Sotāpanno emergent phenomena: divergent narratives?

The Watercooler
1

After emerging from profound Stream Entry compatible opening, there are narratives from individuals experiencing entirely positive states of ease and freedom.

There are also other narratives of a shattering emergence from a Stream Entry compatible opening, despite previous proficiency in sila and samma-samadhi practice.

The actual descriptions of entering the stream speak the same language. The differences are emergent.

Do any suttas explore this?

How can apparently genuine emergent experiences be so different?

These narratives are vanishing rare. Monastics cannot talk candidly but they can talk in generalities from the collective “know-how”.

To be clear these experiences are not the usual drugged or self-deluded reports that swamp this territory.

Has anyone heard of any narratives of Stream Entry consistent emergent experiences, whether easy or difficult?

2

Are you talking about stories from the EBTs, commentaries, both or none? Because as far as I know all textual sources describe streamentry conversion in exclusively positive ways.

4 Likes
3

Thanks for confirming that the tradition portrays entirely positive emergences from streamentry.

That leaves me wondering about modern experiences. Ajahns (very skeptical of nearly all claims of streamentry), talking “off the record” in an appropriate non-personal way, also confirmed profoundly excellent results in their Sangha. On the other hand there was also mention of modern experiences of real struggles in the immediate aftermath of streamentry with self-identification gone.

With some Ajahns saying that stream entry can be shattering it seems possible and even likely that some may land on their feet feeling liberated and some may land hard.

So Im interested if anyone can, in an appropriate general way, hint to any current received info? Im not expecting any. Stream entry seems very rare. Hard landing even rarer. Still with the forum reaching out to so many, this seems like the best way to ask. If you wish to share any positive or difficult examples you have reliably heard of, please message me directly, to keep it all private and respected. Thanks. :anjal:

4

Sister Vajjira supposedly attained sotapati, but this turned out into clear psychotic state. So perhaps not many would treat it seriously as geniue attainment. My problem with dismissing it, is just based on my understanding such description could not be given by the puthujjana.

*I can see the matter clearly now, though not, of course, all its implications. In that way, the subject is removed from experience, and the pañcakkhandhā can function apart from upādāna . Thus the question is settled. I have lost a dimension of thought, at least to the degree to grasp this matter, i.e. my own upādāna

From her letters:

It should scarcely be necessary to say that the question of pañcakkhandhā was not just one among others, but was the question. Your interpretation of cetanā as intention and significance, which to me were just the antipodes , was such a nuisance that only your last letter compelled me to enter into the matter at all; I had so far just pushed it aside. The connection cetanā/sankhāra had entirely escaped my consciousness… I had never any difficulty to follow your argument 'omnis determinatio… ', provided, of course, I took it as pertaining to sankhārā , and not to cetanā . I can see the matter clearly now, though not, of course, all its implications. In that way, the subject is removed from experience, and the pañcakkhandhā can function apart from upādāna . Thus the question is settled. I have lost a dimension of thought, at least to the degree to grasp this matter, i.e. my own upādāna …

(…)

I begin now to discover the Dhamma. I can just stay in one place and see everything passing before my eyes that I knew without knowing. It is an entirely new landscape. I had concerned myself much with the most essential problems—and yet the meaning was hidden from me. …I do not know, but perhaps you do, why your notes on viññāna etc. are opening out what I could not find in the texts. I mistook it all. What your notes essentially reveal to me is to allow things to be (present), whilst the Suttas seemed to say that I must deny them. Once I had found justification of cetanā = sankhārā (as already indicated), I laid hold of your notes in the way that I do things—either/or. I wrestled with them to the utmost, always in turns with emotional states. …I find that my position was most curious (but, of course, there is nothing particular in it, as I now understand)[3]—I had no time to investigate into the nature of the pañcakkhandhā, because, radically, I negated everything as soon as I became aware of it. My blindness really was total. I brought myself into immense tension, and, in fact, it is strain that I also now experience to an extreme degree, especially while writing this (but I feel that I should do so). I can also understand something about akālika now. I had no idea that things can stand in relation to each other other than temporally (do I use the word now correctly? I think so). I meant it was a most sublime idea that rūpa should be saññā; it is crude indeed. I discovered the real meaning of anicca in connection with viññāna, and many other things.

It is hard for me to imagine that you do not know everything already, but, remembering that you are not a visionary (unnecessary to say that I know you are indefinitely much more), I must give you at least some evidence now itself, for I do really not know what will happen the next moment (I may not be able to keep full control over myself—as I appear to others)…[4]

1 Like
5

Overestimation of one’s attainment is very common.

Self-aggrandizing delusions are basically diagnostic of manic episodes. Derealization, depersonalization, and/or dissociation are all psychotic symptoms that can superficially resemble insight into non-self. And we are, by definition, wading into territory we don’t know, so mistakes in mapping the terrain to the maps are to be expected.

For people who genuinely attain some insight, the only “hard landing” I have heard about that I can believe is that if a layperson attains while on a retreat, it can be difficult for him or her to reconcile their new wisdom and attitudes with their old, undhammic lifestyle when they go back home. For example, if their job was at a slaughterhouse, obviously they would have to quit their job as soon as they get back.

But this kind of “rough landing” is entirely social in its awkwardness. It has nothing to do with their psychology.

3 Likes
6

I have some doubts about this example. Ideas have consequences, so this example suggests that you believe that decent Buddhist, definitely above the average Buddhist (not many Buddhist are likely to become ariyas) would support himself with wrong livelihood.

