Gaia: The Integral Pod - Chapel Perspicacious - Buddhism and the Fire of Postmodernism

Re: Buddhism and the Fire of Postmodernism

http://universalaikidojo.gaia.com — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 07:27:57 GMT

Hi Rick,

I think the point of the idea of evolution with Andrew and Ken is that, as we grow up we constantly learn new things and develop our understanding, and increase our abilities to reason and think as well as our physical abilities. We strive toward perfecting the inherent potential in human form, physically as well as mentally. Some manages more than others.

At any point in our life we can come to an awakening experience, a spontaneous insight into the true nature of things. Depending on our maturity and understanding at the time we will acknowledge it differently. These awakenings most likely will work on our sub-consciousness and spark an interest in things beyond normal seeing, hence our spiritual interest.
If then, we begin to pursue this evasive hidden nature of ourselves and consciously strive to understand it and incorporate it into our lives, it will help in fulfilling our own humanity. Yes, the true nature hasn't evolved, but we, now conscious of this inherent source of all things, are so much more able to understand and able to align our growth in a much more mature way then before. So our own evolution or growth as a human can reach ever higher as we learn more and more, based on our true nature. But even as a single human being we have limited time and our efforts has to be directed to the bigger picture if to survive ourselves. Our own efforts can and will affect future generations and knowledge can increase over time, a fuller picture emerging, followed with a rise in human consciousness and evolved thinking affecting all levels of society (albeit not without its resistances).

Evolution is then only our own increased awareness of our own limitations and our pursuit of rising above them, to transcend them. To be a fuller expression of that eternal never-changing nature of ours. We are in fact only reaching higher because our own inherent nature demands it. It demands fuller disclosure, fuller expression.

Andrew is fully aware of the never-changing true nature, but he acknowledges that in isolation it doesn't mean a thing. It is only in regards to our grasp or to our expression thereof, we can make sense out of our lives. And taking it a step further then, we see that we can't really separate the two and therefore the focus shifts back into the "world". Now we live what the Buddha taught in "Emptiness is form, form is emptiness etc.

Evolution is then, time itself. The manifest reality of the Absolute nature. The beauty Ken and Andrew is driving at is our own capacity to play a part in its direction. Where will we go? And that it is not a given. That our understanding can grow and allow for increased knowledge and further discoveries relating to new ways of interactions, engagements, of relationships.

This has been alluded to from our great realizers, but most of mankind must play catch up. This is where evolution plays a part in this world, our own rising to a fuller understanding and life. And what happens when we humans actually do come together in an envisioned new way? Something new will emerge that hasn't been possible before, just like when a child grows up, something new is embraced and a new experience emerges. Why not in human societies then? It's not all discovered yet (thank God).

Doesn't "Big Mind" allow for change? for evolution? for growing up?

Why is there difficulty to understand evolution?

Re: Buddhism and the Fire of Postmodernism

http://onthetrail.gaia.com — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 21:20:38 GMT

Hi Rick, Thanks for that link - I enjoyed that a lot. Frans

Re: Buddhism and the Fire of Postmodernism

http://monk.gaia.com — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 20:55:58 GMT

I should add, though, I hadn't meant to get involved in this thread. I was content just to read and ask questions and learn something about Buddhism and postmodernism, but then someone started asking me questions:

"David, what higher energies? There is just energy, so how can some of it be higher than another energy? Any relative difference you point out will always be a product of your own mind."

"David, I still don't really understand your line graph. Where does this concept of the deeper psychic come from? It sounds like a make up kind of thing that sounds good."

So, it's kind of funny to ask me these questions and then turn around and say, "However, to echo Hokai, what does this have to do with Buddhism and post-modernism."

Re: Buddhism and the Fire of Postmodernism

http://rickholden76.gaia.com — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 20:05:45 GMT

There is a great Dharma talk about Buddhism and modernity and post-modernity by Zen priest Steve Hagen here:

http://www.dharmafield.org/

Click the link, listen to an excerpt, which takes you to a dozen sermons. Click on, Why Religion Must Abandon Belief.

The hyper-link doesn't change in the address field, so you have to do those two clicks.
Here we can get a taste of this New American Buddhism, that doesn't actually change the Dharma in any way, but strips it to the original teachings.
The talk is short at about 20 mins. and void of any jargon or terminology. So it's good for anyone.

Re: Buddhism and the Fire of Postmodernism

http://monk.gaia.com — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 19:54:09 GMT

Yes, I saw your original comments, Hokai, on the original thread and your blog. I was just trying to get every last bit out of you, to milk you for all you're worth. :) However, I doubt that the concept of the deeper psychic came from Jung and Hillman. As far as I know, it really came from Aurobindo, who certainly understood it more deeply than Jung and Hillman.

I'm sorry if anyone perceives a threadjacking or the like. I was just figuring (perhaps mistakenly) that the original subject was getting close to being finished, and we might discuss other things in the same space. I think we're all probably a little unclear still on the ethics of that. If it's too closed, then it can block out energy. If it's too open, it can lose energy and get too scattered, as well as losing the thread's original purpose.

Anger could probably use a thread of its own, if people are interested and would prefer it that way.

