Direct Mode

First off...I apologize for going off topic in "Welcome". I somehow felt that I was in email-traffic-reply-to mode. I certainly wasn't even thinking that all the conversations were still being posted under the Welcome forum.

I read the posts...

I think Kenneth should go back & read them. It is clear--to me, in my personal opinion--that they have all become fascinated with, and have become lost in, formations.

I thought it awkward that he would quote the instructions to Bahiya, "In the seeing, just the seen", when--it seems from the posts I'm reading--this is far from what is being done.


Just an observation...from someone that is biased against any practices that allow one to get lost in feelings... but it seems Kenneth got bored with life & decided to give up what he's been teaching for so long to dive in head-first with some quasi-Tibetan, not-so-clear meditative practices...


And worst of all, it seems he is condoning/teaching a practice that he has just begun to experiment with...

From the link that Chris pointed to ( http://kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/thread/4249588/Kenneth%27s+Experiment ), Folk writes...

"The only time I re-enter 'ride the wave' mode, temporarily leaving behind "be the wave" mode, is when I am talking with a yogi who needs me to be there with them on that level. This is part of my bodhisattva trip, if you will, and I don't mind doing it at all. At all other times, though, I am content to remain in direct perception mode, which means I don't experience or have any desire to experience nanas, jhanas, fruitions, primordial awareness, rigpa, cycling, siddhis, astral travel, or altered states of any kind. All of that seems painful from my current point of view, as it requires re-entering a mode of perception that is fragmented, holding one part of consciousness apart from another in order to observe it. The direct mode of experience I am cultivating at this moment feels undivided and whole." (emphasis mine)

Is it just me, or could it be a bit off-base to consider any mode of experience direct. It may feel undivided. It may seem whole. But this mode can be entered, and it can be exited. What does that say about it, if anything? Can we assume that the shaping forces of perception have nothing to do with this experience?

A lot of assumptions are being made, here. The biggest one is that this mode of experience is somehow unfiltered. This can be, must be, challenged.

That is exactly what I have a problem with...I see it as just another experience. One he has become attached to...but "it's okay because it is direct experience".

I'm not judging here...it is VERY easy to get lost in formations. That why my first line was "I wish Kenneth would go back & read the discussion board". If he took a good honest look at it, he might see things differently. Sure, you may not get angry...but there are a lot of delusions that can lead one to virtue.

As meditators, we search for clarity...to see everything, good & bad...not to wrap ourselves in a blanket of "goodness" that protects anything we consider to be "bad" from arising. I don't doubt that this mode of perception leads one to be happier & less angry...in fact, there are a few "modes" one can place the self in that leads to more pleasant experience.

But, as Jackson so clearly points out...the point to be debated is whether or not this is unfiltered/direct. I'm really afraid that this is going to turn out to be a big embarrassment that a lot of people are going to want to forget.

Even if it turns out to be direct...let's just suppose...would it be wise to so quickly adopt it? Manufacturing plants don't immediately implement ideas--even great ideas--for good reason.

"The only time I re-enter 'ride the wave' mode, temporarily leaving behind "be the wave" mode, is when I am talking with a yogi who needs me to be there with them on that level. This is part of my bodhisattva trip, if you will, and I don't mind doing it at all. At all other times, though, I am content to remain in direct perception mode, which means I don't experience or have any desire to experience nanas, jhanas, fruitions, primordial awareness, rigpa, cycling, siddhis, astral travel, or altered states of any kind. All of that seems painful from my current point of view, as it requires re-entering a mode of perception that is fragmented, holding one part of consciousness apart from another in order to observe it. The direct mode of experience I am cultivating at this moment feels undivided and whole." (emphasis mine)"

Wow, I remember reading that and just being freaked out. It's like he'd become some kind of machine or computer in which he could push buttons at will to control how things looked and how he felt.

Seriously, what's wrong with just letting go and being whatever you happen to be and trust that the natural wisdom we are all connected to can and will take over and cushion our fall?

Don't be put off by the Jesus quote below. Read it as if it was written by a dharma master, and 'heavenly Father' just means 'big mind' or 'nature' or 'natural wisdom.' Like that. Works for me.

25 "Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink; nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing? 26Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?
27Which of you by worrying can add one cubit to his stature?
28"So why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; 29and yet I say to you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30Now if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will He not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?
31"Therefore do not worry, saying, "What shall we eat?' or "What shall we drink?' or "What shall we wear?' 32For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. 33But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you. 34Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about its own things. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.

