my idea of pragmatic dharma

"There are practices we can use against this ego-cherishing. In the company of very sick people who are suffering, one can visualize that one is taking in their fear and pain, in the form of dark light or smoke, pulling out sickness and negative karmas, and directing them toward the little black pearl of our self-concern. And it will start to disappear, because, really, the very last thing the ego wants is other people’s problems."

-- from an older piece in Tricycle magazine: www.tricycle.com/feature/no-excuses

That struck me as the most succinct thing I've ever read on the function of tonglen practice.

Kate Gowen wrote: That struck me as the most succinct thing I've ever read on the function of tonglen practice.

That is very interesting...
Tonglen has never made sense to me from a shamanic perspective....You do not bring negativity into yourself unless your looking for possession or sickness. I'll have to think about it from an ego reduction method.
Thanks,
~D

I also have to admit that I have trouble with truly intending to have the actual sickness of others enter me. That always struck me as a slightly perverted view. If I had a wish, it would be for the sickness to resolve itself without harm to anyone and for the benefit of everyone.

However, I often do a flavor of tonglen practice in the sense of saying "can I take your suffering?" or "can I carry your burden for a while?". I do that when I feel myself pulling away from difficult energies/feelings. That seems to hit home because the ego very much wants to have it be "their" suffering or their burden and not feel the entirety of the experience. After you embody their suffering for a few moments, energy levels increase and there is a feeling that "I can be of service to this situation."

I think this is similar to the idea of directing it toward the black pearl of self concern. Basically, it's owning your shadow, that part of yourself (the sufferer, the burdened) that you don't want to experience and so you place it "out there".

I have to confess that I have no affinity-- or, generally, ability-- with visualization of any sort. The heart of this statement, for me, was the statement that really becoming intimate with the sort of suffering of others that we tend to want to avoid/ not see/ "fix" as soon as possible-- is compassion itself. Just being-with. And that profoundly changes the situation, not by fixing the other person, but by loosing the knot of self that is making everything worse for all parties. "That little black pearl of self-concern" that makes others' burdens heavier for them, and makes us incapable of being any help.

I think the desire to "fix as soon as possible" is a really good thing to highlight as a potential misuse of the technique. "Just being-with" is indeed the important thing.

When I do the "can I have your burden?" I do it on an feeling/energetic level. I imagine (instinctually, not visually) the way their body and mind feels in the situation and make that my mind-body-worldview. It just takes a second or two.

After that point, it's clear that that feeling/energy/mindset was already present in the situation, but as something that I was kinda ignoring since I was caught up in my own mind-body-worldview.

Then all of those feelings/energies/orientations are active and present and it kinda changes to a much more open sense of clarity. My little world and "their" little world loses its focus and it feels like a more wide open stage.

Upon that open stage, there are more possibilities. I liked how it was said in the article you linked to: " behind the cacophony there is tremendous spaciousness".

I've never done tonglen practice, so I'm not sure what the 'theology' behind it is... but it seems to me that, on the one hand, the idea is to transform suffering, no? So it's taking it into you, transforming it, and breathing it out, rather than taking it into you with the wish that you become sick or suffering or whatever. In other words, suffering/sickness is not static, a quality that is either undesirably in us or desirably outside us/nonexistent; rather, we are able to take it in and transmute it. Also, particularly in our own society and I see this tendency very strongly in myself as someone who's had mild OCD-hygiene tendencies, the concept of our bodies being invaded and threatened by something wrong or dangerous is a huge no-no, and we have this ideal of purity, defence, unbreachable boundaries - whereas of course our bodies, like everything else, are constantly flowing inside-to-outside and vice versa such that the distinction itself is false, and this to me is also something which I would like to fully realise.

It seems like there are a lot of dimensions that could be the focus of practice.

It could be the "taking in" which emphasizes objective experiencing without reservation. It could be the "transmutting" which would be more the emotional/felt sense of experience within our own bodies. It could be the "giving away" which is basically metta practice.

