The 7 Stage Model

I'd say the material you just posted has it's very own patina of cultural mythology, Owen. Maybe it's more about what we're used to reading by way of cultural references and terminology than anything else.

"
I'd say the material you just posted has it's very own patina of cultural mythology, Owen. Maybe it's more about what we're used to reading by way of cultural references and terminology than anything else.



"

You're right, it does. But I think part of the mission of pragmatic dharma is to strip as much of the cultural bits as are possible and leave just the core. Hence the 7 stage map.

But to go back to the point, is everybody comfortable that we have at least defined what the 6th and 7th stages look like?

"
I'd say the material you just posted has it's very own patina of cultural mythology, Owen. Maybe it's more about what we're used to reading by way of cultural references and terminology than anything else.



"

I think culture or perhaps the more contemporary term 'lifestyle' starts to figure more prominently in the later phenomenology of the process. There is not only the absence of self perceptions and self conceptions but the erosion of capacities for self projections and the conventional modes of employment of self projections as a 'member' of social groups. So the path begins with an inward turning and an inward revolution but unfolds into impacts on the outward dynamics of ones life. People respond to this differently, some are inclined to head for the margins of their societies and some look for ways to redefine their role within societies. I think this is a big part of how that part of the process evolves.

I'd be happy not *having* to define a model, the urge for which seems to be endemic to the pragmatic dharma movement, but that's just my personal curmudgeonly opinion. And, of course, it ain't up to me anyway.

"
I'd be happy not *having* to define a model, the urge for which seems to be endemic to the pragmatic dharma movement, but that's just my personal curmudgeonly opinion. And, of course, it ain't up to me anyway.

"

For purposes of discussion, what's the advantage to not having models? Didn't you yourself benefit from having a fairly complete model, at least for the early stages? Why not continue that for the advanced stages?

"For purposes of discussion, what's the advantage to not having models? Didn't you yourself benefit from having a fairly complete model, at least for the early stages? Why not continue that for the advanced stages?

"

Self perceptions and self conceptions are akin to the conventional and natural process wherein the mind is autonomously composing a model of being in general. The process of consciously investigating and deconstructing those perceptions and that conceptual model of being is something that also follows along relatively generalizable deterministic and conventional lines. Once the natural and unreflective model has fallen apart and being is unbounded from those conventional perceptual and conceptual limitations life is inherently less conventional and less predisposed to conform to any particular conventions. In the context of the doctrines and disciplines of traditional dharmas the subsequent models are the products of conforming sincerely and faithfully to those doctrines and disciplines. Outside of those kinds of traditional methodologies for governing the outcomes there is the unbinding, the emancipation or the liberation from the previous limitations but there is no template for the subsequent conformity, thus, I would expect, significantly more diversity of experiences, behaviors, expressions of and definitions of the subsequently apparent forms. There may be considerable general conformity in outcomes but the differences, however subtle, are not insignificant which is why the ways that these outcomes are defined and distinguished are numerous and noteworthy both within and outside of the buddhist traditions.

As I said, it's a personal preference. I think at this point, and this is just my view, I see the models as a) hypothetical and b) tending to become self-fulfilling prophecies. I'm proceeding in a way that feels right to me, Owen. It's a different approach but, for me at least, refreshing. I'm also exploring horizontally, reading about and trying other practices that seem interesting and might be fruitful. I'm less inclined to want to be pushed or pulled by the concepts a model entails or to seek certain experiences a model implies. I'm happy right now applying what's happening in my practice to my immediate experience. This is very different from what I was doing for a long time when I had an active practice journal here but it feels right to me now.

Edit: spelling.

Nathan slipped in while I typed my last post -- with a very cogent comment.

Let me add something here that is personally very important -- we got into trouble here a few months back in large part because some us, and here I mean ME, had concepts in our heads that predisposed us to certain practice orientations and outcomes, and yes, even certain ideologies. A lot of self-examination has ensued on my part and I'm more aware of the consequences of having beliefs and models, so I'm consciously avoiding them. And that is very much the righting to do, IMHO. It not only seems correct intellectually, but more to the point, it FEELS right. And *feel* is now driving.

Make sense?

