History and Dharma (8)
Are you still with me? This part is a bit longer.
Development in states and structures is obviously distinct, though not entirely separate. The nature of growth is quite different, though in both cases we find a shift in one's "center of gravity" (COG). However, one cannot "peak-experience" a higher structure, and also structures cannot be skipped. On the other hand, you can peak-experience any state plus you can master the formless without developing serious competence in the subtle domain, and vice versa. Hence, the states are much more fluid and overlapping than structures.
Structures, in all developmental lines, emerge sequentially. What looks like structures "overlapping" is uneven development in various lines. Structures, it seems, emerge by conscious engagement with the world of subject/s and object/s, with purpose of effecting a transformation in them. Structures tetra-evolve (as in AQAL). Specifically, the integral structure's unprecedented ability to presentiate makes it possible to synthesize previously opposed elements, which makes this whole discussion possible, but also interesting only to someone who resonates with that potential.
On the contrary, states tend to be mutually exclusive. Waking and sleeping exclude each other (there are types of disorder that only seem to contradict this, and are therefore properly called "disorders"; on the other end, there are advanced levels of state-transparency in the nondual that do not contradict the opacity between states themselves, the nondual not being a separate state as such). State-stages may be conceived in many different way and sequences consisting of two or up to two dozen steps; most, if not all, share a deep feature, a general movement from fragmented awareness to unification and union and nondual unity, some models not going all the way, some models being much more sophisticated than others, some limiting their sophistication in particular levels of the state-spectrum etc. State-stages are realized by engaging awareness itself, usually consciously through attention and intention, with purpose of effecting a sublimation of attention and/or unity in the attention-field, i.e. discovering some fundamental feature of awareness. Even when subjects/objects are engaged in context of certain techniques (e.g. breath, visualization, energies), the strategy is conscious disengagement ("disidentification") and liberation from everything recognized as not ultimate, in order to realize freedom as the ultimate. Then, this freedom may be released into everything arising, including available structures of consciousness. Because of this difference in mode of progression - engagement vs. disengagement - conventional and contemplative development can be, and have been, misunderstood as opposed to each other. In reality, they are complementary and irreducible, each with it's own rules, sequences, obstacles, problems, and stages.
States as such do not show development, but development is possible in consciously and intentionally accessing them to the point of realizing access at will, resulting in lasting adaptation. The natural states of waking, dreaming and sleeping are in average individuals arising spontaneously in regular cycles with specific processes in the body, somewhat like day/night and seasons. Trained states such as access concentration (or upacara samadhi), form-dhyana (or savikalpa samadhi) and formless-dhyana (or nirvikalpa samadhi) are a variation on the natural states of waking, dreaming and sleeping, but consisting of mindful, alert presence coupled with deep relaxation.
(*Training in such states is extremely detailed and well-established in some traditions, though most people who follow general spiritual teachings tend to be ignorant about this, just as most spiritual teachers seem to be more interested in rituals, concepts and beliefs, as these have a lot to do with their image, influence and income. Again, the usual disproportion of exoteric consolation and esoteric realization. Buddhism East and West is no exception to this, nor is any Buddhist tradition in particular. Ignorance or confusion in state-training is common with most critics of KW's work in this field.)
Let us return, yet again, to the diagram showing structures of consciousness and forms of mysticism, known as the Wilber-Combs lattice.
Now, in diagram depicting structures and states, we find left/vertical: arhaic, magic, mythic, rational, pluralistic, integral; and top/horizontal: gross/nature, subtle/deity, causal/formless, nondual/nondual. I believe there could be misunderstanding with the top/horizontal terminology.
Admitedly we have to be careful here, because what Wilber intends with these "mysticisms" is basically STATES, not specific interpretations, disciplines and formalities that we tend to equate with them (e.g. Vajrayana, as we know it, is not available to lowest structures). So states do not presume specific content, and "equally available" does not imply any level or type of competence (entering, sustaining and exiting at will). Though, one can imagine extremely gifted individuals with very high levels of state-competence without any training, and those individuals may find themselves at any stage of structural development. So, some content will always be there with states, as well as with structures, but these designations refer to deep features only.
