Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Exploring Buddhism


Deidre

Recommended Posts

 

That was very helpful, and a very central issue for me. Thank you for your infinite patience. This really is the crux of the matter. In my own practice, it doesn't feel theistic. It's when I try to describe my meditation to others that it sounds theistic, and I become aware of that, and it makes me question what I am doing. The "woo" issue and the "God" issue were stumbling blocks for me. Thanks for helping clear those up. :-)

It's funny you say that. My partner very much identifies as atheist in the sense the theistic themes are not part of her meditation experience. She doesn't relate to that, but if I use the term God she very much knows what I mean because she knows me and what I'm pointing at behind it. It is the same thing, as I'm sure it is between you and me, beneath the clothing we dress it in. It's the same Ocean. And that's what we all get. I just happen to have learned a more 2nd person approach and that's fine. I tend to think the atheistic approach is more 3rd person. But each lands in 1st person in the end. Each has its benefit. We can discuss that more later.

 

Again, nevermind the Knights who say Woo. wink.png

 

BTW, I do wish to clarify I do also come at it very much from a 3rd person perspective. I am very much connected to Nature. I breathe in life and exhale it in exchange. Nature is my first touchstone. In fact, though I question the wisdom of this as it's very personal, I'll share from my meditation journal when I was just up at the cabin a couple weeks ago. I think you'll hear what I just said in this:

 

I think it due time to make another entry in this journal. I’m up at the lake taking 5 days off work, alone at the cabin. I think I should make some entry in this to record where I’m at. I’m becoming much less expectant in meditation. This whole day has been a constant meditation, as well as yesterday. Quit looking for connection. Quit looking for anything. Be in the moment, in meditation and in every moment of the day. The mind just becomes observant, still. What needed thoughts of the day occur, are gentle waves, rather than abrasive noise, engaging the being within its static debris. I am the Observer. I am Being.

 

As I was on the bike trail today, the realization came up in a phrase to put me into mindfulness of this. “Do not look for it. Take it in as is. Then you start to see. Then let it go”. It came up as I had found moments of sight, and took photos with my camera. I then found myself constantly looking for another shot, another composition. A repeat performance! But in doing so, I ceased to be present. I ceased to be in the moment. I ceased to see the world and be in it. Instead, I was in my thoughts, my hopes and expectations. It seems this is the near-enemy of Being. Good intentions.

 

I am deeply grounded right now. In fact, at the lake on the way back on the trail, being just that present Awareness in Being, I sat on a granite bench facing the lake. I was present in my being and the world. I breathed, and exhaled, and my whole being moved with the breath of the earth, and it with me! I was, and am, truly alive. I meditated, “My breath with your breath, my air with your air,” and as I breathed the wind from behind me breathed fiercely, pushing the reeds and the branches outward. I was absolutely One with the world. My thought and its thought were One. It was Enlightenment. We don’t seek to awake, we simply awake. Be in the moment. See what arises. Breathe it, release it. Be it.

 

That was truly beautiful. Thanks for sharing that.

 

I think I'm going to have to write my response to the Wilber book tomorrow morning--I'm on pg 98 and need to take a break.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I don't want to muscle in and thereby derail or distract from anything, so please treat this as the tangent that it will probably turn out to be and keep your own flow of thought going.  However, reading through your posts in as much (or little) detail as time allows, and trying to reconcile them with my own rather more "blunt instrument" approach of "theory is all very well, but does it work or not?", a couple of observations and/or questions occur to me:

