Recent comments
Stage 4 without stage 3? Data point: Myself; claim: Widespread in autistic spectrum people.
Commenting on: Developing ethical, social, and cognitive competence
I want to challenge the (fundamental) assumption of the model that development necessarily (i.e. in every single case) needs to proceed in the order of the stages as described/ that “higher” stages have the ability to also function in “lower” stages.
And as datapoint I bring myself:
I cannot remember that I ever have been able to function in stage 3. And I make the claim that many people on the autistic spectrum can easily function in stage 4, but not in stage 3.
What do you think?
Might that show a boundary of this model?
Regards!
Thomas Flint
Commenting on: Tantric Theravada and modern Vajrayana
Hi David,
Through you above message I learn that my long time former buddhist monk friend Thomas Flint has moved on. I want to write him. Can you give me an email address or other solid contact?
with thanks,
Troy Harris
Berlin
sritantra@gmail.com
troy-material.blogspot.com
Further baseless speculation as symbol-system-manipulation competence is robbed of purpose
Commenting on: Developing ethical, social, and cognitive competence
It would seem to me (again, as someone actively and excruciatingly regressing from stage 5 to stage 2 as the world walks whistling by) that, unfortunately, societies that do not follow the Western liberal individualist model, actually have the upper hand at producing hypothetical “stage 6” individuals.
Roughly speaking, I picture a society where “the institutions are there to serve the individual” as a “cold war of all against all” where 50% of participants achieving stage 3 is be sufficient to maintain economic output at stable levels within the scope of living memory (which, in this case, is less than or equal to ~1 generation, due to deficiencies of further perception as inherent to the given stage.)
OTOH, a totalitarian society where “the individual is there to serve the institutions” would naturally cause individuals achieving a higher development stage to, well, rebel. This would make them visible to the institution, which would initially crush them - to its own detriment - then eventually one of these projects would figure out how to co-opt and incorporate these challengers to its own hegemony; or, from the opposing viewpoint, those who are able to rebel invisibly would figure out how to take over the societal institutions from the inside, thinking they are “bending them to their will” but instead just becoming one with them.
“You Are The Ones and We Are The Many”, to be overly dramatic and obtuse about a point I find difficult to express in the language that I am given by The Many.
I find the whole idea repugnant, tbh. In my head, it is the human individuals that are the bearers of conscious experience, and therefore moral value. Systems of individuals, on the other hand, are of course vastly more powerful than individuals, but have no consciousness, and I have come to perceive them as parasitic entities that exist in “behavior-space”. Who would win? Whose side are you on? Do you believe there are no sides? Does the forces that oppose you believe the same?
Fascinating, fascinating stuff! And everyone who I used to be able to talk with about such things now seems to be across something from me! Baseless speculation includes that some have found a place in the “system” that rewards them enough for Upton Sinclair’s law to apply (easy if you cound “not being crushed today” as reward), and yet others have been broken by their unilateral search for peace with a world that is at war with them for no reason, and become unaware operatives of rot.
And me, I just sit around bored and frustrated, hardly even finding it worth to write thoughts on Internet, lest they also be incorporated into the immortal unconscious which took away my sense of purpose “for my benefit” (as the Wilsonites would also probably rationalize to themselves the selling of false maps of shared interiorities to any seek of correct truths that passes by. “Hey, man’s gotta eat an if they get burnt it’s their fault.”)
Really gotta read the original Kegan.
Trip report
Commenting on: Developing ethical, social, and cognitive competence
This systematization is positively fascinating: a rigorous map of modes of consciousness about whose existence authors like R. A. Wilson would hint at, then sell you a fake to see if you figure it out for yourself.
I would like to report that over a period of ~15 years my state of being has regressed from precocious stage 5 (intuiting the presence of such patterns as described in the article, experiencing frustration that nobody seemed to know or care about such things, seeking a way out of a partially modernized mess of a society by virtue of “meta” awareness ascribing me further degrees of freedom) to exhausted stage 2 (where the only thing I can speak for is my personal experience, and other humans literally have no meaning or existence to me other than as relates to my present necessities - which I had thankfully struggled to minimize over time, and can now apparently persist in this state indefinitely.)
Furthermore I have a fundamental suspicion that my parents had experienced a societally-induced process of regression before and during my early upbringing; my observation over the years is that only after shedding the burden of
“breadwinning and childrearing as the only legitimate purpose of an adult person’s existence in a mixed stage 2-4 society” were they able to regain some degree of higher functioning. I consider it evil to create new thinking beings on such shaky grounds, but what is done is done.
