Help
Sign In
yoga
January 2008 
On Being and Becoming
Posted on Jun 27th, 2007
by 
Hokai
Hokai
"Being and Becoming"
(cross-posted from hokai's blogue)
Or, on emptiness and appearances... Here Andrew Cohen speaks of the need to update the notion of enlightenment, a notion that's been around for several thousand years as "awakening to the Unborn" or something to that effect, and recognize the evolutionary drive inherent in the very fabric of our relative being. Recognize, in other words, that samsara is not just circular, that there's an eros and a telos to that circularity, namely growing complexity and further perspectives. Buddhist masters may have been talking of Wisdom and Compassion, but since we've become aware of evolution at all levels from biology to consciousness, we cannot pretend that never happened, and there's a fresh perspective available in the way we understand and practice "Compassion", namely, as passsion for evolving together, not just helping others to be saved from the dreadful existence in samsara. Indeed, an evolving samsara is not that dreadful - or, it's just become potentially dreadful in yet another way - since conscious evolution is now not only possible, but imperative. Looking the other way won't make it go away. But that's my take on it, looking from within my own lineage, and I believe each wisdom tradition has the capacity to evolve a mature post/modern expression giving due emphasis to evolution and multi-perspectival thought. At present, however, most traditions, as well as most popular "contemporary" spiritual teachers, are effectively discouraging their students from doing just that.
The person asking the question is obviously lost in a one-step approach to awakening, and Andrew does him a great service by suggesting a two-step framework, wherein an awakened return to time and manifestation may complement the first step of dropping into the Ground. I would suggest, however, that another step is necessary before even the first step is made, namely, developing a wise and constructive relationship to self, small "s", the conditional self that Andrew keeps calling ego, as many teachers wrongly do, apparently for no reason whatsoever. Explaining that such "ego" is the treacherous infatuation with illusion is, again, recreating what is missing in the bare relative/absolute approach, so typical for premodern spirituality: a potent way of not just being, but going onward in this world, with this world.
Also, you don't need to love or even like Andrew Cohen to appreciate some of significant points he makes. Still, awakening to the unborn, not just for a moment, remains a challenge for anyone interested in "enlightenment", evolutionary or not. Making fun of "Om" won't help either. Zen master mentioned in the talk is not just laughing at your illusions, but also at your attempt to escape the flow of time, so Andrew gives his audience only a partial meaning of that guffaw, mimicking it with a giggle. As some Zenists would rightly argue, "You have to say something!" Also, in other profound/esoteric traditions, the flow of time is given due respect as an equally important half of reality, as a gesture of the Unborn, but first you better awaken to the Unborn, and not just for a moment. Then, find the right way of expressing this realization in every thought, word, and deed, in accordance with your context, and the context is today - yes, yes - evolutionary to the core. So, listening to Andrew Cohen usually leaves me with a certain aftertaste, as if an opportunity is squandered to really make a good case for a post-metaphysical spirituality. But he does use a dual mandala, and that's simply too endearing for my taste... Duration 27:23
Access: Public
Hokai, thanks, I like that: compassion, also, as passion for evolving together. And I appreciate your comment about the Zen Master laughing equally at our illusions and our efforts to escape the flow of time.
I am not a big fan of Cohen, and do not think his demonization of the ego is ultimately helpful in a post/modern context, but I agree that he is emphasizing a number of important points in his teachings. Evolution, of course; postmetaphysics; and the communal/intersubjective dimensions of awakening I explored in some recent blog entries.
From a postmetaphysical perspective, how would you frame or present the “Unborn,” particularly within your own tradition? I am having discussions with someone who believes the Integral project is still clinging to metaphysics through its talk of Spirit, primordial awareness, involution, the unborn, etc. What is your take on this? Is some metaphysics unavoidable? How do you understand the relation of the “unborn” to Tibetan terms such as “nature of mind” or rigpa? Do you see prajna as tied to and dependent on evolution – itself an evolutionary product?
Best wishes,
B.
Bruce, I hear what you're saying. There are people who have an allergy to specific words, in general all words that resonate in a way that bends one's knees… that has nothing to do with metaphysical, but has everything to do with an unconscious, irrational resistance, a shadow of ascendent spirituality. Yes, Ken Wilber's work is partly about realizing the Always Already, but the “post-metaphysical” dimension has been developing only after SES. But, again, using certain words means nothing, what meanings those words are given, and what context is developed to imbue them with such meaning, is on the other hand everything. After all, we only have so much words to go by, and the words belonging to the interior mysteries are not that many (except in specialized languages, like various Buddhist hybrids for example). Further on, yes, I believe at this point some metaphysics is unavoidable, but very little I'm convinced, and close to none when more discursive intelligence is at our disposal.
It's crucial to define what post.-metaphysics would mean (irrespective of KW's work) and to me this means making as little presumptions as possible. Some people equate “post-metaphysical” with “critical”, but actually it's quite simple, to quote Wilber from memory: having great explanatory power but without the ontological baggage of great classical systems, since this baggage cannot be defended effectively in modern and postmodern contexts, and this refers to ontological structures that are like a transcendent myth of the given etc. etc. And the first suggested step is to replace perception with perspective. This myth of perception is deeply ingrained, so that most spiritual people when they say “perspective” actually mean it is a special class of perception, without understanding that “perspective” does not give advantage to the first person.etc.etc.
