Help
Sign In
chogyam trungpa
January 2008 
Integrative Spirituality: Grounded Contemporary Perspectives
Posted on May 7th, 2007
by 
Hokai
Hokai
Discovery of freedom is a process wherein simplicity and complexity conspire to dismantle all our preconceptions. I was invited by Julian Walker to contribute on the subject of "Integrative Spirituality: Grounded Contemporary Perspectives". There's nothing revolutionary in this post, as it's mainly an attempt to clarify my own thoughts. Not being a native English speaker, I only aspire to provide an excuse for some fine discussion. I will deliberately avoid any lingo, specific methods, or a specific religious framework. Without imposing on readers an inclusivistic platform, this is a deliberately fragmented record of what came to mind, a basic smorgasbord of sorts. The context for each of these subjects is provided by existing discussions here at Zaadz, which have been sometimes muffled in contesting statements. It seems true that in order to have a constructive exchange, we need to find a common ground and proceed cautiosly. Feel free to choose your favorite fragment.
This is Episode Two in the series.*
For Episode One see Julian Walker's post here.
*Announcement for the Symposium here.
For Episode One see Julian Walker's post here.
*Announcement for the Symposium here.
. . .
"Long live chains!"
Freedom is not about safety, or conformity, or identity. Therefore, the bare possibility of freedom is in itself sufficient to engender a recoil in confused, veiled awareness. Consciousness being by it's very nature effulgent and expansive, such recoil causes a constriction in the manner we relate to self, others, life and death. In this constrictive mode, experience appears to become effusive and uncontrollable, so we project our defenses, to make the moment more manageable. Thought, exhibiting extreme plasticity, becomes our main tool in restricting reality into availability. Instead of using thought to probe and investigate the present mode of experiencing, we mindlessly hope to think our way out of trouble or, even worse, decline to use inquiry at all, immersing ourselves into further mindless experiencing or fancy wishcraft.
Consideration of regressive tendencies will get us only so far. We actually need to apply thoroughly what we really know through what we do, and begin the process of debunking the promises of spiritual naivete. It's a matter of responsibility and ethical sensitivity to cultivate such capacity for inquiry. Being aware of our limitations as individuals means also feeling into the pain of being separate. Lacking heart, some will seek for what they imagine has been lost, and so will tend to look back, wishing yesterday was tomorrow. Life, as observable, has no such qualms. Actually there is no returning. The only way of being in the world is onward.
Reason
While faith and doubt are genuine aspects of inquiry, beliefs generate a certain opacity, as well as a marked resistance to clarification (guess how many Buddhists have explicit definitions of rebirth, refuge, or nirvana, that really mean something to them). In a way, beliefs are to society what defenses are to psyche, and in that sense they serve a function. It's certainly telling that none of mere beliefs - i.e. whatever those are for a given society and culture - were ever considered necessary for awakening. The matured faculty of inquiry, however, is always presumed. Also, it is fundamental to this post/modern culture, and our way of being in the world. Standing on the shoulders of reason, we can face the visionary world, and accept the challenge of authenticity, dignity and fearlessness.
Being here
Being ordinary is essential, even though it's quite impossible to define what would constitute fundamental normality, since it seems to always be a matter of tension between openness and convention. Fundamental normality is not social normalcy, though the latter may appear as a sterilized expression of the former, and be of some support when we seek balance. Ultimately, however, even being weird is a luxury, generally less available as our spirituality matures (even by Aleister Crowley's standards!). One comes to appreciate normality as something exceptional, inherent in the natural way our senses work and our mind cogitates. Granted "normality" as a notion is being transformed irrecoverably through the process of spiritual inquiry and unfolding, even so much that one might think of purification. There is a sense in which normality functions as an anchor in the open field of reality-expanse, somewhat similar to nirmanakaya in the esoteric Buddhist notion of two/three/four/five bodies. There is something decent and basic and skilfull in the ability to retain and exhibit conventions, while your innermost experience stands open as infinity. This is also known as ordinary mind, unbound by convention or eccentricity. In esoteric Buddhist thought, interestingly enough, each thing is a limpid symbol of what ultimately is.
Beyond Thought
There are at least two major meanings of "beyond thought". In the absolute sense, "beyond thought" is that which is beyond any form whatsoever, that which is already beyond any distinction and conceptualization - namely, the immediate Supreme Reality. Suchness, it would seem, is neither hidden nor revealed - rather, it is obvious. Even so, thought can express and convey some sense of that which transcends it and makes it possible, and of which it too is an expression, as evidenced by these very words here on your screen. Of course words never contain an experience, irrespective of it's status - whether smell, sadness, or samadhi - but that's beside the point. We use negations, symbols, metaphors and paradoxical language, and, as long as these are rooted in present realization and a culture of non-literalism, such intimations work just fine.
In the relative sense, "beyond thought" is that which is unfolding in further development of the present identity itself. In this sense, moving beyond one's present limitations is a worthwhile purpose. The relative realm is profoundly developmental, now we know, and that in itself is an important modern contribution, waiting to be engraved in every spiritual platform, ancient or contemporary. When these two beyonds meet in open space of pristine knowing, boundless feeling, and uninhibited expression, there is the potential for authentic integrative spirituality bursting free into the fullness of the world.
A Spiritual Gyro
Practice is perfect. For example, in the current mode of integral discourse, there are many technical terms, as well as rich elaborations. But the basic idea is actually quite straightforward: reality in its entirety is incredibly complex, but we still need a doable way to be inclusive and balanced, and yet open to unfolding novelty. A typical list suggests a minimum number of reference points, so the traditional "body-speech-mind" becomes "body-mind-spirit-shadow", which then translates into fundamental aspects of a well-rounded practice. A very simple formula actually points to an infinite complexity. Does that help us? Sure it does. We may find these sorts of ideas so self-evident, that we tend to forget how lost one can get in any one of those basic reference points at the expense of everything else in their lives. (*a survey of practices and cycles may be found in Roger Walsh "Essential Spirituality" and Jack Kornfield "A Path with Heart")
Spirituality in purely transcendent sense is an incredibly immediate and straightforward business, its exclusive task being liberation and awakening, here and now. Yet, if spirituality is seen also as that process which uncovers new degrees of depth and authenticity in this self, in our lives and relationships, beyond mere individuation, both pre-enlightenment and post-enlightenment, then we certainly can benefit from a comprehensive strategy.