My understanding is all of these tend to be a part of the practice to help create a natural balance. If the objective experiencing is the focus, then it can become rather "cold". If it is only transmutting, it can become exhausting. If it is only giving away, it can become martyrdom (EDIT: ...or a blissfest, depending on your mindset) . Working all three on the inhale, pause, exhale creates a balance. The end of the exhale is also a natural place to add a "rest" note. So it becomes: experience, integrate/transmute, give away, rest with each cycle of breathing.

I keep forgetting to mention that the "spaciousness" that can arise isn't specifically the desired state, but rather the original cacophany of suffering/resistance is included and >honored< in this spaciousness.

There were two notes I took from a Ken McLeod talk that seemed really relevant to this practice when I stumbled upon them this morning on my train ride to work:
"Any form of idealism involves avoiding some specific pain or suffering."
"At every stage of practice a price has to be paid for clarity. The price is the loss of an illusion."

LOVE those quotes Shargrol, thankyou!

Not sure where to put this-- if I have to chose just ONE place!-- so why not here?

"We must allow ourselves to be disappointed, which means the surrendering of me-ness, my achievement. We would like to watch ourselves attain enlightenment, watch our disciples celebrating, worshipping, throwing flowers at us, with miracles and earthquakes occuring and gods and angels singing and so forth. This never happens. The attainment of enlightenment from ego’s point of view is extreme death, the death of self, the death of me and mine, the death of the watcher. It is the ultimate and final disappointment. Treading the spiritual path is painful. It is a constant unmasking, peeling off of layer after layer of masks. It involves insult after insult." CHOGYAM TRUNGPA

Insult and disappointment-- how lucky to have such fabulous opportunities! I have had my share; and more to come, no doubt.

Lama Karma, one of the speakers at Buddhist Geeks, said, "When you choose your teacher, you are choosing the person who will be your executioner."

Kate Gowen wrote: Not sure where to put this-- if I have to chose just ONE place!-- so why not here?

"We must allow ourselves to be disappointed, which means the surrendering of me-ness, my achievement. We would like to watch ourselves attain enlightenment, watch our disciples celebrating, worshipping, throwing flowers at us, with miracles and earthquakes occuring and gods and angels singing and so forth. This never happens. The attainment of enlightenment from ego’s point of view is extreme death, the death of self, the death of me and mine, the death of the watcher. It is the ultimate and final disappointment. Treading the spiritual path is painful. It is a constant unmasking, peeling off of layer after layer of masks. It involves insult after insult." CHOGYAM TRUNGPA

Insult and disappointment-- how lucky to have such fabulous opportunities! I have had my share; and more to come, no doubt.

So do you think it matters if the "my enlightenment" delusions about the process are taught as part of the path? versus being taught as distractions/hindrances? They are certainly not uncommon places of passage. For instance, contrasting these two scenarios based on real life:

a) I have a wild exciting spiritual experience. I find other people describing similar experiences and begin doing practices that engage with and encourage the experiences, and spend lots of time telling others about how wild and exciting it is. Eventually this wears off, but while it was prominent it was indulged.

b) My friend who was on retreat in a Thai monastery, who had a big exciting spiritual experience one day. He went in to his daily interview and before he could even open his mouth the teacher, seeing the excitement in his face, said "No! Don't even tell me! Tell no one! Get back on the cushion and return to your practice!!" - because indulging in these things is just a distraction.

The teacher in example B is actually "teaching to enlightenment" rather than indulging delusion. The situation/teaching in example A is indulging delusion/ego, but under the assumption that this stuff is stage specific and one eventually grows out of it on ones own. ALTHOUGH - it seems that a good many people in contexts of example A don't actually know that, and if they hear anything like example B they cry "mushroom culture" and run away screaming. (Hyperbole alert! But this kind of situation is very common among people into "magick" where there is a heavy emphasis on special experiences, powers, etc.)

Thoughts?

Don't know if you intended it or not-- but the immediate difference I see between the scenarios is that there is a teacher active in scenario b). This can save a lot of time!

