Questions About Fourth Path

Actually, I didn't express it very well, so will have another go. I was proposing the opposite by suggesting that its perspective related rather than dichotomy based but depending on perspective can appear as a dichotomy.
The fetters as described in the pali Cannon are presented as an absolute - if this is true then anything we experience as birthed beings is by definition never going to be that (although it may seem to be very close) since as it seems to me, that being between birth and death is all about separateness. If this is the case then by definition we are perceiving and confirming this perception of separateness by everything we do because unless there is some advanced state where you routinely perceive all things literally as one energy whilst 'living' (and that may occur too in which case my point is misguided), the world is perceived as diverse and multiple things, events etc such as the wave, the ocean, the drop, snow, ice etc as the old metaphor goes.

So maybe the path helps us to remember that it is all the same and gradually we come to perceive it that way as our experience and perspective reverts to recognition and merging with its true reality - oneness/emptiness/awareness/stillness. Reality (Absolute) is the same but our perception (relative) changes and at 4th tech path, it seems that whilst we are more recognising the absolute than before, the options of perspectives able to be experienced are broader, which could easily be interpreted as a dichotomy in experience rather than just moving up and down or along a spectrum of perspectives in relation to the absolute truth.

The language is clumsy, and as you have said Chris, its all constructs anyway - like using a hammer to paint a portrait on clouds! Maybe we could discuss this (with beverage support) at the next Buddhist Geeks conference?

Well, if we aren't going to use language, we might as well take down the forum.

I'm not very familiar with the details of various Buddhist schools. But just in a more general sense it does seem that the idea (or belief) that there is such a thing as separateness is "not awakeness". And the recognition that there is no such thing as separateness (and never was) is a gradually developing insight. At first "whoa, THIS isn't separate from that" and then "Oh, THOSE are also included." and so on. The flag seems to often get planted around whatever matches ones preconceptions. So "this experience I'm having feels so unitive. therefore everything that doesn't feel like this is separateness coming back." And "this experience" referred to in such a sentence usually uses whatever strongest meaningful-feeling experience one had most recently (could be that A&P last week, could be a big insight later on, could be that week after a retreat where you walked around in a daze). But all of these are self-referential, and thus by nature maintaining the game of believing in separation. (Separation from what is an interesting question, too.)

I think the "well, there's a tree over there and I am picking apples off it, therefore there is separation" is a red herring. Separation vs nonseparation has nothing to do with the fact that we have a nomenclature for various plants, furniture, friends, weather, body parts, etc. It's not about that level of perception (I drive my car, therefore me and the car are two things, therefore there is separation). (This is just my opinion, btw). It's to do with no longer referencing reality in terms of the self. There's no separation because there's no perceptual or conceptual division of subject and object. Which doesn't mean that reality doesn't function the same way. The eyes function and the body/mind engages with the world without the sense that there is someone doing it, or someone seeing it - but the laws of physics don't change, nor is there some sort of cognitive meltdown. In other words, if we imagine non-separation to mean that our visual field blurs together, we can no longer speak, and can't eat, etc. (because then we are conceiving of "food" and "me") perhaps that's not how it is. What if eating just happens, and there simply is no longer the perception that "I" am eating? Eating's just going on (eta: and not thought about or reflected on either). What if our normal functioning does not require the perception of separation?

Of course, the nonfunctional coma state is a bit more exciting, and for all I know more accurate.

Chris Marti wrote: This is eventually a mediation issue - we experience the world through our senses and our mind.

Assuming that there is a world separate from our senses and mind

There's a thread over on DhO that seems to be relevant to our topic, if only indirectly. What comes across is the eschewing of labels and attainments as no longer relevant. I suppose this is Ona's point about no longer wondering where one is "at."

For me, one of the biggest misconceptions about "path" lies in the idea that there is a highest, most ultimate path that we could call "The Path," and that one of these maps tells us how to get there.

I see fourth path as the last of a series of stages within a particular training, with benefits a lot of people seem to like. But it's a path, not The Path, in my view.

