Unlearning Meditation - Jason Siff

How isn't it?

Really. Unless I am completely misunderstanding things -- to me, the fruition occurs when, as described by Mahasi:

"There must be no gaps, but continuity between a preceding act of noting and a
succeeding one, between a preceding state of concentration and a succeeding one,
between a preceding act of intelligence and a succeeding one. Only then will
there be successive and ascending stages of maturity in the mediator's
understanding. Knowledge of the path and its fruition are attained only when
there is this kind of accumulated momentum"

and this happens here as well:

When man becomes aware of the movement of his own thoughts, he will see the division between the thinker and thought, the observer and the observed, the experiencer and the experience. He will discover that this division is an illusion. Then only is there pure observation which is insight without any shadow of the past or of time. This timeless insight brings about a deep, radical mutation in the mind.[/b]
[/b]
One is aware of and moving with his own thoughts (and all objects really) with such momentum that when done just right the division between the thinker and the thought and the observer and what is observed vanishes within the continuity (and when this happens all shadows of the past must be left behind or one just isn't at that place yet) of the awareness and there is .... fruition... a reboot.

This is really how i see things. Do you think fruition is something else? I'm curious because I always wonder if I am wrong and if you and others are having some other experience/process.

We had a whole thread on defining fruitions... dharmarefugees.lefora.com/2011/07/26/fruitions/

So we can't talk about it now, fresh and new based upon this new opening up of the topic?

That was a different cocktail party with different people drinking different spirits

LOL

Maybe it's like self-inquiry: each time you ask the question the answers can be different. Fresh and new in every moment and all.

LOL
Maybe it's like self-inquiry: each time you ask the question the answers can be different. Fresh and new in every moment and all.



-ona

By George, I think you're right. And I infer that 'inquiry' is a method that has a different purpose than producing 'an/the answer.' The method produces open awareness. At least, that's how it seemed to me when I was doing it.

Hi Kate! Been missing your cheery voice!

I guess I see 'the moment' as an overarching thing, inclusive of the other stuff, and the other stuff is in part a prop to get you to pay attention to "now". Whatever the object (or non object) you are paying attention to, if you pay attention to a kasina, the breath, whatever, you can't really help but be paying attention to it in this moment. See what I mean?


-ona

Shinzen's categories of objects works pretty good as a way of framing objects of "the moment". The different objectifications help unstick the moment from the past, breaking the discursive thought link --- but even linked thoughts can be turned into "now" --- ever have one of those meditations where you were watching your brain think itself? I think Shinzen would probably call those meditations "flow" --- watching the flow without being sucked into it as a subjective experience.

So weird this all is.

Choiceless awareness isn't a fruition - but it can lead to a fruition as it is a state identical to equanimity.

I guess I'm unclear about what you mean by "nondual awareness" but to me its it the same.neighborhood.

I think the same things happen to everyone based on a quality of looking. Awareness doesnt care if you are doing Zen or vipassana or nondual or choiceless awareness. If one is aware with continuity and momentum certain things are likely to happen.

Unless I'm really not getting some major stuff which is a strong possibility

That sounds right but I don't get it if it is a response to what I just wrote

Chris - I thought my post where I quoted both mahasi and Krishnamurti was an honest attempt to explain my terms with rigor.

ever have one of those meditations where you were watching your brain think itself? I think Shinzen would probably call those meditations "flow" --- watching the flow without being sucked into it as a subjective experience.

-shargrol

This is an astute practice observation, Shargrol. Placed in the context of Jason Siff's ideas about the meditative process, this "flow" process is closely related (if not identical) to Siff's "non-taking up" process. It's a clumsy term, which he admits in the book. But it's the process of not grabbing on to anything that is arising, including thoughts. One can even enter into a process of non-taking up with regard to self-concepts or stories.

Vipassana practices like noting and sweeping are tailored for the arising of these processes, which lead to further insights and -- depending on your tradition -- awakening(s).

Chris: what I wrote earlier (below) is my best attempt at responding to your request for more clarification. It is a combination of me quoting some people who I think explain a couple of things better than I (I quoted both of them because you wanted me to explain my assertion that something K talks about was similar to something in the progress of insights as described by Mashasi) along with some of my own words. I keep looking at it and I stand by it as my complete statement. I feel like I've described as well as I can what I am trying to get at up to the point of other's either relating to it or not. If, from what I've written you don't know what I am talking about I think it means either I'm just lacking in the skills needed to convey this, or, we have really different experiences. Either way, I can't do any better than this so I'm fine with just ending the discussion and going back to Jason Sifff.