I think we have to acknowledge that there are fewer people going directly to the crucial insight: "ME"-- what a flimsy, jury-rigged contraption THAT is!" Those few would be willing to hear the teacher. There is also scenario c), in which the teacher instructs, as in b)-- but the student says "What do YOU know? YOU didn't have my mind-blowing experience! I'm outta here."

But, teacher or no, I think it is well to remember that enlightenment/ awakening is not going to be what any conventional expectation can describe, and it's not going to shine up my resume. Or so say I, and a whole lot of my elders and betters before me.

Since it relates to pragmatic dharma, but is otherwise a bit random, can I ask: is there any real value to this "path" system popularly in use in pragmatic dharma? I have - over the years - run into people who have Path X (so they say), but whether or not they show any "fruit" - ie actual transformation in behavior, life, etc - is really arbitrary. I'm wondering if either there is a lot of misdiagnosis/self-diagnosis going on OR the "paths" don't actually have much to do with the development of realization/insight/wisdom.

That is, "awakening experiences" (whether partial, minor, major, etc.) are not directly correlated to the development of insight (actual transformative wisdom, change in understanding that results in change in behavior, comportment, way of thinking, etc.).

What good is it if someone has "fourth path" but is confused, hostile, blind to the nature of reality, and functioning poorly, while another person who supposedly doesn't even have "first path" shows real thoughtful self-awareness, awareness of the nature of phenomena and how reality constructs itself, development of natural inclinations to virtue and morality, and other fruits of wisdom?

I'm going to err on the side of suspecting there's a lot of very loose diagnosis going on out there, and that if everyone were working with a set of teachers trained in the same system there would be less of the erratic quality. Maybe? Thoughts? Regrets?

I think you're on to something. Lurking in the background of my own practice is the question of where to go from here. Have I actually "arrived"? By no means! Yet something has happened, a transformation has occurred, insight has been gained.

For me personally, the key is not being willing to settle for dishonesty, not just the obvious lies we tell ourselves, but the dishonesty of being unwilling to look at the whole truth. "Settling" is the operative word here. Thelma and Louise: "You get what you settle for."

I just found and read an article by Bikkhu Bodhi, " Two Styles of Insight Meditation ." It goes beyond asking about transformation in behavior to suggest that without the whole Buddhist package, the depths of insight are impossible. I shrink back from intimations of exclusivity, as, for example the following: "If we examine faith more closely, we would see that besides its emotive ingredients, it also involves a cognitive component. This consists in a readiness to accept the Buddha as the unique discoverer and proclaimer of liberating truth." This means that other paths, other traditions, are incomplete. Is it necessary to have faith in the Buddha in this way? Yet the overall message, that the western, secular approach is settling--this resonates for me. Not sure where to go from here.

Lama Karma at Buddhist Geeks laid out an assortment of contexts prevalent in western Buddhism--the scientific approach, the commercial approach ("McMindfulness"), humanism, and one other that escapes me at the moment--concluding that in the context of the Mahamudra, these things are but a postage stamp floating on an ocean. I was impressed, but don't quite know what to do with it. Maybe read some Meister Eckhart and ponder some more?

How interesting. My feeling in the past year in particular has been more and more that there is a depth of wisdom and transformation found in the full, complete embrace of Christianity on its own terms that cannot be found when one just takes the parts one likes. I had ndver heard a Buddhist express something similar.

I guess it stands to reason that a Buddhist might feel the same about his own path. As for me, I'm straddling the two. There's a certain discomfort in that. It tends to entail picking and choosing.

Perennialism--the belief in the Perennial Philosophy--is one way out, but where and how does one locate this philosophy? And is it just another example of settling?

I have been fond of the Traditionalists (Perennialists) more for their insistence that one must go deep in one tradition than for their more widely known proposition that several roads lead to Rome (not all, btw).

