Stop Seeking: Paradoxes of the Spiritual Path
An earlier version of this essay was published in Zeek: A Jewish Journal of Thought and Culture (www.zeek.net).
1. Stopping Seeking Takes Seeking
The point of the spiritual search is to stop seeking. But not in the way it seems.
Stopping seeking actually takes a great deal of effort, because human beings are genetically and environmentally conditioned to seek all the time. Every moment, most of us are thinking about the future or the past, chasing something pleasant, or trying to avoid something unpleasant. Sometimes we're just clueless. And once in a blue moon, we're happy with what we've got. But usually, in ways so subtle that they escape attention, we're seeking something.
For example, as I write this on a train, some people are reading (seeking distraction, information, entertainment, etc.), others are trying to sleep, others are talking – all of us subtly looking for something. So ordinary it goes without saying, and of course nothing wrong with it, except that seeking necessarily involves a little bit of suffering. See what happens if you seek distraction but can't find it. Or what happens when you can't sleep. Or can't get your work done in the way that you would like. And, for me, even when I do get what I want, there's the potential for suffering when it's taken away, or when it doesn't fully meet my desires. Or when, having enjoyed it once, I want to taste it again.
Seeking also necessarily privileges something which isn't here (i.e., that which is being sought) over that which is. From a religious perspective, if “that which is” happens to be What Is, that is, God, Being, the Divine, well, that's quite a shame: God may be everywhere – but how often can I say, like the heroes of the Bible, hineini, here am I? From a non-religious perspective, it's obvious that life is more worthwhile when you're there to enjoy it. How many times have we all eaten a meal and barely tasted the food? Let alone had sex while worrying about how it's all going.
To "stop seeking" is thus to start living. Naturally, searching, wanting, needing, and righteously arguing all have their place, but the processes of waking up, drinking more deeply from the well of life, and pursuing the mystical path are all about slowing down the seeking and inserting more and more pauses in the mind's relentless, evolutionarily designed efforts to search for that "something else" that is going to bring happiness.
Paradoxically, to stop seeking also requires seeking, because it takes effort to be effortless. Once in a while, we are forced to stop seeking, as in peak experiences of amazement or delight or danger. And sometimes life is so pleasant - holding a baby, relaxing after sex, eating a gourmet meal - that seeking stops on its own. But most of the time, to learn to stop seeking requires some kind of work - in particular, a search for the ways in which seeking is still going on, and the ways it can be, if not stopped, at least relaxed a little bit. This "search for non-search" could be as simple as remembering to relax or as life-altering as having kids, or meditating, or religion. But what it really is about is the purification of the present moment from desires or fears of other ones. It’s about showing up.
2. Seeking to Stop Seeking Can Stop Stopping-Seeking
Of course, there's always a catch: in this case, at least three of them. First, seeking ways to stop seeking can become, itself, a narcotically addictive search. Comparing this meditation technique against that one. Searching for ever-more-transcendent peak experiences – "well, I did really forget myself and stop seeking last time, but I'd like to do it even more." Falling into the trap of thinking that it's the particular way of walking that matters on the journey, instead of showing up for every step of it. Talking about meditation instead of doing it. And, despite oneself, turning the whole thing into a goal-oriented process with goals and accoutrements. It's said that spirituality can turn into a kind of narcissism, but narcissism doesn't quite capture the angst of unbridled self-reflection. After all, Narcissus just saw his beautiful reflection – in meditation, you see an ever-more-clarifying picture of the good, the bad, and the ugly. Thus endless self-reflection can end not in clarity and calm, but neurosis and paralysis.
Second, there is what Trungpa Rinpoche called "spiritual materialism," in which the path to non-self becomes instead a path of gratifying and pleasing the self. Yoga, meditation, prayer, entheogens, energy work – all of these can easily become about enriching, enlarging, and serving the self, when they are meant to do the opposite. Spirituality can become an a consumer lifestyle, and a way of enhancing, relaxing, and generally pleasing Me – witness the success of the ego-empowering Kabbalah Centre, and the promises of eternal youth from some of today's most financially successful institutions. Even a sincere motivation for learning can becomes twisted: the search for occult, hidden realities can lead to both surprising truths about subtle energies that otherwise escape our notice – or a great cosmic treasure hunt, in which the goal is to know as much esoteric nonsense as possible.
Third, and most familiarly, because spiritual practices bring about highly pleasant mind states, and among the most indescribably beautiful sensations I have ever experienced, they can spoil precisely what they are meant to enhance. Give me more of the mind-blowing contentment, bliss, and sensations of unity I feel on meditation retreat – the regular pleasures aren't enough. Like a connoisseur of wine no longer being able to enjoy ordinary merlot, I only want the extraordinary stuff. Thus the practice of waking up to ordinary pleasure can undermine exactly that.
In all three of these cases, the search to stop seeking becomes, itself, a search with goals. It's tough, because, as goals go, bliss, contentment, and the deepest joy I've ever experienced are pretty good ones – and my experience is that meditation brings them about. But that is one of the paradoxes of the spiritual path: like love, you only truly experience it when you're willing to let it go.
3. Stop Seeking for a Reason to Stop Seeking
There's one final way that the search for not seeking itself becomes a search, so insidious that I and many other contemplatives still wrestle with it all the time: the search for a justification of the search itself. Naturally, since spiritual practice takes a lot of time and effort, and since it gets sneered at by many smart people, those of us who do it spend a lot of time explaining why it's so important. Not just something we want to do, and not just something which helps life be a little juicier, a little more meaningful - but really Important. Thus one hears all the time that "the purpose of our being here is to awaken to who we are," or that people who aren't "awake" aren't truly happy. Nonsense. That's just the New Age version of Jews thinking we're the Chosen People, or Christians thinking that only Christ can save you.
The fact is, we spiritual seekers want to be doing what we're doing. That's it. We notice that it brings us more happiness, more joy, more equanimity, and we want that. Maybe we're just more dissatisfied than other people. Maybe we just like new mind states. But the rhetoric that "what I want is the most important thing to want" is just odious, no matter how soothing the voice that says it.
I've come to a place in my meditation practice where I'm okay with saying that it's just my preference to do it. And I understand that, for many people, a less-reflective life is simply more enjoyable. I look at my friends who used to argue about Hume or Kant, Proust or Thomas Mann, but who are now quite obsessed with putting their baby pictures on Flikr - and they seem perfectly happy living a more or less conventional life. Perhaps they're too busy to question the meaning of it all, or perhaps they no longer want to, now that non-rational answers to those questions are right in their arms, or needing a diaper change. In an exchange with my editor here at Zeek, he had occasion to say, as he reviewed my latest round of religious self-questioning, that "one reason why I am so much happier now that I was a few years ago was that I'm: a) too busy to do much contemplation and b) 'settled.' I picked a city, a partner, and a level of religious observance and declared to myself 'here I am.' It works most of the time."
There was a time when I would look down on this kind of "settling," either blaming it for all the unconscious evil we do in the world, or castigating it in the name of Socrates. But no longer. I do still think that some degree of "afflicting the comfortable" is necessary to keep us honest – without some way to disturb the calm of a peaceful, bourgeois life, it's quite easy to be ethically irresponsible and spiritually somnolent. But there are many ways to do that, and many comfortable, settled people who are, after all, quite responsible and awake.
Nor do I buy into the myth that meditation is really for everyone. For many people, the resistance to meditation does indeed come from fear – fear that can be productively lifted through meditation. But for many others, it's just not of interest. On the contrary, I sometimes wonder why it's even for me. Why am I not simply satisfied with the ordinary, un-enhanced, un-mindful pleasures that most people seem perfectly content to enjoy? Yes, at the extreme, such a lifestyle is a degraded form of human existence: draining away in front of the television, marching from mall to SUV and back again, being programmed by the vulgarities of pop culture. But that's just the extreme, and a bit of a cliché in any event. Usually, life provides its roller coaster of pleasures and pains no matter how prosaic the daily routine. Some are too intense, others are too dull. But some are quite nice. What's so bad about that?