What I took away from the whole ordeal that has been my lived experience as a conscious human being is that it has a strong “curated” flavor to it; from your description on what miscomprehension between stages 2/3/4 looks like, I infer that an individual might theoretically gain the following capability: they would be able, through persistent reinforcement, to force others into a certain developmental stage, thus qualitatively changing the system through which they perceive the world. The ethics of this process are contingent on the stage of development at which the perpetrator has developed that capability. Common pararational traps such as “conspiracy theories” and “esotericism/occultism” seem to me like the experience of an individual participating in the system at developmental stage N-1, figuring out the existence of stage N, extrapolating the existence of stages N+1,2…M, and becoming either terrified or power-mad about it, depending on where their locus of control was situated at the moment of realization.
Please, send help. I am trapped in a talking monkey.
Yes
Commenting on: There are no spiritual problems
Yes yes yes
Thank you
Commenting on: The Tantric Base: Spacious Passion
Thank you for reflecting back to me how I intuitively practice spirituality
A life changer
Commenting on: How to learn Buddhist tantra
Feeling gratitude upon re-reading. The idea of “asking raw questions” changed my life.
I am reminded, in a similar vein, of Ken McLeod’s statement that ‘your teacher is not there to answer your questions – they are there to ask you questions that you can not answer as you currently are.’
What is Zen?
Commenting on: Yanas are not Buddhist sects
Hopefully comments on decade+ old posts are taken as complementary and not annoying - I was a child when you wrote much of this book, and it’s adding great value to my life today as a young adult.
Your Yanas posts throughout Vividness have greatly clarified the whole conversation for me. But one issue (and it’s almost certainly actually a non-issue) is the classification of Zen - and by that I mean the whole of Zen, including Chan, Seon, Thiên, and Japanese Zen.
It seems to me Zen could be considered a yana, developed from dhyana but now its own distinct yana inclusive of dhyana. Zazen is a specific approach to meditation, koan study is a unique method of pointing to, playing with, and integrating the understanding of emptiness, and there are unique rituals and devices that approach and play with emptiness in specific ways (Zen poetry, gardens and sculpture, ritualized living).
If Zen is considered a yana, then sects would be the schools and lineages, such as Sōtō, Ōbaku, Rinzai, Jogyesa - all of which primarily focus on Zen the yana, but also frequently incorporate other yanas, like sutra.
I do see, in my very limited understanding, Zen the yana as a cousin to Dzogchen - similar to your framing in Beyond Emptiness, particularly at the highest level of koan practice… So that begs the question of whether Zen as a yana fits within Mahayana or Vajrayana, or neither.
What unites Dzogchen and Tantra conceptually and mechanically under Vajrayana, beyond aesthetic and sequential development? Is the difference between core yanas purely the aim - Arhat through Hinayana, Bodhisattva through Mahayana, and Buddha through Vajrayana? If so, Zen might constitute a fourth core yana standing outside the traditional three - as often Zen seeks a goalless Buddhism, although this is controversial across practice lineages (the Bodhisattva-ideal runs deep throughout Zen-focused sects).
Vajrayana isn't tibetan
Commenting on: Vajrayana is not Tibetan Buddhism (and vice versa)
In climbing the big mountain we’re all facing, it really is irrelevant to me if Vajrayana is or isn’t Tibetan. What matters is that the person practicing Vajrayana is becoming a better, happier person for the benefit of others!
You could spend 1000 years analyzing dharma, histories, monks, tantrayana, and sutrayana and more, but still, it is, for me, connecting with the individual deities/archetypes that brings release, not academic speculation.
And meditation? Great, relaxing, clears the mind etc. However, meditation can never be more than an ephemeral solution to suffering. Quit meditating, and the suffering pops back up–every time–maybe it’s less because you disassociated from it somewhat for a time, but trust my experience, the only way to constantly be happy and in bliss, for me anyway, and probably you, is to constantly connect with a deity. Constantly. Then you become a part of their bliss. It’s unexplainable. The other huge advantage comes at death; you need to be commiserating with an advanced being when you enter the bardo; otherwise, you’ll be like a leaf in a windstorm–you’ll be at the mercy of your own accumulated energies.
You connect with a deity through visualization and their mantra, but this isn’t understood or believed by the masses.
Thank you!
Commenting on: The Dark Age and Buddhism’s future
I hadn’t seen that article! Thank you so much!
