Stages, Part the Third

Interesting times here, eh? I think there are some very deep and very important issues at play for those of us who believe in awakening in this lifetime. We need to ask ourselves what we mean when we use the word "suffering," and then when and if we ever agree on just what that word means, do we really want all our suffering to end? Do we know what "the end of all suffering" really means? I'm not sure.

Here, you see, we come to a vast and interesting historical dichotomy in Buddhism, if not more widely in our general philosophy of life. Do you end your own suffering once and for all, or do you follow something akin to the Bodhisattva Vow? Or... is it possible to have your cake and eat it, too?

I sense a trade-off. The lady or the tiger?

Perhaps this 'dichotomy', like so many others, is a kind of conceptual artifact with a limited usefulness. A usefulness that-- it seems to me-- practice carries us well past. My own sense of matters, for quite a long time, now, is that awakening has meant understanding that I don't need to be at war with reality. The practice path that unfurls before me is all the opportunities to attack reality-- or to consider it, see what's needed, join forces. Likely outcome just gets clearer and clearer all the time.

Or maybe I've just gotten too old to keep struggling and striving. My lack of struggle, strife / suffering does not mean that anyone else has to struggle, strive, or suffer to balance the scales. It also doesn't imply inertia or any absence of doing what needs to be done-- just no added friction.

Maybe the idea that compassion means sharing suffering goes back to all the iconography of that poor dude hung up on the cross-- for our sakes, so they said.

My sense of compassion is that it is merely an impulse of response to witnessing suffering, whether in oneself or in others. One could certainly still respond to others, when witnessing their suffering. If one wasn't suffering oneself, one could still do that, presumably. And if one was still suffering, one could still respond to suffering, just that one's time and energy would include one's own suffering....which is what most people HAVE to do. Unenlightenment means having no choice but to try and alleviate one's own suffering, doing so in ways that actually perpetuate it. In fact, I think the whole point, in some ways, is to NOT have to attend to oneself (at least not as much), and be open to others. And, if continuing to suffer were beneficial, then why would one try and help other people? Why would one call that suffering, at all? Dictionary.com lists definition number six, "to undergo or experience (any action, process, or condition): to suffer change." Isn't this what we're talking about? That in understanding the truth of things, one no longer must undergo or experience any action, process or condition?

I'm really a lot more curious about what folks think the word "suffering" means. Anyone? Is suffering the feeling of any emotion at all? Is it just the mental flittering around of the second arrow? What exactly does it mean to say that "I am not suffering now?"

I'm off to California for a few days and I'll be practicing direct perception mode during this trip, even as I get up in front of a crowd to speak tonight. Who knows? Maybe it'll cure stage fright

"
I'm really a lot more curious about what folks think the word "suffering" means. Anyone? Is suffering the feeling of any emotion at all? Is it just the mental flittering around of the second arrow? What exactly does it mean to say that "I am not suffering now?"

"

To me (at my distant vantage point) suffering equates to "friction", and my hope is that at the end of this journey I will have learned to move through life with significantly less, if not no, friction. I love roomy's phrasing here: "I don't need to be at war with reality". That's where I want to be, and to teach my kids to be, while we can still benefit from it.

Tom, is friction what happens when you don't like what's going on? Is it the mere feeling of your emotions or your reaction to them?

To tip my hand, I don't think emotions, by themselves, cause friction. I see emotions as part of my experience stream and they just are what they are. I can react to them in a way that causes friction. Emotions are objects, like trees, like my arm, like thoughts. I can choose the nature and the terms of how I interact with them. If I attach to them, they can cause problems by virtue of that reaction.

To me that is the definition of suffering.

Totally agree that emotions do not equate with suffering / being 'at war with reality'. Emotions are a part of reality; being good at some things and incompetent at others is part of reality; preferring to be calm but being reactive is part of reality. Suffering results from the silly idea that things being other than our preferences is WRONG and must be beaten into submission.

