Nikolai's Practice notes, Phase .2.

I said I wouldn't post, but hey, open dharma!

Nice Alex!

Delusion! Illusion! What are we still deluded of at 4th path? This is my take on it. It is my take only. My interpretations and opinions are subject to change. No absolutes. My notes thread, my experience. So remain calm, peoples.

You'd be surprised that there is still something else to become aware of post 4th. The PCE is NOT the end goal by the way. The PCE is NOT a state to stabilize. It is a means to see something of what one previously was blind to. What is one perhaps blind to?

The fact that all affective feeling, all craving and aversion, all the emotions are "self". It is just another step to seeing reality "as it is". And the PCE, which is essentially a prolonged mode of apperception; seeing reality as it is; allows for a stepping back of sorts, creating a space to be able to see what is really going on. Like what noting did for pre and post 1st path.

Every time there is an emotion there is self-contraction. They are one and the same. Every arising emotion is the self-contracting. Craving IS self-contraction. Self-contraction IS aversion.

Initially when cultivating the PCE through apperception (which is essentially seeing in the seen, hearing in the heard continuously) , I'll admit it was kind of like an escape from the stress that I still felt. But over time it has ceased being an escape and it has become clear that it is actually a means of shedding light on how all affective feelings are the very sense of "being" that we all have.

Now without having cultivated the PCE, one is not going to be aware that that sense of being can actually be objectified and seen to be something separate. It can be objectified, peoples!!! When in a PCE that sense of "being" which is basically "you", goes into abeyance. It is either connected to or the one and the same swirling energy/attention wave that moves up and down the body, sitting at the chakras and when in a PCE it moves downward to sit in the hara. When it is there, there is no sense of being. Therefore no self-contraction nor affective feelings because they are all one and the same thing'¦.'you'. With "you" ie. the sense of being/affective feelings in abeyance, what is left but the pure conscious experience of each of the senses, which is just seeing in the seen, hearing in the heard etc. No stress. Free of the suffering of tanha. My fiancée loves me more for it

In my experience, the PCE is not an altered state to stabilize. In fact I would go as far to say that the PCE is more like a unaltered state and all altered states arise only when the attention wave/sense of being/affective feelings are dominant, which brings all sorts of altered states such jhana, aversion, craving and high equanimity. They are all altered states.

Whereas the PCE is what the body feels like when that sense of being/affective feelings go into abeyance; when they don't arise. When this is done continuously, it becomes achingly clear that the sense of being/affective feelings/self-contraction is the root cause of all suffering. Without it, there is only peace, wonder, intimacy with reality more than one could ever think possible, calmness, stillness, did I say peace?, and just an overall harmonious connection with life and-all-in-it vibe. The PCE is NOT an altered state in my opinion. It is just what the body feels like when 'being", i.e. "one's self" is not dominating and running the show.

And oh, so much attachment to "being". Just like so much attachment to the self-contraction pre-path. Again there is great attachment to this "being". Where does all the reactionary fear come from? From that sense of "being". It IS that sense of being. The fear IS the sense of being. It doesn't want to go. It wants to "be" here always. It puts up a fight. As affective feelings arise the PCE disappears. In my experience, there was an initial wrestling with those protesting voices of fear, unease, aversion, wanting, projecting..........initially. But over time, 'I' (the sense of being) am slowly convinced, through the peace that occurs when 'I' am in abeyance ie the PCE. The PCE is not the goal. It is to show that it is ok for the self-contraction/sense of being to not be there. The "self" is eventually convinced and happy to not be.

And one by one, the voices of protest, the voices of "being", of self-contraction, of fear, of aversion are silenced or rather convinced by the clear, obvious and wonderful inherent value of being here, now, completely intimate with reality as it is. Without any affective filter. This very reality is missed when desire (self) for this and that interrupts the actual here and now experience of reality as it is. It colors and dulls it. When "I" am not here, there is peace and no stress. And "I" see that now. "I" do not need to fight. "I" am ok with not being here. And "I" accept that "I" have to go for there to be no stress! "I" am willing to go. Why do "I" want to stay? So selfish to stay. For the benefit of all, "I" wish to go. After all "I" am an illusion.

I have been a hardcore Theravadan for many years prior to stream entry. Old indoctrinations die hard. I see great value in what the Buddha said to Bahiya:

"Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

I see absolutely no difference to what i am doing and what advice Bahiya received from the Buddha.