My initial pondering about evaluating insight when in a system like pragmatic dharma which is so eclectic and also encourages self-diagnosis. Is this helpful or unhelpful? In the big picture I'm not sure it matters, in that those qualities attract those who need them and if at some point they no longer find them helpful they wander onto different roads.

This is an interesting turn to the thread. I reflect about this stuff sometimes too. In my own head I sometimes think of MCTB/KFD style Prag Dharma as 'white powder dharma'-- as part of the general Western modernist trend to identify THE cause that produces THE effect desired. Pulling the 'insight' thread out of the whole tapestry of insight-tranquility-ethics. My sense of life-- which is only reinforced by whatever 'insight' I've been graced to be struck with-- is that it just really doesn't work this way; things are more interwoven and complex. Systems have multiple dimensions, human beings no exception, and causality is reticular, circular, interpenetrating, complex, 'chaordic', rather than linear.

Differentiating the different aspects of practice seems more useful on a level of abstraction, because there ARE different methods that speak to different facets of our human being. So there is some pragmatic value to separating these things conceptually.I was just at a short weekend vipassana retreat and the teacher didn't clearly differentiate shamatha and vipassana instructions till the last talk on Sunday morning! --and folks definitely were struggling to understand what they were doing until he crystalized those instructions, which I deduced from the kinds of questions that were asked before he gave that clear explanation (that said, I really liked the fellow and thought he did a great job in general!).

Anyway, it's always a whole human being who employs the methods in the context of an open-ended holistic human life in interaction with community, ecology, personal history etc. If we apply insight techniques without explicit reference to this whole continuum of our lives, I think we are not really applying them at all in an important sense-- it's too compartmentalized.

How this all sugars out in the end I'm not sure. But this may be a good place to also share that my impression is there are at least two seemingly very different models of the 4 paths that are used in pragmatic dharma circles (and probably someone who has discussed this stuff personally with both Daniel and Kenneth could shed better light on this) but it seems that the MCTB/Daniel description of 4th path is very very different from the KFD/Kenneth description-- so different in fact that it seems crystal clear to me that one could have met one set of criteria and not the other. And this is aside from the issue of self-diagnosis!!

Ona Kiser wrote: How interesting. My feeling in the past year in particular has been more and more that there is a depth of wisdom and transformation found in the full, complete embrace of Christianity on its own terms that cannot be found when one just takes the parts one likes. I had ndver heard a Buddhist express something similar.

This is the explicit intent of the Tibetan spiritual/cultural movement called "Rime" (ree-may) which is translated as non-sectarianism. Rime masters didn't so much pick and choose as they fully embraced multiple lineages with their different methods and aesthetics and social structures. Over time of course this movement developed its own flavor. Also, to throw a wrench into it, the Tibetan tradition includes lots of room for innovation both through discovering termas (whole new practice systems that were supposedly implanted in deep levels of the discoverer's mind by an ancient master like Padmasambhava in a past life when the discoverer was that master's disciple) or through 'clear vision' teachings, from dreams and visions of contemporary teachers where they encounter past or extra-dimensional or archetypal teachers on visionary levels.

The whole thing is hopeless. Still, how can you settle for less?

Getting back to Ona's original question, I think self-diagnosis is limiting. People can convince themselves of all kinds of things, based on all kinds of experiences and/or criteria. I guess as an educator myself, I value the interpretive community, along with elders, teachers, and a strong dedication that is enhanced and enriched through interactions with others.

Jake: could you explain in your own words exactly how Daniel/MCTB differs from Kenneth? It may be helpful to some of us.

Ona Kiser wrote: Since it relates to pragmatic dharma, but is otherwise a bit random, can I ask: is there any real value to this "path" system popularly in use in pragmatic dharma? I have - over the years - run into people who have Path X (so they say), but whether or not they show any "fruit" - ie actual transformation in behavior, life, etc - is really arbitrary. I'm wondering if either there is a lot of misdiagnosis/self-diagnosis going on OR the "paths" don't actually have much to do with the development of realization/insight/wisdom.

