Stages, Part the Third

"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..."-Roomy

Kate, you seem to railing against something no one has said. Can you be more specific about which comments you are refuting?

"The Actual Freedom puzzle comes increasingly into focus for me and I am able to see better how it fits into the overall picture of contemplative practice. Nonetheless, the mode of perception he is pointing to is a natural and harmless one and is in no way antithetical to developmental enlightenment. In fact, what I would call the "direct" mode of perception (the "PCE" or "pure consciousness experience"), arises spontaneously for many yogis, can and should be cultivated, is neither new nor strange, and may in fact be exactly what "direct path" teachers like Adyashanti and Eckart Tolle are teaching. In other words, the PCE is what I call a 3rd Gear practice."

-- I think it was this, compounded by a discussion that seemed to circle around the desirability of not experiencing emotions. And then, mu's last post was edited to the point of being so cryptic that I couldn't make anything of it at all. As a response, I made my point over-forcefully, apparently.

as a PS to Chris-- sorry to have jumped all over your thread, man. It shouldn't be all about me.

"As a response, I made my point over-forcefully, apparently."-Roomy

OK, but I don't see where you have made any point at all. You have simply beaten up a straw man of your own creation.

Some of us, including me, have recently criticized another online community for promoting a crab-bucket culture. But no one ever sets out to create a crab bucket; it always starts with a group of like-minded and well-inentioned individuals who believe they know what is and what is not possible. Authoritative texts and established traditions are often cited to support the ideas of the members, who as a group become increasingly entrenched in their collective view. This can happen anywhere. It can happen here if we let it.

Do you really know for sure that Tolle is clueless and/or that the PCE is a mirage? I don't. In fact, the more I practice the direct mode of perception, the more convinced I am of its value. I offer as anecdotal evidence the fact that I have not felt inspired to verbally assault anyone online or otherwise for over a week. Really though, there's so much more than that; I am experiencing a way of being in the world that I did not know was possible. I feel at peace with myself and others. Is there any possible criterion by which that could be considered bad?

I am not pretending to know anything definitive about this. Not needing to know is part of what allows me to maintain the direct perception mode, and as I wrote on The Toll Booth thread, it's a good trade-off; I give over my need to know along with my defensiveness and I get peace in return. Don't you want to try it?

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.-- what I said.

What I meant-- I was trying to make a distinction: not that Tolle is clueless, but that I personally don't find him interesting; not that Adyashanti is not useful, but that he is a person who practices-- pretty much straight-up Zen, far as I can tell. And that I don't feel that AF is in the same league as any of the above. I don't know from PCE, pro or con; I guess I'm unconvinced that the three people you include in this group have the same goal, the same method, or the same understanding.

I'm glad this conversation is taking place here. That's why I keep bringing things up myself. I still have hundreds of questions that remain unanswered, among them one that says,"Why not just teach everyone the direct perception method and be done with it?" What value is there in any developmental work if the answer is that simple and.... direct?"

Also, I still would liek to hear Kenneth explain how his experience of direct perception compares to his previous experiences with what we used to call "rigpa" about a year ago. Is it the same? If it's not then how do we define 3rd gear more generally?

The jury is out, IMHO. I'm working with the direct perception practice so I can speak from experience because what seems to happen is the following:

A: The PCE is the real thing, the end of suffering.
B: That's crazy. All you're doing is suppressing your emotions. You're not allowing yourself to be human.
A: You don't know and can't speak to it because you haven't tried it.

So we end up with a conundrum as this thread now attests to. Thank God the PCE isn't a felony because I haven't committed a felony, either, yet I know I don't want to

"I am experiencing a way of being in the world that I did not know was possible. I feel at peace with myself and others. Is there any possible criterion by which that could be considered bad?"

I could take Prozac

Seriously, I think that view has become a rallying cry in these parts, and that makes me cautious. I'm not alone and I'm not sure how to deal with it most effectively.

"I am experiencing a way of being in the world that I did not know was possible. I feel at peace with myself and others. Is there any possible criterion by which that could be considered bad?"

Kenneth, I'm really glad you're conducting the experiment. One possible criterion that comes to mind is simple truth. As in, is this perspective of peace with the world based on direct experience of it as it really, truly is? Or, is this perspective of peace with the world based on direct experience of a PART of it as it really, truly is....in which case, presumably at some point the other parts are bound to re-emerge, and perhaps not so peacefully.

"
"

B: That's crazy. All you're doing is suppressing your emotions. You're not allowing yourself to be human.

But I'm still human. Why does "being human" have to be set in stone as someone who HAS to have mental reactions to sensations, which essentially is what an a formation or emotion is, right? I'm still human, just a lot more chilled out and less reactive. Life has improved, even though post 4th path, it improved a a hell of a lot anyway. Now it's so effortless to shift into whatever mode. Due to my past conditioning it is effortless.

