Gaia: The Integral Pod - Chapel Perspicacious - Indigo Buddhism?

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

http://rickholden76.gaia.com — Sun, 08 Jul 2007 21:14:03 GMT

I'm not sure how cosmologically significant this Awareness is, beyond the fact that this seems to be the basis for all else. It just is, and any significance about this Awareness is wholly a product of the mind.
All matter is evergy and all energy is matter at the end of the day. All of the positive energy in the universe, all matter that is, has an equal and opposite energy expressed in gravity. If we were to take both of these forces and put them in opposition then the sum total of all matter and energy in the universe would be 0. Yet here is this moment and here is experience. It can't be understood with a grasping, conceptual mind.

"If it's so, wouldn't it be more like “Am” since before Abraham or something like that? It sounds personal when you say, “I Am,” doesn't it?"

Yes, I think your right. This may be the same mistake Decartes made when he postulated an "I" before "Think." In reality it is actually, there is thought and therefore thought is. To say that "I think" is to ignore direct experience, because how many of us actually will thought to be?

"“From atoms to Shakespeare–that's pretty frisky dirt!” And all these patterns being repeated around the world. How do we explain that without some creative principle?"

Right again, it is good of you not to ignore the evidence at hand. There are creative processes in the universe. The mistake that I think is being made with the Integral concept of evolution, is the conceptual positing of an actual force we can lable "evolution" that acts in the universe. I will explain this in detail, because I think detail is what is necessary and what is missing.
Let's go back to the 0 actual matter and energy in the universe again. If you take two atoms and bring their velocities close to the speed of light in a huge (many city blocks) partical accelerator, and smash them into each other, you get the two original atoms, but you also get two additional ones. This would be exactly like smashing two watches together and gettng the gears and parts of not just two watches, but the gears and parts for two additonal watches, literally out of "thin air." The ground just became a little less solid, huh?
So here we seem to have a proven, as smashing two atoms together has never failed to produce new addition particles, creative force in the universe. But is the force inherent in anything? Didn't you need two atoms, and a rather comlex and very expensive particle accelerator, and a lot of people.... insert infinite regress here.
The creative processes in the universe don't seem to be seperate from the things that are being creative. Just as motion doesn't actually exist apart from a mover, niether does creativity or evolution exist apart from that which evolves.
Gravity doesn't exist apart from matter which is also energy, and vica versa. The two don't exist in isolation from each other anywhere in the universe, so where can we say is an inherent "gravity" or inherent "matter"?
This is where I think Hokai and others are going wrong in the evolution debate. It isn't that the creative processes in the universe, nor the relative knowledge that make up this post shouldn't be a part of the conversation in Buddhism, and that the old myths shouldn't be undone, but that the things that people feel should be included aren't really understood by they themselves.
It's like a painting by Serat. From afar it is a single, beautiful image, but the closer you get the more it just looks like a bunch of colored dots on a canvas. All the writings about evolution I've read by Integral authors point to the fact that they have trouble seeing the trees in the proverbial forest.
The modern synthesis of biological evolution is complex. We have Conditions (environment and social); Causes (selection pressures, biotic and abiotic); Constraints (Biochemical or existing variation); and Consequences (total interation). We can divide these 4 into infinite regresses as well. So let's go old school and list the 4 elements of Darwinian evolution: Inheritence, Reproduction, Variation, and Competition. Where do you see one thing?
Then there's punctuated equalibrium, which is the stable form of a genome over time, followed by rapid change. This calls for a Macro-evolutionary model, and not the previous micro or mutationist school theories. In fact, the two work in conjunction. The two we conceive in our minds isn't actually anywhere to be found.
Robert Foley, the president of the Assoc. of Physical Anthropology has stated that from our most currect understanding of homind evolution:
"It is clear that the hominin evolutionary record as a whole shows a series of adaptive radiations."
Not some unbroken and continuous chain from ape to you and me. This idea exists in our minds, but not in any data that anyone has collected anywhere in the world.
Interestingly enough, all of our ancestors early adaptations were of a below the neck nature. Unright, bipedal locomotion; a double curved spine, etc... all happened before we got big brains. Homo erectus was essentially a modern human from the neck down, albeit a faster, stronger human. In fact we really can't seperate our larger brains and intelligence from the inclusion of preditory behavior to our species. What happened first, did we become preditors first or did we become more intelligent causing us to become preditors? This is a bogus question of course, but the same kind of bogus conceptualization that we create when positing simplisitic and dualistic concepts of evolution.
If all these other adaptive radiations, over the span of millions of years and dozens of hominin species didn't take place, then you and I wouldn't have the big brains needed to type these words. We are no more inherently a part of some big scheme in the universe than the complex geological structures formed over millions of years and the forces that produced them. If your thinking that all of these complex causes and effects were some how a part of a bigger picture, then your assuming that we humans, on a planet out of billions in a galaxy, out of billions of galaxies in the universe were somehow the original plan of the universe itself. Our present phenotypic and genotypic form isn't a given, as we a still subject to evolution and extinction. If we cease to exist, then what does that say for the grand schemem of things? The cockaroach is evidence that evolution isn't an inherent force, but the reciprical product of countless other processes, so on and so forth.
So the forces that your speaking of, like evolution, don't exist anywhere in and of themselves, anymore than the things that exist in relation to them do. The law of depence origination is complete and there are no exceptions in the relative world.
This Awareness is different though. It is the only thing that hasn't changed during the course of your life, nor during the course of evolutionary change. This is to undertand the Two Truths Doctrine of Buddhism.
So this Integral understanding of evolution only holds together when we don't look too close to the data and what is actually going on. There are creative processes in the universe, just as there are physical laws and constants, but nothing exists in issolation and isn't dependent upon conditions. To better understand how this creative process happens, I recommend Glick's, "Chaos." It is a deatailed account of the history and basis of the Chaos Theory.

