Emergent Bodhicitta
(The previous post on Buddhist Evolution concluded that "Giving birth to bodhicitta becomes nondual with giving birth to a new level of authenticity, the latter a natural continuation of the former." Let's move on.)
I guess you know about bodhicitta, the awakening mind. It's often presented as absolute and relative, so there you have the very subject (i.e. citta) as the locus of the greatest tension: the tension between that which is only and self-evidently real yet hidden from most, namely the absolute, and that which appears to be for some and appears to not be for others while all remain excited about it, namely the relative. Absolute bodhicitta is born from wisdom beyond all elaboration, the truth of emptiness, and is in short the non-relative position to everything - all phenomena, all experiences, all situations, all conditions, all states. The relative bodhicitta is usually explained as intention and application, or aspiring and engaging, to realize the absolute bodhicitta. According to the traditional understanding of the path, as in the five stages on the path of a bodhisattva, training in relative bodhicitta to realize absolute bodhicitta takes a very, very, very long time. In short, it most probably ain't in this life, so....
(*If we go into details of that model, we'll quickly have to conclude that it does not fit our reality. I'm not aiming at that, not here. If you're interested in a no non-sense perspective on un/realistic models, see Dan Ingram's discussion by reading chapter 31, parts I-XI, from his book "Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha".)
Absolute bodhicitta is, therefore, as yet unrealized for the regular aspirant to awakening. But the View must be in place if we are to practice properly, right? And absolute is crucial in the View, yes? We need correct intellectual intimations and strong direct intuitions of this fundamental fact to aspire and be moved to translate that aspiration into a discipline of purification and transformation. So, the absolute must be established by experience, through a spontaneous recognition, or through association with a teacher, or through pointing out, or through diligent study and analysis, or all of the above or whatever - it must be established for the View to be in place, for without the absolute the View cannot be. Admittedly, the absolute has not as yet arisen as a realization for the seeker, as an unassailable fact from which there is no lapse, but a non-relative recognition must be there for practice to make any real sense. This paradox involves and/or introduces the notion of buddha-nature, which is synonymous with absolute bodhicitta. Some schools see the relative bodhicitta as an aspect of buddha-nature, while some would go one step further and make the two bodhicittas essentially one. The situation gets very interesting very quickly, because what you're seeking for is who you in fact already are, and who you in fact are is not passive but unceasingly active in relation to your myopic predicament, and your seeking is in turn - at least ideally - a response to that. So there are these two levels of knowing and will in mutual resonance. Enter evolution.
Evolution is the becoming itself - samsara plus directionality - and at this point when evolution is becoming aware of itself in us, and as us, the one awakening to consciousness is beginning to recognize the purpose behind the very potential of freedom. Embracing evolution is embracing the world of causes and conditions in a very special way, from the position of what I would call emergent bodhicitta. This is an opportunity not simply for awakening - because Wakefulness in any of its modalities (ground, path, or fruition) is already at the heart of this emergence, hence bodhi citta - but for giving an ever-fresh meaning, purpose and expression to what has already begun awakening to itself in both ultimate and relative terms. While such emergent bodhicitta has several important ramifications in Buddhism for the 21st century, the crucial one is making sure that the mysterious motive inherent in the continuity of Ground, Path, and Fruition gets reaffirmed as a fathomless drive to novelty. In short, this entails creating a new culture of radical awareness, beyond sectarian loyalties with their crippling effect on individuals' critical faculties, and beyond the patent unwillingness to face awakening in real time while indefinitely postponing transformation and creating buddhistish nestworks (I'm not sure this translates well... whatever).
Of course we'll always have a downtranslated, horizontal Buddhist culture at various levels of sophistication, but such culture of what is essentially spiritual embellishment is dependent on and owes its very existence to the culture of depth, that is, to authenticity and vitality at the core of liberation. Authenticity is preserved by maintaining constant access to absolute realization, and vitality by maintaining full relevance in terms of understanding and presenting the purpose and meaning of that realization. The former equals utmost depth, the latter equals highest perspective.
I guess you know about bodhicitta, the awakening mind. It's often presented as absolute and relative, so there you have the very subject (i.e. citta) as the locus of the greatest tension: the tension between that which is only and self-evidently real yet hidden from most, namely the absolute, and that which appears to be for some and appears to not be for others while all remain excited about it, namely the relative. Absolute bodhicitta is born from wisdom beyond all elaboration, the truth of emptiness, and is in short the non-relative position to everything - all phenomena, all experiences, all situations, all conditions, all states. The relative bodhicitta is usually explained as intention and application, or aspiring and engaging, to realize the absolute bodhicitta. According to the traditional understanding of the path, as in the five stages on the path of a bodhisattva, training in relative bodhicitta to realize absolute bodhicitta takes a very, very, very long time. In short, it most probably ain't in this life, so....
