The Hardcore Dharma Movement
-
http://wanderingdhamma.wordpress.com/2010/07/16/the-hardcore-dharma-movement/
The Hardcore Dharma Movement
July 16, 2010 by wanderingdhamma
One of the most interesting new trends in Western Buddhism is a reaction against more ‘soft’ and ‘self-help’ type dharma books. Some contemporary Buddhist authors are now calling themselves hardcore as an opposition to this earlier work. The most outspoken and prolific of the hardcore teachers is Daniel Ingram who wrote Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha: An Unusually Hardcore Dharma Book. Kenneth Folk is another teacher of a similar generation as Daniel Ingram who, through his website and podcasts on Buddhist Geeks, carries the hardcore meditation practice message. And now this movement has a second generation as Vince Horn, founder of the Buddhist Geeks, calls himself the first lineage holder of both of these teachers. The changes these dharma teachers are making are very interesting and revealing about the state of Buddhist practice in Western countries.
So what is it that is hardcore about these teachers’ ideas and teachings? What are they opposing themselves to? A description of this movement is found in Daniel Ingram’s biography on the Buddhist Geeks Website where he states that he is part of:
“the global movement of meditation reform, a movement that seeks to preserve core meditation technology and supports, integrate helpful aspects from across traditions, refine the techniques and maps through exploration and verification, and spread the message that it can be done. It is also a movement to strip away the aspects of dogma, ritual, rigid hierarchy, myth and falsehood that hinder high-level practice and keep the culture of meditation mired in unhelpful taboos and misplaced effort.”
Kenneth Folk and Daniel Ingram are interested in teaching about the higher-level meditation practices and are defying the taboo against declaring one’s attainments. They have both stated that they are arahants and talk about their experiences attaining the four paths of Enlightenment openly, hoping that others will come to see that attaining this state is possible. In one of his Buddhist Geek Podcast interviews Folk narrates in detail the moments when he attained first through fourth path of Enlightenment. Kenneth Folk in his interview on Buddhist Geeks Podcast called ‘Ordinary People Can Get Enlightened’ stated this outright:
“What I really want to say here is that it’s possible to get enlightened. And I know that, because it happened to me… So I’m hoping that by telling the story, other people understand that regular, average people who aren’t wearing robes, and aren’t even Asian. Or whether they’re Asian or not. It is possible for ordinary people to get enlightened.”
One of the chapters of Ingram’s Mastering the Core Teachings, is called ‘It Is Possible!’ in order to point out that even though many think the end of the path is mythical and unattainable, people do attain these states today. He contrasts the openness in talking about the paths of Enlightenment in Burma with the paradigm you would most likely find in a Western Buddhist. “First, most Western Buddhists don’t really believe that after a few months of good practice you could get enlightened or more enlightened. They do not believe it is simply a matter of following simple instructions, moving through the clearly defined insights” (Mastering the Core Teachings, 337).
Hardcore teachers, along with revealing their own meditation experiences, critique what they consider typical Western Buddhism. They are reacting against teachings that have more in common with therapy than vipassana, are concerned with self-help and calmness rather than the sometimes destabilizing cycles of insight. They hope that through their writings and teachings, some Western Buddhists can adopt “a more empowering view of what is possible on the spiritual path” (viii).
Ingram in his book considers himself and others from the same lineage “to be dharma cowboys, mavericks, rogues, and outsiders” (ix). Although he considers himself a traditionalist who tries to get to the depths of the Buddha’s teachings, he finds that this kind of practice contrasts with much of Western Buddhist meditation cultures. The mainstream cultures, from the Hardcore dharma perspective, have been designed by certain teachers “who want everyone to be able to feel good that they are doing something ‘spiritual’” (95). But Ingram argues that this kind of teaching is not very helpful. As a solution to this, his book provides an invitation “to step far beyond the increasingly ritualized, bastardized, and gutless mock-up of Buddhism that is rearing its fluffy head in the modern West and has a stranglehold on many a practice group and even some of the big meditation centers” (95).
Ingram also says Western Buddhism is watered-down. He writes that there is a movement to make Buddhism into something for everyone (94). Ingram labels Buddhism in the West the “least goal-oriented, least practical and least effective take on Buddhism I have found anywhere” (117). In contrast to this way of teaching, Ingram characterizes one of his teachers, Bill Hamilton, as a guy who was “too smart, too uncompromising, too scholarly and too dedicated to non-watered-down dharma and to absolute mastery to be a popular mainstream teacher. He didn’t teach to make people feel good about themselves . . .” (219). Because of this watered-down approach Ingram finds that in Western Buddhist meditation circles people are not discussing their attempts to understand and master the teachings or meditation techniques, but rather their own psychological problems. He writes:
“I just wish the whole Western Buddhist World would just get over this notion that these practices are all about getting to our Happy Place where nothing can ever hurt us or make us neurotic and move on to actually mastering real Buddhist practice rather than chasing some ideal that will never appear” (297).
Ingram and Folk call the cultural factors that led to the state of Buddhism in the West “the Mushroom Factor” because as mushrooms are fed and kept in the dark, meditation teachers are using the mushroom method of teaching and raising a crop of mushroom meditators. Ingram finds that “there is this cultural factor in Western Buddhism that real insight, insight into the fundamental nature of reality or the Three Characteristics, is almost never talked about directly, unlike in Burma or some other settings” (102).
Some may wonder whom in particular Ingram is admonishing here. In fact he has great respect for many of the popular American meditation teachers, such as Jack Kornfield, but believes that their presentation of the teaching is written in a way that perpetuates the Mushroom Factor. He praises Kornfield’s A Path With Heart saying it contains many brilliant statements that should confound the reader and hit at their core sense of identity but “as they have been written in a style that is so completely accessible, these statements have nearly the opposite effect, creating a mushy comfort in the reader with statements that should have stopped them in their proverbial tracks and provoked deep inquiry” (89). Because of this, Ingram felt the need for a hardcore book about practice, such as his own.
Daniel Ingram also discusses the taboo of discussing attainments in Western Buddhist culture in a Buddhist Geeks podcast called “The Dharma Overground:” “You know, there’s this sort of a huge taboo, you can’t say you’ve attained to a jhana, and you can’t say you’ve attained to a nana, and you sure as heck can’t say you’ve attained to a path. And telling people you’re an anagami or an arhant would really be crazy.” Because of this situation, he started the Dharma Overground website where high-level practitioners could start to get comfortable with talking about attainments. The purpose of this website is to “form a safe haven for people who were into hardcore practice, real attainments, helping people out in the spirit of mutual friends, open conversations about topics related to actual practice, and the like.”