Sure, you may not get angry...but there are a lot of delusions that can lead one to virtue.

-brian_ananda

Great points, Brian - all of them. I especially like the above quotation

Mike, somehow I think that Jesus and Lao Tzu would have been best pals. Jesus' description of the Kingdom of God resonates quite well with the picture Lao Tzu paints in the Tao Te Ching of a society that lives in accordance with the Tao, rather than custom.

And really, they were both anti-state libertarians. I always get a kick out of that.

But I digress...

Hi Mike--
Love that passage! Really profound wisdom there. And I definitely see the parallels with Lao Tzu, Jackson; there's a lot of amazing wisdom in the Bible (and Koran, and Talmud).
As for this direct mode stuff, do you guys believe this is Kenneth's re-branding of AF within the context of his system? Or do you think it is an entirely different or merely related practice?
It seems that Nick and Owen at KFD assume that direct mode leads to PCEs and that the new, post-fourth path "attainments" that Kenneth has added to his map are equivalent with AF. Although I haven't seen Kenneth say anything like that, he never corrects those guys leading me to believe that he probably agrees with them.
Some of the methods of Shamata (calm abiding) in the Tibetan systems such as Mahamudra and Dzogchen, as well as some of the Hara-style concentration practices is Chan/Zen, seem similar to direct mode, except it is seen in a different context (View) and thus leads to different results. The main difference in these latter approaches seems to be that the initial sense of "calming" that is more literally the slowing down and even blunting of mental-emotional arisings is later superseded by a sense of "calm" that is primordially abiding, undisturbed by mental/emotional movements. This latter phase is about as far from a PCE as you could wish to go, in that it actually opens up the full spectrum of feeling. Mental/emotional arisings are fully presencing along with physical sensations and perceptions, and all of it is seen as vibrations or waves of the primordially peaceful nature, buddha nature.
These systems evolved to help practitioners to discover, or if already discovered, stabilize confidence in, the very subtle clear light nature of mind. The sense of completeness one discovers through this practice is, subjectively, completely satisfying, yet it is ontologically compatible with every single experience and thought, since every arising is of the same nature. The path is one of epistemically coming to appreciate this, which takes work, since we have many assumptions abut what is "allowed" to be "it" (real, i.e.) and what is not "allowed".
I wonder where Kenneth would be in his practice right now if he had, upon discovering the literature pertaining to these latter systems, found himself a teacher or mentor who was thoroughly familiar with the ins and outs of them who could have trained him. Now he seems to be teaching Tummo based on things he's reading, again assuming that as a master of Theravada (arguable but I'll grant it) meditation he's qualified to teach anything from any tradition that he gets out of a book.
---Jake

...assuming that as a master of Theravada (arguable but I'll grant it) meditation he's qualified to teach anything from any tradition that he gets out of a book.


-jake

Kenneth is, in fact, a master of Burmese-Mahasi style meditation. I'll grant him that...but within Theravada, there are many different takes on this approach. The Burmese emphasize an Abdhidhamma appraoch--hence, U Pandita's remarks on paramattha dhammas--whereas the Sri Lankans are heavily Sutta-based in theory/application & emphasize a lot more jhana and tweak several other things (still Mahasi-based, though).

The Thai's take on a whole new approach saying that way too much emphasis is on sitting meditation & mindfulness...that progress comes with the culmination of all eight path factors equally developed & harmonized (a lot more feelings in dhamma...at a deeper level, more emphasis on properly conditioning certain formations).

And if we look back at Ajahn Mun, we find some really different (& still controversial) takes on Dhamma Theory.

I never cease to be amazed by the sheer diversity within this tradition that, for the most part, refuses to adopt anything new & sticks with the traditional takes/views/practices.

Hi Brian-
i appreciate your knowledge of the many Theravada paths! I read your description of the Thai noting style at KFD and found it interesting. Noting isn't my thing but I like that version better for whatever reason. It's fascinating how different methods can lead to similar results, and the issue of conditioning prior to liberation is very important and overlooked in much of the pragmatic dharma scene I think. Particularly interesting how in many traditional systems, such as much of Tibetan tantrism for example, huge emphasis is placed on doing practices which re-condition the mind to a more positive, wholesome, and coherant state prior to engaging shamata-vipashyana style sitting practice.

Personally, I think it all leads to the same places, so the diversity of the traditions, and the traditions within the traditions, is fascinating as a way to examine how human beings wrap their minds around things. And in the end all those concepts have to give way to the reality of.... something else, don't they?


