So, the summary that I get out of this and the previous post is:
If you meditate frequently, you might (should?) reach a state of enlightenment. This will take probably at least a year to reach.
This involves going through a period where you degrade the quality of your life.
After you have reached ‘enlightenment’, you likely still have to keep investing significant hours into meditation to prevent sliding back into the period of mental degradation.
You can’t describe to us what enlightenment is, how it works, or what benefits it brings.
You have no empirically tested benefits of enlightenment to share with us.
Given the above, I cannot see a sane reason to take it up. That’s some significant drawbacks & risks, with no actual nameable benefits to make up for it.
If you meditate frequently, you might (should?) reach a state of enlightenment. This
will take probably at least a year to reach.
I wrote that a year is a good upper bound.
After you have reached ‘enlightenment’, you likely still have to keep investing
significant hours into meditation to prevent sliding back into the period of mental
degradation.
I explicitly stated that enlightenment is permanent. I should also have explicitly stated that partial enlightenment is permanent (in the sense of not regressing to non-enlightenment or a lesser category of enlightenment).
You can’t describe to us what enlightenment is, how it works, or what benefits it
brings.
I have provided a metaphor about how it works and described numerous potential benefits.
You have no empirically tested benefits of enlightenment to share with us.
My claims about the benefits of enlightenment are on the basis of empirical observation; you simply don’t have access to the evidence on which those benefits are claimed. I explicitly stated that too.
What do you think the causes of your mischaracterization of what I’ve written are?
I don’t have time to address all your replies right now, but I can address this:
I explicitly stated that enlightenment is permanent. I should also have explicitly stated that partial enlightenment is permanent (in the sense of not regressing to non-enlightenment or a lesser category of enlightenment).
In your article under the heading “Stage four” you say
The rest of your life is likely to benefit from having mode four perception as its subtle undercurrent. Problems may seem less important and typical worries may no longer arise. If you stop meditating here, it is possible to do fine, but it is also possible to eventually regress to stage three (in which case mode three perception becomes the subtle undercurrent), which sucks. So try not to let that happen.
This is the same heading under which you talk about enlightenment, and I found the gist of the text also strongly suggested to me that stage four, or advanced stage four was enlightenment.
In the paragraph immediately after what you’re quoting, I wrote
Partial enlightenment is preceded by the apparent momentary cessation of
consciousness, which will happen at the very end of this stage.
which implies that 1) stage four ends, and 2) when partial enlightenment has occurred, stage four has ended. Given that, I would think that caveats concerning what may happen if you stop meditating in stage four would no longer be taken to apply.
I’m still curious where your mischaracterizations have come from. Perhaps something about my writing style leads to them. I didn’t ask just as a way to point out that your assertions about my claims are wrong. I would genuinely like to know the answer.
which implies that 1) stage four ends, and 2) when partial enlightenment has occurred, stage four has ended.
I parse that as “attaining partial enlightenment” implies “end of stage four”.
That is, the event sequence is: t0, t1, t2,… “end stage four”, “partial enlightenment”.
Where does total enlightenment fit in the picture?
Before reading these comments, I thought (as apparently luminosity did) that the sequence ends with something like … “total enlightenment”, “end stage four” (no more stages). So I probably misunderstood something. Can you post something like a flowchart or state/transition diagram of your model? (I’m better with visual abstractions.)
The model for higher stages of enlightenment is not one that I can fit into a blog post.
One reason is that I agree with what muflax said: the most-correct model I know of will have a fractal element, which will be hard to represent in a simple way. In my opinion, for the first four stages, this fractal element is less important. Afterwards, it’s more important.
I don’t think a model with a fractal element is necessarily the most useful one, though. I think a linear model (like the one I gave for the first four stages) can go pretty far. Problem is, I don’t think the really important stuff that happens after stage 4 is anything that I can describe in a way that makes much sense until you get past stage 4, fractal or not. For example, in this model, I describe lots of stuff that is easy to understand: mood changes, attention changes, etc. Most of what’s interesting about post-stage 4 is not really like that. Post-stage 4 stages involve repetitions of the qualities of earlier stages, but that’s not what’s interesting about them.
If you want a flowchart, it will be pretty unremarkable:
stage 1 --> stage 2 --> stage 3 --> stage 4 --> first stage of enlightenment --> (some stuff) --> second stage of enlightenment --> (some stuff) --> third stage of enlightenment --> (some stuff) --> full enlightenment
“Some stuff” is not me being evasive, I just see no useful way to write about it here. Nothing under “some stuff” is scarier than what I wrote about stages 2 and 3, so I’m not declining to share anything that can ruin your life.