That's the end of that, but the same can be said about cultural or social change. Julian Steward pioneered Cultural evolutionary understanding in his life work and in his book, "Theory of Culture change," in 1955. This was a way to bring in what he called a, "Multilinear evolutionary process and understanding," to counter Leslie White's, unilinear evolutionary theory, which is based largely upon 19th century anthropology, posits the idea of cultural evolution as an increasing efficiency of man's exploitation of the environment over time, and is the basis of the two lower quadrants in AQAL. So we can say that AQAL is up on 1930's anthropology. Roy Rappaport, and Bob Netting, Geertz and others have continued Steward's work in greater detail and corrected his mistakes.

So for both biological evolution and cultural evolution, you need to do more than just read Integral theorists, you need to go to the source material, to get a more realistic and wholistic picture. And to get a better understanding of the relative verses the absolute.

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

http://monk.gaia.com — Sun, 08 Jul 2007 00:36:17 GMT

Balder said: "Wilber's claim that this "I Am" has been the same since before Abraham. Although it may not be, this appears to be either a mythical or a metaphysical belief. So, the question is, what evidence is there that there IS a primordial Spirit or an enlightened buddhanature which "contains" everything that unfolds in time and through evolution, and is it enough to meet the challenges posed by modern and postmodern worldviews?

I believe this inquiry is subtle and challenging - at least for me, at my present level of understanding. For instance, Buddhist teachings, including Dzogchen ones, are quite clear that you cannot "locate" any such thing as a mind or an originary source, as "things in themselves," when you look for them. You only find emptiness which is clear and aware. The question that remains, though, is whether this non-finding is cosmologically and existentially significant in the ways that some Buddhist teachings suggest that it is."

I think this is a really interesting inquiry as well.

1) Why does Wilber say '"I am" has been the same since before Abraham"' when "I" is just a thought as well? If it's so, wouldn't it be more like "Am" since before Abraham or something like that? It sounds personal when you say, "I Am," doesn't it?

2) Evidence for primordial spirit--I'm not arguing that there is, but how do we explain the manifest realm if there isn't? How do we explain evolution if there isn't? As Ken once said (I'm paraphrasing), "From atoms to Shakespeare--that's pretty frisky dirt!" And all these patterns being repeated around the world. How do we explain that without some creative principle?

4) Emptiness/awareness--maybe it's only relatively empty? Why since it's so empty compared to what people usually experience do people say it's totally empty? And then again, if it's totally empty, how all this evolution? I'm not trying to argue the case for primordial spirit so much as trying understand the other view. How does it answer this question?