This website reveals in detail the maps on the path to Enlightenment in order to balance out the mushroom culture. Ingram offers information on how to know where one is on the path along with his own experiences to help others understand what they are or will be going through. The website’s basic principles are: “a lack of taboos surrounding talking about attainments, the assumption that the various aspects of meditative development can be mastered in this life.” And these are also the basic principles of the hardcore dharma movement, a very interesting new development in the history of Buddhism in the West.
What does this mean for the future of Buddhism in the West? The hardcore teachers are picking up on the emerging characteristics of Western Buddhist meditation practices, and are opposing themselves to it. It thus shows a growing diversity of practice and options for Buddhists in the West. But how impactful will this new movement be? As Ingram’s website grows and the hardcore supporters increase, will other teachers follow the same path? Will there be a paradigm shift in how Westerners think about meditation and interact with the core teachings of the Buddha?
-
Hmm... if they claim they are arahats/buddhas/bodhisattvas, there must be something not right.
And considering Ingram says this on his website:Here are a number of bogus myths and falsehoods about arahats, each of which violates one of more of the First Principles in addition to simply being untrue:
- Arahats cannot lie.
- Arahats cannot have erections or have sex.
- Arahats would never do drugs or drink.
- Arahats cannot kill anything ever.
- Arahats cannot state they are arahats.
- Arahats must ordain within 7 days of becomming an arahat in the Buddhist order of monks or they will die.
- Arahats cannot think the thought "I am an arahat."
- Arahats cannot feel the following emotions: lust, hatred, irritation, restlessness, worry, fear, pride, conceit, desire for the formless realms, desire for the formed realms, or any other "bad" emotion.
Then anyone here can claim they are arahats as well and nobody would have to observe precepts.The reason why enlightened people don't claim themselves enlightened (or after claiming, still continue to stay on earth) is because, if they start to allow this, tons of people hankering after wealth, fame and desires, as well as dharma-wrecking demons will be out, shamelessly proclaiming they have reach fruition or is a certain Buddha or Bodhisattva, and mislead lots of people. Nobody will be able to differentiate between the true and false anymore, and in no time, the Dharma would be destroyed. -
Hi,
You do have a point there. In fact, I do have my own views about Daniel's claim of arhatship, but I shall reserve them for myself.
As Thusness said before (not in exact words), Daniel has some very precious and deep insights that are truly profound - not very common around. He is a true and sincere practitioner that will serve as a good guide for others. So Thusness basically told people to disregard the claims and just go for the wisdom.
Besides, Daniel M. Ingram seems to be entering new territories these days and very engaged at the moment in a practice called 'Actualism'. Gasp, an 'arhat' who is still progressing on the path! He seems to be discovering a new type of experience (called PCE, Pure Consciousness Experience), which is utterly without any sense of self, in which emotions do not arise. Does this contradict his earlier claims? Will he somehow intergrate this experience into his map of enlightenment? Who knows.
I already wrote a (currently updated to 20 pages long) article about this experience (and how it relates to Buddhism) to him at Actual Freedom comparison
He finds it complex and interesting and was grateful I sent it to him and will write to me in a couple of days time... I'm still waiting for his reply.
-
Hi aen,
Hmm.. I don't know.... but for myself, I set a rule that if anyone is to claim they are an enlightened arhat/bodhisattva/buddha, I don't follow their teachings.From what I understand from the Buddha's teachings, precepts give samadhi and samadhi leads to wisdom. My personal preference is the criteria of teachers is they must strictly uphold precepts and teach their followers to do so, so that any samadhi and wisdom they develop will thus be proper.
-
-
Originally posted by zero thought:
Hi aen,
Hmm.. I don't know.... but for myself, I set a rule that if anyone is to claim they are an enlightened arhat/bodhisattva/buddha, I don't follow their teachings.From what I understand from the Buddha's teachings, precepts give samadhi and samadhi leads to wisdom. My personal preference is the criteria of teachers is they must strictly uphold precepts and teach their followers to do so, so that any samadhi and wisdom they develop will thus be proper.
Precepts are important and I don't think Daniel M. Ingram are opposed to precepts. He does dedicate a chapter of his book to morality, even though his book is about meditation. Anyway, he is a qualified lineage teacher from the Mahasi Sayadaw Vipassana lineage, a lineage where Sakadagami (2nd out of 4 stages) stage of enlightenment is a minimum criteria for teaching.
However I also want to make it clear that I do not think at this point that Daniel M. Ingram has achieved arhatship.
As I said, he is beginning (only in recent weeks/months) to enter into a new territory where emotions (and thereby the faults in keeping precepts) do not arise. My understanding is that his view of what Arhatship entails will change in the future to become more in lined with the classical texts and stance.
Nevertheless, he is highly qualified to teach Vipassana and already has achieved some substantial insights into the nature of reality. Hardly do you find teachers who are so open about high level practice and I like his style.
