Questions About Fourth Path

Okay, guys, that evil hindrance, Doubt, has arisen, after having read some on This thread of exactly two years ago, particularly the following, which Daniel stepped in and posted by way of clarification:

"Since the topic has come up so often and been so bandied about so many times by so many people, let me state here what I mean by 4th path, regardless of what anyone else means by it. It has the following qualities:

"1) Utter centerlessness: no watcher, no sense of a watcher, no subtle watcher, no possibility of a watcher. This is immediately obvious just as color is to a man with good eyesight as the old saying goes. Thus, anything and everything simply and obviously manifest just where they are. No phenomena observe any others and never did or could.

"2) Utter agencylessness: meaning no agency, no sense of doing, no sense of doer, no sense that there could be any agent or doer, no way to find anything that seems to be in control at all. Whatever effort or intent or anything like that that arises does so naturally, causally, inevitably, as it always actually did. This is immediately obvious, though not always the forefront of attention.

"3) No cycles change or stages or states or anything else like that do anything to this direct comprehension of simple truths at all.

"4) There is no deepening in it to do. The understanding stands on its own and holds up over cycles, moods, years, etc and doesn't change at all. I have nothing to add to my initial assessment of it from 9 years ago.

"5) There is nothing subtle about it: anything and everything that arises exhibits these same qualities directly, clearly. When I was third path, particularly late in it, those things that didn't exhibit these qualities were exceedingly subtle, and trying to find the gaps in the thing was exceedingly difficult and took years and many cycles. I had periods from weeks to months where it felt done and then some subtle exception would show up and I would realize I was wrong yet again, so this is natural and understandable, and if someone claims 4th as I define it here and later says they got it wrong, have sympathy for them, as this territory is not easy and can easily fool people, as it did me many, many times over about 5 years or so. However, 4th, as I term it, ended that and 9 years later that same thing holds, which is a very long time in this business.

"There are other aspects that may be of value to discuss at some other time, but those are a great place to start for those who wish to claim this. If you truly have those, then perhaps we can talk about a few other points that are less central and essential.

"Now, how there can still be affect (though quite modified in many ways) when there is centerlessness and agencylessness, this is a mystery to the AF kids and to me as well, and that brings me to my next point: there seems to be areas of development depending on what you look for and aim for that may arise independently, and not everything seems to come as a package necessarily. Those things are what I looked for really hard for about 7 years, and that is what I found. Now I find that the interest in the unraveling of what drives that residual affect is arising, and so that investigation happens on its own also.

"Perhaps people will find this helpful in some way."

You can guess the rest: what is this all about here?

This really isn't my own personal drama, but I really am needing to admit that I don't fully understand the conflicting theories of awakening in P.D. circles, not to mention the evolution of said theories, given that I haven't thoroughly digested the discussions over the past six or seven years. So if someone would care to comment, I'd be grateful.

Thanks in advance.

I'd say there are two answers. One is to call Daniel up and have a chat with him, because any of us commenting on his words would be speculation. Two is to turn your dissatisfaction with things as they are into a practice exercise for yourself. The latter is probably more annoying, but more productive, than trying to come up with stories about why you aren't meeting your own expectations of how you should feel.

I had two rants with my own teacher about this sort of frustration, which were helpful. The results were a) apply the practices you know - that's what they are for and b) clearly "awakening" (as Alan referred to what some call "4th path", and clearly definitions are fairly diverse) is a beginning, not an end, so refer to point a). I'd add that there may not actually be any "end" really. Even when the sense of interior process has lost much of its importance, it's not like you end up comatose or dead (well, eventually you do!). Life goes on. You just argue less with it, it seems.