There are many terms in Buddhist doctrine that indicate the Unborn “element”, two dozen at least that I can think of, still within the confines of language, even though a hybrid lingo. Each of these terms points to something in relation to something already discerned, therefore apparently limiting the “element” to the locus of adjective (such as nature being limited to mind in the term “nature of mind”). The element in discussion, however, is never apart from anything, and is never qualifiable as anything. But all this has been said, and Buddhism has it's own plethora of solutions to all such positions. Now significant development has occured lately in that specific line of reasoning. In my own tradition, we recognize a primordial Buddha (named Mahavairocana, the Great Illumination) presented in dual mandala, as wisdom/awareness and matrix/appearance. It's not a question how we “frame or present the Unborn” as such, because It is never an “it”, but how we relate to the Unborn in our post-metaphysical game. In my tradition, specifically, the mystical core teachings are readily available for a post-metaphysical unpacking, since the 1st, 2nd and 3rd person (even further ones) are seen as equally valid, and equally insufficient.
This, essentially, brings us to the meaning, function and nature of precepts, vows, disciplines, doctrines - and more specifically - the meaning, function and nature of teacher, mandala and empowerment. Further on, what is the meaning of “being a Buddhist” (vis-a-vis the refuge and “being a Buddha”) and also what is the precise meaning of a noble individual today (arya-pudgala), including liberation and awakening in “non-buddhist” situations. In each case, to begin with, let us replace perception with perspective. Every one of these redefines our relation to the Unborn.
However, there are other areas that demand an urgent recalibration. Specifically, the nature of awakening itself, the purpose of such awakening, the role of an awakened individual in cosmic dynamics, and finally, a realignment of discursive wisdom and especially of method with such newly established meanings. This is where a post-metaphysical perspective is welcome. As you suggest yourself, prajna is tied to evolution. First because it is the formulation of wisdom as being a dynamic process; second, because it has two aspects (absolute/emptiness and relative/depedent arising); third, because it is the union of these two, “making” the absolute necessarily immanent; fourth, because it always finds it's fruition in skillful means, being moved by inexhaustible compassion. The fourth point is essential, since the whole Buddhist teaching (and some degree all wisdom traditions have this recognition, though rarely unpacked in these terms) is a skillful means itself, modifiable to suit the circumstances and needs of you and me, of us and them, everywhere at any time. It must be mentioned that the expressions of Dharma (turnings of the wheel) have been progressive and evolving, not regressive and conserving, but it's also true that last 5 centuries have not seen significant improvements. In short, I believe prajna has a practical function, hence it's very depedent on evolution and it is an evolutionary product in part. But even more fundamentally, primordial jnana has a place in evolution, as the very silent source of the lines that demarcate the quadrants, it's whisper and gesture being the involution itself. Make any sense?
Hokai
Yes, it does make sense. I agree that replacing “perceptions” with “perspectives” changes or at least subtly impacts how we relate to many key terms in Buddhist teaching. The challenge of adjectives like “unborn” is that they tend to confer a sense of timeless “givenness” and perspective-free self-existence on their referents, at least when taken uncritically. (Ken may contribute to this when he uses “unborn” as a capitalized noun – “the Great Unborn” – and equates it with terms such as Godhead.) Of course, Buddhist teachings have recognized this problem, as you point out, and work in numerous ways to cut through the tendency to reify spiritual terms or “elements” such as emptiness, buddhanature, the unborn, etc.
I would like your thoughts on this, but it seems to me that Buddhist teachings on emptiness generally recognize the problems associated with taking the objects of the Buddhist world to be self-existent and eternally given. In other words, they already work to counter certain manifestations of the “myth of the given.” What postmodernism and the postmetaphysical turn adds to Buddhist insight is in terms of granularity and scope of perspective. It helps Buddhists to recognize the sociocultural components of the dependent arising of phenomena, for instance; and makes it clear that the objects of our conperception are not simply “horizontally” empty, but are in some sense developmentally (and evolutionarily) emergent (e.g., tetra-arising and therefore empty of self-existence) as well.
What might help me as I am navigating the many waves that the post-metaphysical turn has unleashed through the Buddhadharma is a Buddhist “Giga-glossary.” I find myself stalling out and getting confused at different points, particularly with how some terms (such as emptiness) are being used. For instance, in speaking of emptiness, Ken often refers to emptiness (1-p, S/c), while others may focus more on emptiness (L/x) (where x might equal 8, 9, or 10, depending on the level of conperceptual insight into radical interdependence and the lack of self-existence of phenomena).
Although there are multiple ways to approach this, it seems to me that the development of a Buddhist GigaGlossary may be a very immediate and powerful way to really illustrate the impact of the shift from perception to perspective, from a metaphysics of emptiness to post-metaphysics (to the degree that post-metaphysics isn't already grasped).