Although there are plenty of possible answers to that question, I think searching for one is just the kind of "seeking" that the spiritual search is meant to arrest. Why do we contemplatives need to explain why everyone else is not a contemplative? Why can't we admit that we're on the spiritual path because we want to be? Because it's what we like to do? Personally, I find meditative practice leads to more enjoyment of the simple pleasures of my home, my lover, my career. But I also find it interesting in and of itself. Exploring ideas, refining the mind, and learning the subtleties of attention and desire are not, for me, stages to go through until I "find myself." I find them interesting on their own. Isn't that enough?
Now, it's also true that I am just the kind of person who likes to explore, explain, and articulate. As Alan Watts once asked rhetorically, "Why not sit back and let things take their course? Simply that it is part of 'things taking their course' that I write. As a human being it is just my nature to enjoy and share philosophy. I do this in the same way that some birds are eagles and some doves, some flowers lilies and some roses."
That effortlessness, that justificationlessness - that's the ticket. If I keep trying to justify my search for not seeking, the stories will never end. "Maybe I do dislike my ego more than some other people do. Maybe I was just raised neurotic, and so spiritual practice is more important for me than for other people. Or maybe I just can't figure life out, dammit, and am too weird to be successful like my more mainstream-writer and lawyer friends." Now, in the life that I have chosen – "integral" on good days, "fence-straddling" on bad ones - some of this "bad" seeking (comparing, striving, demanding, berating) is inevitable. It's hard to cultivate enough ambition to succeed but not so much that success becomes the only goal, and competition the only way to achieve it. It's also hard, having given up a lucrative mainstream career, not to look at my peers who stayed on the straight and narrow, and flourished. So... stay with me... I'm learning to stop seeking the reason why I'm seeking to stop seeking
See, isn't spiritual life fun?
4. The Kicker (Nonduality)
Most of the wisdom of "stop seeking" comes from the four noble truths of Buddhism, which boil down to the observation that suffering exists because of clinging/seeking/wanting/thirsting, and that it can be ended by learning to stop seeking so much. What's great about the Four Noble Truths is that, now that the Buddha said them, they seem intuitively correct, and more importantly, can be tested in a relatively short period of time. But there is one final element, which might just be the kicker.
Stopping seeking is more than just good for you, in the way that flossing is good for you. It is the only way to turn down the incessant demands of the ego so that it's possible to identify not with the ultimately unreal "small self" created by the illusion of interior consciousness, but with the greater processes of which each being is only a part. This is the Buddhist teaching of anatman (non-self), the Vedanta teaching of tat tvam asi ("you are that"), the Chabad teaching of acosmism: that what seems to be "me" isn't really me at all. Sure, I seem like "Jay" most of the time, especially when "Jay" wants something. But when I look at this personality closely, I really do see how all of its myriad pieces come from somewhere else: my upbringing, or my education, or wherever. "Jay" is really just a bundle of these other things, a temporary one at that, and a bundle which, on its own, never actually does anything; it's always one of the other things. A tactic I learned as a child; a talent I was born with; a way of speaking I picked up along the way. Each act, each decision, and each preference is ultimately ascribable (and, on a quiet retreat, observably so) to one of these sticks in the bundle. So what is so important about this "me" that needs to get fed, and that thinks that if it doesn't get what it wants, the world is somehow in disarray?
The "me" is a phenomenon, but not an important one, and it is possible to stop identifying with it so much... by stopping seeking. And then the "non-seeking, non-desiring mind" (in Zen teacher Genpo Roshi's words) can actually be revealed for what it is: sufficient, blissful, ever-present, enlightened. And not "me." If you've never actually experienced that mental space, where you really don't want anything, this all probably sounds quite vague. But if you've been there, you know it transcends words.
Even in talking about the "non-seeking, non-desiring mind," however, there's a bit of seeking, of justifying, involved. Am I, at such moments, really in touch with Kosmic Mind, Brahman, God, or whatever? Certainly, it makes sense on paper: if the self is an illusion, a phenomenon that only exists when seen from a certain perspective, who is doing all this knowing, if it's not "Jay"? And it also does feel that way, as if the quality of the universe's knowing is present in my own, miniature knowing as well. It feels quite certain indeed. But then, we feel certain about a lot of things that turn out not to be true. Which is it - cosmic consciousness, or a nice bit of relaxation?
What I've found, lately, is that the claim to cosmic consciousness is itself a form of seeking. As if it's not enough that meditation makes me happy and opens my eyes to pleasure and pain - it has to also take me to God, which is somehow more present when I'm relaxed than when I'm stressed out. As if "God," rather than simply experience or insight, is somehow necessary for the deal to be worth it - and that God has a certain flavor, which is exalted or great or wise. As if something has to be holy to be worthy.
Whereas, when I'm able to sit back and let be whatever will be, then real receiving (kabbalah) can take place. Then God, in the sense in which I understand the term, really does show up - precisely because I'm not looking for God, labeling an experience as God, or in any way claiming something is or isn't God. This is not the God of special mind states, particular revelations, or spiritual "holiness" in the way that makes you want to wave your hands in the air, but the omnipresent God - the one who shows up not because God wasn't there before, but because I was looking somewhere else. And so, as one of my teachers once said, stopping the war has no limits. Again I relearn and relearn and relearn: Stop looking somewhere else for God. Really – stop looking in every way. Stop seeking.
Image by ambientfusion, used under Creative Commons license.
Tweet- 9-8-08
- Jay Michaelson's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Comments
Spiritual Materialism and Seeking
Cutting through Spiritual Materialsm by Trunpa is one of the most poignant books "on the path". SOO Needed when I read it. Helped me realized how many ego traps I was actually in with "MY" practice.
As far as seeking...
I think its a fine tuning ... a balancing act.
When buddha was asked how he survived the flood (crossing the ocean of existance)
He responded...
"I neither swam nor stayed still"
EBB & FLOW
ya'll...
Surrender and witness...
Giving energy to what arises... when it arises
-om shanti
"When the power of LOVE overwhelms the love of power, the world will know peace" - J.H
Peace is finding...
Peace is finding... that the search has ended.
Hmmmmm.
I always believed peace was merely finding. I never knew what though.
Thanks, Jay, for helping me place an end to what I was looking for... the end of the searching.
meditation
I believe it is to stop learning
The things of the Spirit, the things of this world, in which we try to find our connection to each other from within us we must ebb and flow with.
Arguing and searching for who God is and what he does... I refuse to learn that any more. There my search has ended.
Let that question just be. The others that merely have the survival of man himself involved... we need to search for the right answer.
Spirit is everything.
Peace.
It’s not searching, it’s finding
I recently read William Blooms “SOULution” where he talks about Spirituality morphing into Holism. Holism can be explained as not only an idea, but also a way of thinking and understanding that fits the modern world with its changes and flows of new information. Bloom goes on to summarize Holism as:
* Open-hearted and open-minded.
* Welcomes diversity.
* Perceives the connections and interdependence of all life.
* Respects that all life is growing to fulfill its potential, and that all life is worthy of our care and support.
* It is uncomfortable with the dogma and certainty of traditional faiths.
* Recognizes that there is a sacred and wonderful mystery to all life, that the universe are spectacular.
* Asserts that the essence of spirituality is to connect with and experience the wonder and beauty of all life. * Acknowledges that we are all beings in a developmental spiritual process.
* Welcomes and respects that there are many ways of exploring the meaning, purpose and mystery of life – all of them equally valid.
I think what’s important here is that it can be different things to different people, but we can all evolve in our own way and direction and still be right.
Thank you
I realize now that much of the time I spent searching ended in frustration and a profound lack of success. In contrast, much of the information and experiences that have shaped my being have come to me on their own accord, and many "answers" have been right in front of me the whole time.
I feel like many of these words could have (and at certain times have already) come from my own mouth.. reading on, it was a little spooky having the same name as the author..!
Love and respect, and blessings to the RS community
“There's only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving, and that's your own self.”
~ Aldous Huxley
Thank You!