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

http://rickholden76.gaia.com — Sat, 07 Jul 2007 09:25:43 GMT

That's a great question. If you think of the traditions, like Buddhism as only meditation and study, then no that definitely isn't enough. Hence the absolute need for the full 8 fold path.
You can understand the concepts of the way or of what non-dual realization is long before you actually live there. Bruce is right that that it isn't something that is achieved, but realized or regained, but to say that isn't to minimize this fact or say that regaining anything is easy.
The often apt Zen metaphor is that it's like taking out the spoon that is stirring dirt around in a cup; eventually it will settle and reveal it's true nature. We can say that pure water was there the whole time, but it was also always cloudy the whole time.
To quote the great Zen master Shunryu Suzuki:

"People say that practicing Zen is difficult, but there is a misunderstanding as to why. It is not difficult because it is hard to sit in the cross-legged position, or to attain enlightenment. It is difficult because it is hard to keep our mind pure and our practice pure in its fundamental sense."

So if you study books and sit in meditation daily, but you still condition your mind for a dualistic world-view, then it's two steps forward, one step back. This is because, while direct perception of non-duality is our natural state, we've never actually experienced it before in a conscious way. So people talk about non-dual state this, non-dual stage that, but in the end one can't describe it. That is what all that other work is for, it's reconditioning that allows the visibile to be seen. One can't will it, but only create a space to allow the kind of mind that just Sees. This happens in an instant. Of course, that's when the hard work actually starts, and that's the joke on you. That's what Suzuki is talking about. You realize that all the work you've done to Just SEE and to know Truth directly in this moment, is just the beginning of a practice. Until that point you have no idea what the hell your even looking for. After that it becomes easier and easier to reproduce, but I'm not sure the process is ever complete. The Buddha said it was like pulling a poison arrow out. The arrow might be out, but there's still poison there and you have to suck it out. Even then you have to recover, and at anytime you can relapse from a lifetime of greed, anger and delusion. It's hard to give up what you know for the unknown. Suffering is suffering, but if all you've known is prison then freedom can be scary.
Steve Hagen, who was given the right of transmission by Katagiri Roshi, and been a Zen priest for over 20 years has said that he's never actually met someone that perminetly lived in a non-dual state and never got distracted. So in the end the point is really to know the truth directly, and to do what you have to do every moment. Every moment you have to choose to live here and nowhere else.
You don't know your getting close when you can understand it, you know you are when you feel it. Feel what? This, this very moment and nothing else. You go from understanding it to not understanding it at all. (The absolute, not the relative)
The Buddha said that enlightenment is nothing more than a clear understanding of delusion. Delusion doesn't vanish, you just see it as delusion.
The next step is to understand that this direct Seeing or the moment for what it is is made possible by nothing more than a set of aggregates, based upon other aggregate and so on, all the way down, and has nothing to do with any "You."

It's like lifting weights. At first everything is heavy and then after a few years, things get lighter. At first you have to constantly bring yourself back to the moment, but after some time it gets easier and easier, and then the above process that I've outline begins.

Too much study that actually hurt you, because we often trade knowledge for wisdom. With all things the Middle way is the best.
As Socrates said, "Study without thought is wasted, and thought without study is pointless."
If we add a total life practice then the circle is complete.

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

http://theurj.gaia.com — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 19:28:27 GMT

I said above on 6/25/07 at 7:14 pm:

And one last point for now: What if the ultimate "state" of nonduality, which is not a state or a stage, has nothing whatsoever to do with subtle and causal meditation techniques or interpretations? What if the nondual is our natural condition, like primordial awareness, and that we have to "regain" it instead of develop or "practice" into it? What if the nondual is not part of the state-stage developmental scheme at all? It seems the only "research" to that effect, the one Ken quotes all the time, is from something he co-wrote with Brown* and which obviously had its own research agenda based on what? Ken's model...

Balder said 6/26 at 9:33 am

Concerning the question of whether nonduality might not be a "state" or stage at all, but a natural condition which must be regained rather than achieved or created, I actually think that IS Ken's position. It certainly is the position of Dzogchen. Dzogchen does teach practices, but it calls them non-practices precisely for the reason you point out: there is nothing to achieve. "Practicing into" primordial awareness is an exercise in recognition, not in generating some new evolutionary stage.

* * *

Given the above, is it necessary to study/practice meditation (Buddhist or otherwide) and/or go through state-stage developmental training (subtle, causal) to arrive at a stable nondual realization? Is it possible that one can "recognize" our primordial awareness and/or emptiness via other modern or postmodern study/practice? And are the latter only confined to the gross state?

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

http://Nomali.gaia.com — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 01:59:59 GMT

Hi All,
I have not been here in a long time and only just discovered this amazing thread. Of course, it will take me a while to read and get into it. So, at this time, I will not stick my neck in here without having participated in it.

