Exploring Buddhism

[Orbit]

Beautiful photos!

[Antlerman]

Those are so fantastic! ^^

 

Not sure how you pulled yourself away to come back...

Non-attachment seems hardest when it comes to Beauty. As we find ourselves where we don't want to be, we think of where we were or want to be, and live in the past or in the future. I can actually create suffering for myself by not-wishing the present and clinging to a wish, even if that wish is for Beauty. The challenge is to recognize that those places and times are always part of us, and us them. The only reason they were enjoyable is because we allowed ourselves to engage with the world. It's not that they made us happy, but that we allowed our happiness to be engaged. That can happen anywhere, anytime, in anything, in anyplace. We create our own suffering by disallowing our own happiness.

 

As I was in solitude on the trail in a meditative state of awareness a thought arose in my mind that opened me fully to the present in ways words can't describe, and is something for me to learn to integrate in all things: 'Do not look for it. Take it in as it is. Then you start to see. Then let it go'. It is that action of non-seeking and simple openness that allows the world to be seen and known in yourself 'as is'. You hold it in non-judgement, and just observe and be with it without judgement, without defining, without grasping, without expectation, as you are breathing in Life, as is. Then you let it go. Breathe it out and yourself to it, as part of it, as one with it. You are That. It is an exchange, a participation of Being.

 

This is my work of integration. All is good, even the 'unpleasant' as it gives exercise to spirit towards a realized Self knowledge.

[Orbit]

 

 

The more mystical experience connects them all I think.

This is exactly true. This is what the Perennial Philosophy says, which I largely subscribe to. Notice my signature line below? It says this as well,"Many paths lead from the foot of the mountain, but at the peak we all gaze at the single bright moon." At the heart of most religions lays mystical awareness. But then from there, it becomes 'dumbed down' for the masses and hard to see that core. And typically, those within them that do find themselves often at odds with the "orthodox" believers, often at their own peril. When you hear someone like the Christian mystic Meister Eckhart from the 14th Century saying, "I pray God make me free of God that I may know God in [His] unconditional being," this make Church authorities a bit nervous. That and a long list of other things he and other mystics say.

 

The idea of Brahman, the life force suffusing everything, reminds me of the mystic experience in Christianity. A feeling of pure connection. "As you sow, so shall you reap" reminds me of the law of karma. I always wondered if I was imagining things, seeing these connections.

No, you're not imagining them. I think it's a matter of having enough distance and time and some gained insights and wisdom from an actual interior practice that allow us to see them. It actually kind of freaked me out at first when they started coming to mind as I opened myself this way. It's like, they were there the whole time, but they just don't see it. They use all the right words, but the context is all wrong. I'm never less than amazed how it's like the words are a watershed point, where when a drop of water hits them they either end up going East or West, depending who uses them. I look at what we know of Christianity, and it's like 'how can they end up over there with this?'. But I understand it. To them the "kingdom of heaven" is in the sky outside of themselves. They never look within.

 

I have tons of thoughts I could share on this, but I'm a bit hesitant as I worry it might feel too close to home for those who are still rightly at the place of creating enough distance from anything to do with that of the past in order to create the safe space to grow their future. It's not important than one understand any of this, but it's just something I find amazing for myself now at this point for me. I don't have that animosity anymore towards it. I just understand that it's something very few actually understand. It's not meant to be a religion, that you 'believe in'. As I said, you hear the right words, but the meaning is rarely understood and what you end up with is the choking air we all made our escape from.

 

I looked up Perrennialism, and it largely describes the views I had when I was a Christian, which I think made my deconversion a lot easier than many other people's. I wash't a dogmatic Xtian; I came from a liberal denomination and in my studies of anthropology I especially sought out religious themes. Looking back, it seems to have all led me to this like a logical conclusion, but I'm probably still writing the narrative. I understand that you are hesitant to share your thoughts as you said, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't want to hear your thoughts on these issues. 

[Deidre]

 

Those are so fantastic! ^^

 

Not sure how you pulled yourself away to come back...

Non-attachment seems hardest when it comes to Beauty. As we find ourselves where we don't want to be, we think of where we were or want to be, and live in the past or in the future. I can actually create suffering for myself by not-wishing the present and clinging to a wish, even if that wish is for Beauty. The challenge is to recognize that those places and times are always part of us, and us them. The only reason they were enjoyable is because we allowed ourselves to engage with the world. It's not that they made us happy, but that we allowed our happiness to be engaged. That can happen anywhere, anytime, in anything, in anyplace. We create our own suffering by disallowing our own happiness.

 

As I was in solitude on the trail in a meditative state of awareness a thought arose in my mind that opened me fully to the present in ways words can't describe, and is something for me to learn to integrate in all things: 'Do not look for it. Take it in as it is. Then you start to see. Then let it go'. It is that action of non-seeking and simple openness that allows the world to be seen and known in yourself 'as is'. You hold it in non-judgement, and just observe and be with it without judgement, without defining, without grasping, without expectation, as you are breathing in Life, as is. Then you let it go. Breathe it out and yourself to it, as part of it, as one with it. You are That. It is an exchange, a participation of Being.

 

This is my work of integration. All is good, even the 'unpleasant' as it gives exercise to spirit towards a realized Self knowledge.

 

Bolded by me. I needed to read that today. Struggling with being ''unhappy'' at my current job. Well, I like my job, but it's too stressful. Thank you for posting this.

