Direct Mode

Me too, me too-- but then, I've had more than my allotment of strong chai today! Not that that makes a lick of difference.

Yes thanks, nice to be here! I've had far more than my share of beer, coffee, sweets, rich (albeit mostly vegetarian) savory foods and great companionship with family and friends for the past two days.

I am enjoying the feel of this spot here in the interweb, and am sure that we will all benefit from our participation here!

As for what Nick at least is practicing, I had an exchange with him a few weeks ago on KFD in his or Owen's practice thread in which I tried to use the five-skandha model as common ground to discover what he was practicing. It seemed that what he was talking about "losing" through practice is not the second skandha, feeling, but the complex, ramified higher-order disturbed emotions which is perfectly lovely as far as I'm concerned. So I wasn't sure what to make of how that related to PCEs and an AF, since they seem to involve the provisional and complete cessation of the second skandha respectively.

I feel it's interesting to investigate the skandhas in dualistic mode and undivided or non-dual mode. Dualizing 2nd skandha indeed seems to be rather limited to liking and disliking, and prone when combined with dualizing versions of the other skandhas, to give rise to disturbed states. Meanwhile, undivided mode of 2nd skandha seems to be nothing less than the full richness of infinitely nuanced feeling/caring/appreciating resonance of open awareness, like as if everything inner and outer were incredibly finely faceted gems with infinitely unique shades and hues of "is-ness".

So losing (conscious access to--? or the actual presence/function of?--) the 2nd skandha would be a tragedy for this reason here, that every last scrap or speck of dualistic experiencing, including feelings, belongs in its authentic nature to a wide-open fabric of undivided wholeness, a wish-fulfilling jewel of myriad awakenings--- and "losing" any piece or portion of that is unnecessary, when all that's needed is to let it (whatever it is- thought, feeling, whatever) open up into its full expression as a facet of the reality-field!

As for what Nick at least is practicing, I had an exchange with him a
few weeks ago on KFD in his or Owen's practice thread in which I tried
to use the five-skandha model as common ground to discover what he was
practicing. It seemed that what he was talking about "losing" through
practice is not the second skandha, feeling, but the complex, ramified
higher-order disturbed emotions which is perfectly lovely as far as I'm
concerned. So I wasn't sure what to make of how that related to PCEs
and an AF, since they seem to involve the provisional and complete
cessation of the second skandha respectively. [...]

-jake

I hadn't thought of using the five-skandha model as a way to clarify the intended goal of AF and what some of the KFDh practitioners call Direct Mode. I think this is a great idea.

Eliminating the second skandha (feeling tone) is no something I would ever want to do, nor even think to do. I haven't been able to figure out why the AF people (or 'Actualists' - a term that I find rather misleading) seem to think that feeling tone is the root of a sense of 'being', and that uprooting this sense of being is what makes on actually free. Somehow this is seen as the cure for the human condition. One may wonder if there really is such a human condition. And if so, whether or not it really has to be cured.

Nick seems to be describing the removal of most varieties of sankharas (formations), a la SN Goenka. Like you, I don't see this as all that bad. I think that it is possible for one to practice in such a way as to gradually transform the ways that our mind responds to primary feeling tone (pleasant, unpleasant, neutral) so that the arising of some of the disturbing secondary emotions (rage, despair, and sometimes panic or major depression) is much less likely. I think this is reasonable because in my own experience, I have seen how these more complex disturbing emotions need one or more of the Three Poisons (grasping, aversion, delusion) in order to arise. When these disturbing emotions are investigated, and then penetrated with "clear seeing" (which allows wisdom to break through), they tend to break apart, releasing the energy to take other less disturbing forms.

Here's what I don't know:

- I don't know if one could come up with a list stating explicitly which disturbing emotions can be expected to transform over time through practice. Emotions are complex, and they tend to arise in slightly different ways for different people, particularly in cross-cultural comparisons. This is different from feeling tone, which is pretty universal as far as I know.

- I don't know whether these tendencies are every completely eradicated. Probability theory would lead me to think that one would practice their way to a level of development where the odds of experiencing certain disturbing emotions is very low when compared to those who have not developed this skill to mastery. But whether or not one could guarantee beyond a shadow of a doubt that they will no longer arise is questionable.

In other words, I cannot for myself confirm that the 10 Fetters Model is as accurate as Nick and some of the others say it is. It's perfectly fine to practice in such a way as if it were. But I would recommend a great deal of skepticism when working with any model. The last thing I want is for my views to interfere with, and thus block me from, reality. As Rob Burbea often says (which he pulled from a Dzogchen teaching), "Trust your experience, but keep refining your view."

