To be clear I am appropriating stream entry here the same way Ingram has, which has much more inclusive (because they are much smaller and more specific) criteria than what is traditional. I agree with your point about A&P, and maybe I am typical minding here because I made it through to what matches with once returner without formal practice (although I did engage in a lot of practices that were informal that drug me along the same way).
Are Ingram’s criteria particularly inclusive? He has talked a bunch about most people who think themselves being stream enterers not actually being that, e.g.:
The A&P is so commonly mistaken for things like Equanimity, higher jhanas (third and fourth, as well as formless realms), and Stream Entry, or even some higher path, even on its first occurrence, that I now have to actively check myself when responding to emails and forum posts so that I don’t automatically assume that this is what has gone on, as it is probably 50:1 that someone claiming stream entry has actually just crossed the A&P. [...]
Overcalling attainments has become something of an endemic disease in those exposed to the maps. It annoys the heck out of dharma teachers who feel some responsibility to keep practitioners on the rails and in the realms of reality.
Right, if you’ve not had the later experiences (equanimity, fruition leading to attainment) you’re likely to mistake others for them, especially if you have a very squishy model of enlightenment and especially especially if you are trying hard to attain the path. My comment was more a reference to the fact that Ingram seems to view stream entry as a very precise thing relative to how it is talked about in theravada, which is why it seems possible that some of the above disagreement on numbers might be due to a different sense of what qualifies as stream entry.
I have my own fairly precise way of describing it, which is that you develop the capacity to always reason at Commons’ MHC level 13 (this is placed about halfway along the 4 to 5 transition in the normal Kegan model by Wilburl but I consider that to be an inflation of what’s really core 4), i.e. you S1 reason that way, deliberative S2 reasoning at that level is going to happen first but doesn’t count. At least as of right now I think that, but I could probably be convinced to wiggle the location a little bit because I’m trying to project my internal model of it back out to other existing models that I can reference.
When people try too hard, they set up strong expectations about what will happen. This works at cross purposes to awakening to just what is because it is a way of strongly grasping for something other than what is. Awakening, whether that be stream entry or enlightenment, requires surrendering or giving oneself over.
Importantly, though, trying like I’m talking about here is distinct from effort, which you need. You have to show up, do the practice, and wholeheartedly work at whatever it is you’re doing. But effort can be skillfully applied without trying or grasping for something.
To be clear I am appropriating stream entry here the same way Ingram has, which has much more inclusive (because they are much smaller and more specific) criteria than what is traditional. I agree with your point about A&P, and maybe I am typical minding here because I made it through to what matches with once returner without formal practice (although I did engage in a lot of practices that were informal that drug me along the same way).
Are Ingram’s criteria particularly inclusive? He has talked a bunch about most people who think themselves being stream enterers not actually being that, e.g.:
Right, if you’ve not had the later experiences (equanimity, fruition leading to attainment) you’re likely to mistake others for them, especially if you have a very squishy model of enlightenment and especially especially if you are trying hard to attain the path. My comment was more a reference to the fact that Ingram seems to view stream entry as a very precise thing relative to how it is talked about in theravada, which is why it seems possible that some of the above disagreement on numbers might be due to a different sense of what qualifies as stream entry.
I have my own fairly precise way of describing it, which is that you develop the capacity to always reason at Commons’ MHC level 13 (this is placed about halfway along the 4 to 5 transition in the normal Kegan model by Wilburl but I consider that to be an inflation of what’s really core 4), i.e. you S1 reason that way, deliberative S2 reasoning at that level is going to happen first but doesn’t count. At least as of right now I think that, but I could probably be convinced to wiggle the location a little bit because I’m trying to project my internal model of it back out to other existing models that I can reference.
What do you mean by trying hard? Why is this less beneficial than not trying hard? How not to try hard?
I have been practicing meditation for 2.5 years and I think I did not even make it to A&P. Might that be the sign that I am doing something wrong?
When people try too hard, they set up strong expectations about what will happen. This works at cross purposes to awakening to just what is because it is a way of strongly grasping for something other than what is. Awakening, whether that be stream entry or enlightenment, requires surrendering or giving oneself over.
Importantly, though, trying like I’m talking about here is distinct from effort, which you need. You have to show up, do the practice, and wholeheartedly work at whatever it is you’re doing. But effort can be skillfully applied without trying or grasping for something.