[Antlerman]

I looked up Perrennialism, and it largely describes the views I had when I was a Christian, which I think made my deconversion a lot easier than many other people's. I wash't a dogmatic Xtian; I came from a liberal denomination and in my studies of anthropology I especially sought out religious themes. Looking back, it seems to have all led me to this like a logical conclusion, but I'm probably still writing the narrative.

My own background was very atypical as well. I came into fundamentalist Christianity a couple of years after I had an awakening experience when I was 18. I began my religious search to try to understand and reconnect with "God" which was what opened to me in that experience. It was a Satori experience. So as I stumbled about trying to find understanding in religion, seeking out the Christian religion because it was the religion of my culture, none of the ministers were able to speak to such mystical experience, and none of what they had to say spoke to me. But being a young kid looking for Answers to the Mystery , the confidence of these fundis I met gave me a place to start answering those questions. The point of that story is to relate that what I knew already on a spiritual level through those experiences (I had two a week apart), was already larger than what their system of beliefs and ideas could contain. It ended up for me being like trying to contain all the oceans of the world inside a juice cup. Try as I did, the cup finally shattered and got swept away because the volume overwhelmed it.

 

In other words once you see its far larger than any religion, religion takes on a new perspective. And I think this is where most people fail, is that they believe their religion has the truth, that is knows it, and therefore "owns" it. Sayings like, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life", do not have mystical meaning to them, they are literally, doctrinal objects to them that excludes all other truths. They take transcendent and Absolute Truth, and make it a relative one, then call that Truth with a capital T. But I have way to put it if you wish to speak of God from their perspective. I ask what religion is God? That's the one I am. If you think about it, why would God have a religion? Is God a Christian? Is God a Jew? Is God a Hindu? That would make zero sense. Why would God need a religion? So I say if I realize the Absolute in myself, then why does that fall under any religion? I say of religion from that "God's eye view", that I am all religions and I am none. There is nothing excluded, and all in included, and none can lay claim to the whole of the Ocean within their glasses. But all can have that Ocean in their glasses, and then look over and see the others all holding the same Ocean within theirs.

 

The Perennial Philosophy I feel is best illustrated by speaking of a tapestry laid out on a loom. You have the warp and the weft. The warp are strands of thread that come off the loom and the weft are the threads which are interwoven through the strands of the warp. The color and patterns of the weft change over time into different patterns that take on visible characteristics. But the warp is the foundation upon which the changing patterns emerge and take shape and form. Another way to put it is that the warp is unchanging, or Absolute, while the weft is changing, evolving, or relative. It is this interviewing of the Absolute and the relative which holds together and give life to and face to the tapestry. And this tapestry is combination of all the patterns and colors and imagery, and texture, and depth, and shape that forms as a whole together. Such is all of culture and religions the world over. They are relative, they are appropriate to the need of the time in which they are patterned on that loom, they serve a function and purpose, and then the next row comes and new patterns are formed as time passes and the weavers at the loom put their own relative selves into this tapestry.

 

So to summarize, the warp is unchanging, or absolute. It is the deep structure of the tapestry. The weft is the surface structure. It is changing and relative. Religions are the weft changing and evolving, and this includes all belief, symbols, and ideas of God. But they are structured on the Unchanging. And the more they are fixated upon themselves, upon the relative surface structures, the deep structures become unseen and invisible to them, to the point they don't see it in all the other surface structures that differ in shape and pattern from them. Any idea of God is relative, and when taken as Absolute, removes one from Realization, making God an object, a surface structure.

 

The mystic, in fact most all mystics I know of, are those who sinking down into the fabric and touch those threads of the warp. That's what we see. And then we see it in all patterns everywhere, in Buddhism, in Shintoism, in Islam, Christianity, etc. It takes moving beyond the structure, seeing beyond them in order to truly be absorbed at in the Absolute. Without that, the Absolute is obscured by the relative, and to to those on the surface structures, it validates their structure as the Absolute itself, fused and indistinct from it. They have the Truth!, damn it, and others who don't perceive as them are lost or deceived. But as one sees and rests in the Absolute, or Emptiness, we see the nondual nature of reality, not fused and obscured in ignorance, but clear and aware in all form. Form and formlessness are not one, not two. And that is nothing the rational mind can comprehend.

 

I understand that you are hesitant to share your thoughts as you said, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't want to hear your thoughts on these issues. 

Ask away if you wish.

[Antlerman]

Bolded by me. I needed to read that today. Struggling with being ''unhappy'' at my current job. Well, I like my job, but it's too stressful. Thank you for posting this.

I should share with you that I'm also having to look at this with my job, and some bad mind habits that have been making it that way for me that I'm now needing to look at. I think my time of retreat, what I moved into, has made it so that internal work I need to do now is more easy to do. You will always find more junk in there you need to work on, but each new opening consciousness, makes that easier. Mediation helps you be in a far better position to face these things and do this work.

[Ellinas]

 

I don't want to muscle in on this discussion, but, given Antlerman's last post, I thought I'd copy this from a post that I left on another forum last weekend.  It had the heading "The point of mindfulness..."

 

"I had known for some time of the concept of becoming aware of your own state and environment as opposed to the normal everyday autopilot upon which we generally operate before I actually came across the term "mindfulness".

 

When I first heard of mindfulness as a form of meditation, it immediately struck me as just another version of the ideas espoused by various people over the years as to our general state of sleepwalking and the benefits of psychologically waking up, so to speak, now and again. And that remains my position.

 

However, as I sat in the Gospel Hall this morning, my rear end aching from that ridiculously hard wooden pew, I thought I'd try just seeking to become aware of my own thoughts.

