Three Nows

You know about present, right? While there are quite a few perspectives on present, including past present and future present, there are also developmental stages of presencing, simply conceivable as prereflective now, reflective now, and postreflective now. Everyone interested in the power of now, whether traditional Zen or Eckhart Tolle, would do well to distinguish between these three. Here's an example of a prereflective now, and since we all seem to know what reflective now means, postreflective now would be that which goes beyond both of these.

"Pre-trans fallacy" refers to the mistakes by the reflective in an attempt to identify the other two. It may be either elevation of pre- into post/trans or reduction of post/trans to pre-. To keep it simple, it's a mess.

But that ain't all, however. In each of these there is nunc stans, eternal present (i.e. dharmakaya for you buddhist folks) and the nunc fluent, flowing present (i.e. rupakaya, whether gross or subtle). And the relationship of these two, their separation/difference and unity/ identity will have to be addressed from one of those three nows. Gets interesting, right?

Adyashanti Interview

Spiritual teacher Adyashanti describes how in the development of human consciousness, there comes a shift from a sense of a separate self toward the experience of unity. He points out that the fear of losing our individual identity keeps us from making this shift, and by confronting our fear we come into love. Adyashanti also suggests that reaching a point of crisis can allow an opportunity for consciousness to shift, individually and collectively.



Thanks to Globaloneness Project.

Trailer for the Wisdom Film

Found this at Susan Piver's blog. Time just 5:46 Enjoy!

Buddha on the Brain

Steve Paulson did an interview with B. Alan Wallace. It's from November 2006, but who cares. Here's a snip:

Is that what Buddhism offers -- a rigorous methodology?

Yes. I'm not saying we should fuse religion with science. Rather, we should select very specific methodologies from Buddhism and other contemplative traditions where the ability to monitor the mind has been honed over thousands of years -- beginning with the training of attention and then using sophisticated methods for investigating the nature of the mind, feelings and the very nature of consciousness itself during the waking state, the dream state, even during deep sleep. Now, because of the great advances in transportation and communications, we have easy access to the Taoist tradition of China, the Sufi tradition of the Near East, the Buddhist tradition of Tibet and Southeast Asia. I'm convinced this would add much greater depth and breadth to the types of questions that are raised in modern cognitive science.

In science, you have a hypothesis that's tested, and it can be disproved. Does that happen in Buddhism?

On its home turf, frequently not. But I'm also waiting for a neuroscientist to tell me how the hypothesis that mental states are nothing more than neural states will be repudiated. I don't see that as a testable hypothesis. So there's a fair amount of dogma, not in science per se but in the minds of scientists. Likewise, there's plenty of dogma in the minds of Buddhists. But Buddhism at its best -- and we go right back to the teachings of the Buddha himself -- encourages a spirit of skepticism. He said, "Do not take my statements to be true simply out of reverence for me. But rather, put them to the test." Well, if you do that, you should be able to repudiate them as well as confirm them.

Well, let me ask you about that. I know there is a tradition, particularly among advanced contemplatives, that you have your meditative experience, and then you talk about it, you analyze it, and your peers critique it. Does that really happen? When someone comes out of meditation, would someone else say, "Sorry. You didn't do it right"?

Absolutely. You know, Buddhism, like any other tradition, is subject to degeneration. So if you and I headed off to India or Nepal or Tibet, we'd find plenty of Buddhist meditators who are simply going through rote ritual, who are just trying to come up with the right answers at the end of the book. But when Buddhism is really thriving, it's exactly what you described. You go into a three-year retreat, where you are meditating eight to 12 hours a day. You're training the mind. You're investigating the nature of the mind. But you're probably not doing that in entire isolation. You're in consultation with a mentor who's going to review your experience and help you deepen your experience. You'll be questioning your insights. So [your] relationship with your mentor is analogous to working on your Ph.D. with a mentor. If at any point your research becomes flaky or not up to snuff, the mentor is there to say, "No, that's a dead end. This is not good research." This happens frequently in the Buddhist contemplative tradition when it's really robust and healthy.

Read the whole interview at Salon.

Transformative power of development: Feedback 3/3

[Previous installments: 1/3 and 2/3.] The third section of Julian Walker's article is called "Telling the difference". Again, my emphasis given here are not present in the original article. Here we go:

So the antidote here is to:
a) develop more resources, especially post-narcissistic self-love and support and cognitive development that includes critical thinking
b) do the necessary healing and self-awareness work to process through enough of the traumatic (shadow) material and
c) take up a serious set of practices that help one to develop transrational awareness. Of course this takes years and is very difficult work - but the honest truth is that this is the way with genuine stagewise development.You can't just read about it in a book.

The rational arrest (as oppposed to the prerational regression) tends to perform the same mistake in reverse: where the regressive type has mistaken magic and myth for interior depth of transrational, the rationally arrested type has categorized anything non-rational as belonging to the magic and mythic category - and in so doing cuts off the possibility of genuine interior development of depth, embodied aliveness, emotional connection, intuitive/rational synthesis, and the power and beauty of experiences on the other side of egoic-identification, experiences that are made possible through meditative practice and energetic initiation.

The difficulty here is that the rationally arrested individual doesn't want to have a spiritual life - unlike the prerational regressive, who is longing for one but has taken a wrong turn! However, for arguments sake - the antidote here might be an equal investment in both:
a) healing (shadow) work and
b) inquiry-based practice (which is still deeply rational in it's foundation), but along with (instead of what is probably already well-developed critical thinking )
c) work that deepens the relationship to the body and emotional life.

Solutions given here are just fine, only Julian clearly focuses on doing, without considering how much such processes may depend, sometimes decidedly, on other influences and resonances, namely - cultural codes and beliefs one internalizes from various sources plus the impact of significant mundane and sacred relationships. I'm sure Julian's quite aware of these factors, and I think including them here in a blurb would make his distinctions and suggestions more meaningful. Apart from that, I think that shadow-inquiry-embodiment provides an excellent general basis. Of course, much depends on the methods employed to make these principles operational and effective.

So the BIG question is: how do we tell the difference between prerational and transrational ideas, experiences, beliefs, worldviews etc? What is transcended, what is included? This is nowhere as important as in the realm of developing a contemporary, grounded, integrated, adult spirituality. In fact it is in many ways the crucible of the next stage of our growth as a species.

One simple answer comes directly from Integral Theory originator Ken Wilber in his very recent Salon.com interview: ""The mystical state is often beyond words. It is trans-rational because you have access to rationality but it's temporarily suspended. A 6-month-old infant, for instance, is in a pre-rational state, whereas the mystic is in a trans-rational state. Unfortunately, "pre" and "trans" get confused. So some theorists say the infant is in a mystical state."