-
2. Morality, The First and Last TrainingThe original Pali word for this training is sila, which I am translating as “morality.” People translate it in various ways, with some other possibilities being “virtue” and “decency.” Regardless of the word we choose, it is likely to have both positive and negative implications. If the word “morality” bothers you due to the associations that it brings to mind, take a look at the assumptions, agendas, and practices of this training and come up with your own word for it. I don’t think that it is so important what we call it. I do, however, think that we should give some attention to trying to live it.From my point of view, training in morality has as its domain all of the ordinary ways that we live in the world. When we are trying to live the good life in a conventional sense, we are working on training in morality. When we are trying to work on our emotional, psychological and physical health, we are working at the level of training in morality. When we philosophize, we are working on training in morality. When we exercise, we are working on training in morality. When we try to take care of ourselves or others, we are working on training in morality. When we try to defend the environment, reform the government, or make this world a better place, we are working on training in morality. When we try to find a good and helpful job, try to build a healthy marriage or raise healthy children, or shave our heads and move to a remote desert, we are working on training in morality. Whatever we do in the ordinary world that we think will be of some benefit to others or ourselves is an aspect of working on this first training.The second two trainings, those having to do with attaining unusual states of mind and those having to do with ultimate realizations, have limits, in that we can master them absolutely. However, this cannot be said of the first training. There is no limit to the degree of skill that can be brought to how we live in the world. Thus, morality is also the last training, the training that we will have to work on for all of our life. We may be able to attain to astounding states of consciousness and understand the true nature of reality, but what people see and what is causal are the ways that these abilities and understandings translate into how we live in the world.There are basic assumptions that are extremely helpful when undertaking training in morality. It is very helpful to assume that some sort of basic moral code is helpful for getting along in this world, and thus that there is some practical benefit to be derived from training in morality.It is also helpful to assume in some loose and non-dogmatic way that the more good we do in the world, the more good there will be in that world, and thus the more good things will happen to us and all other beings. It is also worth assuming the corollary of this, that the more we do bad things in the world, the more bad things will be in that world for us and for all beings. These assumptions are not unique to Buddhism nor are they in any way extraordinary. Societies and traditions throughout the ages have advocated that we find a place in our life for these assumptions. Realize that defining bad and good is often very much a question of perspective, but don’t fall into the paralyzing trap of imagining that it is useless to try anyway. It is better to try to do your best and fail than not try at all.Thus, we are assuming that what we think, say and do have consequences. When undertaking training in morality, we are assuming that we can control what we think, say and do, thus creating consequences that are beneficial. Rather than accepting our current level of intellectual, emotional and psychological development as being beyond our power to change, we consciously and explicitly take the empowering view that we can work with these aspects of our lives and change them for the better. We assume that we can change our world and our attitudes towards our world. We take responsibility for our actions and their consequences.Further, as a part of our empowerment, we assume that the more of our resources and abilities we bring to this training, the likelier we will be to succeed. We have a body, we have reason, we have our intuition, we have our heart, and we have ability to learn and remember. We have a community of others with wisdom to share, we have books and other media that contain advice for living the good life, and we have our friends and family. We can draw on all of this and more to try to live a good life, a life where our thoughts, words and deeds reflect as closely as possible the standards we have consciously adopted and defined for ourselves. The more consciously engaged we are with our task, the more we are likely to be successful.Crucial to the control of what happens in our lives is our intent. Thus, training in morality places a lot of emphasis on intent, with the basic assumption being that the more our intentions are kind and compassionate, the more we are likely to be able to manifest kind and compassionate thoughts, words and deeds.Further, it is helpful to assume that training in morality requires us to pay attention to what is happening in our lives. When we are not paying attention to what we are thinking, saying and doing, we will not easily be able to craft these in a way that fits with the assumptions of this training. If we are not paying attention to what the consequences of our thoughts, words and deeds are, both in the short term and the long term, we are unlikely to be able to gain enough experience to be able to guide our training in morality successfully.It is also helpful to assume that training in morality will help us when we get to formal meditation practices (the next two trainings in concentration and wisdom), providing a foundation of good mental and physical habits that can support those practices. Thus, even if we have little interest in being moral because of the benefits it can bring, if we are interested in obtaining the results of the other two trainings, we should also engage in training in morality.These assumptions naturally lead to the specific agendas we have for what happens when undertaking training in morality. We consciously aspire to have the actions of our body, speech and mind live in a way that fits with the assumptions of this training. In short, we have standards for our mental, emotional and physical lives and we try our best to live up to those standards. When we are working on training in morality, we consciously cultivate actions, words and thoughts that we deem to be kind and compassionate. By “kind,” I mean that we work to promote the happiness and welfare of ourselves and others. By “compassionate,” I mean that we work to relieve the suffering of ourselves and others. Thus, our agenda is for our intentions to be kind and compassionate, for our minds to be aware of what we are thinking, saying, and doing, and for our experience to tell us as best it can how to craft our life to reflect our intentions.Training in morality tends to be discussed in terms of what one shouldn’t do and also what one should do. The standard Buddhist short-list of the five things that one should try to avoid, called “The Five Precepts” are: killing, stealing, lying, taking mind altering substances that lead to heedlessness, and using sexual energy in ways that are harmful. These are obviously not unique to Buddhism, and seem to be part of the basic set of standards for behavior that societies and cultures throughout the ages have found to be helpful and practical. The standard list of things that one should try to do includes being kind, compassionate and appreciative of the successes of others.Wrestling with the question of how we can meet this fairly reasonable standard and yet honor where we are and what is going on around us is the practice of this first training. We will make all kinds of mistakes that can be very educational when trying to work on this first training; if you mess up, remember to be kind to yourself!There are many great techniques for cultivating a more decent way of being in the world, but there are no magic formulations. You must figure out how to be kind to yourself and all beings in each moment. As training in morality takes into account all of the ordinary ways in which we try to live a good and useful life, it is so vast a subject that I couldn’t possibly give anything resembling a comprehensive treatment of it here. However, if you wish for further elaboration on some of the basics of training in morality, I suggest that you check out some of the following works:• For a Future to be Possible, by Thich Nhat Hanh• A Heart as Wide as the World and Lovingkindness, the Revolutionary Art of Happiness, both by Sharon Salzburg• Light on Enlightenment, by Christopher Titmuss• A Path With Heart, by Jack KornfieldTraining in morality at its best is grounded in a theoretical or direct appreciation of one more assumption, that of interconnectedness. Interconnectedness at this level means an appreciation of the fact that we are all in this together and that we all share the wish to be happy. When we take into consideration our own needs and the needs of those around us, we are more likely to be naturally kind and considerate of ourselves and others. Thus, we try to make it a habit to try to take into account the feelings, opinions and welfare of those around us. The obvious trap here is to simultaneously fail to take into account our own needs. Work on balancing both in a way that is sustainable and healthy.There are countless other pitfalls we can run into when training in morality, as it is such a vast area of work. I will spend a lot of time in Part II detailing some of the more common side effects and shadow sides of training in morality, but realize that it is an endless subject.However, one pitfall that must be addressed here, as it is so common, is that of guilt. We have grown up in a culture in which we can be extremely hard on ourselves, causing ourselves astounding amounts of pain to little good effect. If we can learn to substitute wise remorse, a remorse that simply says, “Well, that didn’t work, and this is unfortunate. I should try my best to figure out why and hopefully do something better next time,” we will be much more able to train successfully in living a good and useful life.Some people unfortunately seem to think that the primary message of training in morality is that they should continuously cultivate the feeling that they have taken up a heavy yoke of responsibility and self-oppression. In fact, some people seem to revel in that unfortunate feeling. Those more fortunate will think, “It is so much fun to try to live a good, healthy and useful life! What a joy it is to find creative ways to do this!” There are few things more helpful on the spiritual path and life in general than a positive attitude.Thus, the related and all too common pitfall is that people stop having fun and trying to be successful in worldly terms. There is absolutely no reason for this. If you can have fun in healthy ways, have fun! It’s not just for breakfast anymore. Also, success is highly recommended for obvious reasons. Pick a flexible vision of success in the ordinary sense for yourself and go for it! Play to win. This is your life, so make it a great one. There is no reason not to try, so long as you can do so in a kind and compassionate way.One more great thing about the first training is that it really helps with the next training: concentration. So, here's a tip: if you are finding it hard to concentrate because your mind is filled with guilt, judgment, envy or some other hard and difficult thought pattern, also work on the first training, kindness. It will be time well spent.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
-
Arahants do not need to eat, their foods is meditation blis. and they could goes to other realms based on their deep meditation. If a person did not attain arahants and stated clearly they are, Buddha also cannot save them from hell. The only way is to repent thoroughly and vow to the Amitabha Land of Ultimate Bliss.