I can tell this whole site is going to be a great resource to help me articulate to my wife and friends a great deal of my spiritual outlook. It is very difficult to put into words for your typical western atheist or agnostic who’s only familiar with Christianity - a fundamentally different way of relating to and experiencing the world, the self and one another.
Thank you for all your work and elucidation!
Appreciation and Passing Thought
Commenting on: The Dark Age and Buddhism’s future
I really appreciate this blog, because it essentially summarizes much of my spiritual outlook. I formally practice Zen, but I have a deep fondness for Vajrayana and hope to deepen my understanding and pursuit of tantra in a parallel manner as time goes on.
One thought I do have, however, is on the difference between Vajrayana and Tibetan Buddhism. Obviously Tibetan Buddhism is a part, a derivative, of Vajrayana, but it is not the entirety of Vajrayana and Tibet does not own Vajrayana. I think a lot of resistance to our thinking comes from a desire to maintain indigenous culture and spirituality in the Tibetan tradition - we don’t want westerners appropriating and recreating “Tibetan” Buddhism according to their personal spiritual and philosophical proclivities. But we could develop distinct Vajrayana lineages in the west, potentially branching off from Tibetan lineages but explicitly reframed as fundamentally new interpretations distinct from traditional Tibetan understanding (say, western traditions branching from each of the 4 schools, with reinterpretations of myths and animus beliefs).
I think there have been a few attempts at this approach - like Diamond Way - but they tend to be marred by cultic behavior, sectarianism, western new age BS, and the general scandals and superficialities that tend to taint deliberate western reinterpretations of spiritual traditions. It might be useful for it evolve similar to western Zen, but retaining its myth, spirituality and symbology (western Zen is often so secularized and serious it can feel alienated from its spiritual and cultural roots). I think this could have organically happened if Chogyam Trungpa hadn’t gone so far off the rails in the 60s and 70s and made the horrid mistake of transmitting his authority to Osel Tendzin.
Who's the target audience?
Commenting on: Relating as beneficent space
Is this aimed at people who are already giving benefit of the doubt to vaguely-Buddhist metaphysics, so to speak? When I attempt a translation into my own, some of it does feel already familiar, but even so, there doesn’t seem to be much in the way of response to the self-posed “theoretical, abstract, implausible, or incomprehensible” charge.
There’s the notorious “Dodo bird verdict” that all forms of psychotherapies are equally effective, strongly implying their specific content doesn’t matter. Is there good outsider-accessible evidence that Buddhism-informed approaches fare any better in practice?
is the definition of spaciousness restricted to "freedom from fixed meanings"?
Commenting on: Spacious freedom
How about the sense of “spaciousness” that comes from having lots of unstructured time like during holidays?
Freedom from obligations and the have-to’s of day to day
Is that part of the spaciousness definition you have in mind here?
I also see how this spaciousness is closely linked to the awareness when you speak about the difference of awareness and mind elsewhere in vividness
In western psychology, awareness is a part of mind. Whereas in Dzogchen, mind is a part of awareness where awareness is like this infinite boundary-less vast space if i recall correctly.
Can you talk more about the difference between the awareness of Dzogchen and the spaciousness here?
It’s so simple!
Commenting on: Relating as beneficent space
Drop the involvement with judgment and subjective interpretation. So obvious and yet we find ourselves trapped in those constructs again and again. Crazy. Good stuff. Timely too.
Related?
Commenting on: A non-statement ain't-framework
I guess I was starting from the “difficult to describe” aspect. Now, of course, not everything that is difficult to describe is similar purely in virtue of it being difficult to describe. However, I felt a kind of connection, also felt alongside the Christian “apophatic” tradition. In my understanding of that tradition, one does not try to say what God is, but rather points, by saying what God is not. Or something…
Related?
Commenting on: A non-statement ain't-framework
https://psyche.co/ideas/what-happens-to-the-brain-during-consciousness-ending-meditation
Just curious, from a naive and pretty ignorant perspective....
Chöd
Commenting on: A non-statement ain't-framework
I think I’ll stick with summoning demons, at least I understand how that is supposed to work..
Thank you
Commenting on: A non-statement ain't-framework
I enjoyed this and thought it was laugh-out-loud funny. The second student’s description of why they’re interested in Dzogchen (vs tantra) helped me clarify my own interests.
I hope you continue to write dialogue, as it conveys (to me) some texture that seems otherwise hard to convey.
“If something bizarre happens and you can’t find your mind… you have an opportunity.”