Yes, great comments guys. Owen thanks for posting that sutta-- but I'm still curious how you were practicing before is radically different than this-- or is it? Seeing that there is no solid, separate self "in" or "beyond" the conditional process of experiencing-- whatever the model of the latter, five skandhas, six or eight consciousnesses, and so on-- still seems like the beginning, middle and end-- or at least a central theme throughout the path. How if at all is your current practice different than it was before in this regard?

And as to models and "the purposes of discussion"-- I think models are great, with an emphasis on the "s" at the end of models. Having one mono-model if you will seems naive, conceptually, compared to being able to pick up and put down various models from an ever evolving set of models, each useful to its own context(s) but each automatically limited due to the fact that it highlights some aspects of (insert your word for what always exceeds the maps and models and territories and experiences here) and downplays others. The big problem with trying to have one perfect model-- is the creeping suspicion that you actually COULD have such a thing. Isn't this a subtle intellectual version of the same processes that put us "in the soup", the pre-reflective modelling that assumes a fixed reality to our being and experience?

Just wonder what you guys think about this. I guess the basic question is: why do you feel the need for one model to organize your conversation and practice? Or do you?

And as for the cultural accretians-- yes, I suppose whether one is attracted to this or that stream of dharma, there will be for some a great comfort and familiarity in the traditional forms-- conceptual, social, religious-- and others an urge to discover the "core".

As one of the latter ones, I still feel the need to bracket that concept of the "core", because I don't want to assume that there is a real dharma underlying the cultural, philosophical and social facets of the teaching. What I really mean is that I feel more resonance with (some of) the philosophical, social and cultural facets of MY society than with (many of) those of Tibet or Japan... and it seems worth making explicit.

I'm skeptical of the construction of a scenario in which the "pure dharma" is found beneath the other stuff for just this reason, and yet personally I lean in the direction of eclectic, pragmatic, and phenomenological. All of which of course are prominent in the streams of Western culture with which I resonate, so... grain of salt for all formulated opinions, anyone?

I, too, am skeptical of the notion that there is a "core" to the dharma that is somehow independent of human conception, which tends to be culturally biased. It's akin to saying we can experience the world unmediated by the mind. Maybe I'm crazy but dharma IS humanity. How can it possibly exist separately from what we are?

"For purposes of discussion, what's the advantage to not having models? Didn't you yourself benefit from having a fairly complete model, at least for the early stages? Why not continue that for the advanced stages?

"

In my case, the model I had consisted of "do this because it's good for you" with regard to a smattering of simple practices. I consider myself very lucky in this regard. As far as later stages, I read about lots of models - none of them proved to be accurate in even the slightest way - as the only thing they did was create a concept around a decidedly non-conceptual experience. They seem to become something for the mind to cling to instead of simply attending to the reality that is staring it in the face - which includes thoughts and their nature.

In my experience, the only attainment possible is a certain level of skill regarding how I relate to and work with my experience and even that - if to rigidly held to - gets in the way. Everything else is like those little piles of rocks along hiking trails to indicate you are not totally lost - or if you are - at least someone else got lost there before you.

"
I, too, am skeptical of the notion that there is a "core" to the dharma that is somehow independent of human conception, which tends to be culturally biased. It's akin to saying we can experience the world unmediated by the mind. Maybe I'm crazy but dharma IS humanity. How can it possibly exist separately from what we are?

"

if you talk to some of the AF people they will say otherwise. their phrase is that they are "free from the human condition". though i suppose you can say that that itself is a cultural bias..

" It's akin to saying we can experience the world unmediated by the mind." - in the seeing, only the seen.. in the thinking, only the thought.. etc. direct perception of your senses (which are just your mind, hence the term apperception) without mediation of a self in between.

i'm biased towards AF so keep that in mind when reading my posts , hehe.

"
I, too, am skeptical of the notion that there is a "core" to the dharma that is somehow independent of human conception, which tends to be culturally biased. It's akin to saying we can experience the world unmediated by the mind. Maybe I'm crazy but dharma IS humanity. How can it possibly exist separately from what we are?