However, I thought that some of you might appreciate this paper that was written by a 22 year old in England, who is in the JFK Integral Studies program. The paper is on AQAL and Emptiness. It may end up on KW.com. Anyone interested could check it here. I warn, that too is quite long :-)

Consider it also an invitation to join the Boulder Center for Integral Living. Rich will appreciate your comments and feedback :-)

Much Metta!
Nomali

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

http://rickholden76.gaia.com — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 00:57:54 GMT

Yeah, everything you said, when put into the context of what you were saying pointed that's what you were talking about. That's why what you said really resonated with me as direct insight.
As Neils Bohr said, "The opposite of a small truth is clearly false; the opposite of a great truth is also true."

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

http://brucealderman.gaia.com — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:50:19 GMT

Thanks, Rick. I'll sign in and probably say more tomorrow. Just to explain my use of the word "intelligence" -- I was playing on the Tibetan term for primordial awareness, rigpa, which also means "intelligence."

Best wishes,

B.

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

http://rickholden76.gaia.com — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:38:52 GMT

Bruce,
I'd say what your trying to say in a different way, as some of the terms you used can be taken more than one way, but I think you've hit the nail on the head with your last post. When you get there, you get into murky territory, in that it becomes harder and harder to express it in words.
I think, however, that we should be careful when we begin to classify Awareness as something like intelligence. It is one aspect of intelligence, but only one aspect, as you have said the other aspect, the relative aspect that produces thoughts and the like are dependent upon matter, like a brain, a pumping heart and something to think about.
So this Awareness, I guess you can call it primordial if you want, has always contained everything necessary for Buddhahood, not because it contained anything, but because of the fact that it contained nothing. It holds nothing, as we in Zen say, like a mirror.
This may be the bit that you were trying to say.
To say that something contains something, is to imply that there are things that it doesn't contain. The Buddha is nothing more than this awareness, nothing more than this very mind. The fact that the Buddha has no qualities is what makes a Buddha a Buddha. But for a person to be enlightened, that is aware of the true nature of delusion and Reality, they require, as you say a brain, and blood and the rest, as you've stated.
As the Bodhidharma said, "Trying to find the Buddha beyond the self, beyond this mind is like trying to grasp space. Space has a name, but no form."

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

http://theurj.gaia.com — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 02:52:07 GMT

Thanks for the suggestions Lol. It will take me some time to ponder and digest what you've said. In the meantime Bruce summed up the pomo challege nicely, and one which Ken utilizes also quite nicely in IS, except when the "primordial awareness" of the "absolute" is exempt from such "relative" concerns. I don't have any answers, just plenty of food for thought. As Arnold famously said: "I'll be back."

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

http://brucealderman.gaia.com — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 23:49:26 GMT

Hi, Lol,

Thank you for returning to this part of our discussion. I think it is very relevant, and I am still wrestling with it -- by which I mean, trying to understand how the post-modern critique impacts notions like kun.zhi rig.pa or buddhanature. Having been influenced by both Dzogchen and TSK perspectives, I have also tended to view evolution both in terms of the conventional historical trajectory, and the "on the spot," ongoing flashing forth or coalescence of self-world-space out of the tigle nyagcig (Dzogchen) or the "zero point" (TSK).

However, whether we view this historically or somewhat atemporally, I think the postmodern worldview poses the same challenge: it appears to be equally "metaphysical" to posit a primordial, timeless Intelligence at the beginning of creation, or as "underlying" the relative display of phenomena from moment to moment. As I understand it, the question is this: On what grounds do we posit a pristine, awakened awareness, a primordial Intelligence that is complete in itself and which inherently contains all the perfections of buddhahood? Is rigpa really primordial, meaning it exists "as it is," with equal fullness, equal enlightened awareness, at all points in human development, and even prior to the birth or beyond the death of any particular body? I think what theurj is suggesting is that the primordial wisdom awareness that we "contact" in meditation and through pointing out instructions is an awareness that depends for its "enlightened" qualities, its "inherent" wisdom, on the development of particular capacities in the organism that "realizes" it. In other words, it is not really primordial, but is a contingent state of awareness, and that the "fruit" that manifests from resting in it doesn't manifest spontaneously and atemporally, but rather is a reflection either of the development of certain structural capacities in the individual who realizes it, or else depends on a particularly integrated mode of brain functioning (but which wouldn't, and cannot, exist apart from a fully functioning, healthy brain).