(*If we go into details of that model, we'll quickly have to conclude that it does not fit our reality. I'm not aiming at that, not here. If you're interested in a no non-sense perspective on un/realistic models, see Dan Ingram's discussion by reading chapter 31, parts I-XI, from his book "Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha".)
Absolute bodhicitta is, therefore, as yet unrealized for the regular aspirant to awakening. But the View must be in place if we are to practice properly, right? And absolute is crucial in the View, yes? We need correct intellectual intimations and strong direct intuitions of this fundamental fact to aspire and be moved to translate that aspiration into a discipline of purification and transformation. So, the absolute must be established by experience, through a spontaneous recognition, or through association with a teacher, or through pointing out, or through diligent study and analysis, or all of the above or whatever - it must be established for the View to be in place, for without the absolute the View cannot be. Admittedly, the absolute has not as yet arisen as a realization for the seeker, as an unassailable fact from which there is no lapse, but a non-relative recognition must be there for practice to make any real sense. This paradox involves and/or introduces the notion of buddha-nature, which is synonymous with absolute bodhicitta. Some schools see the relative bodhicitta as an aspect of buddha-nature, while some would go one step further and make the two bodhicittas essentially one. The situation gets very interesting very quickly, because what you're seeking for is who you in fact already are, and who you in fact are is not passive but unceasingly active in relation to your myopic predicament, and your seeking is in turn - at least ideally - a response to that. So there are these two levels of knowing and will in mutual resonance. Enter evolution.
Evolution is the becoming itself - samsara plus directionality - and at this point when evolution is becoming aware of itself in us, and as us, the one awakening to consciousness is beginning to recognize the purpose behind the very potential of freedom. Embracing evolution is embracing the world of causes and conditions in a very special way, from the position of what I would call emergent bodhicitta. This is an opportunity not simply for awakening - because Wakefulness in any of its modalities (ground, path, or fruition) is already at the heart of this emergence, hence bodhi citta - but for giving an ever-fresh meaning, purpose and expression to what has already begun awakening to itself in both ultimate and relative terms. While such emergent bodhicitta has several important ramifications in Buddhism for the 21st century, the crucial one is making sure that the mysterious motive inherent in the continuity of Ground, Path, and Fruition gets reaffirmed as a fathomless drive to novelty. In short, this entails creating a new culture of radical awareness, beyond sectarian loyalties with their crippling effect on individuals' critical faculties, and beyond the patent unwillingness to face awakening in real time while indefinitely postponing transformation and creating buddhistish nestworks (I'm not sure this translates well... whatever).
Of course we'll always have a downtranslated, horizontal Buddhist culture at various levels of sophistication, but such culture of what is essentially spiritual embellishment is dependent on and owes its very existence to the culture of depth, that is, to authenticity and vitality at the core of liberation. Authenticity is preserved by maintaining constant access to absolute realization, and vitality by maintaining full relevance in terms of understanding and presenting the purpose and meaning of that realization. The former equals utmost depth, the latter equals highest perspective.
Labels: buddhism, enlightenment, evolution
8 Comments:
But the fathomless drive to novelty is still samsara, and it evolves because beings in samsara experience suffering, no? I'm not fully conversant with the philosophy in all its depth, but it seems that we can best address evolution by expanding the definition of relative bodhicitta, so that it includes development as well as compassion.
The problem that I see with emergent bodhicitta is that evolution does not merely produce expanded meaning and purpose, but also newer, more creative ways of experiencing suffering.
Suffering is no taboo. It's part of existence, right? The question is awareness, not suffering. And awareness is discovered through awakening to the ultimate, as it has been taught for a long time, but also through further conscious development, as now we're beginning to discover. Expanding relative bodhicitta isn't enough, because we need absolute realization as well.
The mysterious motive which is drive to novelty IS NOT samsara per se, being an active aspect of suchness by whatever name. Embracing samsara and nirvana as one is a standard mahayana principle, but actually engaging form based on full realization with an enlightening motive goes even beyond that. Of course, for those yet growing into fundamental recognition, samsara is always mired in this or that way, and regressing to lower levels of complexity and consciousness won't help redeem that.
