Q. Hi Gary,
...answer...very helpful...going through some changes...been releasing (letting go/sedona video) constantly throughout the day...moments of non-being...no one there...was just sitting there...I woke up..."Could I let go of I?", etc and this immense peace came, unlike anything I've experienced...like taking a bath in peace... a thick palpable feeling surrounding me...
However, there are some fundamental differences from Kenneth's complete system, and what i did and find useful working w/others. Kenneth, and his good friend/student, Daniel Ingram, who wrote "Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha: An Unusually Hardcore Dharma Book" by "The Arahat Daniel M. Ingram, MD" (MCTB) worked together creating their "hardcore dharma". Their teacher, the late Bill Hamilton, who wrote "Saints and Psychopaths" was a big influence.
As Kenneth and Daniel are now on different paths, as Kenneth described in his podcast "NYCity Talk - Outcomes", we'll focus on MCTB and Kenneth's current work (KFD).
In any organization, advancements and levels often facilitate exploitation, confusion, suffering, manipulation, profit making, etc. Levels feed our Darwinian desires for hierarchical superiority over others, and feeds the "ego/I".
Scripting can also move folk into undesirable states by telling them they must be experienced for enlightenment, i.e., the Christian Dark Night of the Soul (DNS), exhaustively discussed in MCTB, because Daniel experienced it. This has caused much confusion and unhappiness. Acute forms of DNS are not common, as Shinzen Young in his blog, among others, have pointed out. For most folk, as the neural structure and functional patterns are reconfiguring, there is something like "overcast morning", followed by brilliant sunshine.
As Shinzen stated "...given the choice of living one more day experiencing life the way I experience it, or living 20 more years as a wealthy, healthy, celebrity sexual athlete... the decision would be a no-brainer -- I'll take the one day of enlightened living. IT'S THAT GOOD, DUDE." That's my experience as well.
MCTB's/KFD's open sharing of experiences about enlightenment was important for many traditional Buddhists. In the US, the teaching in traditional Buddhist centers was that enlightenment was so unlikely/impossible for lay folk, that it was not worth talking about. Daniel gave a talk on this @ Brown. This is, i am told, still true at major centers like the Insight Meditation Society, Spirit Rock and Naropa.
That was not the case in Zen, as they do enlightenment "for a living", which is what drew me there. Direct Path and the Zen folk w/whom i worked, discouraged any focus on, or attachment to, experiences, states or levels as they feed the "ego/I", the principal obstacle to be dealt with in achieving "no self" or "nonduality". Attachment creates suffering here just as the Buddha said it would.
c) As traditional Buddhism does not address thoughts, KFD pays no attention to them and MCTB's discussion on thoughts is not useful or informed, unfortunately.
In contrast, the focus of the Direct Path lineages of Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj, etc., was on achieving "no thought" as described in "Can you stop your 'blah, blah' thoughts? What thoughts are 'useful'?"
This difference may just be a lack of understanding of types of thoughts, how and when they function and what neural structures underlay them. It is the common experience that self-referential thoughts are a/the key element of suffering.
d) KFD uses the Bodhisattva vow, of which there are many versions:
1) Pema Chodron's "a vow to wake up not just for himself, but for the welfare of all beings",
2) "...to help save all sentient beings before going into full...enlightenment",
3) "...postpone my enlightenment until all other sentient beings are enlightened"
4) the Brahma Net Sutra version has 10 major and 48 minor vows.
IME, many folk use 2) and 3) as "reasons" for lack of progress.
Pema Chodron's version is similar to Ramana Maharshi's, "If you...subside in Self by knowing what is the reality of yourself...that is the greatest help which you can render to all the other people in this world." This is similar to the Dalai Lama's "...I generate the Mind for Full Awakening for the benefit of all sentient beings..."
e) KFD's current version of "enlightenment" is "Whatever you want it to be". Additionally, they do not to want to lose their suffering and desires, or they feel they would lose the ability to feel compassion for others.
That is not what happens, IME. When one loses their own suffering and self-referential thoughts, desires and fears, they are not confused by their own mental states and emotions, and can be fully open and accessible to others. An entirely different form of "compassion" manifests which is much more powerful, clear and useful.
Setting all this aside, there are many paths up the mountain and different destinations. Much insightful, courageous, innovative work was done by Kenneth, Dennis and their associate, Vincent Horn of "Buddhist Geeks"; much suffering was averted. A new face of Buddhism in the US is evolving and they are at the forefront. Many gasshos.
Unfortunately, the blog has (hopefully temporarily) lost the ability to display any comments to all blogs. As this very popular post got 56 comments, and many folk were interested in them, it is really unfortunate. i have been working w/two Blogger Top Contributors and have found a "work around" that "may help". This involves my editing the HTML to change a "timeout limit value" for these new dynamic template displays. Supposedly "the Google staff is looking for a long term solution". Given these caveats and my concern about making a serious error in the HTML editing and causing real damage to the blog, i'm waiting for a solution "soon". If it doesn't happen, i'll get some IT help.
...answer...very helpful...going through some changes...been releasing (letting go/sedona video) constantly throughout the day...moments of non-being...no one there...was just sitting there...I woke up..."Could I let go of I?", etc and this immense peace came, unlike anything I've experienced...like taking a bath in peace... a thick palpable feeling surrounding me...
 |
| Kenneth Folk |
...doing...sedona...today...felt stuck, something didn't want to be let go...started...binary noting technique...by Kenneth Folk (http://kennethfolkdharma.com/
G. Hi
i know Kenneth. The "noting" practice, Kenneth's First Gear, is...useful for some folk as a way ...to learn concentration and how to step back from identifying w/thoughts...there are many ways to do this, like the Zen approach of counting breaths...if you are really "drawn" to it, do it...
...typical...to find that experiences that the "ego/I" finds threatening, and consequently finds a way to blunt a particular process (temporarily)...try something else for a while, like "Where am I?", "When am I?", or "I am not this body." Kenneth's Second Gear, interestingly, is "To whom is this happening?", which is traditional self-inquiry.
 |
| Daniel Ingram |
As Kenneth and Daniel are now on different paths, as Kenneth described in his podcast "NYCity Talk - Outcomes", we'll focus on MCTB and Kenneth's current work (KFD).
KFD is deeply rooted in classical Buddhist teachings; mine are not. The iconoclastic philosopher J. Krishnamurti gave me three "take-aways":
 |
| J. Krishnamurti |
a) Religions have failed
b) Truth is a pathless land
c) What would you do if there were no spiritual teachers and teachings?
"Truth is a pathless land" is from Krishnamurti's famous "Dissolution of the Order of the Star in the East" speech where he dissolved the organization that was to make him the World Teacher:
I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect....absolutely and unconditionally.
Using these principles, and seeing that my suffering was caused by thoughts, i set about experimenting, as i was trained to do as an empirical scientist, to see if there was some way to stop/control/manage thoughts. This is described in my book "Happiness Beyond Thought: A Practical Guide to Awakening", (now available as a free download) and in the blogpost "What is the 'Direct Path' to nondual awakening? What is self-inquiry?", which we'll call "Direct Path".
Looking at the differences between KFD and Direct Path:
a) KFD is based on the "core" teachings of the Buddha, which are exhaustive.
Direct Path, for me, used Ramana Maharshi's "Who am I?" and "Bassui's Dharma Talk on One Mind and Letters to His Disciples", totaling 42 pages. After "the page turned", i found advaita Vedanta - nothing else described what i was experiencing.
b) KFD uses maps of sequential development, levels of attainment, and specific experiences.
re "levels", there are four "samatha jhanas" (concentration states) and four "vipassana jhanas" (formless realms) in Burmese Theravada. KFD describes the sequence and manner in which these manifest, and how important it is to tell folk about them in advance so that they will know what to expect.
However, as MCTB outlines, "scripting" occurs; the common behavior of students everywhere of giving the answer that teachers gave them and expect to hear. MCTB says this is particularly true w/"emotional" experiences - the basis of many models of enlightenment, casting doubt over the meaningfulness of these achievements.
Also, there are such wide differences in psychedelics/entheogens usage, genetics, culture, age, prior practices, religious training, etc., that precise reproducibility of experiences, outside of "scripting", is unlikely. There are only a few broad commonalities, IME. The reproducibility cited in old texts was with Asian monastics with very similar backgrounds, culture and training; that is not western lay practitioners.
Also, there are such wide differences in psychedelics/entheogens usage, genetics, culture, age, prior practices, religious training, etc., that precise reproducibility of experiences, outside of "scripting", is unlikely. There are only a few broad commonalities, IME. The reproducibility cited in old texts was with Asian monastics with very similar backgrounds, culture and training; that is not western lay practitioners.
In Buddhism, there are also "The Three Trainings", "The Three Characteristics", "The Five Spiritual Faculties", "The Seven Factors of Enlightenment", "The Four Noble Truths", "The Four Paths/Stages of Awakening", etc.
 |
| Shinzen Young |
Scripting can also move folk into undesirable states by telling them they must be experienced for enlightenment, i.e., the Christian Dark Night of the Soul (DNS), exhaustively discussed in MCTB, because Daniel experienced it. This has caused much confusion and unhappiness. Acute forms of DNS are not common, as Shinzen Young in his blog, among others, have pointed out. For most folk, as the neural structure and functional patterns are reconfiguring, there is something like "overcast morning", followed by brilliant sunshine.