I now realize I used to do the direct method for years while being a part of the Goenka tradition (but I would centre all my focus on the sensations/vibrations that would trigger mind states and thought patterns, usually at the chest or throat.). Looking back I got up to the 11th nana quite a bit. But I had no idea what I was doing and no idea about the maps and no idea that I was not disembedding from the more mental of phenomena. I think this practice allowed me to progress in the developmental way to a very high degree. I really think it was why when i switched to noting, I took off very quickly as the work I did (which seems to me to be the one and same direct mode) really primed me for it.

I don't think its suppression of emotions although i can see that some might take it as such . I see it as just looking at them. You are seeing they are sensations. If thought patterns and mind states don't arise because you are observing the sensations that triggered them, well they don't arise. When i came here to KFD, I had some interactions on a certain thread on the sweeping methods of Goenka and I was surprised to hear people disagreeing with the idea of not reacting to sensations. I developed a lot of equanimity and mental power because of it.
kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/thread/36...pared+and+Contrasted

I had trained myself to do so and I had gained a lot of benefit from it. Why do we need to have that blind reaction there if it is possible to change it? Sure we can accept when those things arise, and we have tools to objectify them (noting) but if they dont arise because of a certain practice then it's in our make up to be able to do so. So why not?

As I said before, Nick, this is **a lot** about terminology. It is being presented as if "emotions are bad." I'm not saying that's right, btw, I'm just saying that's the way it's coming across. There is a trade-off being presented that makes some of us think a little more than others. I hope you can see that.

Chris Marti was in Modesto briefly yesterday and made sure to take the time to hang out with my wife and I.
I had a great time and was very touched.
He is even better-looking in person.

It's true! (Except for the good looking part)

Mike, thanks for your hospitality last night. It was very much appreciated and I hope you and your beautiful wife got at least some sleep.

Some more thought's about Kenneth's third gear expereiment relevant to this thread.

Kenneth seems to be saying at present 2 things

1) 3rd gear is letting everything be as it is
2) 3rd gear is grounding any splitting off of emotional energy in the body

The first of these is about choicelessness and inclusion and is about being directly with whatever is regardless of what of what that is - this is what I think K refers to as rigpa. In my personal experience this practice is about not making any judgement whatsoever about what you are experiencing, including perhaps most fundamentally whether you are suffering or not. If you think think if you feel feel, if you hate hate if you love love. In my experience this leads directly to insight or prajna and addressed what the buddha called the veil of advidya or fundamental ingnorance.

The second method involves choice and will and can never in that sense be purely non-dualistic. I think it employs a method to return to a place of non-division which is may from moment to moment make rigpa more available because the karmic propensities which distract from the natural state are prevented from arising. In some ways this could be said to be kind of shamata practice. It keeps reactivity or negativity in check and works at the level of defilements or klesha. When these kleshas are in check the mind can relax in its natural state.

I think a 3rd gear practice is actually continual dynamic movement between the two. Rigpa becomes possible when the full blown kleshas are absent, though is possible when they are merely germinal as body sensation or a thought with negative content. However, the rigpa is not just a body practice. When the klesha has subsided the whole of expereince has to become available again

ctd I think this is what Nick is pointing at when he says the goenka body sweeping method is effective at reducing negativity but not so efftective at leading to insight and when he included the whole of his experience he made more progress.

Years ago I was taught 'just sitting' was both a shamata and vipassana practice, and in some ways this is true. Talk of resting in your natural state is a pointer that invites us to let go the same as the pointers that are used in 1st gear. Fundamentally the process is the same and leads to the same place whichever gear you use. Hui-neng said shamata and vipassan are one. This is reflected in my expereince of 3rd gear. The meditator becomes more and more intuitive until both the shamata and vipassana aspects of the practice become unified and effortless - this is 3rd gear proper.

In terms of suffering the vipassana aspect addresses the root suffering that comes from ignorance while the shamata aspect which Kenneth is advocating in his expereiment addresses the karmic, psycholgical which grows from that.

Hi Richard,

What I am describing as direct perception is not rigpa by any of the various definitions I've heard of rigpa. My own favorite definition of rigpa is Tulku Urgyen's: recognition of "cognizant emptiness" in this moment. Direct perception isn't that. It also is not Daniel Ingram's (I'm paraphrasing and interpreting) "I am an arahat and therefore whatever I am experiencing must be rigpa."

