Mahasi and Chah

I came upon an interesting article by Jack Kornfield where he speaks of his time with both the Mahasi tradition and his time with Ajahn Chah. He then looks at how they (Spirit Rock) tried to deal with the differences. Seems like what we are doing here is similar - trying to figure out how to integrate or reconcile these two types of practice.

"While they were both considered deeply enlightened, these teachers did not agree at all on what enlightenment was or how you attained it. In fact, they disagreed, each believing that the other was not teaching the real way to enlightenment."

Link:
www.spiritrock.org/download/BDH.Summer07.Kornfield.pdf

"When I went to Ajahn Chah's monastery, .. the main form of practice was to meditate a moderate amount '“ two, three, four hours a day '“ and then to practice the dharma of letting go of suffering as you lived in community. ..Ajahn Chah..spoke about nirvana as the 'unconditioned.' ...To free ourselves, we need to quiet the mind through some mindfulness in meditation. Then, instead of identifying with the changing conditions, we learn to release them and turn toward consciousness itself, to rest in the knowing. Ajahn Chah called this pure awareness, 'the original mind,' and resting in 'the one who knows.' ... The senses and the world are always changing conditions, but that which knows is unconditioned. With practice, we discover the selflessness of experience; we shift identity. We can be in the midst of an experience, being upset or angry or caught by some problem, and then step back from it and rest in pure awareness. We let go; we release holding any thought or feeling as 'I' or 'mine.' No problem needs to be solved."

"With Mahasi Sayadaw ... There wasn't any community practice; ... Everything you did was in the service of one thing: silent meditation. You would meditate for ten, fifteen, eighteen hours a day ...in order to have certain deep experiences in meditation that would transform greed, hatred, and delusion... I went to a Mahasi monastery and trained with a famous monk, Asabha Sayadaw, who was quite skillful in teaching meditation but nevertheless turned out to be a very problematic teacher. ...With his instruction, all kinds of cool things began to happen. My body would dissolve into light, and I had all kinds of classic insights into emptiness, just like in the old texts. My progress in insight grew, and my understanding of impermanence and emptiness deepened, and I thought, 'Wow, I know this is what the Buddha meant.' But then I'd look out from the window of my cottage ..and there he would be, Asabha Sayadaw, sitting with his feet up on the table, smoking his cigar and reading the paper, belching and yelling at the gardeners because they were doing the wrong thing, and throwing rocks at the dogs to get them to stay out of his garden. He obviously had deep meditation experiences, but by temperament and character he was a very coarse and, in many ways, not a terribly kind person. ... I'd look at him and say to myself, 'Oh my God, even though I'm grateful, I don't want to be like this person.'

Hi Chuck,
Thanks for the link, it is a very interesting article by Jack.

I didn't want to derail Josh's thread, so I'm posting this here in regards to what you posted there (AF people / Richard experiencing contractive as well as expansive states).

This was interesting to me, since I distinctly remember Tarin saying that in the AF condition there are no contractive states. so I asked him, and he said that indeed there are absolutely no contractive states in the AF condition (his exact words: " i dont experience anything that makes me either unhappy or worried, ever"). He also said that he spent many hours a day with Richard, over the course of many days, in remote as well as bustling, hectic (even chaotic) settings, yet never once saw him not happy and carefree. and that, to the best of his knowledge, no one else that he knows has either (and this he said from having had several long and candid private conversations with Richard's former companion of over 10 years, who was with Richard almost non-stop for that duration).

Hi Yadid,
I have no doubt that what you say is true. I think Richard is a very happy person indeed. I do not dispute his claims - only his interpretation of them. It will take some time for me to put all this information together. Stay tuned...
-Chuck

The Chah path as I have known it:
The path focuses on freedom from suffering, not on attainments. Nevertheless, I did experience the 4 paths, but in a way different from the Mahasi tradition descriptions. Each path was a big event that occurred only once. I cannot call them up like you do your fruitions. Each path was like an opening or shift that conveys experiential information. This information is not intellectual knowledge and it is life-changing. The nature of this 'information' is what the 10 fetters model is describing. Stream entry is known as the first taste of the deathless or the direct perception of emptiness - it is not experienced as anything like a blip.