 

And during this exercise, it struck me that to be aware of one's own thoughts reveals oneself to be a sort of passive observer rather than the thinker. Perhaps identifying the spirit or consciousness that, whilst it may the ultimate source of what we are, say or do, is nevertheless just the gamer who plays on the console of the brain and observes the results. It was as if the mechanism of thought itself - the biological computer in my head - was seen to be the tool and conduit.

 

But this raises an interesting question. To what extent is our true consciousness just an observer; that which sets the wheels in motion, perhaps, but then just waits and sees the consequences of what it motivates? And is the point of mindfulness style meditation to allow that consciousness to come to the fore?

 

Or am I being a little too metaphysical?"

 

Don't know if that is what Antlerman has specifically in mind.

Interesting thoughts I can try to address. As for mindfulness it is about being present in the moment. It's something that we can and should practice at anytime. To quote the author James Joyce, "Mr. Duffy lived a short distance from his body". That pretty much summarizes not being present. We are engaged in the future, in the past, in concepts and ideas, etc. My partner said of me several years ago before I started practicing meditation that when I walked anywhere, it was like my mind was a balloon tied to my shoulders dragging along behind me. That quote really captures that state of being in the mental space and not in the now.

 

Mindfulness meditation is about being in the body, being rooted and grounded, being present and observant. We should learn to live our lives mindfully in this way. We become aware and connected with our breath, clear and open, we observe the world and are part of it in the now. We open up physically and mentally, as opposed to being contracted and constricted. We are aware of ourselves. This is mindfulness.

 

A sitting meditation on the other hand is really flexing the muscles in a workout, training the mind in a focused manner. What is learned, what is discovered in this exercise becomes part of the practice of mindfulness, as you know what it looks like through the meditation practices and can open to it at anytime. You are aware of that deeper stuff of life as you've swum in that Ocean, and you see and experience that at anytime in ordinary living.

 

There are different methods of meditation practice, and where the Observer or Witness is experience is more in the Insight or Awareness form of meditation. You deliberately move back from engagement in normal discursive thought and when feelings arise or thoughts arise, you simply watch them from behind them, so to speak, or above, or wherever. This is not something that is conceptual or an idea, but is something you experience. And as it happens, the more you practice this, eventually you let go of even observation as the mind has become so still that there is just a profound opening into what is described as Emptiness. It is just resting in pure Awareness as the Seer, making no judgement on anything. It is not something that anyone can define, as it is no-thing. There is no object to see.

 

You find then that that Emptiness is in all things, and all things in Emptiness. You see, taste, feel, hear, breath that in everything that is. And you are part of that, and are That. So mindfulness then, is living and walking and breathing in nonduality this way. But it takes work on the mat, as well as on the feet, so to speak. These are not things that are reasoned, but realized through direct exposure.

 

BTW, I'll throw this in here as it helps explain some of these areas. I may have already shared it in this thread, but if not, it's well worth becoming familiar with this: https://www.integrallife.com/integral-post/stages-meditation

 

 

Thanks for that.  I understand (I think) your point as to the nature of mindfulness and the technical difference to that and what you call a "sitting meditation" - though it seems to me (and if I understand you correctly, you seem to indicate) that there is a connection between the basic nature of the two.  Perhaps there's an element of the issue being of the environment in which - and hence the effect to which - they are used?  Anyhow, I will amend my use of terminology accordingly.

 

 

Please...feel free to join in the discussion here, anytime.

 

 

Ta muchly.  Mind, it's not so much a matter of feeling inhibited as not wanting to interrupt the flow of the rest of you...

[Deidre]

Antlerman: How does one know when it isn't our mindset that is the issue, but rather the circumstances that we find ourselves in, that is more of the problem? Is all 'suffering,' due to our view of circumstances, or can the circumstances themselves ever be held at fault? That's where I'm at right now, with my job. I love what I do, but the pressure of my industry, is becoming something I don't desire to have in my life, just so I can earn a good living. The ROI isn't worth it to me anymore. But, is this just my mindset dictating this...or....??

 

Curious as to your thoughts on that, when u have a minute. (thank you)

[Antlerman]

Thanks for that.  I understand (I think) your point as to the nature of mindfulness and the technical difference to that and what you call a "sitting meditation" - though it seems to me (and if I understand you correctly, you seem to indicate) that there is a connection between the basic nature of the two.  Perhaps there's an element of the issue being of the environment in which - and hence the effect to which - they are used?  Anyhow, I will amend my use of terminology accordingly.

This distinction between mindfulness and other various meditation techniques is something that made me think of this in regard to the 7 Factors of Enlightenment. I'll add that to this post with the definitions of terms for reference. But you will notice at the end how it says that mindfulness is always useful. Mindfulness is Sati, in Buddhism. As someone else explained it is,

 

The word sati derives from a root meaning 'to remember,' but as a mental factor it signifies presence of mind, attentiveness to the present, rather than the faculty of memory regarding the past. It has the characteristic of not wobbling, i.e. not floating away from the object. Its function is absence of confusion or non-forgetfulness. It is manifested as guardianship, or as the state of confronting an objective field. Its proximate cause is strong perception (thirasaññā) or the four foundations of mindfulness.

And the following is the 7 Factors of Enlightenment which is quite helpful to understand, and goes to what I say that what works one day in meditation may not in the next.  Each day the mind has something new, is at a different place.  It describes techniques to help you not fight an uphill battle that won't work, where you must first recognize where the mind is at and take the right approach to work with it that day.  

 

7 Factors of Enlightenment

 

When the mind is sluggish, it is not the proper time for cultivating the following factors of enlightenment:

tranquility, concentration, and equanimity,

because a sluggish mind can hardly be aroused by them.