Om Mani Padme Hum
Amitabha
-
Originally posted by Amitayus48:
Arahants do not need to eat, their foods is meditation blis. and they could goes to other realms based on their deep meditation. If a person did not attain arahants and stated clearly they are, Buddha also cannot save them from hell. The only way is to repent thoroughly and vow to the Amitabha Land of Ultimate Bliss.
Om Mani Padme Hum
Amitabha
I think the notion that Arhant do not need to eat is bullshit, unless he is in a meditative retreat and is cultivating samadhi all day then that is possible. It must be understood in context.
All the Arhants received alms... even the Buddha needed to eat and still get sick etc (due to his karma of having participated in killing fishes in a past life, and so on) and needed medicine, much less an Arhant.
Lastly, there are many cases in the suttas where people wrongly stated their attainments, but was later corrected by the Buddha, and the Buddha did not say anything like they will go to hell.
According to scriptures, you only land in hell if you ARE aware that you are not an arhant, and then pose as one. This does not apply to someone who is genuinely UNaware that he is not an arhant, and claims to be, due to his own misunderstandings. Daniel Ingram has his own model and idea of what Arhantship is and he certainly and truthfully fits into it (particularly the Non Dual model of awakening) - but whether his map and model is the same as the Buddha's is another highly debatable matter, and I highly suspect his views will change over time.
In the case of Daniel M. Ingram, he has clearly attained to the paths (even if he is not Arhant, he has definitely already attained to Sotapanna, Sakadagami, etc...) His attainment is confirmed both by lineage, teachers, and the classical texts and commentaries. A sotapanna is known not to ever fall into the 3 lower realms again.
Perhaps if you are not even sotapanna yet and claim you are arhant (and intentionally did so even though you knew you werent), then you may fall into lower realms. But for a sotapanna (and above), no chances there.
As for 'visiting other realms', that is just one of the side effects of practice and I don't think any true teacher will focus so much on supernatural powers. But it is true that Daniel M. Ingram has experiences with psychic abilities, remember past lives, moving objects, etc etc (he used to mention that, but he does not focus on this - his focus is on Vipassana or insight meditation).
Btw, it's not true that an Arhant must have mastery of powers. Only Arhants that mastered samatha jhanas have powers. You do not have to master samatha jhanas to attain arhatship: there is a category of arhat called 'dry vipassana/insight' arhats, and these arhats don't develope samatha jhanas and powers. However, Daniel M. Ingram is experienced with samatha jhanas and has some experience with the psychic realms, but he didn't have to.
-
All I can say is... there are a lot of dogmas and bull shit surrounding the attainment of arhantship nowadays that wasn't taught by the original Buddha himself.
-
Anything that is read, heard, felt in this world is conditional in nature. Even the teachings, by virtue of being expressed by languages which are dualistic in nature, are to be understood as conditional.
recognizing the conditional aspect of this world is the practice, rather than dwell in any of the content.
just my 1 cents worth
-
Updated my previous post.
-
I have never in my life heard of a lying sotapana, skadagami, anagami, or arahat who claims a fruition that they have not reached. And even if anyone really has attained the above fruitions, why would they need to declare it? What good does it does to tell everyone "I am an Arahat or whatever"? Isn't it enough that they know it for themselves? There is no need for publicity.
No matter how lofty the teachings seem to be, personally I can never listen to someone who claim they are arahats or bodhisattvas or buddhas - unless they pass away right after they hinted so. Shakyamuni Buddha said very clearly in the Shurangama Sutra - the chapter on the four clear instructions on purity, and the chapter on the 50 Demonic states about these kind of people in the Dharma-ending age. -
Originally posted by zero thought:
I have never in my life heard of a lying sotapana, skadagami, anagami, or arahat who claims a fruition that they have not reached. And even if anyone really has attained the above fruitions, why would they need to declare it? What good does it does to tell everyone "I am an Arahat or whatever"? Isn't it enough that they know it for themselves? There is no need for publicity.
No matter how lofty the teachings seem to be, personally I can never listen to someone who claim they are arahats or bodhisattvas or buddhas - unless they pass away right after they hinted so. Shakyamuni Buddha said very clearly in the Shurangama Sutra - the chapter on the four clear instructions on purity, and the chapter on the 50 Demonic states about these kind of people in the Dharma-ending age.Like I said, Daniel M. Ingram has *never* lied about his meditative experience and fruitions. It is very very evident if you are practicing to see the truth in what he said.
It is only that his subjective interpretations of his experiences (which he never lied at all) as being 'arhantship' is another separate issue that he should personally deal with.
-
Daniel Ingram has his own model and idea of what Arhantship is and he certainly and truthfully fits into it (particularly the Non Dual model of awakening) - but whether his map and model is the same as the Buddha's is another highly debatable matter, and I highly suspect his views will change over time.
-
It is just a difference in terminology.
He truly experienced something, which he calls 'Arhantship'.
Buddha uses the term 'Arhantship' too, but does he mean the same thing? This is another issue.
Daniel fits his own model of the term 'Arhantship'. He might not fit in Buddha's.