As Shinzen stated "...given the choice of living one more day experiencing life the way I experience it, or living 20 more years as a wealthy, healthy, celebrity sexual athlete... the decision would be a no-brainer -- I'll take the one day of enlightened living. IT'S THAT GOOD, DUDE." That's my experience as well.
MCTB's/KFD's open sharing of experiences about enlightenment was important for many traditional Buddhists. In the US, the teaching in traditional Buddhist centers was that enlightenment was so unlikely/impossible for lay folk, that it was not worth talking about. Daniel gave a talk on this @ Brown. This is, i am told, still true at major centers like the Insight Meditation Society, Spirit Rock and Naropa.
That was not the case in Zen, as they do enlightenment "for a living", which is what drew me there. Direct Path and the Zen folk w/whom i worked, discouraged any focus on, or attachment to, experiences, states or levels as they feed the "ego/I", the principal obstacle to be dealt with in achieving "no self" or "nonduality". Attachment creates suffering here just as the Buddha said it would.
c) As traditional Buddhism does not address thoughts, KFD pays no attention to them and MCTB's discussion on thoughts is not useful or informed, unfortunately.
In contrast, the focus of the Direct Path lineages of Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj, etc., was on achieving "no thought" as described in "Can you stop your 'blah, blah' thoughts? What thoughts are 'useful'?"
This difference may just be a lack of understanding of types of thoughts, how and when they function and what neural structures underlay them. It is the common experience that self-referential thoughts are a/the key element of suffering.
d) KFD uses the Bodhisattva vow, of which there are many versions:
 |
| Pema Chodron |
2) "...to help save all sentient beings before going into full...enlightenment",
3) "...postpone my enlightenment until all other sentient beings are enlightened"
4) the Brahma Net Sutra version has 10 major and 48 minor vows.
IME, many folk use 2) and 3) as "reasons" for lack of progress.
Pema Chodron's version is similar to Ramana Maharshi's, "If you...subside in Self by knowing what is the reality of yourself...that is the greatest help which you can render to all the other people in this world." This is similar to the Dalai Lama's "...I generate the Mind for Full Awakening for the benefit of all sentient beings..."
e) KFD's current version of "enlightenment" is "Whatever you want it to be". Additionally, they do not to want to lose their suffering and desires, or they feel they would lose the ability to feel compassion for others.
That is not what happens, IME. When one loses their own suffering and self-referential thoughts, desires and fears, they are not confused by their own mental states and emotions, and can be fully open and accessible to others. An entirely different form of "compassion" manifests which is much more powerful, clear and useful.
Setting all this aside, there are many paths up the mountain and different destinations. Much insightful, courageous, innovative work was done by Kenneth, Dennis and their associate, Vincent Horn of "Buddhist Geeks"; much suffering was averted. A new face of Buddhism in the US is evolving and they are at the forefront. Many gasshos.
Unfortunately, the blog has (hopefully temporarily) lost the ability to display any comments to all blogs. As this very popular post got 56 comments, and many folk were interested in them, it is really unfortunate. i have been working w/two Blogger Top Contributors and have found a "work around" that "may help". This involves my editing the HTML to change a "timeout limit value" for these new dynamic template displays. Supposedly "the Google staff is looking for a long term solution". Given these caveats and my concern about making a serious error in the HTML editing and causing real damage to the blog, i'm waiting for a solution "soon". If it doesn't happen, i'll get some IT help.
So do you see yourself as aligned with Daniel Ingram's new views as discussed in the 'outcomes' talk you posted? Or do you find that you are on some third path? Having contrasted yourself with Kenneth Folk I'd be interested in how you compare yourself to Daniel Ingram.
ReplyDeleteThe "Outcomes" talk is Kenneth Folk, not Daniel Ingram.
DeleteHi, Anonymous
Delete"my" path is the one that Ramana Maharshi laid out, and before him Bassui, as mentioned in the post. It is different from what i know of Kenneth's work and what Daniel wrote, particularly as it did not require any scripture, or levels, does not focus on experiences and is increasingly cognitive neuroscientifically-based as new studies appear. It's also been validated as i've been a subject and collaborator in several studies, and w/the folk i've worked with in the last 10 years if you've read my blog.
As this area moves forward, hopefully it will be based more on science and less on millenia old teachings, as beautiful as they are. i chant some Bhagavad Gita and advaita verses every day and even wrote a little e-book which is downloadable on my website; there may even be a youTube video. The interest in these texts only arose when i found advaita Vedanta after the page turned as it was the only teaching that could explain what i was experiencing and is useful in working w/folk. They are in my book.
i really haven't followed Daniel's path now, and have, unfortunately, not met him personally, so i have no idea where Daniel "is". There was little in Daniel's book that i found "useful" as it is heavily based on experiences, levels and attainments, many of which, particularly the highly detailed ones around pp 270, may be unique to Daniel or a very few, possibly scripted, folk.
i have communicated in the last year w/one of the well-known Actual Freedom folk (but Kenneth said they had changed their name), if that is where Daniel "is", as Kenneth indicated in his podcast from NY.
In communicating w/one AF folk, i found that he had not fully investigated and clearly understood what he was saying. It was all by e-mail, it was only a few interchanges and he stopped responding, so i never got a clearer understanding. AF was much talked about for a while, but haven't heard much lately, but that may just be an artifact of my main link to them having left Asia. None of this may apply to Daniel.
Trust this is useful.
Stillness and surrender
gary
Hi gary, thanks for the response. What I am most interested in is how your experience compares to those of certain people who talk about having eliminated self-referencing thoughts as well as a layer of suffering which they deem even subtler. So as not to script what you experience, perhaps I could just suggest that you experiment briefly with the practice which is supposed to deal with this subtler layer of suffering, directing your attention in all directions at once and relaxing any tension particularly around the face or head. Does this practice possibly reveal any so far un-dealt-with suffering? Do you think there is any form of desire or suffering which presents itself in a form more subtle than self-referencing thoughts?
Deletethank you for the time
Hi Anonymous,
DeleteGreat question.
The approach you describe is really not adequate to uncover a subtler layer of suffering. It is a "passive" approach, which makes it possible to completely miss suffering that doesn't just spontaneously manifest. It is easy to suppress subtler layers w/this approach, particularly if one has been meditating for some time.
i have had the opportunity to work w/experienced vipassana and "dharma underground" folk who came to me w/great amounts of suffering they have never touched, or were even aware that they existed.
If one is going to do really "deep work", IME, it requires a directed process of consciously looking at every possible attachment, emotion, relationship, etc. that one might have. The approach that i have found most useful is to use Shankara's Nirvana Shatakam, which is in my book, and systematically go through every possible single element, sitting w/it and exploring every aspect of that and seeing where one has residue, memories or attachment.
This process is gone through repeatedly as each time through other layers of each element are found, unpacked and dealt with.
When something is uncovered, then it is met w/a combination of the Sedona method and the Byron Katie method. we also work w/a fusion of these and an adaptation of the Big Mind method of Zen Buddhism, applied to that folk's areas of attachments, which is fundamentally Jungian psychology based. The first two can be done by yourself, the Big Mind approach really requires someone to take you through it as you need to really detach and be open.
Additionally, in the course of "every day", every thought, story-line, etc. is met w/either the Sedona method, Byron Katie approach or w/self-inquiry. Passively just letting all of this just pass by w/ensure that it will persist and never be dealt with.
Much of this is described in my youTube video "letting go into the bliss and joy of stillness" "http://youtu.be/U0WNYRyATnQ".
If you are really going to reach the state of natural, deep stillness which is constantly present, the "peace that passeth understanding", it takes more than passively watching, or ignoring, whatever arises and passes away, IME. It requires active engagement to deal with desires or suffering that are "more subtle than self-referencing thoughts" that you will never see otherwise.
Trust this is useful.
stillness
gary
Thanks for this. I'm a sometime student of Kenneth's and KFD regular, as well as a regular reader of this blog. The KFD community as a whole is "large and contains multitudes" and many of these criticisms are regularly bandied about even within that community!
ReplyDeleteFor a long time, I needed a sense of forward motion and change to motivate my practice. The "Progress of Insight" map was valuable for that, and countered my ingrained idea that meditation should always Feel Good. "Stream entry" à la KFD's version of Theravada brought on a sudden change in the nature of my thinking. It peeled back the opaque curtain of thought just a bit. Perhaps it was the result of "scripting", but was no less valuable or motivating for all that. I feel as if teachings about living without narrative thought would never have connected with me otherwise.
Not that I will ever know, of course!
I'm still compelled to swing between "path"-oriented Theravada models and "pathless" teachings like yours.
What do you think about "needing a raft to cross the river"? Is there an "early stage" when self-enquiry is just banging your head against a brick wall of identification? Personally, I feel like I had to "trick" myself to get to the point where I could even begin to ask these questions!
Hi Robert L
DeleteIf you have looked @ my book, Happiness Beyond Thought, which is downloadable free, you will see that there are many, many different approaches suggested. Very few folk will do all of them, or perhaps even find value in doing most of them. i found them useful, in varying degrees in my own path, as i encountered "blocking" by the ever-clever ego/I. As i indicated in the blogpost, if someone is drawn to "noting", or whatever, then try it out. Stick w/it for a while, and see if it is useful, and if you will do it.