From your positions, I understand why there is great repulsion for this. I was there once too. 'You' (your emotions) find it abhorrent to not "be". From the PCE, there is only peace of mind. And there is no running from anything. 'I' am now willing to go now for there to be peace. There is no evading anything. No aversion. Absolutely no suppression. 'I' (my feelings) wish to go. If 'I' (sense of being) do not wish to go, I will obviously still 'be'. No suppression, Jackson. Not at all. For anyone to really be able to make an informed judgement, one would have to cultivate PCE's, actual ones, to see what they bring to light. If you do not, your affective selves will tell you how it is. And that ain't how it is.

Sorry, Kenneth. Said I wouldn't. I think being honest is going to be a better option.

***My opinion and interpretations are subject to change at the drop of a hat. No absolutes.***

May all beings be happy!

Kenneth and I talked recently about how direct mode may not be for everyone. Yes, life gets a little simpler. But my life is so conducive for simplicity. I am an English teacher. i have heaps of holidays. My fiancee loves me for being simple. I don't have any responsibilities. I only have a pet hedgehog. I prefer to live my life like this. Others, with families, and mortgages and intense careers, may find that the approach to post-4th path practice as expressed by Jackson and Chris may be best for your lifestyle. You have a choice. you DON'T have to go this route at all.

For the record, I now believe that what we are talking about, i.e., the direct mode of perception and freedom from the emotional aspect of the false self is garden variety enlightenment, albeit at a very high level. I point this out just in case any of the concerns expressed here are based in part on aversion to AF.

If I am right that this is the same enlightenment that the Buddha and Ramana and so many other great teachers were and are talking about, would that help to allay some of the worry? It does for me, because so many people have tread this path throughout the millennia, and most have reported that it was, on balance, a positive thing for them and for those around them. Of course it would be irresponsible of me to suggest that no one will ever have difficulties in their relationships after enlightenment; enlightenment may even cause problems in some cases for all I know. On the other hand, it may enhance relationships. In fact, I consider this latter possibility by far the more likely of the two; when you are nice to people, they like you better. And not being tossed around by your emotions makes it a lot easier to be nice to people. By all accounts (and my experience), when the grosser emotions are tamed, what remains is lovingkindness, compassion, sympathetic joy at the good fortune of another, and equanimity. I say this not to sell the direct path or even to defend it, but rather to reclaim the direct mode as a natural and organic part of human enlightenment rather than some quirky mistake that is unique to a few folks on a houseboat in Australia.

As some of you remember, I have, as recently as a few weeks ago, been a fierce critic of the "eradication of emotions." My hostility was based on a misunderstanding stemming from an unskillful AF public relations campaign. There are better, less threatening ways to talk about these things, and I think we are beginning to work up that new language now. Thanks, everyone!

Conceit-free!!!!!

"We need to grow up. That's our job. I don't see how suppressing* emotions from arising can possibility lead to growth. It will either lead to regression or stagnation. I don't see how it could be any other way.
[...]
*Yes, I keep using the word "suppressing" and "suppression." Putting a lid on something doesn't make it go away. Even if you don't see them or sense them, emotional energies lay in waiting. -Jackson"

Jackson, you recently wrote on your practice journal:

"Just because I'm not interested in something, it doesn't mean this thing is bad or wrong, or even necessarily harmful or misleading. I don't know if it is or not. But I know I'm not interested in it. I know that, as for now, my practice isn't going in that direction.
[...]
So, I'm keeping an open mind about this stuff in a way. And at the same time, deciding to keep my distance a bit. I don't want to get into very many conversations about something I'm not interested in, nor understand very well." -

To me, your current posts seem to be in great opposition to what you have expressed there. I am pointing this out because I found what you expressed in your practice journal to be a very mature response to all this (~"I'm not sure about this because it's not what I'm after"), while your current view is more like "I know this is bad, for me and others.".

Just for the record, and for the sake of fully communicating with everyone, I'm not afraid of anything we're talking about here and I don't think Jackson is, either. I think it's important to understand each other as accurately as possible. Otherwise we'll get off track and things will devolve. Fear isn't part of my assessment. Rather, disbelief, skepticism and caution borne of trying the direct mode and not finding it as wonderful as others clearly do. I'm not sure why that is. I might be an inept direct mode yogi. I might have a different constitution. I might just not be able to perceive the same value as others. But fear isn't why I'm discussing it with you guys.