-
BTW, here is his own suscribed model of awakening so that you have an idea where he is coming from. His model is similar (not exactly similar in terms of the explanation of stages, but in terms of 'theme') to Thusness's Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment in that they both focus on the Insights and Realization of the true nature of reality. (much like Zen's 5 ranks of Tozan, 10 oxherding pictures, Tibetan 4 yogas, etc.) Except of course Thusness does not use traditional terms like 'arhant' etc, he simply stated his experience as-it-is without interpreting it with traditional terms like 'arhantship' (which is often subject to controversy and debate).
31. Models of the Stages of Enlightenment, IV
A Revised Four Path Model
Here is my revised version of the Four Path Model, and this is the primary model I use when describing awakening, talking about my practice, and helping others practice. I think that using the original terminology and revising its definitions allows a lot of good material in the Pali Canon to be used, thus provides a link to previously done work. However, I realize that using terminology that already has such deep cultural and dogmatic resonance may be a problem. For those who want something new, I will shortly present a rephrasing of this model that I call the Simple Model.
In the Revised Four Path Model, Stream Enterers have discovered the complete discontinuity that is called Fruition and sometimes called Nirvana or Nibbana (Sanskrit vs. Pali). This is the first of two meanings of Nirvana, with the other being Fourth Path. Stream enterers cycle through the ñanas, know that awakening or some different understanding from the norm is possible, and yet they do not have all that different an experience of most sensations from those who are not yet stream enterers. They may correctly extrapolate a lot of good dharma insights from momentary experiences, particularly high up in High Equanimity and the three moments before a Fruition, but this is not the same as living there all the time. In fact, most stream enterers have a very hard time describing how things have changed in terms of their daily life.
Those of Second Path have now completed a new insight cycle. They understand the process by which enlightened beings make further progress and equate progress with further cycles of insight, which is partially true. More model-obsessed or intellectual practitioners at second path may get very into fractal models, consciousness models, enlightenment models, various integrative theories, and that sort of thing at this stage of practice. Psychological issues tend to be a bit more of a big deal during this phase, and psychological development become interesting to them in some way. By this point most people, though certainly not everyone, also have a pretty good understanding of the basics of the samatha jhanas, and these can be very fascinating. What they may be most bothered by is that cycle after cycle of practice, duality remains the predominant experience most of the time.
Those of Third Path have shifted their understanding of what progress is from those of Second Path, and have been to see that it is about seeing the emptiness, selflessness, impermanence, etc. of sensations in daily life and begin to see that they have the ability to do this. This can be a long, developmental process from the first time they notice this to it becoming a nearly complete experience. Thus, Third Path tends to be a long path, though it doesn’t have to be.
At the beginning of Third Path, most practitioners think: “I’ll just complete more cycles of insight, like I did before, and this will do the trick.” They don’t tend to understand what it is they have attained all that well yet, nor its deeper implications. By the mature stage of Third Path, which can take months to years to show up, the practitioner is more and more able to see the emptiness, selfless, centerlessness, luminosity, etc. of phenomena in real-time, so much so that it can be very difficult to notice what artificial dualities remain.
As they cycle, they will enter new territory, possibly causing some uncertainty or instability, and with each Review phase they tend to really feel that they have done it until they begin to notice the limits of their practice. There can be this nagging something in the background that things aren’t done, and yet figuring out exactly what the problem is can be very slippery. It is a bit like being in the stages before stream entry, trying to figure out what exactly needs to be done. They need to notice something that has nothing to do with the cycles, to finally untangle the knot of perception at its core, but doing this can be a real trick. It is a very strange place, as one seems to know the dharma all the way to the end and yet somehow it just isn’t quite enough. In that vein, it is interesting to note that I wrote the vast majority of this book while I was some sort of anagami, and on reflection I got just about everything right. My emphases are slightly different now, but the basics are all the same.
As things progress, anagamis begin to tire of the cycles to a small or large degree and begin to look to something outside of them or not related to them for the answer to the final question. Finally, the cycles of insight, the states of concentration, the powers, and all the other perks and prerogatives of their stage of awakening or concentration abilities (if they developed them) hold no appeal and only lead to more unsatisfying cycles.
I completed around 27 full, complete insight cycles with mind-blowing A&P Events, Ass-kicking Dark Nights, Equanimity phases, and what seemed to be brand new, fresh Fruitions and Review phases between third and fourth path. There is nothing special about that number, as I mentioned previously in my descriptions of the problem that I call Twelfth Path. The later cycles got faster and faster, so that by the end it seemed I was whipping one out every few weeks or even every few days, but they still seemed to be leading nowhere. It was only when I had gotten so sick of the cycles and realized that they were leading nowhere that I was able to see what has nothing to do with the cycles, which also wasn’t anything except a strange untangling of the knot of perception of them. The cycles, for better or worse, have continued just the same. Thus, there is not much point in counting cycles or paths, as they don’t necessarily correlate well with anything past the first two or three, and issues of backsliding can really make things complex, as I explained earlier.
Finishing up my Revised Four Path Model, arahats have finally untangled the knot of perception, dissolved the sense of the center point actually being the center point, no longer fundamentally make a separate Self out of the patterns of sensations that they used to, even though those same patterns of sensations continue. This is a different understanding from those of Third Path in some subtle way, and makes this path about something that is beyond the paths. This is also poetically called the opening of the Wisdom Eye. What is interesting is that I could write about this stage quite well when I was an anagami, but that is a whole different world from knowing it like arahats know it.
The Wisdom Eye may seem to blink initially. It may go through cycles of flashing open just after a Fruition and then slowly fading over a few hours (at least on retreat) as each round of physical sensations, then mental sensations, then complex emotional formations, then lastly fundamental formations such as inquiry itself move through and become integrated into this new, correct and direct perception of reality as it is. Review cycles may occur many times during each flash, but when the eye is open they seem rather irrelevant in comparison to keeping the level of clarity and acceptance high enough to keep the eye open. When the eye fades, the familiar insight cycles may seem like pure drudgery, with the focus being of practice initially lost in getting through the cycles and then gradually shifting again to getting clear enough to get the eye to open again. The themes that occupy center stage go through a cycle that is very much like a progress cycle.
Finally, the Wisdom Eye cycles and insight cycles all converge, and the thing stays open from then on, which is to say that at that point it all seems the same whether or not the eye is open, which it actually was. That being seen, nothing can erode or disturb the centerlessness of perspective. Done is what is to be done, and life goes on. That there are arahats who have opened the Wisdom Eye but had it fade and those who have opened it and had it stay open is rarely mentioned but worth knowing.
