New article by Vince Horn - "The Place of Practice"

Vince from Buddhist Geeks posted a new article at his personal website titled The Place of Practice: Integrating Perspectives and Clinging to Nothing . I really enjoyed it, and wanted to pass it on to you all.

Here's an excerpt (the concluding paragraph), regarding taking a Middle Way approach:

"What I mean [...] is that we don’t take either the non-dual perspective or the developmental perspective as being “ultimately” real. We don’t even necessarily try to rank their importance—a common ranking in spiritual lives is that the “non-dual” is MORE REAL. The problem with that is that the non-dual perspective reminds us that the idea of something being MORE REAL is itself a dualistic moment. There’s no problem with ranks, or stages, as long as we don’t confuse higher stages for more ultimate realities. What’s ultimate in one moment is shown to be relative in the next and vice versa. And so this middle way is about noticing when we solidify perspectives on experience, and investigate that tendency as well. The moment that we open to what seems like a solid perspective, the apparent solidity starts to melt away immediately. If we can see it, then we aren’t exclusively identified with it. And there’s freedom."

The only thing that I find questionable about this paragraph is when he says there's "no problem with ranks, or stages, as long as we don't confuse higher stages for more ultimate realities." I'm mostly OK with saying this about stages of practice. However, the whole "rank" thing has been a touchy subject for me. What does that mean? Are there healthy forms of rank? One example might be recognizing the mastery of a great teacher. There's an implicit sense of hierarchy here, even if it isn't communicated explicitly. But even the hierarchy of spiritual teacher over students cannot come into being without social constructs, which are arbitrary, and thus - empty.

The only way I've been able to speak/write about this and have it resonate intuitively is to recognize two important features of awakening: (1) That there really is no one to rank, and (2) realization is possible, and usually happens through practice. In other words, while awakening is real, it happens to no one. Ranking, then, seems disingenuous (and really, it just feels icky).

Can we recognize mastery without the illusion of the master?

Not to be critical or judgemental of Vince, but as a guy who is highly motivated to make a living as a "spiritual teacher," ranks must be important to him and are off the utmost value to his career. So, he would probably have a hard time being objective on that subject. While you, Jackson, don't seem to have the ambition to be some kind of guru, or spiritual professional and can really see the meaninglessness of ranks.

I hear you, Mike. For someone who is more or less marketing themselves as a spiritual teacher, being comfortable with (or even promoting) the idea of rank makes sense.

At the same time, I'm wondering whether or not I have issues with rank where I might not need to. As I mentioned early, I can see that there is such thing as hierarchy implicit in things like skills development. Some people are better at certain skills than others. To ignore that would be delusional, I think. So, we have some folks who are good at meditation, or good at "realizing" or whatever. In a normal, every day, worldly context, it would make sense to say that such individuals are naturally ranked, and that we just add labels for convenience.

The thing is, it becomes a philsophical problem in terms of the whole duality/non-duality conundrum. Where degree, scope, and depth of realization may be compared from person to person, the idea of their being a "person" who has "attained" something is just as delusional as not recognizing hierarchies at all. Practically speaking, I fear that ranks and titles can encourage polarizing or dichotomizing relationships between individuals that may quickly freeze into unhelpful concepts to which many will cling.

So, I'm back to the difficult task of recognizing development while not attributing it to anyone who has attained or achieved anything. The question becomes, how can be best use language to encourage and support a helpful and appropriate understanding of this process? Maybe this -- what we're doing here -- is the only way.

This is a real pickle for me.

Surely, I'd like for people to be able to learn dharma, learn how to be free, from someone who knows something about it. That seems like a good thing.

But, I know that as soon as there is a community in which some people are considered more "advanced" and "teachers" then hierarchies and ranks and social pressures just inevitably come in and mess everything up. People start doing things that are more about "social pyschology" than about dharma practice -- does that make sense? "in groups" form, "out groups" are created. Competition for attention and approval even if very subtle will always happen. The poor teacher or leader will enjoy the ego gratification and the power even if he or she doesn't want to -- the temptations must be incredible.

And, just because someone in a hierarchical dharma community has some development, some insight at some point that gets him the rank of "teacher" that doesn't mean he will keep developing and keep deepening his or her insight. This person could just as easily get worse -- way worse, while still enjoying their "rank."

This is why I was so adamant with KF when he first asked his question of his forum members about making a living as a dharma teacher. I insisted and still insist that as soon as money and marketing and the pressures of paying a mortgage, etc. come into play, then real teaching will most likely go out the window.

Why can't a meditator learn and grow and then if he or she feels motivated to teach -- just wait and see if someone appears who needs their help for a period of time. Then, help that person with sincerity and maybe, later, GET help from that same person. And, why can't that person do all this while working the same regular jobs that the rest of us have to work? I have a real hard time relating to someone who doesn't live in the same basic world I do and who doesn't share my normal type life.

It might just be my interpretation but I don't think Vince is using the word "rank" to mean in any way at all the office, title, seniority or level of a person or a teacher. I think he's referring to "rank" purely in terms of our moment to moment experience, and cautioning us not to weight (rank) the non-dual above the dual, or vice versa. It is in that way rank doesn't matter. He's describing how reality appears to us in its various manifestations and warning us not to take any of those appearances as the gospel truth (of a higher rank) because they change, are the same but different at different times, and so on.
Make sense?

-cmarti

Maybe so .....

Good points, Chris.

I really enjoyed the article (Vince, if you're reading this, well done!).