  1. Does the idea of emptiness, the quote "God as an archetypal summit of one's own Consciousness. ... By visualizing that identification 'we actually do become the deity. The subject is identified with the object of faith. The worship, the worshiper, and the worshiped, those three are not separate'. At its peak, the soul becomes one, literally one, with the deity-form, with the dhyani-buddha, with (choose whatever term one prefers) God. One dissolves into Deity, as Deity - that Deity which, from the beginning, has been one's own Self or highest Archetype" and the general thrust of the purpose of meditation amount to the aim of realizing what I would tend to describe as a state where "all is consciousness and consciousness is all"?  Where self unites (or rather where the unity is manifested) with the sense of consciousness as at the heart of all being?
  2. To what extent are the symbols that may be encountered when exploring one's own mind shared?  I have two experiences in mind - I won't go into great detail as that would potentially be a breach of confidence in relation to conversations on another forum (and in the second instance via the Private Messaging system there) but, in outline:
  • Following a general query as to the possible meanings of a vivid dream, I decided on an experiment.  My usual advice to people is to revisit and follow through the imagery of the dream and see where it takes them.  This was the first and only time I've tried it with someone else's dream.  The fairly detailed description I was given was of an unusual architectural construction, which I was able to visualize and enter.  What happened then was actually quite uncomfortable, to the extent that I broke off for a short while before returning to the visualization.  The problem was the sheer amount of imagery that I was having to assimilate,  The end result was nothing very revelatory - I was able to suggest that the issue for person raising the question was one of a self-identified need for a greater breadth and clarity of vision in her "spiritual" life.  Right or wrong, it was an answer that seemed to make sense to her.  So, did the imagery of her mind have equal validity to the workings of mine?
  • The second example was rather more unexpected, in the sense that I wasn't working with previously stated imagery.  One of my methods of exploring my internal reality, so to speak, is to see myself as an eagle flying over a fairly non-specific land mass and to see where I end up.  In this instance, I found myself at a geographical feature that, as far as I know, is not one that exists or that I've ever visited in this material world.  Within that feature was another creature which I did know had a relationship in the mind of another person similar to that of my eagle to me.  When, subsequently, I mentioned this to that person, I was told that my description of the geographical surroundings answered to a mental construct of a place that she had created in her own mind as a sort of refuge. She was somewhat surprised that I'd come up with that description.  Now, I also have a mental construct of a place that i would occasionally use in a similar way, but it is completely different to the geographical feature that I encountered in this experience, so we are not sharing a concept of a "safe place" such.  Nevertheless, this leads me to wonder if at least some imagery is somehow hard wired into our subconscious minds, our own versions of which we can each access.  I suppose that's similar to an archetype in some ways - the question then being the extent of archetypal ideas.

 

I suppose the above may be seen also to raise the question or the extent of the interconnectedness of individual minds - however, I'm not going to play with that one here as it is not a question that necessarily follows and it may be a step too far for those who wish to keep firmly rooted in this reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does the idea of emptiness, the quote "God as an archetypal summit of one's own Consciousness. ... By visualizing that identification 'we actually do become the deity. The subject is identified with the object of faith. The worship, the worshiper, and the worshiped, those three are not separate'. At its peak, the soul becomes one, literally one, with the deity-form, with the dhyani-buddha, with (choose whatever term one prefers) God. One dissolves into Deity, as Deity - that Deity which, from the beginning, has been one's own Self or highest Archetype" and the general thrust of the purpose of meditation amount to the aim of realizing what I would tend to describe as a state where "all is consciousness and consciousness is all"?  Where self unites (or rather where the unity is manifested) with the sense of consciousness as at the heart of all being?

It sounds like what you are describing here fits the "2nd person"/causal states idea.

 

To what extent are the symbols that may be encountered when exploring one's own mind shared?  I have two experiences in mind - I won't go into great detail as that would potentially be a breach of confidence in relation to conversations on another forum (and in the second instance via the Private Messaging system there) but, in outline:

 

I would say they are shared to the point that we share a culture, language, and symbol system. The idea of "binary opposition" posits that thinking in terms of opposites is hardwired; Noam Chomsky posited universal grammar/underlying linguistic structure, but beyond that I can't think of any examples of "hardwiring".

 

I suppose the above may be seen also to raise the question or the extent of the interconnectedness of individual minds - however, I'm not going to play with that one here as it is not a question that necessarily follows and it may be a step too far for those who wish to keep firmly rooted in this reality.

The interconnectedness of minds is an interesting issue. We draw our images from our symbolic system, which is shared. But what do we mean by connectedness? That we can communicate in ways outside of speech and gesture? Is that connection or is it simply a mode of communication that is not yet understood by science? I don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So, what are your thoughts about the book so far?

I've finished the book. Since it presents itself as an academic work, my reactions are mostly from an academic perspective, and therefore pretty boring. It seems to be, in the main, a classification scheme, a typology of religion.

 

I think I might need a little prodding here. Was there a particular aspect of it that you wanted to discuss in relation to meditation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So, what are your thoughts about the book so far?

I've finished the book. Since it presents itself as an academic work, my reactions are mostly from an academic perspective, and therefore pretty boring. It seems to be, in the main, a classification scheme, a typology of religion.

 

I think I might need a little prodding here. Was there a particular aspect of it that you wanted to discuss in relation to meditation?