For the arahat who has kept the thing open, there is nothing more to be gained on the ultimate front from insight practices, as “done is what is to be done”. That said, insight practices can still be of great benefit to them for a whole host of reasons, there is a ton they can learn just like everyone else about everything else there is to learn. They can grow, develop, change, work and participate in this strange human drama just like everyone else.
A Simple Model
In earlier versions of this work, I had a model called The Heart Sutra Model. The Simple Model is the less mysterious, stripped down version of that earlier model, though in its essence it is basically the same. While in one sense it is also rephrasing of the Revised Four Path Model, as it has no numbers, and is free of the traditional names, it has some advantages over that terminology.
I present this somewhat novel model here because it focuses on real insight directly and treats any emotional benefits of this as side effects. Further, there are often too many cycles of insight before arahatship, making the Four Path model troublesome. This phenomena of too many cycles (which I will sometimes call “paths” with a lowercase “p”) between each of the Four Paths gets worse as one works towards final awakening. As Bill Hamilton put it, and I have learned the hard way, “The arahat fractal is vast.”
The Simple Model does not reinforce fascination with content, nor with life denying ideals or limited emotional range models in the way that the traditional Four Path Model often does. It does not tempt one to count paths. It keeps the focus on precise inquiry into the truth and one’s experience of it or lack thereof.
This model basically says that enlightenment is about direct insight that progressively reveals something different in the relationship to the field of experience and gradually allows things in it to be held in their proper proportion. Thus, it is a Non-Duality Model.
The first understanding is that sensations are sensations, thoughts are thoughts, and this forms the basis of further inquiry. When the universal characteristics of these sensations begin to be seen, this represents growth in understanding. When the whole sense field is known directly and completely as it is, this can cause an entrance into Fruition through one of the Three Doors, and represents the first stage of awakening.
When one appreciates the cycles of the process of awakening and has completed at least one more cycle, this is the next stage. When one begins to appreciate the emptiness, luminosity, centerlessness, agentlessness, etc. of phenomena in real-time and this becomes the focus of practice rather than Fruition, this is the next stage. When the sense of the watcher, observer, subject, controller, doer, etc. is seen completely as it is and the knot of perception untangles, that simple, fundamental way of perceiving things is the next stage of awakening. When that untangling stays untangled, that is the next stage. When that understanding is integrated into our lives, that is the next phase, though I am not sure it can be defined as a stage rather than as a process.
The problem is that the traditions seem to want to make this understanding into so much more than it is, such as add ideals of emotional perfection onto this. There is some truth in the models dealing with emotions, but it has to do with things moving through faster and being seen more clearly. It does not have anything to do with bad emotions not arising. I hate to even go here, as my goal is to give the emotional models the bashing they richly deserve, but I also want to not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Thus, here it goes.
As the deep-seated perceptual sense of a separate, continuous, permanent, observing Agent stops being extrapolated from the same old patterns of sensations that seemed to be those, there is this wider inclusive something that can come into the consciousness of the enlightened individual, depending on their level of awakening. There is also a slowly growing directness of perception that comes as reality is not filtered so exclusively through thought. These two can combine to give the emotions of enlightened beings less sticking power, so that they may move through more quickly than for those that are not enlightened, and also may be seen more quickly and clearly as they arise and vanish. There may also be less blind contraction into thoughts and emotions and a wider perspective, thus giving the other parts of the brain more of a chance of creating moderated responses to the emotions. That said, even when seen through, there seems to be a biological component to how emotions move through that can only be expedited so much.
Anyone who thinks these highly qualified statements are anything like a vision of emotional perfection or the elimination of all negative emotions is not paying attention! That is the last thing I wish to imply. I merely wish to say that there is some increased clarity about our basic human experience and it can help, but that is all. That said, you would be amazed how angry, lustful or ignorant enlightened beings can be, and they can still do all sorts of stupid things based on these emotions, just like everyone else. The ability to moderate responses to emotions can sometimes give the impression that those emotions have been attenuated, but that is not the same thing, and there is my nice transition to the Action Models.
-
Hi aen,
Thanks for sharing, but DI's work's still not my cup of tea :)
Just to share...For guidance to teachers, preference is the Shurangama Sutra (chapter on the 4 clear instructions on purity and the 50 Skandha-demon states). If you have time, do check out this sutra...
-
Originally posted by zero thought:
Hi aen,
Thanks for sharing, but DI's work's still not my cup of tea :)
Just to share...For guidance to teachers, preference is the Shurangama Sutra (chapter on the 4 clear instructions on purity and the 50 Skandha-demon states). If you have time, do check out this sutra...
Yeah I saw the sutra already yesterday.
There is no contradictions with Daniel's work, since he also teaches the importance of morality and precepts. He is not a monk, but he is a morally upright man with a full-time job as a physician and has a wife and there isn't any scandals or any reports of him abusing students (he doesn't have any students and only discusses online) or doing any things morally wrong unlike some other famous Buddhist teachers who are more well known and supposedly enlightened. His level of morality is on par or even higher than many great Buddhist teachers.
By the way, I wonder if you are familiar with the traditional 4 paths and 10 fetters model of Buddhism.
For example: a Sotapanna gained some insight and has a taste of Nirvana, but he has *not* cut off lust, anger, and so on.
A once-returner also has *not* cut off lust, anger, and so on, but reduced them.
A non-returner has cut off sensual lust and also anger/aversion, but not subtle attachment to jhanic states, pride, and the others of the 5 fetters.
An arhant has cut off all 10 fetters.
So you should understand that someone who is enlightened to varying degrees might not cut off all defilements.
As my Taiwanese teacher (dharma successor of Master Shen Kai) says, even a 1st Bhumi bodhisattva still can have sex. Only 2nd Bhumi onwards are they freed from those gross defilements (that level is known as 离垢地)
Info:
II. Ground of Leaving Filth. The Bodhisattva becomes replete with pure precepts and renounces all actions that are contrary to morality and comportment. Hence on this ground he leaves the filth of afflictions behind.
-
Hi Aen,
By claiming himself to have achieved arahatship whether he has or not is not allowed. If he hasn't reach arahatship and claims such he is lying. If he really is an arahat he won't declare he is - unless like what have been mentioned earlier, he passes on after.