 

When the mind is sluggish, it is the proper time for cultivating the following factors of enlightenment:

investigation of phenomena (dhammavicaya), energy (viriya) and rapture (piti),

because a sluggish mind can easily be aroused by them.

 

When the mind is restless, it is not the proper time for cultivating the following factors of enlightenment:

investigation of the phenomena, energy and rapture,

because an agitated mind can hardly be quietened by them.

 

When the mind is restless, it is the proper time for cultivating the following factors of enlightenment:

tranquility (passaddhi), concentration (samadhi) and equanimity (upekkha),

because an agitated mind can easily be quietened by them.

 

"But as for mindfulness (sati), monks, I declare that it is always useful."

 

(SN 46:53)

Descriptions in order from above:

 

dhammavicaya: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhamma_vicaya

viriya: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vīrya

piti: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pīti

passaddhi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passaddhi

samadhi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samadhi

upekkha: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upekkha

 

BTW, you are more than welcome to join in the thread. I would enjoy hearing your thoughts and experiences.

[Orbit]

 

 

 

My own background was very atypical as well. I came into fundamentalist Christianity a couple of years after I had an awakening experience when I was 18. I began my religious search to try to understand and reconnect with "God" which was what opened to me in that experience. It was a Satori experience. So as I stumbled about trying to find understanding in religion, seeking out the Christian religion because it was the religion of my culture, none of the ministers were able to speak to such mystical experience, and none of what they had to say spoke to me. But being a young kid looking for Answers to the Mystery , the confidence of these fundis I met gave me a place to start answering those questions. The point of that story is to relate that what I knew already on a spiritual level through those experiences (I had two a week apart), was already larger than what their system of beliefs and ideas could contain. It ended up for me being like trying to contain all the oceans of the world inside a juice cup. Try as I did, the cup finally shattered and got swept away because the volume overwhelmed it.

 

I can relate to that. As a kid I read anything I could get my hands on. My mom had a bunch of books by the now-discredited T. Lobsang Rampa. As a kid, I tried the exercises in those books for clearing the mind. All of this was later forgotten but formed a sort of foundation of my outlook about religion. Though I was a Christian, I cherry picked and creatively interpreted the Bible to arrive at my own sort of universalism. I dwelt comfortably there until about 6 months ago.

 

I have had intense mystical experiences and I admit I crave the "high" of being in interconnectedness. Once I realized that these experiences really didn't have anything to do with the Biblical God, I was free to explore meditation and achieve the same results.

 

The Perennial Philosophy I feel is best illustrated by speaking of a tapestry laid out on a loom. You have the warp and the weft. The warp are strands of thread that come off the loom and the weft are the threads which are interwoven through the strands of the warp. The color and patterns of the weft change over time into different patterns that take on visible characteristics. But the warp is the foundation upon which the changing patterns emerge and take shape and form. Another way to put it is that the warp is unchanging, or Absolute, while the weft is changing, evolving, or relative. It is this interviewing of the Absolute and the relative which holds together and give life to and face to the tapestry. And this tapestry is combination of all the patterns and colors and imagery, and texture, and depth, and shape that forms as a whole together. Such is all of culture and religions the world over. They are relative, they are appropriate to the need of the time in which they are patterned on that loom, they serve a function and purpose, and then the next row comes and new patterns are formed as time passes and the weavers at the loom put their own relative selves into this tapestry.

 

This is a beautiful analogy. In anthropology we talk about things similarly, having deep structure and overlying processes. In terms of the warp, certain principles, like "do unto others" are also found in Confucius, for example, and I agree with the underlying philosophy. To me Brahman is similar to simple animism. I know some atheists might label this a concession to woo, but quite frankly I think woo is a basic human psychological need. I need woo.

 

The mystic, in fact most all mystics I know of, are those who sinking down into the fabric and touch those threads of the warp. That's what we see. And then we see it in all patterns everywhere, in Buddhism, in Shintoism, in Islam, Christianity, etc. It takes moving beyond the structure, seeing beyond them in order to truly be absorbed at in the Absolute. Without that, the Absolute is obscured by the relative, and to to those on the surface structures, it validates their structure as the Absolute itself, fused and indistinct from it. They have the Truth!, damn it, and others who don't perceive as them are lost or deceived. But as one sees and rests in the Absolute, or Emptiness, we see the nondual nature of reality, not fused and obscured in ignorance, but clear and aware in all form. Form and formlessness are not one, not two. And that is nothing the rational mind can comprehend.

 

I truly relate to "moving beyond the structure...to be truly absorbed in the Absolute." Many paths to the mountain indeed. Intellectually I know that all of these mystical experiences are an artifact of my own brain architecture and functioning, but it's still very important to me. I'm interested in the mysteries of consciousness. I have no religion yet am immersed in the ideas behind all of them. I have a hard time describing it to people.

 

I would like to learn more about the mystics. Do you have any recommendations on things to look into?

[Antlerman]

I have had intense mystical experiences and I admit I crave the "high" of being in interconnectedness. Once I realized that these experiences really didn't have anything to do with the Biblical God, I was free to explore meditation and achieve the same results.

The group I got involved with as a Christian was a branch of Pentecostalism. We had the whole spirit-filled experience thing and all that, and for me since I'd had a transcendent mystical experience as the foundation for all my subsequent seeking, what they were doing did in fact tap into that. I know that now anyway. The sorts of things I experienced doing those things, when I started practicing meditation shocked me to now look back and say, 'I was doing this all along back then!'. But there was a big difference. The understanding of what these valid experiences are was now considerably more acceptable on a rational level, rather than attributing them to supernatural sources outside of ourselves.