With significant enough meditative attainment, we can maintain awareness throughout dreams and deep sleep. We can watch the body go off-line as we fall asleep, and literally appear out of nothing as we awaken in the morning. (I've experienced this, as I'm sure others here have as well). But from a modernist or postmodernist perspective, this isn't strong enough reason to believe that the awareness that can witness these events exists primordially, or to accept Wilber's claim that this "I Am" has been the same since before Abraham. Although it may not be, this appears to be either a mythical or a metaphysical belief. So, the question is, what evidence is there that there IS a primordial Spirit or an enlightened buddhanature which "contains" everything that unfolds in time and through evolution, and is it enough to meet the challenges posed by modern and postmodern worldviews?

I believe this inquiry is subtle and challenging -- at least for me, at my present level of understanding. For instance, Buddhist teachings, including Dzogchen ones, are quite clear that you cannot "locate" any such thing as a mind or an originary source, as "things in themselves," when you look for them. You only find emptiness which is clear and aware. The question that remains, though, is whether this non-finding is cosmologically and existentially significant in the ways that some Buddhist teachings suggest that it is.

I feel there is something that I have not yet articulated here, which I need to articulate, to fully represent the nature of the problem and the different perspectives involved -- but this is all that's coming out right now! Maybe I'll return to this later. I will welcome thoughts from you or anyone else in the meantime.

Best wishes,

Bruce

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

http://rickholden76.gaia.com — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 23:48:47 GMT

Yeah, I like that Lol, but I'm not gonna pretend that I fully understand everything you wrote. As a Ch'an practitioner, keeping it simple is best for me. What I understood, I agree with though.
I think another thing to consider is that there isn't something out there which makes up awareness. According to Buddhist thought, awareness has simply always been, and this aspect of Reality is beyond understanding.
Modern physics has shown us that this awareness literally solidifies Reality capital letter, into a reality of graspable concepts. What I mean by this is that when you focus your mind or consciousness upon the Whole, it literally takes form at that point. We don't actually see these things happen, but scientists have noted that various film left inside of a sealed box with different things going on, produce different patterns on the film depending on whether they place a unit of measurement inside of the box; like a camera or photon detector.
There's a mental experiment that helps people wrap their minds around this called, "Schrodenger's Cat."
Not only that, but when you measure something via consciousness it is always changed at every moment in the past. When astronomers look at or measure light that left quasars 10 billion years ago, they find that it reactes depending upon where they focus awareness on its travel path. What I mean is that a photon that travels across a galaxy is often bent, by gravity, around the galaxy. When astronomers focus their lenses at a point away from a galaxy, they get a partical pattern. That is, they see that the photons traveled around one side or another. When they focus at the point where they photons intersect on the other side of the galaxy, they get a wave interference patter. This means that each photon went around both sides of the galaxy at the same time. This makes no rational sense, but the simple act of placing awareness upon a point in the galaxy millions of light years away, changes what the photons did 10 billion years ago.
Again, this is transrational and proves that time is relative and non-existent in any ultimate sense. The way you conceive the universe to be, isn't the way it is, and it is impossible to put this reality into concepts to make up words. So why try?
So even things like evolution aren't "inherent" properties or forces contained within the universe anywhere, but are dependent upon various causal factors. The only thing that isn't dependent upon anything else is this awareness. So while this Awareness is antecedent to form (matter), it is pointless to talk of Awareness without form.

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

http://ma-rig-pa.gaia.com — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 22:19:16 GMT

Earlier in the thread there were some exchanges between theurj and Balder, from which I’ve quoted here:

theurj: “I guess where I get confused is on “the recogition of primoridal awareness.” The word primordial seems to suggest this “awareness” existed prior to an “I” that could be aware of it, in which case it seems to lapse into the pre-rational sub- or unconsciousness.”

Balder: “About the issue of whether primordial awareness is necessarily “lower” because it exists “prior” to the formation of the “I”: this is a complex question. I am not in a position to say anything authoritative about it. Buddhist traditions do differentiate between different levels of awareness. For instance, the Bon Dzogchen tradition offers a number of different terms for awareness: One term is chabrig, which is the “pervasive awareness” that they claim is present in all matter. (Whiteheadian prehension?) They also use the term bsamrig, which is consciousness as it appears in sentient beings of all sorts. And then there is yerig, which has a spiritual meaning and is related to enlightened awareness. So, there is a clear hierarchical ranking of these types of awareness – some dim, some more open and clear. The question a modern individual might ask is, Is “enlightened awareness” dependent on structural cognitive development and mature ego growth (and transcendence?), or is it somehow “outside” of the developmental spectrum (with its shades and flavors of consciousness)? I believe Wilber's model favors the latter view, at least when it comes to the ultimate awareness of Spirit. It rests on a model which posits involution (scattering and dimming of awareness) and evolution (the gradual recollection and integration of awareness). If you leave out involution, then I think the option you describe appears rational: if everything starts from the “base” of dull matter, and slowly builds up, then of course a primordial awareness is likely also to be a dim awareness … the faint flicker of sensitivity in matter, for instance; or the greater (but still prepersonal) hum of the organism.”