But how one so insensitive to suffering of others, and who disregards Lord Buddha’s prohibition could attain noble vision? I don’t say it is impossible, nevertheless perhaps you should exemplify your idea in other ways. For example: sotapati would likely have negative influence on one’s wordly success and diminish one’s desire to earn money :grinning_face:

You can investigate the book Collision with Infinity. The author had definitely kind of anatta experience, but it wasn’t induced by spiritual practice, and so it caused kind of confusion.

Here is some exchange about the nature of this experience, perhaps it would be a good introduction :grinning_face:

message:

  1. This book is not about pathological ‘depersonalization’. That is the beginning of the book and even Ms. Siegel says it was not pathological and it was not about ‘depersonalization’. It is quite clearly about the process of enlightenment and the truth of knowing that everything and everyone is you and you are everyone and everything. The ecstasy and the joy of it. Perhaps you didn’t read the last few chapters?

  2. Just because tumours can cause altered states doesn’t mean that was what was happening to her. In addition, the first part of the process of enlightenment happened 12 years before she came down with a brain tumor.

  3. You are a bombastic idiot,

Answer

Dear Madam!

I think my fault is that I did not make clear what I mean using word depersonalisation. In the Dhamma and Nisargadatta’s [NM] teaching it means highest enlightenment or awakening. Nibbāna is cessation of the person.

[NM: You, as the person, imagine that the Guru is interested in you as a person. Not at all. To him you are a nuisance and a hindrance to be done away with. He actually aims at your elimination as a factor in consciousness. … Liberation is never of the person, it is always from the person.]

Enlightenment can be stated as a discovery of what one truly is, but since it is a timeless and eternal reality, imagining oneself to be a person so-and-so, is already step into darkness (at least according to the Buddha and NM).

I hope I made this point more clear: on spiritual level there is nothing pathological in depersonalisation, contrary, the existence of the person is pathological.

Another point, total enlightenment -cessation of a concept “I am”* - happens very rarely all at once, and there are gradual stages of awakening

*[ NM Immortality is freedom from the feeling: ‘I am’. Yet it is not extinction. On the contrary, it is a state infinitely more real, aware and happy than you can possibly think of. Only self-consciousness is no more.]

Before such realisation one must first abandon any positive self-identifiication “I am this or that”. In practical terms it means the attitude of detached observer where only “I am” is present, but no personal self-identifiication. This is already a certain stage of awakening, and I do grant her such attainment. I suppose this is the state of Eckhart Tolle, his teaching is quite good, but he emphasis only pure being - “I am”.

What I indeed deny is that the author attained the final realisation, and I base my judgement on the fact that such state is totally without fear and any mental confusion.

[Q: How shall I recognise this state when I reach it?
NM: There will be no fear.]

As I understood, you totally reject idea that brain tumour had anything in common with her enlightenment. Of course there is such possibility, I simply do not know. I try to do my judgement according my present understanding of things as they are, and since my understanding is not perfect you may be right I I may be wrong.

However as I understand things: enlightenment is the result of very intense practice or very rarely - like in the case of Eckhart Tolle - tremendous personal suffering. Since it was not so in her case, I believe there was connection between her brain problem and her experience of vastness.

What I am not sure: was her experience only initiated by the brain tumour, in the case it survived the death of the body, or it was just temporal experience totally determined by the state of neurological system.

Much of human misunderstandings comes from the fact that people use the same words, but prescribe to them different meanings. I hope that at least I clarified the meaning of “depersonalisation”, in spiritual tradition to which I belong.

May You be well and happy

PS
In my spiritual tradition harsh speech is a serious obstacle to enlightenment, but since you seem to believe in kind of spontaneous enlightenment which doesn’t depend on how we act, you do not try to restrain your own speech. No doubt there is a consistency between your views and your practice :slightly_smiling_face:

7

I’m sure you have heard of a monk named Angulimala.

(Also, could you wrap the parts of your post that are quotes inside quote tags like this:

[quote]
bla bla bla
[/quote]

So it is clear what is you and what is quoted.)

2 Likes
8

Thanks for the great info. It confirms some received wisdom. :anjal:

Ive followed your recommendation to " investigate the book Collision with Infinity". I found what seems like the description of the core experience and immediately lost interest after reading:

In the gaping space that appeared, what I had previously called “me” was forcefully pushed out of its usual location inside me into a new location that was approximately a foot behind and to the left of my head. “I” was now behind my body looking out at the world without using the body’s eyes.

That narrative appears incompatible with Sotapanno. It is also not consistent with the Anatta of the Suttas. As already pointed out:

2 Likes
9

This was just one example, similar to the case of Ven Angulimala as stated above. There’s also the example in the suttas of the alcoholic who attained Stream Entry. Even at the time, people were sceptical!

Another example might be a young man who attains and wishes to go forth under the Buddha but his parents (who are not Buddhists) try to stop him, leading to some drama. Again, this difficulty is social, not psychological.

An OBE (out of body experience) can be a real and profound thing in shaking up one’s metaphysical assumptions, for sure. There are lots of documented cases of people seeing and knowing things they couldn’t which show that at least some OBEs are “real” cases of the consciousness leaving the body. OBEs are not necessarily hallucinations.

But Sotāpanna is not an OBE.

Sorry, I could have been clearer in the above: it’s not just “crazy” people who can overestimate themselves. There are also lots of people who experience some genuine but lesser spiritual insight and then overestimate themselves as “Stream Enterers”.

2 Likes