Such process will necessarily depend on many developmental streams and their effective integration. To merge mind and body, to balance intellect and devotion, to fuse stillness and activity, to recognize relative and absolute - these are the stepping stones of such a strategy, and the tools used may cover a relatively wide spectrum, including ethics, study, awareness, shadow work, meditation, ritual, relationships, isolation, training in states, sexuality, bodywork etc. if you're so inclined. Because of such breadth, it's rather easy to lose focus and purpose. Therefore, I hold it's paramount to have a core practice, one that need not be sophisticated or intricate. Ideally, such core practice should resonate with one's personal inspiration, would be pursued with a teacher, and relying on the wisdom and experience of lineage. Then one can supplement and build around such core practice in accordance with culture, conditions and capacities.
Methods of practice are always mode-specific, requiring appropriate intentions and conditions, and recently David Deida (video here) has suggested three modes of therapy, yoga, and spiritual practice (dealing respectively with restoring functionality at any level, increasing flow and transparency, and introducing spontaneous nondual recognition). It's a crucial distinction, since a method designed for yogic purposes may not serve us very well in therapetuic efforts. These three modes, Deida warns us, have very little in common. Various methods are also stage-specific, like any other form of growth, education and cultivation. There's a dialectic at work in development. (For many additional distinctions that clarify facets of development-and-enlightenment, like translation vs. transformation, precon vs. postcon, states vs. stages, and potential for various fallacies, see Ken Wilber "Integral Psychology" and "Integral Spirituality", or for beginners "No Boundary".)
To wrap it up: know what it is you're specifically doing, be clear about it and the rules of the game, and then do it diligently. Combine daily and intensive practice, without procrastination. Avoid obsessions and perfectionism, but aim high.
So what is spirit?
In conventional views, spirit is life-force, and spirit is faith, reason, insight, acceptance and diversity, impersonal and transpersonal, and spirit is even the nonlocal quantum field, not to say it is perhaps nonexistent! Those are all concepts, attempts to delineate that which cannot be divided. For the contemplative and mystic - spirit is source, ground, silence, true self, ineffable, impartial, bliss, end of afflictions, limpid, formless, spacious, witness, intelligent, sapient, loving, compassionate, nondual suchness... These Holy names are actually the briefest pointing-out instructions, evoking a flash of recognition in a receptive mind. They also provide a summary of teachings.
Yet, all descriptions fail to grasp what is, by definition, if any such is accepted, beyond grasp. What if spirit is all of that and more, yet utterly plain and simple, given all at once? Seen in retrospective of many thousands of years, the meanings and experiences of spirit have been unfolding in progressive subtlety and nakedness.
Reduced to a single reference that allows for all perspectives to coexist, while setting them along the gradient of depth and inclusiveness, the awakening of spirit is simply the discovery of ever fresh freedom.
Post scriptum
"The physical living situation is the only way to relate with our lives as such. I do not believe in the mystical world, the ethereal world, the world of the unseen, unknown or whatever. There is no reason to believe in it, because we don't perceive it. Belief comes from perception. If there's no perception of something, we don't believe it. Belief does not come from manufacturing ideas. There may be millions of arguments and logics set forth, saying that there is an unseen world that operates on higher levels of consciousness, a world which fulfills human concerns, punishes those who don't believe, and so forth. [...] I'm afraid I'm not going to say that there is another world. The world that we live in is the only world." Chogyam Trungpa
This quote encapsulates what I feel is the fundamental spiritual situation we all share. We need sanity, and a shared sanity. To that end, we ought to jolt ourselves into a fresh perspective on the very meaning of spirituality, and that has something to do with where we are together right now.
. . .
This is Episode Two in the series.
For Episode Three see Grey Drane's post here.
This is Episode Two in the series.
For Episode Three see Grey Drane's post here.
Other Symposium Essays
Access: PublicTagged with: integral, spirituality, meditation, yoga, shadow, reason, walsh, kornfield, surya das, ken wilber, david deida, chogyam trungpa
This was posted at noon Adriatic time, which is 6AM East Coast in US, and 3AM West Coast. Actually, it's some time of day somewhere, but I guess we're going live with the American sunrise. Good morning!
Very nice, Hokai, and very refreshingly in plain English (and excellent English, too, I might add)! Gotta get to work, so I'll let others get the dialogue going and will jump back in later.
Ciao for now!
A beautiful article, Hokai, thank you for posting it. Your words reflect and embody the ever fresh freedom of which you speak.
I was going to ask you where the quote from Trungpa is from, but I found the answer by Googling: It’s from “Work, Sex, and Money,” Talk One of an unpublished transcript of a seminar in Burlington, Vermont, April, 1972.
Jim
Excellent, Hokai. I loved your discussion on “normalcy.” I also appreciated your discussion of belief – though I guess an exception would be Christianity, where belief is held to have soteriological power. (It would be interesting to explore whether this is a “wrong turn” in Christian tradition, or whether there is unmined depth there. Or both!)
Henceforward, I will not accept any more apologies from you for not being a native English speaker. You writing is more accomplished than many native speakers'. If you don't know this already, you'll probably find out soon enough when you come visit us in the U.S…..
Also, about time: I started checking last night for your letter, in case you weren't assuming an America-centric timing to this. Why should you? I say post when it's “your” tomorrow. We'll figure it out….
Best wishes,
B.
Hi, Balder, thanks for your kind comments.;-) As to belief, let us distinguish the notion from “faith”, and so there's no need to make a total distinction between theistic and non-theistic doctrines. Beliefs (usually in plural) are those petrified formulations of faith that have become indistinguishable from the cultural matrices, by default exoteric. Faith, on the other hand, is a hallmark of practical religiosity, from gross engagement in external observances to the pinnacle of mystical realization and even further, when employed as skill in means. These are necessary semantic distinction, not at all arbitrary. While belief is rather static and providing consolation, faith is dynamic, interdependent and providing a challenge. Faith is rather like a koan, a question rather than answer. It is also an example of confidence and reliance and commitment, through which one reaches further than one's present conscious intention would permit. Does this help?
I love the emphases on the normal. In Zen they speak of the Norm, the true standard.
I also enjoy Trungpas “Seeing is believing”. This makes the whole spiritual quest quiet straight forward doesn't it? Seek and you shall find. Do it dillegently and persistently and depth will open up.
Balder, “Christianity, where belief is held to have soteriological power. (It would be interesting to explore whether this is a “wrong turn” in Christian tradition, or whether there is unmined depth there. Or both!)” Both for sure! But Faith as it is properly understood is based on personal experience. Through “knowing”, having a relevatory insight, opens ones heart to the unseen and a presence of “un-knowing” remains. This living quality Christians calls Living Faith. A faith that is kept alive through worship, contemplation, prayer and study. We don't call it “knowing” or understanding because it is of the heart, of intuition, even though knowing is there as a certainty based on a living experience and of the result love has in our lives. Our “faith” is proven through acts of love.