I, too, have talked to Kenneth about this practice. Kenneth has told me things about his experience of it that caused my skepticism to grow, not shrink. I've mentioned those things here, especially the notion that this practice may not suit someone with my lifestyle, and for several reasons. As much as I like and respect Kenneth, I have to make my own decision about this and I'm not willing to hand over my life to a practice that could potentially have some unintended negative consequences, as described to me by Kenneth. And that's a sober, skeptical evaluation of the situation as I see it. I will re-evaluate as new facts and reports are provided to me.

So, I plan to do as I said I'd do. Wait. Those of you who do this practice - go for it! Report back and let the rest of us know what's on the other side of the mountain top. And I know you will provide us with your honest assessments, including the good, the bad, and the in between.

"And one by one, the voices of protest, the voices of "being", of self-contraction, of fear, of aversion are silenced or rather convinced by the clear, obvious and wonderful inherent value of being here, now, completely intimate with reality as it is. Without any affective filter. This very reality is missed when desire (self) for this and that interrupts the actual here and now experience of reality as it is. It colors and dulls it. When "I" am not here, there is peace and no stress. And "I" see that now. "I" do not need to fight. "I" am ok with not being here. And "I" accept that "I" have to go for there to be no stress! "I" am willing to go. Why do "I" want to stay? So selfish to stay. For the benefit of all, "I" wish to go. After all "I" am an illusion." -- Nick


Nick, this makes me curious. I thought you'd been aware that the "I" sense is an illusion for quite some time, no? Why is that a major revelation now? Can you describe the mechanism through which this "I" sense generates so much stress? As we discussed yesterday, is it maybe because you're chasing after that which just doesn't exist? Recall the discussion about dependent origination and the comments about what arises first in our processing of objects in awareness. It would seem you're putting the cart before the horse as the sense of being, of "I/me/mine," arises after the attachment or aversion, not before -- so how can the sense of "I" be the root of the problem?

Help me understand this, please.

@Chris: Indeed, I have grossly misinterpreted what you wrote, rushed to assumptions, mixed what you wrote with my own memory and imagination, and replied to the jumbled result in my mind, rather than to what you actually wrote. In doing so I have answered mostly myself, rather than answering you. I have not done so on purpose, and will be alert not do it again! I think I would find it easier to avoid these things if we were to use a different medium, such as skype!

I'll chime in here.
Even though the "I" sense is an illusion, even post 4th path we still experience it. This seems to be a further investigation into the "I" sense that reveals that the "I" sense = the emotions. All the emotions. The passions are stress. The question then becomes "Am I willing to be done with all of the passions?" with the exception of the brahmaviharas. Direct mode / AF practices appear to produce a passionless state, also deep unity with what is and a sense of incredible wonder.

From the Tevijja Sutta (thanks wikipedia):

---

A monk suffuses the world in the four directions with a mind of benevolence, then above, and below, and all around '“ the whole world from all sides, completely, with a benevolent, all-embracing, great, boundless, peaceful and friendly mind '¦ Just as a powerful conch-blower makes himself heard with no great effort in all four [cardinal] directions, so too is there no limit to the unfolding of this heart-liberating benevolence. This is a way to communion with Brahma.

---

This is what a PCE feels like. Heart liberation.

Bruno - let's start over!

"Even though the "I" sense is an illusion, even post 4th path we still experience it. This seems to be a further investigation into the "I" sense that reveals that the "I" sense = the emotions. All the emotions. The passions are stress. The question then becomes "Am I willing to be done with all of the passions?" with the exception of the brahmaviharas. Direct mode / AF practices appear to produce a passionless state, also deep unity with what is and a sense of incredible wonder." -- Owen

Thanks, Owen!

So, following up, does this not re-order the chain of dependent origination? Is wonder an emotion?

BTW - the quotes that are being produced to support the direct mode case can, as I see it, also support the case I would make - that simply being fully awake and aware of the playing out of one's experience in real time can lead to the same kind of benevolence, boundless peace and joy.

Wonder is, according to a chat I had with Tarin last night, a felicitous feeling. I don't know if I qualifies as a passion or an emotion, but I'll give you an example from my bus ride to work.

Normally I enjoy listening to music from my ipod during my commute. I was in a pretty good EE/PCE this morning and I noticed that the music was just distracting. I wasn't getting the usual emotional ride from it and was about to turn it off. (I seem to prefer silence these days) But instead, I got hooked into how amazing it is to have ears that process sound, and the vibrations of the headphones at the ears. The simple fact of the reality of this experience in this moment is more than enough to justify the absence of the emotional sense.