The tendency from the Mahasi side may be to describe these things as A&P's but in what I am describing there is no sense of an observer as something distinct from what is experienced. It is more of an all inclusive knowingness that transcends time and space. I don't find any language from the Mahasi tradition that seems to describe these experiences.

3rd Path:
Like going over a cliff. The ego collapses. Not a temporary experience but rather a single permanent shift in my experience. The sense of ego is directly related to our clinging to form (body, thoughts, perceptions, etc) as a sense of self. When the form fetters are cut - this is the same as the ego collapsing - they are two ways of speaking about the same thing. What is left at this point, in the 10 fetters model, are the higher (formless) fetters. This still leaves one with a sense of 'I am' - but not in relation to any perceivable form. So descriptions are like 'I am this emptiness' or 'I am one with God' (pick your tradition).

4th Path:
The formless self identity collapses. Something like 3rd, it is another big shift. But the nature of the shift is quite different and quite unexpected. Some qualities are immediately evident:
- the world of 'things' simply disappears in a flash - not to return - leaving a sort of panoramic experience.
- there is vastness, no sense of self whatsoever.
- there is a natural sort of surreal beauty to phenomena - particularly of nature but even fire hydrants, cars, etc.

Other qualities arise over time:
- personal will collapses: this is what I believe is behind the view that arahats can't work.
- there is a strong desire or pull towards stillness and solitude. The desire to escape into the wilderness is very strong.
- those annoying, irritating vibrations start showing up. They come in waves. The above mentioned qualities are also present - giving a strange sense of 'this is really irritating' and 'I don't want to go back to the way things were before' being present simultaneously. While at the same time both observations are immediately seen through as just thoughts passing through.

How do we explain my experience? Or that of Bernadette Roberts?, Adyashanti?
There may indeed be much overlap in qualities between the two approaches. I suspect that the further we go, the more they converge.

Ambiguous illusions:

From Wikipedia: "Cognitive illusions are assumed to arise by interaction with assumptions about the world, leading to "unconscious inferences". Cognitive illusions are commonly divided into ambiguous illusions, distorting illusions, paradox illusions, or fiction illusions.

1. Ambiguous illusions are pictures or objects that elicit a perceptual 'switch' between the alternative interpretations. The Necker cube is a well known example; another instance is the Rubin vase."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubin_vase

Could the two very different awakening experiences be a form of ambiguous illusion?

What if the path has this quality? There would need to be some kind of equivalent to figure and ground as seen in the Rubin Vase example. If there were, then once you have extensively trained to see things one way it may be difficult to see the other perspective. For example, if you see a vase and I see the silhouette of two faces then you will insist that I just don't get it yet and need to try harder or look more carefully. But the more I concentrate on the two faces, I will not see the vase. For that, it takes a different approach.

Mind/Temporal vs Body/Spatial

Mind/Temporal:
The intense noting practice of the Mahasi tradition focuses on strong concentration watching moment to moment - trying to 'break it' as Daniel has put it. Rather than look at or investigate ones experience you are trained to quickly note whatever is there. I am calling this a Mind or Temporal approach. The result being: seeing the nanas, fruitions, and other elements that this approach defines. A person awakening through this approach will naturally assume that these qualities that they see accurately define awakening and if someone else does not see them then they will assume that that person just doesn't have sufficient concentration yet or is not yet awakened.

Body/Spatial:
The open spacious approach of Ajahn Chah (for example)- which is also shared by some other schools, trains one to let go, relax, rest in basic awareness - I am calling this a Body or Spatial approach. Awareness is attentive yet broad, diffused, and relaxed - the body often used as a method of grounding. You don't just watch your experience, you become deeply involved with it - seeing how you can relax and let go and seeing how this process (the ability to change your experience) works.

A comparison:
Let's say you are in meditation and you get lost in a thought. In noting practice I am guessing that you would simply note 'thinking' and move on to note the next phenomena. In the body approach, you drop the thinking, relax around it (which may involve consciously relaxing parts of the body), perhaps smiling or attending tension in the face and head, and then go back to the object (attending, for example, an open spacious awareness of body energy) or simply open awareness, or attending to the sensations of peace, happiness, etc.