 

Sorry there was a disconnect there. I think we come at him from different approaches. The typology, is the useful thing as a small but important piece of the whole puzzle. But this and the whole integral approach, which becomes much more clearly detailed in other works is for the purpose of an intellectual support structure to the whole overall progression of spiritual development. It is for me how one can hold faith and reason together without conflict and becomes an answer to the rationalist accusation of 'woo', or that religion is bad and has nothing of value to offer, etc. I was hoping through it it would introduce you to the great mystics whom he cites and draws from, which he does but perhaps does not so much in this work. I always recommend the two books together, this one with Eye to Eye, because the latter especially gets deeper into the whole epistemological question and validates unmistakably the need and necessity for a contemplative approach to spiritual knowledge. That knocks out of the water all of the belief which is so popular these days that through the empiric-analytic sciences we can understand these areas of spirituality. We cannot, and he draws off of Habermas a lot in explaining the different types of knowledge approaches and how they cannot be reduced to mere observation.

 

I think where the disconnect came in recommending this was in my projecting what my area of interest was towards on my path to mystical realization. I am very atypical in that how I began my religious approach was already having had an enlightenment experience outside and prior to any religious context. It began with the emotional knowledge of "God" (in the sense you know I mean it), and then to build up a rational framework around it in order to support myself with it (a hindsight understanding). That rational framework unfortunately was the mythic structure, which became a force-fit sort of intellectual anesthetizing for me. I was already a rational thinker beyond myth, even though I lack specific knowledge. So as the use of my intellect amassed knowledge in a seminary setting, the concrete of their rational system began to shattered when I used my rational mind the way I already knew how to. This created a conflict of faith for me, as that system, even though it was ill-formed for my body, was the only one I had! I had my transcendent experiences as the cornerstone and core of my being, but I couldn't fit it anywhere. I had no home to grow it. So as the edifice of the system disintegrated because I couldn't rationally hold it with my spiritual apprehension, I backburnered my spiritual path for lack of what ultimately was confidence.

 

Atheism comes along and that freed me somehow to develop the rational mind that was in a way afraid to look at this, and the rest I mentioned before how that that core of me cannot be ignored or dismissed away as "just the brain" or some such reductionistic tripe. And that's why encountering Wilber for me, having read his Magnus Opus first by recommendation of a friend, Sex, Ecology, and Spirituality (which is a lot more exegetical, with nearly 200 pages of footnotes), as a huge overview of integral philosophy, ended up giving me permission (that self-confidence) to explore my spirituality without yet another conflict that somehow this was against my rational mind! It most certainly is not.

 

So my approach had been one beginning at the end goal. It was not a gradual awakening, finding a desire for something more as religion failed to meet the need, looking for greater depth and spiritual rewards, not quite sure where to go, but being drawn by faith (one reason I thought that book would be helpful as well is the section about belief, faith, experience, and adaption - extremely useful understanding for me), in that faith being understood as a spiritual intuition. I began with the emotional understanding, but lacked the intellectual framework. I lacked validation as well you could say. I was adrift in a featureless see with that Knowledge, and desired some form of features to see it off of. I think this is the exact reverse for most people.

 

As far as academic content goes in his work, do bear in mind that book was written 30 years ago, and though it is academic, it is also written to lay people, so I think he avoids bogging it down too much with lengthy detailed explanations supporting each of his points. I don't think the intention is to justify his rationale in great detail. The purpose is to draw off the research of others and create a meta-layer holistic integration of the great systems of thought both East and West. I think he does an exceptionally good job doing that, and one that works as an approach to dealing with and getting the most out of all these disparate approaches.

 

A great deal of what I have been saying in this thread utilizes that Integral framework, but of course in my interpretation of it from my own personal insights and experiences - which is what its intention is for, to help people understand their own experiences in context. It give us a place to take what we already know and organize it in functional modelings. That to me is extraordinarily useful. But I think what you were asking for now in hindsight was more what mystical writings would I suggest. Correct?

 

I want to talk about the casual more, and who would exemplify that in their mystical writings, which we can do more later. But the person who I'd recommend reading, if you're comfortable with it who really 'gets it' and expresses it beautifully is in fact the Christian mystic Meister Eckhart. You could also read Sri Ramana Maharshi from the Hindu tradition to get the same thing. I would also read Sri Aurobindo's the Life Divine, which I have, but that can too be a bit academic at time, in and amongst the flow of spirit within the pages. I like reading Eckhart from time to time, and personally have no problem with the Christian language he uses since he wholly transcends it theological moorings. He gets it, to be sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry there was a disconnect there. I think we come at him from different approaches. The typology, is the useful thing as a small but important piece of the whole puzzle. But this and the whole integral approach, which becomes much more clearly detailed in other works is for the purpose of an intellectual support structure to the whole overall progression of spiritual development. It is for me how one can hold faith and reason together without conflict and becomes an answer to the rationalist accusation of 'woo', or that religion is bad and has nothing of value to offer, etc.