I haven't been able to figure out why the AF people [...] seem to think that feeling tone is the root of a sense of 'being', and that uprooting this sense of being is what makes on actually free. Somehow this is seen as the cure for the human condition. One may wonder if there really is such a human condition. And if so, whether or not it really has to be cured.

lol well put. this question, lying unasked as far as I can tell, lies at the heart of so many oddities of AF

in my own experience, I have seen how these more complex disturbing emotions need one or more of the Three Poisons (grasping, aversion, delusion) in order to arise. When these disturbing emotions are investigated, and then penetrated with "clear seeing" (which allows wisdom to break through), they tend to break apart, releasing the energy to take other less disturbing forms.

quite so. Who wouldn't want to experience such a simplification or streamlining of their experience? Denying such a reasonable and apparently common side-product of effective practice is like saying "well, I've seen how messy my house is, so why should I clean it up?" In other words, awakening seems to have at least two aspects which are intertwined: freeing up attention to see clearly, and the way things shift and evolve in the light of that insight.

In other words, it seems to me quite obvious that wisdom and ignorance are like environments which form very different habitats inside us for formations. Some formations can only thrive in an ignorance-habitat, some in a wisdom-habitat. But once they've happened once, they are more likely to happen again irrespective of the environment. So I think it's reasonable to assume that even very disturbing mental-emotional complexes may continue to arise for a psychophysical system habituated to them regardless of the depth of practice or realization.

Rather, I feel that they lose power and become more translucent, perhaps to the point of not even being relevant anymore in the practitioner's life, like they may become atavistic relics of a former way of life that have little or no effect on speech and behavior. I would define liberation as the capacity to experience disturbing states without feeling compelled to express or supress them, and transformation as what may or may not evolve out of any new level of liberation.

Here's what I don't know:
- I don't know if one could come up with a list stating explicitly which disturbing emotions can be expected to transform over time through practice. Emotions are complex, and they tend to arise in slightly different ways for different people, particularly in cross-cultural comparisons. This is different from feeling tone, which is pretty universal as far as I know.

Yes, I see what you're saying; and it seems that, logically, any mental-emotional formation that is rooted in attachment, aversion or ignorance will gradually wither in the light of clarity. Likewise, certain mental-emotional formations seem logically to have arisen from a sense of solid-separate-self-as-clinging.

- I don't know whether these tendencies are every completely eradicated. Probability theory would lead me to think that one would practice their way to a level of development where the odds of experiencing certain disturbing emotions is very low when compared to those who have not developed this skill to mastery. But whether or not one could guarantee beyond a shadow of a doubt that they will no longer arise is questionable.

My feeling is that as with other phases of practice, that concerned with this very subtle issue of extraordinary liberation-- in which these samskara's would be 100% neutralized, eradicated, purified, or what have you-- there may here be a gradual practice evolving towards mastery (Maslow's fourth stage of competence) as well as a complete symmetry breaking moment with distinct before and after, in which it is seen that one's gradual practice was an expression of a very subtle ignorance and therefore could never break through the 99.9% barrier since the way one was approaching "practice" required at least .01% ignorance to function So punctuated equilibrium, holding open the possibility of radical transformation as claimed in all the great ancient traditions, is my hypotheses.

In other words, I cannot for myself confirm that the 10 Fetters Model is as accurate as Nick and some of the others say it is. It's perfectly fine to practice in such a way as if it were. But I would recommend a great deal of skepticism when working with any model. The last thing I want is for my views to interfere with, and thus block me from, reality. As Rob Burbea often says (which he pulled from a Dzogchen teaching), "Trust your experience, but keep refining your view."

Yes, I feel this is really important! Engaging a model, or a relative view, it's imperative to be aware of the pragmatic nature of such views. They enact their own context, in a sense, by which I mean, they perpetuate themselves (in my experience at least). One must be very touch and go with them. The most important thing, far more so than applying any conventional practice/model, is to learn to see the models I already have, of myself and the world and what is wrong and how to fix it, and simply examine their validity in the light of authentic experience.

OK, so the latest post here is over two weeks old, but I've been wanting to address this issue as best I can for a while (though to be honest I was hoping I wouldn't have to be the one to do this). Since, as Chris says, this is "the place", here goes....