Each structures contains a vast variety of content and behaviors, and in the same manner each great state allows all sorts of intra- and inter- varieties, including frequence, duration, ability, and awareness. Having a regular dream experience, a frequent lucid dreaming, and mastering the utpatti-krama in meditation are not the same, but belong in the same general state-category of "subtle" class.
You see, when we say "ability" or "competence", we often presume a definite structural stage, by implying views, values, interpretations, behaviors and motives expected from someone inhabiting specific states. Admitedly, the likelihood of subtle disciplines may increase with mythic, and of causal disciplines with rational, and of nondual disciplines with post-rational. But all humans wake, dream, sleep, and have some witnessing capacity.
Being blind to our own structure, we easily presume that the Unmanifest Ground or Universal Love has a definite implicit meaning. However, this lattice challenges us to seriously reconsider such implications. Now, the ramifications of all this are far reaching indeed.
In short, "awakening" presumes a state of separation from which one is awakened. "Original wakefulness" (or buddha-nature) signifies the unconditional nature of awakening. Yes, it's a paradox. The state of separation, therefore, is illusory when reified. It is, however, relatively real when realized as mere appearance, retaining all functionality. This correct realization of conditionality is contigent on awakening as the Ultimate itself. Hence, dependent co-arising equals emptiness and That is the Middle. That this state of separation itself evolves through history and life is a recent discovery, hence structures of consciousness. Those same structures, purified of fundamental confusion, serve in expressing the meaning of awakening adequately.
True awakening, therefore, only has meaning insomuch as it's expressed in full structural terms at any point in time-and-space, such meaning being significantly determined by operative structure/s (from this, Wilber develops the "conveyor belt" analogy). Consequently, traditional awakening has limited meaning for modern and postmodern structures. Also, modern and postmodern advancements and pathologies do not appear on the radar of premodern awakening, and are poorly understood, if at all.
Again, you might object, "Premodern awakening? What does that even mean, when we know the wisdom of awakening is timeless and all-knowing." Well, since the two truths are realized together, the wisdom of awakening is never eternal: first, because the absolute is beyond all distinctions, including those just quoted that are used only as metaphor, and second, because distinctions made may be true or false, hence relative truth must be subjected to confirmation again and again, to include and embrace should anything be found unaccounted for, anything like structures of consciousness and their evolution.
Development in states and structures is obviously distinct, though not entirely separate. The nature of growth is quite different, though in both cases we find a shift in one's "center of gravity" (COG). However, one cannot "peak-experience" a higher structure, and also structures cannot be skipped. On the other hand, you can peak-experience any state plus you can master the formless without developing serious competence in the subtle domain, and vice versa. Hence, the states are much more fluid and overlapping than structures.
Structures, in all developmental lines, emerge sequentially. What looks like structures "overlapping" is uneven development in various lines. Structures, it seems, emerge by conscious engagement with the world of subject/s and object/s, with purpose of effecting a transformation in them. Structures tetra-evolve (as in AQAL). Specifically, the integral structure's unprecedented ability to presentiate makes it possible to synthesize previously opposed elements, which makes this whole discussion possible, but also interesting only to someone who resonates with that potential.
On the contrary, states tend to be mutually exclusive. Waking and sleeping exclude each other (there are types of disorder that only seem to contradict this, and are therefore properly called "disorders"; on the other end, there are advanced levels of state-transparency in the nondual that do not contradict the opacity between states themselves, the nondual not being a separate state as such). State-stages may be conceived in many different way and sequences consisting of two or up to two dozen steps; most, if not all, share a deep feature, a general movement from fragmented awareness to unification and union and nondual unity, some models not going all the way, some models being much more sophisticated than others, some limiting their sophistication in particular levels of the state-spectrum etc. State-stages are realized by engaging awareness itself, usually consciously through attention and intention, with purpose of effecting a sublimation of attention and/or unity in the attention-field, i.e. discovering some fundamental feature of awareness. Even when subjects/objects are engaged in context of certain techniques (e.g. breath, visualization, energies), the strategy is conscious disengagement ("disidentification") and liberation from everything recognized as not ultimate, in order to realize freedom as the ultimate. Then, this freedom may be released into everything arising, including available structures of consciousness. Because of this difference in mode of progression - engagement vs. disengagement - conventional and contemplative development can be, and have been, misunderstood as opposed to each other. In reality, they are complementary and irreducible, each with it's own rules, sequences, obstacles, problems, and stages.