Ah, I see where you are coming from now. Rightly or wrongly, I have a division, a separation in my head, where science and religion are two different epistemologies, neither requiring anything from the other. I accept that spirituality has a different logic that rational thought doesn't necessarily speak to. It's an old distinction that goes back at least to St. Thomas Aquinas ("matters of faith are not subject to proof").

 

I have no problem applying rationality to the Bible, which is a man-made cultural object, and finding the Bible wanting. But I wouldn't, in general, apply rationality to spirituality. But even as I write this, I know there is a contradiction as I routinely look brain activity as a source of explanation for "peak experiences". A short aside, I have had several of these "peak experiences" in my life, and one of the things that drives me is a search for an explanation, an interpretation of those experiences. I suppose I can reconcile these two views by saying I don't use the rational when thinking about spirituality in general, and I do use rationality in trying to understand spiritual experiences I have had.

 

You have, in this thread, laid woo to rest for me, so I don't need Wilber for that. I did buy his other book Eye to Eye at the same time, and will read it next.

 

I was hoping through it it would introduce you to the great mystics whom he cites and draws from, which he does but perhaps does not so much in this work. I always recommend the two books together, this one with Eye to Eye, because the latter especially gets deeper into the whole epistemological question and validates unmistakably the need and necessity for a contemplative approach to spiritual knowledge. That knocks out of the water all of the belief which is so popular these days that through the empiric-analytic sciences we can understand these areas of spirituality. We cannot, and he draws off of Habermas a lot in explaining the different types of knowledge approaches and how they cannot be reduced to mere observation.

I was most interested in the book when he was actually talking about religion and the mystics, but at least in this book, those were hints rather than expositions. His discussion of Habermas is thin, and at some points I wasn't sure exactly which of Habermas' works he was talking about. It's odd that he rejects postmodernism and accepts Habermas, though.

 

I think where the disconnect came in recommending this was in my projecting what my area of interest was towards on my path to mystical realization. I am very atypical in that how I began my religious approach was already having had an enlightenment experience outside and prior to any religious context. It began with the emotional knowledge of "God" (in the sense you know I mean it), and then to build up a rational framework around it in order to support myself with it (a hindsight understanding). That rational framework unfortunately was the mythic structure, which became a force-fit sort of intellectual anesthetizing for me. I was already a rational thinker beyond myth, even though I lack specific knowledge. So as the use of my intellect amassed knowledge in a seminary setting, the concrete of their rational system began to shattered when I used my rational mind the way I already knew how to. This created a conflict of faith for me, as that system, even though it was ill-formed for my body, was the only one I had! I had my transcendent experiences as the cornerstone and core of my being, but I couldn't fit it anywhere. I had no home to grow it. So as the edifice of the system disintegrated because I couldn't rationally hold it with my spiritual apprehension, I backburnered my spiritual path for lack of what ultimately was confidence.

In this context, Wilber makes perfect sense as a choice to help make sense of your experience, to make peace with spirituality. I'm atypical in a slightly different way. From 10 years on I was reading about world religions, and later immersed myself in the anthropology and sociology of religion, so the intellectual framework was there, unarticulated but cobbled together from various truths in the field. So the basic idea that I can be an atheist and be a mystic is fine with me. The various experiences that go with that, I do seek rational explanations in order to make sense of them after the fact. But when they are happening I need no logic.

 

 

Atheism comes along and that freed me somehow to develop the rational mind that was in a way afraid to look at this, and the rest I mentioned before how that that core of me cannot be ignored or dismissed away as "just the brain" or some such reductionistic tripe. And that's why encountering Wilber for me, having read his Magnus Opus first by recommendation of a friend, Sex, Ecology, and Spirituality (which is a lot more exegetical, with nearly 200 pages of footnotes), as a huge overview of integral philosophy, ended up giving me permission (that self-confidence) to explore my spirituality without yet another conflict that somehow this was against my rational mind! It most certainly is not.

Ah but we know, as with the video you posted upthread, that we can induce spiritual experiences by stimulating the temporal lobes of the brain, so there is that truly materialist fact. What I found interesting upthread was your assertion that even so, these experiences have meaning, and I agree.