Different Focus = Different Experience:

I am convinced that these two approaches (Mahasi and Chah) lead to not only different definitions of awakening but also to very different experiences of stream-entry and the paths in general.

One way this difference is expressed is that paths are seen as attainments - something I did - in the Mind/Temporal approach (which is natural as one is actually trying to 'do' something) where as in the Body/Spatial approach the experience is as something dropping, collapsing, or falling away (because that is the essence of this practice - to let go).

Another way of looking at this is that we tend to describe where we are at in this process in terms of where we have been. Something like describing a journey by describing what you see out the back window. The language we use comes from the tradition that we have come through.

Reality is the suchness which allow both the vase and the faces their relative existence. So at some point we need to drop both - and from the beginning I think it would help if we can appreciate both - even if we choose to just work with one.

About time:
My experience of the paths unfolded over 14 years. I believe Daniel and Kenneth's are somewhere in that range. Bernadette Roberts - I think about 25 years, Adyashanti - I think about 15 or so.

Next, I will start looking at Actual Freedom. This isn't a hit piece on AF but an effort to place it in its proper context - as I see it. If you haven't been through the irritating vibrations then you may not agree with me. Which is why I need to first build this foundation.

-Chuck

Ajahn Chah: "The Buddha taught to be above the world, which means knowing the world clearly. By 'the world' he did not mean so much the earth and sky and elements, but rather the mind, the wheel of samsāra within the hearts of people.

We are living in this world. The Buddha wanted us to know the world. Living in the world, we gain our knowledge from the world. The Buddha is said to be lokavidū, one who knows the world clearly. It means living in the world but not being stuck in the ways of the world, living among attraction and aversion but not stuck in attraction and aversion. ... This is how the Buddha taught. In this way we can dwell in a natural state, which is peace and tranquility. If we are criticized, we remain undisturbed. If we are praised, we are undisturbed. Let things be in this way; don't be influenced by others. This is freedom. "

An imaginary dialog between Richard (AF) and Ajahn Chah:

Richard believes that he was enlightened and then went beyond that to AF. In order to make such a statement it stands to reason that somehow he determined that he was enlightened in the first place which would mean that he holds specific views on what it means to be enlightened. I have collected some of his statements from his website and have added some quotes from Ajahn Chah (from the Thai Forest Tradition) to create an imaginary dialog between the two of them. I did some editing but the words are theirs. I don't feel I have distorted their views though obviously this short dialog cannot fully represent their views. Start it off, Richard!

Richard: "The state of Enlightenment is not only venerated as a permanent state of Godliness and blissfulness, but it is regarded as necessary in order to be able to achieve a final release from the endless miserable cycle of re-birth upon physical death into an '˜other-worldly' Greater Reality."

Richard: "The means to achieve Enlightenment is to dissociate from the physical world through the practice of meditation and '˜right thinking' such that one can eventually transcend the physical world of the senses and tune into a Greater Reality.

The fashionable practice of meditation, sitting silently and retreating from the world of the senses, is a means of dissociating from the physical world and retreating into an imaginary '˜inner' world where feeling and fantasy are free to run riot."

Ajahn Chah: "This mind of ours is already unmoving and peaceful... really peaceful! Just like a leaf which is still as long as no wind blows. If a wind comes up the leaf flutters. The fluttering is due to the wind'”the 'fluttering' is due to those sense impressions; the mind follows them. If it doesn't follow them, it doesn't 'flutter.' If we know fully the true nature of sense impressions we will be unmoved.

Our practice is simply to see the Original Mind. We must train the mind to know those sense impressions, and not get lost in them; to make it peaceful. Just this is the aim of all this difficult practice we put ourselves through."

Richard: "The Eastern religious fervour for worshipping mortal men and women as immortal Gods is an affront to intelligence that does nothing but perpetuate human misery, suffering and enslavement to ancient fears and ignorance. Any chance of an actual peace on earth is readily and eagerly forfeited for an imaginary peace after physical death '¦ or, for the rare few, the chance to feel like God-on-earth.