States as such do not show development, but development is possible in consciously and intentionally accessing them to the point of realizing access at will, resulting in lasting adaptation. The natural states of waking, dreaming and sleeping are in average individuals arising spontaneously in regular cycles with specific processes in the body, somewhat like day/night and seasons. Trained states such as access concentration (or upacara samadhi), form-dhyana (or savikalpa samadhi) and formless-dhyana (or nirvikalpa samadhi) are a variation on the natural states of waking, dreaming and sleeping, but consisting of mindful, alert presence coupled with deep relaxation.
(*Training in such states is extremely detailed and well-established in some traditions, though most people who follow general spiritual teachings tend to be ignorant about this, just as most spiritual teachers seem to be more interested in rituals, concepts and beliefs, as these have a lot to do with their image, influence and income. Again, the usual disproportion of exoteric consolation and esoteric realization. Buddhism East and West is no exception to this, nor is any Buddhist tradition in particular. Ignorance or confusion in state-training is common with most critics of KW's work in this field.)
Let us return, yet again, to the diagram showing structures of consciousness and forms of mysticism, known as the Wilber-Combs lattice.
Now, in diagram depicting structures and states, we find left/vertical: arhaic, magic, mythic, rational, pluralistic, integral; and top/horizontal: gross/nature, subtle/deity, causal/formless, nondual/nondual. I believe there could be misunderstanding with the top/horizontal terminology.
Admitedly we have to be careful here, because what Wilber intends with these "mysticisms" is basically STATES, not specific interpretations, disciplines and formalities that we tend to equate with them (e.g. Vajrayana, as we know it, is not available to lowest structures). So states do not presume specific content, and "equally available" does not imply any level or type of competence (entering, sustaining and exiting at will). Though, one can imagine extremely gifted individuals with very high levels of state-competence without any training, and those individuals may find themselves at any stage of structural development. So, some content will always be there with states, as well as with structures, but these designations refer to deep features only.
Each structures contains a vast variety of content and behaviors, and in the same manner each great state allows all sorts of intra- and inter- varieties, including frequence, duration, ability, and awareness. Having a regular dream experience, a frequent lucid dreaming, and mastering the utpatti-krama in meditation are not the same, but belong in the same general state-category of "subtle" class.
You see, when we say "ability" or "competence", we often presume a definite structural stage, by implying views, values, interpretations, behaviors and motives expected from someone inhabiting specific states. Admitedly, the likelihood of subtle disciplines may increase with mythic, and of causal disciplines with rational, and of nondual disciplines with post-rational. But all humans wake, dream, sleep, and have some witnessing capacity.
Being blind to our own structure, we easily presume that the Unmanifest Ground or Universal Love has a definite implicit meaning. However, this lattice challenges us to seriously reconsider such implications. Now, the ramifications of all this are far reaching indeed.
In short, "awakening" presumes a state of separation from which one is awakened. "Original wakefulness" (or buddha-nature) signifies the unconditional nature of awakening. Yes, it's a paradox. The state of separation, therefore, is illusory when reified. It is, however, relatively real when realized as mere appearance, retaining all functionality. This correct realization of conditionality is contigent on awakening as the Ultimate itself. Hence, dependent co-arising equals emptiness and That is the Middle. That this state of separation itself evolves through history and life is a recent discovery, hence structures of consciousness. Those same structures, purified of fundamental confusion, serve in expressing the meaning of awakening adequately.
True awakening, therefore, only has meaning insomuch as it's expressed in full structural terms at any point in time-and-space, such meaning being significantly determined by operative structure/s (from this, Wilber develops the "conveyor belt" analogy). Consequently, traditional awakening has limited meaning for modern and postmodern structures. Also, modern and postmodern advancements and pathologies do not appear on the radar of premodern awakening, and are poorly understood, if at all.
Again, you might object, "Premodern awakening? What does that even mean, when we know the wisdom of awakening is timeless and all-knowing." Well, since the two truths are realized together, the wisdom of awakening is never eternal: first, because the absolute is beyond all distinctions, including those just quoted that are used only as metaphor, and second, because distinctions made may be true or false, hence relative truth must be subjected to confirmation again and again, to include and embrace should anything be found unaccounted for, anything like structures of consciousness and their evolution.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home