Belief can sometimes be understood as “leaning towards”, I have seen therefore I believe. But this is not cancelling out open minded inquiry about all sorts of things. There is much to be understood within scripture that takes a lot of study to realize.
Hokai,
I resonate deeply with the perspective you’ve shared here, and I love the way your style of expression embodies the essence of what you’re saying. It’s this “walking the walk” that impresses me most when I’m reading “about” spiritual concerns. I also appreciate the way you focus on what you see as most essential to an integrative perspective. Keeping inquiry close to the bone, rooted in the immediacy of perception, grounded in simple, daily life experience – these are some things I’ll hope to convey in my essay on Friday, which by the way, will be influenced and inspired by what you’ve written here.
–Bob
Hokai,
Yes, I think it's helpful to distinguish between belief and faith. There are certainly some branches of Christianity which do insist on the soteriological necessity of giving assent to a specific set of propositions – the belief that Jesus was son of God, that he rose from the dead on the third day, that he died for our sins, etc. Without giving assent to these “facts,” and without relying on them, one cannot be assured of salvation. Here, salvation is understood as entirely “other initiated,” and the Other insists that these things be believed; without such assent, He is essentially barred from covering you with His righteousness, because He will not violate your free will…. Etc, etc.
From an Integral (developmental, contemplative) perspective, one can see this as a particular stage-appropriate formulation of the relationship between self and other, the understanding of “faith,” etc. And both belief at this level, and spiritual/existential faith at deeper levels, are at least aimed in a similar direction: an opening, a kenotic movement, a release of self-contraction and self-cherishing.
The reason I'm giving this any attention at all is that this “salvation by faith” (where faith is understood as involving giving assent to very specific beliefs) is a powerful, and growing, movement in the U.S. (and elsewhere as well, such as South Korea, Indonesia, Africa … anywhere American Evangelical missionaries are leaving their mark).
I agree that most contemplative traditions point past belief toward something deeper when describing the “path” of salvation, but there IS this powerful belief-centered trend that is developing, which in many cases will directly oppose our projects of Integral/contemplative spirituality, and they must be acknowledged. Exploring the relationship between belief-centered soteriology and spiritual faith sympathetically may be necessary to find a way forward in “activating” the conveyor belt. Particularly since many Evangelicals believe something mystical happens – reliance on the small self is relinquished; Christ comes literally to inhabit them, at their invitation – when they give assent to these propositions…
Best wishes,
B.
Balder, your comments are right on the mark. What you describe is the exoterical religion, mostly literalist, mythic-membership, and often - at lest mildly - fundamentalist. (Do not forget that most Buddhists in Asia also identify with these kinds of beliefs. Theist or non-theist, literalism is always amuzing. And quite resilient.) We may only discuss such, without dismissal, in a developmental scheme as station or structure appropriate, even if recognizing that they only develop today in rather suffocating and regressive socio-cultural conditions. Would someone wish to move on, at age 5, 25 or 55, they'd have to embrace inquiry and adopt a less fundamentalist interpretation of salvific facts. Thank you, Balder.
hokai - i really like this. had i seen it earlier, it would have answered some of my questions today.
this feels like real world spirituality, and it brought me right into the present, and reminded me of some simple truths. the whole post - and especially culminating in the final 3 sentence paragraph, brought up a lot of emotion - not many people seem to realise how important it is that we get this area collectively right in this world, and quickly.
you're the man…
best wishes
adam
holy shit man - this is gorgeous.
i love how you start off acknowledging english as a foreign tongue and then proceed to do balletbreakdance with it all over some tightly choreographed linguistic accuracy….. ouch!
let me keep reading and return once i have digested more…
hokai i am dumbstruck.
my life has been a frantic running from silence - now the speechless full moon comes out…. ~rumi
i am really excited by the diversity that is already emerging.
hokai i expected nothing less than this stroll down the razor's edge of clarity from you. my only problem with it is that i couldn't possibly add anything! limpid, lucid, complete and empty.
elektroglide i am psyched to see you keep pushing the edges on veracity, real-ness and debunking.
i can't wait to see the rest of the week unfold.
jim i look forward to having you on board next time around!
I read over your essay again, Hokai, and just want to say it was quite an inspirational contribution to this symposium.
Thank you.
I'm beginning to wonder … by day seven, will there be anything left to say … ?
Hey guys, I've been out for some strength training with my men's group, and I'm back all aching… Thanks so much for your beautiful comments. I'm looking forward for some discussion of details that have been left unsaid or barely mentioned. And, yeah, where are the critics? Agnostics….? Devil's advocates….? Skeptics…? Anyone…???? :-)) I'll be holding my shift late into the night. It's past 2330 here, but I'm all for it. ~H
i think you may have intimidated anyone who has any critique by the sheer clarity of your words my friend.
bow*
i think you may have intimidated anyone who has any critique by the sheer clarity of your words my friend.
also, a fair amount of the language is more poetic experiential than literal, so analysing it is kinda beside the point. there's a lot of depth of insight that is revealed, but not so much for the pricklies to get hold of, or at least not so much that this one could object to… : (
Greetings, Lol. Your comments are kind, and your questions are challenging. First one, “Do you equate ever fresh freedom with enlightenment?” I believe we're stepping into Buddhist terrain here, but I'll do my best to keep the thing transparent for others as well. Some of these ideas you may be familiar will, so bear with me.:-) Enlightenment or more accurately awakening (skt. bodhi) is a complex notion inasmuch as it has several aspects, each of which deserves a separate treatment and a slightly different discourse. There's the “original enlightement”, namely intrinsic awareness, or wakefulness, which is the very nature or essence of every mind-stream. It is equal in all beings. Then there's the initial awakening, like crossing a threshold of reality and entering the stream, and that's what I'm refering to primarily (though the “ever fresh” part is found in each of these three meanings). There are usually several such events that make the essential wakefulness stand forth ever more constantly in the individual mind-stream. These further discoveries amplify the first one, untill the irrevocable realization, complete awakening, makes it all obvious, and a bit difficult to put in words, but fundamentally nothing has really changed in this process. There was only a deepening recognition of what already was the essence of awareness. Now this is the traditional account, more or less. Now the second one, “Do you consider that the purported enlightenment of the historical Buddha Shakyamuni remained somehow static with his parinirvana?” Personally, from what is described in the Nikaya/Agama literature, the state of a fully awakened one after death may not be ascertained. But your question is actually something I often ask my students and my spiritual friends: where is Gautama Siddhartha now? I will only say here that I do not think his awakening remained the same after his demise, which brings us to your third question, “Do you consider that his enlightenment might continue even now, ever fresh?” Yes, I certainly do. One may choose not to, to be sure. That's why in Mahayana people take vows, not to change their minds once “nothing ever happens” becomes obvious, as that's just one side of the street. “Everything is happening at every moment” is the other side, and we promise to remain in the game. Not just for the sake of all beings, and even that has several meanings, but for the sake of this ever fresh freedom. There's the absolute realization, wisdom of dharmakaya, and there's the relative realization, known as rupakaya, made of enjoyment, virtues and compassion. The absolute realization is ever fresh because it's timeless. The relative realization, on the other hand, must evolve with everything in the manifest realm, like culture, language, societal rules, worldviews etc. I personally am confident that enlightenment never stops.