Here's a real-life homely example: 5 years ago, at my workplace there was this fiction that only incompetent employees made mistakes. When something went wrong, it was the manager's job to find out who was to blame and reprimand them and 'make sure it never happens again.' It drove me nuts and I groused about it. When I was made manager-- and I never saw it coming!-- the challenge was to steer practice in a different direction, incident by incident. The 'obvious' thing was always to find out who was to blame. What actually works is to find out HOW it happened and adjust practice accordingly, and to enlist the aid of EVERYONE to fine-tune practice. No losers; all winners. It is amazing the cumulative reduction of friction in the workplace. And of screw-ups, oddly enough.

I have a notion that this same posture of friendly objectivity works within oneself as well as inter-personally...

"

"

Yeah, if I check the difference between myself lately and in the past, there is an intuitive sense of less suffering now that is undeniable. But that less suffering trend goes as far back as I can see, with some important loop-de-loop caveats during child and adolescent development. There seems to be two inter-related processes involved. Process one is the unfolding of more nuanced modes of representing myself and my situation which can encompass more ambiguity and allow more considered inter- and intra-personal behavior. Call that maturity. Process Two involves an increasing capacity to live with authentic presence, instead of being trapped in my representations of self and world, however mature or dysfunctional those are. Those representations are themselves impermanent, empty authentic presence, but authentic presence goes beyond re-presentation by definition, is always fresh, never understandable or knowable, yet is the fountain of everything that arises and its very arising. Call that wisdom. Both processes alleviate suffering in the same way, not by adjusting circumstances but by opening me to the fullness of what is as it is. But-- maturity has built in limits since it's based on re-presentation and memory with never ending potential for more refined, integrated representations. Wisdom, natural authentic presence, seems to unfold a more timeless quality within and beyond conditioned experiences, a fuller dimensionality which includes conditioned states of satisfaction, dissatisfaction and indifference as well as of bliss, clarity and openness, accommodating them all with equality in a way that. representations are structurally incapable of doing. So same outcome, but with wisdom there is the paradoxical finality of ever-fresh beginning in complete unknowing while with maturity there is always an element of false finality, of confusion covering up with false certainty.
Great question, Chris!
-Jake

So what is it about merely remaining aware of the physical sensations that precede emotions that causes them no to arise?

"So what is it about merely remaining aware of the physical sensations that precede emotions that causes them no to arise?"

It really does seem impossible to believe that 'suffering' DOES NOT equal emotions. Emotions ARE their physical sensation. Our interpretation of what those sensations mean, and our secondary reactions to their 'meaning'-- THAT'S the special sauce that is suffering.

This doesn't really answer your question about how this works-- but given that it DOES work, who cares how?

As arcane as this may sound...

'Suffering' for me has to do with what I refer to in my own practice as 'blocks' or 'blockages'. Certain experiences get somewhat congested, resulting in that secondary, unnecessary experience we're referring to as suffering. In my opinion, based on my experience, going into such experiences is the only way to pass through them, and thus, the way to free up the block and alleviate suffering.

Over time, through the formation of wise habits and the disintegration of unwise habits, we experience suffering less and less. The fewer the blocks, the less the overall suffering. There are quantum shifts along the way, but a lot of the work is more gradual -- and rightfully so.

This work continues after the widely acclaimed '4th path' or 'end of seeking' that we talk about so often here. And I think that is why the Bodhisattva became the ideal of the Mahayana tradition. The goal isn't really to become a Buddha. Rather, the goal is to continue to participate in this process, as the Bodhisattva does, even after awakening.

Is there a once-and-for-all event that eliminates suffering forever? I doubt it. You never know what's around the corner - some novel experience that could throw you off. Therefore, the way of the wise is to practice, practice, practice.

I'm so glad that's what I see happening here

~Jackson

"So what is it about merely remaining aware of the physical sensations that precede emotions that causes them no to arise?"