 

 

A great deal of what I have been saying in this thread utilizes that Integral framework, but of course in my interpretation of it from my own personal insights and experiences - which is what its intention is for, to help people understand their own experiences in context. It give us a place to take what we already know and organize it in functional modelings. That to me is extraordinarily useful. But I think what you were asking for now in hindsight was more what mystical writings would I suggest. Correct?

Well, I think it has been valuable to see this perspective, and perhaps as I read Eye to Eye it will fill in some of the holes. I am intensely interested in mysticism, yes. But not having a formal theological background, I frankly don't know much about source writings.

 

 

I want to talk about the casual more, and who would exemplify that in their mystical writings, which we can do more later. But the person who I'd recommend reading, if you're comfortable with it who really 'gets it' and expresses it beautifully is in fact the Christian mystic Meister Eckhart. You could also read Sri Ramana Maharshi from the Hindu tradition to get the same thing. I would also read Sri Aurobindo's the Life Divine, which I have, but that can too be a bit academic at time, in and amongst the flow of spirit within the pages. I like reading Eckhart from time to time, and personally have no problem with the Christian language he uses since he wholly transcends it theological moorings. He gets it, to be sure.

Talking about the causal brings up something that just happened yesterday in meditation. In the stage where thoughts are just flowing by, observed but not interacted with, the idea of Deity floated in there. Just the concept. And it wouldn't float on by, which I interpret as me being not able to let it float by. I was trying to interpret that; does it mean this is something I need to grapple with, or something I need to let go of (which is odd because I had no idea I had hold of it)?

 

Thanks for the book recommendations, I'll get right on those. Good thing I'm a fast reader. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Sorry there was a disconnect there. I think we come at him from different approaches. The typology, is the useful thing as a small but important piece of the whole puzzle. But this and the whole integral approach, which becomes much more clearly detailed in other works is for the purpose of an intellectual support structure to the whole overall progression of spiritual development. It is for me how one can hold faith and reason together without conflict and becomes an answer to the rationalist accusation of 'woo', or that religion is bad and has nothing of value to offer, etc.

Ah, I see where you are coming from now. Rightly or wrongly, I have a division, a separation in my head, where science and religion are two different epistemologies, neither requiring anything from the other. I accept that spirituality has a different logic that rational thought doesn't necessarily speak to. It's an old distinction that goes back at least to St. Thomas Aquinas ("matters of faith are not subject to proof").

 

I don't think we disagree. In one sense yes there is a division, and not in the other. Eye to Eye will lay out how this is so. But I do believe that what we understand rationally can assist is to go further in actual spiritual practice, such as rationally knowing you need to "let go" for instance. You bring that with you into meditation, but the act and result are a result not of a cognitive thought or idea, but an action. And likewise, and this is important, that what is exposed, or revealed to the conscious mind through spiritual apprehension will in fact flow downward into how you think and perceive the world rationally. They are interpenetrating in this way, and not completely isolated. Why, or how could they be considering we are an integrated system called human that has all of these things going on.

 

This is where Wilber's model of AQAL will really come to bear in this, if you're familiar with this. I can't recall all the that book covered in regards to this, but it basically is that each Holon (whole-part), can be divided into in the middle with an Interior half on the left, and Exterior half on the right. This is then further divided between top and bottom between singular in the top and plural on the bottom. So the upper left quadrant is single-interior or "I", lower left quadrant plural-interior or "we", upper right single-external or "it", lower right plural-external or "its". As far as the human containing all the quadrants we have the the subject, and intersubjective informing and interacting with each other, supported but the in the upper and lower right exterior quadrants of components and systems. So you have the subjective I, in the intersubjective culture, function in the infrastructure supported by society. All of these interpenetrate and form shape and mold the whole. So the spiritual is no different. Even though one does not explore the domain of the spiritual using the eye of flesh with which you use to view exteriors. Just to put a finer point of this notion of non-overlapping magisteria. Nothing is truly non-overlapping.

 

I have no problem applying rationality to the Bible, which is a man-made cultural object, and finding the Bible wanting. But I wouldn't, in general, apply rationality to spirituality. But even as I write this, I know there is a contradiction as I routinely look brain activity as a source of explanation for "peak experiences". A short aside, I have had several of these "peak experiences" in my life, and one of the things that drives me is a search for an explanation, an interpretation of those experiences. I suppose I can reconcile these two views by saying I don't use the rational when thinking about spirituality in general, and I do use rationality in trying to understand spiritual experiences I have had.