"

Yes, and what the hell would be the point? Assuming there's something "outside" the chain of mediation, whether an unchanging self or an unchanging world, is exactly how we box ourselves in. And yet, assuming that all there is is THIS bubble of experience... and now THIS bubble of experience... is to overlook the obviousness of contact, connection, difference, that THIS moment of experiencing is yet opening up to a vast mystery of unnameable myriad facets. So OK, no self, no world, no things; just THIS. And, OK, THIS is way deeper and broader in content and nature than could ever be exhaustively experienced or known or mapped or modeled.

Yes, we need the "training wheels" of maps and models to get started on the path most of the time. But couldn't that be because our basic suffering-enacting attitude is to say there is something missing here which we need to find? So instead of being drama seekers, sex seekers, love seekers, pleasure seekers, we become truth seekers, setting out on The Greatest Journey to the Greatest Truth. Fine; but when can we just let go of that whole orientation? How deeply do we have to see to see that we are already free-- and to let the process of letting go of our seeking just dismantle itself? How many times do we need to realize that the Greatest Truth is right here and now, not an attainment, not a goal, not for the future-- and can not be mapped or conquered? It's not a territory. No maps can help us-- except as a skillful means, provisionally.

Such is my opinion-- oh, the irony! and the paradox!

"In my case, the model I had consisted of "do this because it's good for you" with regard to a smattering of simple practices. I consider myself very lucky in this regard. As far as later stages, I read about lots of models - none of them proved to be accurate in even the slightest way - as the only thing they did was create a concept around a decidedly non-conceptual experience. They seem to become something for the mind to cling to instead of simply attending to the reality that is staring it in the face - which includes thoughts and their nature.

In my experience, the only attainment possible is a certain level of skill regarding how I relate to and work with my experience and even that - if to rigidly held to - gets in the way. Everything else is like those little piles of rocks along hiking trails to indicate you are not totally lost - or if you are - at least someone else got lost there before you. "

well put

Thanks to everybody for the lovely discussion so far. A few points that I'd like to put together:

1. Chris, I totally feel you. The maps are not the territory. When we forget that, it can get ugly and sectarian pretty quickly. Thanks for the reminder.

2. I don't think a one map fits all approach will work. There are supposedly 84,000 dharma doors. I just want to point out the handle for one of them.

3. Most of the models out there don't work up to the final end of conceit. To put it in seriously geeky terms, there is a bug in the cognitive software (the belief that someone separate is driving) that got fixed at the 5th stage. The perception that someone is driving still exists, and the emotional reality of somebody driving does also - even though it has been completely debunked.

The methods for fixing the two remaining bugs is still getting worked out. If we can prove that those methods are reliable and repeatable, I think we are on the right track and it is worth including them in a conceptual framework for the purposes of pedagogy.

This is a great discussion. Here are some opinions that are coming up for me, some of which have incubated a while.

A model isn't really true, but it is useful for a purpose. Having a number of ways to think about and engage a model is useful, since people are different and people also change motivations and areas of focus. The 4 path model is so great, I think, because it incorporated elements of a number of traditions, even if it was Theravada leaning. Thus it is useful for many people coming from many different places. For example, the 1st gear had kundalini and subtle energy touch points, the 2nd gear inquiry, witnessing, and classic-Advaita, and the 3rd gear neo-Advaita and Tibetan Rigpa and Zen. That isn't just ecumenical, it's useful.

So far what I have heard of 6th/7th stage--and I haven't seen the video--but just the postings, has been a very reduced discussion where there is only one overarching pointer given--the reduction of suffering. That seems like a valid door, but with just one it doesn't have the same breadth or depth of thought that the old model has.

For example, Roberts--at least in the her book No-Self--almost never frames the 6th/7th issues or outcomes in terms of suffering, but instead contemplates the relationship between God and the individual. Adya--my wife is and student and I've been a number of his satsangs--also doesn't emphasize suffering nearly to the degree he does the questions of what is True and what is Real. The Mahayanists clearly see the eradication of self energies and reactivity in terms of compassion participation. The Hindu Tantrics ask a question similar to Roberts and answer largely through a nondual lens: The deepest union between self and God is seen when the energies of the small self are quieted consistently.