If the arahat he is refering to is not the arahat in Buddhism, then he shouldn't use the same term as it will confuse others. In the website he recommends - dharmaoverground, you can see they even have a whole section by itself for people to claim their attainments? Why in the world would that be needed besides to satisfy ppl's self-ego and get more adherents to their teachings?
And to quote one of DI's replys in dharmaoverground forum:
"Yeah, MCTB does directly contradict much standard Buddhist dogma, but then so does reality, so whatcha gonna believe?
Here's what I recommend, which sounds so preposterous from one point of view but is actually really doable: become an arahat, or at least an anagami, and then see what holds up to reality testing and what is just junk.
Follow standard methods, get your practice trip together, go on retreats, engage with the profundity of the teachings of insight practice and their fundamental assumptions and pointings, make progress, get stream entry by following the usual advice, progress from there as directed. Then you will see and we will have much to talk about, not that we don't now, but it will be at an entirely different level and much of it wouldn't even need to happen, given that you would see for yourself, which is really the whole point of Buddhism, however sliced.
Until then, withhold judgement, and certainly don't necessarily believe me. Do your own research, confirm for yourself. This is the way. All else is just blind faith, dogma, hearsay, etc. and of little to no value, and might even be harmful if you substituted that for your own direct comprehension.
Also, sex and practice: I don't see any particular correlation between sex and progress in insight or a lack thereof. I know plenty of celibate monks and nuns without any significant insight, and a good number of relative horn-dogs who are meditative stars."
In the 1st sentence, he said it himself that his own book contradicts much of the Buddha's standard teachings. Well, I rather believe in the Buddha's old age doctrines than some person trying to come up with new age Buddhism with new age terms for meditative experiences. Who wouldn't get confused by all those terms?
And in the last paragraph, what he is saying same as, "you can still indulge in desires and still achieve high level insight in meditation" How are people gonna even reach skadagami level when they indulge in all these? Take heed.Meditation is about getting out of the cycle of Birth and Death, not high-level experiences. The reason why DI ganers so much attention is that he promises people a Fast way to be enlightened and no need to meditate life after life to finally reach that goal, that you don't have to care about all those rules and precepts to get that kind of meditative experiences. This is something important to take note.
I think I have said enough about DI, I really don't want to discuss about this guy anymore...
-
Fast way to be enlightened and no need to meditate life after life to finally reach that goal
I will repudiate this statement first because I think it is very wrong. What Daniel teach is *NOT* a 'fast way' - it is the 'normal way' as taught by Buddha. You CAN reach liberation in this life-time, and Many have done it. In Burma monasteries, it is well known that half of those who go for 3 months long retreat actually attain to Stream entry. The success rates elsewhere might be slightly lower (it depends on technique, teacher, the practitioner etc) but it is still highly possible. Those who say that enlightenment is not possible this life is really bullshitting and teaching something that has no basis in the scriptures.
Enlightened people exists more than you think there are. They exist in sanghas, they exist on the streets, they exist in online communities, including some other moderators in my forum except that they don't openly make claims of attainments like Daniel - though they are open to sharing their experiences. See for example, Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment and Longchen/Simpo's Articles
Let me quote something from a Sutta to back my claims that enlightenment this life is absolutely possible if people follow the instructions and just practice over a period of time (but NOT anything like many lifetimes!):
(By practicing the Four Foundations of Mindfulness),
Buddha: "Now, if anyone would develop these four frames of reference in this way for seven years, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either gnosis right here & now, or — if there be any remnant of clinging-sustenance — non-return.
"Let alone seven years. If anyone would develop these four frames of reference in this way for six years... five... four... three... two years... one year... seven months... six months... five... four... three... two months... one month... half a month, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either gnosis right here & now, or — if there be any remnant of clinging-sustenance — non-return.
"Let alone half a month. If anyone would develop these four frames of reference in this way for seven days, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either gnosis right here & now, or — if there be any remnant of clinging-sustenance — non-return.
"'This is the direct path for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow & lamentation, for the disappearance of pain & distress, for the attainment of the right method, & for the realization of Unbinding — in other words, the four frames of reference.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said."
That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the monks delighted in the Blessed One's words.
"new age Buddhism with new age terms for meditative experiences"
No, what he taught is very standard Mahasi Sayadaw teaching, backed by the classical Theravadin commentary Visudhimagga by Ven Buddhaghosa, and the scriptures and texts, etc. It has so much depth that it is nothing resembling new age, which are often lacking in depth of true experience.
It is the 'Therepeutic Buddhism' taught nowadays that I think is 'new age' and far from the depth of the wisdom of Buddha, and the ancient masters like Ven Buddhaghosa, and so on.
Your question: "Why in the world would that be needed besides to satisfy ppl's self-ego and get more adherents to their teachings?"
Of course he is not doing it for his ego. He is doing this to counter all the 'therepeutic Buddhism' scene of North America instead of a more 'hardcore dharma practice' scene of Burma etc. He is telling people that enlightenment is truly possible because people are not even aiming for enlightenment but more like dealing with more mundane issues of life.
Here's his vision for dharma and I actually agree:
"Imagine a world where the dharma was just like anything else you wanted to learn, like playing piano or mathematics. You studied with people who were not afraid to tell you what they were capable of, you practiced techniques that everyone expected to work, you talked honestly with your fellow dharma adventurers about what was going and helped each other to progress, you attained to the expected results, and when you did so, you were not ridiculed or made to shut up about it, but instead were viewed as one more successful practitioner of the art who was there to support those coming up and also still learning from others."
By the way DharmaOverground is full of highly experienced practitioners and even if they make claims, they do not become a teacher just like that. Most often they will go like 'oh ok another one' or they might share notes, ask each other, learn from each other. Daniel, for example, has clearly stated he has no wish to be a teacher. He simply participates in discussions but does not want to be anyone's teacher, take students, disciples, etc. His book is available online for *free* download and reading. Daniel is a sincere person who has no ambitions to start a career in Dharma - he has a busy full time job that sustains him financially very well, he simply wants to share his experience with fellow dharma adventurers.
Here's a guideline from DhO http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest;jsessionid=103049DDDB7516EF6A013AB9C9AA2A72:
In general our basic principles and attitudes favor:
- pragmatism over dogmatism: what works is key, with works generally meaning the stages of insight, the stages of enlightenment, jhanas, etc.