 

The problem I see in trying to embrace rationality, which we should, is that we too as rational people are unable to distinguish between prerational myth and transrational realization, assuming anything spiritual is below or beneath rationality, tied to superstition, myth, and emotionalism. In other words, throwing out the baby of spirituality with the bathwater of myth. This is a phenomena called the Pre/Trans fallacy (I'll direct to someone to read later who coined and explains this term, as you asked for recommendations to read). Both the prerational and transrational (going beyond rationality), are non-rational in nature. They look the same to the rational mind which relies solely on an objective, empiric-analytic gaze, avoiding the non-rational as "unreliable".

 

And so when they hear those who are operating within the non-rational domains, even though it is not a contradiction to rationality, but a going a step beyond it, it appears as pre-rational mythic twaddle, or "woo", because it is outside the rational domain.  We can only recognize what we have experience with.   If we have no experience with post-conventional thought, it will appear to conventional thought as pre-conventional.  So it gets labeled the same. But its the difference between Pat Robertson's "doing religion", and the Dali Lama! But to the rationalist it all looks the same. Pat Robertson and the Dali Lama are doing the same thing. Nothing could be further from the truth of it. The truly advanced is seen as the same supernaturalistic "woo" as prerational myth. The transrational takes the baby of non-rationality and advances it beyond prerational myth.

 

This is a beautiful analogy. In anthropology we talk about things similarly, having deep structure and overlying processes. In terms of the warp, certain principles, like "do unto others" are also found in Confucius, for example, and I agree with the underlying philosophy. To me Brahman is similar to simple animism. I know some atheists might label this a concession to woo, but quite frankly I think woo is a basic human psychological need. I need woo.

Don't be bothered by those who cry "woo" (like the Knights who say Nee), as they are falling into the pre/trans fallacy I referenced. In fact, there is a video in this link explaining the pre/trans fallacy by Ken Wilber I highly recommend you watch, and read the material. I have this feeling this will really make tons of sense to you with the mind you have. https://www.integrallife.com/video/pre-trans-fallacy

 

Note within it he also talks about elevationism. That's also very interesting. I really think you're going to get a lot out of this.

 

I truly relate to "moving beyond the structure...to be truly absorbed in the Absolute." Many paths to the mountain indeed. Intellectually I know that all of these mystical experiences are an artifact of my own brain architecture and functioning, but it's still very important to me.

Well, I think it's important to not view these as supernatural, but I think there is a danger in going reductionistic with them like those who say "It's all just in the brain". Well, everything is "just in the brain," including all your feelings of love, happiness, beauty, truth, your sciences, and everything. So what? That means nothing. It seems to be some rationalizing attempt to take spiritual experience and remove it from mythic structures of belief. But it runs this grave risk to say, "And therefore we should dismiss any claims of validity of spiritual experience". That is completely irrational.

 

I know that's not what you are saying, but I think it bears making the distinction I just did. There is always a physiological correlate to all phenomenal experience. But that doesn't mean it's not based in reality! We experience the transcendent in all sorts of ways. And to me the fact that it shows up in the brain should tell us it's not fictional at all. But it doesn't mean the symbolism one uses to identify this in such experiences are scientifical, objectively real. This gets really deep from here, and of course I love going down into that rabbit hole!

 

I'm interested in the mysteries of consciousness. I have no religion yet am immersed in the ideas behind all of them. I have a hard time describing it to people.

 

I would like to learn more about the mystics. Do you have any recommendations on things to look into?

Oh boy, do I ever. Ken Wilber's work will introduce to tons of this that I believe you will really grok. I'm going to recommend two books as a starter of his that will talk about mystics and religion and science and reason, and modes of knowing and knowledge (epistimological pluralism). I'd start with A Social God, and then follow it up with Eye to Eye. Those two right there should really take what I'm hearing in your thought processes, which I highly respect, and give them some legs. It's kind of what my experience is. He really pulls all this that we are aware of, or becoming aware of, and ties into a greater overarching "theory of everything" that brings Western Enlightenment and Eastern Enlightenment into very practical models for people to build off of for themselves.  Bear in mind he is a philosopher, not a guru.  

[Ellinas]

BTW, you are more than welcome to join in the thread. I would enjoy hearing your thoughts and experiences.

 

 

I don't know how well my experience and thoughts would dovetail, to be honest - really an issue of how to express them.

 

What I mean by that is that I'm very much a "go it alone" figure.  I've read a bit about meditation in the past - enough to see that it is something I've been doing since a child and to be determined not to be held back by others' ideas of what it is and how it should be done (no offence - I'm not saying that's what you are trying to do to any of us).  Over recent years, I've tended to approach these ideas more via concepts I've found in occultism (though I do not consider myself an occultist - or at least no more than anyone who seeks to deal with the mysterious elements of life and being).  For example, the concept that I mentioned in the post from the other forum that I quoted above of "becoming aware of your own state and environment as opposed to the normal everyday autopilot upon which we generally operate" is based on the ideas around "Faculty X" from "The Occult", a book by Colin Wilson.  Equally, the motivation for that post was an idea set out in book about "High Magic" (and again, I am not in any formal sense a "magician") concerning becoming aware of one's own thoughts.  I've read some material concerning Buddhism, but am also determined not to become attached to any structured religion.

 

Consequently, I suppose I'm a bit of  a spiritual anarchist.