As some of you (or all of you) may now, I too had a lot of concerns about the DM. The passage quoted above (where Kenneth talks about "riding the wave" versus "being the wave") scared the hell out of me too, as did many of the things said by Nik, Owen, and other forum members. I was very vocal of my worries, and even wrote Kenneth directly, after about of month of stewing in my worries.

He and I talked on the phone shortly thereafter, and his explanation did a lot to ease my concerns. Though I've not taken up DM myself (see Brian Ananda's quote above about how manufacturing plants don't immediately pick up the latest invention) I was less worried about those who chose to do so, many of whom I consider to be friends. What's worried me though is that no further public explanation has been made of the practice. Sweeping things under the rug only leads to festering, so I'd like to attempt to pull some of this back into the light.

Caveat:
I have been attending Kenneth's in-person classes all along and I can't always remember where or when I heard something (in person or on the site) so please forgive me if I mention things without links. I'm having a hard enough time putting this into words that trying to track down all my sources would take me hours. As always, this is reliant on my own (admittedly spotty) memory, so if anyone has any problems with what I've attributed to them, please contact me and I will make amends. And if anyone has any questions about anything specific, I'm happy to do my best to track down and find what I'm basing things on, as best I can.
/Caveat

It's my feeling (and I believe I remember Kenneth mentioning somewhere)
that a lot of what was said during those DM times was not expressed as
well as it could have been.

In any case, I don't see much talk at KFD of riding the wave or being the wave any more. I have heard Kenneth say, in person, that a constant PCE is not the goal of this new practice. I think clearly stating this fact on the forum somewhere would be helpful, but perhaps its being avoided so as to not open up this whole can of worms again. Who knows.

Rather than a constant suppression (ala the constant PCE), I now understand DM to be a fine-tuning of the emotions. I believe Direct Mode was an attempt to bridge a gap between AF and Buddhism, while leaning on both Bernadette Roberts and Eckart Tolle for reference. I just think it was launched on the site before it was really ready, and that no attempt has been made since then to correct that.

My understanding is that the final goal of what was originally called direct mode is the transformation of the emotions. That negative or harmful emotions are entirely based on projections and reactions and that they are ultimately unnecessary and with the right kind of practice, be seen through and let go of as they arise.

I see a sort of parallel with Buddha's Parable of the Lute. If the emotions are held too loosely, then they can act up. If they are held too tightly, they make no sound (this would be the suppression of emotions that we were all, rightly, worried about). Rather than either of those, the grounding of the emotional charge is an
attempt to learn to play the lute properly, so that the "string" can learn to produce a sweet sound when it's touched.

The regulation of emotions is something we all do, but what Kenneth is pointing to, I think, is that underlying all negative emotions is a constant sense of happiness and well being. This is basic Buddhism, I've heard the same thing from the Zen teachers I've studied with. Though this was often considered "limited emotional range" in the past, I'd say that this is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of emotions, that somehow negative emotions were equal to positive ones, rather than the base level is one of "happiness without conditions" and that negative emotions cover this up. "Seen through a glass, darkly" and all that....

As Jake points out above, there are similarities between the DM and the Hara focus in Zen (which I am familiar with) and with some Tibetan practices (which I am not familiar with). I'd say they ARE very similar, just that DM was not described very well. Even down to the physical aspects of it, because I remember Kenneth describing the "emotional charge" as a ghost that seems to uncurl from the hara region, and that seems to return to the hara when the negative charge is released. This is straight out of Eckart Tolle's "pain body" idea (not necessarily the location of the hara, but the idea of something arising along with the negative charge that retreats once the negative charge is released).

And I think the reason the practices were not described well that DM came out of an attempt at trying to work out the puzzle of AF. Since that was the start of the "experiment", the terms used to describe the "experiment" ended up being similar to AF, at first. I see it as a "you can't fight monsters without becoming a monster yourself" kind of thing.

At this point, I believe Kenneth's teachings on the emotional aspect of practice are not meant to dovetail with AF. While AF seeks to be free of all emotions, at Kenneth's "6th stage" felicitous feelings and happiness are welcome (just not manic glee or anything) as they are sustainable without turning into their opposite (whereas manic glee is not. this seems very Taoist to me, as does people's statement that DM made them feel very "simple", which I have been taking in an "uncarved block" kind of way). I remember Kenneth saying that the AF people can do what they want, he is
teaching something different. Not better or worse, just different (a
very political stance on his part, but an understandable one).