More genius from that Rodney Smith book, Stepping out of Self-Deception. He trained with Mahasi Sayadaw. (But!) I'm really impressed with his plain-English straight talk on awakening. Here I would interpret his discussion as using the word "awakening" much as it is commonly used among people on this forum (I would assume same as "4th path" is commonly used, based on his descriptions) and the "maturing" he talks about after being a long slow, and differently-approached process of growing wisdom that eventually leads to an acceptance of "Now" and a non-differentiation of "me" and "reality", which he describes as the beginning of "authentic" life.

Here are some snippets from Chapter 15:

"Awakening begins the process of growing into our unique and distinctive life-expression. Chinul, a founder of Korean Zen, spoke about “sudden enlightenment and cultivated wisdom.” The phrase is meant to reveal that though awakening transforms one’s life completely, for a long period of time there remain deeply entrenched character patterns and habits that need vigilant understanding. We awaken out of the old so the new can manifest. If awareness does not directly meet this old conditioning as it arises, our uniqueness becomes blocked. There are no blueprints on how to manifest; no one descends from the skies to tell us what to do, nor is there a master plan accompanying our awakening, just an awkward “not knowing” that takes time, often years, to accommodate. We know we can no longer depend on habit but are uncertain as to what will take its place. Slowly spontaneity and creativity emerge from the “not knowing” into actions of body, speech, and mind. It can be a challenging time, and many people will continue within the currents of their previous conditioning rather than expose themselves to this uncertainty. We may have blown a hole of not knowing in our ego, but often a perimeter of fear remains around the hole and ties us to our past.

.....

The more we surrender our separation, the quicker we complete the work of dissolving our fear. Patterns that hold less identification are quickly released, but eventually we have to confront those areas where we are still tied to the outcome, image, or expression of our personal pain. These are areas requiring great sobriety and maturity. We know awakening involves our total being, but we may still hold a little of ourselves in reserve. We dawdle, hoping for a reprieve. The sense-of-self plays its final card, its wistful need for nostalgia. Will we disappear like a hand through water, leaving no trace of our place on earth, no small monument to “me”?

....

Our faith has not fully ripened, and therefore surrender is not total—we still need to be convinced that something will catch us when we drop our final defenses. But no assurance comes...

....

After surrendering, we find ourselves exactly where we are. Everything collapses into itself, and the moment, so long sought, is nothing special. The sense-of-self slowly recedes from spiritual dominance, and the world opens its arms like a mother to a lost child. The moment, and the “I” that appears within it, are one and the same event. It no longer makes sense to seek anything away from the here and now because the here and now contains everything. Where we once sought special environments in order to focus spiritually, now every experience opens to an abiding presence within our life. We can as easily say we stand everywhere as say we stand here, and yet, paradoxically, here we are on this spot!

....

Life has a way of bringing out the closeted areas of reactivity where we continue to identify with our story line, but after awakening, our intention is no longer to alter or eliminate these reactions but simply to allow awareness to meet and infuse these states with wisdom. If we are willing to show up completely, these reactive patterns come out of hiding. Ultimately we have to drop all references, like “spiritual practice,” that pull us away from the ordinary so we can abide completely within the ordinary, where all paradoxes are resolved. In the marketplace amid the activity, spiritual idealization can be left behind, and we can meet the moment without looking from a biased “spiritual” perspective.
...

The readiness to face what arises without spiritual techniques or psychological defensiveness is a product of maturity, and comes from understanding the paradoxical nature of reality; we no longer question the disposition of reality or seek an escape from the challenges of the mind. The need to escape comes from the dualistic notion that reality and “I” are at odds, but if I am reality, then there can be no strategy to circumvent what arises. Maturity is the willingness to stand on “this spot,” without justification or excuses, and surrender to Now. It is the end of a divided life and the beginning of an authentic one, without any final product or determined point of arrival. Maturity is the final Oxherding Picture of the old, rotund, balding wanderer with a bundle over his shoulder, walking down the mountain toward the city after his awakening. This represents a full expression of life at the zero point of the axis, an embodiment of finding one’s true home in the world."