-cmarti

For the most part, I completely agree. You have different people trying to get to the same place. You have different techniques because you have different people--not because you have different places.
That said, I believe the psychology of awakening is absolutely the same. (Emphasis on "this is my belief", it is not "this is the truth" as it can't be proven.) The religious traditions do not differ in this aspect, they seem to only add a bit to it. (to the interpretation of greater changes, that is)
Now, it is popular these days to accept that "all paths lead to the same heaven" approach. And I'm not going to say this isn't true. I will say that I am hesitant to accept it simply because it is a popular belief. Most of the strong beliefs that I've held in the past, I held because they were the most rational thing to believe. Only, I found out later...after inspection...that they weren't at all. They were just what I was conditioned to believe as the most rational.
I have never practiced Zen & I won't pretend to know much about it. I do read a lot, though. John Daido Loori said something once that has stuck with me more than any Theravadin teacher's words every have. He said, "We all have a responsibility to go deep into our respective religious tradition." That has resonated in my beliefs, practices, and approach to religion & life.
In my introduction, I mentioned that there were often some differences between those that "perfected mundane right view" as emphasized in the Canon & Commentaries. It is popular to accept a lot of this stuff on kamma & rebirth as nothing more than a cultural aspect that should be ditched the moment Buddhism left the said culture. In the end, this may very well be proven true. But I cannot simply accept it on the faith of the current mainstream opinions.
As previously mentioned [in the welcome message], I don't readily accept this nor do I readily deny that this leads to anything more than a psychological change. I have been proven wrong by a man that lived 2600 years ago on many things. I've come to appreciate the Buddha Gotama for a true genius...and I won't easily dismiss anything because it seems "far out". Most all of us have had experiences that seem unbelievable to the majority of society.
My job as a religious seeker is to seek the truth, or untruth, in this. It is not my job to condition myself to belief something "just because".
I've done a lot of research into everyone of my core beliefs & I hold it because it is rational. Until it is rationally proven otherwise, I must abide and keep faith in certain things...otherwise I would be failing in my responsibility. I don't preach this to others, though. If they are not Orthodox/Theravadin Buddhists, it wouldn't be their responsibility.
Before I get off subject...LOL...there are certain differences in the interpretations of the experience of awakening. The current interpretation of the fetter/path model within modern Theravada is a bit different than would would glean from mainstream chatter. It is the same up to 2nd path, after that it changes quite a bit. Not the path, mind you, but what most senior bhikkus consider to be the landmarks.
There are many that await an answer for the brass. There are others, like myself, that seek the answers on their on. Those questions I proposed in my welcome message:

Does one’s perspective on the nature of the universe affect one’s awakening to that nature of the universe?
The Buddha did emphasize a lot on “perfecting mundane right view” prior to stream-entry.
Does one only need to let go of his or her prior views for this to happen?
Or must he “perfect his view” towards that of the Early Buddhist worldview?
In other words, does not letting go of an old view prevent one from an insight?
Or is one coloring his or her insight by instilling a particular perspective prior to the awakening experience?

When I have the answers to these questions, I'll be able to say with confidence whether or not I agree that all traditions/religions are simply different ways of expressing the search for the same truth.
Of course, this means that no one should hold their breath while trying to determine my stance on the situation.

I'm making an assumption, Brian, probably not a huge one but certainly an assumption, that we're all human beings and that we're all subject to the same biology, mental wiring, and other similarities. So the basis of my comment, personal opinion, was that. It was not "just because."

-cmarti

@chris

the just because comment was not directed towads you...and the whole idea was differing interpretations. i apologize if you interpreted it that way.

@Chris

I replied earlier from my Kindle...a bit difficult to type, but I was at the Barbershop. I want to elaborate a bit...

The "just because" bit was referring to the dogma of Early Buddhism. That I will, and I do, accept certain dogma. (It must be understood that "dogma" exists in Buddhism, but in a very different way than it exists in faith-based religions.) However, there are conditions for my accepting the religious dogma of Buddhism...never "just because" [everyone else believes]. There are always exceptions, but generally one of the following must occur.

1. It must be something that can be at least be circumstantially proven by me at some point in the future & must be beneficial to me here & now.

-or-

2. It must be more likely than not, or at least possible and advocated by individuals I deem as far-gone & trustworthy.-or-

3. If it cannot be proven, it should have been uttered by Lord Buddha on several occasions across multiple suttas (some suttas have been modified), it must not contradict other philosophy/teachings by Him.