IMHO, there are so many problems w/set path/levels/experiences and w/the likelihood of some scripting being very high, that i don't use them. When i work w/folk, we come up w/what appeals to them, and we do that, as, ultimately, we will only persist at something if we generally "like" it, which doesn't mean it will always "feel good".
Better "anything" you will do than "something" you won't do. As folk come across "experiences", we discuss them and see what might be useful next, perhaps even continuing w/ the current practice for some time. No folk have exactly the same experiences, sequences, levels, or practices, none.
However, this doesn't "scale" to a large group of paying customers as well as a set formula, path, or steps, as it requires a lot of the old traditional, 1/1. If you're in it for the money, it just doesn't work. As i charge nothing for my work, it is a poor business model. i really don't judge folk who do their spiritual work for a living and need the money; that is where the Universe has placed them. It is wonderful to be able to offer the work freely, as there is no need or tendency to modify your teachings to fit the market, which often happens. Daniel Ingram has the same freedom and he made a similar comment.
your "tricking" yourself, is what is often necessary. It is, of course, mind working on mind, but until that is seen clearly, recognize that the ego/I is a clever "trickster" that needs to be outmaneuvered.
Trust this is useful.
stillness
gary
Thanks very much, Gary,
DeleteFor what it's worth, your characterization of the Theravada system as a set "formula" (especially as a system for financial exploitation) doesn't match my experience of it. It works badly as a prescriptive system, for sure. But using it diagnostically, putting certain experiences into a generalized, non-personal context, has been liberating for me. "I have a cold" is a better context for healing than "Oh my God, my brains must have melted and now they are leaking out through my nose!!" (which is not far off from what some meditation experiences can feel like).
Of course a dynamic one-on-one relationship with an altruistic teacher I could fully trust would be superior. But that's rare luck!
There's been a lot of back-and-forth on this thread about the exploitation issue. It's all been said before and will be again. There are many motors of exploitation, of which money is only one. A seeker only has the gut to go on. I get a "genuine" vibe from Kenneth, I get one from you, and when I have nowhere else to turn, the classic traditions "backstop" you guys.
For now, that does seem to the best we seekers can do. It's a problematic standard... keep doing those fMRIs, guys :)
Sometimes I think the most valuable teaching I've ever received is repeatedly seeing how all the genuine teachers I encounter eventually start eating each other in public. I figure that's why dead teachers and traditions remain so appealing. But hey, whatever- it's Darwin's world, we just live in it :)
Gratitude,
Rob
Hi Rob,
DeleteIt isn't a question of "eating each other in public". There is a long tradition in advaita Vedanta, and perhaps in some sects of Buddhism, of having such discussions so that everyone can see the merits of the points and approaches and consider them for themselves. There is nothing "harmful" or "bad" in this; it is critical, and "healthy", and how traditions develop and evolve.
Dead traditions are just that, "dead". As several major contemporary teachers have pointed out, what was "true" 2000 or 2500 years ago, is likely "not all true" today. Given the increased knowledge/learning we have as a species over that period, the vastly different and more complex world in which we live, and the science, particularly cognitive neuroscience that is emerging at an astonishing rate, it is critical that teachings reflect that.
Trust this is useful.
stillness
gary
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCall me crazy but I see value in the MCTB/KFD teachings and the direct path teachings, although there are clearly very different assumptions about what mind is and how mind operates behind the two sets of teachings. I've sometimes been critical of Kenneth Folk's teachings in the past because I do fear that mapped attainments lead to directed results. I know practitioners who get antsy and nervous when their path experience does not line up well with the MCTB/KFD model. On the other hand, I think direct path is difficult for some people to grok and practice, and they sometimes just give up before getting anywhere. So when those folks can access and use a more discrete set of techniques that tend to lead, ultimately, to the same set of realizations I think it's a good thing for those folks to practice in that vein.
ReplyDeleteThere are many roads to the top of the mountain.
Chris Marti
Hi Chris,
DeleteGood to hear from you.
The problem is that there does not appear to be the same set of realizations targeted in the two systems, i.e. they aren't headed the same place, which is why i made that comment in the last paragraph of the post on "different destinations". As i indicated in an earlier response, i did not find MCTB/KFD descriptions of experiences, levels, etc. to be anything i would be interested in, whatever it was called.
"my" focus was to remove my suffering, and self-referential thoughts appeared to be the activating cause of that, so removal/weakening of them appeared the route. That went directly to the I/me/my and its attachments. i felt it was critical that it be done as a lay folk with a real job and kids, etc. as it would have no practical value otherwise for others.
It turned out, although i did not expect this, to actually have increased functional capacity in complex jobs and functions. i did not really expect this approach of deconstructing the "I" to also remove self-referential fears, and desires, although it did a wonderful job of that...that had been a big item for me as well. It all just fell away at once. Logical, but unexpected. With it came an astonishing Stillness, Presence, and Peace Beyond Understanding requiring no effort or maintenance...so totally natural it was even more amazing.
It may well turn out, as Kenneth said, that "enlightenment is what you want it to be". In that conversation at his apartment only a few weeks ago in San Francisco, Kenneth quoted one of the principal AF/Actuality folk as saying "you get what you optimize for." Those two statements taken together may reflect the reality at a deep level...each of us gets the level and type of enlightenment we want/settle for, optimize for, and for which we are willing to work, sacrifice, and surrender.
There is no reason that Dennis, or Kenneth's, or "my" awakening has to be like anyone else's, as our goals, commitment and interests are different. Maybe it's time to seriously question the concept of "one" kind of "enlightenment" and recognize the reality and value of different solutions to the problems of suffering and unhappiness.
regards,
stillness and surrender
gary
Here is a lens of thought through which an unlimited number of enlightenments makes the most sense.
DeleteExperience, stripped down to its most basic, is simply the infinitely slippery self-known experience. It is defined by itself. Unless you are an essentialist and steadfastly believe in a (thought imputed) Source, there is just this luminous experience.
So, for the awake person, reality is defined by the always changing luminous experience, which is completely unpredictable and unlimited in how it manifests. To impute that something exists outside of or beyond this experience is experienced as thought. Enlightenment is inseparable from this unbounded, infinite display, so it makes sense to regard enlightenment as unbounded and infinite and not separate from the unbounded infinite display itself.
Also, rather than objective litmus tests of awakening.
DeleteHow about a simple subjective litmus test: Are you awake enough? or Is this awake enough?
Hi Gary,
DeleteYou have quoted me twice as saying "enlightenment is whatever you want it to be." I don't believe that, so I'm having trouble imagining the context in which I would have said it. Where did you get the quote?
Thanks,
Kenneth
Hi Kenneth,
DeleteThe answer to this question is given lower down, and more completely, in this string.
stillness
gary
Thanks for the review of Kenneth and Daniel. I am not quite sure it is completely accurate but I don't think you have hurt anyone's feelings either! Here is a response thread at KFD:
ReplyDeletehttp://kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/thread/5046831/-
Thanks. This has been a really helpful post!
ReplyDeleteSo are people climbing different mountains then? So, is the entlighten business (e.g.,KFD) the sale of different mountain tops?
ReplyDeleteHi Anonymous,
DeleteIt may be useful for folk to consider that possibility, i.e. that there are different mountains that have somewhat common "foothills", and partway up one mountain, you may find a pass to cross over to another one if your mountain turns out to not "be your thing", or you get to "been there, done that" and "get over it".
re "the enlightenment business", i'm not selling anything, really, as i don't charge for this. It's kind of like what the Buddha said about not charging for the teachings, which are priceless; how could i place a $$$ value on what i learned from Ramana Maharshi's teachings and how they changed my life? Others may make different decisions on this, and that, and they, are all part of the Dance as well.
stillness
gary
"i'm not selling anything, really, as i don't charge for this. It's kind of like what the Buddha said about not charging for the teachings, which are priceless; how could i place a $$$ value on what i learned from Ramana Maharshi's teachings and how they changed my life?" -Gary Weber
DeleteI find these kinds of comments to be disingenuous. There are many ways to be compensated, including social status, fame, attention, opportunities to speak at conferences and salons, and all-expenses-paid trips around the world. All of these forms of compensation, along with cash money, are completely within the bounds of dignity, morality, and social norms. It's only when they fly under the radar that it gets creepy.
We live in a transactional economy. People in our culture get paid for their time and expertise. The implication that spiritual teachings are somehow holy and therefore "must never be sold" is a religious construct based on a misunderstanding. The teaching of practices that lead to the kind of brain development that is conducive to happiness is no more or less sacred than the teaching of math, music, or reading.
Gary, how do you reconcile your comments that it's time to leave behind the religious trappings of contemplative practice with the religious notion that you must not charge for your time when you teach? There is something buried here, and it's creeping me out.
Hi Kenneth,
Deletere your "disingenuous" comment, i don't know if you're referring to my speaking at conferences or not, but as we discussed @ your apt the evening of 10/26, sitting at your kitchen table, when Beth asked me about reimbursements, i explained that i don't get any, and asked if her teacher, Rabbi David Cooper (who is a bigger "draw" than i am) did either. Beth explained that he didn't get any either. It is not common, despite your imagination.