Best wishes,
Bruce
Bruce, thanks. A timeless “givenness” only arises as a problem on the relative side of the street, right? You can't really say that the self-negating concept of the Unborn (or whichever other term - noun, adjective or verb - we'd use for whatever reason) presents a perpetuation of the myth as long as it is clearly understood what that stands for. That's why I have emphasized the oft repeated “is never apart from anything, and is never qualifiable as anything” for the element in question. Now, emptiness is something specific again, different even from that, since it is an antidote used in the relative sphere, sequentially in several stages - at least in three as given by the Heart Sutra. But then it may be analyzed and interpreted to generate philosophical frameworks of increasing complexity. I think that's what you mean, correct me if I'm wrong, when you point to the difference between perspectives in most KW's writing and in different Buddhist applications where indeed we may find 1-p and 3-p, and also 2-p in deity yoga; every one of those may be used in S/c and S/nd equally, as demonstrated textually by the Avatamsaka tradition, and also pushing into ever higher structures, at least implicitly, as in Japanese “Iga Kudoku Riki, Nyorai Kaji Riki, Gyui Hokai Riki, Fukuyo Ni Ju”, rendered to English “Through the power of my virtue, by the power of Dharmakaya's Grace, and by the power of the Universe Itself, we abide in unimpeded offering with all sentient beings”, or 1-p and 2-p and 3-p at the level of kosmocentric awareness. What we have is a way of distinguishing and delimiting certain elements that usually get conflated and also con-fused. The question remains, however, not with core teachings, which have so much to offer and are pointing to something in our collective future, but with their interpretations and applications in every zone in accordance with the proposed IMP or something to that effect. This primarily refers to the institutional and communal sphere, including socio-economic factors. But I would personally start from recalibrating the language used in preaching and discussing the teachings, the language used in reviewing one's practice, starting with clarity when it comes to terms such as “ego” instead of creating monstruous ideas like “egolessness” that are now everywhere we look (I'm just reading a great book by an intelligent and accomplished Western teacher full of such basic linguistic nonsense). Indeed, by healing the foundational glossary we will make the first step in the right direction, and show that we have well understood the basic lessons of Western knowledge. Then, and only then, may we clear the path in terms of ontology and epistemology that really make sense. What do you say?
Let's keep talking,
Hokai
Hokai, I will write a little more later (after work), but for the moment I wanted to ask your opinion on something: In traditional parlance, do you believe that Buddhist use of terms such as “unborn,” “emptiness,” “buddhanature,” and so on, passes post-metaphysical muster? In other words, do you think Buddhist teachings typically manage to avoid succumbing to the myth of the given, at least when it comes to the traditional definitions and uses of these terms? Or do you think even these core terms need updating?
I fully agree with you about the importance of starting with foundational language (perhaps connected to the development and application of a Buddhist GigaGlossary) and will write more about that later.
Best wishes,
Balder
Well, there is something called “reification” intimately connected to metaphysics, and in principle all post-Nagarjuna Dharma should retain the ability to pass the muster. However, that largely depends on a combination of factors and influences that, I'm sorry to say, point the opposite way. If we're talking strictly in terms of (1) Buddhist dialectical approach, or even in terms of (2) top-level realizations through centuries up to present, then the thing would look good, but we're in general dealing with Dharma as understood by the average Buddhist teacher, priest, lama or whatever. In short, core Buddhist teachings of all three vehicles allow space and indeed provide sound basis for a post-metaphysical movement onward. But the prevailing Buddhist culture, East or West, does not, IMO. And Daily Dharma is in practice very much affected by the culture it serves, and that precisely is the other side of being adaptable. So, yes, these core terms need updating, since real-life definitions are what silently passes among the ranks as the untested yet unquestioned meaning.
Yes, I'd like to discuss the language/glossary issue in more detail.
All well,
Hokai
Bruce, please see also what I've writen recently on this subject of updating at my standard blog address. It's not profound or scholarly, but gives the basic points I believe are worth considering. ~h
Hokai,
I thoroughly enjoyed your recent entry on your blog. I think it does provide a good overview of a fruitful way forward for Buddhism in light of AQAL post-metaphysics. It seems to me that your approach is both traditionally well-grounded and positively progressive, which I think is essential. A movement of spiritual renewal which too easily cuts its ties with its foundational texts and traditions is likely to run into trouble, and will have a harder time “integrating” and communicating with the spectrum of approaches that already exist within the tradition. Also, as you suggest, such a severance is not really necessary, as elements of the core texts are thus far sufficiently unrealized, in LL and LR, that it is fair to say that they represent our collective future.
About language and spiritual transformation – this has been an abiding interest of mine for a number of years. I don't know if you've come across my writings about this elsewhere, but years ago, I was deeply impressed by David Bohm's writings on the rheomode (a novel mode of English which aims to make language more transparent to itself and which emphasizes open process over reification and “thing-thinking”), and I set about trying to create my own process-oriented grammar. Interestingly, as I tried to explore how best to generate a grammar which cuts through tendencies to break the world up into static, “given” pieces, I came up with an approach which ended up emphasizing perspectives as much as it empahsized process. I created this when I was about 21 or 22 years old, long before I'd started reading Wilber (or even before he began to write about these things). In my “new grammar,” I did away both with conventional nouns and pronouns. To handle the pronoun function, I created a form of verbal inflection which indicates the “person-perspective” associated with the unfolding process. I had forgotten about this project (or, really, just put it in the back of my mind) until a few years ago, when I started reading Wilber's work on post-metaphysics and recognized that his focus on perspectives was something that had emerged for me, naturally, in my quest to find a new, more transparent, self-reflexive, process-oriented form of speaking and thinking.
I mention this now really by way of background. I do not think it is actually necessary to create an entirely new form of language – in Buddhism, or in the Integral movement in general. I am not suggesting we should do so. But I do think that the exercise of exploring statements or texts in terms of enactive perspective-processes is useful, and can actually serve as a spiritual practice in itself as well as a form of discourse (or analysis) which can be useful in the context of spiritual education and formation. I think Wilber's calculus of perspectives and his GigaGlossary proposal may both contribute to this movement. It is possible, in my opinion, to wed these things to actual “language games” and hermeneutic practices, such as Bohm's rheomode, or to postmodern techniques such as nanotextology, or even to TSK's “geometry of focal settings in time-space-knowledge” (which is used to generate striking mandalas and images).
These are just some general comments, which may apply to more than the generation of a postmetaphysical Buddhist teaching tradition. But I hope they give you an idea of where I'm coming from. I'll be happy to get into more detail in another post. I'd also like to hear your thoughts in this area.
