The Four Paths of Enlightenment Model

"
No, I didn't have a good reason for not answering, I just got sidetracked by all of the other fascination things you and I discuss. My answer, though, is that I don't know. My sample size is too small. It may be possible to access all twenty strata from the level of anagami, but I don't know of anyone who I think has done that. In fact, you and I are the only people I've ever heard convincingly describe all twenty strata. But this map at accesstoinsight.org, seems to suggest that anagamis can learn to access all of the Pure Abodes, which would give them all 20 strata:

www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html "

Hi Kenneth!

I just meant you were being a good teacher, because ultimately it's something that I have to figure out for myself.

Would that imply that the transition from anagami to arahant is *not* physio-energetic - that maybe it's more a matter of recognizing what is always the case?

David

"Would that imply that the transition from anagami to arahant is *not* physio-energetic - that maybe it's more a matter of recognizing what is always the case?"

No, I don't think arahatship has anything to do with recognizing what is always the case. I think arahatship is purely physio-energetic. It's the inevitable result of deconstructing layer after layer of mind. Just as 2nd Path naturally follows 1st, and 3rd naturally follows 2nd, 4th Path just shows up one day when you have penetrated and developed enough strata of mind. Realization, on the other hand, is a complete revolution in attention, with no development or deconstruction required. (One man's opinion.)

Kenneth

To elaborate a bit on my previous post, maybe anagamis can access, but not fully penetrate all 20 strata? Just a thought.

...

...

...

...

Hey Mike!

What I meant was, as I understand the classical presentation of Theravada, which almost is a fiction in itself, as there is so much variations, it has great difficulty in accommodating, what is in simple terms, naked, causeless Primordial Awareness (name it what you will - the fundamental, self-existent, acausal lucidity foundational to reality itself - that which is sentient, and which is no thing, being, or entity, just apersonal cognizance itself); also as I understand it, there is no talk of chakras or kundalini, or their relation to the pranas entering the central channel and its correlation with dualistic concsiousness or view, which are Hindu yogic tantra terms in origin, that appear to have no correlation in the Theravada system; nor anything to say about the Taoist ideas of the transformation of these energies in terms of jing, chi, shen and their relation to the transformation of consciousnessness - although there would be some correlation with the stages of insight; and no capacity to model 'always already' - the non-developmental nature of things here and now, and its realization.

[cont.]

Ken has done a great job of melding most known eastern systems into one smoother, multi-dimensional whole; and he has actually realized what these systems speak of, so he is doubly valuable as a spiritual friend, so to speak.

I think the Theravada model(s) does help fill in some gaps, or help place some emphasis upon them - particularly an understanding of the jhanas and shamatha-based insight.

Personally, I think Mahamudra encompasses pretty much all the known systems and is incredibly sophisticated and detailed in its presentation of theory and practice. It fails in its often inflexible insistence on tantric mahamudra practice and questionable preliminaries, prior to essence Mahamudra and the ritual, cultural artefacts thereof.

Stick around my friend, there is much we can all learn from each other!

In kind regards,

Adam.

...

...

I need to point something out here.

We can discuss a Four Path model because Kenneth is fully qualified to discuss this based on his own development and personal knowledge. However, Fourth Path is not the final path. Fifth Path is Buddhahood. None of us here is qualified to do more than speculate on the Fifth Path, since none of us have attained it.

Elsewhere, Dan Ingrahm wrote something to the effect that there is no difference between an Arahant and a Buddha. I disagree. The traditional texts indicate that, during the Buddha Gotama's lifetime, his 500 Arahant followers were...ummm...shall we say, not always making the best decisions In other words, despite the fact that the Arahants had attained Enlightenment, they had NOT attained "supreme, perfect, unexcelled Enlightenment." (Also, in the history of Buddhism, the split between the Theravada and the Mahayana can be traced, at least in part, to disagreements over the "perfection" of Arahants. There were some major issues of "infallibility" and "authority" there.)

According to the traditional story, Gotama said that he had had 6 immediately previous lifetimes in which he attained Arahantship. Only in his then current lifetime had he realized Buddhahood. After that, there would be no subsequent rebirths. As to the question of what would happen to the Buddha after his death/Parinirvana, he said that nothing could be spoken. (I know exactly how he feels. Not felt; FEELS!)

Regards,
Gozen

Why on earth would anyone get upset over little details like Arahatship versus Buddhahood?

...

Congratulations on the clarity, on sticking with it, and on joining us here!

"


"

...