The only reimbursement that i have gotten for flights "around the world" was to the meeting that you were key to arranging, the one @ the Baumann Institute from 5/27 to 5/30. As you will recall, that meeting only came about because you sent Peter Baumann my interview video from the TSC conference in Tucson. "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEOujFKnHwc&feature=share&list=PL-ncWnNIpQxo1D1lhx_Kqgxkdu4709SYw", which talks about my "no thoughts" state. At that time, you were very engaged w/trying to reach a state of "no thoughts" as discussed earlier, which apparently was unsuccessful.
i was reimbursed only for my round trip, coach, discount airfare to SFO, and the cab fare to the hotel (which i paid for). All of the other trips, i have paid for everything, except for mileage driving to Yale for my scans. The rest of all of these other "ways to be compensated" i have not experienced.
As far as understanding that folk "...get paid for their time and expertise", i spent decades in managing organizations in large corporations, the military, national laboratories, and universities - i do understand that, as well as how money dramatically changes any interchange, spiritual or otherwise. i also understand clearly how pernicious and manipulative that levels, promotions, and status are, in spiritual situations or in business ones.
Amazing that you find it impossible to believe that anyone could feel that these teachings are "priceless", and that it is impossible to place a value on them, which is what the Buddha allegedly said. IME, it's not like "math, music, or reading" to me; these teachings dramatically changed my life. It's like paying someone for saving you from drowning; what is that worth?
IME, i have seen folks' teachings change as soon as they began making money from them. It is surprising how little money it takes to change things. i have watched my contemporaries change, and change their teachings to fit their expanding marketplace and increased revenue, over and over again.
As far as "something buried here, and it's creeping me out", that is your projection and your problem. Why do you react so strongly to someone else's not charging for something? Have you asked Daniel Ingram why he doesn't charge? he made the same comment in his book, and offered the same argument on freedom of expression.
stillness
gary
Kenneth,
DeleteIt occurred that the "disingenuous" and "creepy" feelings you have towards my charging nothing for my work is because you long so much for those "under the radar" things you mention, "social status, fame, attention, opportunities to speak at conferences, etc." and believe that i must have them somehow, because you can't understand why i wouldn't want them.
It might be helpful for you go to my website, www.happiness-beyond-thought.com and go to "about" and see my c.v. Those items that are so important to you, really have no importance to me; i've been fortunate to have had them all before, in great measure, and have already walked away from them several times.
stillness
gary
Resubmitting...
DeleteIt's not creepy to want "social status, fame, attention, opportunities to speak at conferences, etc." It's human. And it's not "under the radar" to be human. "Creepy" and "under the radar" happen when you deny that you want them while actively seeking them. And this gets directly to the heart of my critique of your position. You seem to be denying your own humanity. Your strategy is based on invulnerability. I prefer vulnerability, and I believe it is healthier.
As an example of what I mean by invulnerability, you are able to dismiss my feelings and concerns by saying, as you did in a previous response on this thread, "that is your projection and your problem." You have said before that you don't feel your emotions and that you are "much less" in touch with your body sensations than you were before your shift in consciousness. And you have said that you have very little conscious experience of thought. All of that, together, is a brilliantly designed package of protection. It's hard to imagine a more bullet-proof defense.
My approach is to go in the other direction; to let in the pain and the ecstasy and the shame and the love, to feel it completely in the body, and watch it flow through. It's all part of being born as a human and it's all fine. When nothing is solid, there is nowhere for these things to stick, and experience is seen as process. There is no need to deny or protect ourselves from each other or from our own feelings or thoughts. This is an ideal, mind you, and not an absolute; for me, it is a work in progress. You see, you can't shut me up or shout me down by pointing out how flawed I am. I already know. And it's OK.
Kenneth,
DeleteThe "that is your projection and your problem", that you have such a strong reaction to, is a fundamental tenet of psychology. i learned this from Richard Miller, the well-known Bay Area nondual psychologist and therapeutic yoga teacher, when we were working closely together and i was doing some teaching in his workshops. Richard is also a Baumann Institute collaborator.
It recognizes that what we believe others may be thinking, or have some intention about, may be, in fact, often is, incorrect as we have no way of knowing another's minds accurately.
your comment wrt my not charging for my work of "something buried here and it's creeping me out" is your projection. There is nothing buried here, as i pointed out every way possible, and if you're "creeped out" that really is the operation of your own mind, and you're the only one who can do something about that.
There is no attempt to "shut me up or shout me down", on the contrary it is asking you to realize that your projections are your problems, not someone else's, and that they may well be incorrect.
If you had read the first piece in the string you would see my comment re my not charging, "Others may make different decisions on this, and that, and they, are all part of the Dance as well." If you remember, i have even told you the same thing. i don't judge you, you only think i do.
The same applies to your projection of my need for "invulnerability". i set out, as i have said many times, to end my suffering, not about needing protection. That is what i thought Buddhism was about. If you really understood my "state", you would realize that w/o an "I/self", you are really completely vulnerable. you also realize that you are not in control, which requires complete surrender into the present moment, now, now, now, which is the ultimate vulnerability.
stillness
Hi Gary,
DeleteYou said: "The same applies to your projection of my need for "invulnerability". i set out, as i have said many times, to end my suffering, not about needing protection. That is what i thought Buddhism was about. If you really understood my "state", you would realize that w/o an "I/self", you are really completely vulnerable. you also realize that you are not in control, which requires complete surrender into the present moment, now, now, now, which is the ultimate vulnerability." END QUOTE
I'm interested in your current perceptual baseline with the absence of 'thought'. I'm interested in how different it is to other claimants of 'no suffering' that I've communicated with. This would be helpful information for others to have at least for some of the 'pragmatic dharma' crowd who perhaps don't adhere to everything the 'leaders' of such a movement have expressed, including myself, to get a better idea of the results of your own approach, techniques and path as a whole. Forgive and ignore any questions that are inappropriate. Some questions:
By 'thought' do you mean simply a long or short string of words that often more than not born from a sense of 'me-ness'/subjective like experience? Does it include the mental phenomena of creating a conceptual overlay or labeling the 'objects' of the senses? Such as when you suddenly look at a visual object, and the label of 'laptop' suddenly seems to overlay it? How does the periphery of experience play out as part of awareness?
How do you define the experience of 'being vulnerable'? Is it phenomenological experienced or is it more simply a specific neutrality or acceptance to what is happening? is it experienced as some sensations felt within the body? or is it more a mental viewpoint? Is the 'surrender' you speak of in the quote above actually required by you? In that you have to decide in the moment to 'surrender' to what is occuring (with the perceived lack of control)? If so, what happens within the mind/body organism called Gary if you don't 'surrender'? Do you also have a tangibly felt sense of 'nowness' in the ongoing experience? Or is all the use of such terms as 'surrendering' and 'nowness' simply poetic license? Do you need to regulate mental reactions and 'urges'? Or are 'urges' absent to some degree?
How do you experience the experience of what is often called 'emotion' these days? Does it arise at all in any form? Or is it broken up or fragmented in some way? Is it absent completely? Or do you still get sensations up and down the body, perhaps in specific areas, that could be the remnants of a full blown 'emotion' without a string of self-referential thoughts? Does the mind still provide the information on how you would have felt before you had your big shift? Or in that stillness you describe, are all the factors that make up an emotion absent? Such as the sensations in the chest or throat etc and the thoughts that may accompany that? For example, do you get a lump in your throat when watching an emotional movie but there is no thought accompanying it? Is there any sense of 'me-ness' tangibly felt in your ongoing experience? Perhaps a remnant or residue of how it was before your shift? Or is it completely absent as an experience? Or does it come and go?
Sorry for the many questions. I have a semi clear picture of your current ongoing baseline and am curious as to the brain changes triggered to gather a better idea of the approach you've talked of. These questions are just to get a clearer picture of what the results can be due to such and such a path.
Nick
Hi Nick,
DeleteGreat questions. Much confusion re “thoughts”. Best source of cognitive neuroscience re “my thoughts” is in blogpost “Can you stop your “blah, blah” thoughts? Which thoughts are useful?” http://happinessbeyondthought.blogspot.com/2012/10/can-you-stop-your-blah-blah-thoughts.html.
After realizing that my suffering was caused, almost completely, by self-referential/”I, me, my” thoughts, that is what i focused on. This is endless “blah, blah” self-talk narrative. Most folk know immediately what I’m talking about when we discuss “blah, blah” thoughts and their being the source of their suffering.
As the narrative is all about I/me/my, and focused on the past and future, deconstructing the “I” through many approaches, brings a decrease, or in my case, a nearly complete end of narrative. The post “What is the Direct Path to NonDual Awakening?” http://happinessbeyondthought.blogspot.com/2012/08/what-is-direct-path-to-nondual.html describes it.
As to what stays and what doesn’t, it is pretty simple, really. Anything that has an I/me/my in a “sticky”, emotionally-involved way goes; anything that has I/me/my only as a linguistic artifact continues. Problematic self-referential thoughts, desires and fears go. Planning, problem-solving, reading, writing, etc. which are non-problematic, continue.
There are different brain networks for the different categories. Fortunately, the brain can differentiate between the two types; the mechanism described in “Folk Who Meditate Decrease Mind Wandering” http://happinessbeyondthought.blogspot.com/2011/11/folk-who-meditate-decrease-mind.html is what does this. IME, non-problematic functioning is enhanced as the band-width/energy consumed by “blah, blah”, is gone.
