History and Dharma
As I have mentioned in my recent articles (here, here and especially here) it is our crucial task to determine the structural contours within Buddhist thought and practice. The valuable distinction between ever-present states (e.g. gross, subtle, causal, nondual) and developmental structures (for example archaic, magic, mythic, rational, pluralistic, integral and further) is necessary and barely sufficient at this point in time to update the great wisdom traditions and bring them effectively into 21st century. The other moves are recognition and inclusion of the general developmental logic into their understanding of human psychology and identity (including the repressed unconscious), and also of valuable postmodern findings that have to do with contexts, semantics and intersubjectivity. For those interested in initial elaborations of these issues, see here.
Back to states vs. structures. What I'm interested in is how states & structures co-arise, in other words, in which ways and to what extent they affect each other? Has anything changed in that influence from premodern to modern to postmodern? Is our role in that relationship somewhat different due to the growing awareness of such distinctions?
Once the distinction is made, that is, once the importance of not con-fusing the natural states and developmental structures becomes established and accepted, once we learn how to recognize and differentiate the state-perspective (zone#1, diagram here and here) and the structure perspective (zone#2, for 8 zones and IMP see here), further once we learn to avoid various forms of "level-absolutism" and "line-absolutism" and, I would add, state-absolutism... we can move into this reality-territory and begin spotting some important corelations between states and structures, which is also the corelation, if I may put it that way, between atemporal awakening (a la Orient) and historical enlightenment (a la Occident). Let me give some examples and ask some simple questions to begin with.
(1) At the time of Siddhartha Gautama, 6th century BC, what was the average worldview? There were various strands within the mainstream culture of Northern India: magical culture was very strong with common folks, early mythic-literal thinking with the rulling warrior-caste, with corresponding value systems. While the brahmanic priesthood practiced a mixture of magic and myth institutionalized in hereditary lineages (often to this day), small groups of forest renunciates practiced extreme forms of asceticism and meditation systems leading to savikalpa and nirvikalpa samadhi (i.e. eight dhyanas in later Buddhist classification). Logic and dialectics were just beginning to be developed and organized into systems. Vedic knowledge was the Norm, and has been for centuries. Around this time, several teachers have offered ways to reform or even revolutionize the existing framework, including Gautama the Buddha.
(2) Judging by the earliest texts, such as the Sutta-Nipata (here in .pdf format), these teachings were transmitted in verse for ease of memorization, and did not provide sophisticated elaborations of philosophical principles, but were instead chiefly concerned with practical spirituality based in ethics, awareness, and wisdom. Later development, however, gave birth to records of exquisite sophistication in waves known as "turnings of the Dharma-cakra". Such sophistication, perhaps unparalleled, produced myths of fascinating beauty and complexity along with logical inquiries of stark precision. (What would Dharmakirti enjoy more, a meeting with St Augustin, or a discussion with Wittgenstein?)
The mainstream culture in societies where Buddhism took hold, however, has remained firmly entrenched in feudal conditions for all two thousand years. Modernity, for various reasons in all quadrants, has not been a global phenomenon, until recent history made the world a very small place.
(to be continued)
If you're interested, some discussion at the zaadz cross-post.
Back to states vs. structures. What I'm interested in is how states & structures co-arise, in other words, in which ways and to what extent they affect each other? Has anything changed in that influence from premodern to modern to postmodern? Is our role in that relationship somewhat different due to the growing awareness of such distinctions?
Once the distinction is made, that is, once the importance of not con-fusing the natural states and developmental structures becomes established and accepted, once we learn how to recognize and differentiate the state-perspective (zone#1, diagram here and here) and the structure perspective (zone#2, for 8 zones and IMP see here), further once we learn to avoid various forms of "level-absolutism" and "line-absolutism" and, I would add, state-absolutism... we can move into this reality-territory and begin spotting some important corelations between states and structures, which is also the corelation, if I may put it that way, between atemporal awakening (a la Orient) and historical enlightenment (a la Occident). Let me give some examples and ask some simple questions to begin with.
(1) At the time of Siddhartha Gautama, 6th century BC, what was the average worldview? There were various strands within the mainstream culture of Northern India: magical culture was very strong with common folks, early mythic-literal thinking with the rulling warrior-caste, with corresponding value systems. While the brahmanic priesthood practiced a mixture of magic and myth institutionalized in hereditary lineages (often to this day), small groups of forest renunciates practiced extreme forms of asceticism and meditation systems leading to savikalpa and nirvikalpa samadhi (i.e. eight dhyanas in later Buddhist classification). Logic and dialectics were just beginning to be developed and organized into systems. Vedic knowledge was the Norm, and has been for centuries. Around this time, several teachers have offered ways to reform or even revolutionize the existing framework, including Gautama the Buddha.
(2) Judging by the earliest texts, such as the Sutta-Nipata (here in .pdf format), these teachings were transmitted in verse for ease of memorization, and did not provide sophisticated elaborations of philosophical principles, but were instead chiefly concerned with practical spirituality based in ethics, awareness, and wisdom. Later development, however, gave birth to records of exquisite sophistication in waves known as "turnings of the Dharma-cakra". Such sophistication, perhaps unparalleled, produced myths of fascinating beauty and complexity along with logical inquiries of stark precision. (What would Dharmakirti enjoy more, a meeting with St Augustin, or a discussion with Wittgenstein?)
The mainstream culture in societies where Buddhism took hold, however, has remained firmly entrenched in feudal conditions for all two thousand years. Modernity, for various reasons in all quadrants, has not been a global phenomenon, until recent history made the world a very small place.
(to be continued)
If you're interested, some discussion at the zaadz cross-post.
Labels: buddhism, integral, myth, religion, spirituality
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home