As Jackson says above: "I think that it is possible for one to practice in such a way as to
gradually transform the ways that our mind responds to primary feeling
tone (pleasant, unpleasant, neutral) so that the arising of some of the
disturbing secondary emotions (rage, despair, and sometimes panic or
major depression) is much less likely."

This is, I believe, what Kenneth sees himself teaching as happening after the 4 Path in the Technical Model. Ala Eckart Tolle, those secondary emotions are really just our "pain body" or, if you prefer, our learned reactions, or else our "bad karma". Basically, stuff that we do because of decisions we made in the past, decisions that were not based on the understanding of reality that we have now. But they aren't a necessity. And in fact, they can be seen through and discarded before they even arise, if we pay enough mindful attention.

My beef with DM all along was that it was either an attempt at streamlining the emotions so as to to stop unnecessary flare-ups of emotional energy as negative emotions (this being a good thing) or else it was an attempt to suppress all emotional energy so as to exist in a "peaceful" emotion-free state (this being a bad thing, as far as I'm concerned).

I think the problem was that a lot of people took this practice and talked about it more in this "bad way" and that Kenneth, not quite having a handle on the whole thing yet, didn't correct them. Since this whole thing came out as a response to the AF people, it makes sense to me that it would be colored a bit by that practice. But in the end, what I think DM was was an attempt at building a bridge into those AF practices in order to get rid of the "creepy" way they are languaged and put them more in line with Buddhist (and other less "creepy") language.

Now, the question to me is, does DM and the other stuff Kenneth is teaching at the moment actually lead to a letting go of superfluous reactionary emotions and to a stabilizing in our own inherent equanimity and unconditioned happiness? And has Kenneth actually completed this "transformation of the emotional life"? I don't know. I will say that he seems more present, grounded, at eas, and happy than he did before he took this stuff up.

But I'm still not sure that a clear distinction has been made between the "good" and "bad" versions of emotional practice that I outline above. This is where my worries come in, and the fact that the only one coming out and making this clear distinction is me, someone who hasn't taken up the practice, makes me seriously second guess myself. If Kenneth really has made this transformation, why all the trouble around resolving this issue? I don't know what its like for him, but it makes me uncertain that it is what he says it is. And I can so easily understand mistaking emotional suppression with emotional clearing, especially when its an emotion that's not easily faced. I don't expect perfection from Kenneth never did (and don't get me wrong, I'm not saying anyone here else is either). No matter what, it's hard when I dialogue can't be opened and maintained.

It makes me sad as well, to see the community split over what seems to me to potentially be a non-issue, if people could just get over their hurt feelings and communicate clearly! If we're supposed to be able to be clear of suffering, shouldn't we question whenever we feel threatened, no matter if we think the cause lies in someone else's behavior? I don't know. I sometimes get the feeling that all this trouble is actually revolving around something else, and that this DM stuff is bringing some other, unacknowledged problem to the surface. What that is, I can't say.

Luckily, I'm not at a place where I want to transform my emotional life, so I can see how other, more advances yogis then myself, navigate this territory. I can do nothing but wish them luck.

Jackson also says "I don't know whether these tendencies are every completely eradicated.
Probability theory would lead me to think that one would practice their
way to a level of development where the odds of experiencing certain
disturbing emotions is very low when compared to those who have not
developed this skill to mastery. But whether or not one could guarantee
beyond a shadow of a doubt that they will no longer arise is
questionable."

Assuming that they will not arise, beyond a shadow of a doubt, just seems like a great breeding ground for shadow stuff to arise. I don't think there's ever a point where we can (or should) assume that disturbing emotions won't ever arise. But I think we can practice so that they are less likely to do so.

I'd love to get to a point where I can see the negative emotional triggers in action, absorb the information they are presenting to me, and then just not let them act out, allowing the negativity and tightness to dissolve without needing to push it onto someone else. This, to me, is an ever deepening project, but a good one, and this is how I understand the DM and other emotion-focused teachings that Kenneths been putting forth. These are the best words I can put to my understanding at this point, I hope they are helpful...

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

And I just wanted to bring this back up. I almost get the feeling that the "deeper goals" of practice are limitless, and that were better off just saying, this is what I'm doing, this is what it seems to accomplish, and this is where I'm hoping to go with it. And even that feels like too much sometimes. All of that serves to limit the actual unfolding process, when, I bet, it would unfold quite well (and interestingly) on its own.