Best wishes,
Balder
P.S. I started a thread on the subject of ”conscious language evolution” on Integral Naked awhile back.
Thank you, Bruce, very much. Several distinctions are necessary, I believe, if for no other reason, they may be helpful to other readers of this post and others that treat related subjects. When we discuss threads in great Buddhist sutras and shastras, and even tantras, and name these “magic”, “mythic”, “rational” etc. we're merely classifying the level of certain textual elements in the context. We're not necessarily locating the moment of mind creating such statements. In that sense, I can't think of one Buddhist sutra, including the most basic stuff from Pali Tipitaka, that could have been writen from a thoroughly prerational level. However, there are parts, passages, even whole teachings, addressed to audiences rooted in those earlier structures and limited by their horizons.
For those interested in integral-speak, “structure” is not the same as “altitude”. Structures may be defined in any developmental stream or line, when a general stable pattern is recognized within that line on any given level/stage of its development. These structures or patterns are then predictable for other individuals or groups about to reach the defined stage. Structures, it has been proposed, develop as kosmic habits. Multiple lines of development make the “general level of development” a very tricky issue. An individual, a group, a society, a culture, a civilization etc. may be, and usually is, relatively quite developed in one sense, average in another, and quite underdeveloped in yet another sense.
Back to historical Buddhism. The integral graph of Buddhist authors and texts in any of the great scriptural periods (turnings of the wheel) could be quite perplexing. Even without thinking of individual minds and altitude of their intentionality, the text itself is pluri-dimensional. (1) There is the question of the subject-matter, i.e. giving an interpretation of spiritual principle(s) with far-reaching implications; (2) then there's the question of inherent linguistic limitations, style of writing, use of simile and allegory and metaphor vs. argumentation and logical evidence (less prominent in sutras); (3) then there's the question of those who are receiving such teachings and all the ways they may be limited etc. Great myths were never meant to be taken literally on the whole (a corruption of the myth, according to Joseph Campbell), their figurative mode of expression being understood and presumed by anyone educated in any meaningful sense at any given time. Surely, there was a time before great myths, but we live now several thousands years after that, and several hundred years after the rational enlightenment, and several decades into the relativist mainstream culture. We shouldn't be so confused by all these things, but nevertheless many people are. And one of basic confusions is to interpret literally that which is to be interpreted metaphorically, and vice versa.
Anyway, these questions are completely separate from issues relating to whether such-and-such was aware that introspection cannot and will not reveal the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but will instead perpetuate and even cement some illusions.
That said, let me just restate my firm convinction that virtually all major Buddhist teachings are transmitted in texts that are products of unsurpassed inspiration and insight. These spiritual gems indeed point to our better future in many ways, and that's the proper reason to unpack them with caution, using all tools of discernment at our disposal, just as their authors would want us to do ten or twenty centuries ago.
I want to commend the discussion you have held here, Hokai, Bruce.
The comments following the Cohen clip, imho, outwiegh and surpass the video's content. At this I'm not surprised. I was, however, surprized by Andrew Cohen's caricature of Zen. Namely due to my perspective that the Dharmakaya (Ground-of-Being) koans are only the first few of several hundred koans. No traditional koan system ends at that first step but each are designed to explore the permutations and combinations of relationships, of the diversity of relational dynamics, addressing the multiplicity and complexity encountered and embodied by each current generation of teacher / student / teachers.
Again I'm finding that some aspects of what I hear called evolutionary enlightenment are already extant in established practices.
Thank you both for what you've asked and begun to answer.
jiki
Yes, Jikishin, the caricature approach to other perspectives doesn't work very well, though Zen in its present general form is to be scrutinized for various reasons. But I don't think any sort of “evolutionary” awareness is present within traditional teachings, since evolution in its modern meaning was quite unrecognized. Traditional samsara is a dynamic process, yes, but a cyclic one, and the only direction to uncoil the laukika pratitya-samutpada (worldly conditioning) is into a lokuttara pratitya-samutpada (transcendent conditioning), namely awakening. Further on, the role of intersubjectivity is unclear and far from the sofistication present in post-modern discourse. I'm not saying there's no context for the inclusion of evolutionary dynamics, developmental discoveries, intersubjectivity and structuralism and more refined semantic awareness into Zen or any other Buddhist framework. Indeed, I believe those systems have an astonishing amount of components that look modern to modern eyes, and postmodern to postmodern eyes, perhaps even integral to integral eyes. However, the traditions themselves remain largely conservative in a time when improvement and upgrading is more than necessary. The present realized teachers, to my knowledge at least, are largely unaware of such necessity. Most of them are still caught unprepared in the situation of global Buddhist pluralism, of which their own traditions know nothing (having developed in mutual isolation for centuries). Obviously, things are changing, but are they evolving?
Hokai
Thank you for contributing to the integral dialogue in such a meaninful way. Finally some real meat and potatoes, and no mindless chatter. My interest lays in Integral International Development and how to best bring awareness to the issues of hunger, poverty, and global micro economics, that awakens every man, woman, and child out from mindless entertainment and superficial consumerism. A call to spiritual transformation that is inclusive of mind, heart, and empowered action. As for the myth of the given, I believe all is given, I can not find where I begin or end anymore, even my thought are not my own. Pure source enjoying the constant change and dance of perpectives.
Consciousness@play!
Cheers, Natasha
It is certainly a profound challenge for the traditions, as habit lineages of concentrated, continuous transmition, to responsibly re-apply the treasures of inheritance to this radically unprecidented moment. The urgency touched on in the Being and Becoming segment and Natasha's urgency formed around broad recognitions of necessity, or her compassionate assessment of collective uses of attention, and Hokai's urgency in regards to our evolving Dharma, each affirm an imperitive, or the aspiration that personally apparent depth be acted on by greater spans.