Are you SURE they are not arising? At all? I think they are arising but being somehow suppressed or cut off at some very early stage in the process of perception, before they become what we call normal emotions or reactions. I can see them arising when I practice the direct mode. If I couldn't what good would that practice be? How would it work?

The question for me right now is "why is an emotion different from other objects in direct perception mode?

Let me rephrase it then

why does simply watching it cut it off?
why does this lead to the other "symptoms" of that mode?

"Let me rephrase it then

why does simply watching it cut it off?
why does this lead to the other "symptoms" of that mode?"

I was having a FB talk with Mr. Wilshire a couple of weeks ago. We were discussing a process that we started calling "pac-man," because the process felt like self-related suffering was swallowed up before it had a chance to cause real damage.
For me sometimes, most of the time (but not always) I stay in a "ready" state in which I am in the "nothing" state just before thought; I am easily disembedding from what does come up, and I have absoutely no expectations, requirements, agenda, or fixed idea about what may happen from the outside or the inside.
That all sounds long and complicated for a very simple practice. Anyway, when moving along that way most self-oriented activity just sort of disappears as soon as it appears. Pac-man.
(proto-emotions? I don't know)
I think it is because in that state of mind there is just no mechanism at work to stoke the fires and make the stuff really come alive. I guess I don't completely understand it but I really enjoy it. but I also enjoy losing control as Mike Monson too so I probably have a long way to go

"
Tom, is friction what happens when you don't like what's going on? Is it the mere feeling of your emotions or your reaction to them?

To tip my hand, I don't think emotions, by themselves, cause friction. I see emotions as part of my experience stream and they just are what they are. I can react to them in a way that causes friction. Emotions are objects, like trees, like my arm, like thoughts. I can choose the nature and the terms of how I interact with them. If I attach to them, they can cause problems by virtue of that reaction.

To me that is the definition of suffering.

"

Sorry for the delayed reply. It is the reaction to emotions, not the emotions themselves. Roomy's "special sauce". I do not want to be emotionless.

"Sorry for the delayed reply. It is the reaction to emotions, not the emotions themselves. Roomy's "special sauce". I do not want to be emotionless. "

Tom,

How does this strike you?

"I am distinguishing between full emotions (wax has broken off into full lava lamp blob) and proto-emotions (wax is distorted but whole). Full-on blobs are suffering. Proto-blobs are valuable purveyors of information without the suffering. When the energy is continuously grounded in the body via the lightning rod, full emotions do not arise and therefore there is no suffering. The emotional palette, though, is undiminished because you still have the distinct whiff of each flavor. I was noting mind states today together with a yogi and found that I had access to the full palette, including fear, anxiety, grief, annoyance, agitation, etc, but none of the proto-blobs broke off from the main body of wax, so the entire experience from my point of view was rich and whole, including a sense of compassion for the suffering of another. What I learned is that it is not necessary to suffer in order to feel the suffering of another. This seems to me a very important insight and supports Bruno's observation that from the point of view of direct perception mode, "'Pull up your pants and be a human,' (Puypabah) probably seems like a silly, emotionally-charged taunt."
-Kenneth from the Kenneth's Experiment thread

I'm having trouble defining all emotions as suffering. Sorry. That seems to be a moving of the goal posts all of a sudden. I'm not upset if people want to do that. I can see why they would want to and that's fine. But it's not the operating assumption we've used here on KFDh and I think that's for good reason. That said, after playing with the direct perception mode all day I can see it has value and it certainly allows for a more peaceful, quiet and less stressful existence. I'm still not quite sure what it is but I need to experiment more. By this I mean I'm not sure it's the end of suffering forever. I kind of doubt that but again, it certainly has its uses. And it's not foreign to me, either. I suspect a lot of yogis will say that.

