assuming someone comes to do the pragmatic dharma thing, gets a teacher, corresponds their sits on a journal, and does noting, does it ever happen that they don't make progress?

And the answer to that is definitely, this very thing happened to me. I sat very, very much, both on my numerous retreats, wrote in a practice jorunal extensively, and years later I'm sitting here typing that I am still pre-A&P. So I would say that the early stages of practice can actually use some better definition.

Assuming the point of this thread is to understand suitable approaches to teaching, I think there's probably a sizable number of people who would do this if it only seemed like they could, but don't, because something about their experience is too stubborn.

Kirk wrote: Hmmm... I was more anxious about meditation itself and maps at the beginning of practice and definitely tried to incorporate various tips and tricks into my own practice without any advice from anyone more experienced other than books/internet.

Myself I find I tend to get more into reading, talking to teachers, getting feedback, trying to find some orientation etc whenever things feel uncomfortable... which recurs regularly.

Kirk wrote: But who are you concerned about and, more importantly, why? Is this a general concern for the awakening of others? Is this a concern coming from your place as a teacher/advanced practitioner? Are you concerned about giving appropriate instruction to a specific student? Are you concerned that people won't awaken in their lifetimes or will encounter more suffering without personal instruction? Do you want a more private forum for advanced practitioners to keep the newbs out of stuff that's not appropriate?

I think my interest in pulling the topic out for a thread came from several different conversations in various threads as well as some interaction with people in person (offline contexts) over the past month, in which the range of all of that stuff was highlighted. And it's a range! From seeing situations where people with a real interest in spiritual practice and serious and interesting questions were being given really dumbed-down, "mushroom culture" or "comfort practice" type teaching, which did them no favors; to contexts in which spiritual seekers were given uncomfortable pointers that they found disturbing and didn't want to hear. Both kinds of situations bring up this question for me as a teacher, and I was interested in hearing how other people experience this stuff. My own teachers very often made me uncomfortable, and I feel like in my own practice the most helpful things have been things that were disturbing, even if what I wanted was some kind of comfort.

Kirk wrote: But I have little idea as to how a teacher would determine whether a student could benefit from an info fast and only some idea of how to determine that for myself.

I've recommended it on occasion (info fasts and practice fasts in particular). Fasting of various sorts is interesting, not so much in itself, as because it makes one more aware of how, when, why one was doing something frequently (whether eating, reading, doing a certain kind of practice, doing a certain activity or behavior, etc.). Taking a day, a week or a month off from things one is doing with a sense of "being driven" can make more clear what one is really trying to find, solve, fix, etc. One can get obsessive about trying to knock down a particular imaginary wall and stop noticing what else is going on, or not be aware of the underlying motivation. So pausing in that behavior can illuminate what else is going on and the underlying motivation.

Limbic wrote: So I suppose the question in this corner of the discussion is, do these people actually exist? Assuming someone comes to do the pragmatic dharma thing, gets a teacher, corresponds their sits on a journal, and does noting, does it ever happen that they don't make progress?

And the answer to that is definitely, this very thing happened to me. I sat very, very much, both on my numerous retreats, wrote in a practice jorunal extensively, and years later I'm sitting here typing that I am still pre-A&P. So I would say that the early stages of practice can actually use some better definition.

It's true that the PD community online is self-selecting - maybe people for whom the whole paradigm doesn't work don't hang around. I wonder though whether any more detailed map of pre-A&P territory is actually possible, or whether beyond what we have, the experience is too individualised for mapping... there's some good descriptions in some of the classic Mahasi teachers' texts as well as in the PD scene itself.

But I can empathise with your frustrations - I've been practicing about 6 or 7 years now and done some very intense practice including at times doing 3 hours a day regularly, a couple of Mahasi retreats in Burma anywhere from 2-10 weeks, etc. And I wasn't really 'getting' anywhere with that in terms of Stream Entry, until I started working with a teacher (Beth) every two weeks, and really just noting as much as I could all day every day, which I started doing halfway through last year, after which things started moving pretty fast though very bumpily, and I'm pretty clearly now at Second Path, and I think a recent shift I had may have been Third.

But I had the same thing you've expressed where I was like, 'I was practicing longer and harder than these people who've woken up, and I don't even have Stream Entry!' Now I seem to be at a place where it seems I could only come to where I am through the process I did - nothing could have been any different - but never say never... My feeling is that, at a certain point, things will start flowing and none of the practice that you've done will seem to have been wasted, but you might need to investigate around to figure out how to get that flow happening?

Limbic wrote: With my post, what I am talking about is one actual group of people out of a number of groups who would find their way to pragmatic dharma for good reason, and then find any little progress they do make warped by the modalities of the maps. I'm talking about people who don't get to find their way "onto the ride", as they say when someone crosses the A&P. I.E. I was never critiquing pragmatic dharma but rather considering the interests of those who need help. I was talking from a different perspective than a lot of this thread, and to a different echelon of pragmatic practice.

So I suppose the question in this corner of the discussion is, do these people actually exist? Assuming someone comes to do the pragmatic dharma thing, gets a teacher, corresponds their sits on a journal, and does noting, does it ever happen that they don't make progress?

And the answer to that is definitely, this very thing happened to me. I sat very, very much, both on my numerous retreats, wrote in a practice jorunal extensively, and years later I'm sitting here typing that I am still pre-A&P. So I would say that the early stages of practice can actually use some better definition.

Assuming the point of this thread is to understand suitable approaches to teaching, I think there's probably a sizable number of people who would do this if it only seemed like they could, but don't, because something about their experience is too stubborn.

I think hear what you're saying, believe me! I spent almost 20 years lost in the wilderness (post accidental spiritual event, but pre- "official" A&P).

I think what we're talking about are two different things. The early stages are pretty well defined and mapped out, BUT helping people develop a practice that makes progress through these stages will always be a challenge, and probably will be until the end of time. All of are going to stumble along the way and be practicing in a way that is "close" to effective, and yet not quite correct. In the old days, people would join monasteries, which means even if practice wasn't completely fine tuned, the sheer amount of practice would make it work.

These days, it takes much more precision to "do it on the side" of lay life, going to school, working, raising kids, dating, being an artist, etc. ... but it's possible. Even with good teachers and good, consistent practice it does take time. And there will still be big differences between people. Some people just wake up fast, no matter what. Others wake up slow. Some wake up really deeply (as in, their morality is also very purified), some people wake up shallowly. That part of it is nearly completely un-map-able. But the good news is when you are practicing well, you see minor improvements along the way and you feel good about practice, so you don't feel like you're completely wasting time.

(Although learning to get used to that feeling of wasting time is probably one of the most important things to learn. The "will" has a really hard time just sitting and noting.)

Well anyway, that's my opinion these days.

I guess the last thing I'd say is most people who hang out in meditation sites are pretty much on the ride. Usually they've had some opening that speaks to them and makes them want to explore. It doesn't need to be a classic lights and images A&P, sometimes it can be from a car accident or surgery or drugs or hard times. It's important to not underestimate our own understanding and wisdom. Usually, like I said before, usually we're just a little off in our view or practice or understanding. It's really really rare that someone is more totally wrong than mostly right if they have a good sense of basic morality and human kindness, for themselves and others.

every3rdthought wrote: ...
It's true that the PD community online is self-selecting - maybe people for whom the whole paradigm doesn't work don't hang around. ...

That's worth keeping in mind! There are millions of people around the world who are not online, not on forums, not on this or related forums, who are engaged in spiritual practices of various sorts and waking up in various ways. Always have been.