Eastern spiritual belief has it that human existence on earth is a '˜necessary suffering' and that ultimate peace and fulfilment lies '˜elsewhere', after death.

The end-point for the spiritually minded is to be a point of bliss on the farthermost edge of some spiritual void which is located outside of the universe."

Ajahn Chah: "It is not that we have to die first in order to transcend suffering. We shouldn't think that we will attain this after death; we can go beyond suffering here and now, in the present. We transcend within our perception of things, in this very life, through the view that arises in our minds. Then sitting, we are happy; lying down, we are happy; wherever we are, we are happy. We become without fault, experience no ill results, and live in a state of freedom. The mind is clear, bright, and tranquil. There is no more darkness or defilement. This is someone who has reached the supreme happiness of the Buddha's way."

Richard: "The end-point of what I am speaking of is right here in this armchair in this house in the midst of the trees and the flowers and the grass ... right here in this physical world."

Chuck: "Hmmm, ummm, OK, so what exactly are we arguing about?"

Next up - it will take a while so comment as you wish - I want to look at how this thing unfolds - on beyond 4th - from several different views...

"Chuck: "Hmmm, ummm, OK, so what exactly are we arguing about?"
"

Transcend vs. Eliminate.

"Transcend: be or go beyond the range or limits of"

"Eliminate: completely remove or get rid of"

Often people in modern spiritual circles will say that suffering still arises after enlightenment (e.g. they will say that expansive and contractive states still arise), but one is able to see it as the transient phenomena it is, and thus is OK with it (or some other variation of this "OKness"). This I would call transcending. One goes beyond the suffering, but it is still there.

AF people clearly and unequivocally state that there is no suffering at all. This I would call eliminating. I find it completely unequivocal, there isn't any sort of vague indefinitions (such as "well we get rid of 'fundamental' suffering, but ...").

Of course, this is just based on the fact that Ajahn Chah used the word "transcend." This could be simply a cultural artifact, maybe he meant to say "eliminate." But does he use the expression "eliminate suffering," or some other synonymous unequivocal expression, in his work?

Perhaps Ajahn Chah is describing the practice which unfolds as transcending and then eliminating.

"Often people in modern spiritual circles will say that suffering still arises after enlightenment (e.g. they will say that expansive and contractive states still arise), but one is able to see it as the transient phenomena it is, and thus is OK with it (or some other variation of this "OKness"). This I would call transcending. One goes beyond the suffering, but it is still there.

AF people clearly and unequivocally state that there is no suffering at all."

First, I have to limit my discussion here on AF to what Richard describes regarding his experience. It is his descriptions that I can relate to and to try to bring in others views or understanding would get very complicated. If you remember the rigpa discussions that we had here sometime ago - it was clear that a number of people were using the same term though there experiential descriptions did not line up. Staying with what the AF founder is saying is for me the simplest way of working through this.

Expansive and contractive states are not suffering. Suffering is identification with these states as being me or mine. Ajahn Chah is speaking of transcending this identification process. I don't have any quotes from Richard regarding what is eliminated so can't comment on that. Send me some and I'll have a look.

Let's say I am out walking in the woods enjoying the beauty, the peace and quiet, chirping of the birds, etc. This is an expansive state. Along comes some guy that has read my writings and starts telling me how crazy, messed up, or full of it I am. This is a contractive state. None of us have any control over the coming and going of these. None of us can eliminate them. What changes is how we experience or react to them.

"Let's say I am out walking in the woods enjoying the beauty, the peace and quiet, chirping of the birds, etc. This is an expansive state. Along comes some guy that has read my writings and starts telling me how crazy, messed up, or full of it I am. This is a contractive state. None of us have any control over the coming and going of these. None of us can eliminate them. What changes is how we experience or react to them. "

Chuck,
When you write "contractive state" do you mean to say "contractive state of mind"? First you describe an external event occurring, and describe it as a "contractive state". Does this occurrence (someone misunderstanding or slandering me) always result in a "contractive state"?
From my discussion with Tarin, anyone saying anything to him never results in a contractive state of mind.