"The rational scientist looks at all the pre-rational stuff as nonsense -- fairies and ghosts and goblins -- and lumps it together with the trans-rational stuff and says, "That's nonrational. I don't want anything to do with it."

Now the funny thing is, even regressive types deeply interested in Wilber's work will see a quote like this and either gloss right over it or make some kind of gesture toward disagreeing with it and suggesting that he was having a bad day or not thinking clearly...

When initially reading that statement by Ken Wilber, I scratched my head just a little bit, and thought, there's a tricky simplification by Wilber's own standards. Surely, we need simplified ideas about these things to help hoi polloi make significant distinctions which are completely absent from education and public discourse. The notion that, for example, there is prerational spirituality, rational spirituality, and transrational spirituality is a very basic one, and the same may be applied to many different types of experience and human development in general. What Wilber is saying, effectively, is that only an adult person with critical faculties can reach into transrational proper. Now, this was based on multi-valued logic before Wilber recognized the crucial difference between stages in frontal psychological development, proceeding as transitional and enduring structures on one side, and shifts in witnessed states that characterize mystical experience and longterm meditative training. These two were previously pushed unto the same axis, and thus even Wilber himself participated in the pre/trans confusion for some time after coining the term "pre-trans fallacy" (PTF). As clarified initially with the Wilber-Combs lattice - where structures of consciousness from archaic to magic to mythic to rational to pluralistic to integral and beyond are given the vertical axis, and forms of mysticism from nature to deity to formless to nondual are given the horizontal axis - people have spiritual experiences of various depths at virtually all levels of structural development. So, even in that rather simple lattice, one can posit two dozen combinations, of which one half is rational and beyond, that is transrational. This makes PTF useful though insufficient. The main thrust of WCL is that not only can we differentiate between four inclusive types of spirituality, but each of these may be experienced and then interpreted at different levels of thinking about and engaging the manifest world. Pertinent to Julian's consideration, prerational interpretations of actual and/or potential experience disempower the individual not just by producing a very shallow account of "what happens" but also through directly fueling spiritual narrow-mindedness and narcissism. Now, individuals and groups may espouse a rational, pluralistic, and even integral view of reality, and yet fail to avoid making prerational judgements on very important issues concerning translation, transformation and spiritual awakening.

What I would add to this is that more often than not prerational worldviews, beliefs, ideas etc are ungrounded. They will include (instead of transcend):
* fantastical beliefs
* unscientific views of reality
* confusions between inner and outer reality and their relationships (category/quadrant errors), and very often
* various kinds of metaphysical denial structures around suffering, trauma, injustice, and the randomness of the world at large.

Generally there is a narcissistic tone - one of specialness, being at the center of the universe, being chosen, having angels, spirit guides and special intentional powers etc.. On the other hand the transrational worldview is in no way at odds with reasonable perceptions and interpretations of reality - it just takes them deeper, develops them further.

Here I beg to differ, since this leaves room for considerable doubt. I mean, "reasonable perceptions and interpretations of reality" is simply too vague. Or, even worse, Julian perhaps suggests that we can remain "reasonable" while adjusting ourselves to reality. Being "in no way at odds wiith reasonable" is hardly a working definition of transrational. Even if you move up the WCL and then suddenly turn right at "rational". Reality has absolutely no problem with reasonable or unreasonable, although the distinction remains quite clear. What appears as reasonable, however, should be questioned for the sake of those that hold it dear. There is a "reasonable" at every point in WCL, and there's pathology at every point, as well. It seems I can hear what Julian is saying, sort of, and I agree with that. But I don't resonate with "rational" and "reasonable" being used without delineation of the specific meaning employed and qualification regarding their quirks. In short, rational will take you as far as it goes, the problem is it doesn't go very far. And I'm afraid that by using it as a primary point of reference we cannot really address the problems that are behind this whole mess of narcissism and wishcraft in the current view of development and transformation.

There is a choice-less awareness of the reality of suffering and injustice - without the ironically linear attempt to make spiritual sense of these things via metaphysics. The transrational worldview is deeply compassionate and insightful, discerning and realistic. It encapsulates reality as it is and sees the sacred awe-inspiring nature of life without denying any of it's horror or meaninglessness. Transrational awareness is able to very deeply inquire into the more intuitive creative language of poetic metaphor, mythic symbol and archetypal experience without literalizing any of it or committing category/quadrant errors that turn those intrapsychic revelations into propositional statements about objective reality.

There is also, even more so, an awareness of the illusory nature fo the whole display, starting with dissolving the self-contraction of myself standing back from this whole suffering and injustice, relaxing into it while also relaxing the hold on it and what it means. Being realistic? Like being "reasonable"? Yes, but only because and only when that's how things work. Not because that's what the transrational view "is". Namely, a certain level of sophistication in manifesting ultimate clarity is necessary because at any given time in history there is a standard of civilized, dignified thought - today that standard is rational or higher, and moving. Also, whatever is good from any existing structure is ideally retained, included and embraced to serve that purpose.

Sane harmony as well as a kind of integrated differentiation between inner and outer reality is amplified, deepened and celebrated in it's stark and beautiful is-ness. Though some of the interior meaning that magic and myth were unconsciously fumbling toward may be included in it's deeper unfoldment in transrational awareness, none of the literalism, narcissism, magical thinking or pseudo science lasts a nano-second in the crystal clear, diamond-like perception of reality as it is.

To be consistent, nothing lasts a nano-second in the perception of reality as it is. There are pre-trans fallacy, category error, quadrant absolutism, level/line fallacy etc. But there's also the problem of two-truths conflation in various forms. "Isness" and "diamond-like" pertain to the ultimate, and the ultimate - being as it is - gives birth to many different expressions, while we're free to prefer any of them, thus making ourselves an identity amidst all other expressions. The ultimate, however, also known as "reality", never really becomes any one of its expressions, never really enters time so to speak, though it never exists elsewhere, or elsewhen. The ultimate is indeed the isness, as revealed in diamond-like perception, of anything observed, whether magical, mythic, or rational, or beyond - this isness is stark, and beautiful, in each and every one of those. Most everyone who have discovered this clarity in the past have had no idea there will be a rational, scientifically re-defined world in their near future. And the best among them could see and understand "everything" there was to understand. Yet, now we need a new platform to continue their legacy. We need a new way of bringing in both development and awakening, each informed by the other. Yes, this new way cannot allow itself to confuse pre- with post- anything, because it must maintain a deep evolutionary logic concerning everything in the manifest domain. Also, this new way must be effective in persuading the world that cultures and views also evolve, and that sacred cows are never what they seem. Transformation can be pursued by those who find themselves so inclined, and should be made into a universal right, but will nonetheless remain a tricky, non-linear, and difficult process, one that has just become quite a bit more complex than it used to be. Isn't that fun?