It's always great to read your stuff -- definitely among my favorite posts. You write beautifully of things which, somewhat paradoxically, are impossible to write about.
Genpo Roshi is truly a force of nature. I was pleasantly surprised to see him cited. His technique of speaking to the voice who does not seek has revolutionized the way I practice not only zazen, but the manner in which I apply practice, i.e., the rest of my life.
As a wiser man than I once said:
Concentration. Concentration. Concentration.
Ahemm?
The problem you take up is one of the really complicated ones, especially when you have to use language to describe it and find answers (it's easier just to do experiental buddhistic practise than to talk about it), but I think your effort is lucid, when you describe the psychological and existential aspects of this paradox.
"Stop thinking about a red cow", will, if given as a mental exercise, lead even people who've never given half a thought to cows all their life, to a cow-infected existence the next few years.
But like with the paradox in your article, I have my own paradox: I have the belief-system, that belief-systems are to be avoided. So my comments here will be directed as much inwards as outwards, and shall not be taken for more than a friendly exchange of opinions. I have a great respect for buddhism, which while having its share of 'belief-system' dogmas and doctrines isn't missionary about it. I like the 'take it or leave it' attitude.
When you boil it down, most religions, spiritual methodologies etc can be seen to center around 'dualism' as a pivot point. That dualism in one form or another exists, very few deny; variously described from being an individual 'perception' dysfunction to being a cosmogonic malformation. A stop of dualism is also considered beneficial by most, but the ways and means to do this change according to where the origin of dualism is said to be.
In the abramic religions, dualism is a consequence of original sin, plus human insufficient understanding of 'mysteriousity'. Hardcore gnosticism puts all the 'blame' on the demiurge, and in the 'meet-halfway' samsara=nirvana model, dualism is placed as being between ego/not-ego, with some intervention by Maya/Mara/illusion.
Evidence-seeking on which model is the correct one is difficult, but has great importance. Each model has something speaking for it, and something against it (though I personally find the abramic model badly supported). And some of the individual questions arising on the way to non-dualism, have their startingpoint in the chosen model itself.
As an intellectual gnostic, I for example don't have the need to find any justification for my urge to escape dualism. Dualism is none of my doing, I just need a way to get out of it as quick as possible. On the other hand my 'final answer', that non-dualism exists beyond the creator of the universe (the demiurge), is totally unsupported and rests on debatable inductive arguments.
So I just take a rather pragmatic attitude and look at, what I have possibility to observe from my restricted position of outlook. And I think, that a scrutiny of what 'dualism' really is, would be a good starting-point. Leaving the new-age and abramic approaches aside, I would say, that dualism in 'normal' life is a situation, where different polarities (be they practical or abstract) don't get along very well, so we have open, and sometimes unpleasant, conflicts as a result. At a more complex/deep/'spititual' level, dualism can be said as being the possibility to make choices. There is no 'ultimate homogeneous unity', where everything is 'the same'. In other words free will, non-determinism etc. There are still 'polarities' (='dualism'?). This theory can be supported to some degree, but as it's not my intention to write a book here, it'll be for later, if interest in the subject arises.
I can only assure you, that my thoughts on this are far from being only academic. A lot of 'practical' aspects are involved. E.g. I look forward to still having some kind of identity (though not the standard 'ego') after a possible 'realisation'. And: Will Nirvana/realisation turn up 'automatically', if the ego is turned off? (My answer is no to this).
Re: cj
In my own own language, I would like to join you (if I understand you correctly).
While not wanting to start an ideological fight, I would like to point out, that a lot of recent comments here are based on dogmas, unfortunately sometimes presented as functional, useful 'truths'. This is debatable. As are my opinions.
And if my scepsis leads anyone into 'chapel perilous' of uncertainties, I can only add, that my 'belief-system' encompasses the need for that step, somewhere along the path.
Yoink.
When you look for it, it is nowhere to be found, when you look at it: you have it. What am I speaking about? These and various other koans seem infuriating when one is still of the opinion that there is anything at all to be attained. I sure as hell danced around with these concepts for what seemed a long time until I began to stop.
It is just your own mind. Or if you wish to cloth it in the garb of conceptualisations we could use R.A.W's proffered wisdom: The map is not the territory. I think I spent a long time studying my map, before realising that it was only a map and reformulating that map to more accurately represent my experience. Can you see where I went wrong? No map, no-mind.
When mind sees itself, it IS itself. Seeing and being do not precede one another. At their heart or true existence they ARE one another. The self knowledge is the fundamental fact: Prajna. When one practices (dhyana) one may be immersed in the kind of meditation where dust is wiped from the perfectly reflective surface of the mind. This kind of meditation, may lead to attachment to just practicing and no matter how perfect, you will still have some distracting idea of perfection in your practice. (I do seem to keep harping on about this point!)
Prajana, self knowledge (self-being), is, I think, the pattern on which all patterns are based, the seed, the principle, what-have you. It is this seed and concurrently, all existence. The principle is the product if you will. And when this perfectly intuitive knowledge, of not only yourself but of ITS-self informs you, then the practice or meditation will come along with it.
This is the seeming duality at the heart of the healing of that duality which puzzles me still. Why must practice lead to non attainment while intuitive knowledge engenders perfect practice?
Now, I am speaking from a perspective of the practice af zazen, and even in the world of zen, there are still zennists engaged in the dust-wiping type of meditation. When Mckenna said that the yogis who devised the I Ching sat in yogic ecstasy and from this ultra-clear perspective on mind systemetised the Time(s) that they saw, I begin to question the books perspective. However, whenever I look into the pages of the I Ching, I find a different kind of dualistic healing. A one-ness IN duality.
I, clearly, am still pretty confused!
Phi is not the only fruit.
That that
Thank you Jay, what a nice
Thank you Jay, what a nice piece of writing!
I feel like what makes us human is this constant seeking we have. We are the only animals that keep trying to change, to improve, to move, to grow. We are fundamentally dissatisfied with life as it is, and so we channel this dissatisfaction in seeking money, power, love, education, respect, whatever. Yet no matter how much of what we look for we get, we eventually find ourselves in that same state of restlessness.
You touched on a point that I agree completely, although I had never consciously thought about it before: The constant need for justifying this spiritual quest. I have found myself in that position countless times. I think it arises (at least for me) from the need we have of being accepted and the fear of being alone in this. Of course, when people look at me with that face of "oh my god she's going crazy" just because I want to know who I am, it definitely makes me wonder if I am deluding myself, and off I go to read and educate myself more to be able to better explain what I feel, so that I may convince them I am not crazy. This can so easily distract us from what is important, you are right!
I have come to realize that my justification is that I don’t have a choice. It is more than just wanting to take this path, more than a lifestyle choice. No matter how hard I try, I cannot get satisfaction in things that most people do, and trying to forget these things just makes me more restless. I just know deep inside that there is more, and that my only free will is to choose whether to try to figure it out or to numb it until I die.
And no, I cannot judge all the Cyphers out there who prefer to live in the Matrix in oblivion, because if that is enough for them, then that is enough for them. The people I feel are worth talking about these things with are those that share the same feeling, or those that do not realize there could be more…
It is not inhumane,
It is not inhumane, fundamentally inhumane, to sit back and let things take their course?
Eric Hoffer said that one who loves humanity, should not expect too much from humanity--but we are free to sit back and watch ourselves.
www.martialdevelopment.com
wow
Phi is not the only fruit.
Observing "the Sabath"
Hey Jay, your words below rang true with me.
"Every moment, most of us are thinking about the future or the past, chasing something pleasant, or trying to avoid something unpleasant. Sometimes we're just clueless. And once in a blue moon, we're happy with what we've got. But usually, in ways so subtle that they escape attention, we're seeking something."
This passage made me think of "The Gospel of Thomas" line: "If you do not observe the sabath as the sabbath you will not see the Father." At first, I was wondering why one day was so important to "higher" states of consciousness but then I grew to realize that I myself needed more sacred time in my life, to process, grow, and reflect in stillness, in silence, and in love.
