The Four Paths of Enlightenment Model

I was suspecting it was something like that. Thanks for the clarification.

I wonder what would cause that sort of reaction to what I wrote?

Time for more grits with cheese.

...

I have to confess to puzzlement about where the sense of contentiousness that pops up over this issue comes from. I originally offered what seemed to me a straightforward answer to a straightforward question: "Yes, there are other maps-- for instance, this Dzogchen/Vajrayana one."

Somewhere along the way, noodling about the idea of maps, generally, I thought maybe the irritation comes from wanting to do something analogous to reducing a globe (3-D map) to a 2-D map. And then getting vexed about why it isn't working...

Well, it's only an idea, not nearly as nice as cheese grits--
Kate

"For the sake of our phenomenelogical discussion, we can ask ourselves what happens in that moment. This is an ongoing investigation, and need not ever be answered definitively.

Would you agree that in the moment of timelessness, these questions are resolved?

Kenneth"

Hey Kenneth!

I think that we can say it is usual that in the dawning recognition of the nature of mind, thought self-liberates and thus is free. There may have been thought a moment before, but as the flash of 'seeing-through' occurs, it appears there is a moment at least of a presentation of the thought-free condition. Whether or not the recognition persists or thoughts return and are recognized for what they are is an ongoing variable from moment to moment, for person to person.

Indeed, I would agree, that moment of recognition is timeless and all questions are resolved as having been previously dependent upon the presence of the ignorance of a distracted mind.

[cont.]

A quote from Chögyal Namkhai Norbu:

"Three Last Statements of Garab Dorje

He left behind this testament for all the Dzogchen practitioners of the future. The Three Statements of Garab Dorje are:
"Introduce in the state directly" refers to the transmission by the master, who, in various ways, introduces and brings the disciple to understand the condition of "what is", the individual's primordial state. This is the Base.

"Do not remain in doubt" means that one must have a precise knowledge of this state, finding the state of the presence of contemplation which is one and the same in all the thousands of possible experiences. This is the Path.

"Continue in the profound knowledge of self-liberation" is the Fruit. That means, the complete and unchangeable knowledge of self-liberation is totally integrated with one's daily life and in all circumstances one continues in that state. All the hundreds and hundreds of original texts of Dzogchen can be considered to be an explanation of these three verses of Garab Dorje."

from "The Crystal and the Way of Light" and "Dzogchen, the Self-Perfected State" - by Chögyal Namkhai Norbu

"
First, let your mind rest loosely.
Without projecting, without concentrating - without thoughts.
While relaxed and remaining evenly in that state
Suddenly exclaim a mind shattering PHAT!
Forceful, short and sharp - emaho!
Nothing whatsoever - totally blank.
A blankness which is utterly open.
A total openness which is indescribable.
Recognize this as the Dharmakaya awareness."

Does anyone else think that sounds a bit like a Path fruition?

Reading over this thread, I'm left scratching my head a bit. I would be hard pressed to describe exactly what the disagreement is about. Right now I don't think we have an agreement of the definition of terms.

Here are some of the issues that I see: What is our definition of "enlightenment"? How does that differ from "Realization", assuming there is a difference? What is the difference between Kenneth's model of the arahat, and Daniels? Can we be certain that Daniel doesn't have an experience of "Rigpa" and conceives of it differently? Could Daniel's experience of arahatship be equivalent to Trekcho?

Personally I don't think there's much conflict between the direct path, sudden, and gradual schools of enlightenment, nor is there much difference between a physioenergetic model and a direct path model. In the case of the direct path model, perceiving nondual reality causes physioenergetic development which causes the perception to deepen and maintain. Likewise physioenergetic development creates nondual perception states. They are two sides of the same coin.
D

"Does anyone else think that sounds a bit like a Path fruition?"

Me. I do. Agreed. It would appear that we may have a generalized language failure on this whole topic. And that's not too surprising, is it?

It just doesn't matter.

Thank you so much for posting Chögyal Namkhai Norbu's succinct and poetic rendering of Garab Dorje's 'three thunderbolt phrases.' One of my cases of extreme good luck is that I found a copy of "The Crystal and the Way of Light" within weeks of being pointed at Dzogchen as a source of answers to the questions I was starting to ask.

An amplification of the correspondences that he lists is that base/path/fruit correspond to Sutra/Tantra/Dzogchen. The sense of wheels-within-wheels I experience as delightfully disorienting.

Thanks again for all your arduous and extremely well-chosen posting here. I am among the appreciative.
-Kate

Hey kate!

You're most welcome!

I also take the opportunity to thank Adam for the remarkable text.

I agree with Haquan that it is mainly a matter of strategy. Some get naked first to exercise on a later stage, while some exercise first and get naked around the 3rd path (if we are to follow the body-building analogy).

However in this text, "totaly blank" means free of conceptual thoughts to reveal naked awareness. The Sanskrit seed syllable PHAT has a banishing effect and is always used during tantric banishing rituals. The "Khat!" Zen shout has the same aim.

"Reading over this thread, I'm left scratching my head a bit. I would be hard pressed to describe exactly what the disagreement is about. Right now I don't think we have an agreement of the definition of terms.
"

I'm with you David. At least you got in a couple of posts '“ I was left in the dust.

As far as I can tell, there is disagreement between Adam and Kenneth over how to define rigpa (maybe at what point does rigpa as practice become rigpa as experience?). There seems some kind of dispute between Kenneth and Daniel and I am not sure what the body building reference relates to. I am left with the impression that it has to do with - are attainments (paths) needed or not but I am not clear if this is simply a matter of language (calling them attainments) or the underlying experience itself. And maybe it has nothing to do with that at all.

As for path models I like the Sutrayana, Tatrayana, Dzogchen model as it fleshes out practice and view aspects better than the 4 path Theravada model. Another I like is: One-pointedness/Simplicity/One-taste/Non-meditation (4 yogas of mahamudra) for the same reason. Seems more a focus on stages of development and less on the break between them.

Maybe if Theravadans and Tibetans were looking at a parking lot the Theravada would say 'There are lines!' and the Tibetan would say 'There are Spaces!'

Perhaps controversial but seems to me that a person at the level of Sutrayana is going to view/practice rigpa from the Sutrayana perspective and a person at Tatrayana is going to view/practice from the Tatrayana perspective '“ they are not capable of doing it any other way - just the way it goes.

-Chuck