 

As a child I developed - and have maintained since - a practice which amounts to becoming aware of the world around me through emptiness of mind.  I find it works best in the natural world.  I called it "listening to the wind" long before I'd heard of that term in the context of Wicca (or witchcraft, assuming there's a difference and risking the ire of both parties to that debate by assuming they may be the same...)  Basically, do what the term suggests.  Empty the mind, listen to the sounds around you, relax and observe.  I find it doesn't take long to become aware of surprising details - as if you can see every blade of grass moving, the patterns of the leaves as they rustle, the sound of a bird hiding in the vegetation, the currents of air around your cheeks.  That quickly provokes a state of consciousness where thought itself becomes very clear and it is possible to think, return to emptiness and observation, return to thought and so on ad infinitum.

 

In that state I also find it possible to almost get a sense of uniting with the environment.  It's quite strange, feeling the wind sort of blow "through" you such that you are no longer shivering with its' chill or even feeling its' buffet.  I can almost reach the sense that I'm not actually there.  It was also quite useful when I found myself standing on the edge of a rugby field during games lessons in school - I'd be the only one not complaining of the cold!

 

Of course, that is all just a state of mind.  Then again, so is all our appreciation of all reality.

 

Anyhow, my point is that these practices had no basis in any "learned" meditation - and I think that they were the more powerful for that.  That which I read on the subject is no more than a possible avenue to explore in whatever way I see fit (the post from the other forum being an example).  Quite how I relate that rather individualistic approach to a discussion such as this can be an interesting intellectual exercize.

 

Equally, I may be making too much of this and just need to stop being so blinkered in my own thinking, I suppose.  "Get over yourself" might be the appropriate response to me...

[Orbit]

 

 

 

The problem I see in trying to embrace rationality, which we should, is that we too as rational people are unable to distinguish between prerational myth and transrational realization, assuming anything spiritual is below or beneath rationality, tied to superstition, myth, and emotionalism. In other words, throwing out the baby of spirituality with the bathwater of myth. This is a phenomena called the Pre/Trans fallacy (I'll direct to someone to read later who coined and explains this term, as you asked for recommendations to read). Both the prerational and transrational (going beyond rationality), are non-rational in nature. They look the same to the rational mind which relies solely on an objective, empiric-analytic gaze, avoiding the non-rational as "unreliable".

 

I watched the Wilber video you posted, and read the material on that page. I was reminded of Alan Watts talking about traditional Hindu society and the life course. A man is first a householder, and after that role has been completed he returns to the forest, perhaps to become a holy man. This made me think of the Pre as our natural inborn state, we go through the civilized ego state (the householder, rational, responsible, of this world) and after we have passed through that stage we reconnect with the feeling states from Pre in a more sophisticated, developed way. This is what it seemed like to me; I hope I haven't misunderstood.

 

Well, I think it's important to not view these as supernatural, but I think there is a danger in going reductionistic with them like those who say "It's all just in the brain". Well, everything is "just in the brain," including all your feelings of love, happiness, beauty, truth, your sciences, and everything. So what? That means nothing. It seems to be some rationalizing attempt to take spiritual experience and remove it from mythic structures of belief. But it runs this grave risk to say, "And therefore we should dismiss any claims of validity of spiritual experience". That is completely irrational.

 

 

Yes, this is something I struggle with--how to make peace with the woo. I like the way you put it. I need to develop more of an understanding of how my experiences fit in with the mythic underlying structures of belief.

 

I know that's not what you are saying, but I think it bears making the distinction I just did. There is always a physiological correlate to all phenomenal experience. But that doesn't mean it's not based in reality! We experience the transcendent in all sorts of ways. And to me the fact that it shows up in the brain should tell us it's not fictional at all. But it doesn't mean the symbolism one uses to identify this in such experiences are scientifical, objectively real. This gets really deep from here, and of course I love going down into that rabbit hole!

 

That rabbit hole is exactly where my interests lie. Curiouser and curiouser, lol.

 

"And to me the fact that it shows up in the brain should tell us it's not fictional at all."

 

I think an exploration of this would make a fascinating thread. I am fascinated by neurology and consciousness, and altered states.

 

 I'm going to recommend two books as a starter of his that will talk about mystics and religion and science and reason, and modes of knowing and knowledge (epistimological pluralism). I'd start with A Social God, and then follow it up with Eye to Eye.

 

 

I ordered both of these this morning, thanks!

 

PS I listened to Sam Harris on spiritual experiences, pretty interesting http://www.pointofinquiry.org/sam_harris_seeking_transcendence_without_religion/

[Antlerman]

Anyhow, my point is that these practices had no basis in any "learned" meditation - and I think that they were the more powerful for that.  That which I read on the subject is no more than a possible avenue to explore in whatever way I see fit (the post from the other forum being an example).  Quite how I relate that rather individualistic approach to a discussion such as this can be an interesting intellectual exercize.

 

Equally, I may be making too much of this and just need to stop being so blinkered in my own thinking, I suppose.  "Get over yourself" might be the appropriate response to me...

I'll say this, you have more in common with me than you realize. I was asked in this thread if I identify as a Buddhist. I do not. I don't identify as any religion, even though I may understand and glean a lot from others. I too am very much an independent. My meditation practices do not follow any prescribed technologies, and are very much naturally evolved. What I find interesting is when I read of the various techniques others teach, I say, "Hey, I'm already doing that." Sometimes I take what others say works for them, and then incorporate it into my own practice to make it mine.