Also, the fact that the DHO and KFD both took a firm stance against "limited emotional range" and are now caught in it's extreme opposite should come as a warning to everyone. The Tao seeks balance. Be careful where you throw you weight. At these levels of experience, we're likely to be lead directly into an exploration of that very thing we think we don't have to worry about. "The stone which the builders rejected has become the corner stone." A good thing for anyone to head, I think, as they head off into that pathless land that is the truth...

"trying to hit a moving target'

Yup, that's it right there.

And I just wanted to bring this back up. I almost get the feeling that the "deeper goals" of practice are limitless, and that were better off just saying, this is what I'm doing, this is what it seems to accomplish, and this is where I'm hoping to go with it. And even that feels like too much sometimes. All of that serves to limit the actual unfolding process, when, I bet, it would unfold quite well (and interestingly) on its own.
Also, the fact that the DHO and KFD both took a firm stance against "limited emotional range" and are now caught in it's extreme opposite should come as a warning to everyone. The Tao seeks balance. Be careful where you throw you weight. At these levels of experience, we're likely to be lead directly into an exploration of that very thing we think we don't have to worry about. "The stone which the builders rejected has become the corner stone." A good thing for anyone to head, I think, as they head off into that pathless land that is the truth...


-ianreclus

Yeah, this is part of what I see bubbling up that really needs to be addressed. I think you touched on this a few posts back-- that all this broo-ha-ha may be symptomatic of a deeper truth about our communities. I feel this has a lot to do with the notion of "discourse" which another practitioner and I were discussing on KFD recently. Something about the way that a community constructs itself, and not just in terms of how it languages experience, but in the way it enforces normative experiences and constructions through group dynamics.

This is pretty clear to me, from a sociology of small groups point of view, that this is part of the underlying dynamic which gave rise to these hard shifts. Indeed we must be careful where we place our weight, for just the reason you say Ian. But we need to look at this from a group-dynamics perspective. We are used to looking at this from an individual perspective-- what is the individual psychology of holding an opinion? Of constructing a role for itself? What are the raw cognitive dynamics which give rise to these psychological dynamics? What are the neurological factors which condition these experiential factors, and vice versa?

We are really used to looking at this sort of thing, but not so much used to looking at the collective dynamics-- the sociology even more so than the culture of a group. If culture is shared content, shared experience, and shared constructions of meaning attributed to experience, then sociology is the systematic processes which give rise to the rules, roles and other institutional factors which mix with culture to give rise to "discourse". Power dynamics, in-groups and out-groups, conformity and deviance, and how these function and how transparent they are all have a lot to do in my opinion with the way things have played out at KFD and DHO and go a long way to explaining how not just a few people but how communities as a whole have gone through these abrupt shifts.

Enforcing a certain established dynamic-- a set of rules/roles (power relations and authority scale), a set of shared experiences and interpretations-- is often done by claiming that a common language is necessary, a common vocabulary is necessary for clear communication. But in my experience this speaks more to an over-literal relationship to language than anything else. After all if it were really so, we could never learn how to conform to new groups. So the very fact that we aren't just stuck in the beliefs and vocabularies we were initially exposed to points to the possibility of communication way way beyond agreement and shared technical terms.

Being able to understand what someone who uses a different vocabulary and different assumptions about how reality is, what the purpose of life is, whether there is a purpose, what the different possibilities of practice are and so on is a normal part of being an adult I think. And it's much more interesting; but maybe that's just me. I find that for every friend I have who shares a general orientation to life and a certain style with me, I have two or three who have radically different approaches, experiences and interpretive styles. I'm not interested in participating in groups anymore that are based on rigid stratifications of authority and power to define meaning, with inner circles and out groups and all the conformity and rebellion which goes with that.

Speaking for myself, a community of peers who exhibit a great variety of temperaments and styles and languages and practices and goals (and who of course have varying degrees of depth and accomplishment-- but that's secondary) is where it's at. A community like that would be relatively impervious to such swings because, as a community, it would tend to not place all its weight in one place anyway. The individuals composing such a group would likewise be rather un-extreme, even if fully committed to their thing, their style, of the present, by virtue of the fact that they are in dialogue with such a variety of others whom they respect.

I am feeling like this forum may be evolving into such a place, and I am certain at least from what I know of the few of you I've had some in-depth contact with that the individuals here are capable of this. It's a matter of do we want it. I think we do. I don't think the purpose of this place is to have an over-arching vision beyond sharing practice, experience and wisdom as well as our honest tales from daily life. At least, that's what I see happening here, and I hope I'm right. I see nothing but fun in everyone having their own pet models and theories to play around with, and throw out there for others to play with. And I see nothing but dreary social dynamics, power games, conformity and rebellion when there is a single authority or small inner circle for decreeing how things are going to be discussed, modeled, practiced.

