Douglas Harding's (and later Richard Lang) the headless way 

Alternatively could you please describe your experience with it, or how it intersected with practice. Or later paths perhaps.

I ask because years ago "the headless way" was inserted as a simple meme into my head (ironically enough). And it has been working ever since. Maybe a few minutes of Sam Harris talking about it.

But I'm doing a much bigger deep dive now.

I haven't found any more "pragmatic dharma" podcasts or characters talking about it. Which is fine. And actually a good thing.

I like how plain and matter of fact it is. And I like how Douglas and Richard talk to regular people in public. It's wild.

For context I do not have stream entry. And and pretty late stage here, although I don't know when I'll finish the first cycle. I'm really interested in not having a head as a path to awakening 

It's almost like vipassana has been more an investigation into and deconstruction of various mental processes. Intention. Attention. Self. And also using the body as object, I've got a lot of insight into that object. As well as space, including the visual field.

However this not having a head business is very much more of a walking around in every day life thing. And its really easy. And I was more or less incidentally doing similar practices, just walking around these last 3 years.

But cracking open Richard Lang and Douglas Hardring talks, really accelerates things.

I've got a lot of help and insight from some of my other vaguely defined seeking type posts on here. As I've stated before I'm open to anything, including constructive criticism if and when appropriate.

Thanks c:

I've only heard it mentioned in more general/popular "spiritual" contexts. I haven't heard a reliable report of it leading to (progress of insight definition) Stream Entry.

This is what comes up at the top of a google search. The Headless Way  I think I last looked at the website/article during the "Netscape" years of the early internet. It's a classic

AFAIK, the Headless Way is about getting I AM realization, quite the opposite of Stream Entry. It's the reification of pure consciousness. The identification shifts from the body and mind to the formlessness of awareness.  

Oh, damn. Interesting 

 "I think I last looked at the website/article during the "Netscape" years of the early internet. It's a classic "

Hahaha it is. That's OLDschool.

​​​​​​​Anyway, thanks both 

I'm familiar with the -> https://atr-abridgedguide.blogspot.com/?m=

So it does help to fit it into the broader context of the basic maps I have. POI. Or this other one...

I have a decent enough intellectual understanding of stream entry. Meaning reading MCTB, and other posters. I mention that because I wanted to ask something. So for the I AM, the identity shifts from the mind/body to pure consciousness.

This is the opposite of Stream Entry? 

So Stream entry would be when someone stops identifying with consciousness as well? 

If you think in terms of some basic assumtions and tendencies of the mind then a belief in and a search for reliability is one of those tendencies.

We believe that we can find something reliable - a job, an identity, a set of activities that will make us feel safe, secure, and happy

Stream Entry happens when we encounter unreliability, accept it completely and this changes the tendency within to seek reliability. A major source of distress gets cleaved off from our minds.

We are no longer compelled to scan our environment for threats, we are no longer compelled to point to our passports or our jobs and say this here is me, we are no longer compelled to follow 'rules' of behaviour.

Though we are no longer compelled by any drive within, we find ourselves completely capable of holding down jobs, voting in the elections, cheering on our favourite sports teams, and following intelligent rules of thumb like brushing our teeth twice a day.

Pardon my interruption to make a more nuanced point:

I feel that all too often we tell people these things only to ultimately disappoint them. We can grok (intuitively, deeply understand) our very human desire for safety and security (reliability) and thus de-fang it and cause it to lose its death grip on our conscious being, but we can't get rid of it completely. Like thoughts and emotions, the desire to be safe and secure is always with us in some form or fashion. Learning to know these things about ourselves, to see them for what they are, and to know how they manifest is the point of practice.

I completely agree with you.
Its actually a good idea to be safe and secure, therefore a good idea to apply ourselves towards finding safety and security. Our natural wisdom helps us do this.

​​​​​​​The compulsion though, that drive within that agitates the heart - that's what is lost/abandoned. Replaced by sanity, relaxed rationality.

I'm surprised by this thread. And not in a bad way. More a neutral way.