Keep in mind that this model, including only the first four stages, is itself simplified in relation to the more precise models that it is derived from.
I think the four stage model of enlightenment is insufficient (needs more stages), but I can’t easily explain what’s wrong with it, and the model I prefer is not very precise in the places that it differs from the four stage model.
EDIT: Just for clarity, “stage 1” through “stage 4″ are not related to the four stages of enlightenment in any straightforward way. Not related at all unless you use a model with a fractal element. “Stages 1...4” are one thing, and the four stages of enlightenment are another.
So, the summary that I get out of this and the previous post is:
If you meditate frequently, you might (should?) reach a state of enlightenment. This will take probably at least a year to reach.
This involves going through a period where you degrade the quality of your life.
After you have reached ‘enlightenment’, you likely still have to keep investing significant hours into meditation to prevent sliding back into the period of mental degradation.
You can’t describe to us what enlightenment is, how it works, or what benefits it brings.
You have no empirically tested benefits of enlightenment to share with us.
Given the above, I cannot see a sane reason to take it up. That’s some significant drawbacks & risks, with no actual nameable benefits to make up for it.
I wrote that a year is a good upper bound.
I explicitly stated that enlightenment is permanent. I should also have explicitly stated that partial enlightenment is permanent (in the sense of not regressing to non-enlightenment or a lesser category of enlightenment).
I have provided a metaphor about how it works and described numerous potential benefits.
My claims about the benefits of enlightenment are on the basis of empirical observation; you simply don’t have access to the evidence on which those benefits are claimed. I explicitly stated that too.
What do you think the causes of your mischaracterization of what I’ve written are?
I don’t have time to address all your replies right now, but I can address this:
In your article under the heading “Stage four” you say
This is the same heading under which you talk about enlightenment, and I found the gist of the text also strongly suggested to me that stage four, or advanced stage four was enlightenment.
In the paragraph immediately after what you’re quoting, I wrote
which implies that 1) stage four ends, and 2) when partial enlightenment has occurred, stage four has ended. Given that, I would think that caveats concerning what may happen if you stop meditating in stage four would no longer be taken to apply.
I’m still curious where your mischaracterizations have come from. Perhaps something about my writing style leads to them. I didn’t ask just as a way to point out that your assertions about my claims are wrong. I would genuinely like to know the answer.
I parse that as “attaining partial enlightenment” implies “end of stage four”.
That is, the event sequence is: t0, t1, t2,… “end stage four”, “partial enlightenment”.
Where does total enlightenment fit in the picture?
Before reading these comments, I thought (as apparently luminosity did) that the sequence ends with something like … “total enlightenment”, “end stage four” (no more stages). So I probably misunderstood something. Can you post something like a flowchart or state/transition diagram of your model? (I’m better with visual abstractions.)
The model for higher stages of enlightenment is not one that I can fit into a blog post.
One reason is that I agree with what muflax said: the most-correct model I know of will have a fractal element, which will be hard to represent in a simple way. In my opinion, for the first four stages, this fractal element is less important. Afterwards, it’s more important.
I don’t think a model with a fractal element is necessarily the most useful one, though. I think a linear model (like the one I gave for the first four stages) can go pretty far. Problem is, I don’t think the really important stuff that happens after stage 4 is anything that I can describe in a way that makes much sense until you get past stage 4, fractal or not. For example, in this model, I describe lots of stuff that is easy to understand: mood changes, attention changes, etc. Most of what’s interesting about post-stage 4 is not really like that. Post-stage 4 stages involve repetitions of the qualities of earlier stages, but that’s not what’s interesting about them.
If you want a flowchart, it will be pretty unremarkable:
stage 1 --> stage 2 --> stage 3 --> stage 4 --> first stage of enlightenment --> (some stuff) --> second stage of enlightenment --> (some stuff) --> third stage of enlightenment --> (some stuff) --> full enlightenment
“Some stuff” is not me being evasive, I just see no useful way to write about it here. Nothing under “some stuff” is scarier than what I wrote about stages 2 and 3, so I’m not declining to share anything that can ruin your life.
Keep in mind that this model, including only the first four stages, is itself simplified in relation to the more precise models that it is derived from.
I think the four stage model of enlightenment is insufficient (needs more stages), but I can’t easily explain what’s wrong with it, and the model I prefer is not very precise in the places that it differs from the four stage model.
EDIT: Just for clarity, “stage 1” through “stage 4″ are not related to the four stages of enlightenment in any straightforward way. Not related at all unless you use a model with a fractal element. “Stages 1...4” are one thing, and the four stages of enlightenment are another.