“Labeling” of my laptop doesn’t occur; it is not confused w/a chair, functions are done on it, but that’s it. re strings of thoughts, as disassembly of the “I” proceeds, long single-subject strings w/ emotion go to shorter strings less tightly held, to discrete elements, to periods of stillness w/little/no narrative. This is not linear, but is the common experience.
IME, “being vulnerable” was acute before the page turned. i was successful, fearful, driven and moving towards total surrender; “thoughts” were how I (believed) I survived. Full surrender had to be “all in”, no attachments, no “everything but that”. Soon after, the page turned and problematic I/me/my stopped.
Loss of self-referential thoughts was accompanied by loss of self-referential fears and desires. A useful differentiation is between “post-processed” or not, p.e. w/fear, it does not impact “limbic” hard-wired fears like walking off a cliff or stepping in front of a bus, thankfully. Suffering is post-processed; pain is not.
W/little/no one to hold fear, the root of "vulnerability”, or anything else, there is no need to continually surrender or make effort to be in the “now”. It just is as it is.
Energy in the body varies, and sensory events occur. If the body is very tired, or blood sugar gets low (hypoglycemic), self-referential thoughts can begin as fragments; when remedied, they fall away. There are thought fragments early in the morning, which is the hippocampus clearing out unwanted short term episodic memories.
Emotions can manifest in movies, etc. (cog neuro folk @ NYU use movies as their investigative format.) Sometimes different energy manifests. W/o post-processing, it all just passes through. Some forms of anger can manifest, but w/o a “story”, it fades quickly. See “How do I deal w/anger? http://happinessbeyondthought.blogspot.com/2012/09/how-do-i-deal-with-anger-i-cant.html.
Recollection of “what is was like before” faded. Some episodic memories manifest and fall away as the brain reclaims unused real estate. Stillness deepens. There is, naturally, no movement to manifest desire, fear, or thought. See “Which is more pleasurable…psychedelics, the nondual state or sex?” http://happinessbeyondthought.blogspot.com/2012/10/which-is-more-pleasurablepsychedelics.html.
Hi Gary
ReplyDeleteI like how you point out the problem of scripting. That's also what I understand your J. Krishnamurti takeaway number c to refer to ("What would you do if there were no spiritual teachers and teachings"). To me, that's the heart of your blog post.
So how do you deal with people using your book or blog or teaching as a script?
And on the other hand: most people don't even do that, and instead read books like yours or MCTB or The Hobbit as stories about distant people and places, rather than as bits of their own story (or skript...) unfolding in real time to themselves. Wouldn't semi-conscious scripting be a good first step?
Cheers,
Florian
Hi Florian
DeleteInteresting...excellent point.
At what point does the Buddha's teaching become scripting, semi-conscious or otherwise? Is it in the "Four Noble Truths"? How about the Eightfold Path? With the jhanas?
There is a difference, IMHO, between
a) someone saying "this is my specific particular experience (in high detail) and you must have this experience to be enlightened and in exactly this sequence" so you try to manufacture that, and
b) something like Krishnamurti's question, or Ramana Maharshi's focus on the subject, not the objects, as the route, which was to me a great revelation. These "should" have been obvious, but weren't - they tell you where to look, not what you have to find and in what order.
Daniel has implied in his book that "have no (narrative) thoughts, as that is the cause of suffering" is scripting, but that is something that i came upon "by myself", as really obvious. Now, it has become something that i say so folk can realize it is possible, in typical western lives, and still function fully, even better, even if it is only reduced, or deenergized, narrative. It was a recognition, for me, that something was possible, which most folk haven't even considered.
Call it whatever you wish. you will know, all by yourself, if you are trying to manufacture something that is just someone else's specific experience or if your investigation uncovers real understanding that changes your life, totally.
Tks for the question.
stillness and surrender
gary
Hi Gary
DeleteThanks for your reply!
At what point does the Buddha's teaching become scripting? I don't know, depends on the person, I guess, how they hold the teachings - snake simile and all that. And there is a grey area between "fake it till you make it" and outright scripting, I think, the former being not a bad strategy, the latter a wall to bang one's head against.
Yea, so the level of detail in Daniel's book is overwhelmingly high. I got stuck in a couple of places, in a "the light is better over here" way, looking for the things he describes so compellingly. But then, he also keeps constantly banging on the point that it's not about the content (i.e. the detailed surface features of his account). There's an entire chapter in his book making this point clear.
My getting stuck trying to script Daniel's descriptions was just another locked door to which eventually the key became apparent, or rather, which was seen as a non-issue or "gateless gate". I don't know for sure, of course, but I'll speculate that if not for that book and particular passage from it, I'd have got stuck scripting from some other book, maybe even Sri Ramana's famous method. Getting the difference between description and prescription (or practice instruction) comes with experience, in my experience :)
You know, like that old simile of watering a plant to make it grow (prescription) vs. uprooting it and measuring it to make it grow (description mistaken for prescription).
The realization that it is possible for ordinary people is very empowering, and it comes across well in your writing. Incidentally, it's this empowerment which Kenneth and Daniel and many other "hardcore/pragmatic Dharma practitioners" convey as well. So it's ironic but maybe unavoidable to some extent that when they say "You can do this, because I did, and I'm nothing special" people will still place them on a pedestal, make them something special, and devoutly copy their lab results instead of producing their own, so to speak.
So thanks again for pointing out that the map is not the territory. I hope many people will benefit from this, stop exploring the maps, and start exploring their lives (of which the maps may be a part, even an important part at times.)
Cheers,
Florian
(part 2 or 2)
ReplyDelete5. You wrote: "KFD's current version of "enlightenment" is "Whatever you want it to be".
When you use full quotation marks like that, it gives the impression that you are quoting me directly. But I haven't said that, nor do I believe it. I do, however, believe that enlightenment is much more nuanced than is sometimes claimed. Given the variations in individual humans, the idea of one outcome for all is untenable. I'm not aware of any human developmental process that converges on a single outcome. Sports and fitness parallels work well here. You can imagine a marathon runner deriding a power lifter because the lifter can't run 26 miles. The power lifter counters that the marathon runner can't deadlift 400 lbs. It's not a productive discussion, however; there are many ways to be fit, many lines of development in which to excel. This reminds me of something my wife says to me when I get puffed up with my own importance: "Other people are not failed versions of you." Oops, busted! :)
This is why I like to acknowledge the different values (and correspondingly different outcomes) among various contemplative traditions. And this is our main point of disagreement; you have said that the absence or near absence of the conscious experience of thought is THE standard for enlightenment and anything else is not enlightenment. At the same time, you have pointed out that you are the only one you know who has this relatively thought-free experience. This sounds very much like an "other people are failed versions of me" argument. It breaks down quickly because just as others do not know how it feels to be you, you don't know how it feels to be them. You may believe that you are better off than other folks given your unique state of development. On the other hand, they may feel the same in reverse.
Appeals to authority are useless here; one can cherry-pick quotes from the vast contemplative literature to support nearly any position.
There is no way to resolve the question of whether a marathoner is better than a power lifter or whether an Advaitist is more developed than a Buddhist. We are moving inevitably toward a time when we must acknowledge that different values lead to different practices, which in turn lead to different outcomes. Finally, what matters is that people's lives and relationships are transformed through their contemplative practice; and this is a realistic goal for everyone. I see it every day.
Hi Kenneth,
Deleteyou said "It is whatever you want it to be" recently, actually the evening of Friday, 10/26 in your apartment in San Francisco when you, Beth and i were having the discussion on what your definition of enlightenment is. you were sitting in the chair w/your back to the street.
"It is whatever you want it to be" is what you said, and i wrote it down as soon as i got a piece of paper. you followed that two sentences, or so later, w/a quote from the well-known AF/Authenticity folk that "you get what you optimize for". Actually, at the time, it was quite a surprise, which is why it stuck so strongly in memory.
However, as explained at length in a reply (above) to a similar question from Chris Marti, they do make for an interesting conceptual change, as it does open the discussion for everyone to really have their own definition of "enlightenment".
As far as lack of narrative thoughts being a measure of awakening, you stated, when we were meeting w/the Baumann Foundation folk on the evening of 5/28 in Peter Baumann's place w/about 12 - 14 others, exactly that. i had just finished giving my little talk and we were into the discussion section, when you told the group that what "i" had just described ("no thought"), you had not yet achieved, but was what you wanted to achieve.
As you no doubt recall, we spent much time together w/ and w/o Peter Baumann and one of his folk on 5/28 - 5/30, talking about nondual practice, walking, eating, etc. around San Francisco.
As far as your comments on how i feel about my having no thoughts, and being unique as far as we can find, from many different studies of different types, i can assure you that you are incorrect. That is totally your projection. In fact, it has been the largest difficulty i have had in moving this work forward. As i have said many times, in many venues, i wish millions had this state.
As Sat Bhir Singh Khalsa told me when we met, as detailed in the blogpost "Sat Bhir Singh Khalsa, Ph.D. Harvard Medical School" "http://happinessbeyondthought.blogspot.com/2011/03/sat-bhir-singh-khalsa-phd-harvard.html", there was little interest, scientifically, in the state as it was so rare that it was not possible to get a significantly large population for good statistics. Peter Baumann made a very similar comment to you, his associate and "i" on our last lunch together on 5/29 in San Francisco.