There are many points in addition to these, that need to be considered in more detail, like individual development and spiritual practice NOT being a private affair in a rational-and-beyond space, like development plus/vs awakening NOT being separate issues in an integral space, like these distinctions being characteristics of an emergent culture and therefore in dire need of differentiation from cognate and/or similar ideas already in use etc. What I have said in this feedback hopefully reflects my basic position of agreement and sympathy with Julian's take on the power of development. I'm looking forward to take this mutually enriching discussion further. Godspeed!

Transformative power of development: Feedback 2/3

After indulging in a somewhat exaggerated critique of the introductory section, I can now move on into the part which feels very much like something I would enjoy writing, on a good day at least. So, let's move to the second part of Julian Walker's article on transformation. This section is called „Interior Depth“.

The mystery of the inner world becomes available in a way that was simply not possible when we were unwittingly projecting it outward. The magic of the outer world becomes available in a way that was not possible when we were seeing it as a narcissistic extension of ourselves. The sacredness of the real world becomes more apparent in a way that was not possible when we were seeking a different world, a magical world, an otherworldly god, a fantasy dimension of all-good, all-powerful perfection in which to disappear.

This is true, and extremely important. Our critical faculties and the capacity to employ rational in a systematic inquiry is crucial in this step. The naive „I create my reality“ syndrome so prevalent in today's spiritual scene isn't a product of authentic magical thought, in any of its potent expressions, Eastern or Western, but of rampant narcissism made possible by an almost systemic collapse of 20th century intellectual and ethical frameworks holding our reality from falling apart, followed by an erosion of our academic and public-discourse standards. Religious institutions were proven unreliable, and commodification plus bastardization of spirituality was a natural consequence. At the same time, however, an unprecedented situation emerged in that previously esoteric techniques and arcane knowledge have become available to virtually everyone everywhere, and soon could be claimed by anyone anywhere. Specifically, spiritual paths have been presented for the last 40 years in a context of market-inspired offerings, where surfing on the smorgasbord of multiple options everyone is given to choose something that expresses their unique selves, which in the vast majority of cases means expressing their not-so-unique egos (*the eclectic result makes a faithful psychospiritual profile, a portrait and caricature at once, depending from the vantage point). Checks and balances are absent, so anything goes. Teachings have become mere techniques. Arduous initiation has become 1-day workshop at best. Purification of awareness has become a 10-minute guided meditation. But the problem is not in mere quantity. Relaxing the edge has gone too far to completely annihilate the critical faculties of a deeply desacralized eclectic mindset. No rapport, no challenge, no confrontation: "renowned teachers" have become "bestselling authors", somewhat like mail-order brides.

But in order to discover a more genuine sacredness, without „seeking a different world“, a robust existential rationality must be coupled a genuine search for truth beyond one's contractions. Indeed, if spiritual culture becomes/remains just a vestige, a cross-dressing for an inflated affection of magical vulnerability, there's no hope something as „sacredness“ will ever be available. Instead, it will be avoided. In such case, la-la-land of wishcraft remains a promising option. And therapy, of course.

There is no going back. Suffering is real. Injustice has no pleasing metaphysical explanation. Death will happen. And yet life is magnificent, mysterious, complex, beautiful in equal measure to its tragedy, meaninglessness, and cruelty.

Beautiful! No... Going... Back! Key phrase: injustice has no pleasing metaphysical explanation. But most of even serious practitioners remain deaf to this crucial insight, quoting dharma-phrases to defend from what they won't acknowledge. Disenchantment is the key to real magic. Thank you, Julian. What follows is rather straightforward and brilliant in its simplicity.

In fact, it is in the very contrast between evil and nobility, callousness and sensitivity, mediocrity and brilliance, oppression and freedom, that the exquisite fragility and power of the human spirit reveals itself.

Striving. Growing. Being humbled by reality in its harshness. Having no choice but to bow before truth. Fighting for what is good. Being blown open by Beauty.

The interior origin of art, myth, dreams and meaning becomes apparent in all of its splendor and chaos. The activity of a mind that seeks to represent, express, understand, symbolize the dynamics and forces we intuit at play, underlying, inter-weaving the reality we perceive.

We are ready for the leap to the next stage, but only in so far as we have really completed this intense transition and begin to engage the practices that will make transrational meaningful.

Unlike the revolutionary overhaul that occurred from prerational to rational, transrational will not negate rational, rather it will build and expand upon it's solid foundation - it's accurate purchase on inner and outer reality via a deepening relationship to contemplative practice, mind-body integration, intuitive intelligence and even more rigorous dedication to truth, beauty and goodness.

I tend to be less optimistic about rational, in and of itself, serving as "solid foundation" for transrational or even postrational, since they expose inherent limitations and shadows of a rational platform - as to solid foundation, I would opt for a reflective, evolutionary impulse of soulful authenticity - still, perhaps I can go along with this formulation. Specifically, if we really want to grow, not just individually, but also create an authentic spiritual culture as we go, we must move away from morbid vestiges of magical thinking. At this point in our culture, and probably equally in the East, it's much more important to develop a mature existential culture, than relaxing our angst through meditation, or devotion to an idealized tradition/guru/channeled wisdom/whatever. Depending on a variety of motivational factors, meditative techniques can be used for better or worse, like any other artifact - even to truncate development. In fact, meditation mustn't be treated as spiritual viagra. Growing as humans and patiently ripening the growing discomfort of clarity in confronting our dilemma is the real wishfulfilling jewel at this point. The great bliss is the flip side of the way things are now. Meanwhile, catering to the lowest common denominator in the spiritual showbiz, the vulgarity of many offerings is rather appalling.

But this is a difficult passageway - not attempted by many. There are two powerful pulls - one is to remain in the rational realm of what has simple location, what can be expressed in an equation - the other is to want to regress to childhood magic and myth. Both serve a similar purpose - but with different variations.

Remaining in narrow rationalism is often a defensive reaction against having to acknowledge feelings, vulnerability and the non-rational power of creativity, intuition, embodied, experience, love, intimacy, soul-rockin' sex - in short, experience that the ego cannot pretend control over...

This rejects the classic mundane maneuver, shallow and hollow as it is.

Regressing into the previous fascination with literalized magic and myth is often a defense both against personal suffering but also against facing the reality of collective suffering and injustice and taking responsibility for living in the real world on its own terms.

This refutes the actual manifesto of pop-spirituality.

Both strategies are based in a fear of or inability to enter the next stage of growth - i think about this in terms of two variables: trauma and resources. If one has sufficient resources (love, self-esteem, intelligence, education, support etc..) and has either a) a small amount of trauma, or b) has done a lot of interior work to heal and resolve trauma - we are better prepared to move into the genuinely transrational stages of development.

The simple equation here is that the more disadvantageous the trauma/resource ratio is and the greater the concomitant gulf between critical thinking and spiritual longing, the more likely one will be to misperceive a regression to childhood magic and myth as the next stage of development beyond rational.

