Unfortunately I think both Smith and Goehausen misconstrue Wilber’s position, at least the way I understand it. I think he has best stated it in this video on IN: Practice for Two Realities.

Yes, the hard-core Nondual approach has nothing to do with development, how can that which is beyond development have anything to do with development. But how can it not either? It’s a freakin’ paradox, and Wilber recognizes that probably more lucidly then anyone I’ve talked to about this stuff.

To say that we must abandon all practices for the practice of self-enquiry is not the answer. Self-enquiry, may I remind Goehausen, happens in time, and is as such a time-bound-striving practice. I’ve done self-enquiry and continue to because it has value, but the argument that it leads to the non-dual (using Goehausen’s argument not mine) is preposterous. Nothing can lead to the non-dual, because there is no development involved, even the development of the “Who am I?” enquiry.

But then again, we’ve got to do something yes? If we haven’t “jumped off the ladder” or haven’t figured out how to then I’d rather be climbing up then doing nothing at all.

Smith claims that “Non-dualism simply refers to a perspective which does not distinguish self from other.” That’s probably right given the definition, but the non-dual can itself be subject to the pre-trans fallacy. Because pre-dual and trans-dual are both non-dual. The non-dualism that mystics experience is really the trans-dual, because it includes and goes beyond self. The non-dualism that infants experience doesn’t distinguish between self and other because, as Smith himself points out, it is a state that is completely subsumed with self-only. Smith recognizes all of this, but why he doesn’t draw this distinction out is beyond me (nontrans-dual pun intended).

The rest of the article is pretty interesting, but for me to comment on any of it would be pure theoretical speculation as Smith knows his shit about holons better then I do. Very good article though.

wanna check it out?

http://www.integralworld.net/index.html?smith25.html

from my initial survey, it’s not great but is fruitful to (re)consider.

Yeah, that is very helpful. That definitely gives me a better idea of some of the differences between Genpo’s style of teaching and many of the “insight meditation” teachers here in the West.

I’m assuming also, because you say you “have to sit” 2 hours a day that you’ve probably done Geonka style vipassana. Is that right?

If so, I can say pretty confidently that his technique, style of teaching, and what I’ve heard can sometimes be rigidity aren’t as present in the vipassana technique that I practice (“insight meditation”). Although they are both vipassana and both share certain characteristics (again this is assuming you’re doing Goenka practice), they are definitely different. Maybe I could write a post about that, because often when people read my blog, they have a similar practice background and make certain assumptions about my practice that are simply incorrect.

As a side-note, I think KW has made some of these very same misunderstandings, as his wife Treya was involved with Goenka vipassana, and so he was very familiar with that method, but probably less familiar with the style of teaching that comes from Western teachers like Joseph Goldstein and Jack Kornfield.

Anyway, thanks again for the comparisons!

For what it is worth, the distinction between say Arsha Vidya style Vedanta, and the Tibetan Buddhist “view”, is this notion of obscuration.

The “truth” of non-duality, is an always present recognition, that has no second, and for the most part is experienced as outside of time, even as time continues.

Why is this hard to recognize? A lot of reasons.

Expectations. Expecting that “you” will witness “yourself” in non-duality.

Identified mind-chatter. Opening up to a space of awareness beyond chatter is usually – but not always – required to then notice the underlying truth.

Obscurations – emotional, mental issues that are taken as primarily real, that then obscure the truth.

Examples – taking the individuals fear as “more real” than the truth. “I hate my job!!” or “I have run out of money and won’t be able to eat soon!” have popped me personally out of non-dual states before.

Also, a lot of Enlightenment B is working through the above. Then there is a real awareness, a recognition of states beyond the normal mind-body, so that recognition of the truth can exist, despite the entertaining and terrifying Mara-show.

But, as the number of those who have stable non-dual recognition attest, Enlightenment A can stabilize without Enlightenment B.

But it is less likely to.

interesting. i’m all for not splitting them apart too. not to mention that there are probably “enlightened” people who are out there who just doesn’t talk about it in terms of buddhist, integral, spiritual, language.

very cool post.

Because till the time that there is a person ,who wants to achieve enlightenment .he sees himself as seperate and he has to do some things, remove obscurations to reach there. But when he has reached , he finds that it was all actually an illusion. that the person was not there at all .
So the obscurations are there only from the point of view of a seperate being, which is actually an illusion.

umm, this much is enough.

bye,
faraz

In most vipassana retreats we take a vow a silence and aren’t allowed to talk with other students. So when someone is sitting next to you and they break down, start crying or whatever you can’t really comfort them or share in that experience.

With big mind you do big mind as a group and it’s an intimate experience. You share stories, feel each others pain and also learn from each other.

Vispassana is certainly focused on striving and effort. One of the best things I learned from vipassana was concentration and generally ‘how to mediatate’.

Big mind offers a state experience of enlightenment A. And with my meditation skills from years of vipassana hopefully this will become a stage experience (I’m not really literate on all the wilber-speak)

My vipassana buzz usually wears off after a week or two returning home, even when continuing to sit. I get bored with sitting. My big mind experience has been profoundly different. I look forward to sitting because 1) I’m no longer required to sit (2 times a day) and 2) I know why I’m sitting (discovering dis-owned voices, observing passing phenomena, etc) and 3) it’s very liberating that i I’m already awake (relieves the pressure of sitting)

However I think the biggest difference has been this. With vipassana the focus is on ‘attaining nirvana’, which is what I thought it was suppossed to be. A big mind retreat says nirvana is only the half-way mark. The ultimate goal is to intergrate the experience of the absolute with being human in this moment. If we walked around enlightened all the time, we wouldn’t be very helpful to other people… actually we wouldn’t even care since people are just parts of us and it’s all perfect already. Genpo really focuses on using the ‘absolute’ state experience as a backdrop for daily living as a human, which is beautiful and gives me a great sense of purpose. As a human and with this insight, I’m empowered to help others fall awake.

Is this the type of info you’re looking for? If so I’d love to chat more about it. Feel free to give me a ring:

http://www.asitis.org/contact

Thanks for posting! Glad to see there are some vipassana practitioners out there reading, and it looks like we’ve been practicing for about the same amount of time… Peer-review man, peer-review.

Hey, I’d love to hear more about what you saw as the differences between a vipassana retreat and the Big Mind retreat. I’ve been interested in doing a Big Mind retreat, and have asked many people (who aren’t really familiar with vipassana retreats) how the practices and how the retreats themselves are different. Any insight you have on this matter would be greatly appreciated.

I’ll admit it’s a bit hard to hold this view, in a practical sense:) But, the phrase “become familiar with” seems to be more on target, althought that still implies something to be done.