That's not badly put. One cannot understand the spiritual without actually experiencing it, like you can't know the flavor of an apple without tasting it. The rational creates maps and models, and that's fine. But the map of the terrain is not the terrain itself, as the saying goes. And then, since we are rational, we do in fact have to have some way to talk about the spiritual! To have it experienced in a complete vacuum does nothing for the whole! The experience informs the lower levels, has influence on them, develops them, draws the forward. It's just like Aurobindo said in that quote you liked, "It may even be said that the supraphysical can only be really mastered in its fullness - to its heights we can always reach - when we keep our feet firmly on the physical. 'Earth is His footing', says the Upanishad." If you're just floating up there in the clouds with your mind unrooted, you are not spiritual, you are in dissociation, disconnected. The rational is not shoved into a drawer somewhere as we go exploring the heights and depths of the conscious mind, even though it is not the tool of choice for the task at hand. We come back to it, and therefore it has to be cooperated with, respected, and integrated into the whole.

 

You have, in this thread, laid woo to rest for me, so I don't need Wilber for that.

Well, you actually did in that I was able to do this for you through my exposure to Wilber. wink.png As I said, it's been a useful framework for my own thoughts to figure stuff out within, and that's been helpful to you. That's all good.

 

I was most interested in the book when he was actually talking about religion and the mystics, but at least in this book, those were hints rather than expositions. His discussion of Habermas is thin, and at some points I wasn't sure exactly which of Habermas' works he was talking about. It's odd that he rejects postmodernism and accepts Habermas, though.

I think you have a misunderstanding. He does not reject postmodernism. Nor does he reject modernity. Nor does he reject any approach like these. He integrates them, hence the name Integral. What that means is each has their "dignity and disaster", and postmodern has their disasters as well as modernity's. He very much utilizes what wonderful things postmodernism has taught us, myself as well for that matter, but it's held at a 2nd tier point of view which recognizes the validity of all points of view, for what they offer at that stage. So it's not like postmodernism saying modernity is wrong and should be discarded in favor of its own point of view, or vise versa. Rather Integral is all about 'transcend and included'. It negates postmodernity as the single point of view, while including its contributions into a new Integral point of view. So of course he cites postmodernist researchers.

 

So the basic idea that I can be an atheist and be a mystic is fine with me. The various experiences that go with that, I do seek rational explanations in order to make sense of them after the fact. But when they are happening I need no logic.

This is identical with me. I'm not sure if you're hearing something differently? But to be clear, I'd rather say rational frameworks upon which I can look at these things, not "explain them" in the sense of reductionism. It's the difference between saying "I can explain why I have a vision of God by looking at brain function," as opposed to saying, "I can explain why I have a vision of God because I'm part of wonderful system of evolution that supports an awakening consciousness". There is a difference in how you frame it, even though they are compatible with each other.

 

When I spoke of faith and reason working together, I meant compatible. If the only language one has is reductionistic, or explanatory, it will tend to have an overall affect on how someone can integrate it. It's like all science and no poetry. It seems to diminish where one can fly to, at least coming at it from my perspective.

 

Well, I think it has been valuable to see this perspective, and perhaps as I read Eye to Eye it will fill in some of the holes. I am intensely interested in mysticism, yes. But not having a formal theological background, I frankly don't know much about source writings.

The difference between reading Wilber and the mystics is Wilber engages you in conceptual thought. The mystics pull you out of it to the spirit. That's kind of it in a nutshell, even though as I've said before there can be overlap. When I read Eckhart, I instantly know what he is talking about because I have experienced the same. Those without that experience really just don't get what he says, like my theologian friend, because he is trying to read it academically, theoretically. It simply won't be, and can't be heard like that. So these are two different animals.

 

Talking about the causal brings up something that just happened yesterday in meditation. In the stage where thoughts are just flowing by, observed but not interacted with, the idea of Deity floated in there. Just the concept. And it wouldn't float on by, which I interpret as me being not able to let it float by. I was trying to interpret that; does it mean this is something I need to grapple with, or something I need to let go of (which is odd because I had no idea I had hold of it)?

It's probably because I put it in there for you. smile.png As I've said when it comes up for me its usually because it is the face that gets put on the experience of profound presence I experience in releasing myself. It's really not an idea that floats by, but a sensed 'beingness'.