That is, "awakening experiences" (whether partial, minor, major, etc.) are not directly correlated to the development of insight (actual transformative wisdom, change in understanding that results in change in behavior, comportment, way of thinking, etc.).

What good is it if someone has "fourth path" but is confused, hostile, blind to the nature of reality, and functioning poorly, while another person who supposedly doesn't even have "first path" shows real thoughtful self-awareness, awareness of the nature of phenomena and how reality constructs itself, development of natural inclinations to virtue and morality, and other fruits of wisdom?

I'm going to err on the side of suspecting there's a lot of very loose diagnosis going on out there, and that if everyone were working with a set of teachers trained in the same system there would be less of the erratic quality. Maybe? Thoughts? Regrets?

I believe enlightenment is a deletive process. We "get" nothing from path moments....we untangle confusion about reality/sensations of our perceived reality as SELF. What inherent positive qualities are added to this deletion process? Are there fundamental additions happening or are they all in context of our projection of what we wish it to be....

Sure, I can explain my impression anyhow (and I really invite those who have spoken with both of them about this to chime in, especially those who've had 4th Path confirmed by both of them).

My understanding is Daniel's criteria are very much about lack of center-point, seeing through agency in some fundamental way, and a few other factors-- very clearly spelled out in phenomenological terms. Very rigorous description that points to a completely stable shift in perception that does not waver ("There is no deepening in it to do[...]There is nothing subtle about it: anything and everything that arises exhibits these same qualities directly, clearly."

"1) Utter centerlessness: no watcher, no sense of a watcher, no subtle watcher, no possibility of a watcher. This is immediately obvious just as color is to a man with good eyesight as the old saying goes. Thus, anything and everything simply and obviously manifest just where they are. No phenomena observe any others and never did or could.

2) Utter agencylessness: meaning no agency, no sense of doing, no sense of doer, no sense that there could be any agent or doer, no way to find anything that seems to be in control at all. Whatever effort or intent or anything like that that arises does so naturally, causally, inevitably, as it always actually did. This is immediately obvious, though not always the forefront of attention.

3) No cycles change or stages or states or anything else like that do anything to this direct comprehension of simple truths at all.

4) There is no deepening in it to do. The understanding stands on its own and holds up over cycles, moods, years, etc and doesn't change at all. I have nothing to add to my initial assessment of it from 9 years ago.

5) There is nothing subtle about it: anything and everything that arises exhibits these same qualities directly, clearly. When I was third path, particularly late in it, those things that didn't exhibit these qualities were exceedingly subtle, and trying to find the gaps in the thing was exceedingly difficult and took years and many cycles. I had periods from weeks to months where it felt done and then some subtle exception would show up and I would realize I was wrong yet again, so this is natural and understandable, and if someone claims 4th as I define it here and later says they got it wrong, have sympathy for them, as this territory is not easy and can easily fool people, as it did me many, many times over about 5 years or so. However, 4th, as I term it, ended that and 9 years later that same thing holds, which is a very long time in this business."
from: dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussio...ards/message/2718243

My understanding of Kenneth's criteria is that it is, for one thing, more somatically oriented in terms of completing an energetic circuit and this is evidenced by a feeling of done-ness- done with insight disease, with that niggling fundamental 'something is off here' that motivates a search for truth.

In both cases there is room for further deepening of the path in general, but there is something that is completed irrevocably different thenceforth-- it just seems like what is different, is different in each case

I can see how these two could possibly be simply different descriptions of the same or similar realizations, but I've also seen Daniel and Kenneth publicly debate a bit about their respective standards; seen them publicly doubt the 4th-pathness of each others' students; seen them publicly imply that each other may be at different levels of realization.... At least, those were my impressions of these encounters back when they posted on each others' websites. All that is fine but it served to give me the impression they have very different criteria.