Palabra palabra palabra

I CELEBRATE myself, and sing myself,

And what I assume you shall assume,

For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you.
I loafe and invite my soul,

I lean and loafe at my ease observing a spear of summer grass.

My tongue, every atom of my blood, form'd from this soil, this air,

Born here of parents born here from parents the same, and their

parents the same,

I, now thirty-seven years old in perfect health begin,

Hoping to cease not till death.

Creeds and schools in abeyance,

Retiring back a while sufficed at what they are, but never forgotten,

I harbor for good or bad, I permit to speak at every hazard,

Nature without check with original energy.-- Walt Whitman

We have our native masters who wrote about the natural state in the vernacular... lest we forget.

Lest we wobble in the courage of our convictions. Let every poet tell it as it is, and who among us is not a poet?

indeed

And Ian-- what you said about "were better off just saying, this is what I'm doing, this is what it
seems to accomplish, and this is where I'm hoping to go with it" rather than claiming we follow the One True Teaching, whether it be the One Original Teaching or the One True Teaching which was always waiting for Me to Reveal It, is so completely to the point. This is the essence of it, for me. How people whom I respect and "believe" can report such different experiences from me, which imply such differences in how reality works and what "it all means" just brings home to me again and again how plastic it all is. Somehow reality is big enough to support such a variety of Paths, and yet still offers us the possibility of connecting with each other in all our difference and variety-- as long as we can take the attitude you described. Wonderful point, and I just wanted to highlight it again.

It's funny how this "One True Teaching" thing works. It seems to have started during eras where Myth was the dominant worldview. "My god is bigger than your god." In the West, when the scientific revolution rolled around, the idea of gods was largely removed from the view of the Intelligentsia, but the "laws" remained. It became more like, "My theory is more true than yours." With post-modernism (the more balanced, useful version) came the idea (among others) that maybe all paths do NOT lead to the same goal or truth, and that's OK. Goals/truths that are seemingly contradictory do not have to exist separately. "Unitas Multiplex." Truth can exist in many ways, validated within each truth's own domain. This really takes the wind out of the sails of the "One True Teaching" teaching, which is why it still receives such resistance.

Just musing, here.

unitas multiplex, simplex complex
Yeah, I think this is what is being pointed to in the developmental literature with the post-integral dimension of development. If the immature/overly rigid version of the Pluralist level is a sort of ultra-relativist reductionism, then the immature/overly rigid version of the Integral level seems to be a sort of a resurgent emphasis on pyramidal hierarchy, a sort of return to a monolithic articulation of what reality is-- what Ken Wilber apologizes for as a Grand Narrative-- but unlike the pre-modern Big Picture which is handed down through tradition, the integral version is supposed to develop through progress. But the same fallacy applies IMO: than we are capable of or need in the first place an over-arching Grand Unified Model of Everything. The implication of post-integral stages of development is that this is impossible, unnecessary, and yet in "their own domains" as you say Jackson there may be a multiplicity of models each of which works better for certain individuals and groups depending on what use they intend to put the model to.

It's a thorough pragmatization of human meaning-construction: models ARE methods, and any attempt to "do" something emerges from a picture of what is to be "done", and every picture of what is to be "done" emerges from the activity of "doing" it. It's an evolving spiral of praxis which includes what we formerly thought of as theory and practice as inter-arising facets of a single "act" of consciousness/behavior/relationship.

This is why it seems to me that any form of spirituality which aims at an existential fulfillment in the here-and-now which is rich enough to dependably overflow into being of benefit to others must become rooted in the very richness that it seeks, and must emerge fresh each day, hour, moment from the "first instant" which is in a logically mysterious yet phenomenologically obvious sense completely fulfilled prior to the whole "praxis" complex of doing. So development-- character development, cultural-social development-- seems to me like a development of the meaning-construction and discovery activity, our "doing" nature; and higher levels of development/maturity are of value precisely in their increased ability to become transparent to the "being" or is-ness of all conditioned moments.

