After Stream Entry -- Now What?

Apologies if this subject has been raised before. I did a search for stream entry and came up with 223 results. It seemed impractical to look through them all.

I was tickled by something Laurel said on another thread but decided to avoid hijacking that one and start a new one instead. Laurel, here's the quote I liked:

"It's like a dog chasing a car - what does he do when he catches it?!"

Recently I've been listening to Adyashanti on this subject. He talks about the change in the whole way of being in the world that occurs after "awakening." (I equate "awakening" with "stream entry," but that's a whole other topic.)

Before awakening, one is driven through life by ego-agendas. All of a sudden, the ego-agendas have nothing fueling them. What has to emerge now is a new way of engaging with the world. But in between, there is a limbo period when the old has faded away and the new has not yet emerged. Some people (he says) get stuck here, producing what Adyashanti calls "spiritual shipwrecks." Especially if you're in a position to live off your savings, you can just stay home all the time, letting the world float by. Arising and passing away. Arising and passing away. Arising and passing away.

I found (what I consider to be) some brillian posts by Katy on DhO that indicated that the key practice now is metta. That fits in with some other inklings I've had these last few days.

And by Googling around, I also found a quote from Jack Kornfield's After the Ecstasy, the Laundry: "Attaining the second stage requires a continual and heartfelt attention to the suffering that comes when we cling to our desires and fears, to our ideas and ideals. As these forces of human life are understood, they lose their hold on us. Finally, in a deep realization, the strongest forces of desire, grasping, anger, and fear significantly drop away. We fulfill the second stage."

That's all good for inner practices.

But would you care to comment on what happens after stream entry, particularly on the emergence of a new way of engaging with the world?

For what it's worth... Vince's reporting seems pretty similar to my experience. It might be worth listening to that recording.

Always the funny question, eh? "What should I do if there's nothing to do?"

I suspect the particular integration process will vary a lot individually, depending on what your specific habits, patterns, beliefs etc are. For me it revolved around particular attention to cultivation of virtue and repentance for sin, in the context of my gradual conversion to Catholicism. This was what came up for me, and therefore what I dealt with. Perhaps in another framework it is not unlike paying attention to the interplay of clinging and aversion. You know what is "true." So it is clear when habits of behavior are resistant to that, or you are perceiving anything to be in opposition to anything. Radical inclusivity seems to me quite along the same lines as infinite Mercy. When is anything not being allowed to be exactly as it is? When is even that not allowing not being seen as simply being exactly as it is?

My two cents, anyway. Your mileage may vary.

And here the general terminology is "awakening" (when people here say stream entry they are usually referring to an earlier stage of development, also sometimes called "first path").

Ahhhh... Awakening, not Stream Entry? Oh, then never mind.... for now.

So, is "Stream Entry" the equivalent of "seeing the ox"?

Maybe it's time for me to gain better familiarity with y'all's vocabulary...

I thought we'd stabilized around a fairly shared vocabulary over the past years here. But maybe I'm confusing dolphins and lotuses.

Delete -- see repost below

shargrol wrote: For what it's worth... Vince's reporting seems pretty similar to my experience. It might be worth listening to that recording.

Tom's remarks ("lots of discussion of cycles, paths, ups, and downs") suggest it may not be quite what I'm looking for, but I'll take a listen to it tonight.

Shargrol was assuming you meant the the first significant partial awakening.

I was hoping we could avoid The Big Controversy, but looks like we can't. So here goes.

The suttas present a four-stage model of enlightenment, which goes (1) stream-enterer, (2) once-returner, (3) never-returner, and (4) arahant (Pali) or arhat (Sanskrit).

That model is so well-known it's made it into Wikipedia.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_enlightenment

Since it defines the stages in terms of fetters, it's sometimes called the fetter model of enlightenment.

Now, Daniel Ingram presents a different model, which we can call "the four-path model," as opposed to "the four-stage model." (If you're not confused yet, you soon will be!)

The four-path model is Daniel's presentation of Mahasi Sayadaw's Progress of Insight model, which draws on Buddhaghosa's fifth-century Path of Purification, which claims to be a summary of the commentarial tradition as it existed in his day.

So the question then arises as to the relationship between the four-path model and the four-stage model, a.k.a. the fetter model.

That's The Big Controversy, addressed in many articles on the web, and most recently in Kenneth Folk's blog post.

kennethfolkdharma.com/2013/07/1610/

For myself, I use "awakening" as a synonym for "stream entry," with "stream entry" being defined as in the fetter model.