BTW - my experience of today says this mode will not make you completely emotionless. It will dramatically lessen the amplitude of your emotions, however, such that you will be able to see them ion their very early arising but they will never take you on a roller coaster ride like they might otherwise have done. I have no idea how to distinguish this from what I already experience because since 4th path my experience of emotions was already different than before. There is, I think, a synergistic effect going on between these two things. Just a suspicion, though.

Honestly? I don't know if I want to live my life in the direct mode.

"Honestly? I don't know if I want to live my life in the direct mode.

"

You are definitely not making me want it. But I remain TBD. Oh, and I guess I should get SE first in any event, huh?

"Tom,

How does this strike you?

....wax.....the....I....noting....it...pants."

Otherwise, I am just not getting it. Sorry mu. I am a grade school student in a room full of PhDs. You guys duke it out and I'll come back later.

Yikes-- I just realized I jumped on the wrong bus. I somehow failed to notice that the premise here is that Actual Freedom, Eckhart Tolle, Adyashanti, and the Chan, Zen and Dzogchen great masters of the ages are 'saying the same thing', describing the 'same' practice leading to the 'same realization.'

I can no more agree with this premise than I can consider Eminem, Tiny Tim, and Paul Robeson to be equivalent as singers; or 'Fuzzy Wuzzy was a bear...' to be poetry, just like 'To be or not to be, that is the question...'

I'm afraid that this is the shadow side of 'enlightenment for the masses.' Truly, no one is INCAPABLE of awakening-- but that doesn't mean that practice isn't necessary to get to 'where you already are.' Most of us were born capable of walking, but it took both development and practice to become upright, bipedal human beings-- who can't really recall ever being stationary arm-and-leg-wavers.

To think the 'direct path' is just a conceptual understanding [or sometimes just the personal conviction that one understands] coupled with experiences that can be engendered by drugs, suggestion, or just a random moment of clarity-- is a direct path to a dead end. And there are some sad illustrations of this to be found obsessively commenting over at Alan Chapman's blog.

If I've ever sounded like I believe in being struck by the 'enlightenment fairy' as a shortcut around the unremitting practice of understanding my own life, moment by moment-- I owe you all an apology. I don't mean to imply that the process is just a hard slog, either: it's the full, glorious, horrible, not-to-be-missed 'catastrophe.'

"Yikes-- I just realized I jumped on the wrong bus. I somehow failed to notice that the premise here is that Actual Freedom, Eckhart Tolle, Adyashanti, and the Chan, Zen and Dzogchen great masters of the ages are 'saying the same thing', describing the 'same' practice leading to the 'same realization.'"

3 gears.

I don't think that is the premise.

It has been pointed out that this is much harder to do without development.

"3 gears.

I don't think that is the premise.

It has been pointed out that this is much harder to do without development."

I think I've not been as clear as I might: I don't think 'this is much harder to do without development'. I don't think it is POSSIBLE without development and practice. I would agree that 'development and practice' may take different forms for different individuals, and how long it could take before someone was living his or her realization in a matter-of-fact way, rather than practicing to stabilize the view-- that can vary, widely, even.

But I haven't seen anything that convinces me that Actual Freedom represents any sort of realization. Eckhart Tolle seems pleasant and innocuous enough, but doesn't really interest me. I've read enough of Adyashanti to know that his Big Bang was preceded by a long period of intense practice, under the guidance of accomplished and longtime practitioners.

So, someone would not be able to pay attention to the feeling of emotions on a somatic level as a practice and gain any insight whatsoever ?

Eckhart Tolle is just a harmless person with nothing to teach?

And adyashanti's methods, pointers, and teachings are bunk as well?

I agree that practice is needed but direct methods are practices too. A person could make a lot of progress followin either of those teachers. I also think the direct method thing Kenneth is working with now could be done by just about anyone, although it is much easier with a few paths under your belt. There are plenty of zen stories of awakening by hearing a sutra, but admittedly the development continues beyond the initial opening.

(edited to correct spelling)