It's funny how this "One True Teaching" thing works. It seems to have started during eras where Myth was the dominant worldview. "My god is bigger than your god." In the West, when the scientific revolution rolled around, the idea of gods was largely removed from the view of the Intelligentsia, but the "laws" remained. It became more like, "My theory is more true than yours." With post-modernism (the more balanced, useful version) came the idea (among others) that maybe all paths do NOT lead to the same goal or truth, and that's OK. Goals/truths that are seemingly contradictory do not have to exist separately. "Unitas Multiplex." Truth can exist in many ways, validated within each truth's own domain. This really takes the wind out of the sails of the "One True Teaching" teaching, which is why it still receives such resistance.
Just musing, here.

-awouldbehipster

I think there are two entirely separate "Worlds" at play:

World #1: what's going on, the things that are actually happening in existence right now.

World #2: myriad intellectual constructions to talk about, make opinions about, codify, systemize, dogmatize, debate about, battle over World #1 above.

Often there can be entire mental universes created in people's minds and in books and institutions in World #2 by people who actually have no idea what is going on in World #1. ALL they know is World #2 and there is often a mistaken impression if one could just get World #2 all figured out, get it to make perfect sense, then one will conquer and control and be at ease in World #1.

(also just musing, Jackson's post just made me think of this)

Mike, interesting. Though, I hesitate to assert that there is some actual experience of the world as it really is, whether described or otherwise. Bringing it back around to the discussion topic (direct mode), this is part of the problem I have with Kenneth's way of describing DM. He's operating on an assumption that there is some experience that corresponds with the way things are in reality, and that this is based on the body, because the body "doesn't lie" - it gives "the straight scoop." I tried to have a conversation with him about perception, but he didn't follow. I'll explain...

Kenneth's DM practice is an exercise in perception. By perceiving his body sensations in a particular way, operating on the assumption that the messages he's receiving are "true" as opposed to the meaning of his thoughts, he experiences a great deal of relief/freedom. The same happens with jhana, or the Witness, etc. When we perceive reality in a certain way, or experience changes. Suffering tends to increase or decrease based on the way our perception shapes our experience, which is strongly related to intention.

The questions to be answered are: is any conditioned experience really beyond suffering? And, are there any modes of experience whereby the shaping forces of intention and perception are not at work?

In my understanding, all conditioned experience is shaped by the forces of intention and perception, not to mention the belief that follows - "this is freedom." If any conditioned experience is examined well enough and long enough, there will always be suffering/unsatisfactoriness. Whether we trade gross suffering for subtle suffering, it's all still suffering. In order to truly go beyond suffering, one needs to go beyond attachment to all conditioned experience. At least that was the teaching of the early Buddhist literature, per my understanding (a necessary caveat).

It's only natural for someone who is searching for total relief to find a big measure of relief and exclaim "THIS IS IT!" But over time, the suffering inherent in this perspective will be revealed, leading to another search for even more freedom. As long as the stays within the realm of conditioned experience, Kenneth will continue to chase his tail.

Caveat #2: I am in no way claiming to have gone permanently beyond suffering and conditioned experience. Only momentarily

SIDE NOTE:

I didn't mean that there is no reality. I meant that it's an error to assume that one is receiving true, unshaped information from conditioned experience at any given time. Realizing that it IS shaped is something else entirely. That's what I was trying to get at. Sorry if I caused any confusion.

Because something is happening here
But you don’t know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones?



That's it.

Something certainly IS happening. Here. But I have no earthly idea what it is.

"the body doesn't lie"
I kind of like that, but I and a lot of us maybe use it in a different sense. It just, again, goes back to basic vispassana -- noticing or noting sensations in the body is the quickest and maybe best way to get to some kind of insight into our true natures. But, what also happens when we do this is we see what the mind continually does with those sensations and perceptions of sensations,right? It creates images it makes up stories and on and on. We can see this too in vipassana, mindfullness, choiceless awareness, etc.

This may be really simple-minded of me, but my complete prejudice is that this practice is enough. Just keep doing that and see what happens when you keep doing that. What is the need for other "modes?" It seems like "modes" are something that is going to happen anyway as one practices basic dharma and these modes will come and go and change and live and die and in the end not mean a god damn thing to anyone.

So there.

Nice discussion everyone!

@ Jake: I am not quite up on my post-modern philosophy as I'd like to be, but I think I get a hint of what you're talking about in regards to "discourse". The idea being that group structures and shared cultural narrative are often based on un-recognized assumptions, and that its best to be aware of this and try to keep track of those assumptions so as to be able to resolve any trouble they bring up. Yes?

I'm not sure that we can ever "solve" the problem of discourse, it seems to me to be more a "layers of the onion" kind of thing, there's always more to pull away. But at the same time, we ignore "discourse" to our undoing.