Good stuff here. A lot of substance. And next, to my favorite, the third section.

> next installment here

Transformative power of development: Feedback 1/3

This is an unusually long post... If you're a regular reader here, then you know I appreciate Julian Walker's engagement in formulating a sober 21st century spirituality, which is realistic and inspiring, inquiry-based and psychologically astute. Julian Walker and I write with a different purpose, on a different continent, coming from diverse backgrounds, immersing our minds into distinct arenas of individual and cultural transformation, and having disparate feelings on zaadz/gaia.com, yet we share an interest in genuine integral and post-metaphysical spirituality, and often we see eye to eye on important issues.

Here follow some of my thoughts on Julian's recent article "The Transformative Power of Development: A Three-Part Distinction", which you can read at his blog, followed by the ensuing discussion (Julian is great with initiating discussions, and you get pulled in before you know what happened). I will quote the whole text, then emphasize in italic the passages I find significant, and then critically reflect on their implications, which will not exhaust or perhaps even remain faithful to their intended meaning. This is a response based on reading the article at the level of its language. Julian may have used "reason" and "rationality" as a designation-only for a general critique of widespread nonsense in popular "spiritual" discourse, but I don't accept such abstraction as conducive to solution, so I'll simply reply to the obvious. Julian's article is divided in three sections: Growth, Interior depth, and Telling the difference. So, Growth first.

Something happens. It happens to all humans. We grow. Our minds literally become more adequate to reality. Each step forward in development is both a deepening and a clarifying of our relationship to both inner and outer reality. Cause and effect becomes clear. The inner and outer worlds get better differentiated. As such, many perceptions - in fact an entire worldview, get left behind, negated, transcended - call it what you will - the way we formulate, interpret and interact with reality completely transforms.

So far, so good. Though, everything I left unitalicized belongs, in my opinion, to the „horizontal“ enlightenment, that is spiritual awakening in strict sense. But let's move on.

This is good. Growth is good. Its what happens.

Growth in itself is, as confirmed in the third sentence, something that simply happens, so saying it's "good" is unnecessary and tenuous at best. Growth can go wrong, which doesn't make it bad either. There's potential, of course, which when unfulfilled tends to cause problems. But growth, unlike change, is not a constant. And, in humans especially, not all growth is a given. Therefore, not all growth "happens", including both growth in wordlviews and spiritual growth.

Its why we know that: There is no Santa Claus. Your mom can't see through walls. Jesus was not born of a virgin. There is not an evil spirit under your bed. Grandma didn't die because you wished she would in a moment of petulant frustration.

"We know that" refers to a specific "we", and a specific "knowing". What is mirrored in following statements is a rational perspective on relative truth, specifically applied to dismiss magical and mythical relative truths, by which such rational gets passively defined. But, beyond rational, a different "we" would insist on formulating the developmental dynamics of facts, not just of knowledge, and so the postrational perspective on relative truth will specify the altitude at which pronouncements are made, and make clear whether that altitude is enacted and voiced a priori or a posteriori, whether as an adequate stage-level-station of discourse and meaning making or a caricature of a regressive slide.

Otherwise, to someone saying "There is no Santa Claus", we could reply in the same vein, "What are you talking about? What Santa Claus?" That is, the object of negation cannot be totally nonexistent. It must exist in some way in order for the refutation of its existence to make any sense at all. Therefore, we must be careful to define the existence we are refuting, and the resulting existence we are establishing. And the way to do that is in developmental terms, allowing a sequence of qualified existences.

The shift from prerational to rational is an absolute revolution. New software comes on-line. Cause and effect becomes apparent and the place-holder of magical causation becomes less plausible. The narcissism of placing oneself at the center of the universe and reading personal magical significance into random events and special communication from god to your tribe gets relinquished.

The shift from prerational to rational was a revolution 300 years ago. Now it's just a transition, part of conventional, and kids today don't get much excited about it, mostly because its unrealistic promise, typical for every revolution, has worn off. In real life circumstances, those of enmeshed philo- and ontogenetic unfoldment, worldviews and paradigms tend to establish themselves and persist in dual structures (one leg in the previous structure, one in the next, which allows some vertical flexibility, and provides for creative inner tension), so that we often have magico-mythic, mytho-rationalist, and rational-relativist positions. But yes, the shift from any level to any new level is a huge move, unexplainable only in terms of anything previously existing. However, it's not and has never been an "absolute revolution". Rational (universalist) remains blind to all things that lay ahead of it, and applies to the magico-mythic (absolutist) components the same narrow judgement, only from a relatively more elevated vantage point. While the absolutist claims, "You are wrong, and you're going to hell for it", the universalist retorts "Actually, you're wrong on both counts." The obsession with proving others wrong remains strong in the rational view, and only begins to be recognized, albeit in confused or partial manner without any effective remedy, by the relativist. So, in an important way, placing oneself at the center of the universe is really done by the rationalist for the first time - at magical and mythical structures, the self is not completely separate from the universe and the meaning of it to be placing itself anywhere; it is being placed in the continuum of meaning as a node, not at the center as a regressed narcisistic ego. Specifically, while I'm aware that this isn't a treatise on complex developmental patterns, nonetheless I'm convinced that transitional structures known as magical and mythical, as well as historical phases - at different times in different places - when these were adequate stations of life and vantage points for individual and social meaning making, should be given due respect and distinguished from sordid regressions, whether partial or wholesale, after higher structures have been established, as well as from troublesome fixations which amount to mere developmental pathology. I believe this has been done insufficiently, so that these distinctions are often collapsed, resulting in refutations of something that is a necessary precedent. This, then, is similar to what some extreme relativists have been doing with those structures that preceed the advent of contemporary relativism, and are therefore to a significant degree a necessary precondition for it. At the same time, rational as an available structure and potential should be distinguished from rationalism in any of its calcified expressions and formulations, conditioned during the initial breaking-away from the mythic order by means of desacralization. For example, Wilber does this by speaking of the dignity and disaster of modernity, offering to heal the disaster while redeeming the dignity. He applies the same dual wisdom to premodernity and postmodernity. I believe we should replicate this general approach. In short, we should demonstrate the cruelty of magical and mythical realities in their socio-economic aspect, as well as their narrowness in their interpretation of human interior. But we should never confuse or even compare magical pockets in 21st century adults with actual primitive thinking. The later is much more benign, the previous much more destructive. Just as the magical worldview and its developmental equivalent transitional structures need not impress us as anti-rational, but instead be clarified as simply pre-rational, even so the various rational and relativist claims, oblivious as they are of their non-superior status in the unfolding of paradigms and eventually meta-paradigms, become clarified as pre-integral, and yet not anti-integral.