Re: 2k
Our situation is one of 'approximative' truth, and we have to learn to live with that. We're born into this universe, but not given a manual. We have to create our own manuals, as we go along, and that can be a painstakingly slow and frustrating process, considering the amount of uncertainty it contains.
"Whaaa, I want NOW".... Don't I know it.
Refering to my former post on this thread, I can only repeat, that our approaches varies depending on what our maps tell us, and my map says, that while my 'ego' mostly consists of unnecessary ballast (which I'm better off without), my greater Mind (with a capital 'M') isn't to be turned off leading to a 'no-mind' status. My greater Mind is dynamic (ultimatively 'dualistic', because it makes choices and decisions), and that is for me a momentary, approximative 'truth', which is very functional for the time being.
On a pragmatic level: 2k, if I remember correctly, you mentioned in one of your post, that you experience a jigsaw-puzzle aspect of existence. I have personally carried this allegory further, to the point where it suggests an addition of out traditional 'truthseeking' methods (as manifested in religion, science etc). Without junking the old methods, I add observation of 'patterns' as a just as valuable 'truth'-indication. Sometimes it's impossible to put the jigsaw-puzzle together in any other way than just trying to fit the bits together one by one (without violence). Sooner or later a small part of the puzzle will emerge, and from this you can build on.
I like to compare the single puzzle-bits to any structure/manifestation we meet in the universe (from the abstract to the physical), and the process fitting them smoothly together as symbiosis.
response patterns
Perhaps I have missed the point of your post with such unerring accuracy that this all reads in a rather comedic light but...
I do not tend to see the application of function as ever based entirely in one discipline. I didn't mean to diminish or dethrone any function of mind. From where the thought comes can be questioned if you just so happened to be concentrating on its emergence into consciousness as it turns up.
Basically I don't think exageration of any function over any other is whats important. I also agree that personal models are very important but also beleive it when I'm told that those will have to be abandoned eventually. It is this abandoning of personal models that seems to be at the heart of this article. I find that big mind expresses itself in whatever model I use, tendancy to push this, I think, leads to a kind of anarchism with a small 'a'.
New patterns emerge from within the structure of previously established patterns, grow from the inside, sprouting even from the stumps of felled trees. The expression of big mind or no-mind doesn't substitute your thoughts with its own firewall of indric annihilation. at least not yet for me!
I think what I'm trying to get at is that I see the emergence meme as also being a convergence meme. It makes things come together, thoughts gel, metamorphose, generate new angles to view themselves from (etc. etc.) with more elegance when I don't systematise. Bodily reactions come faster and more surely when I don't calculate. Conceptualisation comes more completetely when I dont rationalise and yet when I want to talk of my experience I find that a kind of natural logic has pervaded my deeds for me. This is the language I am refering to.
I am a proponent of the possibility of perfect thermodynamic modeling. I also think that this will involve the modeling of more than just our apparent universe. Hyper-logic if you will. The evoloution of complex, usefull systems is pretty far out dude.
However, where the phsicists minds will have to wander before they can formally express their intuitive insights (which will doubtless be based on millions of entity-hours of rational and logical calculation) is any-body's guess.
perhaps I said something about a chaordic splash of glossolallia... I should check but I won't... at least not until I've re-read this post and at least been tempted to alter it. Symbiotic world building sounds cool. I'm probably wrong but does that have an alchemical basis? The synergy of substances sounds scintillating. hmmm. seriously though, expedient ratiocination would be an awsome tool.
Sadly though I wait in wonder, at the last bend of the river, on the ship of fools which should be sinking its way by these very shores some day.
Re: Response patterns
But the transmuting-thing was just a metaphor for a variant of the 'unification-of-polarities' theory.
And it has relevance to the present subject, which basically is about how to stop dualism (whether dualism is a psychological or cosmological process).
I'm not totally sceptic about the samsara (illusion)=nirvana model. I only interpret it in a slightly different way. For me samsara is nirvana having a bad day. And my personal answer is, that samsara doesn't go away, if we pretend it isn't there, by leaning back and closing our eyes (figuratively speaking).
Not forgetting my high regard for buddhism in general, I still say, that it has a weak point concerning 'dynamics', which is bothering. How to 'do' in a 'non-doing' way. The question is a semantic dead end, and it has also practical implications, as when used in meditational practise. What part of samsara contains the 'seed' of 'non-do'ing'? Even when transferred to the area of 'psychology', the problem is still there.
At a rather abstract level the symbiotic method suggests, that when the polarities making up samsara unite harmonically, the resulting totality will be different from the sum of the polarities. It will negotiate dualism.
This happens spontaneously in samsara (by chance, randomly), but is an uncertain startingpoint, when an individual starts on this spiritual journey. Maybe we can be 'lucky', finding a part of the puzzle already laid into a functional pattern of non-duality. But mostly we are not lucky, we have to make or find our own 'seed', our own startingpoint of functional non-duality.
Practically my own first step was to skip the question of do'ing/non-do'ing. It was simply in my way. I could do this, because I had reason to believe, that the 'seed' for non-dualism I sought, is available outside samsara (I'll skip the details, not to digress from the subject). I decided to track non-dualism dynamically, unburdened by existential uncertainties concerning my method. I wanted a springcleaning or even termination of my 'ego', but kept the idea of an 'essence'. For me it functioned.
I'm grateful for this exchange of thoughts we have, and possibly linguistic/semantic/interpretation problems arising on the way isn't a major problem for me, I feel we have a real communication going. I for example guess, that what you call 'perfect thermodynamic modeling' isn't so far from what I talk about. It's only that I try to use a more spiritually oriented language on this thread out of respect for the original subject.
I agree that it appears to
I agree that it appears to be a semantic dead end, but still I think it is possible to construct language that is truthfull or approaching truth with the idea of it's own contradiction embedded in the statement in a hermetically sealed kind of way. : )
We will understand, only when we already understand. Thinking over koans isn't so you can figure them out, I don't think. they are for use when you want to check the validity of your perspective. They almost always seem to end up meaning exactly what they have always meant but from your new perspective the hypercube 'ploinks!' into the right configuration....
Perhaps the setting up of the conditions for this ploink into mind-with-no-maps (i.e no longer languishing in maya or illusion) is as close to willing it to happen is as approachable whilst still maintaining the quality of mind you do not wish to lose in illusion. What I mean is that your mind seems to achieve this state only when not interfered with...
Monks, hands tied behind their backs, hanging from straining trees by only the grip of their teeth, far over the edge of the abyss, will be unlikely to open their mouths to answer a question shouted at them from before the edge by some unruly student. Both parties would lose their grip.
Perhaps the only problem with discussing these subjects is that they do not mesh into the language game with much ease. Technical terms seem to be my downfall in communicating my experience. Resorting to words like 'ploink' should let you know how akin I am to finding exact descriptions. However, the 'broken poetry' method, wherein you delibertely break metaphor, un-use concepts and downright lie with all your might only seems to be applicable in face to face interactions. The body-language, cues, tone of voice etc.
Finding a way to discuss the topic in the context of 'new media' is opening my eyes (slowly, slowly) to the structure of this particular language game.
On a side note, my limited experience with the I Ching seems to be concretising around the oneness in the duality of approach. The current thought seems to be that the hexagrams precede the trigrams; that the unity of the concepts was the initial development.
The trigrams seem to have been extrapolated as a kind of reductionist critique into the underlying framework that gives rise to the 'Time' of the hexagrams. To me, this reeks of modern scientific method, coupled with a strong inclination towards the maintenance of the singularity. Not at all a bad smell.
"The universe is its own magic." Shunryu Suzuki
Bobbing in the Tao
a lake atop the mountain
I may be way off base here but... in an analogy born of programming I tend to think of hexagrams such as Influence (Wilhelm's trans.) as comparable with the use of kernels.
They are intermediary processes that 'join' the hardware and software, allowing them to communicate. Conceptually I tend to think of skillfull means as behaving like a sort of kernel.