Well, it seems you found my work but ended up here. I am glad you at least plugged into something, as, in general, a community of skilled practitioners helps.

As to the various models, it is worth knowing you have walked into a perennial topic of controversy, disagreement, argument, debate, power struggles, personality stuff, deep-rooted competition and history that swirls around this issue. The battles are heated, complex and not easily resolved. Kenneth and I disagree profoundly past about 2nd path on many topics, as do various other people. It would be simplistic to break it down into even two schools of thought here, as there are actually marked variations on the models between people if one reads the fine print.

As to Gozen's claim that I equate arahatship with buddhahood, what I actually said was that Zen seems to do this at times, but if you read my work you will see that I simply articulate the various definitions used by the traditions and leave it at that. Kenneth, on the other hand, has very specific models of Buddhahood that involve Rigpa, another controversial topic. Others probably have their own definitions of Buddhahood. I am not sure how this helps, but if someone does, let me know.

As to your original questions about Fruitions: fruitions are always the same: reality vanishes, and then it reappears. The Three Doors don't vary much between the paths, really, and any subtle changes are not of any great practical value. What changes at stream entry we all basically agree on, so start there. The debates about the higher paths cause much strain at times, fervent glee at others, confusion also, and more, such as carpal tunnel from endless typing about it.

Sorting out where you are benefits from discussions with practitioners who are good at the territory, but even then is not always straightforward. People have some marked variations in timing, emphasis, conceptualization, language, etc.

"
"

...

"
As to Gozen's claim that I equate arahatship with buddhahood, what I actually said was that Zen seems to do this at times, but if you read my work you will see that I simply articulate the various definitions used by the traditions and leave it at that. Kenneth, on the other hand, has very specific models of Buddhahood that involve Rigpa, another controversial topic. Others probably have their own definitions of Buddhahood. I am not sure how this helps, but if someone does, let me know.

"

Daniel,

Do you have any thoughts about what comprises buddhahood, provisional or otherwise? I'd be extremely interested in your ideas on this.

David

Dear David,

I think the question is backwards. People define Buddhahood based on whatever, as it is just a word, and then that's the definition.

The Buddha, meaning Uncle Sid, aka Gotama The Dead Guy, defined it based on his own experience and defined it thus (or at least that's what the old texts say):

A Buddha arises once in a large period of time and for every age there is only one. They are like arahats, except that somehow they have understood the truth of things "to the very end", whatever that means. They have complete mastery of the powers, perfect morality, complete mastery of the jhanas, and 4 paths. They were bodhisattvas for countless lifetimes before perfecting their non-existent soul until were ready to become Buddhas. That's basically Sid's definition.

The Tibetans modify this and say they have complete omniscience, meaning perfect knowledge of the sum total of the universe at all times, something Sid never claimed and clearly didn't demonstrate, based on all the stories. They have other further modifications based on subtle defilements and residual stuff, all of which is eliminated in Buddhas, and claim to produce them in one lifetime using the Vajrayana path, having arisen after going through the 10 Bhumis, of which one very high muckity muck in the Tibetan thing said: "I don't know even one living master who has a realization that meets the criteria of even the 2nd Bhumi", probably because the criteria are absurd. By their definition, Gotama Buddha was not a Buddha.

The Zen kids are perennially vague on the topic in their charming style, as intellectual rigor was rarely their thing, and I can see their point at times, such as today while typing this.

So a Buddha is mythical and does not, cannot exist? Or is just the the Mahayana version of a Buddha mythical and cannot exist? And just what did make the historical Buddha a true Buddha? What diference was there, if any, between that Buddha and an Arahat? Do you expect there will ever be another Buddha, and if so, how would we ever know?

Very curious.... and I know there may indeed be no answers.

EDIT: Daniel slipped in and answered some of these questions as I was posting this comment.

Kenneth, if I may presume to speak for him, as we just went over this between us, defines Buddhahood as full-time Rigpa and awareness of being in Rigpa, which even Sid the Buddha didn't achieve, as he said, when asked if he was perpetually aware of the fact that he was awake, something like, "No, but that aspect of things is there whenever I turn my mind to it, and I don't need to be continually aware of that aspect of things for it to function," the specific sutta number long forgotten by me, as I read it about a decade ago. The interesting thing about full-time Rigpa is it would preclude things the Buddha did all the time, like teach, think, and do all sorts of stuff that Kenneth says don't really happen well or at while one is checking out Rigpa, a state/stage/attainment that we have yet to satisfactorily define between us, at least, though that work may have happened here to everyone's satisfaction, but still is clearly exclusionary. The historical Buddha got angry, pissed off, frustrated, had lots of pain from various things, including headaches, and died in agony, all precluded in this Rigpa thing, so I am told.