On a personal note: I ackowledge that my own view of Zen tends toward an idiosyncratic, unusual perspective. I entered a traditional monastic environ following a few year involvement in the Conscious Evolution (via Barbara Marx Hubbard, Mike Murphy) wave of the Human Potential Movement. Hearing the teachings with an ear predisposed to listening for evolutionary relevance, my whole formal training was influenced by and applied through the views held. While I don't intend revisionism, I suspect that I often fall into it.
-falling, landed, lifted,
jiki
I agree with jikishin that the present traditions have within them the necessary tools for any post-modern deconstruction one would want to make. Zen for example would have us deconstruct the very notion of a self, along with any other concept of duality.
Language is an issue, and I need to go over what Hokai has written in this blog in more detail to really get a grasp at the points your really trying to express.
I personally have many issues with many Buddhist sects that I've been a member of, but I find it to be an issue more with individuals involved than the teachings themselves. If someone is trying to find the Truth in any sutra, or book then they are already lost. In the end, the 4 noble truths and the 8 fold path, and the law of dependence origination, and a good teacher are all that are needed get to the heart of the matter. The rest is often so much confusing prose.
I think the issue here is the utility of what one expects to get out of a Buddhist practice. I understand modern evolutionary theory very well, but I got that training in a University while studying and training to be an anthropologist, not in a Zen hall. I wouldn't expect to be taught those things in one either. To me, I find that many teachers find the details of conventional or relative knowledge to be, in the end, all the same. In the end, whatever it is, it is merely relative and only partial. All relative understanding or concepts have the same over all quality and therefore a Zen hall isn't a place to learn the details of relative truth, but to learn that it is relative along with absolute truth. They train students, not the details, but to know that the details are conditional, impermenent and in the end mental fabrications. The world of form evolves, but the quality of the world of form is the same as it was a thousand years ago, and so is the nature of suffering. This is why I don't think that a lot of masters feel the need to teach more than how the process unfolds, or how consciousness works, and how to see Reality. In the end, if you don't see Reality for what it is in the present moment, then all the rest can only add to delusion.
As far as my evolutionary training; I spent the first semester in upper division undergrad classes learning about the history of anthropological theory and history and how it wasn't just a little wrong, but so wrong that we needed to be taught to ensure the same mistakes would never happen again. But when you read the words of those early researchers, they were so sure of what they thought.
So in the end, what really evolves beyond a relative way in a localized place?
Having the right teacher is also paramount, and is the biggest problem in the equation. My teacher, who gained the right of transmission from the Grand Master of the Chung Tai Ch'an sect in Taiwan, has never felt the need to go into semantic and formulaic details from the various traditions.
The Grand Master has also been busy setting up dozens of meditation and training centers all over the world staffed with hand picked monks and abbots. One of the monks that was sent to the center in Houston, Texas was also sent to Rice U. there so that he could recieve a PhD in World Religious and Philosophy studies. This was done to help the monks better understand the many perspectives that they would encounter in the U.S.
Wouldn't this be considered a step in the right direction?
Hokai, thank you for this blog and others. I've been enjoying them on the other website.
I have a few questions:
1) Could you give a few of your ideas about what you call a wise relationship to the small self?
2) How is the deeper psychic taught in your tradition, particularly in an evolutionary context? (I understand it's usually taught with such ideas as compassion, right speech, etc., but I'm mainly interested in what new insights you have or what you think are the key ideas.) What are the attributes of deeper psychic in your view, and how is it realized fully?
3) Where do you think Andrew Cohen's teachings fall short? I wasn't clear about what left you with the aftertaste.
Thanks,
David
Holden, thanks for your comment. “In the end, whatever it is, it is merely relative and only partial. All relative understanding or concepts have the same over all quality and therefore a Zen hall isn't a place to learn the details of relative truth.” That's exacty the generalization we don't need, and that got some Zen people (including teachers) in trouble. First of all, there's false relative knowledge and correct relative knowledge. Most of Buddhist training is about these two, and based in the correct relative (also in Zen), with an awareness - yes - that it's relative knowledge. But being of same over all quality? I don't think so. Relative knowledge is only illusion when it is considered to be absolute. And absolute, of course, cannot be partial, because it has no parts. So, you see, only relative knowledge can hope to become less partial, more integral.
David, thank you. (1) Simply said, a wise relationship to small self is one based on kindness (maitri) to all one's experiences. This kindness has a horizontal (therapeutic) aspect, and a vertical (transformative) one as well. Also, all this talk against the “ego” as being the enemy of evolution is rather silly. Learning to hate the ego with spiritual reasons is not a very good way. Becoming cynical is the result. Instead, working with one's shadow is probably a good way to start, and then also develop good self-awareness through education, culture and meditation. (2) Deeper psychic is taught as “bodhicitta” in my tradition (a little different than other Buddhist schools), and it's given a form of Vajrasattva. It is said that, once awakened, it never ceases to shine more brightly, so there's a sense of effulgence and growth in the very notion of initial awakening. I have writen about it here and here. But basically, “realizing deeper psychic fully”, as you put it, should be equal to realizing Sambhogakaya in Buddhist terms, and that is a specialty of deity-yoga. (3) I don't think Andrew's teachings fall short anywhere. Actually, in formulating the teachings, I believe he's doing great. I don't about him being a teacher. But my aftertaste comes from his treatment of traditions, and saying things like, “That was great 2000 years ago!” First of all, it was great for Andrew Cohen 30 years ago. He also discovered evolution by waking into it, although in school he was told that everything in this world develops through time (babies, cultures, lanugages etc.) So, let's put all that in some perspective.