Anyway, the language of suffering isn't sufficient for this sort of consideration. Let's talk of enhancement and engagement.
Emergent bodhicitta, as I propose, is our true nature (BOTH relative AND absolute) consciously engaged in the process beyond craving or cessation, and beyond compassion based on static notions of cyclical existence. The idea of simply checking out was bankrupt long ago. Staying to help others check out is outright silly. But employing one's realization to bear full witness of the unfolding human condition, and then commit fully to enhance and engage that unfolding condition, that's the challenge worthy of a bodhisattva or a buddha (of course, once we openly qualify the hyperbolic and discard the impossible in the way major attainments are described and transmitted).
But when we look at the relative world, we find that it evolves, and much of our suffering is connected to this evolution. We are contingent beings, which means, in part, that we are evolved beings and no matter how evolved we become, we will always experience dhukka. Seeing this in a negative sense is a dualistic interpretation, of course, but this is what the Buddha taught, even if we take the Tantric view.
I suppose my objection is that Buddhism maintains that enlightenment is categorically not an achievement, but an already fully present ground in which everything (including evolutionary stages) arises. And yet the integral community wants to claim that it has discovered higher levels of consciousness that are achievements that even the Buddha never achieved because the 2nd or 3rd tier grooves had not yet been laid down.
I think its clear that there is a disconnect between these two views, and arguably I am taking a more standard Buddhist view. But I also don't think the case to modify that view is very strong - the evidence that there is a natural affinity between 3rd tier stages and nondual realization is quite thin and speculative, but even if it were strong, there are alternative explanations that I think are quite compelling that don't break so strongly from the standard Buddhist model.
I fully agree with the last paragraph of your comment, but I don't see why it is necessary to put ultimate realization at the top of the evolutionary ladder.
Well obviously we see this differently, which is fine. There's no disconnect between the Buddhist View and the integral perspective, as long as you allow the Buddhist View to evolve and not remain stuck in premodern horizons. There are several points you make which need further clarification.
(1) You write: "Buddhism maintains that enlightenment is categorically not an achievement, but an already fully present ground in which everything (including evolutionary stages) arises."
First, categorically maintaining awakening is not an achievement is not to be taken literally, and so goes with the opposite. The fact is that Gautama Buddha and many others after him have attained the goal, and that's explicitly stated in dozens of sutras of all three vehicles. One of Buddha's main nicknames in Tantra is Sarvarthasiddha, and the highest siddhi (achievement/realization) is awakening itself. AS to the ever-present ground, it's the buddha-nature which is inherent but not recognized or realized, so if you need to you may substitute achievement with permanent recognition or realization.
As to everything arising from the ground or emptiness or dharmadhatu, that can be argued, but not including evolutionary stages, of which Buddhism makes no impliciti or explicit mention. Samsara is by definition cyclical in traditional understanding and has no developmental directionality. There is no comprehension anywhere in Buddhist tradition that skandhas, ayatanas, dhatus, and various dharmas have evolved through time. There is also no mention or evidence of either biological or cultural evolution even in most general terms. Even the Buddhist teachings themselves are not allowed to evolve and transcend the previous forms, but must always be somehow inherent from the very start and "secretly" preserved and transmitted until time is right. That's not how unfoldment and development works, and does not allow for emergent properties and real novelty.
(2) You write: "integral community wants to claim that it has discovered higher levels of consciousness that are achievements that even the Buddha never achieved because the 2nd or 3rd tier grooves had not yet been laid down".
There are at least two dimensions to consciousness, and the Buddha has taught awakening into the unmanifest and further into the ultimate (nondual) nature, which is accessible at various levels of development. Nonetheless, the realization will be interpreted and expressed dependent on the individual/cultural level of development. So yes, the Buddha didn't speak English (and most 20th century awakened masters had trouble learning one or two foreign languages), and yes the Buddha had no idea the Earth was round etc. So the integral claim does not touch the peerless awakening, but does enhance the developmental axis. A contemporary Buddha would be as educated and as informed and as sophisticated as possible. So there is no disconnect. The "standard view" you're mentioning is just fine in principle, but that principle should be updated to include whatever has happened in 25 centuries - at least three huge jumps in terms of context.
(3) You write: "I don't see why it is necessary to put ultimate realization at the top of the evolutionary ladder."
I'm not putting anything at the top. Instead I accept the suggestions made in the Wilber-Combs lattice, but the higher levels of complexity do push and resonate stronger towards nondual, simply because of an increasing drop in concrete perception, literal interpretation, and an increase in relative self-awareness. The ladder is, however, forever open-ended by current definition.