Direct perception is just remaining undivided in this moment. There is a very specific way that it feels, energetically. It's as though some fundamental distortion in the energy wave of experience straightens itself out. Or as though a tree branch that was bent or twisted and therefore under tension finally releases, leaving it free and whole, resting and moving naturally. As soon as that happens, you feel that you are "in," meaning you just fell back into place, having previously been somehow out of kilter. From this point of view of being "in," you don't experience any negativity. I realize this brings up all kinds of theoretical problems about conditioned states not being "it;" I am very familiar with the theory. On the other hand, this is not a jhana or a nana or anything so narrowly defined. It seems more accurate to call it a mode of perception than a state, although I won't quibble about that. The point is that from the point of view of this mode, it's possible to adopt the highest standards when defining suffering and not-suffering... standards that would not disappoint even the most die-hard sutta thumper. You don't have to do any kind of dancing or shoehorning at all. You can just sincerely ask yourself if you are suffering in this moment and give yourself a simple and honest answer. If the answer is "yes," you can ground the attention in the body until the universe straightens itself out again.

(cont from above)

It seems clear to me that my current ability to stabilize this practice rests upon the foundation of all the practice I've done up until now; I don't delude myself that everyone will be able to practice direct perception without considerable scaffolding and training. Cue the 3 speed transmission. If you can't get traction in 3rd Gear, you downshift. All of the thousands of hours of noting body sensations and mind states are exactly what makes it possible to instantly recognize the distortions in the energy/tactile body and apply attention there to heal and ground them.

I also want to make it clear that by this new, uncompromising and rigorous definition of suffering that I am presenting in this post, I have not been continuously free from suffering during the entire duration of this 10 and a half day old experiment. I have been free from anger and resentment, no question. But I have not been continuously and fully "inside the wave." That is more of a moment-by-moment affair, constantly adjusting and attuning to compensate for subtle energy disruptions.

This practice reminds me of Ajahn Chah. Somebody would crow about their attainments, and he would ask, "Are you suffering now? Then you still have work to do."

Kenneth, with all due respect and love for you as my teacher, it would be really, really valuable to get a robust and detailed description of your experience of the direct perception mode all in once place. Posting what amounts to exhortations, no matter how heartfelt, are not helping me at all. In fact, they are off-putting and appear to be coming from a different place than your previous teachings. You may not perceive them that way but it's as if you are challenging people who are being cautious or don't quite understand what's happened in your own practice, sometimes based on your own previous comments about the PCE. There is a sort of subtle calling them out on their doubts. Maybe you mean to do that. I don't believe you do but I'm really not sure at this point. I'm especially concerned about the representation that is being adopted in regard to emotions and the redefining of what last week was normal as a kind of sickness. Phrases like "pod person" are, IMHO, not helpful.

I agree with your last comment. What the PCE generates is not what my experience of "rigpa" has been. That is very helpful to me. It's different. Very different. The use of the term "3rd Gear" to describe direct perception is, in my humble opinion, somewhat misleading and confusing to folks. I don't think everyone understands that there are, still, deeper or more comprehensive aspects to 3rd gear beyond direct perception mode.

Maybe you can take the posts you just made here and make them the focus of a separate topic so that they get their just due and singular focus. They appear to me to be a more reasonable, less marketing-oriented version of recent comments you've made elsewhere here. The bar you use in your teachings has effectively been raised, it seems. That, I believe, requires a lot of explanation and patience. Please take that into account.

Sorry to be such a pain.

I agree with Chris.

There seems to be a lot of the direct mode talk on almost ALL the threads. It's getting confusing. Maybe we can have a singular thread to talk tis through and establish terminology and explain in minute detail what this is all about. If I was new to this place or even the "me" 4 months ago, I would be feeling startled by all the rapid changes and introductions going on. So for the benefit of those who stumble into this place and those who have already had this dumped on their lap, let's start reigning it all in to one spot so we can see it more clearly.

Nick

"There seems to be a lot of the direct mode talk on almost ALL the threads. It's getting confusing. Maybe we can have a singular thread to talk tis through and establish terminology and explain in minute detail what this is all about. If I was new to this place or even the "me" 4 months ago, I would be feeling startled by all the rapid changes and introductions going on. So for the benefit of those who stumble into this place and those who have already had this dumped on their lap, let's start reigning it all in to one spot so we can see it more clearly. "

I think the minute detail needed to establish terminology for "direct mode" might fall into some sort of ontological/philosophical category.

I also think Kenneth's metaphores (toll booth, dead man's switch, lightning rod) work perfectly for high pathers and new practitioners alike. This is also the style I saw in Eckhart's teachings. Very, very simple stuff.

However, I also see the need to clarify terms almost to the point of reaching scholarly discussion. I sure needed to do this last year. So, perhaps a balanced approach could work (simple metaphores + brief detailed commentaries)

"I think the minute detail needed to establish terminology for "direct mode" might fall into some sort of ontological/philosophical category.