As far as "cherry picking" the spiritual literature, if you read my blogposts you will find that not having thoughts is a key part of Ramana's teaching, i.e. Who am I?, his first writing, is virtually all about that. It is also prominent in many other non-Theravada sources.
Trust this is useful and clears up some misunderstandings.
stillness and surrender
gary
Gary,
DeleteThanks for creating this conversation, I'm sorry to see that Kenneth doesn't seem to want to take part. I think a lot of good could come from discussing the points you've raised and looking at different types of practices.
Thanks also for the site and book, which I'm just starting to work my way through.
Metta,
Brian
I remain confident that one person can do both of these kinds of practices (Gary's and Kenneth's) and benefit from them. I suspect but cannot prove that the universe of awakening may be as infinite as the connections between the multitude of neurons and synapses in the human brain. Maybe we all have our very own version, influenced in part by how we practice. It does seem that there are similarities that apply across many traditions, so I hold out the possibility that you, Gary and you, Kenneth are both right, and wrong, at the same time.
ReplyDeleteSo there ;-)
For whatever it's worth, I agree with what Chris says here. I see value in both types of practices, those taught by Kenneth and those taught by Gary, and by all the other teachers in their respective lineages of Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta.
Delete- Mike
[Gary, this is part one of a two-part response. You already published part two, above, so I'm guessing this one didn't get through to you when I tried to submit it to your blog earlier this week. Resubmitting...]
ReplyDelete(Part 1 of 2)
Hi Gary,
Hope you're having a wonderful Thanksgiving visit with the family. Thanks for the discussion comparing your teaching and mine. Here are a couple of things I'd like to clarify:
1. You wrote: "The 'noting' practice, Kenneth's First Gear, is...useful for some folk as a way ...to learn concentration and how to step back from identifying w/thoughts...there are many ways to do this, like the Zen approach of counting breaths..."
Noting is not meant as an alternative to breath-counting. Breath counting is considered a pure concentration practice, which according to the Mahasi tradition (and my experience with students) does not lead to awakening/enlightenment. Noting, on the other hand, emphasizes investigation over concentration and therefore fosters the kind of brain development that has traditionally been called awakening or enlightenment.
2. You wrote: "there are four 'samatha jhanas' (concentration states) and four 'vipassana jhanas' (formless realms) in Burmese Theravada."
The most commonly used system identifies four material jhanas and four formless jhanas, all of which are samatha jhanas. I teach those same eight plus an additional five for a total of 13. Vipassana jhanas are something else and variously defined depending on who is teaching them. Sayadaw U Pandita uses four vipassana jhanas to talk about broad developmental sweeps during the Progress of Insight. Some people use vipassana jhanas to talk about the same 8 samatha jhanas, but accessed through the vipassana technique rather than the samatha technique. By the way, some people have no interest in accessing jhanas, in which case I don't teach them at all; it isn't necessary to identify jhanas in your experience in order to awaken.
3. You wrote: "As traditional Buddhism does not address thoughts, KFD pays no attention to them..."
Not so. Everything in experience receives attention. But nothing is privileged over anything else. Thoughts are observed and noted, as are body sensations, mind states, etc. Ultimately, the playing field is leveled; thoughts, emotions, and even the sense of "I" have no more or less status than an itch. All are phenomena that come and go. Experience is seen as process.
4. You wrote: "KFD uses the Bodhisattva vow.."
The Bodhisattva vow is a great discussion point that raises some crucial issues, but I don't practice or teach it formally.
1. re “noting” vs “breath counting” - using the noting program you showed me, w/my students, they shrugged it off as just another introductory concentration practice.
DeleteBreath counting can convey the same understandings, if guided properly, as in your “First Gear” practice model. Eido Roshi Shimano of DBZ used only “breath counting” for a sesshin for everyone, including himself. A Vietnamese Zen Buddhist, w/a center near here, has practiced, and taught, only “breath counting” for 45 years. There is more to breath counting than concentration.
re your recent development of dyad noting, i worked w/Richard Miller, an advaita teacher, on “dyad self-inquiry” about 10 years ago; it was very effective. Recommend you consider it for your “Second Gear”/self-inquiry.
2. re your discourse on jhanas, those descriptions are the ones that Daniel Ingram uses. The many descriptions, and models, including your use of 13 or none, portray some confusion on jhanas. If “everyone” experiences each of these and they need to occur in a specific order, why the disagreement?
3. re your statement on thoughts…ignoring them doesn’t make them go away…both you and Daniel say you have continuous thoughts.
Your "thoughts, emotions…the sense of an ‘I’ have no more or less status than an itch” contrasts w/your podcast “NYC Talks – Outcomes”, where you stress that you need/want your suffering.
At our meeting at the Baumann Institute in May, you stated that the “no thought” state that i had described was the ultimate and that you were trying to achieve it. This is a pretty dramatic reversal…what changed?
If you were unsuccessful, no surprise, and that is said w/no negative intent. How could someone who developed a program that rewards advancement and status, which strengthens the ego/I, surrender his ego and attachments to the extent required to have no “self/I”?
As you said “enlightenment is what you want it to be”. You have the enlightenment model that gives you what you want, including the suffering.
4. re your not practicing/teaching the Bodhisattva Vow, see “kennethfolkdharma.com” talk "NYC Talk: Outcomes”. At 06:46, you contrast the detachment of Theravada with the Bodhisattva Vow (#3 in blogpost) which the Mahayanas came up w/to deal with this problem. It becomes the main theme for the discussion.
BTW, there are errors in this podcast;
a) The tenth of the Ten Oxherding Pictures (05:29), in Reps, says nothing about “with help bestowing hands”, and no mention of “presumably feeling the pain”. In fact the third line goes “…I am ever blissful.”
b) re the discussion on Mother Theresa; it would be worth your reading her bio. The situation is different from what you heard.
c) The Five Vows of Tozan – Wikipedia has an overview that disagrees w/your statements.
re your “I never said that” wrt “Enlightenment is whatever you want it to be”, which you said to me on 10/26. At (26:51), you will hear wrt enlightenment, “The outcome is different depending on your values.”, which is basically identical. you will also hear from AF’s Tarin Greco, “you get what you optimize for”.
Trust this is helpful.
"using the noting program you showed me, w/my students, they shrugged it off as just another introductory concentration practice." -GW
DeleteVery likely a consequence of the way you presented it. I remember showing you the rudiments of the technique on two occasions over Skype. In both cases, I recall that the dyad noting session ended within a minute, at which point you lost interest. It's a simple technique, but it would take more training than that before I would recommend that you teach it.
"Breath counting can convey the same understandings, if guided properly, as in your “First Gear” practice model." -GW
Might be best to withhold judgement about that until you have a better understanding of what my First Gear teaching is. We are currently discussing your critique of my teaching over at the KFD forum. Most folks there don't think you have a thorough grasp of the material in question. Here are some typical reviews:
"Generally, Weber's posts are pretty clear and helpful. This one seems like a rambling rough-draft of a subject that he's not too familiar with. The question was about binary noting, but he hardly addresses it. In the beginning, he says noting may be useful for learning concentration, and equates it to zen breath counting. It's not really a good analogy."
"inaccuracies..."
"mostly misses the mark..."
"garbled..."
"I generally like Gary and think he means well, but this post may cause more misunderstanding than understanding. I'd say he definitely got a few details wrong."
"Gary...has made some excellent contributions and analysis from the neuroscience angle regarding certain aspects of awakening imo, but he falls far short of that standard when it comes to his analysis of KFD or MCTB."
"really confuses things instead of clarifies them."
"It's too bad that with his scientific background he hasn't looked at the incredible database here of people experiencing lasting and radical changes in the quality of their consciousness. But he's a smart guy, so maybe his views will evolve."
These comments are from people who actually do the practices you are speculating about. Original comments can be found at:
http://kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/thread/5046831/Gary+Weber+Weighs+in+on+MCTB%2FKFD+Practices+vs+Direct+Path+Methods?offset=0&maxResults=20
"re your discourse on jhanas, those descriptions are the ones that Daniel Ingram uses. The many descriptions, and models, including your use of 13 or none, portray some confusion on jhanas." -GW
The interpretation of jhanas that you published is incorrect, as I pointed out before. Not sure where to go from here. If you want to understand jhanas, the best way is to practice them. If you still want to debunk them after experiencing them firsthand, your arguments will carry more weight. Meanwhile, it's idle speculation on your part.
"If 'everyone' experiences each of these and they need to occur in a specific order, why the disagreement?" -GW
Everyone doesn't. I already covered this in my first response. Here it is again for convenience:
"By the way, some people have no interest in accessing jhanas, in which case I don't teach them at all; it isn't necessary to identify jhanas in your experience in order to awaken." -KF
"re your statement on thoughts…ignoring them doesn’t make them go away..." -GW
That is a straw man. I don't recommend ignoring them. As I said, everything in experience receives attention, which is the opposite of ignoring them. In any case, your insistence that thoughts must go away is your own. Sometimes there are thoughts, sometimes there are no thoughts; it's not worth suffering about.
(continued below)
"both you and Daniel say you have continuous thoughts."
DeleteCan't speak for Daniel, but in my case, "continuous" is overstating the case. Sometimes the mind is noisy, sometimes it's quiet. In neither case is it a problem.