They do their job because they moderate or influence the phase space of both realms at the most fundamentally abstract layer.
These are means that can be formulated and transmitted on a level of abstract reality within which language can be used to program not just our minds but our bodies. Metaphors that point to the healing of the duality are within the reach of ordinary entities.
So what then does it mean to point to an ordinary mind. Is a mind that considers these topics to be thought ordinary?
There are many possibilities in the mind of the beginner and very few in the mind of the master. I agree with Shunryu Suzuki in the thought that keeping the attitude of the beginner is as important a means as masterful practice.
-As formulated in the mind of an upstart beginner.
Being/non-being
I know of two systems, where the importance of semantics is stressed. Gurdjieff's 'work' and 'general semantics'. I formerly practised the Gurdjieff model and found the semantic training useful, though I nowadays am less vigilant than before. Carried to an extreme, a semantically 'pure' language can lead to something so 'specialist', that no-one not going through the same process can understand it.... Ploink. Would that be 'grok'? (On the side, I appreciate the humour, which can develop from such situations).
2k, I agree with your comment and conclusion about koans. Years ago I had the wonderful experience to have acchieved (a possibly minor) state of Satori (Nirvana etc) a couple of weeks. And as you implied: "Before Satori I cut firewood and fetched water. After Satori I cut firewood and fetch water". Cosmos goes on as before, but as you say, we change perspective.
Concerning the possibility of learning to use a 'pure' language and still communicate, I'm not completely despairing. I think the trick is to momentarily identify with your communication-partners' semantic patterns and use them (not that I'm very good at it myself, but that could be because of not being born into the english language).
I have to jump a bit now, and go to Neg's post. Ofcourse the natural startingpoint would be 'psychologically', your own 'mind'. But 'mind' can mean several things depending on your personal map. There's a two-way feedback process involved here between map and practise. On my map I have both 'ego' AND 'essence'. But while I practically start with my individual being, my map suggests that my postulates are universal (that all 'structures' in cosmos/samsara mostly are dualistic).
Inside buddhism I prefer the Theravada model and the greater importance it puts on the 'void', but I make the (for a buddhist) heretic digression by postulating the existence of 'essence', both as part of my own individual being and cosmos in general. So for me it looks like this: Ego=cosmos/maya/samsara/illusion=(type one) dualism. Essence=chaos/void/nirvana/reality=(type two) dualism.
Sorry, did I freak out? But please hang on. If this model is correct, that a type one and a type two dualism exist, it will give some functional answers at both an abstract and a practical level, if we look at the situation from both ends. How does Nirvana look from a samsara perspective and vice versa in this model. The most common situation would be to look from samsara at Nirvana. And it's here, that the 'non-mind', 'non-doing', 'non-seeking', 'non-whatever' gets interesting. From a samsara perspective the void/nirvana would APPEAR 'empty', simply because of our 'insufficient spiritual perception'. In samsara we simply don't have the means of percieving or conceptualizing the intrinsic nature of void/nirvana, and we experience it as 'non-(something)'. But once in/at essence/void/Nirvana it's far from 'empty', as we use the word.
I base this postulate on evidence from the mystic's experience and from science. Potential Buddhas can, according to Mahayana doctrine, make a choice of going on as Buddhas (once they have acchieved Nirvana-state) or become Boddhisatvas. Making a 'choice' implies dual possibilities, you can't make choices in total vacum/emptiness.
In science, the closest we can get to a parallel to void/Nirvana is 'zero-point'. And contrary to former scientism models it has turned out, that zero-point is far from empty. It has its own, to normal perception and conceptualizing non-percievable, existence filled with 'being'.
Back to 2k. Trigrams, hexagrams and time. From a samsara perspective, we can reverse the time-arrow and go back to Big Banging (or whatever), and I find, that the trigram preceded the hexagram. From a void/Nirvana/essence perspective, such distinctions between time-based causualities are meaningless, these cosmos/samsara manifestations are only different facets of fragmented void/Nirvana, originally arriving to cosmos/samsara as a complete 'package'.
So Neg, you see, that my map is more dualistic than the 'Tao' model, which is more on the samsara=Nirvana line in the Mahayana tradition.
Cit 2k:
" They are intermediary processes that 'join' the hardware and software, allowing them to communicate. Conceptually I tend to think of skillfull means as behaving like a sort of kernel. They do their job because they moderate or influence the phase space of both realms at the most fundamentally abstract layer."
This is where I am now, at this grey zone. I believe, that this state is best used by a constant switching back and forth between map and experiental being. All the while refining both perspectives, and thus existing with 'approximative truth' and a certain amount of unaVOIDable uncertainty.
I know, that this post is rather heavy, and probably needs to be read a couple of times. But I did my best, and I feel, that we haven't violated the original article by going in this direction. If anyone has observations or theories about the grey zone, I would be grateful.
Maybe more grey
I consider myself to be a layman in these discussions, hence my reticence to necessarily contribute, my interest being in the deconstruction of maps in favour of territories, no matter how elusive. Also admittedly, my experience of ontological philosophy is limited, unevolved and preferentially undefined. My simple understanding of Mahayana Buddhism is that the Bodhisattva is an incentivised figure, introduced to foment comfort through hope, similar in a sense to the way that the archetype of Buddha in certain avenues became chubby, avuncular and paternal as the teachings travelled orient (although Zen did strip much of this away). This notion of choice therefore was one that was introduced in a parochial sense, with an eye on inclusion. Theravada is blunt in this respect.
The abilty, which you have Bogomil, to keep one mind on the map and one on the territory is desirous and rare, my experience being that the map is typically consulted much more than any experiential awareness of the territory.
The mention of gray zones immediately brings to mind Aristotle's' excluded middle and R.A. Wilson's Maybe logic, a concept which offered a great deal of flesh to my own preoccupations and frustrations with arguement and absolute binary certitude. I think this resonates with your symbiosis Bogomil (or at least what I have understood of it). R.A.W. called his position - multi-model agnosticism; which might be tentatively described as the ability to recognise multiple perspectives and find at least a partial empathy and value in all of them, or at least enough to inform the evolution of your own model.
binary-spectrum-continuum.
a side order of superscillious-shakes
Like bogomil says, I'm gonna have to read over the whole matter a few times, top of page to bottom before I even try and recombine the conceptual RNA pervading this issue.
Whilst re-reading Jay's blog post, a couple of other themes that I've been dancing to for the last few days caught my.... ear. : `
A friend once described mediatation as a refreshment, rather like a massage or a walk along the beach.
Maybe exageration of the spiritually disciplined nature of practice is purposefull but I find myself getting carried away with the intensity of it all sometimes. This may be why I emphasise the finding of normal mind; the congruence between everyday mind and big-mind. (no more 'no-mind' from me!)
Another subject touched upon in the article are the questions of justification and qualification we must have considered at some point before declaring ourselves authoratative enough to even proffer opinions on the subject.
In response to this question the answer that repeatedly resounds in my mind is just this.
Any mind can proffer comment. Anything that is self-aware and can describe its experience is a valid source. Recognised qualifications in information theory, neuoro-physiology or hard-core physics and math are not pre-requisites for advancing discussion of the subject. Surley all we need is a genuine attempt to transmit some of what we find ourselves to be.
If you are a prctical joker and can trip people over their own egos then bravo! Equally, insights into the nature of information density in relation to the passage of time in hyperspace, whilst only really interesting a few people, may be just the pick-me-up one of those few needed on that particular day.
I drink the occasional cup of coffee, I like a walk along the beach on a slightly stormy day. I enjoy discussions of evenescent subject matter.
It's all just stuff. It's all the same. Really. ; )
Back to the thread in a stitch...
"The universe is its own magic." Shunryu Suzuki
maps and territories
Right here, right now!
The way that satori is talked about by buddhists seems to be along the lines of having had 'a' satori, a special type of mind within the remit of conciousness. These are not students on the path (unless you consider them students in the wider sense, when de we ever stop learning?), these are masters.