Tashi deleg,
~H
Beautiful and tender and sharp in just the right places. But I'm afraid your discussion of belief seems quite muddled to me (could be my fault). You consider reason and faith on multiple levels, but belief is consigned to “mere belief” and associated strictly with conventional reality. I think there's a whole stream of issues linked to this that seem to create fog. Can you articulate a place for belief at every level of development? Is it really true in Buddhism that belief is never necessary for enlightenment? Not even Right Understanding?
Along with this problem, I also get the feeling you're mainly just paying lip service to intersubjectivity and power relationships and their consequences for the spiritual life. Never once did an embedded social context (class, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc) play into your formulation of “contemporary perspectives”, even though much of the work of contemporary writing on philosophy and theology has for the past 40 years been focused on reclaiming a valued role of marginalized perspectives.
Although I believe your intention to avoid specific frameworks, lingo, and religions is a noble one, I'm not sure how relevant your remarks are for persons outside an educated, philosophically informed, middle-to-upper-class mainstream Anglo/Asian, masculine mode of thought. I feel your essay would have been stronger if it had stayed a little closer to the particularity of your own experience rather than ascend prematurely to abstractions intending to be all inclusive. There's a role for universalizing speech, for sure, but it's often best appreciated after relevant contexts have been identified and elucidated, rather than glossed over.
Hi, Joe.
Re Belief: It's a semantic thing. I use “beliefs” in sense of content, so yes I can accept the existence of belief on every level. But in the way I discussed them in the post, they're mostly what are known as limiting beliefs. Then, I use “faith” as a more conscious act. As to Buddhism, “belief” and “faith” our Western ideas with many overtones. Buddhist doctrine uses “shraddha” which is more akin to faith and heart-felt acceptance. It's one of basic spiritual capacities to rely on. Also, the quote by Chogyam Trungpa restores validity to the very notion of belief.
Re Intersubjectivity: It's a matter I have avoided on purpose. It's huge, and most important. A blog post has it's limitations. Hopefully I'll be able to expand and include this vital subject.
As to your third objection, I'm not sure I understand what is your point. I don't need my essay to be stronger. It's what came to my mind when I reflected on a grounded perspective to integrative spirituality. It's that simple. Perhaps I should've done many things differently, but I'm glad I did anything at all. I'll do my best to do better next time:-)
Ma.rig.pa (Lol) posted this before my response to him (see above) and I had to delete his comment because in it something happened to formating and all subsequent comments were in BOLD. Hope you don't mind, Lol.
* * *
Hokai,
I like this very much. It’s essential, refined … like an aikido movement in words … simple graceful expression coming from centre. Of the many jewels on display here, three in particular, sufficient in themselves, seemed to catch the light and so caught my eye.
“Lacking heart, some will seek for what they imagine has been lost, and so will tend to look back, wishing yesterday was tomorrow. Life, as observable, has no such qualms. Actually there is no returning. The only way of being in the world is onward.”
“In esoteric Buddhist thought, interestingly enough, each thing is a limpid symbol of what ultimately is.”
“Reduced to a single reference that allows for all perspectives to coexist, while setting them along the gradient of depth and inclusiveness, the awakening of spirit is simply the discovery of ever fresh freedom.”
The third does stimulate enquiry for me. You said at the beginning of your piece:
“The context for each of these subjects is provided by existing discussions here at Zaadz, which have been sometimes muffled in contesting statements.”
As a context for this enquiry I’d like to, if I may, refer you to the enlightenment thread, started in Chapel Perspicacious back in December.
You also recommended Integral Spirituality to us. In this Wilber states “Enlightenment is the realization of oneness with all states and all structures that are in existence in any given time”, and elsewhere goes on to postulate that a person living in, for example, the mythic period, that their enlightenment wouldn’t be as full as that of someone’s today.
Do you equate “ever fresh freedom” with enlightenment?
Do you consider that the purported enlightenment of the historical Buddha Shakyamuni remained somehow static with his parinirvana?
Do you consider that his enlightenment might continue even now, ever fresh?
Many tashi delegs
Lol
Lol so good to see you here!
great to hear you and hokai trade ideas!
joe i just want to say i appreciate the intensity of your engagement as well as the depth behind it - i was able to feel it more this time seeing as your blade is not pointing in my direction…..
a note: i don't think any of us is trying to transcend and include integral or claiming a kind of theory of absolutely everything - just offering our observations on the topic at hand and raising issues that we find interesting and important…
doubtless you have much to add.
Hokai, English is your second language?! That is hard to believe, considering how beautifully you write.
A question for you. Following the Trungpa quote, do you agree with his assertions that “The world we live in is the only world” and that there is no “mystical world, the ethereal world, the world of the unseen, unknown or whatever”?
What I hear you and Trungpa speaking of is what could be called an existential spirituality, along the lines of Wilber's “post-metaphysical approach”–one that is post-belief, based in rationality, yet experientially open-ended to post-rational states and/or structures. Here it is important to differentiate between atheism and agnosticism, where atheism is a kind of “belief in no-belief” and agnosticism is open-ended, based on–ala Trungpa–personal perception. In other words, what one perceives is what is, yet the atheist says that what one perceives is all there is while the agnostic is open to what one doesn't perceive as being at least “possible” if practically unreal. At least in the quote you offer, Trungpa's approach seems to intend agnosticism yet proclaims a kind of atheism in that he seems to not allow for the possibility of “other worlds.”
So to put my comment and question another way, is your outlook to this existential/post-metaphysical spirituality atheistic or agnostic? Are you open to the possibility of “other worlds”–whether etheric, astral, psychic, extra-dimensional, what-have-you–or do you see them as externalizations of internal states, ala the more psychological approach of Jung, Wilber, and Trungpa?
I look forward to your reply.