Hi!
Regarding the possibility that different practices lead to different results, that's the whole point of many of our objections to AF / DM--- right? That the result-- subjectively, peace, fullfilment, completeness--- objectively involves the loss of many key human capacities. In the case of feelings, their loss precludes caring about their loss, so one who achieves this may not be in the best position to evaluate.
Meanwhile, in the traditions, while we can certainly detect descriptions which resonate with 4th path liberation as generally understood in our community, we also have descriptions of "hard" criteria for apparently much deeper transformations, such as the classical Arhat, the higher level Bodhisattva, SIddhas and Vidyadaras in Vajrayana, Rigdins who are clear-light masters, and the second liberation Alex has commented on in the Advaita context. These all seem to have differences and similarities, but Chris you did say same places, not same place, so I think we're on at least a similar page.
The idea, so common and even essential to the traditions, that the liberation from egocentric consciousness is just a platform for higher attainments and much deeper more thorough transformations with much harder behavioral, affective and cognitive criteria, is dismissed at our peril. And it may be that the attainment of 4th path (or whatever you want to call it) within the context of such a deeper goal is experienced very differently than when attained in the context of "well, let's see if there's anything relevant to me in this ancient tradition"
DhO and KFD both seem, in my opinion, to have slammed from the extreme of totally disparaging such claims of profound transformation to embracing with disturbing whole hearted naivete the hard claims of one upstart school: AF. And although some aspects of an AF person seem similar to these deeper attainments in the traditions, this condition is seemingly won at a terrible cost...

@jake:

That is one of the most thoughtful...and almost poetic...posts I've read in quite some time. Well said. Sadhu.

That's kind of you to say

It seems that Nick and Owen at KFD assume that direct mode leads to PCEs and that the new, post-fourth path "attainments" that Kenneth has added to his map are equivalent with AF. Although I haven't seen Kenneth say anything like that, he never corrects those guys leading me to believe that he probably agrees with them.

-jake

Jake, you said a lot of great things in this thread. But the above quotation is an important point, not to be missed. Much of what Chris and I were objecting to with regard to Direct Mode were not descriptions given by Kenneth. Rather, they were descriptions and interpretations given by Nikolai, Owen, and others. We asked for clarification, and it was denied. I think in some ways Kenneth thought we were attacking only things that he said. This was not the case. What I wanted was for Kenneth to chime in and clarify whether or not what his students were giving descriptions and interpretations that were in line with what he was trying to teach.

Thankfully, I've been conversing with Kenneth behind the scenes, and some of this stuff is starting to get cleared up. I still haven't received a good description of what he's been practicing and teaching, but the lines of communication are open. If I get a good handle on what's going on with this Direct Mode stuff, I will be happy to share it here in my own words.

-Jackson

Thanks Jackson. I find Kenneth's two-step, scrupuluosly avoiding AF lingo in his presentation of DM, yet leaving Nick and Owen's comments unchallenged, pretty clear- clearly unclear, anyway. My impression of Kenneth's style is that if he disagreed with the content of what they were saying, he would definitely say so-- bluntly, in response to posts in which they use that language. That has been his style in the past. Sometimes it takes him a while to gather the courage, as with August Leo, but it's been going on for a while with Nick and Owen. I await clarification. I'm glad the lines of communication are open. I wish you the best in this.

Thanks for the encouragement, Jake. I'm hoping for a fruitful dialog over time. So far, so good.

With regard to DM being a variation of AF... I had a conversation with Nikolai the other day that mixed things up a bit. He referred to the PCE craze at KFDh as some kind of passing fad that no one was doing or talking about anymore. Yet, he said that what they're doing now is what Kenneth has been teaching all along. I'm still trying to make sense of it all. I wrote back to Nikolai after his last reply to me, but haven't heard back yet.

The good news is that the practice that Nikolai describes in his practice notes seems great. It's a lot like what I do in my practice. So maybe this AF/PCE thing was just a big distraction. If that's the case, though, I wish it wouldn't have been defended with such gusto by those who were in the throws of it. As for me, I remain opposed to the AF philosophical outlook, as well as the practices and proposed goals. I'm glad that the senior members at KFDh are deciding to ditch it in favor of practices that are arguably superior in every way I can think of.

And Jake, I really hate to sound all gushy and stuff (perhaps because I've had a bit of wine this evening), but I'm really, really happy that you're participating here

-Jackson