I heard Sam Harris utter the words "using not having a had as a path to awakening". Idk. Maybe he didn't understand it at the time. Or maybe he changed his mind about it since then. This was also in probably like 2015 so god knows if I'm remembering this right

There's also the chance I'm conflating different practices. I probably am. Maybe I'm mixing practices here.

I guess I'll just have to wait and see what happens. Then make up my own mind. Thanks again all for the input.

I know more about the headless one than the headless way. 

I spent about a decade searching. Trying different paths and styles. 
​​​​​​​
There are two paths I have found that lead to reduction of suffering. Only two and of those two the style or approach to meditation found here in this forum is the only one I recommend or even speak about really. We're obviously a bit eclectic but there is a directness and honesty about how practice needs to be approached that really works in my experience. 

I am very skeptical about all meditative traditions, practices, styles. Extremely skeptical. I lean towards most of this doesn't work, or perhaps it's better to say, most of this isn't good enough, deep enough, effective enough. Or isn't structured, shared, communicated clearly enough. 

I have seen at times Sam communicating and there are clearly certain attachments he has that I would be inclined to think might fall away if his approach brought about some attainments. Though I'm not diagnosing here. I can't really know. 

​​​​​​​I think that good dharma is rare and it gets rarer the deeper you go. 

There are public figures who have managed to usurp the dharma for personal gain. They lecture and write books. They assume an authority they don't have. They typically express their version of drama in mostly intellectual terms.

​​​​​​​Buyer beware.

I have a question for each of Adi and Chris:

How would you distinguish between the experience of arhatship and that of simply being very well adjusted and philosophically mature? One does meet people, especially older people, both with and without formal spiritual practices, who respond to life without compulsion or agitation, and who can take both good and bad fortune in stride. Is this different from the fruits of that path, for you?

Martin, the truth is there are wonderfully well adjusted people around with no spiritual practice whatsoever. Spirituality, specifically Buddhist spirituality and dharma, are also about understanding at a deep level how we as human beings should live in the world *and* how our world and our perception is constructed. These are two different things, and people can have either one without having the other.

My version of spiritual maturity is having both, but with emphasis on the latter. I know a few accomplished meditators who lack common sense, or who lack a moral basis for their relationships with other people. Being spiritually accomplished is not required for being a decent person. It explains a ton about what a human being truly is but it doesn't guarantee that a specific, spiritually accomplished human being will also be what we'd call a "good person."

My experience has been that spiritual accomplishment is fantastic, meaningful and impactful, but I'm hard pressed to tell you it's better than just being a decent human.

This is  probably not a very satisfying answer but it seems to me we reify spiritual accomplishment. We make promises about it that aren't borne out by experience. Spiritual accomplishment is something any of us can have if we're willing to put forth the effort. But it doesn't create gods or demons. Our basic humanity remains and survives.

PS: meditation practice has provided me with a bunch of tools I can use to understand myself and how I exist and relate to the stuff and people around me, but how I decide to use those tools appears to be far less about getting them than it is about who I am. I can use those tools to really work on myself, or I can use them for fun, like the jhanas for example, and just leave it at that. 

That seems very sensible. Understanding and tools. 

You already have good answers above, so I shouldn't comment on that. That said, I'll try to offer a short summary of both models. I like Shargrol's brief definition of a Four Paths Model:


AtR's model may also be framed as 4 distinct stages: (1) I AM; (2) Non-Dual; (3) Anatta; (4) Shunyata. Check André Pais text. Stage (1) challenges the sense of personal identity, resulting in a shift towards identifying with pure awareness. In (2) what's being challenged is the separation of objects from awareness. All phenomena are seen as modulations of the permanent and unchanging awareness, akin to waves arising from the ocean. In (3) awareness itself is challenged and deconstructed, any sense of a background awareness is nothing but a foreground subtle object.  Experience is understood entirely in terms of transient appearances, with no need for a background to make sense of it. Stage (4) challenges the natural tendency to reify appearances. With no I or Source to depend on, one gains the insight that appearances do not exist independently, but merely the result of dependent origination.  