(Edited to add: all things considered, the only reason it is relevant to have a name for your current condition (such as 4th path) is to plant a flag in it. Really. I am fairly unconvinced lately, personally, that labeling is helpful. If you feel there is some problem/dissatisfaction, apply whatever practice is relevant. If you feel content, live your life. If you are trying to "get to the next milestone" or "label yourself" you are expressing dissatisfaction, wanting to stake a claim, etc etc - all stuff that should be brought to investigation. Again, been there done that, but in hindsight I think it is pretty unproductive, even counterproductive. Not all may agree, but lately at least I seem to feel more and more strongly that it is not helpful.)

Laurel, I agree with Ona that you should try to chat with Daniel.

My impression from his posts is although he "knows" and has fast access to the entire experiential field simply as simily arising as itself... it doesn't sound like it is a continual experience. Like he says in what you quoted "this is immediately obvious", not ~this is always descriptive of how I experience all moments~.

That said, I think his pointers are great things to check in with and see if maybe something isn't or hasn't or is difficult to "see". Everyone has blindspots. Even if the bottom of the bucket falls out, there still might be water clinging to the sides. So even with passing some milestone or another, there is still continual refinement.

Heck, I'm starting to think that first we work on the bottom falling out of the bucket... and while that's a big deal, there's another stage where the bucket >disappears<. So the whole accomplishement of bottom dropping or drying out the sides of the bucket is just a kids game!

Edit: I like the taoist idea of the (enlightened) sage going into a incubation stage and emerging as a dragon. This seems similar to the bucket disappearing, just completely unrelated to the confines of normal referencing, even beyond not-self referencing. I also like the taoist idea that this stage is >always< happening, not just occuring at a linear stage after the stink of enlightenment has passed.

This is my third try at a response. Let's see how it goes.

It seems that one of the things that attracted me to pragmatic dharma in the first place was its attitude of openness, and a willingness to discuss attainments, as well as give people the kind of instruction that would lead to attainments. This approach does not quite cohere with the attitude that labels don't matter, inasmuch as attainments are hard to discuss without labeling them. Labels and attainments are based on criteria. I'm willing to accept that different people, different traditions, and different teachers (not to mention the same people at different times) will embrace varying criteria. So when I posted Dan's criteria for 4th path, I was wondering, what gives? This isn't the description I would give of my own experience, and yet I gather I am something we around here call 4th path.

I'm not interested in having Dan clarify anything because I think I understand what he meant. What I'd like is for someone from this group to comment on the varying criteria within the P.D. community. I don't know that this request necessarily reflects dissatisfaction with my own experience, unless an interest in clarity could be described as dissatisfaction. But the question is somewhere along the lines of Ona's thread about eradication of self type practices. I want to know what other people think. That's really all. I suppose I would eventually like to know what to make of this myself as well. I'm not in a lather about it, though. Sooner or later it will fall into place. But right now, I'm soliciting feedback, not advice.

I suppose by beginning the request with a comment about doubt I threw things off a bit. That's overly dramatic and not really accurate.

Edit: Shargrol, I really don't understand your bucket imagery. Could you maybe rephrase?

Second edit: rereading what you said, I get it now.

I think it's important to remember that this little "pragmatic dharma" world is mainly predicated on the work of two people who have continued to refine their thinking along with the rest of us and often disagree. I'm not sure that Daniel's definition for 4th path from that post matches the way he was defining it a few years ago. It probably doesn't match his thinking from the MCTB days, since he says he was 3rd path when he wrote most of it.

As far as I know, neither Kenneth nor Daniel had their 3rd or 4th path attainments confirmed by monks within the Mahasi tradition in Asia. They had to come up with their own ways of defining these things.

My experience of what I've called 4th path in my practice doesn't match Daniel's. The inconsistencies are with the 3rd and 4th points, because I've continued to experience cycles and deepening. 1 and 2 are questionable too depending on what is meant by "This is immediately obvious, though not always the forefront of attention" and so on. I've spent some time with Kenneth and Daniel and the two of them together, and I don't know if they refer to the same "4th path." The way they think and talk about this stuff—and everything, really—is so different that it's hard to say.