“There is something decent and basic and skilfull in the ability to retain and exhibit conventions, while your innermost experience stands open as infinity.”
if any practice is challenging, i feel this one—cultivation of ordinary mind—is perhaps the most challenging. i have spent many years feeling like a clumsy dolt on the stage of this world doing my best to perform as though i have truly believed all its ideas, beliefs and stories. all the while, i have received inspiration to continue in my efforts to balance awareness of the absolute and the relative from some of the most divine actors/teachers—masters of simplicity and ordinary mind and “normality” as you call it, Hokai. there is this look that is shared as they conduct themselves with seamless grace…this look, this gaze…that holds the most divine understanding and awareness…a real secret…a true secret. yet they are hiding nothing and are totally authentic in their being. and that “ever fresh freedom” pours out from their eyes and shines on their faces and dances in their ordinary actions. they please both the awakened and unawakened simultaneously. i suppose what i have admired so much about these teachers is their quietness and humility. they do not purport to own anything special or advanced or superior. they are content. there is no struggle. there is only this moment. and there is only practice.
thank you so much for this beautiful post, Hokai. remarkable.
i can see that you are chomping at the bit for a discussion, Hokai. here's a little something for fun that might prove kindling for a conversational fire…
i have a brief line of inquiry, especially as it relates to JB's comment (above). I agree that “other worlds” may from an agnostic perspective “be possible,” yet from an atheistic standpoint “be impossible.” I also see how an agnostic perspective would find these “other worlds” to “be possible” yet, perhaps, also find them to be “practically unreal.”
here's my inquiry: What of these “other worlds” as they come to us? what if we have not sought them or conjured them, and still they have arrived at our doorstep? such as lucid dreaming? or even ordinary dreaming? to what world does dreaming belong? is it this one? or another? is it purely regurgitation of the psyche? and if so…what world does it belong to? if this world is the only place that exists, why do we dream? why are we built with the need to sleep?
let me provide an example for the purposes of discussion: tibetan dream yoga. my understanding of this yoga is that it calls for the practice of techniques of lucid dreaming to attain mastery within a dream realm that gradually translates into mastery within the material realm, and this mastery contains awareness of both what is illusion and what is truth. i have only read briefly about this yoga. this is my basic understanding of its approach. if i remember correctly, tibetan dream yoga culminates ultimately in all dreaming of any sort completing and not returning.
i write this inquiry with the intention of “grabbing a fragment” of your writing as you say, and exploring it via your great understanding of “ever fresh freedom.” i really look forward to your input. and again, thank you, for your beautiful post, Hokai.
nicely posed question jb - i too look forward to hokai's reply - i imagine you know what mine would be! :O)
delia yea i am with you on the ordinary mind bit - and on loving hokai's simple and pristine pointing out of the urgent neccesity of recognizing it.
just throw away all thoughts of imaginary things and stand firm in what you are…
~kabir
Hokai,
I see that you know your Buddhism and are able to explain clearly what much of it means to non-religious integral people. This is the proper way to elucidate the Buddhas understanding. It does justice to his life and to all Buddhists that claim him as their inspiration. Many will undoubtedly hold unexamined ideas and rigid assumptions in their “belief” and only inquiry will dispel it. There are teachers like you around that are able to make a tradition come alive without dismissing the whole structure, but informs it and elevates it with proper understanding. Then, we anti-religious westerners can come to appreciate and value the inheritance of our religious traditions and their founding fathers from a more deeper understanding of the evolution of true teachings.
There are many people that work for that same purpose to make the teaching and example of Jesus understood by the many that avoid the church and its tradition. I have never advocated blind belief in anything, never seeked truth in conventional religion, but I knew I hardly could dismiss the giants that set off spiritual revolutions on this Earth.
And by coming to understand the Buddha and coming to understand Jesus, from direct personal revelatory insight, I have begun to understand the umbrella of religion and its function. It menders to all levels of peoples understanding and leaders and teachers like you Hokai does the job any spiritual advocate will have to do; bring understanding to difficult and challenging ideas.
I believe to be Integral we have to acknowledge the immense size of religious faith and enter into the lions den and “integrate” from within by taking up the sword that already exists within that tradition. Revive and update, wake up and shake up, stagnant structures. Integral does a great job by including and transcending. But could do more by seeking to understand the mysteries of, for one, Jesus. It is too easy to dismiss it, his life, death and resurrection. I was never myself at ease to believe on hearsay or to dismiss outright, but endeavored to understand and to experience for myself the truth of these mysteries. For then and only then would I be able to speak about them with any kind of objectivity. Now, taken that most people don't grasp these mysteries, believer or non-believer alike, doesn't mean that we can leave history to memory. In order to move on we need to understand our past in its entirety. If we unlock these mysteries we will be able to have a never-ending ever new revelation of freedom in evolution.
such beautiful writing!
i love that you brought up the difference between “belief” and “faith”…my favorite personal quote on the matter: I believe in the possibility of everything, but rest my faith in the unknown as it unfolds through the grace and relentlessness of time”…i feel that religion is tied up with belief and the term “religious faith” is just nonsensical…but to believe in possibility at this time in my growth allows me to remain open to the wide range of experiences others may express without over analyzing their psychology as i have yet to aquire the accuracy and insight and perhaps even the drive to do so…whereas, faith is that thing that takes one further into inquiry…faith that no matter what one finds, that there will always be more…that this mystery of flesh is never ending…the experience of death being perfect punctuation…faith being the ground for surrender and devotion and awe in the mystery…and you say spirit is faith…and i thank you for that…*insert moment of a-ha here*…so frickin simple…reduced to single reference.
onward and upward indeed.
@ JB: Of course I agree with Chogyam Trungpa's assertions, but his intention is not quite obvious, nor was he a man of perception in the narrow sense. After all, he was a deeply enlightened human being. Your definition of post-metaphysical, and discussion of atheism and agnosticism is useful. Trungpa's “agnosticism” is practice based, not a philosophy. Seeing-and-believing is a proper way of relating to the your world, not a way of philosophically postulating such world in your thoughts. But we see with our minds as well! If we reject other worlds, in this context, it is to bring our feet firmly on the ground or, as Jack Kornfield would put it, to sit and take our place. We are already lost in too much otherness. Don't we feel a deep thirst for some fresh, raw perception? Quite possibly, it will be painful, so we are willing to conjure other worlds again. I have rejected atheism and agnosticism as possible solutions to our post/modern dillema, or even useful formulations of an integral approach. Both are intellectual, mental systems defined by what they do not offer. It's like defining Buddhism as non-theism, quite insufficient. I am a post-traditional Buddhist, and my actual views depend on the level I'm adressing (ultimately, of course, I do my best to hold none, not because I don't see any and therefore wouldn't believe, but because there is nothing left to see apart from the creative display of what is). As to your last question, I don't think we can put Willber, Jung and Trungpa together in this way, but yes - “other worlds” are intra-psychic to a large extent, not completely (even deep sleep). Yet “externalization” is not acceptable to me. Reality is available somehow, in a very fundamental sense. What we see is what happens to what's available, but when I say that I'm not implying an objectively independent reality, nor a subjectively determined perception. It's an extremely complex matter, better dealt with through direct awakening. It's easier, cheaper, and faster. And, Deida would add, downright nasty.:-)
@ Delia: What of these “other worlds” as they come to us? what if we have not sought them or conjured them, and still they have arrived at our doorstep? such as lucid dreaming? or even ordinary dreaming? to what world does dreaming belong? is it this one? or another? is it purely regurgitation of the psyche? and if so…what world does it belong to? if this world is the only place that exists, why do we dream? why are we built with the need to sleep?