I like the idea of no one having a "1 True Way", though having a "1 True Way" could be helpful, for a time. I read this article recently comparing orchestra/conductors to jam bands. I think you're talking about more a jam band mentality, and the writer of the article seems to agree that they are better. But I think a conductor/orchestra situation can be beneficial as well and might even reach higher levels of "beauty" more regularly than a jam band. But there's no guarantee. Both ways have their inherent problems, and it's up to us to recognize and account for these in our "discourse".

For an orchestra, the obvious problem is when the conductor or written piece takes precedence over the musician's attempt to interpret it. Ideally, a composer will simply attempt to unify the efforts of the orchestra, to facilitate in the communication between the various parts. As soon as the composer tries to be the source of the music, we have problems.

For a jam band, the problem is that sometimes the results are good, sometimes they're bad, and there's no real centrality to the whole thing keeping it together. There's more freedom, but there's also more a chance for things to go awry or simply not synch up in a nice way.

But the better the jam band, and the more aware they are of these problems, the less the need for a conductor.

Anyway, what you said brought that article to mind. Hope I didn't misunderstand what you were saying. The Post-Mod and Integral vocabulary usually leave my head spinning... : )

@ Jackson: In your conversation ( on KFD , at least) with Kenneth, it seemed to me that Kenneth is advocating body awareness as a sort of anchor, similar to the way you've described using the breath as an anchor during vipsassana/noting practice. Perhaps I missed something though.

@ Mike: I love the Dylan quote. There's a lot of stuff in Zen about "even the buddha's and ancestors don't know", and this points to the same thing, I think. As soon as we "know" it, it's part of world 2. World 1 only arises before "knowing". At least, that's how I think of it, not actually how I experience it, currently! : )

This, I think, is what Jackson's getting at in his discussion of DM as a conditioned experience. Though please correct me if I've misunderstood.

Ian, I think Kenneth started to open up and alter his vocabulary after I pressed him on this issue. Prior to that, he seemed to be going on and on about how "real" and truthful the body is. Knowing Kenneth, it sounds like he's just flipped to the other side of the coin. He was stuck in either the no-dog or 3rd Gear for quite some time. Now he's gone the other direction. Call me skeptical, but I think he'll realize the limitations of this approach in the coming months.

I'm all for using the body as an intial foundation and object of meditation. But somehow comparing the method of body-awareness to "freedom from suffering" is incorrect, in my opinion. In my understanding, the Buddha taught a path. The path involves certain modes of experience in order to inquire into the nature of experience in a way that brings insight. Insight is what leads to the freedom of release, not to freedom as a mode of experience.

Yes, I'm being very picky about language. I think that Kenneth tends to teach in a very confusing manner, and I don't think people are always doing what he's doing based on his instruction. Just my opinion.

One thing that has made me do a double take is the number of catchphrases that are used, and how simple they are. This is not something I find helpful for me at the given time, as I recognize several ways I could interpret those small phrases, and I usually end up finding my lost trying to make sense of them. As Chris said on another thread, best to just follow the heart.

@ Ian, I love the music analogy. We could push it a step further and say, what if the jam band was also full of composers? A jam band of singer songwriters? And each took turns as the composer/conductor, and during performances the whole band improvised around the themes of the piece? now we're getting even closer to the analogy

There needs to be a theme for some coherance (to the discourse), but there needs to be the flexibility to play with that theme. Now add multiple themes, playing with/off each other. Even an orchestra has an element of "jam" to it, a living quality, which I believe you're pointing to, and even a jam has a theme, so that the musicians are connecting thematically in each moment.

so each pole, theme and variation on the theme, belong together-- there is no pure order or pure chaos, but rather fractal chaorder. The further we get from acknowledging that, the more we stray into rigidity and chaos, right?

Now, a river, a cloud, a tree, a supernova, and our living experience in the first instant it arises-- all of great Nature, Universe-- spontaneously displays this ongoing dynamic of chaordic play. As far as we know, only we humans can ignore it and drift into world two, or appreciate it and "amplify" it. when we do the latter, things become both more simple and more richly complex spontaneously; more timeless and more changefull at once. we can go deeper and deeper into the living paradox of it as fully online body-mind beings, whatever the devil we are.

Then it seems like the attractors, the themes, become more and more formless or invisible, and the variations more and more free and interconnected. Totally beyond composition and improv, the primordial paradox from which those two abstractions emerge