Am I making any sense?

"
I bring up love in this discussion of the "direct mode" of practice because I do not see these as compatible over the long term. Most of us who are not monastics are either in an intimate relationship with a spouse or lover, or else would like to be. Those of us who have children love them deeply in a way that is even stronger than our love for a spouse.

Practicing "direct mode" while in an intimate, loving relationship may have salutary effects, at least for awhile. However, I wonder what the effects may be over the longer term. The experiment that is now being run is still in its early weeks and months. The problems that arise in relationships, which must be dealt with in a loving way, can take longer than that to manifest."

To me, DM has remainders: the brahmaviharas and the Paramitas. A combination of all that could be called "love".

I do see some problems with that. If DM leaves us with this kind of love, then:

a) Significant others that interpret our anger/concern/fear as a sign of our love to them, will be very upset.
b) If this kind of love expresses itself as love to all beings, significant others might feel jealous/unattended (because they might feel that they're not the most important person in our lives).

If my spouse would practice DM, I would certainly freak out. Though, if I'm not incorrect, I would know that all these fears come from "ego"'s inertia and, so far, inertia ends too.

Can there be humanity without an "I"?

Hi Yadid,

I can see how placing two of my quotations side-by-side would make it appear as though my position went from healthy skepticism to all-out, unreasonable opposition.

When I wrote that post in my practice journal, I had yet to be concerned due to hearing any reports from PCE practicing KDFh yogis. I was willing to remain very open-minded about the whole thing until further information was available.

When the reporting shifted from "happy in this moment" to "lacking emotion", my position changed. I have not, nor will I ever, support a practice that suppresses emotional energies. I remain committed to the view that emotional energies are not the problem. The habitual unhealthy reactions to their power is the problem. I find it much more healthy and reasonable to learn to express our emotions with wisdom and grace. Suppressing them -- "not allowing them to arise" (same thing) -- is de-humanizing. It promotes the idea that emotions are bad, and I cannot even begin to tell you how damaging that can be.

I still don't understand how this issue isn't being taken very seriously. It's like having a misbehaving child. The child acts out and causes stress for her parents. Which is more effective for establishing a healthy family dynamic?: (a) locking the child in the basement until she dies, or (b) learning to work with the child in a way that allows her to mature and behave properly, while still being a part of your life. Even if option (a) makes you happy, it's not ideal (obviously).

All I can do is encourage my friends here to choose their practices wisely. Allow yourself to be completely human, emotions and all. You can find freedom through emotions. You do not have to push them down or cover them up. They are not your enemy. Learn to wield them skillfully. Have more faith in yourself and your ability to have an emotional life free of dispensable suffering.

"when you are nice to people, they like you better. And not being tossed around by your emotions makes it a lot easier to be nice to people." ~Kenneth

I see only two options presented here in regard to working with emotions. The first is to be "tossed around" by them, and the other to remove the ones you don't like in order to be "nice."

(1) Keep them and be miserable and mean, and people will not like you.
(2) Get rid of them and be nice and happy, and people will like you better.

Anyone else see a problem with this? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?

Reading the AF site reveals the same false dichotomy. Emotions cause violence, greed, selfishness, cruelty. Love is bad because it is selfish. Passion is bad because it could potentially motivate us to act unwisely. Be rid of them all!

This view flunks when subjected to reality testing.

Raising my hand....

I've offered a third version of it already this morning - be aware of what's going on right now in awareness and realize it's empty - not "good", not "bad," as those are just concepts assigned by the mind after the fact.

On "suffering" and "stress".

Anxiety and stress are closely related in terms of how they are experienced. Anxiety is, basically, the result of an intolerance to physical sensations. The empirically supported treatments for anxiety have one very important factor in common... exposure. Anxiety is often treated by gradual exposure to the sensations one is intolerant of. Over time, tolerance increases, and the sensations no longer rule their lives.

If emotions are causing stress or anxiety, just deciding not to deal with them is just going to make the problem worse. I have heard numerous times in the forums that the more the PCE people do their thing, the more "painful" emotions become. Duh. That's how it works. The more you avoid something, the worse it feels when it arises.