 

Thanks for the book recommendations, I'll get right on those. Good thing I'm a fast reader. :-)

I envy the speed at which you read that! I'm much slower of a reader.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to talk about the casual more, and who would exemplify that in their mystical writings, which we can do more later. But the person who I'd recommend reading, if you're comfortable with it who really 'gets it' and expresses it beautifully is in fact the Christian mystic Meister Eckhart. You could also read Sri Ramana Maharshi from the Hindu tradition to get the same thing. I would also read Sri Aurobindo's the Life Divine, which I have, but that can too be a bit academic at time, in and amongst the flow of spirit within the pages. I like reading Eckhart from time to time, and personally have no problem with the Christian language he uses since he wholly transcends it theological moorings. He gets it, to be sure.

A quick question for you: on Amazon there are about a half dozen Sri Ramana Maharshi books. The same is true of Eckhart. Would you recommend any particular one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I want to talk about the casual more, and who would exemplify that in their mystical writings, which we can do more later. But the person who I'd recommend reading, if you're comfortable with it who really 'gets it' and expresses it beautifully is in fact the Christian mystic Meister Eckhart. You could also read Sri Ramana Maharshi from the Hindu tradition to get the same thing. I would also read Sri Aurobindo's the Life Divine, which I have, but that can too be a bit academic at time, in and amongst the flow of spirit within the pages. I like reading Eckhart from time to time, and personally have no problem with the Christian language he uses since he wholly transcends it theological moorings. He gets it, to be sure.

A quick question for you: on Amazon there are about a half dozen Sri Ramana Maharshi books. The same is true of Eckhart. Would you recommend any particular one?

 

The one Eckhart I have is this one I found at a used bookstore: http://www.amazon.com/Meister-Eckhart-celebrated-scholastic-inspiration/dp/006130008X/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1412079729&sr=8-1-spell&keywords=the+celebrated+14th+century+mystic+Meister+Echart

 

It's collections of his sermons, which I think you will find amazing how he takes conventional themes of Christendom and turns them inside out. He often chides against "authorities who say" and then counters with his own insights that lay waste to their church teachings. I often wonder how many who listened to him speak really got what he was getting at? There's also a collection of fragments on his writings in them.

 

As for the other, I don't have any books from him, yet, but there is this online I have read snippets from referenced by others. http://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Talks_Exract.pdf

 

For instance from this collection of interview, note the questioner D, ask Maharishi a question about the use of symbols of the divine in practice, and the answer he recieves. This looks a lot like what we were talking about earlier. (I just found this a minute ago for an example, having not read it previously)

D.: Cannot this trouble and difficulty be lessened with the aid of a Master or an Ishta Devata

(God chosen for worship)? Cannot they give the power to see our Self as it is - to change us

into themselves - to take us into Self-Realisation?

M.: Ishta Devata and Guru are aids - very powerful aids on this path. But an aid to be

effective requires your effort also. Your effort is a sine qua non. It is you who should see the

sun. Can spectacles and the sun see for you? You yourself have to see your true nature. Not

much aid is required for doing it!

I think I see a direction for our discussion coming in citing various writings like this... wink.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think we disagree. In one sense yes there is a division, and not in the other. Eye to Eye will lay out how this is so. But I do believe that what we understand rationally can assist is to go further in actual spiritual practice, such as rationally knowing you need to "let go" for instance. You bring that with you into meditation, but the act and result are a result not of a cognitive thought or idea, but an action. And likewise, and this is important, that what is exposed, or revealed to the conscious mind through spiritual apprehension will in fact flow downward into how you think and perceive the world rationally. They are interpenetrating in this way, and not completely isolated. Why, or how could they be considering we are an integrated system called human that has all of these things going on.

I understand what you're saying here. I've had this two-sphere model in my mind for a long time; it's what helped me avoid cognitive dissonance when I was a Christian, I think. I do see the value of what you're saying.

 

 

You have, in this thread, laid woo to rest for me, so I don't need Wilber for that.

 

Well, you actually did in that I was able to do this for you through my exposure to Wilber. wink.png As I said, it's been a useful framework for my own thoughts to figure stuff out within, and that's been helpful to you. That's all good.

Ok, score 1 for Wilber!yellow.gif 

 

This is identical with me. I'm not sure if you're hearing something differently? But to be clear, I'd rather say rational frameworks upon which I can look at these things, not "explain them" in the sense of reductionism. It's the difference between saying "I can explain why I have a vision of God by looking at brain function," as opposed to saying, "I can explain why I have a vision of God because I'm part of wonderful system of evolution that supports an awakening consciousness". There is a difference in how you frame it, even though they are compatible with each other.