For what it's worth, after giving Daniel a 5-10 minute summary of my practice and baseline last January, he thought I was probably in mid to late third path territory. I haven't talked to him about mapping my practice beyond those few minutes, but it does seem likely that my experience doesn't match up to his particular shift that he calls 4th path.

I wish I had something useful to say, but these criteria are not really part of my own framework-- so I'll just await with interest what others say.

Laurel, I honestly think that this whole 'Now that I got this thing, what the heck is it?' Is part of what happens after this shift. It is part of that adjustment after the seeker disappears. At least it was for me for a long time. I would try to make sense of it, compare to others experiences, etc... I think it may have something to do with the ego trying to grab on to something and re-identify. Eventually it seem to get to a point where it doesn't seem to matter, but will swing back around for more visits when other changes happen.

To Nadavs point, Daniel and Kenneth may very well be talking about 2 different things. It seems like that me. Look at Nicks thread where he talks about his current practice/experience. This is very familiar.

To me, it feels more and more like technical 4th path (Kenneth style) is the end of one ride and eventually the start of another, albeit very different. Feels like 4th path was classical Stream Entry or something. Hard to describe really. I, for one, like Nadav, still have had further shifts after 4th path. Things keep changing without 'me' really doing anything. More to say later...

Laurel Carrington wrote:
It seems that one of the things that attracted me to pragmatic dharma in the first place was its attitude of openness, and a willingness to discuss attainments, as well as give people the kind of instruction that would lead to attainments. This approach does not quite cohere with the attitude that labels don't matter, inasmuch as attainments are hard to discuss without labeling them. Labels and attainments are based on criteria. I'm willing to accept that different people, different traditions, and different teachers (not to mention the same people at different times) will embrace varying criteria.

Well one twist that I can't quite figure out myself seems to be that PD was largely defined "along the way" so to speak, written on the fly, as things were developing, with an emphasis on what was important at the time. This seems to have been true of Daniel's work, and Kenneth's, not to mention the unofficial guidance of dozens of people who post practice journals, help each other out, etc. I know that what I thought was relevant or useful three years ago is no longer what I think is relevant now, and I've written some instructional stuff in the past that I now think lacks the right emphasis, or is a bit misguided, since it was reflecting what I thought when I wrote it.

Daniel and Kenneth seem to have constantly developed and changed, as have mentors like Chris, Nick and others who have been around since the early days. There's no completely fixed understanding (as far as I can tell) of how things are, because it's a work in progress**, or so it seems to me. But that also seems to be part of the appeal - it's not a tradition that says "this is how it is, take it or leave it, believe or be damned" but a communal exploration of "what works", with "no rules". Though of course everyone likes a good chart of "exactly how it is". Human nature. Thoughts?

**ETA: of course, there's an ironic truth in that, perhaps. A system that appeals to people who want to have a chart and a method, which turns out to point even in it's own ever-developing understanding of charts and methods to the fact that we are always works in progress... ?

I'm not so sure it was defined along the way, at least not Daniel's stuff. It tracks pretty directly with the modern Burmese tradition and "the commentaries" (The Visuddhimagga and Vimuttimagga) which defines things in a nearly identical way. Even the way he writes the Author line of his book with the Arhat Ingram parallels how the Vimuttimagga was authored by the Arahant Upatissa.

www.urbandharma.org/udharma14/pathpure.html

Kenneth's stuff is more defined along the way, in the sense that it is more eclectic and is trying to create a system of systems. The challenge of creating a theory of everything has defeated more than one human!

All of this is really helpful. And Russell hit it on the head when he said this is a feature of where I am currently in the process: trying to size it up and make sense out of it. In fact, Russell, whenever you can get around to the "more later" you quasi-promised, the better!

I'm kind of wanting a more centerless way of being, I guess, which following Ona suggests some dissatisfaction. The temptation is to say, I want things to change, so, how do I make that happen? When the truth is we don't make anything happen. So I notice it, but fortunately I'm too lazy, or too chilled out, to ramp up any strenuous efforts.