Speaking personally, I can relate to a sense of done-ness in having seen a fundamental level-ness to various categories of sensations-- I don't feel haunted by some mysterious thing that seems just out of view. Whatever arises when seen with clarity has the same is-ness. Especially in contrast to when I was in the throws of 'insight disease' I would say, no, insight disease isn't an issue for me anymore, my practice is more based on what has been seen and deepening that rather than seeking (see how that completely excludes me from Daniel's definition-- at least in a literal interpretation). I don't feel in anyway like a seeker, at least, not in any way I recognize from my seeking days. And there has clearly been some serious re-wiring of my energy system (but I can't really relate to the energetic circuit thing nor am I sure what Kenneth meant by it-- as he's not my teacher, guess it doesn't matter much).

On the other hand, when I read Daniel's descriptions, I definitely do not relate to what he describes as 4th path- at all as an ongoing baseline. It's something that I can totally relate to as something seen at times in daily life and formal practice, sometimes for stretches of time, but it comes and goes (which is fine, as I'm not sure why it wouldn't).

That said I have not personally bounced my experience/insight off of either of them, so I am going off of their descriptions rather than a personal relationship. Still, given what I've observed of their interactions in the past, I would be very skeptical of pat claims that they are describing the same or similar things in different ways (even if they were the ones making that claim...). My impression is straight-up they are describing different results (and I have no problem with that, personally. I think to some extent we will all come to this stuff uniquely even though there will be overlap here and there-- maybe a whole other discussion there).

thoughts? Sorry for the ramble-- I'm fitting this in between a million and one things at work haha!

ETA: this post is not an implicit claim to Kenneth's version of 4th path though. When it comes to the whole model, it is not something I am really sure I relate to on then whole. I have experienced what seem to be cycles of the insight knowledges, cessations, baseline shifts, etc. but I'm just not sure of the model on the whole. I think these phenomena show up when one practices in a certain way and is constituted in a certain way, but evidently for some folks to whom these things show up there is yet, as Ona pointed out, not a lot of transformation that I would consider evidence of 'awakening' and I have friends who do evidence those qualities and insights who have never really experienced a classical progress of insight, cessation etc. Whole 'nother can of worms as well lol

DreamWalker wrote:

Ona Kiser wrote: Since it relates to pragmatic dharma, but is otherwise a bit random, can I ask: is there any real value to this "path" system popularly in use in pragmatic dharma? I have - over the years - run into people who have Path X (so they say), but whether or not they show any "fruit" - ie actual transformation in behavior, life, etc - is really arbitrary. I'm wondering if either there is a lot of misdiagnosis/self-diagnosis going on OR the "paths" don't actually have much to do with the development of realization/insight/wisdom.

That is, "awakening experiences" (whether partial, minor, major, etc.) are not directly correlated to the development of insight (actual transformative wisdom, change in understanding that results in change in behavior, comportment, way of thinking, etc.).

What good is it if someone has "fourth path" but is confused, hostile, blind to the nature of reality, and functioning poorly, while another person who supposedly doesn't even have "first path" shows real thoughtful self-awareness, awareness of the nature of phenomena and how reality constructs itself, development of natural inclinations to virtue and morality, and other fruits of wisdom?

I'm going to err on the side of suspecting there's a lot of very loose diagnosis going on out there, and that if everyone were working with a set of teachers trained in the same system there would be less of the erratic quality. Maybe? Thoughts? Regrets?

I believe enlightenment is a deletive process. We "get" nothing from path moments....we untangle confusion about reality/sensations of our perceived reality as SELF. What inherent positive qualities are added to this deletion process? Are there fundamental additions happening or are they all in context of our projection of what we wish it to be....

Speaking in deletive terms, I suppose one could say that those positive qualities are uncovered as the self-centeredness/self-referencing loosens/untangles. The less concerned I am (even mechanistically speaking) about my*self*, the less easily I am offended, for instance, which leads to less aggression, arguing, cantankerousness, etc. Or that being less entangled in confusion naturally results in actions/comportment that happens to be more in line with what is generally referred to as "virtuous" (such as compassion, patience, etc etc.)