A colleague of mine doesn't practice meditation but is really into the idea of non-duality and finding quick and efficient ways to reach it. I keep telling them: I'm not sure what the world needs most of, good people who can behave ethically and love each other, or awake individuals? My heart leans towards the former.

It's weird that these are being painted as mutually exclusive things. I'd also like to make a personal note that historically, the times when I have caused the most suffering towards others is when I have been under lots of duress myself. Less suffering on my end = Less suffering on their end.

​​​​​​​The point isn't that these things are mutually exclusive but rather that there are kind and compassionate people around who have no spiritual practice whatsoever. Also, being an accomplished spiritual practitioner is no guarantee that a person is kind and compassionate. We all hope being a good practitioner and being kind and compassionate are congruent, but there are some prominent data points that say otherwise.

'Kind' and ' compassionate' is a social virtue on a social value system.

In and by itself it is valuable.

​​​​​​​Its completely orthogonal to awakening though.

Leaving aside things like being kind and compassionate, what about being able to work with the ups and downs of life without compulsion or agitation? Is the experience (not the actions) of an Arhat different from that of a well-adapted, philosophically mature person without a spiritual practice (or at least without a Buddhist meditation practice)? 

Sir, you are asking me a crooked question. I dont know whether you realize it.

There is only one definition of Arhat that I find suitable for all circumstances/ situations in life. It is a direct lift from a sutta called 'the criteria sutta'
the atthinukhopariyaayo sutta. - 'is there a criteria'

What sir is 'well adapted' or 'philosophically mature'

Well adapted by whose definition?
Mature by whose definition?

​​​​​​​I mean no disrespect.

That's pretty much what I've said here, in a nutshell.

This was really not meant to be a crooked question. I fact, I thought about it carefully to try and make it as unambiguous as possible. Why just goes to show that communication is hard.


I am responding to you saying this:

"Its actually a good idea to be safe and secure, therefore a good idea to apply ourselves towards finding safety and security. Our natural wisdom helps us do this.

​​​​​​​The compulsion though, that drive within that agitates the heart - that's what is lost/abandoned. Replaced by sanity, relaxed rationality."


That's why I used the words "compulsion" and "agitation" in my question. 

What I meant by "a well-adapted, philosophically mature person without a spiritual practice (or at least without a Buddhist meditation practice)" is a person who is free of  "compulsion" and "agitation" and instead operates from a place of "sanity, relaxed rationality" but who did not arrive at this state through a process of meditation. I am contrasting this hypothetical person with an Arhat in the hopes that you can tell me something along the lines of "a person like that would be free of a sense of compulsion but would still suffer in that ..." or "such a person would not actually exist" or "a person like that may be no different from an Arhat" or whatever.

Basically, because you and Chris described the experience of an Arhat in terms that, for an ordinary person, new to Buddhism, would seem to apply to many wise, content, people. So I am asking, what is the difference between being an Arhat and something more ordinary? 

Chris answered an adjacent question, which was "which of these two is better." I appreciate the answer but perhaps he might want to further weigh in on this more specific formulation of the question as well. 

By the way (he said, replying to his own question), this is not in any way meant as a "gotcha" question. I am certainly not questioning anyone's attainment. I have no doubt about the validity of your attainment or Chris's attainment. I am trying to work out whether the end results of certain types of practice are attractive to me, as a practitioner. I have been asking various people questions like this because I believe that different people have different experiences and those experiences depend, in part, on the practices they did to get there. For me, there is nothing inherently good about specific attainments, other than how those attainments impact the world (including the corner of the world called Martin). So I am surveying. 

I would also like to pose this same question to Shargol, who has said that enlightenment is basic sanity. 

@shargrol
The other thread showed up on sorting by recent posts

The topline post shows that it was modified 5 hours ago. I didnt really read the replies below and responded to it ... while wondering why similar questions are showing up

​​​​​​​Also in replying to your comment, my own comments on that thread are disappearing.

Ahh, okay I get the reason why the other thread "appeared" again. Strange that your own comments on that thread are disappearing??? Strange.