Laurel Carrington wrote: All of this is really helpful. And Russell hit it on the head when he said this is a feature of where I am currently in the process: trying to size it up and make sense out of it. In fact, Russell, whenever you can get around to the "more later" you quasi-promised, the better!

I'm kind of wanting a more centerless way of being, I guess, which following Ona suggests some dissatisfaction. The temptation is to say, I want things to change, so, how do I make that happen? When the truth is we don't make anything happen. So I notice it, but fortunately I'm too lazy, or too chilled out, to ramp up any strenuous efforts.

Anyways, I will try, but I am not very eloquent in this stuff, especially the strange nuanced nature of how 1) this is very experiential and everyone is different and 2) it is just flat out hard to explain this stuff.

Another way to put the technical 4th path shift for me was: Before the shift, there was a lot of doing. (and I mean a lot!) Constant practice, constant thoughts about practice, constant expectations about how things will be, etc... Then, after the shift: Now we turn from 'doing' to 'being.' Suddenly the doer is gone, or significantly reduced. There is almost a wondering how you even did all that 'doing' in the first place. And since it is gone so suddenly, the ego can creep back in, ask questions like 'What even happened?', 'What changed?', 'Is there still a sense of self there?', 'Does this line up with others experiences?' I think all of this is normal and it is the conditioned self (ego) that is still trying to make sense of it. And, of course, this shakes itself out too. I remember Ron and others telling me it takes 6 month to a year for things to settle in a way. In my experience, it has been 1 year and it hasn't fully settled because things seems to change fast for me. For example: emotional changes, where emotions are not felt the same as before; proprioceptive changes where body boundaries seem to change or disappear; and big unitive changes.

One thing is certain though, that all these shifts and changes end up feeling way more normal than they sound. Like strangely normal. It is like rapid integration and then I seem to go through another quick round of asking myself why I thought it was a big deal, and the go on questioning if anything changed again

As for the desire for centerlessness. Try to sit with that, look at the sensations, try and find it. Try and find who is trying to find it. You might be surprised that it is very hard to find that anything about it that is solid and things open up into vast spaciousness. I think Daniel has such a fine level of detail in his ability to pinpoint his experience that it is very, very unique. I, for one, cannot detect the frequency (in Hz) of how many sensations I can feel.

Quick note: Maybe this should be split from your thread into a separate topic? Might be worthwhile. Thoughts?

shargrol wrote: I'm not so sure it was defined along the way, at least not Daniel's stuff. It tracks pretty directly with the modern Burmese tradition and "the commentaries" (The Visuddhimagga and Vimuttimagga) which defines things in a nearly identical way.

I'm not so sure about this... there's not much you can get hold of from the classical Mahasi people about what the later paths actually do, because they don't like to talk about it and because some of them are monks and aren't allowed to talk about it to laypeople, but my exposure to classical Mahasi was always that they were claiming that the four Paths a Mahasi practitioner experienced were the four Paths mentioned in the Pali canon - that is, the fetter model. So a Fourth Path arahant has eliminated greed, hatred and delusion, along with the other fetters (including self-view). This is not what Daniel's saying at all about his experience.

I've said this before, but I think it's worth remembering that, at least in my opinion, the classical Mahasi people would not validate what most PD practitioners have done as Paths, because their standards for how much and how intensive the practice needs to be to get there are much higher (months to years of 24-7 retreat practice; EQ is effortlessly sitting for 3 hours without noticing; etc).

The other thing worth bearing in mind is that both Kenneth and Daniel did a lot of intensive retreat practice over long periods of time. I think this will have conditioned their experience. Not that one can't wake up (whatever that means) without it, we've had that conversation lots of times, but that, like any other style or tradition of practice, it conditions the outcome (well, maybe that latter point is controversial too, but I'm not sure it is among us here).

every3rdthought wrote: [they were claiming that the four Paths a Mahasi practitioner experienced were the four Paths mentioned in the Pali canon - that is, the fetter model. So a Fourth Path arahant has eliminated greed, hatred and delusion, along with the other fetters (including self-view).