Side-stepping the issue of grades of perfection, hints that there are further mysteries, beyond comparison to the iniatiatory methods, the issue of a perfect language or possibly just a more perfect use of language is intruiging. In my initial forays into sitting I became aware of the slightly different formulation that the more truthfull sentances I read and used to express myself were taking. The written down language was more apparently structured in a non-dualistic way and my speech soon followed suit. I cannot put my finger on the difference now, locked as I am into a slightly more wesstern mindset. It does seem that the reference to dualism is inherent but not completely ingrained into englishing.
Comments about the active void, as borne out by scientific investigation are incredibly interesting to my mind. Whereas Capra's books have been roundly dismissed by some of the more seriously anal scientific minds, proponents of multiple universe theories within the context of pure maths have also been hounded out of the establishment. Toppling people like Hawking is another matter entirley. He has been derided totally by some of his colleugues and more than confused some others. Sheldrakes approach, although i must admit unfamiliarity with it, highlights some important viewpoints or perspectives from which to criticise Hawkings revelations. A return to poetry! If this were possible, to grow a poetic mitichodria from within the body of physics would reveal, I think, that it has been there all along.
Stalling your escape from the cycle of birth and death is way cool. Those guys are heroes in the truest possible sense of the word. They may be around for a long time. Your point about a chioce does resound quite strongly, bogomil. Fate and destiny? Malleable??? Who knows? Not I. heh.
The stuff thats really caught my interest in the apparent single dualness of the I Ching are the backwards movements of the arrangememt of the seasons. I am enmeshed with this concept at the moment.
Perhaps the stopping we are discussing needs you to have already stopped. Transmission of mind states backward in time, or more likely, resonances of particular mindstates THROUGHOUT time may be the key to the lock.
My personal interest in physics, especially virtual particle sets, seems to offer not only a scientific basis for the positivley charged void and the malleable nature of destiny but an avenue for transmission of discrete forms of energy backward through what we perceive as time. This though, is an entierly different discussion.
The grey zone may be the source of psychic phenomenon. The constant swapping, when manifested in a somatically focused mind-state may give rise to different modalities of physical capability. Could one of these capabilities be the very ability to actively stop?
I dunno. And I'm proud to say I hope I'm never sure that I will!
"The universe is its own magic." Shunryu Suzuki
the No-Key Gate, to Uyalala
The easiest ways to stop seeking, is simply to find. And truthfully speaking, we should only seek in order to find.
The key thing is to fix on the stillness that is consciousness. It has never moved, can't move, will never move; It always sits still, in a single place. It's the real "truth" of existence. While the mind constantly goes this way and that, attracting, repelling, and so on- the consciousness itself never changes.
This is the void, the non-arisen, the non-dual, the truth, being, "what is not a form," the ultimate field, the eternal, the non-desiring point, what is not samsara, the center of the wheel.
That is it; Full stop, the terminator, the end. It's as simple as that.
Any experiences, realizations, moods, states, what have you-- will all happen within Consciousness. And they will absolutely be transitory. They are forms. They are part of the play of the world. They will come and they will go. No matter how powerful the experience.
The distinction of Consciousness from the contents of thought, emotion, and so on, comes difficult for many people I meet. Many of the meditations ("Who is it that is watching who is watching who is watching...") are a technique for bringing about the realization; So are there planear models ("Things, emotions, memories & volition, thought, patterns, nothingness/the-mirror, and then...,") and fairy tales ("Uyalala, beyond the no-key gate.") Lots of ways of pointing to Consciousness.
But if the distinction is clear to you, then the mystery is resolved, and we don't need to keep going on and on, searching for answers to riddles.
We should (A) strive for answers to our questions, and (B) strive for clarity. The questions of enlightenment are clear and ordinary. If we struggle with something like "The Tao that can be spoken about is not the absolute Tao," (an admonition about the nature of form vs. reality or spirit,) then we are trying too hard.
It is sad to me to see so much mind-bending around "trying to not seek." I want to intervene and say, "You know, if you just had some clarity on your question, then the answer would fall out fairly quickly." My own awakening came to me when I was 19, struggling with questions of enlightenment, and my friend to me said to me: "The God's play a game. It's called: The wild goose chase." My "enlightenment" was sudden and immediate. I suddenly calmed down, and understood what was going on. Getting our minds all wound up, and then suddenly realizing, "Oh, this is what they were talking about; That was just a game," is enlightening. But it hurts to see someone wound up in it all for years and years and years, and then further other people getting similarly wound up, until being wound up itself is exalted.
I personally believe that there is a better way. I'm personally not afraid of articulation as a method for communicating truth. Perhaps this is "just too Western" of me, but I sincerely think it's the right way to go. I found a page "From Form to Formless" that does a good job of explaining things.
There are, let's say, 4 important paths to God that need realization. One of them, and only one of them, is the recognition of self, being, consciousness. There are still 3 others: living by the highest morality/ethics we can imagine (and still even further,) knowing the Real, and: working towards the greatest social order & world possible. In these, seeking is clearly virtue.
Essence
What I write can probably often be read as 'lecture-like'. But it's not my intention to have one-way communication. I try to present my basic thoughts, as best I can, and also to understand other contributors basics. But we've had the occasional communication-breakdowns on RS, and it seems to me, that there are some problems of getting to a point, where we recurrent contributors at least are aware of each others' fundamental ideas, and sometimes also have problems with using similar methodologies (e.g. semantics). We stop halfway, never reaching each other completely.
So please bear with me a little more, while I drone on to an end, and I promise to listen and read equally careful.
Maybe meditation is THE example of experiental spiritual activity. And as I have postulated earlier, questions like: 'Stop seeking' can be intrinsic in certain beliefsystems. Other maps, beliefsystems or models don't always imply the need of a question like this and ought from this and other reasons to be considered as alternatives or supplements.
I will mostly use buddhist terminology, as I find it functional in this connection.
Many meditation-systems consider 'ego' as something dysfunctional. 'Ego' relates in one way or another to samsara (illusion, confusion, ignorance etc) and is said to produce/contain 'inner noise', originating from body, emotions and thoughts. As a primary step towards Satori (Nirvana, Samadhi etc) 'inner silence' is recommended, and depending on the chosen map different 'tools' are suggested for creating such inner silence, starting with what 'tools' are available in the 'ego' itself. This is possible to a certain degree.
To simplify the situation, let's say, that the 'ego-tools' can manage to remove 95% of inner noise. But to acchieve Satori (Nirvana etc) requires TOTAL inner silence, and the last 5% noise creates a special problem. While it's relatively easy to remove the first 95% inner noise, because it's crude and rather 'massive' and can so to speak be 'shovelled out', the remaining 5% are extremely subtle, refined, etheric and also rather stubborn. If we try to use 'ego'-based tools for this, the result will just be an endless series of new noises replacing one after another.
I guess most meditators are familiar with the problem of using a mantra for the purpose of acchieving inner silence. You use the mantra for years, slowly cleaning out the first 95% noise. But in the end, you have to get rid of the mantra itself also. How? A new anti-mantra mantra? Or 'Stop seeking' as a method, which will in the end function as still another mantra or a final noise to be rid of.
This problem has a very close parallel in quantum-physics. There are processes at the quantum level, which are so subtle and sensitive, that just by observing them, they change. The same way it can be said, that the 'ego' observing itself in the end will result in more 'ego' processes.
Based on both experience and theory, I have formerly suggested that 'essence' (a concept not popular in Buddhism), is the function, which can solve this paradox. When we've reached the 95% silence level, the rest is a job for the 'essence', which doesn't create 'ego' (samsara) noise.
And 'ego/essence' resembles physic's 'particles/zeropoint'. There is reciprocial information to be gained from that, as the mainproblem in the 'ego-essence' switch process (if this model is correct) is that we know next to nothing about it. Maybe physics can inspire, as long as 'answers' is a reasonably option. Sooner or later we must also give up on 'answers' and go experiental.
In my own case I've experienced this whole model as functional, and it doesn't contain paradoxes. Only 'unknowns', which usually are easier to handle.
