Notes : An Apprenticeship on Signs & Matters

Comfortable Tales

One often hears in contemporary mindfulness communities things insinuating that “All Buddhist traditions are just different expressions of the same Dharma.” It’s the spiritual equivalent of “all roads lead to Rome”. It sounds wise, avoids awkward conversations at the dharma center, and lets everyone feel included in one big Buddhist family.

But here’s the problem: it’s demonstrably false. The Buddha laid out a clear logic model in the Four Noble Truths.¹ But when we examine how different traditions interpret and practice the eight dimensions of the 4th truth, we find fundamental differences not just between major schools, but even within them.

Take “Right View” (sammā-diṭṭhi). Even within Theravada alone, the Thai Forest tradition treats it as a practical hypothesis to test through direct experience. The Sri Lankan Mahāvihāra tradition systematizes it through Abhidhamma categories and scholastic precision. Burmese Vipassanā teachers often bypass doctrinal belief entirely, focusing on moment-to-moment experiential verification. If within a single yāna there are traditions T₁ emphasizing testing, T₂ emphasizes study, and T₃ emphasizes direct insight with respect to sammā-diṭṭhi, then the very foundations of practice within the entire 8 dimensions are already starting from different dispositions without even looking yet at other yānas. Similarly with sammā-samādhi a single yana can have approaches A₁ requiring specific jhāna attainments, A₂ using jhāna as a somewhat flexible tool not fixedly clung to, and A₃ bypassing jhāna as a key element of the definition of samādhi altogether, focusing on momentary clarity. Such that the very referent and practice of sammā-samādhi branches off into a number of distinct directions before one even look at other yanas.

When we examine the Buddha’s life through early texts, we see someone driven by persistence, clarity, and precision. Constantly investigating what causes what, what reduces what, under which conditions certain criteria are met. To emulate this approach means not glossing over nuance, distinctions, categories, variations, causal conditions, or the subtle movements of dhammas. The three forms of wisdom –suta-mayā paññā (heard/learned), cinta-mayā paññā (reflected upon), and bhāvanā-mayā paññā (developed through meditation)– all seem to require distinguishing signal from noise, recognizing the nature of differences.²

Of course, this reflects an early Buddhist perspective. A Zen or Dzogchen practitioner might argue we’re ‘putting legs on a snake’, and that distinction-making itself must be transcended, not refined. Fair enough. But as a nature nerd, I’d note that snake ancestors shed their legs only after evolving past the need for them. Premature leg-loss would have made them easy prey, ending the snake lineage entirely.

Similarly, in the Pali Canon, those who successfully see through Mara’s disguises are precisely those who’ve developed sharp discernment. When Mara appears as a beautiful youth or concerned relative, it’s vipassana –clear seeing of distinctions– that reveals the deception. Perhaps, like those proto-snakes, we need to master discrimination (mastering non-quadraped locomotion) before we can safely transcend it (legs).

Let’s Look Again

Ok, with that said, let’s examine what these differences mean for actual practice through a more nuanced framework. For any tradition T, we can analyze:

V = View/Framework (how is right view sammā-diṭṭhi defined, approached, centered with respect to the various aspects of “practice”)
L = Path Logic (gradual/sudden/grace? self/other-powered?)
M = Methods employed
B = Bhāvanā (qualities cultivated or recognized)
S = Signs of progress
P = Phala (results/fruitions)

Consider how different traditions approach Right Concentration (sammā-samādhi):

Zen/Shikantaza:

• V: Ordinary mind is already Buddha-mind
• L: Neither gradual nor sudden—no path to travel
• M: “Just sitting” without technique
• B: Non-cultivation (no qualities to develop)
• S: Diminishing of seeking itself
• P: Recognition that there was never anything to attain

Pure Land:

• V: Samsaric beings need Amida’s saving grace
• L: Other-powered salvation through faith
• M: Nembutsu recitation with devotion
• B: Cultivating faith (shinjin), samādhi, and merit
• S: Strength of aspiration, visions, dreams of Pure Land
• P: Assured rebirth in Sukhavati at death

Dzogchen:

Why This Matters

For Practitioners:

Today’s contemplative landscape extends far beyond choosing between Buddhist schools. We now navigate:
– Buddhist traditions (each with multiple sub-lineages as noted)
– Hindu contemplative paths (Advaita’s self-inquiry, Kashmir Shaivism’s recognition, Kriya Yoga’s energy work)
– Secular adaptations (MBSR, DBT mindfulness, corporate wellness programs)
– Neo-traditions (Unified Mindfulness, The Mind Illuminated, various “McMindfulness” apps)
– Hybrid spiritual technologies (psychedelic-assisted meditation, neurofeedback dharma)

Each operates on distinct logic models. Advaita’s “Who am I?” inquiry assumes a kind of eternal Self to discover. Secular mindfulness treats meditation as cognitive training divorced from ethics or wisdom. Modern apps gamify attention for productivity, not bodhi or nibbāna.

I’ve come to believe that, just as the contemporary situation of digital algorithms call for the development of a literacy and a skillfulness of attentional navigation, so too the contemporary situation of storefront McMindfulnessization of spiritual practices (whatever one takes this latter to mean), calls for the renewed application of discernment with respect to spiritual technologies. There is a dhamma-vicaya to benefit from in this type of social navigation. We must discern what’s actually happening and then apply appropriate attention (yoniso manasikāra): knowing what is what, what gives rise to what etc. Without this precision, practitioners grab onto techniques, teachers, ideas randomly, like taking medications without reading labels.