 

Here's the thing I've learned, is that those who have this spirit of exploration to push themselves into themselves, beyond the 'normal' world, discover things that work. So they then teach it to others to try, and it becomes school of thought, a practice, a lineage. And those are good and fine. A lot of people need to be instructed. For others, it can become a hindrance. But not every should just go it alone, if they're not wired that way. The goal however of any discipline is to learn from the teacher, and then to master the way in themselves and then surpass it. They become their own Guru.

 

I kind of liken my own spiritual path to me as a musician. I'm self-taught, for the most part, though picking up bits and pieces and advice from others to make my own. When I was five years old, my piano teacher had me working on simple things like "Boy Scouts on Parade" (I'll never forget that title), which was whole note, whole note, half note, whole note...", etc. I would go home and sit at our piano and then work on Mozart's Sonata in C Major, which I could play mostly all the way through. I was unchallenged. I was bored. My piano instructor told my mother, "I can't teach your child. He won't work on what I tell him to do". So today, I can play over 10 instruments and write all my own music. It is all not just playing notes, but is creating music. And that is why I think when I started meditation practice, I took to it like a duck to water. It was like swimming fully into the stream I was already tapping into in my creation of music. Music is meditative because it comes from that flow. As a musician, I knew how to get into that stream. As a meditator, I swim to its depths, the source of inspiration, the source of revelation, the source of Life itself.

 

So when I introduce people to meditation, I most often prefer to point them to the philosophy of it, rather than specific techniques or practices. My recommendation of anyone in this thread of a great book to read about meditation, with some basic practices, but mainly the reason and impetus and philosophy of it, to guide you to your own meditation, is this book here. I highly recommend it. http://www.amazon.com/Meditation-Love-It-Enjoying-Experience/dp/1604070811/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1411316998&sr=8-1&keywords=meditation+for+the+love+of+it

[Orbit]

 

 

I kind of liken my own spiritual path to me as a musician. I'm self-taught, ....... And that is why I think when I started meditation practice, I took to it like a duck to water. It was like swimming fully into the stream I was already tapping into in my creation of music. Music is meditative because it comes from that flow. As a musician, I knew how to get into that stream. As a meditator, I swim to its depths, the source of inspiration, the source of revelation, the source of Life itself.

 

 

 

 

I just had to jump in here and say I'm a self-taught musician, too! I spent my wild youth in a rock band, which you can see here. I'm the female bass player/vocals. Sorry for the brief de-rail :-)

 

[Ellinas]

Actually, Antlerman, now you mention it, I do recall you saying that you do not identify as Buddhist.  Mind, it was not an issue in my mind either way - each to his proverbial own, after all.

 

Thanks for the book recommendation.  I'll add it to my wish list for Christmas presents and see what the Mrs thinks...  (spiritual anarchist and mischievous)!

 

I entirely agree that some need guidance, some are better without it.  A lot depends on the stability - or, perhaps better, the confidence - of the individual.  For me, a formal teacher in these things might speed up some results, but I'd never be convinced that I hadn't missed something important along the way.  Better I search out hints and use them like road signs - they point a direction, but how far I travel that road and to what extent I wander off the path is entirely up to me.  Anyhow, I'm glad to find another traveller who is prepared to walk his own way.

 

By the way - I'm pretty well completely unmusical (can sing a bit - as long as you can put up with a gravelly bass voice capable of producing far more volume than is wise in a confined area). I suppose there is some similarity to my approach to Greek though - I did 3 years of classes at the end of which I had a pretty basic knowledge.  Now I can read novels reasonably easily (with a dictionary at my elbow) and survive if I was abandoned in a monoglot Greek community.  Grammar is nothing more than a pattern of sounds, which I suppose is a definition of music also.

 

Orbit - I'm afraid I cannot compete with your video.  Nor with the degree of wildness of your youth!

[Deidre]

Idk. I've been struggling with meditation as of late. I sometimes wonder if I have turned to this to 'replace' what I miss about prayer from Christianity.

:/

[Orbit]

Idk. I've been struggling with meditation as of late. I sometimes wonder if I have turned to this to 'replace' what I miss about prayer from Christianity.

:/

There's nothing wrong with using it as an alternative to prayer, recognizing that it has a different purpose. The difference is that we never get anything out of prayer, while meditation will give you benefits. Just keep doing it, work through it. Sometimes our subconscious tries to stop us before a breakthrough.

[Ellinas]

Idk. I've been struggling with meditation as of late. I sometimes wonder if I have turned to this to 'replace' what I miss about prayer from Christianity.

:/

 

I have no idea what "ldk" means, so my apologies if this doesn't fit with what you are trying to say.

 

Meditation is not something that necessarily comes easily.  You are manipulating your consciousness, in a sense, and the frame of mind you happen to be in can be a hindrance.

 

To my mind, the same is true of prayer, because prayer can and arguably should be a form of meditation.

 

The whole basis of meditation in my view (and others may think differently) is to reach a deeper understanding of oneself and one's relationship to reality.  If you see prayer as a form of talking to yourself (possibly even viewing "god" in the sense of an archetype within your owns psyche) what's the difference?  You are trying to connect with something within yourself and reach an understanding in some form.

 

Don't condemn meditation because of the loaded (for ex-Christians) concept of prayer; persistence will pay you dividends eventually.  Equally, don't obsess about it.  We all (I would assume) have "dry" periods when things seem more difficult.  But that will change.

 

Edit - and I've just realized that what I've said about prayer is pretty well diametrically opposite to Orbit's view above.  Oh well - two approaches for you to think about!

[Deidre]

 

Idk. I've been struggling with meditation as of late. I sometimes wonder if I have turned to this to 'replace' what I miss about prayer from Christianity.