So an enlargened lens is what is called for IMO.

Mark

"As far as later stages, I read about lots of models - none of them proved to be accurate in even the slightest way - as the only thing they did was create a concept around a decidedly non-conceptual experience. They seem to become something for the mind to cling to instead of simply attending to the reality that is staring it in the face - which includes thoughts and their nature." -- Chelek

Bingo! Bullseye! Give this man a cigar!

"...their phrase is that they are "free from the human condition"

Sounds like marketing. Brand new! Scientifically proven! Chosen as the most effective remedy by doctors!

"
"...their phrase is that they are "free from the human condition"

Sounds like marketing. Brand new! Scientifically proven! Chosen as the most effective remedy by doctors!



"

hehe indeed. dont take what i say too seriously. i seem to have a bit of an evangelical side. i don't want my comments to be taken as representative of anything except my own beliefs.

Okay, this is fruitful.

So, keeping in mind the difference between developmental enlightenment and timeless realization, are there reproducible and discreetly mappable stages post 4th path in the technical model? I'm strictly speaking of a physio-energetic process.

Based on what Kenneth has told me about his experience and from reading other sources, I think there is a non-trivial amount of evidence to make the case. Assuming that you find the end of conceit and permanent emotional grounding in the brahmaviharas useful, wouldn't it make sense to provide (as an upaya) a conceptual map and a pedagogical framework? It's not so different than having a koan system that one is expected to complete post awakening.

"As far as later stages, I read about lots of models - none of them proved to be accurate in even the slightest way..." -Chelek

I hear this a lot. It's not my experience, though. For me, the Buddhist maps have been uncannily accurate in predicting the sequence of events. Even when I doubted them, denied them, or railed against them, they eventually turned out to be right. Me: wrong. Maps: right. What can I say?

Here's what I mean:

1) Map says I will have unitive experiences and see things arise and pass in realtime: Check!
2) Map says I will go through dissolution, dark night, equanimity, and cessation, with short-lived sense of completion: Check!
3) Map says I will do it all again, then start cycling more rapidly: Check!
4) Map says I will gain access to nirodha samapatti and jhanas beyond the first eight: Check!
5) Map says I will feel an abiding sense of completeness as though I am "off the ride." The "I" will be dealt a crippling blow: Check!
6) Map says I will come to the end of ill will: Check!
7) Map says anything that can be recognized as "I" will cease to arise: Check!

So, when I hear people complain that the maps are inaccurate, I just have no idea what they are talking about. Not that I think such folks are wrong or even necessarily unenlightened: I just can't relate to their inability to see the sequence of events. In my experience, we are talking about a sequential human development that is just as sure and invariable in sequence as the development from childhood to adulthood. If people do not experience it in this way, I can only speculate that it is because they 1) are not familiar with the maps, 2) haven't gotten there yet, or 3) are not predisposed to thinking in linear terms. No harm, no foul either way, but please don't be too quick to knock the maps! I reckon they have lasted this long for a reason.

"So far what I have heard of 6th/7th stage--and I haven't seen the video" -mdaf30

Mark, I always find your commentary insightful and valuable, so I request that you watch the video and then comment again; much of the information in the video has not yet been written down.

Thanks!

Kenneth

"So, as he dwells thus in contemplation of the rise and fall of the five groups of clinging, this subtle remnant from among the five groups of clinging, this subtle remnant of the 'I'-conceit, of the 'I'-desire, this unextirpated lurking tendency to think: 'I am' is brought to an end.[9]"

This passage from the Khemo Sutta, shared by Owen in posts 77 and 78 above, deals directly with the difference between the 5th stage and the 7th. The 5th stage yogi can clearly see that although the sense of self continues to arise, it is ephemeral and "not happening to anyone." At the seventh stage, however, the constellation of phenomena that previously gave rise to the idea "this is I" is no longer perceived as "I".

Yes, it seems a subtle distinction, but the difference is night and day. As long as there is anything being taken as "I", even momentarily, there is a fundamental misperception that in turn colors or distorts every experience.

Thank you, Owen, for locating the sutta, and congratulations on being able to make the distinction. The ability to make the distinction is the beginning of the end of the misperception.