What can one do when this opportunity happens? I recognized something that might be similar to it this morning.
Also:
- Why does the teacher say “Excellent! So now vee may perhaps to begin. Yes?” Is his mother Swedish, and does it come out when he’s feeling jaunty?
- Is “all-pervasive, unchanging, beneficent, luminous, impersonal space” a description of rigpa in terms of the elements? If so, are these terms which indicate what happens when form and emptiness are perceived as non-dual?
Thanks for the clarification
Commenting on: A non-statement ain't-framework
Ok, I think I see what you’re going for now. I still feel aversion towards this approach but that’s just me :)
liked it but found ending problematic
Commenting on: A non-statement ain't-framework
Quick comment: I liked this up until the ending which felt a bit “magical”. I feel like it might add unnecessary confusion.
For context: I’ve been practising dzogchen for 5 years and come from a similar background to you.
Re: Devotion
Commenting on: The learning relationship in contemporary Vajrayana
David,
Thank you for your extended reply. I appreciate the added context for Dangerous Friend, and the attempt to untangle the questions around devotion.
Re the pushback — it’s understandable to disregard if the criticism is coming from a refusal to acknowledge modernity, but what I meant was whether there is something that is diluted when the relationship shifts to coaching. For instance, I find it quite plausible that a typical coach will require more skill than a Lama in facilitating a shift in the student. Of course, the whole point is that a coaching relationship is more flexible and in principle can include even some of the wrathful display that certain Lamas have.
The presentation of the relationship, and the words used to describe the teacher have a markéd impact on progress. What I am curious about is whether there are crucial functions that traditional Lamas play that are not realized by this presentation of the coaching relationship.
Some questions about where you've gone...
Commenting on: What would “modern Buddhist tantra” even mean?
Hey David,
I’ve been slowly making my way through this site after being introduced to it by a friend in college a few years ago. I’m currently practicing and volunteering/studying full-time as part of the mandala of orgs founded by Tarthang Tulku. Although the org is highly non-traditional by Tibetan standards and makes secular forms of understanding emptiness highly accessible, it’s also been really useful to be able to read your presentation of tantra, as a way to consider what the essence of the practice is, and how it might be changed in the future.
As I’ve made my way through your website, it seems you’ve sort of chronicled your gradual move away of tantra (i.e. the totaled sports car), towards essence traditions in terms of your personal practice and intellectual interest. It’s been almost ten years or so since you’ve published much of what is written here, and I’m curious how your perspective (and practice) has changed since then. Do you still find modernizing tantra to be a worthwhile goal?
Like many young, anxious people of my generation, I was initially introduced to practice through Sam Harris, and his secular presentation of the dzogchen style, in the spirit of “just look at what is happening right now.” It changed my life, and I have been falling deeper down the contemplative rabbit hole ever sense. You mention that dzogchen may be too inaccessible for most folks to benefit, but I find myself wondering if this is really the case (many, many people seem to benefit from Harris’ presentation), and I wonder how your perspective on this has changed over the years?
If we really are really talking about distilling the essence of buddhist practice into that is as portable as possible, why ought a person interested in modernization bother with tantra at all? I think the project of cultural preservation is important of its own right, and I’ve fallen in love with much of what TT’s organizations do in this respect. But if modernity is what we are looking for, I can’t help but wonder if re-modeling tantra is barking up the wrong tree. Although more groundless practices may not be themselves ‘ennobling,’ I wonder if this is really what is important to preserve, or if it is generally better to leave that work to the individual, and to western psychological and philosophical approaches for actuating such changes, rather than forcefully trying to yoke it to non-dual experience.
Thanks again for all you’ve done on this site. Would love to hear your thoughts.
-Alex
So many coaches already
Commenting on: The learning relationship in contemporary Vajrayana
Great post, but I’d worry about the tight congruence between omnipresent coaches and current neoliberal economic logics, revolving on individualism, entrepreneurialism , adaptability, flexibility. Basically, little one-person shops to purchase one-on-one training, experience, and expertise. Also a semi-tragic facet in the vein of ‘humans of late capitalism,’ as the burn-outs of so many in prior professional or institutional contexts supplies the very capital for their reinvention of coaches for those who are still employees! Maybe the ubiquity of coaches is a cultural and economic symptom of sorts, not something to be taken for granted or idealized.
Situating this critique within modern teachings on the Lama student relationship
Commenting on: The learning relationship in contemporary Vajrayana
Thank you for sharing your and Charlie’s perspective. As usual, I find much insight in your writing.