:/

There's nothing wrong with using it as an alternative to prayer, recognizing that it has a different purpose. The difference is that we never get anything out of prayer, while meditation will give you benefits. Just keep doing it, work through it. Sometimes our subconscious tries to stop us before a breakthrough.

 

That's true, I guess. But, I just have been wondering lately, why my atheist friends (who have been atheists all of their lives, never were raised in religion, etc) seem so content, not meditating, not searching for anything. Why isn't atheism enough for me. That's something for me to ponder, I guess.

[Orbit]

 

 

Idk. I've been struggling with meditation as of late. I sometimes wonder if I have turned to this to 'replace' what I miss about prayer from Christianity.

:/

There's nothing wrong with using it as an alternative to prayer, recognizing that it has a different purpose. The difference is that we never get anything out of prayer, while meditation will give you benefits. Just keep doing it, work through it. Sometimes our subconscious tries to stop us before a breakthrough.

 

That's true, I guess. But, I just have been wondering lately, why my atheist friends (who have been atheists all of their lives, never were raised in religion, etc) seem so content, not meditating, not searching for anything. Why isn't atheism enough for me. That's something for me to ponder, I guess.

 

Atheism isn't enough for me, either. I need the spiritual. It doesn't mean there's something wrong with us.

[Deidre]

 

Idk. I've been struggling with meditation as of late. I sometimes wonder if I have turned to this to 'replace' what I miss about prayer from Christianity.

:/

 

I have no idea what "ldk" means, so my apologies if this doesn't fit with what you are trying to say.

 

Meditation is not something that necessarily comes easily.  You are manipulating your consciousness, in a sense, and the frame of mind you happen to be in can be a hindrance.

 

To my mind, the same is true of prayer, because prayer can and arguably should be a form of meditation.

 

The whole basis of meditation in my view (and others may think differently) is to reach a deeper understanding of oneself and one's relationship to reality.  If you see prayer as a form of talking to yourself (possibly even viewing "god" in the sense of an archetype within your owns psyche) what's the difference?  You are trying to connect with something within yourself and reach an understanding in some form.

 

Don't condemn meditation because of the loaded (for ex-Christians) concept of prayer; persistence will pay you dividends eventually.  Equally, don't obsess about it.  We all (I would assume) have "dry" periods when things seem more difficult.  But that will change.

 

Edit - and I've just realized that what I've said about prayer is pretty well diametrically opposite to Orbit's view above.  Oh well - two approaches for you to think about!

 

Wow, this has helped me a lot. I'll try not to obsess over it. lol Maybe that's it. This could be a dry period. I shouldn't have unreasonable expectations of meditation, or myself right now. It's all still pretty new to me.

 

By the way...''idk'' = I don't know.

 

Thanks for your thoughts.

[Deidre]

 

 

 

Idk. I've been struggling with meditation as of late. I sometimes wonder if I have turned to this to 'replace' what I miss about prayer from Christianity.

:/

There's nothing wrong with using it as an alternative to prayer, recognizing that it has a different purpose. The difference is that we never get anything out of prayer, while meditation will give you benefits. Just keep doing it, work through it. Sometimes our subconscious tries to stop us before a breakthrough.

 

That's true, I guess. But, I just have been wondering lately, why my atheist friends (who have been atheists all of their lives, never were raised in religion, etc) seem so content, not meditating, not searching for anything. Why isn't atheism enough for me. That's something for me to ponder, I guess.

 

Atheism isn't enough for me, either. I need the spiritual. It doesn't mean there's something wrong with us.

 

But, how can one not believe in a deity, yet be 'spiritual?' You know?

[Ellinas]

 

 

Idk. I've been struggling with meditation as of late. I sometimes wonder if I have turned to this to 'replace' what I miss about prayer from Christianity.

:/

There's nothing wrong with using it as an alternative to prayer, recognizing that it has a different purpose. The difference is that we never get anything out of prayer, while meditation will give you benefits. Just keep doing it, work through it. Sometimes our subconscious tries to stop us before a breakthrough.

 

That's true, I guess. But, I just have been wondering lately, why my atheist friends (who have been atheists all of their lives, never were raised in religion, etc) seem so content, not meditating, not searching for anything. Why isn't atheism enough for me. That's something for me to ponder, I guess.

 

 

Who says atheists don't meditate?  Why do you see these as inconsistent (if you do)?

 

The issue is rather whether meditation is right for you - regardless of whether you pin it onto an atheist background.  I wouldn't get hung up on preconceptions about what an atheist should or should not do, if that is what you are doing.

[Orbit]

 

 

 

 

Idk. I've been struggling with meditation as of late. I sometimes wonder if I have turned to this to 'replace' what I miss about prayer from Christianity.

:/

There's nothing wrong with using it as an alternative to prayer, recognizing that it has a different purpose. The difference is that we never get anything out of prayer, while meditation will give you benefits. Just keep doing it, work through it. Sometimes our subconscious tries to stop us before a breakthrough.

 

That's true, I guess. But, I just have been wondering lately, why my atheist friends (who have been atheists all of their lives, never were raised in religion, etc) seem so content, not meditating, not searching for anything. Why isn't atheism enough for me. That's something for me to ponder, I guess.

 

Atheism isn't enough for me, either. I need the spiritual. It doesn't mean there's something wrong with us.

 

But, how can one not believe in a deity, yet be 'spiritual?' You know?

 

You can. Here's a podcast on it: http://www.pointofinquiry.org/sam_harris_seeking_transcendence_without_religion/