What's more the magic of the real becomes more available. Looking through the lens of the natural sciences, reality gets more deeply revealed in it's powerful, mysterious wonder!

"Magic of the real" is discovered through initial spiritual awakening, and structural shifts are insufficient to produce one. Furthermore, "looking through the lens of the natural sciences" warrants exactly nothing, without the I that is doing the looking being inclined to discover an intuited powerful, mysterious wonder. Never before have pictures of this immense universe and sights and sounds of this beautiful wilderness been available to everyone everywhere: yet never has the sense of mystery and awe been more absent on all levels of society. Looking through the lenses is not enough! Understanding who sees what is crucial. A non-reductionist interpretation of what is seen is certainly necessary to make sense of what is "discovered", by complementing it with what remains even more obviously hidden to those lenses, namely - the mysterious wonder itself! - that remains a primarily interior affair.

Using reason we begin to interact with the internal world and the love of truth - philosophy. Using our newly developed, beautiful ability to self-reflect, we begin to interact with that other aspect of inner life - psychological awareness. The moral dimension of our being deepens too as we begin to be able to have more empathy for others and see the reality of suffering and injustice through the less self-centered and tribally identified and now more humanistic and world-centric lenses.

Reason has been used in defense of the mythic truths for centuries prior to European enlightenment, and much before in Indian thought. Indeed, most philosophers worth their salt have practiced their philosophy to reconcile reason and that which, for whatever reason, defies reason. In doing so, they have jointly established an elevated vantage point that takes reason itself for an object of inquiry to discover both its virtues and limitations, known sometimes as vision-logic or mandalic reason. But the problem of a recurrent magical thinking and rampant narcissism awaits at the level beyond mere rationality, when the reconcilitation of reason and that which defies it is carried out in absence of depth, as if to make everything equal and thus cease all claims to superiority - the relativist revolution - which has already proven impossible, or at least intolerable. Rationality is insufficiently reflective of its own role in developmental dynamics, since complex developmental dynamics go quite beyond orderly natural laws.

From rational orange-altitude vantage point, magic and mythic are less moral, and more self-centered, yet also less self-aware (therefore less responsible). It is a dialectical fact that the most self-aware structure available in "1st tier" exclusivist range of structures, namely the green-altitude, relativist, pluralist etc. is also potentially the most narcissistic when it resonates with poorly integrated magic impulses, producing a spiritual culture where "ego" - itself a product of previous rationality - gets hated and loved simultaneously in widespread bewilderment and confusion. The semantic mess created in the last 50 years, a period of simultaneous expansion and collapse of horizons, won't allow any easy solutions, or straight answers to these issues.

Notice that in this whole thing no mention is made of how these structures of magical, mythical, rational, relativist and further tend to light up - or collapse sometimes - with stages of spiritual awakening. Also, Julian uses a simple scale of prerational, rational, and transrational, which these days is only useful for explaining the pre-trans fallacy. No use of relativist and existential comparative signifiers too add depth and granularity. No mention of rationality's inability to handle anything truly paradoxical or downright immediate. The second and third part of the text develop the initial argument to point toward a "transrational" integration, and yet arguing for strengthened rationality not just as a capacity, but as an enduring framework. So I'm not sure what to make of it.

I intend to continue this critical reflection with the remaining two parts of the article: Interior depth, and Telling the difference.

UPDATE:
Interior Depth: Feedback 2/3
Telling the difference: Feedback 3/3

Projecting the Dharma

An intriguing talk by Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche on "projecting" Dharma in the Western world, given at Yale Law School, New Haven, Connecticut on 25 January, 2008. Time 82 minutes. Note: the first half is most interesting, and an AQAL analysis of the discourse Dzongsar Khyentse uses with this audience gives interesting - though not surprising - results.


Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche: Projecting the Dharma from Siddhartha's Intent on Vimeo.

New Age and Skepticism

Julian Walker brings an article by Karla McLaren entitled "Bridging the Chasm between Two Cultures". Excerpt:

I'm not just a member of the New Age community - I've also been a purveyor of the very things the skeptical community is so concerned about. I've been involved in metaphysics and the New Age for over thirty years, I've written four books and recorded five audio learning sets in the genre, and I was considered one of the leaders in the field.

I'm not in the field any longer, but it's hard to truly disappear when so many of my books and tapes are already out there. It's also hard to disappear when I don't really know what to say to the people in my culture. The cultural rift is so extreme that anything I say will prove that I have gone to the other side, the wrong side - the side of the enemy. In actual fact, however, I have just seen enough to know that the skeptics and the critical thinkers have some extremely pertinent and meaningful things to say. I've now studied enough skeptical and scientific information about paranormal abilities and events to question many of the precepts upon which my work was based. More important, I've seen enough to understand firsthand the real costs of the New Age.

I've also learned to understand the differences and similarities in the New Age and skeptical cultures, so that I no longer react in a stereotypically offended fashion when I or the people I know and love are referred to as frauds, shams, or dupes. I understand now that these terms are not meant disparagingly, for the most part. I understand now that these terms often mask a great deal of care and concern for people in the New Age culture. It's sometimes hard to unearth that concern - it often requires an almost anthropological capacity to understand the cultural differences between us - but the concern is there.

Until I understood that concern, I couldn't find myself in the skeptical lexicon. I couldn't identify myself with the uncaring hucksters, the wildly miseducated snake-oil peddlers, the self-righteous psychics, the big-haired evangelists, or the megalomaniacal eastern fakirs. I couldn't identify my work or myself with the scam-based work or the unstable personalities so roundly trashed by the skeptical culture, because I was never in the field to scam anyone - and neither were any of my friends or colleagues. I worked in the field because I have a deep and abiding concern for people, and an honest wish to be helpful in my own culture. Access to clearheaded and carefully presented skeptical material would have helped me (and others like me) at every step of the way - but I couldn't access any of that information because I simply couldn't identify with it. Until now.

Read the whole piece at Julian's Gaia blog.

Change and the Changeless

An utterly delightful talk from Father Thomas Keating, entitled "Oneness and the Heart of the world", found at GlobalOneness. Time 35 minutes. Enjoy!



Thanks to Vincent Horn for heads up. Here's the link to the original video, available in high and low res, and also for download in .mp4 format.

1-click Shift

One minute shift with teacher Adyashanti. Also, some cool stuff at the Cafe Dharma section of his website. Enjoy!



Thanks to WH for heads up.

End of the World?

From director Ben Anthony via Channel 4 and National Geographic, this is a documentary on the Strong City Cult, time 48 minutes. Enjoy!


From NYTimes:

"There is much to make the jaw drop in “Inside a Cult,” a timely documentary about the Strong City sect in New Mexico being shown on Wednesday on the National Geographic Channel. But by its end you may feel that the most stunning thing is that this film exists at all. Why would these people have let a documentarian get so close to their exceedingly eccentric world?