In short, Buddhahood is a term that gets thrown around a lot and there is no clear and fixed definition that is agreed to by the traditions, and I personally know none who I have met and gotten to question about it who meet any of the various definitions, including the most reasonable and yet still absurd, that of the original Gotama Buddha himself as it has come down to us in texts of widely varying quality.

Ok, back to you from a pragmatist's point of view: how would each of the various definitions or your own definition help you, the practitioner to do something, and what is that something? I personally find all the definitions preposterous and unverifiable in this lifetime, resembling the dreams of children, like Santa. Do you find otherwise?

Regarding textual references to Buddhahood...

I spent many years studying the Judeo-Christian Bible in college, using an exegetical method dubbed Historical-Critical. It is a deductive approach, rather than an inductive approach. This means that it doesn't often use scriptural texts to interpret other texts, as this would lead to the conclusion that, "It's true because the Bible says it's true, which is true because it says so." Highly problematic, but often practiced.

Doing this, I discovered some things about the Bible that I think will apply to any of our interpretations of the suttas.

First, the amount of time that passes between actual teachings and events and their being written down has a direct relationship to how literal or otherwise fabricated the texts are. We see this if we look at the four canonized New Testament Gospels. The book of Mark is the earliest of them all, no doubt about it. Jesus divinity is downplayed, as far as being equal with the Father is concerned. And the original ending of Mark depicts Jesus death and burial only. Later redactions included the finding of an empty tomb.

The books of Matthew and Luke-Acts get more fanciful and fluffy, and start changing the timeline a bit while giving Jesus even more authority and attributing ever more divinity to him (as well as depicting him as having more an understanding of his mission). They end with sighting of the risen Jesus.

The book of John... well, it was right many years after (perhaps over 100 years). And needless to say, it's a hell of a lot more fluffy.

What I'm getting at should be obvious here. The suttas were not written down for 1000 years or so. Say what you want about oral tradition, but personal and societal agendas, mixed with all sorts of added mythology to add validity toe tradition in a Cosmic sense, will undoubtedly skew the stories and add a bunch of extras.

cont.

In order to sell Buddhism throughout the world, it was probably necessary to give the Buddha all kinds of extra qualities. I know this is heresy, but I'm used to it. I was called a heretic at Bible college quite often.

This is why I'm thankful for the Visuddhimagga and other commentaries written by latter followers of the Buddha, as they provide lots of information about what actually happens when we sit down and practice. Of course, they throw all of the fluffy emotional changes in with the good stuff, but that's just a part of trying to preserve a tradition while backing your own writings up with what is the most authoritative source at the time.

Therefore, there's really no way to know what the Buddha actually said, word for word. We can try to find a old text or teaching that jives with our preferences at some level, or we can just sit down and figure out the truth for ourselves. I think it's way more likely that the Buddha was a normal person who applied himself in a way that allowed him to discover the Truth. We're better off if we consider the simplest, non-fantastical claims of the Buddha with the highest priority. What "Buddhahood" really is, in my view, isn't all that important.

"
The Buddha, meaning Uncle Sid, aka Gotama The Dead Guy, defined it based on his own experience and defined it thus (or at least that's what the old texts say):

A Buddha arises once in a large period of time and for every age there is only one. They are like arahats, except that somehow they have understood the truth of things "to the very end", whatever that means. They have complete mastery of the powers, perfect morality, complete mastery of the jhanas, and 4 paths. They were bodhisattvas for countless lifetimes before perfecting their non-existent soul until were ready to become Buddhas. That's basically Sid's definition.

"

Do you think that the idea of Buddhahood has any use as an unobtainable ideal?

To preface this, on another site, I was playing around with the idea that Realization was an event in the context of Dasein (Human Being), while Enlightenment is an ongoing process that stems from that event.

Just for fun let's take Sid's criterion seriously, as much as we can. Let's say that all 4 Paths have been obtained and there is a complete mastery of jhanas, as well as all the powers, and we'll leave out the bit about morality for now. All that would go along with the "physioenergetic" metaphor/model.

And there can only be one at any given time... }:^)

Perhaps if arahantship is something that occurs for Dasein, Buddhahood occurs for humanity as a collective in the form of a single Nirmanakaya.

If that's true, I'm going to spend more time playing Wii sword fighting, and less time meditating!

THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!!!