Anyone who wants a longer discussion of this definition can read chapter 1 of my essay "The Phenomenon of Awakening." If you have a Kindle or an ePub reader, I'll send you a free copy. PM me with your email address.

Chris Marti wrote: Hey, I was only tryin' to inject some info, as requested, into the conversation. I have no dog in the Great Debate hunt. I care about what happened to me and maybe helping a few others have it happen to them. I'll leave the arguing about fetter models and Ingram models to you all

Ditto. I have popcorn handy if it gets entertaining.

There's nothing quite like spirituality for provoking fisticuffs

Chris Marti wrote: Hey, I was only tryin' to inject some info, as requested, into the conversation. I have no dog in the Great Debate hunt. I care about what happened to me and maybe helping a few others have it happen to them. I'll leave the arguing about fetter models and Ingram models to you all

Dang Chris, you're freakin' wise these days!

Yeah, this debate is pretty much undebatable. Ultimately, I think KF is closer to the truth, but it is cold comfort because the Arhat doesn't get to slack off any less than the Stream Enter. People can say they earned the invisible ballon award, and they might be right, but they look pretty stupid if they walk around holding an invisible balloon. (Edit, need emoticon!)

Derek wrote: There's nothing quite like spirituality for provoking fisticuffs

Or perhaps nothing like inordinate attachment to identity as X to provoke it? Similar levels of fisticuffs arise around everything from how high ones pants should be worn to whether one is sufficiently vegan.

One thing more I'll say. I think that Arhat isn't the thing that needs defining, but rather "fetter" does. I don't think fetter = existence of. I'm pretty sure there can be a view of self that isn't a fetter. What do YOU think?


EDIT!!! Ona we posted at the same time, YOU does not mean Ona but rather anyone reading!!!

In case anyone was misinterpreting the ignorance I voiced above as some kind of clever debate ploy... DON'T! "I don't know nothin' 'bout no fetters er no arahants."

Oh Shargrol, now I'm really offended!

LOL at Ona!

Just an observation. I think this thread probably swerved into the abstract because it started there.

Rather than the format of the original post, this thread could have begun:

I was tickled by something Laurel said on another thread but decided to avoid hijacking that one and start a new one instead. Laurel, here's the quote I liked:

"It's like a dog chasing a car - what does he do when he catches it?!"

I'm in a position to live off my savings, I can just stay home all the time, letting the world float by. Arising and passing away. Arising and passing away. Arising and passing away.

I found (what I consider to be) some brillian posts by Katy on DhO that indicated that the key practice now is metta. That fits in with some other inklings I've had these last few days. [etc.]

That's all good for inner practices.

But how should I engage with the world?



Notice how that formulation takes all the abstraction out and makes it grounded in more practical concerns.

Chris Marti wrote: On a sort of related note, I'm cognizant of how information can be, uh, well, not so useful. It can be used to obscure the natural order of things, which is not orderly, structured, pretty, or generally all that useful to a mind that wants to classify and divide.

Neither here nor there, of course." -- Chris

"But how should I engage with the world?"-- Shargrol, Derek

Maybe the secret is that there is no "privileged content" for that hyperactive classifying mind: not "Dharma" or theology or attainments or practices-- any more than shopping lists, mental arguments, daydreams of some luscious consumer item, excuses for missteps... All just grist for the mill of practice-- here comes/there goes an excellent classification system/analogy/story/point of dharma/picture of the upcoming iOS7 gadget.

It's so simple as to be a total bore-- so we entertain ourselves with whatever comes to mind.

I have a book on my shelf called You Already Know What To Do. If I've read it in the several years since acquiring it, I don't remember having done it. But the number of times I've randomly seen the title-- those are worth whatever I paid for it.

So would "it doesn't matter" sum that up? (re: @Kate, @Chris)

Um, no-- not if the question is "how shall I engage with the world?"

From my POV, the answer is "as a practitioner, not as an expert on the fine points of religion."

Kate Gowen wrote: It's so simple as to be a total bore-- so we entertain ourselves with whatever comes to mind. I have a book on my shelf called You Already Know What To Do. If I've read it in the several years since acquiring it, I don't remember having done it. But the number of times I've randomly seen the title-- those are worth whatever I paid for it.

Brilliant! If there's a prize for answering the question, you win!