The cult consists of about 50 followers of Michael Travesser, a gaunt, scraggly man who says he is the Messiah (something he says God revealed to him back in 2000, when his name was Wayne Bent). The film is no archival cut-and-paste job; Ben Anthony, the director and cinematographer, was admitted to the group’s compound and invited to interview both leader and followers."

Members of the cult maintain their own website, where they denounce the film (for example, letter to Ben Anthony). Meanwhile, their leader was arrested on charges of criminal sexual contact. While it's better than nothing, is that the best authorities in a modern society can do?

To really understand what is going on in such cases, we need a rather sophisticated model of spirituality and religious pathology. Yet, such sophistication would reflect rather negatively on even the most legitimate cults and sects of our days, those with millions of members and followers. If you're interested, "A Sociable God" offers something to begin with.

Beghe on Beghe the Scientologist

An amuzing interview with Jason Beghe offered by Mark Bunker. 8 parts for a total of 3 hours! Bunker has had problems with his Youtube account, so he moved to Vimeo instead and it seems like a good choice. Here's the first part of Beghe interview. If you find the silly lingo confusing, consult the Scientology® Terminology Online Dictionary. Enjoy!


Scientology: 1/8 Jason Beghe Interview from Mark Bunker on Vimeo.

On Models of Wakefulness

Vincent Horn writes in his post "How you Approach Enlightenment and Why it Matters":

It’s often recognized by meditation teachers that the notion of enlightenment carries with it a whole host of misconceptions and unhelpful interpretations. In Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha, Theravada teacher Daniel Ingram writes about this at length in his section on the models of enlightenment. He describes and distinguishes between the many different models we have for what enlightenment bestows on the individual, including things having to do with emotional, physical, psychological, and spiritual perfection. He also points out how dangerous some of these models can be, as they do at least two things: First, they make enlightenment appear to be completely impossible as most of the models people have, and especially when you combine several of them, are largely unattainable. Secondly, they take the focus off of what enlightenment is really about, the realization of non-duality, or “those models having to do with eliminating or seeing through the sense that there is a fundamentally separate or continuous center-point, agent, watcher, doer, perceiver, subject, observer or similar entity.” These Non-Duality models, Daniel claims, are the only models that one can trust from the beginning of the path, until the very end.

Yes, music for my ears. Read the whole post.

Buddhist Magic: What is possible

Have you ever considered what it would be like to cultivate, what in the Buddhist tradition are called the siddhis or magical powers? Buddhist magic is an endlessly fascinating topic, and in this episode we speak with Daniel Ingram, one of our favorite guests here on Buddhist Geeks, about the powers.

We cover their historical treatment by some of the major traditions, including the Zen, Tibetan, and Theravada. Daniel also gives us his first-hand experience having explored the powers, and considers the implications of doing public magic, and whether or not this kind of magic is "objectively real". We also discuss the ethical issues involved in using magic and issues of reproducibility.

Check this great discussion at Buddhist Geeks, and join the conversation.

Krishnamurti with Chogyam Trungpa

Here's the first youtube video in a series of five of Krishnamurti talking to Chogyam Trungpa on the practice and purpose of meditation and related topics. Thanks to Bruce Alderman for heads up. This part 9:40 minutes. Enjoy!



Links to parts: Two (9:12), Three (6:06), Four (7:03), and Five (5:51).

Become an Integral Peacemaker

Watch Fleet Maull on Integral Peacemaker Training



Quote from Peacemaker Institute website: "Building on a rich tradition of spiritually grounded peace and social change work, and extensive experience in cutting-edge leadership training, the Boulder Peacemaker Institute offers an intensive peacemaker certification program and a year-round schedule of other trainings, workshops and retreats for professionals and volunteers from around the world seeking to create a more peaceful world. Our participants and graduates are engaged in a wide array of community development, social change, and peacemaking activities, including conflict resolution, homeless advocacy, restorative justice, prison ministry, juvenile justice and at-risk youth programs, AIDS relief, social entrepreneurship, and human rights and peace work."

BTW, the training itself is structured on Ken Wilber's four quadrants:

• transforming self
• transforming relationship
• transforming groups
• transforming systems

The Training is designed for professionals & volunteers engaged in Peacework, Conflict Resolution, Community Building, Engaged Spirituality, Restorative Justice, Prison Work, Sustainable Resources, Environmental Issues, International Relations, Organizational Development, Urban Issues, Social Action & Activism, Social Justice, Human Rights, Economic Development & Relief Work or anyone interested in connecting mind, body, heart, & spirit to create peace in relationships, groups, communities, systems & ourselves!

Hidden Newton

Or, Newton the Alchemist. "Hidden" meaning "not known to general public", because there's a hidden Einstein, a hidden Schroedinger, a hidden Heisenberg, a hidden Planck... These hidden aspects of our great scientific geniuses are actually reflections of taboos long held by the modern scientific community at large since its inception and rise to power, taboos that were introduced to consolidate the "scientific outlook" and make it the rational way of seeing the universe and man's place in it. However, these same taboos became generative of a scientific shadow of shallowness and a dissociation of rationality from deeper aspects of human beingness, thus handing over the esoteric (hidden, profound) to the overtly religious (as if they knew what to do with it), and unleashing the scientistic impulse to assail and ultimately debauch both science and rationality.



As proposed (or made clear) in this BBC documentary, the alchemical Newton was hidden on purpose, and it's more than we can say about the arrogant narrow-mindedness of many contemporary scientific minds, who have been brought up and educated in the climate of "hidden identities", where they were assured and assuaged there's no such thing as a hidden (or interior, or unquantifiable) reality, for which the measurement and objective evaluation simply won't do, and were never asked nor encouraged to inquire into the nature of that which remains immeasurable. Thus, they learned early on to strategically postpone their own awareness, "We are ten years from answering the most difficult question, but answer it we will...", acting somewhat like mice from Adams' "H2G2" who knew the answer, but needed more time to "calculate the question".

Just as religion has accepted to impersonate its own caricature offered by science, so has science often reduced itself to a lame denial of interiority on one hand, and radical mystery on the other.

Resource: Quantum Questions, what else.

Hat tip to to WH.

Review of Alan Wallace's Hidden Dimensions

Quote from review by Nathan Senge at the Center for Buddhist Studies Weblog:

There is a quiet revolution afoot. The last century has witnessed Buddhists and quantum physicists quietly moving into perigee, however unwittingly until the last twenty years. In Hidden Dimensions: The Unification of Physics and Consciousness (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007. Cloth, 176 Pages), B. Alan Wallace gives an incisive portrayal of this merging of minds and argues that these two paths are not just complementary—they are intimately related...