Hokai
I agree with you, but I when I say that relative truth has the same quality, I mean only partial, impermanent, conceptual, and often the mirror opposite in a dualistic relationship, as opposed to a True Opposite.
When learning relative truth, and I'm not against it, because I'm a anthropology student and my goal is to expand relative truth, the most important part of the equation is a certain quality of mind. With that quality of mind, whatever relative or conventional thing a person learns will be seen as it is, and not reified into what it isn't. This will no longer mean That.
Take evolution for example. To truly understand the Modern Synthesis of evolutionary theory, as it's called, one must hold a great deal of abstraction in one's head. The most important aspect of this it to understand that the parts one is focusing on aren't separate things, but merely a single point on a continuum of change. The relative parts that we choose to focus upon at any given moment are really arbitrary at the end of the day. That is, often there is as much variation in a species currently existent as there is contained within it's evolutionary history. Then there's a matter of how to even define or type a species; where one starts and another ends. There really are no natural joints to be found, but are all relative and arbitrary depending upon the purpose of any given measurement.
Simply stated, there is no end to relative truth. At the end of the day, the most pragmatic and wise course of action is to teach someone the ability to “Just See.” When that is done and relative truth can be seen in it's proper light and perspective, a much more sound conclusion will be made.
My mother is a retired principle. She just retired and the conclusion of her 34 years as an educator were that we should focus more on teaching children the ability to learn, rather than simply pick and choose certain aspect of relative truth to dispense and to memorize.
Your right that there is more correct relative knowledge, conventionally speaking, but in the end, it seems that even the Precepts, when not carried out with proper understanding become a hindrance rather than a tool.
And again, your right that even speaking of awareness, Zen or the absolute is relative, but insn't the the direct way to get someone to understand the true nature of what is being pointed at, via the relative, the quality of mind that can “Just See?”
Holden, your points have merit. Seems you are talking of initial awakening, after which all relative knowledge is held lightly (let's hope, responsibly). Once you have an understanding of non-separateness, you don't to remind yourself of it. The relative parts are NOT “really arbitrary at the of the day”, they are only partially arbitrary. Also, thank God there's no end to relative truth, because I hope this is only the beginning. It's too much fun! You see, it took us half a million years of language to come where your mother is today.
I agree with you on precepts and all relative method, but there's no way around it. Dispensing with it will only leave you conceptualizing the absolute. You need to get your act together (by “you” I mean anyone with unresolved issues on two truths) and study your precepts more thoroughly so that you indeed practice them with proper understanding.
Yes, some people - not many - may initially “get it”, and that's why masters in mahamudra and dzogchen, and sometimes in zen, use the method of pointing out to that quality, but then it takes an average 20 years of training (and skill in the relative, including culture, meditation and education) to stabilize that flash in a permanent realization and to own it with a meaningful expression in daily life. And that, once everything is undone, is just the beginning, right?
Let me quote from the post above: “As some Zenists would rightly argue, “You have to say something!” Also, in other profound/esoteric traditions, the flow of time is given due respect as an equally important half of reality, as a gesture of the Unborn, but first you better awaken to the Unborn, and not just for a moment. Then, find the right way of expressing this realization in every thought, word, and deed, in accordance with your context, and the context is today - yes, yes - evolutionary to the core.”
Gassho,
Hokai
I see what your saying. I can see how it can all be confusing, but doesn't it really depend upon the individual's level of understanding at the beginning of their practice? For some people it will take them many years anyway, most in fact, and can't conceptual training of the absolute deepen one's confusion, which will later have to be one more thing to overcome?
In the Zaadz I-I forum, I've noticed that there are many people that see the Absolute as something in particular, in a reified, deistic kind of way.
This as you've said goes back to a confused understanding of the two truths.
Now that I think of it, I didn't learn about the two truths in a direct conceptual way at my Ch'an hall, but reading an American Zen priest Steve Hagen, that is doing what your talking about, but in a way that is more of what I'm talking about. Reading it directly helped me immensely and probably saved me years. So, yeah, your right.
Do you think that this problem is partially caused because students are pretty much on their own in the Mahayana traditions?
You know, I think my problem with all this is two-fold. First, I didn't realize that there was such a problem. For some reason I've been lucky to pick up really good books in my life, and I've had amazing and deeping understanding teachers. I guess, I've assumed that this is just the normal experience that young students of the Dharma have as they enter the stream.
I just finished listening to a Dharma talk by Steve Hagen, entitled, “Big self, little self.” Here: http://www.dharmafield.org/
Just hit the speaker symbol under the link, Listen to an excerpt, and then hit the link for the Talk.
He talks about having to fight the publishers at Shambala everytime he writes a book, because the makes distinctions between the two truths, and they don't get it, so they send it back to him and tell him to change what they think of as a type-o.
He has also noticed it in Buddhism as of late, so he felt he need to made the distinction.
However, he also backs up my previous thesis, that it is not the point of the Dharma to push relative truth, but to realize it's true nature.
As, I've said, I've studied evolution for years, and think I understand it better than most Integrally minded people that toss around the word, evolution. I've seen other students minds twist in consternation as they try to grasp these great truths with dualistic minds. And that's the point. Some relative truth is more true in a relative way than other relative truth, but what makes all the difference is the quality of mind that resonates with that truth.
As a person “climbs the ladder” the same relative truths take on wholly different qualities.