I particularly like this: " Everything collapses into itself, and the moment, so long sought, is nothing special. The sense-of-self slowly recedes from spiritual dominance, and the world opens its arms like a mother to a lost child."

It brings a smile to notice how similarly we wind up expressing these things, from our "separate, independent" vantage points. (As if!)

From the Aro bardo teachings I referred to on my thread: "Tha-mal-gyi-shé-pa (one of the nine bardos) means ‘instantaneous ordinariness’. " And the sense of bardos not as destinations on a journey from here to some distant goal, but experiential "spaces" that we enter and depart, again and again.

nadav wrote: 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.

FWIW I recall Daniel saying in a forum post that he had gotten 4th confirmed by I believe Pandita Jr. at MBMC.

Nikolai Stephen Halay wrote:

Chris Marti wrote: I think it should be considered a possibility, too, but it would be nice to have evidence. Experiential evidence that comes from being near such a person for an extended period of time. Like shargrol and some others, I'm of the opinion that the dropping of all fetters is an ideal. Human beings, by their very nature, are far from ideal. If extinguishing all the fetters requires being alone in the forest for 40 years and not interacting with others then of what value is the attainment? Kind of interesting to ponder that, I think.

This re-consideration of the goal as talked of in the pali suttas (as far as I understand it from my own readings of English translations) i.e. to end the flow of becoming while forest-ing it and living a life of renunciation more in line with the wandering forest monks rather than temple/city ones, is probably what triggered the Mahayana movement and all that followed.

Reviving this thread... Somewhere in this conversation I was trying to remember where I saw the Mahayana version of the three characteristics. Found it last night: "no characteristics, no aspirations, emptiness".

The thing about the pali suttas is they use the framework of "imperminance, dukka, not-self" as a frame for awakening. As a result, from within that framework the expression of fruit/attainment will be in terms of negation of fetters (perminance, ignorance, self).

Conversely the same reality can be framed in a framework as "no characteristics, no aspirations, emptiness". That is going to result in the expressions of attaiment as degrees or tendencies of freedom. I think the mahayana uses the term "gates to freedom" instead of "three characteristics/marks of existance".

The interesting thing is how the framework is going to determine what data you think is valid for proving attainment.

edit: ... and non-buddhist traditions are likely to have even more frameworks and data preferences.

"no characteristics, no aspirations, emptiness".

My, my, my-- sounds very like the complaints of confusion, disillusion, and disappointment that crop up fairly regularly. Doesn't it?

Awakening-- the joke's on "me."

a big to that post!!

Kate Gowen wrote: "no characteristics, no aspirations, emptiness".

My, my, my-- sounds very like the complaints of confusion, disillusion, and disappointment that crop up fairly regularly. Doesn't it?

Awakening-- the joke's on "me."

Who's complaining?!?

Seems to be an unavoidable process, that no matter what framework you are into, you start out wanting to get "there" (your fantasy of awakening). And the more you realize that "there" is really "here", the more stuff you pull out to fight it with, until you run out of excuses and evasions and give up the fight. Metaphor of the day, anyway.

Give up the fight, give up the flight.

shargrol wrote: Give up the fight, give up the flight.

"But that's not the deal I signed up for!"

Twice as much glass as needed for the liquid -- Practical Dharma

Chris Marti wrote: Glass half empty - Theravada (pessimists)
Glass half full - Mahayana (optimists)



Yeah, I know, it's inept. But it was fun to post.

Useful point though (leaving aside the lineage-specific joke). It seems normal to go through periods of a sort of nihilism, where "what you get" seems really disappointing, and other periods where it seems fun, and other periods where you don't really care. One reason not to get overexcited about any reaction is that things will keep changing.

Chris Marti wrote: ...

I want to address this because it seems to be at least in some small part stage dependent. [ ... ]

After some time I started to see that it was a human perception issue, that I could see both absolute and relative and that this was not an artifact of how the universe was constructed but rather an artifact of how my perceptions of the universe worked. So the universe just IS. How I see it at any given time is what causes the absolute/relative dichotomy...

You said it quite well actually.

Chris Marti wrote: Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day, you know.

Like this one?