In Astronomy we use a telescope to see distant starts. In a similar way, Buddhists use a mental telescope. Wallace calls this “quiescence”—it refers to a very specific form of introspection. Wallace explains:

“…[A]ny meditator who has not yet achieved it [quiescence] is technically regarded as a novice… Once one has achieved this exceptional level of attention balance, one should be able to effortlessly remain there, with the physical senses totally withdrawn, for at least four hours, with unwavering mindfulness and an extraordinary degree of vividness” (88).

Tall order. And perhaps seemingly impossible to the laymen. Nevertheless, someone untrained in metallurgy, geometry, and optics would be clueless in constructing a telescope. The analogy is sound.

According to Wallace, Buddhists advance a theory of an interdependent reality. This is often described in the context of the doctrines of Dependent Origination and Emptiness. Meditators trained in quiescence (remember the telescope?) probe the nature of mind and reality with a discriminating eye. Each constituent particle is shown to be relational and devoid of intrinsic existence. Wallace calls this realization "contemplative insight." Make no mistake—this is not nihilism. Nor is it an assertion of relativism. The absence Wallace describes is not no-thing, it is merely the lack of some-thing. And that something is the fiction of an independent reality. A something that has never existed, will never exist, but is nonetheless reified by most people. This tendency to reify is at the root of human suffering and is the target of the Buddhist philosophical project.

Read the whole piece.

Postmetaphysics, simply put

Bruce Alderman responds to Julian Walker's "Simply put" posts, while staying in the format of pithy, concise formulations. Here's a snip:

When we interpret any given worldspace (or artifact of that worldspace) as "reality as it is," we fall prey to the myth of the given.

The myth of the given is the failure to recognize and acknowledge the Kosmic addresses of perceiver and perceived, which are constitutive factors in the enactment of any particular worldspace (and the objects "therein").

The claim that there are "simple facts" which exist independently of worldviews and contextualizing perspectives, while an understandable attempt to provide firm grounding, is ironically a claim which is not adequately grounded because it fails to disclose (and does not consider relevant) the Kosmic address from which the claim is being made.

Simply put, the assertion that there are universally valid, perspective-free, interpretation-free foundational elements of reality is pure metaphysics.

I love this! Good work, Bruce. See the whole thing.

Taboo versus Revolution

After recommending the video with Dean Radin from the GoogleTech Talks series, the next one I wish to draw your attention (if you haven't seen it already) is Alan B. Wallace's "Toward the First Revolution in the Mind Sciences", embedded below. After the first revolution in natural sciences, starting with Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and finally Isaac Newton; then the further revolution in physics with Planck and Einstein, which still is not over, with some key problems not being solved, i.e. the measurement problem - Wallace: "What is the role of the observer in the natural world? We don't know." And, of course, there are the quantum mechanics and general relativity, and neither is going away, but they remain not integrated. Then there's the revolution in life sciences, starting with Darwin, and later with Mendel, Crick and Watson. With William James, and his proposal to "rigorously observe mental phenomena", we may approach a third revolution, the one in mind sciences. Time 62 minutes.



A lot of background to this lecture is the infamous "taboo of subjectivity", explored by Wallace himself in "The Taboo of Subjectivity: Towards a New Science of Consciousness " and also "Choosing Reality: A Buddhist View of Physics and the Mind". You may wish to listen to Alan Wallace in exchange with Ken Wilber at Integral Naked on the very subject of the taboo of inter/subjectivity (see here for info). Seems there are quite a few taboos in the present scientific culture at large, diminishing the formidable potential of real, deep science.

Taboo of Psychic Phenomena

I recommend the video of a lecture by Dean Radin "Science and the Taboo of Psi". Please go to youtube (link here), since the embed function was disabled for this one. Time 95 minutes. Here's another video with Radin, on the general prejudice and taboo concerning psychic phenomena, and the need to separate at least some of these from uneducated superstitions. "There's an invisible college that's beginning to evolve... I'm projecting that in 5 or 10 years the invisible college will grow so large, and the pressure will be so large, that the taboo will be addressed. Even at this point the taboo is so strong, that you're not even supposed to talk of taboo!" And further on, "In the beginning any new application... will be perceived as whacky. And then somebody will get a Nobel price and it's not whacky anymore. Which is not to say that all new ideas are equally valid, because some of the new ideas coming are indeed quite whacky. And it's only through the passage of time and the value of science, which is to continually confirm, that the idea is true or not, that we begin to get a sense of what is likely to be true versus what is likely to be a phantasy." Go ahead and enjoy! Time just over 20 minutes.



Thanks to ~C4 for heads up.

Power of Nightmares from BBC

An amazing documentary in three parts by Adam Curtis from BBC on the rise of "Neocons" and "Islamism", each part 1 hour. Originally aired in 2004. (Wiki entry here)

The Power of Nightmares episode 1 is about the ideological revulsion to the consumer society created by industry and public relations. Simultaneously, Sayyid Qutb resolved to purge the Muslim world of Western consumerism while Leo Strauss resolved to make consuming Americans Crusaders for freedom around the world. Ayman Zawahiri was a student of Qutb and Paul Wolfowitz was a student of Strauss. (see alternative links for this part in comment section)

The Power of Nightmares episode 2 shows Bin Laden and the Neo cons fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan and how the Soviet collapse left without an enemy to herd their public with.

The Power of Nightmares episode 3 shows how 911 was used to give those "with the most fear, the most power" and how the Neo cons recreated the terrorist threat.

The Delusion

CJ Smith of Indistinct Union writes:

"...Underneath what Dawkins has written, philosophically (and I would add spiritually), is a naked display of power. The problem isn’t science. The problem is scientism–that is science taken from its proper context and applied as an ideology to all other arenas of existence without question.

The “whole of life”, in other words, is simply the description of how it (life) causally comes about. Power equals a hypothesis, an experimental test, and validation via evidence. It is about isolated scientists observing the laws of nature (so-called) usually alone or at most in a cliquish elite, who are too often infected with a lust for control of life. This is why Dawkins doesn’t understand communal (2nd-person) forms of being-in-the-world, only 3rd and 1st person. He’s not really in dialogue with nature. He’s not in dialogue with too many humans either."

See the whole short piece.

Century of Self from BBC

A documentary from BBC by Adam Curtis. Each part 1 hour. (Wiki entry here) See each at Google video, links below.

The Century of the Self episode 1 begins with, Sigmund Freud's nephew, Edward Bernays. He went from Enrico Caruso's publicist to WW1 propagandist and repackaged propaganda as "public relations". Herbert Hoover applied his ideas to turn Americans into the consumers industry needed. Joseph Goebbels, is shown explaining how Bernays' same ideas were used to turn the Germans into Nazi's.

The Century of the Self episode 2 begins with Sigmund Freud's daughter, Anna. Studies of traumatized soldiers in WW2 showed their upbringing made them psychologically vulnerable. Anna Freud popularized the idea that imposing conformity strengthened the ego. Thus leading to the conformity of the 50's.