And 2k, for me 'essence' is synonymous with 'choice', the existence where cosmic laws don't rule, but some kind of freedom.
What works?
In the celestial realms, beyond space and time, the plants, trees, oceans, lakes, mountains, zebras, snakes, elephants, and myriad other animals, men and women, (sages of the past, present, and future,) myriad Gods, Goddesses, spiritual forces of myriad colors, aliens, and fantastic creatures are in council.
The construction of the 21st century is under discussion. They just completed two agenda items: men & women (gender and sexual relations,) and then ecology, the future of the planet. They are just now getting to agenda item #3: the path of enlightenment, spiritual understanding of awareness, the knowledge of deep solidarity.
The judge, the 3 Lords of Karma, introduce the agenda item. "We can't afford to postpone this one, even though others are so materially vital; It's very important. If the people don't know who they are, they can forget that they're connected with one another, with all of life, with all of us. If they forget their fundamental solidarity, simple as it is, they can't really muster the strength to do the work that needs doing, and this includes the not only ecological work, but also the important political work, of exalting the differences of the other. So it is an important question we're discussing."
Confucious says, "With all due respect, sir, I move that we dedicate our time to more important things; Let us extend the discussion on how governing policy interacts with the ecology, for example. Surely there are enough paths already for the people to find the Self."
Kirpal Singh concurs: "Why build another well? What more could possibly be needed? All the roads are there. The 21st will be like the 20th; Let them find enlightenment. They'll find enlightenment just as the others did."
Hindu Gods and Goddesses say, "We gave our epics."
Jesus says, "I gave my life and my teachings."
Raven crows, "Stories and wise ritual."
Buddha: "Cultivation, discernment, codes, aesthetics, philosophy, and meditation."
Alchemists arise and say, "Transformation, drama, and non-attachment to doctrine."
But a young man, Taylor, contradicts. "Well, maybe we could do something new?"
The room goes silent.
All eyes turn to Taylor.
Buddha rises an eyebrow. "Something... ...new?", he says with his skeptical Buddha voice. But one of the orbs of liquid floating around the alchemist has turned bright yellow.
"Um, yes," says "Taylor," timidly.
He continues: "Why don't we just explain it to the people in easy to understand language? We could call it, The Path according to Reason and Contemplation."
There is a bustle in the room, and argument breaks out, between the animals, saints, and deities. But mostly, it's directed at this impudent Taylor.
"What do you think you know, Taylor?", cuts in Lai Tzu.
"Are you saying our paths aren't good enough for you?", questions the Buddha, Jesus, and Mohammud in unison. Jehova is visibly getting angry. ("Now now," reprimands a Hindu pantheon in chorus.)
An Astrologer steps forward to the table, beckons to the Three Sisters, who float the tapestry of the world above the table, along with star charts.
"Surely, you can clearly see that the stars aren't aligned for you," whispers the Astrologer, to a now-silent room.
"Look: here, here, and there." She points to nexus points on the tapestry of existence.
"See, you're a Westerner. And a Northerner. But look, on the planet, the orientation of Truth is shifting from East to South. Nobody's going to listen to a Westerner and a Northerner. This is all how the prophecies were set up. And we were just talking about this in the Ecology discussion."
"And then look here," she says.
She points to his crotch. "You're a man. A son of Apollo, for crying out loud." (Apollo, in the back of the room, gives a weak: "Hey!", but everyone ignores it.) "Didn't we all agree, that the next great saint, would have to be a woman?" The majority of the room is male, and they nod their heads in shame. "Yes, we all agreed this would be the era of women. We agreed on that in the first discussion today."
"Finally, you speak too plainly, Taylor. For truth, people want mystery!" There are nods in agreement all around. The Alchemist, who originally had some feeling for Taylor, has now sided again with the vast majority.
Animals buzz and rustle in contentment. Elephant Ganesh nods his head, snake slither in approval as well. Monks clad in mystery, Zen Masters, and countless craft cults shout "Here here."
"Remember," the Astrologer finishes, "It's our duty to address people as they are, not as we wish they were."
Taylor responds: "I think it can work, though. I really do. People can see past the trappings, and get to the real ideas."
With this last word, "idea," a samurai Zen master supresses the urge to pull the Sword of Discernment Against Thought.
"My sex is irrelevant. I think the people can see the Self, beyond Gender, beyond Trapping, beyond Riddle, beyond expectations of "lives of eternal and pure bliss..," " -- and at this, Buddha blushed a little, and Jesus stole a glare at Buddha -- "I think that the people can really just hear the truth, and get it. We may have to work at the language a little, and we may have to do some Rosetta Stone work, but I think the people hunger, and that they'll apply themselves just so slightly, and really get it."
The Time keeper pointed to the hourglass.
The Lord of Karma rolled his eyes. "Well, you all know the rules: Truth is one, all paths allowed, anything permitted, anything goes. The only question is what works."
"Taylor, you may manifest, and Time will tell, if The Path of Reason can succeed, where others have failed."
So this is the story of how Taylor came to descend to the planet, and give "the path according to contemplation and reason."
It's taught by at least two people today; I know of the Headless Way, incarnating Taylor through Douglas Harding, and the Center for Sacred Science, incarnating Taylor through Joel. In particular, I recommend their paper, From Form to Formlessness.
As far as I am concerned, it's high time for us to speak plainly and clearly about Consciousness. Constructing the Rosetta Stone may be the real work here: Showing how the various myths, stories, esoterics, riddles, koans, and so on, connect up with reality, and then helping people make the leap of de-tachment from the rigid forms and requirements of the traditions.
It really is attachment and ego that is keeping people in the dark. But it's not just students' egos and attachments that are doing this; It's also the masters' fault as well.
As a point of comparison: Watching the MMA make fools of all the other martial artists is not a pretty thing. There are values in these other traditions that are essential, tied to people and culture and virtue, and all these other things. And those are all so very valuable. But if the spiritual path isn't about honesty and integrity, I don't know what it is about. So I think we need to confront mystery and obfuscation and occlusion where we find it.
My appeal is that: If we "know," (and we shouldn't use as grand a term as "enlightened," unless people who are seeking really do demand it,) we should just explain plainly and clearly. We should not contribute to "the mystery." We should perform the role of Rosetta Stone. And our goal really should be for these things to be plain and clear, as widely as possible.
We shouldn't fear being seen as presumptuous; We should just answer questions and challenges.
I personally think it is time to take the political market of "enlightenment" to a different level.
Even the path of enlightenment can evolve.
I can imagine a worse world, than one where every 10 year old kid knows how to understand and decypher mystic truths and symbols in different religions and paths. But we have to get over mystery in order to do it.
burning toast?
I've baked my bread in literal and metaphorical terms many times before. Rising is an interesting experience but we have to come out of the oven at some point.
The 'approach' may not be a widely discussed topic, getting over it as effectively as possible and moving on is not a bad idea.
However.
In this approaching realm there is a wide pool of possibility. Language molds this possibility. Eating the toast and moving on to bake your next loaf may make you a better baker. As long as we pay attention to the dough every time we put it in the oven.
I think it very much depends what kind of circles you're running around in.
As you say, the whole Rosetta stone goal is a neat one. Not being a personal fan of the whole 'dyad' thing, I choose to try and english in the context of a discursive environment. Philip K. Dick is my hero in this regard.
Experience can be modeled. Even if it is a toy-model.
And when we grow up, do we not have to put away our toys?
As I continue to study, perpetually, I try to craft some form, perceptually.
Yup.
fine alley
I'd like to express my gratitude to everyone who contributed to the comments on this blog entry.
I would especially like to thank Jay for the lucid and excellently structured contribution, the initiation of the conversation that played host to our ideation.
And of course, thanks to negentropic_object and to bogomil who have both given me much to muse over. I have been spurred on to regain my original attitude to this topic and feel I've had a refreshingly belated, mental spring-clean. Keeping the right attitude seems to be what it boils down to. I'm glad we all turned up.