For All Contemplative Traditions:

Honest acknowledgment of differences serves everyone, in all traditions and approaches within traditions. With accurate maps, one can only choose paths aligned with one’s actual goals—whether that’s Buddhist liberation, Hindu moksha, or simply stress reduction, if the narrative space surrounding them develops greater clarity. The Buddha’s gift of centering systematic discernment (dhamma-vicaya) becomes even more crucial in our era’s new spiritually pluralistic marketplace: not to judge traditions as better or worse, but to understand what each actually offers and leads to what, and practice accordingly.

A Way Forward?

Here’s one more potential mature approach: neither dogmatism nor throwing darts and seeing where things land. Not ignoring emotion or creative aspects nor acting like rigor in thought is a universal panacea to anything, but rather, an openness, curiosity, like a scientist, or perhaps better, like a physician working with a patient (yourself) whose situation is in some ways unique, in some ways like huge swarths of other humans on this planet, but whose precise prescription needs trial and error, measurements, careful observation, and a clear focus on causal conditions and what gives rise to what.

If One Asks specific questions like:

• What does this tradition define as “practice”? What qualities does this “practice” cultivate?
• What’s the underlying logic model?
• How do you feel about the central teacher, leadership, the relationship between teachers and students? What are the power dynamics like and how does your own cultural embodiment relate to it?
• What results do long-term practitioners actually report? (e.g., “Stream-entry? Kensho? Stress reduction? Devotional rapture?”)
• What are you actually looking for? Ask and answer earnestly!

Then practice with a state of coherence and clarity about what you’re doing and why. As the suttas outline in SN 46.3 and SN 46.51, dhamma-vicaya (investigation of phenomena) isn’t preliminary work to be abandoned once you’ve chosen a path—it’s an ongoing awakening factor that sharpens with practice. This discerning analysis reveals which specific mental formations arise under which conditions, which practices actually reduce suffering in your particular configuration of mind, and which teachings resonate as medicine for your specific ailments rather than someone else’s. Through this careful investigation, the universal principles of the dharma become a living path uniquely calibrated to your own liberation.

It seems to me that approaching dhamma with a modular mindset only makes sense within this type of framework in the same way that physicians adopt modular treatment protocols only after seeing or gaining an understanding from research or others what specific conditions respond to what interventions, which medications interact dangerously, and which combinations actually enhance therapeutic outcomes—not before understanding these causal relationships, and certainly not by randomly mixing treatments from different medical systems without grasping their underlying physiological models.

Footnotes:

1. Basic Propositions:
   D = Dukkha (suffering exists)
   T = Taṇhā (craving)
   U = Upādāna (clinging/grasping)
   I = Ignorance (avijjā)
   N = Nirodha (cessation)
   P = Practice of the Eightfold Path
   
   The Four Truths as Logical Statements:
   1. First Truth: D
   2. Second Truth: I → T ∧ T → U ∧ U → D
   Therefore: I → D (by transitivity) (Ignorance → craving → clinging → suffering)
   3. Third Truth: ¬T → ¬U → ¬D
   (Cessation of craving leads to cessation of clinging and suffering) This is Nirodha: N ≡ ¬T
   4. Fourth Truth: P → ¬I → ¬T
   Therefore: P → N
   
   The Complete Causal Chain: (I → T) ∧ (T → U) ∧ (U → D) ∧ (P → ¬I) ⊢ (P → ¬T → ¬U → ¬D)
   
   In Predicate Logic: ∀x [Ignorant(x) → Craves(x)]
   ∀x [Craves(x) → Clings(x)]
   ∀x [Clings(x) → Suffers(x)]
   ∀x [Practices-Path(x) → ¬Ignorant(x) → ¬Craves(x)]
   Therefore: ∀x [Practices-Path(x) → Nirodha(x)]
   
   The Empirical Testing Function: Let S(t) = suffering level at time t
   Let P(t) = practice intensity at time t
   Hypothesis: dS/dt < 0 when P(t) > 0
   (Suffering decreases over time when practice is maintained) ↩︎
2. Thanisarro Bhikku in fact prefers to translate pañña as “discernment”, precisely because this form of wisdom would have invoked, via it’s relationship to the verb pajanati, a quality deriving from mental acts discerning/distinguishing events and actions, detecting when they are distinct from one another and when they are connected as causes and effects. The ability to see through and discern subtle phenomena that are ordinarily hard to detect. Cf. https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/Discernment/Section0003.html ↩︎
3. Logical Notation Used in This Article
   For readers unfamiliar with formal logic symbols, here’s a quick guide to the notation used:
   Basic Symbols:
   = : equals (two things are the same)
   ≠ : does not equal (two things are different)
   ≈ : approximately equal or compatible (similar enough to work together)
   ~ : similar to or non-contradictory with
   ⊥ : perpendicular/contradictory (mutually exclusive; cannot both be true)
   → : implies or leads to (if A then B)
   ∧ : AND (both conditions must be true)
   ∩ : intersection (what two sets have in common)
   ∅ : empty set (nothing; no overlap)
   Examples from the article:
   “V_zen ≠ V_pl” means: Zen’s view does not equal Pure Land’s view
   “L₁ ~ L₂” means: Path logic 1 is compatible with path logic 2
   “P₁ → R₁” means: Practice 1 leads to Result 1
   “T₁ ∩ T₂ = ∅” means: Tradition 1 and Tradition 2 have nothing in common (no intersection)
   “A₁ ∧ A₂ = ⊥” means: Axiom 1 AND Axiom 2 together create a contradiction
   Set Theory Notation: When we write T = ⟨V, L, M, B, S, P⟩, we’re defining a tradition T as an ordered tuple (collection) containing six elements: View, Logic, Methods, Bhāvanā, Signs, and Phala.
   This notation allows us to precisely compare different traditions and identify where they align or contradict each other, moving beyond vague statements about “different paths to the same goal. ↩︎