I also think Kenneth's metaphores (toll booth, dead man's switch, lightning rod) work perfectly for high pathers and new practitioners alike. This is also the style I saw in Eckhart's teachings. Very, very simple stuff.

However, I also see the need to clarify terms almost to the point of reaching scholarly discussion. I sure needed to do this last year. So, perhaps a balanced approach could work (simple metaphores + brief detailed commentaries)"

Yes and in one spot...an article by Kenneth perhaps and less thread jumping.

Richard and Apriori, since you seem to have some familiarity with Vajrayana teachings: granted
1) that the direct perception mode, particularly as evoked in Kenneth's metaphors, is very similar to shamatha in Vajrayana-essence teachings like Dzogchen and Mahamudra and the shamatha-like facet of shikantaza,
and
2) that these are all different (as Chris has pointed out) from resting in the natural state (3rd gear proper) which is beyond the dualistic modes of shamatha and vipashyana,
then
where do you guys see the practices of 3rd gear vipashyana in this discussion?
Or also for Kenneth: granted that there is a distinction between direct perception mode and resting in the natural state and assuming you are at least willing to entertain the possibility that direct perception mode is a sort of 3rd gear shamatha, what if any sort of practice do you see in the 3rd gear Vipassana category?
Or do you even see this direct perception mode as a supportive practice for "3rd gear proper"? do you reject that formulation and are you saying effectively "forget resting in the natural state, rigpa, primordial awareness, what have you, THIS IS IT. This is the real 3rd gear." I'm not saying you are saying this, but it certainly seems to be coming off this way.
-Jake

Jake:

I think direct mode is different. It is not 3rd gear shamatha, 3rd gear vipassana or 3rd gear rigpa. Direct mode is not just pure, it is perfectly and naturally wise.

Direct mode, as described by kenneth, adds another quality. I love the "lightning rod" metaphore because it describes this perfectly. Direct mode grounds: it heals, it is a beautiful mode.

I think Trungpa Rinpoché called this "basic goodness". It is not just primordial awareness, its primordial goodness.

Why is direct mode "good"? Because it is imbued with primordial wisdom.
What is primordial wisdom? Knowing INSTANTLY that everything has been, is and will be empty, pure, lucid, transparent. Hence all poisons are actually pure, undefiled. All you need to do is connect with this truth DIRECTLY. Nothing must be in between. This is undivided.

How does one connect with this truth? With attention. This attention is not used to abide calmly, nor to reach access concentration. Its an instant "bridge" to primordial wisdom of everything. Primordial wisdom of anger, anxiety, suffering, etc.

This primordial wisdom has nothing to do with conceptual mind.

Thanks, Apriori, and thanks Chris for opening up this section of your thread to this important discussion. I feel what you're saying, Apriori, but I'm not sure. It seems to me-- just in my experience-- that there are methods which connect "directly" to deep reality, and there is deep reality resting as itself. The former involve attention, as you say, and operate in time, but in such a way as to set the conditions for flashing into the unconditioned. The just resting however doesn't happen in time, although it's tempting to try to see it that way as if something can lead to or away from it.
I also stand up strongly for the fact that in my experience, genuinely resting in the heart-awareness of reality radiates natural wisdom-compassion into time so to speak, without needing to set up compassion etc. Conceptual mind always wants one thing to lead to another, that's it's job, being pragmatic; non-conceptual wisdom automatically radiates as compassion and loving-kindness etc. Thanks again for the response, though I'm still not sure that we have all worked out the terminological stuff.
--Jake

I think direct mode is nice. Really nice. I personally want to be careful not to reify it. That's a lot of what's concerning me as I read the enthusiastic comments about it. I suspect, as so many of us have had some prior experience with it, this it not a new thing. We here have been introduced to it via Actual Freedom, which appears to me to be as much a philosophy (albeit a cultish looking one) as it is a practice. So our initial reaction tends to be negative. Direct mode, it seems to me, is another way to experience the world. It's got some really great attributes but I'm hard pressed to call it a living NIrvana.

We get a lot of context in our practice, from a tradition, from a particular teacher, from books, from articles and blogs. I still believe way deep down in my heart that we're all dealing with the same substrate (the mind) and the same phenomena. Access to direct mode isn't a hugely difficult thing to obtain, so it cannot be brand spankin' new, folks. I suspect it's got other names in other traditions. It is the dropping of conceptual mind and letting go of it, letting he immediacy of sensory experience and the energy flow and natural grounding of the body take precedence.

And again, I think it is valuable to be able to practice this mode and to experience the world in that way but it's not appropriate and not fair to create a spectrum of modes of existence that are tinged with labels and concepts like "good" or "bad." Experience is just that, experience. It is not good, it is not bad, it just IS.

Peace!