Just several points in addition, that I believe are important. The intuition I follow, and the general intention behind the emerging integral Buddhism, is that essential Buddhist teachings are in absolutely no way found wrong or outdated. They're as potent and precise as ever. What we're looking into are (1) old ways of interpreting and applying those essential teachings into broader worldviews and societal realities which themselves are definitely kaput (example: militaristic Zen masters, and gender inequality everywhere); some of those sorely needed updates have ALREADY been introduced by Zen and Tantra at the time, but additional ones are necessary at this point, or else we're encouraging ignorance and resistance in relation to scientific, psychological and cultural advances of our recent past and present; (2) another shift to observe is that the emerging Buddhism is ALREADY crossing boundaries between lineages and traditions, facilitating not just by the encounter of all major traditions in the West (that have been isolated in Asia by cultures and centuries) but also first encounter with other wisdom traditions and contemporary paradigms. This cross-pollination has already produced some remarkable results, affecting both practice, the mode of transmission, and community structures. Green-altitude is simply insufficient to cope with such complexity with its hyper-egalitarian impulse that won't allow value-judgements as to various degrees of effectiveness and authenticity.
Cultural change has been accelerating ever since the dawn of humanity. If we take a look at levels in Spiral Dynamics or the integral altitude scale, it's as if with each new level a zero goes away. 300 thousand years of primal/archaic, 30 thousand years of magic, 3 thousand years of mythic, 300 years of rational, 30 years of relativist, and now we're entering an era of flow-change to which nothing has prepared us, and for which specifically the premodern traditions are unprepared. Robust reformation is not just needed for humans and their traditions to simply "cope with today's problems", it's clearly a matter of survival, and a conscious responsibility for those who are aware what may be at stake. Thanks for your input.:-)
Thanks for your input.:-)
Oh, are we done? Ok... well then on a final note, the reason I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea that higher levels of complexity resonating with the nondual is in part because I'm not sure what it means. Transpersonal psychology and Wilber-I to IV (anchored in the great chain of being) sees evolution culminating in an Omega Point, and draws on developmental psychology and nondual traditions in support of this. But developmental psychology speaks of structures, and nondual realization is not a structure, so it seems we are doing neither of them justice.
What does "resonance" mean? By your definition: "drop in concrete perception, literal interpretation, and an increase in relative self-awareness", but this is not true of every structure, not just 3rd tier. I completely agree with that, nondual realization has resonance with all structures.
If "resonance" really means something like "Red resonates with action movies", that's fine with me too. Not every Red person throughout time and space and culture watches action movies, and so we can similarly say that 3rd tier may resonate with nondual spirituality, which is to say, the contingent aspects of the traditions, practices, metaphors, etc.
This is my devil's-advocate argument that I am exploring, and I apologize if I'm seeming argumentative or critical, but I am primarily interested in considering the merits of each perspective, particularly on whether I am correctly understanding the claims that Buddhism makes about ultimate realization from an expert who is more educated about these matters than I am.
Thank you,
Mike
We're far from done! :-) I just thought we could go like this forever.
Yes, what you're saying on structures and realization makes sense, and these are all very early attempts to discern different aspects of the whole process. I'm not giving any special credit to higher levels of complexity and their "resonance" with certain types of spiritual experience and certain types of practice embodying that realization is simply a matter to be investigated and determined by research. I'm not saying higher structures are "closer" to realization. But it would seem that amber is more capable in sustaining an effort in meditation than, say, magenta. Also, stable post-green is quite comfortable with paradox, equality of opposites, and unknowing (not just with Schrödinger equation), all requisite for a stable nondual realization. There are examples of post-green language announced in the Buddhist canon, long before the emergence of this level as a widespread cultural feature.
But this is not necessarily so, of course. You know, "how terrible is wisdom when it brings no profit to the wise".
I've been enjoying reading your discussion. I hope I am not interupting--I hadn't intended to--but I think Ken means more than the third-tier stages "resonating" with the subtle, causal, and nondual. He has actually said that those deeper states "come with the territory" of those third-tier stages, which implies that the Wilber-Combs Lattice does not continue into third tier in the same way.
I have written a blog about this recently. Hokai has declined to comment; that is fine, but perhaps, Mike, you would be interested in looking at it. I have been simply looking for some feedback on it from voices that I admire and respect, so that would include the two of you.
http://integrallife.com/member/david-marshall/blog/modified-wilber-combs-lattice
~David
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home