theurj: “Now you also used involution to “explain” the possibility of a “higher” state called primoridal awareness, how it can come to be before a developmental self. Otherwise you can see how one might interpret it as the pre-personal, primordial “hum of the organism.” I think that we can take out such metaphysical concepts as involution and reincarnation and still have a postmetaphyical AQAL. …. So I’d agree that a legitimate question is whether this hierarchical notion of an “open and clear awareness” is a “given” or if it indeed is a developmental signified/referent and if the latter it might behoove us to understand the role of the ego in its very formation.”

I’ve been sitting with this aspect of the discussion for a while now: whether primordial awareness is essentially an “enlightened awareness” or merely a pre-personal “dim awareness”, and this would seem to depend on whether the metaphysical concept described as the involution of Spirit into (proto?)matter is ‘allowable’ or not. So rather than just having an either/or I’d like to suggest another possibility.

To my mind the description of the involution of Spirit is just like a creation myth. Why do we need to take it literally? Ken writes (IS p.217) “Spirit starts out full and complete, with all of manifestation contained as potential in itself …. steps down into manifestation – and begins to lose itself in manifestation – by shedding its pure spiritual nature and assuming a manifest, finite, limited form – namely the soul …” which, as he goes on to describe, steps down into mind, which in turn flees into life, which finally sheds its vitality and appears as inert, insentient, lifeless matter … “... at which point something like the Big Bang occurs, whereupon matter blows into concrete existence and it appears that the entire manifest world, there exists nothing but insentient, dead, lifeless matter. But this matter is curiously frisky, is it not?” …. and on we go with evolution.

I like the opening lines, with Spirit starting out “… full and complete, with all of manifestation contained as potential in itself …” as this description could equally be applied to tig.le chen.po or “Total Tigle”, a synonym for the self-perfected state of Dzogchen, the inseparability of the Ground (kun.zhi) and primordial awareness (rig.pa).

But as I asked earlier, why do we need to take this creation myth literally? There is something analogous in one of the texts written by the Dzogchen master Longchenpa, where in an attempt to address the paradox of how & why sentient beings can be said to already, from the “beginningless beginning”, possess Buddhanature, i.e. primordial awareness, and yet still be caught up in dualistic vision, there is a poetic description of at some point a “loss” of primordial or intrinsic awareness, and a falling into dualism.

But when this is interpreted / translated, it is explained that this “loss of awareness” can (or in most cases does) occur at any moment …. and even if we have knowledge of our real condition i.e. knowledge of the primordial state through transmission or direct introduction, and can therefore “enter into” primordial awareness, in the very next moment we can either be in the presence of this awareness … or not … i.e. ‘lose’ this primordial awareness.

There is an explanation in the Dzogchen teaching of how everything and anything that is in potential comes into manifestation within this “kun.zhi rig.pa”, and that this manifestation possesses, and can be experienced at, three levels or depths, namely outer inner and secret, which themselves can be equated with gross, subtle and extremely subtle. The point is that on the relative level of linear time this process of manifestation is said to occur as if anew each and every moment, allowing for both the subtle impermanence as explained in Buddhism, and evolutionary development.

With this in mind I’d like to suggest that the descending spiral of involution and the ascending spiral of evolution are both occurring, together, as if anew, in each and every moment …. that there doesn’t need to be a grand beginning as in a creation myth. We can only speculate on or theorise about what was before the Big Bang. I’d like to suggest that whatever might have been was “contained” within “kun.zhi rig.pa”, as was the Big Bang (if that’s what happened) and every moment of manifestation since.

In Buddhism there is a consideration of not just one universe that has come into being with the Big Bang, but an infinite number of universes, all at different phases of evolutionary development …. from the perspective of the Dzogchen teaching all equally “contained” within “kun.zhi rig.pa”. This rig.pa that is inseparable from “the ground of all” is said in this way to pervade everything, including what appears to be “inert, lifeless matter”. So this primordial awareness isn’t seen to be in any way “dim” or “lower” or merely “the pre-personal, primordial “hum of the organism”. And as regards how it can “come to be before a developmental self” or “an “I” that could be aware of it”, one might ask what is present in the moment of mind before the first moment of a developmental self, and I would have to answer: a moment of mind inseparable from its true nature or real condition, which is non-dual primordial awareness.