- diligent practice over blind faith: this place is about doing it and understanding for yourself rather than believing someone else and not testing those beliefs out
- openness regarding what the techniques may lead to and how these contrast or align with the traditional models
- person responsibility: you take responsibility for the choices you make and what you say and claim
- a lack of taboos surrounding talking about attainments
- the assumption that the various aspects of meditative development can be mastered in this life
- the spirit of mutual, supportive adventurers on the path rather than rigid student-teacher relationships
- and the notion that the collective wisdom of a group of strong practitioners at various stages and from various traditions and backgrounds is often better than following one guru-type.
Meditation *is* about high level realization/insights (not just experience, but Realization), and whatever Daniel wrote about his experiences and insights, is in fact in agreement with his tradition and the commentaries of Ven Buddhaghosa and all the other vipassana teachers who had gone before him. He simply discusses them in details openly. All vipassana practitioners will go through the 16 nanas, the 4 fruitions, and so on.
Lastly again as I said so many times, he teaches the importance of precepts and morality.
As Ven Dhammanando pointed out:
To be fair, what Ingram repudiates is the Sutta teaching that arahants are incapable of transgressing certain precepts. As far as I know, he doesn't repudiate the precepts themselves. The exposition of sīla in his book is pretty much like that which one would get from Kornfield or any of the fluffier sort of North American vipassan� teachers. Which is to say, it's a bit woolly and lacking in clearcut descriptions of what each precept entails, but nonetheless not actually misleading.
Best wishes,
Dhammanando BhikkhuAnd like I said, I believe Daniel's view on this will likely change in future, in view that he is entering a new territory empty of emotions (he has not had permanent access to this yet but is aiming for it).
-
heya!
i believe both proponents have the best intentions for the readers in this forum at heart. so maybe we can leave this as it is, and may the path guide all of us.
or we can refer to the Kalama Sutta :) (顺便 advertise my blog abit hehe)
-
From what you have written, Daniel Ingram is still exploring, therefore, he have not reached to the stage of Asekha, non learner yet.
The attitude towards enlightentment in one lifetime is not a matter only of perception, but also of conditions being in right. When one fails to sense the ebb and flow of attachment, however subtle, or one's reification of one's experience, one is probably not there yet.
However, it helps for the practictioner to know that enlightenment to know attainable this very as long as it does not lead to grasping!
And expectations ,just like if you go to university, you are expected to get a degree.Are you are expected to achieve Realisation upon this fact?!
Or faking,in relation to that,I read in a book, that a shaman, as part of his training as supposed to receive visions. Although he did receive visions later on in his life, he faked receiving visions as it was expected of him.
Personally( for myself anyway), cessation of suffering is more important, everything else is only means to an end. Is it ok if "I", or my experiences means nothing, and is ok to no longer exist when my life is extinguished eventually. Can I let go of all?
-
people tend to have a double standard when it comes to dealing with matters in daily life vs. spiritual life.
in daily life, when i need someone to fix my broken pipes, i would want to consult a person who clearly proclaims himself to be a fully certified plumber and preferably good reference from friends.
in daily life, when i am involved in legal issues, i would want to consult a person who clearly proclaims himself to be a fully certified lawyer and pay good money for his service.
in daily life, when i want to sell my house, i would want to engage a person who clearly proclaims himself to be a fully certified property agent and he obviously gets paid good commission on a successful deal.
in spiritual life, when i want to seek authentic practice:
i am distrustful to go to a teacher if he happens to clearly proclaims himself to be a XXXX (insert preferred spiritual attainment here - Arahant, Bodhisattva, Awakened... etc) - but i will demand to see my doctor's full qualification before allowing him to diagnose my illness.
i expect free-of-charge service from my teacher who will guide me to direct awakening, coz talking about money is a taboo - but i will pay good money to my lawyer for his few "pointing out instructions" to get me out of my legal mess.
i would prefer my teacher to keep his professional practical experience and attainment as vague as possible, coz anything clearer and more direct would be construed as politically-incorrect or worse, lies - but i will demand full disclosure of my child's tuition teacher resume and experience before hiring him.
the hardcore dharma movement is to normalize such disparate double standards in people and bring spiritual practice down from the airy-fairy pedestal and hopefully instill a down-to-earth, can-do and common-place practice attitude in the society, just like any other mundance activities we engage ourselves in.
my half-cent worth.
-
Originally posted by Jamber:
people tend to have a double standard when it comes to dealing with matters in daily life vs. spiritual life.
in daily life, when i need someone to fix my broken pipes, i would want to consult a person who clearly proclaims himself to be a fully certified plumber and preferably good reference from friends.
in daily life, when i am involved in legal issues, i would want to consult a person who clearly proclaims himself to be a fully certified lawyer and pay good money for his service.
in daily life, when i want to sell my house, i would want to engage a person who clearly proclaims himself to be a fully certified property agent and he obviously gets paid good commission on a successful deal.
in spiritual life, when i want to seek authentic practice:
i am distrustful to go to a teacher if he happens to clearly proclaims himself to be a XXXX (insert preferred spiritual attainment here - Arahant, Bodhisattva, Awakened... etc) - but i will demand to see my doctor's full qualification before allowing him to diagnose my illness.
i expect free-of-charge service from my teacher who will guide me to direct awakening, coz talking about money is a taboo - but i will pay good money to my lawyer for his few "pointing out instructions" to get me out of my legal mess.
i would prefer my teacher to keep his professional practical experience and attainment as vague as possible, coz anything clearer and more direct would be construed as politically-incorrect or worse, lies - but i will demand full disclosure of my child's tuition teacher resume and experience before hiring him.
the hardcore dharma movement is to normalize such disparate double standards in people and bring spiritual practice down from the airy-fairy pedestal and hopefully instill a down-to-earth, can-do and common-place practice attitude in the society, just like any other mundance activities we engage ourselves in.
my half-cent worth.
Awesome post!!
http://personallifemedia.com/podcasts/236-buddhist-geeks/episodes/3717-enlightened
Episode 9: Enlightened Teachers
0diggsdiggIn our latest podcast with Theravada teacher Daniel Ingram he breaches the taboo of enlightenment by discussing the enlightenment of other teachers. Not only that but he argues for a more transparent approach to enlightenment within certain teaching circles, in hopes that enlightenment can become more attainable. Listen and see why he thinks this will help.
This is Part 2 of a three-part series. Listen to Part 1: You Can Do It! & Part 3: Models of Enlightenment.