"Chuck,
When you write "contractive state" do you mean to say "contractive state of mind"? First you describe an external event occurring, and describe it as a "contractive state". Does this occurrence (someone misunderstanding or slandering me) always result in a "contractive state"?"

Hi Yadid,
Good question. These terms can be very confusing. By contractive I don't mean to imply something negative or emotional. Contractive simply means that it requires me to sort of focus-in (to respond to a person for example). I have to pay attention to what they are saying and think about what is the best way to respond to them. Expansive is sort of the opposite. My attention can be open and spacious as there is no need to focus-in. It is the clinging and aversion around these states which adds the positive or negative flavor to them - that is the suffering that is eliminated.

So changing conditions as we go through the day bring up the need to focus-in or the opportunity to focus-out if we wish. This is why I mention external events. I suppose I could choose to ignore someone and not respond to them - which is sometimes a good option - but generally it is more useful to focus-in and try to respond in a helpful way (imho).

Thanks for clarifying Chuck.
I'm happy you posted this thread, and I'd love to hear more of how you reached your current state of being.

Nice thread Chuck on an interesting series of comparative thoughts. While you are comparing approaches perhaps you would be interested to hear how I was drawn into all of this enlightenment business. From my earliest memories onward I was always driven to determine the truth of the nature of conscious existence and as I had no teachers or methods I simply observed carefully. It was in that manner that I determined, entirely independently, that the 3 characteristics were the only moment to moment commonalities of my experience. As some may already know, in adolescence I took up meditation in a very open minded and unpremeditated manner and with absolutely no expectations of what I would discover. I almost immediately passed through what I have since come to know are the eight classical jhana and into cessation. My impressions of cessation are somewhat at odds with those of some others, in my experience it is always a 'non-conditional reality' where everything conditionally knowable ceases to arise without remainder, characterized by an inexplicable (given the absence of consciousness) unsurpassable bliss and peace. There is simply nowhere to go and nothing remaining with which to go on. However, as I did not employ any techniques or teachings my first encounter with these internal realities were quite debilitating because these now undeniable facts about existence were so thoroughly at odds with my cultural and familial realities. This led to many years of research which ultimately brought me to Theravada which seemed to best accord with what I have found to be true of both my makeup and experience. So while I came to all of this completely in isolation and out of left field I have ended up arriving at a place where I have come to accept far more of Theravada orthodoxy than most all of the people who have done their investigative work within the framework of the tradition and its accepted methods. An interesting contrast. Great thread, carry on.

Perhaps I should add a quick note about how my experience compares to Mahasi and Chah povs. Probably not very well. As I mentioned, it seems to line up better with early buddhist thought, particularly much of the sutta teachings and even a fair bit of abhidhamma although not so well with some of the more elaborate abhidhamma doctrines such as micro-momentariness. As I have mentioned to you in some of our discussions, I do find much of what many consider mythical aspects of Theravada to be an ongoing part of my experience, something that is apparently quite atypical these days. Jury is still out on where exactly I am at in the 'process'. Opinions vary from having a 'psychotic break' to post fourth path. I tend to default to seeing it as third path 'with complications'. That diagnosis has much to do with expectations, for those who expect merely the ending of all reflexive forms of self reference, I'm done, for those who expect the full range of traditional sutta stuff (which is what I continue to work towards) there is more to do. So, as I do think there is more to do I have moved on to some of the other kinds of meditation work detailed in the suttas, none of which has much of anything to do with vipassana. Vipassana is simply the ongoing default state of mind and applies itself naturally to everything in the absence of any other kind of engaged attention as there is no one left to 'practice vipassana'. This leads to an interesting thought, that perhaps once a given technique, whatever it may be has reached its natural conclusion, the practitioners are all more or less the same, having been shaped by dhamma into vessels suitable for dhamma and unsuitable for much of anything else.

Again, nice thread, please do continue.

"As I have mentioned to you in some of our discussions, I do find much of what many consider mythical aspects of Theravada to be an ongoing part of my experience, something that is apparently quite atypical these days.
"

Hi triplethink,

Could you please elaborate on those mythical aspects of Theravada? I am most curious.

Sincerely,
Nick