Martin, I believe I answered both your questions. Maybe  re-visit my comments? I will add here, in addition to my previous replies, that my spiritual practice, beyond giving me the tools to vastly improve my relationship to the phenomenal world around me, has also been extremely useful and has answered a major question that I had going into my practice: What am I, really, and why do my expectations so often not align with what seems to be occurring "outside" of me? The source of the " problem" is now very clear, to the extent that I now see it as a useful, even wondrous, part of being human.

If I were a compassionate, calm, and kind human but without a spiritual practice I would not have a deeply grokked answer for "what am I and why do my expectations and things that occur outside of me cause so much pain?" Knowing the source, the deep root, of the ignorance that causes suffering is the primary (but not the only) difference.
​​​​​​​
I hope this helps.

Well, this is all pretty abstract... but it sounds like you have some real questions about the utility/practicality of meditation practice for yourself? It's probably worth talking about that directly instead of something abstract.

Thanks, Chris. That was, in fact, what I took away from your first answer, but mostly by inference. Thanks for making it more clear.  

To me it is a straight-up pragmatic question. Questions about specific phenomenology are not abstract in my way of thinking. 

If you read my logs you will see that, in every entry, I discuss the utility/practicality of meditation practice in my life, under the heading of "Off the cushion." The results have been astounding, and I have listed them in phenomenological terms and as best I know how because I think it is helpful to share these things. I've been doing that here for nearly five years. I do have questions about the utility of specific practices and outcomes, and I have asked in specific terms. 

Fair enough.

"How would you distinguish between the experience of arhatship and that of simply being very well adjusted and philosophically mature? One does meet people, especially older people, both with and without formal spiritual practices, who respond to life without compulsion or agitation, and who can take both good and bad fortune in stride. Is this different from the fruits of that path, for you?"

My honest answer is I don't believe people "entirely flip" at any stage of development. So there will always be "residuals" regardless of discipline (i.e. meditative or philosophical). Just because someone is a so-called arhat doesn't mean they won't have foibles or flaws, same with the so-called philosopher. I think both arhats and philosopher both understand that and that's why they tend to be cautious people. (But in my view, someone could flip early with lots of residual, so I use the word "tend" not "are".)

There is never a stage where someone gets to be certain that their interpretations/actions are correct/appropriate -- and I'm certain about that. But seriously, sanity doesn't mean you are always right, that's more descriptive of insane people. Sanity means, in part, knowing that you're probably still wrong in some way. 

Nice! Thanks so much, Shargrol. 

Haven't read the thread but wanted to chime in anyway, regardless of the method mentioned above of which I have no clue;  High EQ is very much "headless" so ... work out your own salvation diligently ... One by one, the stages of insight will arise and pass away and will lead into the stream.  Best wishes! 

Thanks, you too!

Hi Martin

Comunication is indeed hard. When I said your question was crooked, I did not mean to say that you were trying to do a 'gotcha'. I was trying to say that the way you posed the question and the context of the broader discussion within which you posed it, the question has certain assumptions imbedded within it. Or may I say with more clarity, to my perception it seems like the question has some flawed assumptions imbedded within it.

I will try to give you a comprehensive answer. In general across life circumstances and contexts I am by my basic nature a very honest man of integrity. Compassion and kindness are certainly a part of my value system, but they are not dominant. Honesty and integrity are the dominant aspects of my mental makeup. With that as a background I will give you precise answers to a few imaginary questions and I hope that it provides you clarity regarding my take on this topic.  and I hope it helps you find answers that you are looking for in order to shape and give direction to your own practice.