I am wondering how you think the authors of such books as ‘Dangerous Friend’, a modern book which explores the importance of the Lama student relationship, would respond to this post.
If I recall correctly, they critique attempts to do away with the Lama but have little discussion of alternative arrangements, such as coaching. One thing I anticipate is that devotion will be far more difficult to cultivate with the proposed dzogchen-coach advocated here. I am recalling certain mahasiddha stories where it was devotion that allowed major transformation.( In developmental terms you might see devotion as a mechanism for disruption of a self centering stage 3 process into an institutionally oriented stage 4 process.)
I am very curious what, if any, you’d anticipate in terms of pushback f you presented this idea to extant Vajrayana Lineages.
Ineffability and incommensurability are great
Commenting on: The learning relationship in contemporary Vajrayana
Damn – I’m even more intrigued!
I’m only really passably familiar with Buddhism – via the various (mostly pretty superficial) glosses of what you describe as ‘Consensus/Modern/Western Buddhism’ – but I think I’m much more familiar with what I think you’re pointing-at/gesturing-to in the form of ‘Taosim for nerds’ via, e.g. the relevant works of Raymond Smullyan. (I also feel like my academic background in mathematics was frequently and, at the time, surprisingly similar in many ways.)
I think I can appreciate why one would want to preserve the possibility of experiencing “shock[s]” and their ability to put one into a “non-ordinary state”, so I don’t think I’m personally at much danger of falling into the trap of dismissing this kind of thing as “nonsense” or being not “worthwhile”.
I’m still curious tho about the kind(s) of ‘insights’ one might expect (or hope) to discover.
But I also think you’ve kinda-sorta demonstrated the very thing I’m asking about in this back and forth! I now think I’ve been ‘putting you on the spot’ – unfairly – because, if for no other reason, you don’t know what ‘insights’ I’m currently missing (or could usefully rediscover).
(I’m a little sadder now that I don’t expect to be able to just ‘try this out’ at one of the Evolving Ground retreats/events.)
Describing what one doesn't know
Commenting on: The learning relationship in contemporary Vajrayana
Are the kinds of things students learn via “transmission” generally/mostly/almost-always/always things that are difficult/impossible to describe, even after the fact? If not, are there any examples you can (and are willing to) share?
I – sadly – don’t expect to be able to just try this out myself, but I trust you pretty strongly about whether there ‘is something there’ about this kind of thing.
Seems neat!
Commenting on: The learning relationship in contemporary Vajrayana
I’m a little skeptical that this would help me personally much, not because I think I already know whatever it is this is intended to transmit, but because it’s sometimes very hard to imagine what one doesn’t already know (and understand, or think one understands).
On the other hand, I feel like you, David, have already transmitted some non-zero amount of ‘enlightenment’ to me!
Skipping stage 3
Commenting on: Developing ethical, social, and cognitive competence
Hi, thanks for the comment!
This is a common reaction to the theory from those of us on the autistic spectrum. There’s a couple of things to say in reply.
The first, which I covered in some detail in “You can’t skip stage 3” in “Natural misunderstandings of adult stage theory,” is that this probably reflects a misunderstanding of what stage 3 is. The misunderstanding is natural, and partly my fault, as that discussion explains.
In short, the likely confusion is between domains of meaning and self-structure. In our culture, the most important domains for most people during stage 3 are emotions and relationships. Those of us who were uninterested and bad at those during our teens may feel we skipped the stage. However, that’s probably because we were more interested in other domains, and put our energy into them instead. However, according to the theory, we had the same fundamental structure of selfing at that age as neurotypicals.
The original definitions of stages 1-4 come from Piaget’s studies of child cognition. Stage 3, in his terms, is “concrete operations,” the stage at which we were fascinated with factual details and could go on for hours about dinosaur taxonomy or the history of racing cars, without clear understanding of the principles involved (which is stage 4, “formal operations”). If you didn’t care about relationships when you were 11, but were passionately interested in video game monster stats—that was your stage 3.
The other thing to say is that adult stage theory was originally based on observed, empirical statistical regularities. It’s possible that some small-ish fraction of people do skip stages. In fact, the empirical research includes few longitudinal studies, so that might not show up in the scanty data.
My guess, based on structural reasoning rather than the data, is that the first explanation is more likely correct. That is, you didn’t skip stage 3; you just didn’t recognize it from the description here.
What do you think?