"The universe is its own magic." Shunryu Suzuki
communing
A pleasure my friend, I only wish I had more time to truely immerse myself in these discussions. I must say that i have always been a spontaneous conversationalist and this mode of communication sometimes leaves me stuck. I do however recognise its abundant value and continue to strive to make complete use of it. Thanks in return for your own writings.
breathe easy
On 'meditation'
'Meditation' as you seem to couch it seems different from how I'd place it.
I think after we become adults, working, exerting ourselves and feeling some satisfaction in what we've done for the day we sit down and rest.
In whatever it is we do at that moment or moments, I think we spontaneously 'meditate'. It might be a mere 'blip', but it is perfect stillness and aloneness in ourselves, with ourselves and is a kind of junction between times and times further or ongoing. I think that typical and every-day and done by all.
As for some formal or 'formulaic' idea about 'meditation', that is another thing.
I'm not sure where this idea that:
"The point of the spiritual search is to stop seeking."
comes from. According to whom?
When we get done doing for the day, we still have ways of being that are a complex mixture of duties or functions for the household and our ways of intermixing effort with rest. In this structure of daily life, we might not be asking 'ultimate questions' since we are actually undergoing immediately a kind of timelessness that is interspersed with routine.
It is with problems that thought begins to be stimulated and resolution is sought. Hence, since problems are ever amongst us, we must always 'seek'. We either resolve or at least become familiar with these problems and accomodate ourselves to them while seeking different ways to adapt or transform or even 'transmute' them.
I think it human nature at its very laziest that invented the idealism expressed and implemented in the form of 'monestary' and 'renunciation', 'celibacy' and removal from the world-at-large. At the very most, these methods represent a part of a spectrum of choices. And what is 'free-will' if there are not real alternatives from amongst which we might choose?
And yet these 'retiring' or 'monastic' people have found, as demonstrated by history: they still had to make a living and keep busy doing more than just sitting in dank cells 'thinking great thoughts'.
We have seen amongst these so-called 'spiritual folk' that they had to be busy just to maintain sanity. And they copied 'scripture', embellishing with creative expression as art or illustrations (often-time embedding private thoughts as some kind of sub-text or commentary); made wine or cheese and wove and sewed and did things of use to local communities and for their conscriptees who must be inducted for them to continue into a future. A kind of pseudo-reproductive process.
And many examples exist of how these 'pockets' of 'meditators' actually promoted perverse behaviors and acceded to political movements and tyrany and 'blessed' such and were, at bottom, just as evil as the world-at-large despite 'prayer' and 'praise', 'meditation' on and 'adoration' of their presumed deity or even 'void' (summarizing 'Christic' and 'Buddhic' lineages).
And the world-at-large has still gone on operating with something not so-well delineated, but probably, in my view, closer to a heaven these so-called 'experts' were striving after. In daily life are multitudes of un-as-of-yet studied facets of cosmic consciousnesses.
As being 'cosmic' means universal and common, it seems to have become deemed of less value. A pearl well muddied is not less valuable. The mud doesn't detract from its value. Neither does 'anointing' a pearl with expensive oil add one jot or tittle of value to it it seems to me.
I'm interested in the ways people live. I don't think it necessary, in studying life, we must then turn around and begin to espouse 'answers' or 'advice'. That is what the 'addicted to absolute answer' meditators and religious tyrants seem to want to do.
I'm not impressed by people who step forth as 'experts' on spirituality, who then begin to give us advice and instruction. Autobiography is good enough. 'Warts and all' helps better than this position of being 'doktor spiritualis'.
It seems logical, if one thinks a prayer is heard to 'stop seeking' or 'reasking', since that would naturally engender doubt and contradict a positive faith . . . AS THAT PERTAINS to that 'request'. Yet, we have all heard, too, that persistance or 'importunity' can make things happen that otherwise might not have. Just by being a 'pain in the ass'.
But who erects or builds or evolves their entire life around being like that? At times, maybe needed. But daily life . . . like that? I think it fanatic, frenetic and obsessive. Not far from insane.
I guess the question would then be: to what or to whom are we asking? Why do we presume an answering source is entirely unitary with all of us outside it? or some abstract authority that some have access to and others are as of yet not 'connected'? I think that a huge supposition and a presumption and a form of egoisticness and even not spiritual at all. It is a propoganda.
If we are, all of us, dual beings: an 'esse' and an 'existere', as I believe, then we must need only come to a place of co-operation of these two. Where, when they agree, all things are possible. That is just normalcy for everyone. Not some 'special' one or someone 'expert' in 'meditation' or some special 'technique' or formulae. That is a kind of normal maturation of us all.
I've used this quote, which recently came to my attention, and which I think encapsulates so much in so few words:
"What we call luck is the inner man externalized. We make things happen to us."
Robertson Davies
Or do you think "God" is a unitary thing? If, as I believe, "God" is just the word "good" lacking an 'o', as a kind of adoration of a something akin to love-making: it takes two.
We are accostomed to think of 'i' or 'me' as struggling along all alone. Then we also know about an 'inner voice' or 'friend' or 'adversary' or 'conscience'. Is it really neccessary that this inner voice only say good things? What if it says 'idiot'? If we listen and then respond, perhaps a dialogue is possible there. It might be conceivable that this is a dialogue between a self spread all across the spectrum of time with a self stuck in a moment or moments and the co-operation could be highly profitable and 'good'. That speaks to utility or usefulness and uses is always a matter of individual interest and effort together.
Have you ever considered that typical moment when you sat down and said, meditatively: 'someday we'll look back on this moment and laugh'? Is it not possible that the inner voice is a perspective already in that 'someday', and telling him- or her-self about alternatives or better choices or even criticisms of choices being embarked upon?
It might be a matter of temporal versus atemporal voices of a single individual. A common thing amongst all. All being relatively unified or divided as a matter of personal effort.
It is the typical idea of spiritual folk that selves who attain 'heaven' know it all. Have it all. And so, what would motivate such to commune with us? How do our choices or lack of choices made affect them if they 'have it all'?
Is it 'compassion'? Or is it neccessity?
I think it much more probable to conceive that the individual life is 'Kosmic life' writ small, and a matter of survival for both sides: inner and outer. On our side, 'existere' or manifest life seems highly limited, highly imprisoned and bound all about with limitations when left entirely to mere sense-perception. On the other side, life is entirely 'esse' and 'non-existent' or mere 'potential' but never really 'real'. The visions we get from the instantaneousness of the imagination where all things are possible are yet bound and not-yet-loosed and so imprisoned because we, the 'mes' don't accede or say 'yes' along with that, the 'i am'.
We keep a better world as never expressed as a long as we never take any definite steps to press out, to press forth into the world of sense these visions or impulses. And where such are expressed, they have always been preceded by ordinary moments of quiet and silence and receptivity we can call 'meditations'. Self communion. A kind of marriage.
All invention, all art, all scientific endeavor emanates from this co-ordination of outer thought, word and deed with our private and inmost visioning where the end is already done. Not some 'god' dictating, but the outer 'god' working with the inner 'god' to experience the good or satisfaction of impulse to express. That is not puppetry, but individuation or unification of a self.
As that occurs, that is a private accomplishment and in no way can I see this as some license to then begin 'instructing' another.
We need to go do if for no other reason than we might feel the greatest betrayal is in burying our talent.
We can sympathise and empathetically relate, I'm sure, with people who persistently ignore their own inner voice and instead turn to other 'outer forms'.
We must also learn that in being accessed as some fount of wisdom or being resorted to in that way, we are potentially making ourselves an enemy of that one's 'god within'. Can that ever be a good thing? Will you stand in that place? And so contradict what you already know as true for you? Why would anyone else be different? 'Why ask me?' would then be a more self-consistant answer than 'well, my son, here's how it is . . '
I'm of the opinion that attempting that, in any form, might be what 'abomination of desolation' really means. Do you really think others can be so poor as to not have that resource, too?
Is it not possible that 'two' might be the most primal number? and 'one' the ideal being striven after? Piece by piece. Individual by individual?
didn't Krishnamurti say something like this?