Beautiful, and true in itself. I'd hate to spoil it by adding something clever to what you have so beautifully phrased. In conventional terms, the world of dreams is one's own to hold with grace. The world of waking requires appropriateness, tactfulness and demeanour. So, it's the one world. This one world we are responsible for, and look at it! Waking, dreaming, sleeping, recognizing and remembering… it's not something we do, it's what we are as beings. Ultimately, of course, none of that is really real. But they do happen. They come, stay a while, and go forever. And so do we.
On another thought, the whole question of perception and other worlds and, necessarily, other selves… I'm not so sure. It's not whether our perceptions are real, or whether there's something we're not seeing, unless we have a serious disturbing condition. Our real purpose is to find out what is asked for in this one situation that we call our waking world. What does this mean, and what should we do? To begin with, what can I do? So we need to understand what this world means before asking is it real, which is funny, because it requires a certain bona fide attitude on our side…. I hope we're on the same page here.
OK, my contribution for the week is online! Enjoy!
Grey
Another comment is due. Yes I have avoided the 2nd person perspective and also the whole issue of intersubjectivity, and I intend to deal with that in a sequel. However, I need to address an important and fundamental question: what is that we integrate in integrative spirituality? There are several ways to go about it, but basically - we integrate the ascending and the descending impulses, being identified with neither, and pursuing our practices as either. I hope this, although brief definition, makes my position quite clear.
Just a brief clarification,
“the term “religious faith” is just nonsensical”
By religious faith I mean the Faith that is professed by a religion. A creed that belongs to a certain line of thought. Hope that makes it understandable?
Bjorn, I'm sure I know what Sa'Rah meant when she said that. Belief, faith, creed…. All are fine and well. Creed is usually a formulaic expression of faith. What I have addressed and others have commented in the context of this post, refers to the problem of limiting beliefs (which in itself is stage-specific) and also perhaps a misunderstanding that many people have with “faith”, thinking that is must imply belief in impossible salvific facts, while it actually signifies a profound acceptance, humility and receptivity, more akin to devotion. So we tend to speak of belief/s as a possible replacement for various cognitive acts (which, if not checked, becomes a pathology), while faith, along with doubt, is a constructive and irreplacable element of any integrative spirituality, yesterday or tomorrow. Ken Wilber, just for comparison, has used belief and faith in various ways. He spoke of levels of belief, from archaic to magic to mythic to rational etc. He also used belief as a rather passive stage, before the advent of faith. See Sociable God, chapter 6. “Belief, faith, experience and adaptation”. Here's a quote from One Taste:
“There are four major stages of spiritual unfolding: belief, faith, direct experience, and permanent adaptation: you can believe in Spirit, you can have faith in Spirit, you can directly experience Spirit, you can become Spirit…. If you are interested in genuine transformative spirituality, find an authentic spiritual teacher and begin practice. Without practice, you will never move beyond the phases of belief, faith, and random peak experiences. You will never evolve into plateau experiences, nor from there into permanent adaptation. You will remain, at best, a brief visitor in the territory of your own higher estate, a tourist of you own true Self.”
Is this better? ~H
Thanks Hokai,
Glad that you expressed it that well. Even though I would argue with Ken about the “stages” as faith can be a very alive quality beyond these stages. Living a life surrendered to the “Spirit” faith is a presence, not a stage we necessarily leave behind. Adaption in a sense is brimming with living faith as it is a living experience of the manifestation of love, within and without.
Therefore the Christian saying; “we live by faith and not by sight”.
What do you think Hokai?
It's just a matter of how you choose to word your point. But there are conventions around these terms, and we better respect those. What you say is true in exoteric, albeit sincere religiosity, but esoteric, contemplative, mystic practice a la St John of Cross, and Meister Eckhart, requires a leap beyond even faith, a final death of internal believer and external God, and the realization of radical IAMness, whence “I and the Father are one.” But even such an awakening in the God, as the God, is not final, even with “salvation” being accomplished, therefore we may speak of the incessant process of adaptation. Even the greatest sage must eat. Life goes one.
sa'rah, bjorn and hokai - this is like watchinga geart three way tennis match pitched on the field of revelatory inquiry.
IOW cool shit man!
sa'rah this is some of the most precise writing i have seen of yours and i have always loved that quote of yours….
hokai the one taste response is an absolute gem. glad you brought it into the zaadsosphere.
eckhart: the greatest leave-taking of all is the leave-taking of god for God….
this is such tricky stuff and is getting some of the best treatment i have seen so far right here and now…
awesome.
I'm with you Hokai,
“I and my father are one… but my father is greater than me”
Life does go on and we grow in faith. This faith, this understanding, makes it possible for us to come together in a shared experience. Communion arises where truth is trusted. Not two becomes a reality between us.
Yes, yes!! And then we can say, in one voice, “I and my brother are One… and the One is greater than both of us.” ~h
Wow, all. This is a fabulous dialog!
Hokai, I especially appreciated this quote in the comments: “we integrate the ascending and the descending impulses, being identified with neither, and pursuing our practices as either.”
What a concise explication of mature, integral spirituality!
And I especially resonated with the concept of normality: What is there to seek? Experience is Here Now as you are. Chop wood, carry water. Beautiful!
I wish I had more time to dig deeper and contribute more food for thought. I would have to quit my job or abandon my marriage to keep up with you all! And neither is happening, so I'll rest in joining through reading and the occasional brief comment.
Julian, by the way, great idea! IT's happening, friend, it just took some working for it to materialize. Yum!