"Your 'thoughts, emotions…the sense of an ‘I’ have no more or less status than an itch' contrasts w/your podcast 'NYC Talks – Outcomes', where you stress that you need/want your suffering.'- GW
Not sure what your point is here. Two things to say about it, though:
1) That I "need/want my suffering" is a clunky interpretation of what I was trying to communicate that night.
2) I always say what I think. But I don't feel any need to be consistent, and I don't try to reconcile what I've said before with what I'm saying now. I agree with Emerson that "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."
"At our meeting at the Baumann Institute in May, you stated that the 'no thought' state that i had described was the ultimate and that you were trying to achieve it. This is a pretty dramatic reversal…what changed?" -GW
I said it was "the ultimate"? I doubt that. That's very uncharacteristic of the way I speak and think. However, that is a quibble. Yes, I was very intrigued by your description of your thought-free condition and wanted to try it. And, yes, I considered it to be an impressive attainment and said so to many people, including at the meeting in question. I considered the possibility that the thought-free condition might be the next logical (ninth) stage on the hierarchical map of awakening that I was creating.
From time to time, I like to cross-train with a teacher from another tradition. Usually, I choose a dead teacher, but in this case, I was studying your method and embracing your ideology. It's my pattern to go into these things wholeheartedly; that's how I learn. So, I immersed myself into the quest for the thoughtless state for roughly a year. Recently, just after the Baumann Foundation meeting in May when you gave your presentation, something shifted for me; I reverted to the position I'd had a year earlier, when you and I had much back and forth regarding various ideals of enlightenment. In short, my current position is that while your condition is impressive, it is not the best or the only standard for awakening. More to the point, it is not, for me, a desired outcome. The fact that you continue to insist that your way is the best way reinforces my belief that you are missing something essential. I admire what you have done with your practice and like you as a human being. You are a remarkable yogi, a good friend, and a delightful person to be around most of the time. And... no thanks to your version of awakening.
"If you were unsuccessful, no surprise, and that is said w/no negative intent. How could someone who developed a program that rewards advancement and status, which strengthens the ego/I, surrender his ego and attachments to the extent required to have no 'self/I'"?
I have to smile when I read this kind of thing. On the one hand, it's consistent with your apparent position that other people are failed versions of you. In addition, your insistence on your lack of ego/I even as you work so hard to be seen as infallible, special, and wise is ironic. Ego is as ego does. Mind you, I see the same failings in myself, so at least you're in good company.
(continued below)
"As you said “enlightenment is what you want it to be”.
DeleteAll right, time to address this. You are really clear about this memory, so I do not doubt that you heard it. I doubt, however, that I said it, simply because I don't believe it now and didn't believe it then. Of course, it's possible that I mumbled or misspoke, in which case I apologize for the lack of clarity in the conversation. It's not that I don't change my mind, of course; I do that all the time. But this particular sentiment, that enlightenment (or anything else, for that matter) is "what you want it to be" doesn't make sense within the general context of human life as I understand it. There are natural constraints everywhere. I am a fierce critic of of The Secret (positive thinking book) for that reason.
As you say, I quoted Tarin Greco in that same conversation as having said, "You get what you optimize for." I often use memorable quotes as discussion points and it doesn't always mean I endorse the quote without reservation. In the case of Tarin's comment, I like to go on to say that I would modify it somewhat; I would say that you get what you train for, always assuming that what you train for is within the realm of possibility. That is a big qualification and I consider it important. In the first place, training is required, meaning that wishful thinking is a waste of time. Secondly, with regard to our contemplative development, we are constrained by the laws of nature as well as what we bring to the table. To say that enlightenment is not a one-size-fits-all affair is not the same as saying that enlightenment is whatever you want it to be. Unless you can produce the tape recording, please stop quoting me as saying that. Consider the possibility that you mis-heard or misunderstood.
"You have the enlightenment model that gives you what you want, including the suffering." -GW
Evaluating suffering across individuals is tricky. Do I suffer more than you? Or less? I don't know. Should we argue about it, try to convince each other that we are superior in the not-suffering department? Seems silly.
"re your not practicing/teaching the Bodhisattva Vow, see 'kennethfolkdharma.com' talk 'NYC Talk: Outcomes'. At 06:46, you contrast the detachment of Theravada with the Bodhisattva Vow (#3 in blogpost) which the Mahayanas came up w/to deal with this problem. It becomes the main theme for the discussion." -GW
It's good to be able to make the distinction between discussing something and formally teaching or practicing it. As I said, I discuss the Bodhisattva Vow, but don't formally teach or practice it.
"The tenth of the Ten Oxherding Pictures (05:29), in Reps, says nothing about 'with help bestowing hands', and no mention of 'presumably feeling the pain'. In fact the third line goes '…I am ever blissful.'" -GW
The captions to the Oxherding Pictures were not originally written in English, so all English versions are translations. A quick Google search yields at least four variations on the phrase in question, including:
"with bliss-bestowing hands"
"with gift-bestowing hands"
"with help-bestowing hands"
"with arms hanging loose"
I used the help-bestowing hands version because it is the one I like best and the one that best supported the point I was trying to make at the time.
"re the discussion on Mother Theresa; it would be worth your reading her bio. The situation is different from what you heard." -GW
Fair enough; it's probably a good read.
(continued below)
"The Five Vows of Tozan – Wikipedia has an overview that disagrees w/your statements." -GW
DeleteThe Five Vows of Tozan is a teaching device. As such, it is open to many interpretations. Is the Wikipedia version the final authority? Not for me.
"re your 'I never said that' wrt 'Enlightenment is whatever you want it to be', which you said to me on 10/26. At (26:51), you will hear wrt enlightenment, 'The outcome is different depending on your values.', which is basically identical. you will also hear from AF’s Tarin Greco, 'you get what you optimize for'."
You see "the outcome is different depending on your values" as identical with "enlightenment is whatever you want it to be'? Hmmm... I don't. You and I must think very differently.
"The outcome is different depending on your values" means that you will choose practices consistent with your values and therefore train your brain in a particular direction. This is consistent with observable reality; yogis don’t look more and more alike the more enlightened they get. People are unique, each with their own manifestation of awakeness.
"Enlightenment is whatever you want it to be," on the other hand, would mean that there are no constraints; if you want, you can sprout wings and fly to Cabo San Lucas. You can create world peace by waving your hand, or make water into wine. It's ridiculous. I don't believe it now and I didn't believe it in May. Let's move on.
Unfortunately, Kenneth’s response to this came back as four full reply screens, which makes posting and replying to them unreasonable.
DeleteKenneth also ends the last screen w/”Let’s move on”, indicating that he is discontinuing the discussion. As many of the “explanations” for the inconsistencies and factual inaccuracies are, IMHO, illogical and misleading, it’s not OK to just let them stand unquestioned, which may have been the intent.
So we’ll just “move on” from where we were and “let go” of all of this.
Kenneth included quotes from his followers to show just how unhappy they were w/the questioning. The full thread is @ http://kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/thread/5046831/Gary+Weber+Weighs+in+on+MCTB%2FKFD+Practices+vs+Direct+Path+Methods?offset=0&maxResults=20.
Why not let your readers decide how "illogical" and "misleading" Kenneth's thoughts are instead of censoring them?
Delete"Trust this is helpful."
Hi der Augenblick,
Deletei think that would be a fantastic idea and is the excellent, and expected, question. There are many of those comments i would love to discuss.
The one who is causing what you call "censoring", is Kenneth. If he would put his comments into one reply screen so they can be handled, like everyone else, including myself, does, and then agrees to open up the discussion going forward, i would welcome the opportunity.
stillness
gary
Gary, I replied in depth to your comments. It took considerable time and effort do do so. As there is a maximum allowable character count for replies here on your blog, I was obliged to divide my response into four chunks. I hope you will reconsider and publish my responses here. You will then be at liberty to discuss those of my comments that you "would love to discuss" and remain silent on the rest if you choose. It will also give your readers a chance to weigh in. As for my "let's move on" comment, it is best presented in context, like the rest, and has nothing to do with a desire on my part to have my comments suppressed or to abort the conversation. Best to publish it as written and let the readers draw their own conclusions.
DeleteIn addition to the four-part response to one of your comments, I also submitted a stand-alone response to your comment about compensation. Where is it? And what would be your rationale for withholding it?
Gary,
DeleteComments have a character limit. I've had the same problem on other blogspot blogs. That's why Kenneth is forced to break his posts up. Anyway, I hardly see why that's a reason not to approve the posts.
Also, it seems like you're taking things out of context that Kenneth has said and then using them in the service of a straw-man. It's hard to see what the purpose of that is. It seems that if Kenneth is taking the time to debate you on this stuff, it's only because he thinks there's ample common ground to be had between your positions. Why not extend him the benefit of the doubt instead of insisting he means something it's pretty clear he doesn't mean?
Jim
Hi Kenneth,
DeleteIf you're willing to let the discussion proceed then i'll go ahead and put the four submissions up asap. That was the big question. i believe that a reasonable folk would read your last sentence of the four replies and given no other info, conclude as i did that you were restricting further discussion.
re your insistence on using the four posts, that is unfortunate, as it does make following the posts very difficult, but since you won't do it, that is what it is, and we'll publish it. you are the only person who has ever refused to meet the reply limits, the only one.