And that is the purpose of the Dharma. To say that it is anything else is to corrupt it, to just make it another “ism” in the modern world.
If you want to understand evolution, then study evolution. If you want to see directly the two truths and abide in direct and absolute awareness, then go to a master. Otherwise its like putting a camera, a mp3 player and a phone all together in one device. You end up getting a crappy camera, phone and mp3 player.
Actually, the iphone may have made that last example obsolete. Ok, its like Wal-Mart. Its a one stop shopping experience, but you not gonna get anything really good there.
What do you think?
Yeah, Holder, the primary point of the Dharma IS to realize he ultimate meaning. However, you are using a spurious argument, since the whole work is done through the relative truth. Once the ultimate dawns, it is rather self-evident. The prep-work and also the integration of ultimate insight into the relative world is all dependent on your relative understanding, i.e. your structural development and the integration of all existential aspects in accordance with cultural and societal contexts.
Nagarjuna wrote in his Mulamadhyamaka, “Doctrines taught by the Buddhas rely completely on the two truths.” To better explain the connection between these two, masters Asanga and Vasubandhu have elaborated the doctrine of three natures (tri-svabhava). None of these great masters has ever given a hint that relative truth is secondary or less important to the Dharma. To claim so is to unleash total confusion, since the ultimate DOES NOT discriminate.
You seem to propagate two beings in your place, a relative one that studies evolution, and an absolute one that listens to Steve Hagen. But that's not what two truths are, that's the classic split and dissociation between spirituatliy and natural science. Your problem is twofold, as you say. First, you don't see there's a problem. Second, you call your problem Dharma. So, you don't even need a solution. But that's OK for me, if it's OK for you. You just don't need to go around and tell others they are corrupting Dharma with their dualistic minds. Yes, methods work great for achieving insight and realizing nirvana here and now. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending where you stand) Dharma is much more than just methods of awakening, it is also a great spiritual tradition with ethics, philosophies, cultural forms etc. Good luck in separating the two.
(If your interested, you can find more zen/advaita/noproblem discussion here, passionately undone and clarified by the good Daniel Ingram. Best moment: “Practice well.”)
In short, if Dharma for whatever reason doesn't deal with evolution, evolution will deal with Dharma. So far, Dharma's been keeping pace just fine, but more on that in my “History and Dharma” series.
Everyone, thanks for your contribution.
Hokai
Ok, part of what I was saying was based upon Nagarjuna. That is why I didn't think there was a problem, because I thought that this debate was put to bed by him over a thousand years ago. Accoding to you, Hagen, and many others that have a more direct and clearer understanding of what is going on in the Buddhist temples and halls around the world are saying that this issue, has in fact, not been put aside. According to Hagen, the problem is getting worse. In the back of my mind I always wondered if this was getting out in various temples, but to be fair, I didn't understand the languages spoken in most of those temples.
I also need to qualify my previous post, because my point was lost somewhere in transmission. I don't feel that there is any seperation between Dharma and the 8 fold path, and my studies of evolution and other scientific endevors. I'm saying that I am able to understand these complex relative truths in a way that I wouldn't if I didn't see things in a more direct way. My argument is a classic one and a pragmatic one. Its the give a man a fish or teach the man to fish.
If a person has a clear mind with true understanding of the nature of all things, then they will have a clearer understanding of ALL realtive truth. So when they study art, science, literature, etc… they will already be ligh years ahead. I see the Dharma, metaphorically as a Universal tool for all relative truth, and not something that we should start picking and choosing certain relative truths to focus upon so we can later get to the same point that we are trying to get. It seems like a very circular argument to me. We need to use more relative truth to understand the true nature of relative truth to understand other relative truths more clearly.
But, you clearly say that there is a problem in the Zen halls and Buddhist temples around the world, and from what I've seen in my travels, I can't argue with you. I look forward to learning more from you about this.
So, two questions; What can we do about it, other than just be examples to our Sanghas?
And, how do we make sure that dealing directly with the conceptual frameworks, like Integral or evolution (I completely agree with your point that we have to deal with concepts to get anywhere anyway. But, so far we've only been dealing with a minimal amount and only those that deal with the nature of suffering and it's end.) don't just become more chains that tie people down. It would seem that there would be a point where teaching these things would be more confusing and delusion enforcing than helpful, until a certain point.
How does one deal with that? Skillful means?
Hokai, thank you very much for your answers. I especially liked this one:
“Simply said, a wise relationship to small self is one based on kindness (maitri) to all one's experiences. This kindness has a horizontal (therapeutic) aspect, and a vertical (transformative) one as well. Also, all this talk against the “ego” as being the enemy of evolution is rather silly. Learning to hate the ego with spiritual reasons is not a very good way. Becoming cynical is the result.”
Very insightful about the result being cynicism if one makes an enemy out of the personal self. I see this clearly now that you've said it. There would also be a sense of superiority–the superego rather than the deeper psychic. However, I also see clearly that the deeper psychic and the personal self are on two different lines–“parellel lines,” as Andrew Cohen says, “that never meet”– so it seems inevitable that there will be some conflict between the two, a serious one perhaps. It seems that something like “negate and preserve,” as Ken puts it, would be necessary, but this comes awfully close to making an enemy out of the frontal self, yes? How do you deal with this? Also, does your teacher have the same integral view that you do?
Thanks again,
David
Holden: ”If a person has a clear mind with true understanding of the nature of all things, then they will have a clearer understanding of ALL realtive truth.” Well, not necessarily. All serious dysfunction in the relative (rupakaya) will be made even worse. I understand your intention behind this, and I had the same belief until life proved me wrong. Yes, it becomes clearer that relative is indeed relative, but this does not necessarily translate into a healthier relative existence.