The Century of the Self episode 3 shows the overthrow of Anna Freud's ideas and reverses them with the idea that it is society that is sick and individuals need to free themselves of it. Thus the counter culture and the self actualization movement. Industry no longer wanted to make standard products, they married their new products with expressing individuality. Maslow's hierarchy of needs provided a model for this and was used to elect Ronald Reagan.

The Century of the Self episode 4 shows how the public had become consumers of politics in the same way they had earlier become consumers of products. Focus groups determine policy, first for the Right, and then, to survive, for the Left, especially, Bill, Hillary, and Tony Blair.

Thanks to Daily Kos.

Authority Killed

"...When Pullman kills off the Authority in his books, he's doing us all a favour. Rather than the mad Archon against whom the characters rebel, Pullman sides with the Dust, a barely detectable essence of permeating Divinity; a concept of God far more subtle, demanding more reflection, than pray-n-obey. I can see why the Zeus-worshippers don't care too much for Dust: They want their God throned, bearded and lightning-bolt chucking.

The Magisterium is a metaphor for absolute power corrupting absolutely; to equate that with the Roman Catholic Church is to assert that Rome is exactly that corrupt power – an assertion I reject. I don't deny that the RCC has been this in the past, but certainly not in my lifetime. Get over it."

See the whole piece by Jordan Stratford+. Nice comments.

Review of Sam Harris

~C4Chaos reviews Sam Harris' "Letter to a Christian Nation". Quote:

"...The only reservation I have with Harris's approach, is that, in his passion to wage intellectual war against the mythic membership, he fails to address the stages of moral development of people. Consequently, the stages of moral development applies to everyone, including Atheists. Thus, there are pre-conventional Muslims, conventional Muslims, post-conventional Muslims; pre-conventional Christians, conventional Christians, post-conventional Christians; pre-conventional Atheists, conventional Atheists, post-conventional Atheists. Meaning: Atheism is not immune to the extreme forms of fanaticism that Harris is ranting about. Although religion is indeed a big factor in stages of moral development, religion is not the root of all evil. Individual and social intelligences come into play along the way. Religion is a by-product of human (and collective) development, not a root cause. But I agree with Harris that religion is a source great suffering in the world; pre-conventional and conventional religions to be exact."

If lack of precision in terms is Harris' main fault, then ~C4 could also do better, as in last sentence of this paragraph, when he writes, "I agree with Harris that religion is a source great suffering in the world; pre-conventional and conventional religions to be exact", perhaps it should be something like "I agree that worldviews in the egocentric and ethnocentric range, i.e. preconventional to early conventional, armed with late conventional technology and systems of power distribution, are a source of great suffering in the world". I would never agree with Harris that religion as such is a source of great suffering - that statement being an obfuscation in itself, prompted by a hidden ideological agenda, in itself quite militant - because at those earlier stages of societal and cultural development, "religion" does not stand apart from anything else. We too often call all those earlier social and cultural features "religion". Or, speaking of great suffering in other developmental terms, it's "low morals with high/er means", or in simplest terms possible, exterior development plus interior stagnation (or even regression). It's not "religion" that produced Hitler or Mao or Stalin or the contemporary banking system. Solutions to such situations may be argued in many ways, of course, without blaiming any one exclusive condition. Little more subtlety and precision would go a long way.

Fortunately, ~C4 then goes to define some of these terms with Fowler and Spiral Dynamics and even manages not to mention Wilber in this post (especially his "Marriage of Sense and Soul" and "Integral Spirituality" where all these arguments are hashed out for anyone interested in up-to-date solutions to the burning modern and postmodern divide).

Read the whole review.

Bodhimind?

Yes, it's bodhimind. The reality of bodhicitta keeps coming up. It's the mind/heart or the embodied wakefullness, it's the awakened awareness in it's own nature (normally refered to as ultimate bodhicitta) and the same awareness at work (relative bodhicitta) with situations and relationships. The duality of these two being paradoxical and instrumental, at best. However, it's always useful to distinguish whether we approach the absolute nature or the relative nature of something. Once we distinguish, the level of realisation and the level of language changes considerably.

Apart from the usual ultimate/relative, there is another important distinction. Great master Asanga, the famous spokesman for Bodhisattva Maitreya, distinguished between agama (received teachings) and adhigama (direct realisation). Now, realisation may confirm what's been received and transmitted, but realisation will also supplement the received teaching in some important aspects. In traditional societies, the most powerful innovations were recognized as revelations. In this space between tradition and realisation there's plenty room for evolution of the teachings themselves. The text of the sutra as written in Sanskrit or Pali may or may not change its transmitted form, but our understanding of its un/intended meanings is unavoidably evolving.

We contextualize our realizations, we interpret the words and utterances, we recognize historical, cultural and societal dimensions of speakers and purposes, messages and audiences, and in such manner we also liberate various strands or depths inherent in the text itself. There's the accommodating capacity of the speaker to meet his audience at a certain level of experience and aspiration. And there's hopefully also the unfathomable capacity of the speaker to point - and introduce directly, perhaps - beyond the conventional, beyond the obvious in the audience.

But further even, the text without boundaries - that is, the expanse of reality - is what we find ourselves immersed into as we proceed with our explorations. This body with its environment, even as we speak, indeed every object of awareness is itself a letter, every form and sound and smell and taste and touch, every thought and feeling, every yearning and meaning, is itself a limpid symbol of that which is made obvious in the very act of concealment - look! Henceforth we no longer search for other-signs of illusion and/or reality. Instead, we establish self-referents of wakefullness in this and that realm of the vast expanse. That vastness is incessantly always reinventing itself through our very act of un/limited mindedness and utterance and enactment. We are always represencing what then - as it were - becomes our reality. What we attend to and what we intend, becomes a new expression of inexhaustible potential. Does that make sense?

Wallace at Mind and Reality

First a short interview with B. Alan Wallace on the Mind and Reality conference (only 1o minutes), and then the keynote itself (1 hour 9 minutes). Highly recommended viewing. Enjoy!

Symbolism of Experience

"... Basic suffering is very powerful ground, and the basis of man's attitude toward symbolism. The only immediate symbolism we can experience is pain. It is the direct message that we have been constantly involved in seeking pleasure of all kinds-and when the search for pleasure becomes our theme, that automatically provides a reference point to pain. We may feel relatively good, with nothing to complain about particularly. But then we would like to entertain ourselves more. We go to the movies, but the movie is terrible; so we decide to go to a restaurant, but the food isn't so good - or for that matter, we go and see a great movie and have a fantastic meal in a restaurant! All of that is an expression of basic pain. ..."

Read "The Symbolism of Experience" by Chogyam Trungpa.