I think we say the same things from different perspectives, definitely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Does the idea of emptiness, the quote "God as an archetypal summit of one's own Consciousness. ... By visualizing that identification 'we actually do become the deity. The subject is identified with the object of faith. The worship, the worshiper, and the worshiped, those three are not separate'. At its peak, the soul becomes one, literally one, with the deity-form, with the dhyani-buddha, with (choose whatever term one prefers) God. One dissolves into Deity, as Deity - that Deity which, from the beginning, has been one's own Self or highest Archetype" and the general thrust of the purpose of meditation amount to the aim of realizing what I would tend to describe as a state where "all is consciousness and consciousness is all"?  Where self unites (or rather where the unity is manifested) with the sense of consciousness as at the heart of all being?

It sounds like what you are describing here fits the "2nd person"/causal states idea.

 

To what extent are the symbols that may be encountered when exploring one's own mind shared?  I have two experiences in mind - I won't go into great detail as that would potentially be a breach of confidence in relation to conversations on another forum (and in the second instance via the Private Messaging system there) but, in outline:

 

I would say they are shared to the point that we share a culture, language, and symbol system. The idea of "binary opposition" posits that thinking in terms of opposites is hardwired; Noam Chomsky posited universal grammar/underlying linguistic structure, but beyond that I can't think of any examples of "hardwiring".

 

I suppose the above may be seen also to raise the question or the extent of the interconnectedness of individual minds - however, I'm not going to play with that one here as it is not a question that necessarily follows and it may be a step too far for those who wish to keep firmly rooted in this reality.

The interconnectedness of minds is an interesting issue. We draw our images from our symbolic system, which is shared. But what do we mean by connectedness? That we can communicate in ways outside of speech and gesture? Is that connection or is it simply a mode of communication that is not yet understood by science? I don't know.

 

 

I'll have a think about your replies to the first two.  As to the third - no, I don't know either!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hai all ...it's been a while since I've posted. I've been going through some things,  and feel that this path isn't for me. I will say, I've found meditation to be of great benefit. But, I think I've finally come to the conclusion, through much searching and reflecting that I'm comfortable being an atheist, and nothing more. I'm finally content in accepting that I no longer need to search for a god, or enlightenment, etc. For it all seems to be concepts that are based on 'something more than this life.' I don't know if I'm missing something, but Buddhism seems to still be focused on something else other than pure, up close and personal...reality. I think anything with theistic roots will always feel that way. It is theistic at its core.

 

Hope everyone is doing well. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the great things about Buddhism, Deidre, is that you are actually allowed to test out the four noble truths and other teachings of the Buddha and come to your own conclusion if they are true or not.

 

Best wishes for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's true, Deva. There are aspects I like but sometimes just the search itself makes me feel like I'm not content with just being. Are there enlightened stages of just being? There is great wisdom in Buddhism. Thank you for your reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I can understand your post, I would say that there are different stages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish I could give you and Antlerman up votes. :) Thanks, Deva.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Been reading this out of interest. Got a niece and other relatives who are trying it out to varying degrees.

Guess my whole problem with eastern religions can be best summed up with the topic I started in the ExChristian Life forum, What's Wrong With Ego?

To summarize, I like ego, other's egos, their individuality. Even in nature, all birds have unique sounds, individual characteristics and personalities. The idea of returning all into one unison "mash" (my interpretation) seems quite unappealing as a human.

Is the eastern idea of ego or self different from the Western? Does this mean they don't give up individuality by transcending the self and all that?

Just a curious onlooker, trying to understand people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its a difficult question.  Buddhists speak all the time about the "mind" -"sems" in Tibetan, and taming the mind. They also talk about consciousness and different parts or levels of consciousness. But I don't recall in my reading much reference to the ego, in anything like we in the West would consider.

 

So, I think their ideas are different from Western ideas on this subject.

 

There is a difficulty with saying "eastern religions" in general have this or that idea on any subject.  Eastern religions have many different ideas. Even in Buddhism the different schools have different teachings.  Then so do Hindus as well.   The Hindu idea of Self is different than the Buddhist idea of self. Is self the ego as Western people understand it in either case? Probably not.

 

In Mahayana Buddhism everyone is thought to have the "Buddha nature" and that is the actual mental qualities of a Buddha. These are obscured and covered over by illusions, wrong ideas and a mind in turmoil and suffering. So, it is not that you become something different than who you are, or that part of you goes away, but rather that you become more who you really are, and that the mind is transformed.

 

If you ran this by a Theravadan Buddhist monk, he might disagree with my last paragraph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah thanks for the answers. You're right, sounds complicated. And perhaps I've heard people describe these things in more Western terms RE: using the term ego, if the Buddhists really don't do that.

Anyway, thanks for the explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.