Hokai,
The discussion of “normal”, and your subsequent definition, is a fairly unique contribution to this crowd. I'm sure it is something that has been discussed before, and really, there isn't too much to discuss about it. But the way you phrase it, “There is something decent and basic and skilfull in the ability to retain and exhibit conventions, while your innermost experience stands open as infinity. This is also known as ordinary mind, unbound by convention or eccentricity.”
Is really quite clear. And important. While I'm sure others have said it as well, I haven't come across such a clear phrasing of “extraordinary ordinary”.
colin good to see you - i trust you witnessed my ass being roasted over at I-I pod?
i think you'll be happy with where we ended up….
ebuddha - i couldn't agree more.
hokai…thank you for taking that one…you expressed it exactly as i would if i were, uh, you…the more i keep thinking of all this, the more i am able to become comfortable with the use of language which although can be limiting, can also be useful for integrative expansion…i am finally learning this.
Hokai,
I don't have much to add beyond my appreciation for your remarkably lucid explanations of grounded spirituality! Your description of normalcy, especially.
~MrTC
teacup - given your comments over the last three days i am very much looking forward to seeing where you land with your post!
elektroglide is up tomorrow - i think he is shooting for the afternoon…….
let's keep the buzz going though!
Seems this line of comments is dying. Well, no wonder, with all the stuff goin' on at the next post by Grey Drane, and the next one coming today by Elektroglide…. But do leave your comment if you end up here anyway. I'll keep responding whenever necessary. ~h
Many thanks, Hokai, for your answers to my questions … comprehensive and refreshing, in an ever-fresh kind of way :) We share the same view.
I'm interested in hearing more about your way of practice and the tradition you practice within (even if it is post-traditionally :) ). I'm aware this comment section isn't the place to do this, so will PM you.
All best,
Lol
well what do you think hokai - personally i am all for us sharing pratice details - so far the theme of the symposium i sturning out to be the importance of practice as a way to ground spirituality in relaity…
anything you and lol want to talk about here too would be great!
pull up a chair folks - here's my entry for the week.
some more of my poetry
you might want to get a cup of tea first…
Hokai, I just wanted to go on with this point and would love to hear what you have to say about it?
“Most people seek groups and gurus and/or traditions to protect their un/conscious personal agenda. You imply people have only good intentions, and then mostly conscious motivations.”
I do that because I like to speak to an ideal situation. A situation that I hope we all on this forum would like to rise towards. I am passionate about this point as so much time is wasted on pointing fingers toward an unnamed mass of people that exists out there. I always contract inside as I hear skeptical voices justifying their points because of an erring humanity. We that meet here can leave the obvious behind and be personally challenged by what we yet don't know. Then, this discussion will enter raw and tender territory, where we are not so sure anymore. We will allow for people with deeper understanding to influence us (to flow into us) and we'll share in an confluence of thoughts that only enriches our waters.
I would like to add that this refers also to for example Electroglides world view. I can understand where he is coming from and even appreciate his line of thought, but I believe we all see that is only one view of many. If anyone prefers to stick with their own personal or adopted world view that's up to them but it leaves them associating only with others of the same mind.
Ouch, my centaur hurts. My contribution to the symposium is up.
I’m going for a walk. I might come back. ;o)
Wow, Hokai!
I'm excited reading this. You have tied a number of things together for me in a simple holdable package. I have no doubt that messy and confounding elaborations will bound out and spurt and writhe forth very soon, again. But for a moment to have so much held in a crystal vase makes me hopeful.
You asked where the critics, skeptics and such are. I think I'll start off with the only point where my questioning has reached critical mass to doubt. I don't doubt the truth of it, because I know so little of truth and I am still tied up in a Gordian knot of chains. (By the way, I loved how you started off boldly with “long live chains”) But I can't see the truth of it from where I stand. In my fragmented universe of limited vantage or perspective or access for knowing, I question the following: “Seen in retrospective of many thousands of years, the meanings and experiences of spirit have been unfolding in progressive subtlety and nakedness.”
I get stopped at this point with KW also. I don't know that the kosmos is unfolding, evolving in this way. I don't know that the meanings and experiences of man have not been folding up their tents as fast they are being raised. I don't know that the tents' visible structures are more subtle, clear, parsimoniously esthetic or efficacious.
Maybe faith is tucked in here, folded in here, and you are unfolding it as well, for yourself, for life support (life, not said lightly); or it is co-unfolding.
Yes, I don't know this. Yet?
I've only read about half of the comments so far, and I concur with what a couple of people have said about your laying out of normalcy. I like your simple distinction and yet relationship between socially normal and intra-self/intra life normal. Yes, conventions that hold us, and can chain us.
I really like your description of discussion of “what is 'spirit'” and spiritual. Among the many places where I don't get what many of our finest people are saying, like you, I have had much trouble knowing what “spirit” is. The trouble may arise more when I hear the word spoken and discussions done. I may have an inkling of an inkling - but maybe not.
A second ago, I though of another place where I got stopped with a big question mark, maybe a doubt. Again apologies for my limited altitude-given vantage.
“Such process will necessarily depend on many developmental streams and their effective integration. To merge mind and body, to balance intellect and devotion, [bold emphasis mine] to fuse stillness and activity, to recognize relative and absolute - these are the stepping stones of such a strategy, and the tools used may cover a relatively wide spectrum, including ethics, study, awareness, shadow work, meditation, ritual, relationships, isolation, training in states, sexuality, bodywork etc. if you're so inclined.”
Apparently, I have trouble surrendering much. So devotion stops me. I don't get it as a given. I also don't get it's pairing with the also problematic-for-me 2nd person relationship with spirit or god. (You did not say that here, but I heard it recently.) As an additional point of logic or reason, in this, hinting at the dichotomous, pairing of devotion and intellect, I don't know that intellect gets balanced by devotion, and I don't know that it would be any more so than anything else in the infinitely large number of life functionings. By the way, I also liked reading as you wrote this, because it flowed so well and did have a pleasingly symmetrical ring to it.
Another of many things that might be helpful for this relatively undisciplined me is:
“A typical list suggests a minimum number of reference points, so the traditional “body-speech-mind” becomes “body-mind-spirit-shadow”, which then translates into fundamental aspects of a well-rounded practice. A very simple formula actually points to an infinite complexity. Does that help us? Sure it does. We may find these sorts of ideas so self-evident, that we tend to forget how lost one can get in any one of those basic reference points at the expense of everything else in their lives.”
You express this, for me, very succinctly. Except for my usual stumbles over the word “spirit”, I think that my inspiration for practice was consolidated with this paragraph, and the entire presentation.
Hokai, I know that there is much more that moved me than I have mentioned here. I really did feel a big and perhaps faith-inspiring, “Wow.” as I proceeded, all the way to the end. I was a bit in awe of having so much articulated so well. Please excuse my effusion. And thanks for the trip.