I just didn't take "rank" to mean a ranking of experience so much as a ranking of attainment. In the context of "stages", it would seem that he wasn't referring strictly to a dual/non-dual division in his comment.

As far as attainment style ranking is concerned, it occurs when a concept, or even one's personality, freezes around some arbitrary landmark of development (which may or may not be arbitrarily applied). This type of freezing is rarely, if ever helpful.

These days, the only stages I find at all helpful are stages of meditation, as they point to experience that is at least dependently existent. Stages of attainment are pointless, as they aren't even dependently existent - they are utterly non-existent.

Hi everyone, I guess I'm de-lurking...

"There’s no problem with ranks, or stages, as long as we don’t confuse higher stages for more ultimate realities. What’s ultimate in one moment is shown to be relative in the next and vice versa."

I think this statement is really showing the emphemeral nature of rank. Rank is a real measurement and descriptive, but it isn't something that is constant. There are such things as attainments, but the attainments are not constants -- they are abstractions about the reality of the person. Suzuki said "enlightened person=enlightened action, unenlightened person=unenlightened action". This is true and it's also true to say that Suzuki was enlightened. Both are okay things to convey about the reality of a particular human.

As Vince says, "If we can see it, then we aren’t exclusively identified with it. And there’s freedom." Both freedom to use the idea of rank, and the freedom from using rank dogmatically.

edit- spelling

Welcome out of the woodwork, Shargrol! And thanks for speaking up so well to this point.

So, I'm back to the difficult task of recognizing development while not attributing it to anyone who has attained or achieved anything. The question becomes, how can be best use language to encourage and support a helpful and appropriate understanding of this process? Maybe this -- what we're doing here -- is the only way.


-awouldbehipster

To my understanding, notions of rank, models of enlightenment and so on, result when practice instructions are misused as dogma.

Take emptiness, for example. Surrendering to emptiness is perfectly good practice. Attributing something special to emptiness is dogma, results in "emptier-than-thou" nonsense, and so on. Someone who has practised surrendering to emptiness a lot might suggest doing the same to another person; but deducing from that some kind of superior emptiness on part of the experienced practitioner would be a bit silly.

Same with language. It's just a tool. I get frustrated sometimes when talking or writing about practice, seeing how my words lead people into all kinds of dead ends, and I'd like to be able to express myself perfectly, without the possibility of being misunderstood... But that's creating a fantasy about some ideal, and wanting that fantasy to be real and so on, i.e. creating some dogma out of a simple means of practice (expression, language).

Keeping it simple and practical isn't always the obvious thing to do, for some reason.

Cheers,
Florian

Reading the whole article I don't think Vince was focusing on the use of "rank" to indicate hierarchies of priests and levels of attainment, but more to indicate things we tend to rank as more or less valuable (which might include those). Anyway, interesting subject either way.

I am not a huge fan of dogmatic hierarchical traditions, having spent time in some annoying ones, but on the other hand I do personally feel inclined to honor someone who is particularly good at what they do - whether that is teaching, wood carving, cooking or explaining meditation techniques... I don't think that should be a problem. Of course valuing excellence in any endeavor sometimes, maybe inevitably, tends to turn into a system of certification, rank, special status etc and the system can become more valued than the actual abilities or talents of the people in it... but that's human nature.

Could someone more familiar with Tozen's '5 Ranks' opine as to whether that was being referenced in the article?

"To my understanding, notions of rank, models of enlightenment and so on, result when practice instructions are misused as dogma."

Florian, I'm not sure I understand this comment. Can you elaborate? Is any model the result of this misuse? I'm asking because pretty much every respected, ancient tradition in Buddhism is full of.... models and dogma


-cmarti

They also contain the simile of the raft: cobble it together from whatever you have, use it to scramble across the flood, don't carry it around once you're safe. That's what methods are for. The Buddha (as depicted in the Sutta Pitaka) carefully avoided teaching dogma - he taught method. He even made this a dogma, in the form of a taboo of teaching dogma (the "questions that are not to be answered").

Within the raft simile: ranks are handed out on the basis of a raft-decorating contest, which is pointless. It's not about who built the nicest raft, it's about getting across, as best as one can.

So when someone who has given me good advice in the past speaks up, I will take their words into consideration. Is this acknowledgement of rank within a model? What is it that merits my attention? Their proficiency with the method, or my glorification of their proficiency with the method? Will I learn from them, or from my applying the method?

So yes, the traditions all contain large amounts of dogma and models of pretty rafts. They don't get any better because they're old, in my opinion. They're only ever useful to inspire someone to build their own raft. Any model/ranking system is a result of this misuse of method as ideal. Delusion is that which wants to understand but can't - and with method, creating ideals and models or rank is the best it can do.

Cheers,
Florian

Hi Kate,

"Could someone more familiar with Tozen's '5 Ranks' opine as to whether that was being referenced in the article?"

I re-read the article a few times and couldn't decipher whether Tozen's ranks were implied. I think now that Chris' interpretation of Vince's use of "rank" is probably the most true to the context. He is clearly talking about the ranking of experience, particularly dual vs. non-dual.

He sort of says it's bad to rank things in terms of which is most Ultimate, but doesn't mind ranking otherwise. It's confusing to me, and I'm sure it's due to my tendency to get hung up on words. If he didn't use the word "rank" in the sentence I chose to pick on, I wouldn't have even thought to bring this idea up in conversation.

Yes, thanks to Chris I realize what Vince was actually saying as well, but I stick by my totally unrelated arguments against professional dharma teaching.