As to your questions at the end of comment, no simple recipe, I'm sorry. One suggestion is that you supplement your Dharma with an updated View, because View is never separated from Emptiness, and while Emptiness may remain in perfect equipoise for all eternity, the View keeps reinventing itself. Root your awareness in the Ground - Yes! - but also do supplement with what is felt as missing. Two notions may be helpful and not to be found in traditional Dharma: (1) shadow or repressed unconscious, and (2) developmental structures and/or levels of interpretation. These will surely take us a long way, before AND after awakening. When you're confused, just be clear and frank about it. Actually, that's all the skill in means you will ever need.
* * * * * * *
David: ”…this comes awfully close to making an enemy out of the frontal self, yes? How do you deal with this? Also, does your teacher have the same integral view that you do?” First, it's not just the ego OR the deeper psychic, although there's an ordinary tension there, simply because one is biographic and local and the other is not. It's not either/or, but instead both/and. To solve this issue, it's not enough to develop an unknowing friendliness to the personal identity. It is crucial to understand there are unhealthy and healthy egos, and we need to establish health in the frontal structure. So, instead of demonizing the “ego” (which is just a developmental structure anyway), we need to work with dysfunctions to develop a functional ego. Then, a functional ego may serve the master well.
As to your second question, :-))) Of course not, all three of them. Often it's not clear who's teaching, but we're all grownups. They have their own integrative view (although they probably wouldn't use that term), but we effectively share who we are nonetheless, due to our common path and a strong connection, which is more than I could hope. I'll just say that - like myself - they have a bit of their estate in every tier and every quadrant. So, when you put all the pieces together, I guess we're all integral.:-)))
Hokai
Thanx for the answers Hokai. I just want to be clear about one of your points. Are you saying that this incorporation should be included from the beginning of a practice, or after a person is already well grounded in the path? And, does this relative truth incorporation into the Dharma, that is particular discriminations and evolutionary frameworks include going out in the world and trying to “improve” it. Just assume I know what I'm talking about for a second and take those questions the right way, as they can be taken in a very wrong way as well.
When I ask that second question, it is coming from years of ethnographic study of a lot of local and global projects designed to “improve” things “out there” and end up doing as much damage as good in the end. Be it infrastructure development in Africa, environmental protection or just charities. I think that all the evidence proves that until people understand that they don't know all the consequences of their actions and begin to operate more in line with the Whole, instead of seeing things as separate things.
This is my main concern, so what do you think?
I guess this depends on the person in question, doesn't it. Relatively sane individuals may go for the Big E right in the beginning, and not waste 20 years learning a lot of Tibetan or Japanese lore. It may take 5 or 10 years for the first awakening, but having a clear priority is beneficial. Everyone will encounter shadow and structures in this period, not necessarily in dysfunctional terms but, hey, we're all human. Will they recognize their significance? Will they correctly conceptualize their dynamics and relevance in the overall game? Can that recognotion and conceptualization influence their awakening and post-awakening? Then, people with considerable psychological hickups should probably go through therapy before beginning serious practice - uncovering, consolidation and owning up - and learn the skills they lack due to personal and collective imbalance. Meditation will make serious imbalance even worse, and mind-blowing experiences may do exactly that. I mean, essentially it's like whether one should include and supplement a spiritual path with bodily exercise and good diet. If you're incredibly healtyh you may not need to, ever. But then, even healthy people may benefit from movement and thoughtful nutrition, right?
As to the second one, generally, doing less but doing it effectively may be the right way, and being as integrative as you can will go a long way in making us and our operations resonate with where the world really is. But we need to do something, right? Well, not everyone, but for some this will be the primary vehicle. Also, awakened people don't give up that easily, and readily change their behaviour and thinking if necessary. Quadrants, levels, lines, state, types etc. are concepts, alright, just like three trainings, three wisdoms, three yanas, three kayas etc. But these all these concepts ideally point to something that's already there, and something that may be included and cultivated as a natural ability, made part of one's spontaneous awareness inbeing, knowing and doing, right? Your concern is a reasoned one, and if I'm right we can see eye to eye on this, yes?
Hokai
Thank you, Hokai. :) That's very helpful. Could you tell me what ways of working with the frontal self make most sense to you? And could you explain how dysfunction in the relative gets worse with a realization of the absolute?
David
Hey, David, you're welcome. I'm glad if you find it useful. There are many schools that make sense to be honest, it depends which level of the spectrum you need to address, whether the approach is available to you, but also mostly it depends on the individual therapist. Shadow-work is probably the main thing to go for (3-2-1 process is a simple way to get started), in addition to some gestalt and transaction if that's what you need. But, I repeat, it depends on individual difficulties: everything meaningful begins with a relevant diagnosis.:-)
Dysfunction definitely gets worse, because the relative personality may (1) get “left to its own devices” which in itself is a “transcendist/ascendist” pathology, (2) get overwhelmed by energies liberated at any stage in realization, especially with some subtle openings, or (3) the shadow aspects may appopriate some of the newly acquired impersonal grandeur/authenticity and establish effectively their own strategies. Surely there are combinations of these, as well as other types of problems. Please consult ”Integral Spirituality” for details, and you will find great stuff on both your questions. Daniel Ingram also gives some great examples in his hardcore dharma approach, though more practice oriented with much less theoretical detail. You can download his whole book here, or read it online as a “blook”.
Hope you find this useful.;-)
Godspeed,
Hokai
Thanks, Hokai. That's great. :)
David