What do you think Edward, Bruce (and interested others)?

Lol

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

http://rickholden76.gaia.com — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 07:42:12 GMT

I also posted this in the Hokai Blog that Bruce told me about.

You know, I think my problem with all this is two-fold. First, I didn't realize that there was such a problem. For some reason I've been lucky to pick up really good books in my life, and I've had amazing and deeping understanding teachers. I guess, I've assumed that this is just the normal experience that young students of the Dharma have as they enter the stream. But....
I just finished listening to a Dharma talk by Steve Hagen, entitled, “Big self, little self.” Here: http://www.dharmafield.org/
Just hit the speaker symbol under the link, Listen to an excerpt, and then hit the link for the Talk.
He talks about having to fight the publishers at Shambala everytime he writes a book, because the makes distinctions between the two truths, and they don't get it, so they send it back to him and tell him to change what they think of as a type-o.
He has also noticed it in Buddhism as of late, so he felt he need to made the distinction.
However, he also backs up my previous thesis, that it is not the point of the Dharma to push relative truth, but to realize it's true nature.
As, I've said, I've studied evolution for years, and think I understand it better than most Integrally minded people that toss around the word, evolution. I've seen other students minds twist in consternation as they try to grasp these great truths (like evolution) with dualistic minds. And that's the point. Some relative truth is more true in a relative way than other relative truth, but what makes all the difference is the quality of mind that resonates with that truth. The data doesn't change, one's mind changes to see what was already there, like one of those images that you stare at and suddenly a picture appears. It doesn't matter what relative truth has evolved to any point in time as long as your not seeing it the right way.
As a person “climbs the ladder” the same relative truths take on wholly different qualities.
And that is the purpose of the Dharma. To say that it is anything else is to corrupt it, to just make it another “ism” in the modern world.
If you want to understand evolution, then study evolution. If you want to see directly the two truths and abide in direct and absolute awareness, then go to a Zen master. Otherwise its like putting a camera, a mp3 player and a phone all together in one device. You end up getting a crappy camera, phone and mp3 player.

Actually, the iphone may have made that last example obsolete. Ok, its like Wal-Mart. Its a one stop shopping experience, but you not gonna get anything really good there.
What do you think?

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

http://rickholden76.gaia.com — Sun, 01 Jul 2007 02:42:38 GMT

Thanx for reposting that link Bruce. It'll take me a while to get up to date on it, but I'm really looking forward to learning something.

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

http://brucealderman.gaia.com — Sun, 01 Jul 2007 02:21:34 GMT

Rick, I mentioned this up above, but in case you missed it and are interested, Hokai and I have been talking about these things on his blog here on Zaadz. He's a member of Zaadz and was one of the participants in the Symposium organized by Julian (as was I).

On Being and Becoming

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

http://rickholden76.gaia.com — Sun, 01 Jul 2007 02:08:29 GMT

theurj, thanx for posting that, very interesting and and insightful. I've been dealing this gap in detail myself. There are also problems with literalism, as was stated in the blog.
There are countless safe guards against magical thinking, including the sanction of death to any master who would expose others to witnessing any supra-normal power, because of the damage it would do to their personal growth by enforcing magical thinking and egoic power motivations.
In a Buddhist temple, and especially a Zen hall there are so many mixed messages, and so much self contradiction. I once interrupted an accomplished abbot in the middle of a 3 hour dharma talk about reincarnation. I wanted to know how there could be a doctrine of rebirth that didn't produce paradox when considering the totality of emptiness of all things.
He stopped, smiled, and said, "Well, yes of course your right, there is no such thing as reincarnation." He stopped again, gathered himself and went on with his talk as though I hadn't interrupted him at all. In a way he was telling me to look deeper into what he was saying, and that some of the people needed to hear this at their point in development.