Meditation works a lot like exposure therapy. Giving one's self the context and tools to meet their emotions with mindfulness and equanimity reduces the intolerance of the associated sensations. Anxiety/stress/suffering decreases over time by repeated exposure. Emotions become less and less of a problem. If your practice is causing emotions or any other sensation to become MORE of a problem, it might be a good sign that you should re-evaluate your decision.

Please. Think. Clearly.

I am finding this thread interesting. I think this forum and Kenneth are beginning to become clearer about DM.
This is because the brahmaviharas are now becoming part of the debate as what is left when the passions are dropped.
It seems we are faced with a choice after 4th path about how to embody and live our realisation.
In particular how to transform and bring our emotions in line with our non-dual understanding.
It seems that both the DM experimenters and the rigpa enthusiasts are possibly both trying to address this issue.
The DM practitioners intervene in the arising of emotion while the rigpa practitioners let it play out and self-liberate. Both approaches may lead to peace.
So what about the brahmaviharas as an active practice after 4th Path?
BTW Owen I think your citation in the sutta above is about the brahmaviharas as a practice, not just what is left after everything else has gone.
Since 4th path I have actively been cultivating the brahmaviharas - and yes there is much less suffering as a result. What the practice has in common with DM (and I have tasted both) is that as we become oriented to the object of our experience in a heart felt way (in this case other people) - there is a subsequent loss of subjectivity and so no suffering - what it has in common with rigpa-style 3rd gear is a taste of affect - though this affect is IMPERSONAL & universal in some way. We basically just get less obsessed about our own stuff - as soon as we orientate towards another our own story ceases if only momentarily.
taken further we can begin to identify with the sufferings of the world.
In a deep sense it solves the problem of suffering as our pain (both primary and secondary) becomes one with all others pain which is then dissolved in love. The more of the suffering world I let into my heart the greater the love that arises to meet it. Love ceases to be scarce. There will always be enough.

"I have not, nor will I ever, support a practice that suppresses emotional energies."-awouldbehipster

Hi Jackson,

I see you repeatedly leveling a devastating attack against a straw man. No one but you is talking about suppression at this point. Enlightenment is not suppression. In fact, the same principle of dis-embedding that has been so successful in your own practice continues to operate at ever subtler levels. When the mind and body are transparent in realtime, it is possible to see how we create suffering by our clinging. At a certain point, what we think of as normal, healthy emotions are seen as suffering caused by clinging. These "normal, healthy emotions" are then released, revealing more subtle states of mind. None of this is surprising, since this phenomenon is described in nearly every contemplative tradition. So to equate it with suppression is not fair or accurate.

If you want to see someone who is really in touch with his emotions, look at a toddler. No one is more passionate than a two-year-old. He throws an apoplectic fit when he is unhappy and he becomes positively manic with joy at the very mention of ice cream. Yet few adults would trade their own more refined emotional life for that of the toddler; far from being richer, the toddlers emotional life is seen as limited as the grosser emotions crowd out the subtler. It is not so hard to imagine that this trend continues with enlightenment.

Until recently, I thought that talk of freedom from anger and fear was hyperbole. I no longer believe that, based on my own experience. So please don't be so quick to vilify those who simply want to take enlightenment to the next level. These same kinds of objections can be raised at every level of insight: "if I get enlightened, I will have to give up everything I care about," etc. And yet doesn't it always seem to happen that life goes on and even (dare I say it) gets better?

Richard, it's as clear as mud to me. What you described appears to be a completely different version of what's going on with the direct mode practice as compared what I see being described here. So I guess no one can agree on what it is or how it works in detail. Kinda spooky, huh? That should make people think, to emphasize Jackson's point. There's a huge difference between suppressing emotions as a way to deal with them (well, not deal with them) and letting them be, realizing they're a natural part of being human. I see no way to reconcile those two things EXCEPT to say at the highest level that they are "ways to deal with emotions."

ctd But this requires us to always orientated towards the other which is a massive and beautiful task.
In this way it requires the same moment to moment vigilance as DM.
The brahmaviharas when interfused with insight (though not before) have an impersonal quality. In a sense they are the affective aspect of insight, though to experience them does not necessarily imply that the suffering self is present and doing its dirty work.
Curiously while doing it I keep tasting peace, that the world is made of love, and all is well.
Generations of mahayana buddhists have been talking about the union of emptiness and compassion. Wonder why?

"Wonder why?"

I don't have to wonder, Richard. But I still don't get the direct mode version, however. And you have just added a third version