Still, not Still
Hi, Still. Thanks for your kind notes and comments, and bringning your not-knowingness to the discussion. It's a gift, actually, this not-knowingness, I hope you realize that (or can accept it in gentle forbearance). There are ways we handle this delicious openness that we are, and there are ways we avoid facing what arises, by evading or quibbling in face of obvious clarity. But that's not what you're doing when you say you don't know, at least not as I hear you.
You may find interesting some aspects of our discussion at the I-I pod, so have a look at it when time permits. There are many concepts surrounding raw spirituality, some of which are indispensable, and some of which have been used and understood in often unfortunate ways. It's conventional knowledge that our views develop, and so also our collective experience and interpretation of raw spirit develops in subtlety, marked by growing transparency (hence, “nakedness”). It's not something you or I know for fact by observing our minds, but rather a truth unveiled by studying the history of thought, religion and especially of greatest mystics, through immersing ourselves into the great heritage of human knowledge.
I wouldn't be concerned with the “problematic 2nd person relationship” in your naturally conditioned, even if maimed, spiritual response as such. Choose your name for supreme reality as it fits your inclination and then recognize that This* (henceforth substitute by your chosen name) is the ground, source and essence of what you consider your being here to be. Now this ground, source and essence precedes (not in time but in every single instance, almost infra-dynamically) even the sense of 1st person, yet This makes it possible, and by This is 1st person observed in a mirror-like fashion. Also, This precedes the 3rd person thatness by making it even possible. And when you say, to whoever, perhaps even to yourself, “Lo and behold! Look at that!” the 2nd person emerges distinctly in your awareness. Yet even such is made possible by This. The 2nd person of This has been historically distorted in Europe by both religious and secular proponents. We need to acknowledge this, and move on. We still hold a heavy-loaded relationship to it. Depending on your naturally conditioned inclination, you will pursue This through 1st person contemplative inquiry (beginning with stilling, relaxing and sharpening the mind), 3rd person study and observation, and deep 2nd person exchange in those instances that you can tolerate without being overtly irritated (such as your loved ones, for example).
In due time, as you develop unmediated access to the mystery, which is the deep unknowing, and your very core is aroused, a spontaneous healing process will recover and reveal the power of 2nd person engagement, of standing face-to-face with This, and conversing in whispers and laughs and cries and screams and utter silence. Yet, you may discover it's not your primary vehicle of establishing yourself in This, as This. You may not be a conversational type at all, or at least not primarily. It's as simple as that. I may revel in all 3 faces, and still find them ultimately lacking. Only in This do we find ultimate rest. Only in This are we established, and with that, everyone and everyhing else. Then we passionately embrace each of the three faces of This, as they lure and mock and challenge and insult and confuse our capacity to love and understand, without ever again losing our way for very long. Swoon, yet awake. That is, basically, the path.
Hokai
Hokai, thanks for your personal and substantial reply to me. At another time I want to spend more time with your guidance on the rich 2nd person phenomenon. I just woke from an almost nap and within this musty mental state I notice, as I read those two information-dense paragraphs that my UQ (Understanding Quotient - smiles) is low. I do want to give myself a chance to approach, tentatively though it might be, this scary possibility.
As for paragraph 2, I'm not sure that my studying the greatest mystics more will help me. I'm not sure where or what it is that I'm stuck on, but I don't really accept all of the pre-trans permutations. I understand by definition that trans comes after, grows out of, “includes”, transforms or alters what was pre. I understand the overall unpredictable on the small scale, yet usually, apparently linear on a larger scale developmental trajectory in material life forms. I understand a little of some models of memory and cognition that appear to be somewhat cumulative and transformative, a little about Piaget's assimilation and accommodation. I get that I am able to have this discussion with you whereas some years ago I wouldn't have been able to. Generally, I can nod my head to the representative modeling and apparent hinting-at-universal design or manifestation of heirarchies/holarchies. I just notice that I can't nod to this and some other conclusions.
Something that I seem to be missing is a readiness to say that all lines evolve in this way. It could still be a vestige of the magical in me, a desire to be special, or denial of reality for whatever motives I might be expressing that are aversive to this seemingly pat, linear conclusion - however, I seem to have an image of time, space, and other mysterious aspects of kosmos that may not conform to this model. What? Am I green in my thinking - want equality for all? Maybe - I'm not sure. I think that we have a very dependable model and there is a risk that we generalize with it. Don’t some of complexity theory and certain quantum observations, like non-locality, cast doubt on the universality of many of our perceptions and finest cognitions? What I'm getting to is, reasonable or unreasonable, that I don't know that 10,000 years ago some “pre-modern” meanings of and experiences of spirit are less subtle and less naked. Picturing for a moment a primitive in profound reverie, I imagine a high subtlety of her/his feeling into the kosmic fabric. He may grunt or mumble or dance or shout only but the quality of meaning, say of oneness, may be dumfounding to us in it’s altitude or depth. If our marvelous cognition and sense of our advanced historical perspective is not given special favor, I still don't get that a sage's, an avatar’s meanings (again, except for cognitively discriminating, coherent, and articulable) are more subtle or naked than a baby's.
I'm stopped before I can say that. It's probably not for lack of exposure to explanations by KW, or the responding wisdoms at II, zaadz-II, various forums and books, here, and almost certainly not for lack of exposure to psycho-biological information that I am stopped. I don't know if it is as simple as psychological resistance, or some quirk blindness in my apparatus, or if maybe it's valid that I don't value current meanings and subtleties over early (pre) ancient.
This is curious to me. I know that I will give more study to this, as exterior workings and phenomena, and I'll give more study to my reluctance to agree. And I may wait for something to cut one way or the other, in its own time. Do you think psychedelics would help me?
Smiles
Thanks, Still.
OK. I gotta head this off at the pass. Someone will want to tell me that this person in reverie from 10 or 50 thousand years ago is perhaps having a state experience only. Easy come easy go. Does meaning via cognition and congruent concerted action make it last longer, make it more subtle, more naked? Maybe. I don't know. Again. Smiles. Still.
hi hokai
i still haven't commented specifically to your entry, some 10 weeks later : (
i'm only now catching up with responses to comments, and will attend to this omission as soon as i can.
if you have time/inclination to carry on the chat over at my place, i'd be honoured. if so, i shall also immerse myself in your other online writings to see where i can add to and expand my understanding.
i am finding that dialogue can be very useful and instructive, and that it's benefits are sometimes not apparent until afterwards. i do hope that we can increase our depth of discussion.
best wishes
adam