Really. Unless I am completely misunderstanding things -- to me, the fruition occurs when, as described by Mahasi:

"There must be no gaps, but continuity between a preceding act of noting and a succeeding one, between a preceding state of concentration and a succeeding one, between a preceding act of intelligence and a succeeding one. Only then will there be successive and ascending stages of maturity in the mediator's understanding. Knowledge of the path and its fruition are attained only when there is this kind of accumulated momentum"and this happens here as well:When man becomes aware of the movement of his own thoughts, he will see the division between the thinker and thought, the observer and the observed, the experiencer and the experience. He will discover that this division is an illusion. Then only is there pure observation which is insight without any shadow of the past or of time. This timeless insight brings about a deep, radical mutation in the mind.[/b]One is aware of and moving with his own thoughts (and all objects really) with such momentum that when done just right the division between the thinker and the thought and the observer and what is observed vanishes within the continuity (and when this happens all shadows of the past must be left behind or one just isn't at that place yet) of the awareness and there is .... fruition... a reboot. This is really how i see things. Do you think fruition is something else? I'm curious because I always wonder if I am wrong and if you and others are having some other experience/process. [/b]

We're back on the "fruition" topic, are we?

I may go back and read the old thread before attempting to address the topic with you all more fully. There is one thing worth mentioning.

"Fruition" bascially means "Result." The traditional terms Ground, Path, and Fruition are synonomous with View, Practice, and Result.

Not every tradition - in fact, perhaps MOST traiditons - would not consider a momentary cessation of perception to be the "Result" they are after. In short, one's View greatly influences how one engages in Practice. The pairwise functions of View and Practice are what lead to a specific Result. Variations in the first two will likely cause an experiential difference in the third.

Personally, I do not get a sense from reading Krishnamurti that he is pointing to an experience of momentary cessation. The dropping-away of a reference point that conveys the perception of self and other is not always accompanied by the momentary winking out experience.

That's my understanding, but I'm not saying it's the valid opinion. Does this makes sense to anyone else?

Makes perfect sense to me, Jackson. You're calling attention to the time element; I have noticed, myself, that present-day 'hardcore' Vipassana seems to focus on moments. My impression is that Krishnamurti's tradition, expectation, and experience was about permanent shifts/changes.

I suppose that if you accrue enough moments, you've segued into permanence territory-- but in the short term, the difference seems significant.

Well, isn't there a distinction, even within Mahasi practice, between fruition and cessation? I'm not too conversant with this terminology. I've recognized cessation in the context of the progress of insight unfolding, but I'm not sure how significant that cessation is compared to the moments immediately preceding and following it, which IMHO seem to have the impact on deep-mind that changes baseline identity processes.

Also, I think to recognize that there has been this "blip" really requires a certain kind and intensity of concentration, which is not in itself necessary for permanent baseline shifts (Paths, in the Theravada sense) to occur. Isn't there even some fruition lore in the prag dharma scene about no-self fruitions in which the cessation doesn't really register? Isn't it possible that people practicing according to K's instructions would be primarily experiencing the no-self characteristic (that immediate open awareness sees through completely the fact that the subject/object relation is a mind-movement, an imaginary, conceptual thing with no referrent in actual experience which latter is completely borderless and whole, a continuum, unlike the imaginary fragmentation?)?

ETA: and the way K talks about awakening reminds me of Adyashanti's dictum that enlightenment means no longer believing you thoughts, as division, struggle, duality etc. only seem to have a life in the thoughts that think of them... and if we see thoughts as thoughts rather than as accurate descriptions or representations of reality, we can't be fooled by them.

Back to Jason Siff, I was reading his interactions on the comment thread at Tricycle and he made a really important point which I've often noticed about many mainstream practitioners, which is that there is a strong tendency to assume that "The more common notion of first getting calm through awareness of
breathing and then looking at thoughts and emotions makes logical sense,
but it in practice it has some drawbacks. The calmness is often
achieved by directing one’s attention away from thoughts and emotions
with the intent to stop them or, at the very least, not get caught up in
them. Then when one is in a calm, more settled state of mind, one may
find that many of thoughts and emotions that one would want to explore
are not present." I see so many practitioners who manage to develop a regular practice falling into this pattern. It can become a very self reinforcing thing, because their practice is yielding palpable results, which can give a sense of pride and confidence. I have met many "trained mindfulness instructors" over my life who had just this kind of practice. When I was younger, I felt that their feedback was somehow off, but not having much insight myself I couldn't be sure so usually just lost confidence in my own experience. Later, I've come to see it more as a result of emphasizing one kind of practice in an imbalanced way. But it's frustrating to think how many people are now being taught meditation by practitioners with such an imbalanced, dualistic, mind-distrusting practice.

I've been studying Siff's approach for three or four months now and have started working with one of his instructors via Skype. It's an extremely interesting and wise way of practice, seems to me. From the outside, it looks like rank 'psychologizing' but it is in fact all about dependent origination. My favorite part about this approach is its emphasis on gentleness and seeing more clearly what qualities happen to be emerging as a result of practice. Unlearning Meditation is a really challenging and original book. I'm looking forward to Siff's next book, which I believe is coming out next year.

Oh! I didn't know we had a thread about this; I'll have to catch up. I've read most of Unlearning Meditation since you told me about it, Joel. It makes a lot of sense to me and mostly mirrors the approach I've ended up with.