On the "stand alone" comment on compensation, that was not intended as a "stand alone", but as part of the string above, again due to the way the post laid out w/your earlier multiple submissions on one theme.
In all honesty, when i read that submission, i withheld it out of concern for you. IMHO, it felt like an "impulse", did not "read" well, and was unrelated to the string, and i wanted to give you the opportunity to pull it back before i published it. If you came back and really wanted it posted, i would do it.
As you want to go ahead, resubmit it and i'll post it asap. you may not believe this, but i have only held back two posts since i started the blog; this one was out of friendship.
stillness
Usually people censor responses because they fear embarrassment; they worry that the post will cast them in an unfavorable light. You are asking us to believe that you had other, more noble or more practical motives.
DeleteYou say that you withheld the four-part post because it was in four parts, and that was "unreasonable." Perhaps you were unaware that your blog format imposes a character limit and that a long post must be submitted in parts.
You also say that you didn't want to post my four-part response because I was "restricting further discussion" by writing "let's move on" at the end of my post. Thus, you are asking us to believe that you feel you need my permission to continue a discussion on your own blog.
You say that you withheld publishing another of my responses out of concern and friendship for me.
OK.
In any case, I have re-submitted the post in question. For future reference, please don't censor my responses out of friendship or for any other reason. You and I will still be friends in spite of any online disagreement we may have. As for me, as a multi-year veteran of online dharma discussions, I'm used to saying what I feel even at the risk of annoying people, crushing people's projections of my alleged sainthood, or embarrassing myself by being too human. Welcome to the rough and tumble world of open online dharma, which is postmodern by its very nature; you have to be willing to let people look under the hood. Otherwise, the internet is not the right venue for you. A more authoritarian style in which you can control the image and the message is better transmitted via print books or blogs that don't allow comments.
By the way, if Blogger is like Wordpress, you can configure it to automatically approve posts from someone who has been approved in the past. This feature could save you a lot of work if it is available on your platform.
Thanks for posting all this. Very instructive about human nature and our attempts to engineer ourselves...
DeleteHi Kenneth,
ReplyDeleteTrust you and Beth had a great Thanksgiving.
As we discussed earlier, am in Atlanta w/kids and grandkids; both daughters and both grandkids are going through some difficulty now, one daughter a lot, and i've been focusing on them as i don't get to see them "in person" as we live so far apart. Am driving back in a few minutes, and it's about 700 mis so don't know if i'll get a chance to respond today, but will asap, hopefully either tonight or tomorrow morning.
An interesting trip, esp. as grandson is going through the "war" stage many boys go through, and his mother/my daughter, is really concerned about it. As it "danced", serendipitously, we went to the Civil War museum. As Atlanta was so terribly decimated by the Civil War, they had many excellent exhibits of just how terrible war can be for both soldiers and civilians, in what was one of the bloodiest wars in history.
i do a lot w/my grandkids, and we do all sorts of "plays". i quickly, and naturally fall into the "child" role, and we play as much as possible, as equals. The fascinating thing that manifested is that i ended up as the prisoner, and they as the jailers, and the hours and days long "play", which unfolded was a wonderful way to see and to demonstrate to them just how quickly that power situation leads to torture, abuse, etc.
As i spent 5 years in nuclear submarines during Vietnam War, after a Navy scholarship which enabled me to attend a university, i got a chance to see what war is "up close and personal". Seven of my small group of "military training" classmates who went to the Marines were dead soon after they arrived in Vietnam. my submarine had a horrendous underwater collision and we very nearly lost everyone. my best friend from submarine school died w/all of his shipmates when his ship was lost off the Azores. war is a bad thing; hard to understand why we can't learn that.
Anyway, will respond asap.
stillness
gary
Hi Gary,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the update on the grandkids and the thoughtful reflections on war and power. It reminds me how little has changed as we human primates have moved from the savannah to the farm, and then to the city. Our neurological hardware is largely the same as it was 200,000 years ago. On this Thanksgiving weekend, I feel grateful for our ability to upgrade our operating systems through our meditation practice; this gives me a glimmer of hope for the future of mankind and for each of us as individuals. A friend just sent me an article about collective intelligence, which offers another interesting avenue for hope:
http://edge.org/conversation/collective-intelligence
No hurry on the response; drive safely and we'll look forward to hearing from you after you get back home.
All best,
Kenneth
“Enlightenment is whatever you want it to be”, “The outcome is different depending on your values."
ReplyDeleteGary, thanks for hosting this discussion. It's hard to see how you could find these statements "basically identical." The first is nonsensical, the latter is clear.
Over at KFD you would find many, many detailed accounts of practice, recorded in careful phenomenological terms, in some cases over years, of how different practices have led to different kinds of awakening. This is evidence-based meditation.
As someone else pointed out on KFD, many of the MRI subjects in studies you have referenced elsewhere were Vipassana practitioners, some in the Mahasi/noting tradition. The outcomes are relatively concrete.
"Kenneth included quotes from his followers to show just how unhappy they were w/the questioning."
It would be interesting to speculate on what you mean by "followers," but I'm sure any unkind intent would only be my projection. Nevertheless, I don't see anyone expressing unhappiness in that thread. I see a lot of statements explaining how you've misrepresented Kenneth's teaching. Since many of your clarifications here reference podcasts or snippets of conversations, perhaps you could research more thoroughly before publishing criticism.
Hi Jason,
ReplyDeleteThe comment of those statements being "basically identical", is how they would be treated in "my world" of nonduality/advaita. There are several related verses in the Bhagavad Gita on this topic, but since you are Buddhists, we can go with the latter.
re practices and fMRI studies of experienced Vipassana practitioners, am well aware of those. i was the first "non Theravadan" scanned in the Yale investigations. Six of us were invited to be in a Brain Gang, including Kenneth, to discuss our results and then come up w/potential steps of awakening. As far as i know, that has not yet been published.
my impressions of Vipassana, and the Mahasi/noting tradition, is based on the results, not my experience doing the processes. As described earlier, i have worked w/very experienced folk from these traditions, and they have similar areas to work on if they are going to reach a "nondual" state. Not all decide to, or are successful in pursuing that.
re your concern about "followers", give me a term that would work for the KFD folk. The folk who followed Buddha's or Christ's teachings were/are Buddha's/Christ's followers. They didn't/don't seem to mind the term.
re my "research", those podcasts were presented on a page entitled "Podcasts/Teachings". Many of the statements in the one discussed were simply factually incorrect, in one case completely the opposite of the other teaching, which was discovered by simple research.
If you want to see some of the fMRI research on the experienced Theravadans, you can go to "Folk Who Meditate Decrease Mind Wandering" "http://happinessbeyondthought.blogspot.com/2011/11/folk-who-meditate-decrease-mind.html".
Surprisingly, psychedelics produce virtually the same "mystical" outcomes in what looks like the same way; you might find "the latest psychedelic research...new meditation +/- psychedelics studies" "http://happinessbeyondthought.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-latest-psychedelic-researchnew.html", interesting. Follow-on studies w/the same protocols as in the Brewer paper on Theravadans are starting on experienced meditators, as well as novices.
Stillness
gary
I think one of the core questions in following a path or teaching is "does it help make sense of your experience?" When I first tried meditation, I really struggled and had trouble making sense of it. My expectations where filled with all sorts of ideas about peace, quiet, and stillness, yet when I tried to meditate my experience was this world of chaotic, vibrating craziness. It wasn't until a friend gave me an early copy of MCTB in 2003 or 04 that I had a framework that made sense to me, and I could start to truly build a practice. I would strongly object to the idea that I was "scripted" by the book. There was at times temptation to twist my current experience onto the later stages of the maps offered, but there was always the ultimate check and balance of being present with what was really arising. I don't see how this problem of wanting to be further along is unique to these guys - you bring up zen which has the levels of awakened and not awakened, and definitely has hierarchy!
ReplyDeleteThere are many ways to approach awakening, and I think it is key early on is to find a practice that puts some structure on the mystery so you can explore more deeply. I too tried "stopping my thoughts" in my early, fruitless meditation. I'm kind of confused what the point of this essay is, other than you saying "something else worked for me." Great! Go forth and help others awaken, especially those students for whom your teachings, systems, recommendations help. But I think there is a more useful conversation to be had doing a compare and contrast to paths to attract and empower students who you could help, rather than publish an (apparently) adversarial take on other people's teachings unless you truly find them flawed or fraudulent.
Last feedback: I have received generous support and guidance from both Daniel and Kenneth over the years, and have never paid them. Both teachers have vigorously challenged me when I've reported a major change in experience with a push to see it clearly, the charge that enlightenment is whatever you want it to be couldn't be further from my exp with these communities.
Selah.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selah
Hi Gary,
ReplyDeleteFollowing this blog post and reply reminds me of two teenagers sitting in the same room texting each other instead of looking up from their phones and talking :) Why don't you and Kenneth set up a time to skype, discuss all of this stuff, and post the video?
From what I have seen of Kenneth Folk, he is a scam artist.. For any "newbies" out there take a little help from someone with meditation experience in the Mahasi Sayadaw method under 'legitimate' teachers in the lineage, STAY AWAY FROM KENNETH AND DAN INGRAM!
ReplyDelete