Q1. Does awakening have to do with externally observable behaviour
A1. No

Q2. Does awakening have to do with what would be considered conventional morality
A2. No

Q3. WTF! .... Explain yourself.
A3. No

Q4. You mean man!
A4. Yes

Q5. Dude! Dont be like that!
A5. I was joking . Ok look - We begin this project due to a certain situation we find ourselves in, in our lives. A situation that contains a whole lot of suffering. Through experience or through our wisdom we realize that this suffering we are experiencing cannot be solved through conventional means. Making more money doesnt help, changing jobs doesnt help, changing friend circles doesnt help. Being altruistic doesnt help. Being self centred doesnt help. Cognitive reframing in terms of positive psychology doesnt help. Traditional therapy models like CBT or REBT dont help. Psychiatric medication doesnt help. Then through receiving instructions or through self inspired genius we figure that sitting on our arses and staring at our own breath for hundreds (or thousands) of hours cumulatively is a fantastic idea. Most of us dont do this until our back is up against the wall. Some of us need far less persuasion than the dire situation I am imagining. This happens within all sorts of different cultures on a broad level and all sorts of different personality types on a specific level. Upon awakening a capitalist does not become a communist. A communist does not become a libertarian. A libertarian does not become a traditional capitalist. An unawakened capitalist becomes an awakened capitalist. An unwakened communist becomes an awakened communist and so on and so forth. Just the way that political preferences have a wide variance so do what we consider conventional morality.  What I would consider mature behaviour will not be what Siddharth Gautam would consider mature behaiour, it will not be what Adyashanti considers mature behaviour, it will not be what Bhante Gunaratna will consider mature behaviour, it will not be what Chris Marti will consider mature behaviour, It will not be what Shargrol will consider mature behaviour, it will not be what Stephen Procter will consider mature behaviour, it will not be what Daniel Ingram will consider mature behaviour. Because there is no standard definition of mature behaviour. 

Q6. OK then what is basic sanity if this  particular term is used to describe the fruits of awakening? 
A6. Its a made up term that I have seen Shargrol using. I liked it. I stole it. To me it means the following. To recognize that we are individuals within a society and all of us have our own preferences and agendas. To recognize that it is impossible to have a 100% overlap with any other individual. To recognize that we are like fish swimming in the sea. and while we may imagine that we are swimming all by ourselves, we are actually swimming in each other's excrement . To recognize that making an attempt to find common ground, mutual benefit, is wholesome and has inherent value. To not have the heart get invested in the idea of being an individual, to not have the heart invested in the idea of being a collective, to not have the heart getting invested in anything at all!

Q7. 'To not have the heart invested' ... what do you mean?
A7. Atthinukho pariyaya sutta.

Q8. Can you not use simple English?
A8. No

Q9. Fuck you
A9. Same to you  

I dont know whether that helped in any way. Communication truly is difficult.

I realize that we have completely derailed the original post

Wonderful !!!

I love a dialogue. 

But there is convention, common sense, and societal norms. I would argue that we, as a species and in the context of our experience, know mature behavior when it occurs. It's one of those things that we humans do that is easily recognized - but it's not science or math. There are exceptions, and in the dharma there is, seemingly, a penchant for celebrating exceptions, like "crazy wisdom." And that kind of acceptance can also be used to cover for some nasty behavior (sexual predation by gurus and masters in various sects, etc.). So, anyway, I think there is a recognizable, commonly accepted standard of mature behavior.

It's like what US Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart said in a famous legal opinion about pornographic material: "I know it when I see it."

I say all this in a rather complicated way only to state the following: Martin's question about arhat vs non-arhat thinking and behavior seemed perfectly reasonable and understandable to me. 

it's ok. if the OPs (me) input is relevant, like in the forum-culture here, kind of sense, I'm happy it morphed into something else. Multiple threads are ok by me. I'm quite enjoying it actually

I guess my conclusion from this, after digesting it and integrating it is 

1: I ​​​don't know (yet) (or ever?)

And 2: I just heard Daniel mention no-self versus true-self, and it hit me.

To which he mentioned two book and people. Practical Insight Meditation by Mahasi Sayadaw and, I Am That by Nisargardatta.

^‿^

I'm quite pleased with this.

Oh. And I should add I have never consciously read or received any "true-self" teachings. Although I suspect I might have a natural inclination and bias towards true-self: versus no-self.

Also key word. I don't know. That's the main conclusion.

But that's the best part. I get to explore a new teaching.

Thanks so much, Adi! 

That is a lovely post and a good read.