And, the political aspect of many sutras hasn't been lost on me, with their beginnings often stating that this is the Truth of the real Dharmakaya, and that anyone who would criticize this sutra will be damned in hell, etc...
That is taught, right along side advanced teachings that tell you to ignore all that, and see through the bullshit. Nothing is hidden, and it is literally up to the individual to see their way through the maze. But, when confronted directly, I've never heard a Buddhist master deny that most of the pre-rational and even rational teachings are anything more than skillful means.
I've expressed my feelings about these teachings to my teacher and he stated that those teachings were for others, and for them the teachings are true.
I also, realize that this Buddhist thing has been evolving for a couple thousand years, and there is more to it than I presume to know. That is, the teaching represents thousands of years of teachers perfecting teachings for all different kinds of people, at all different stages, and in various geographical and cultural situations. So, I'm very wary when it comes to totally tossing out various bits and pieces, even though I think it is a necessary step to the American transition. I just don't know enough of the big picture.
Or maybe, that is just something that I'm reading into it, and it is simply that there are just pre-rational left overs there from an earlier time.
E, what do you think?

I'm going to ask that monk on that blog what he thinks.

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

http://rickholden76.gaia.com — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 21:31:20 GMT

Hey, that's my town! If anyone want's to visit, my door is always open.

I like your point David, but in the story, if we are to compare it to the reality of direct experience, one of those Zen master's doesn't actually exist, and therefore no movement is necessary. One of them is an illusion produced by the other's mind. The reason that there is no paradox of the One and the Many, is that there is only one. The many are simply the products of consciousness itself. The many are what the mind/One does. A gross metaphor would be that the One is the noun and the many is the verb.
The concepts of the One and the Many, in a way, like you said must be included and trascended, but with a completely different quality of mind. To include the many is to know that there are not Many. It is to eliminate the many as real things in and of themselves and to know that they exist only as reified concepts in your mind. So to include the Many is to trancend the Many are anything other than illusion. So the people you are quoting are right, but I don't think your interpretation is correct.
In order to get to that truth the paradox must be deconstructed. When you hold a concept in your head that is in opposition to reality, then your concept is wrong. Both aren't true is some mysterious and magical or romantic way.
When examined, the Many are not to be found. So, in order to pass into the Truth, one must pass through paradox and confusion.
We can put this to the test, and I think we need to. Pick anything that you see; something of the Many that you see and tell me how it is a single thing beyond a concept in your mind.
In a relative sense there are many. In an absolute sense there are none to be found, not even the concept of the One.
Hence, no paradox.

I can't leave it there, because that doesn't make sense, when read with a certain state of mind. When I say there isn't even the One, I'm saying that only in the absolute sense. This is very important. The One isn't One because it isn't One thing, but everything. There is nothing that it isn't so it isn't an "it" or any One thing.
So when I say that I haven't written a single word in my life until right Now. I'm not kidding. But, that is because I didn't exist until right Now. Again, in an absolute sense only.

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

http://theurj.gaia.com — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 17:25:49 GMT

Hokai explores the initial topic of this thread, in broad, general strokes, at his blog: http://hokai.info/2007/06/confusion.html. I hope that he will elaborate on this with specific examples.

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

http://monk.gaia.com — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 12:30:48 GMT

Rick said: "So, I'm really responding to what you are trying to say via the quotes and not the quotes themselves."

It was the exact same message. You are disagreeing with a dharma successor of Bernie Tetsugan Glassman, Roshi.

Look, two Zen masters are going for a walk along the river but from opposite directions, and they are heading directly towards eachother. At least one of them is going to have to change his course. In other words, at least one of those Zen masters is going to have to integrate the paradox of the one and the many or else they are going to collide. They may not experience the thing in a dualistic way or make the decision to change course on a personal level, but still, on some level they are going to have to honor the truth of the many and get out of eachother's way.

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

http://rickholden76.gaia.com — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 08:59:00 GMT

That's exactly what I said Mascha. All of your examples prove it. A paradox exists only when a mind is operating in a dualistic way. There is no paradox in the complexity of real life. There is only paradox when we conceive of a world that is only a certain way, when things can only be this or that, which you have shown to rediculous. The liar's paradox isn't a true paradox, it is a sematic trick and not representative to anything anyone has ever experienced.
And it's simpler than you wrote: "This statement is false."

"The most corrected copies are commonly the least correct." This is not a paradox that exists beyond the dualistic mind. It requires an a priori belief that the more correction a paper gets the more it will be correct, yet reality need not conform to one's beliefs, and in reality mental concepts never do.

So the easiest and fastest way to cut to the truth of what is going on, is to conform one's mind to the way things actually are, and this is done by deconstructing mind made paradoxes.

Otherwise, a person is no different than a drunk person looking for their dropped keys by the lamp post, "because the light is better."