So the question is, do you believe it?

Edit: Russel is probably right... maybe it's time to move this off of Laurel's pages?

What I'm going to suggest is that one of the moderators shift all posts from 17970 forward to a new thread, started by me (or whoever) entitled Questions about 4th Path. I'm personally satisfied with the responses people have given so far, and have nothing of substance to add from my own perspective, which is limited. But it might be better to have it reported and properly labeled.

EDIT - sorry Laurel and chris I didn't see that you said to move stuff on this issue!!!

on Mahasi 4th path VS MCTB Ingram 4th path.

Funny this should come up now as on Wednesday night I spoke on Skype to Bhante Bodhidhamma (he is in charge of the Mahasi Retreat centre in the UK, and he studied in with Mahasi guys in Asia for 12+ years - you can google him for his bio) and asked him this exact question. He is aware of the book MCTB (they get quite a few MCTB readers on their retreats), and he is respectful of Ingram's practice but he says that the state Ingram describes is called Stream Entry in his tradition. He uses the fetters model, and says you're not an arahat until you have eliminated all the fetters.

" even when it's staring us in the face we struggle to accept it at face value."--

I'd tweak that to say that "we struggle to fit it into the pre-conceived categories-- and thereby bypass the potential value."

It's like landing on the Moon and then embroiling oneself in argument about which part of the Earth you're in.

Agree with the motive: "discomfort with uncertainty."

shargrol wrote:

every3rdthought wrote: [they were claiming that the four Paths a Mahasi practitioner experienced were the four Paths mentioned in the Pali canon - that is, the fetter model. So a Fourth Path arahant has eliminated greed, hatred and delusion, along with the other fetters (including self-view).

So the question is, do you believe it?

I haven't seen anyone who's got to 'the end' of the Mahasi process who seems to have this from observation (which of course is a rather dubious way to evaluate, though not completely - some behaviours based on the fetters are pretty easy to identify as such). And some have been disaatisfied e.g. Bhante Vimalaramsi. The person I know of who seems most likely to have done this or got closest to it is Ajahn Brahm...

Kate Gowen wrote: " even when it's staring us in the face we struggle to accept it at face value."--

I'd tweak that to say that "we struggle to fit it into the pre-conceived categories-- and thereby bypass the potential value."

It's like landing on the Moon and then embroiling oneself in argument about which part of the Earth you're in.

Agree with the motive: "discomfort with uncertainty."

What you and Chris said makes sense in the context in which this question about mapping tends to arise. It arises when we are uncomfortable with uncertainty. This can be when we are starting out in a practice and want to be sure it will lead somewhere useful. Or it can be when things go topsy turvy and we feel unmoored. The latter recurs on occasion, so the "where am I and where are things going" question recurs on occasion.

what does everyone think about knowing about these distinctions before having made any significant advances into experiencing them?

Limbic wrote: what does everyone think about knowing about these distinctions before having made any significant advances into experiencing them?

I honestly don't think it matters, really. There are people who wake up that don't use maps or paths or other "levels" to describe their experiences. It can be a helpful motivation, or useful for communicating within a specific tradition, or it can be a hindrance and distraction, but it isn't in itself necessary, in my opinion.

Well, sort of. The desire to be more enlightened than others? More to the point, the desire to make sure I really am awake, whatever that means. Which really brings us to the second reason, and that's spot on.

But really, as Russell said, probably par for the course, so maybe I'll outgrow it, the same way my son will outgrow holing up in his lair and answering in monosyllables. Still, not everyone has heard all this stuff over and over, not even me, and maybe another go-around with a different angle will allow me or someone else to let go. Who knows!

Limbic wrote: what does everyone think about knowing about these distinctions before having made any significant advances into experiencing them?

It tends to be really difficult to evaluate such discussions at an early stage. I remember reading them on KFD two and a half years ago and thinking, WTF are these guys running on about? And here I am running on about it.