Sometimes a big thread's kind of a cool-feeling space, though, like a room with a bunch of divans and cushions all over the place. Some people say that retreat rooms take on a certain energy after a certain point, that a "Buddha field" is created. Maybe something similar can be created in a thread.

Re: Buddhism and the Fire of Postmodernism

http://rickholden76.gaia.com — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 19:50:50 GMT

David, actually now that I understand the chart, I see a few problems with it as well. Like Cohen saying that the universe is evolving into something. The "universe" is constantly changing and some parts are developing greater complexity, while others are being destroyed and recycled, including former complex structures.
He's stuck on the idea that matter is primary over consciousness, yet there is no evidence of this. Awareness simply is, and it doesn't evolve.
I'm starting to think that KW, Cohen, and others are having a hard time seeing the big picture; as in the size of the universe. Humans are not the whole universe, and evolution is much more about surviving at the level of the ecosystem and not the individual, than about increasing complexity. Increasing complexity is not a given, just look at a cockroach.
This, I think, is why a greater understanding in the known dynamics of evolution and Chaos science is necessary with Integral thinkers, lest they go too far in their theorizing.

Another thing about the model, is that it requires a simplistic duality. The "deeper psychic" doesn't exist without the "frontal gross physical." These are as much products of each other as they are anything discernible in themselves. One doesn't become less physically dependent as one begins to become aware of direct awareness before thought or concept. They are both completely there the entire time. An awakened being doesn't realize something that wasn't there the entire time. So we have to ask ourselves what evolved?
We are born with everything we need to become enlightened, and we did not personally evolve from Homo hiedelbergensis or erectus into fully modern human. Evolution on a macro scale doesn't take place at the level of individuals.

So here we need to introduce the idea of Scale to any discussion about this topic.

However, to echo Hokai, what does this have to do with Buddhism and post-modernism.

Re: Buddhism and the Fire of Postmodernism

http://hokai.gaia.com — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 18:18:17 GMT

David, I can only reiterate that the concept itself comes from Jung and Hillman. Of course,
Wilber uses it, when analyzing the three distinct self-lines, namely self, Self and SELF.:-)
I have given my assessments in two posts, please see here and here, when the original discussion was hot. I hope this helps.

Also, this stream has been dying into various digressions and endless referencing (see title of thread, anyway) so it's probably wise for me to get out of here.

Hokai

Re: Buddhism and the Fire of Postmodernism

http://monk.gaia.com — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 17:47:53 GMT

Rick said: "I really am taking a break from speaking with authority in Buddhist matters for a while, because I really lost my temper yesterday and really engaged with a complete dualistic mind. I yelled and everything."

I've been there, Rick. I hope this doesn't sound patronizing, but when I was your age I still had a bit of yelling ahead of me. One of the turning points for me was realizing that the worst thing I could do for myself, the worst thing I could do for my health, was to get angry, to vent. It had seemed to me that the anger inside me--which I often mistakenly thought had been put there by the person I was having a dispute with--was damaging to my health and that the thing to do was to give expression to it and thereby get it out. Others I talked to agreed that getting angry was sometimes a healthy thing to do. They are not correct.

Thich Nhat Hanh once said this, how wrong it is to think that by expressing anger you will be able to get it out, but I wasn't sure whether to believe him. I eventually learned to believe him, though I do think he errs on the Green, pacifist side a little bit. This is something I am still learning how to do as well, but it seems to me that the most effective way is neither to express that anger nor repress it but transform it--this is what all the Buddhists say, right?--into whatever our highest self is. So we have that Red anger, and we let it sit there and digest until it turns into, say, indigo, or whatever our highest self is. What we say still might have a bite to it, but it won't be venting.

That will produce the best result for everyone and not create karma and ill health. The trouble is, though, we will still walk away with anger inside us, and we will probably have the idea that someone else put it there (the frontal self will always take the victim position). So it's very important to have ways to deal with that anger--yoga, exercise, homeopathy, etc. It's so important to have some way of dealing with it afterwards because then way we can have confidence in situations like that, confidence that we can walk away with anger and deal with it. Otherwise it will be very tempting to try to get rid of it right there, which won't work.

I also love A. H. Almaas' ideas on anger. They're quite amazing, really. He says that we can turn anger into strength by just staying with the energetic aspect of it and not acting out. He also says that each of us has this incredible rage with us, the "narcisistic rage," and that emptiness lies on the other side of that rage. That is, we need to let that anger be released--not to express it, or "act out" as he says, but to digest it, to turn it into strength, or, as the Buddhists say, into clarity, and to let emptiness shine forth.

Usually I find that other peoples' actions simply release anger that was already inside me and that they really did me a favor by helping it to get released. At the same time, they probably did something not quite right, so I need to say something (not in anger) to straighten them out and return the favor, for the sake of everyone. Some spiritual teachers will tend to say, "Just walk away and don't say anything." Someone posted a quote from Carolyn Myss like that not too long ago, and I believe the Sufi Path of Blame is something like this, though I've had a hard time getting information about that (anyone know anything about the Path of Blame?). I think it's too simplistic to say things like, "Everything that happens is for your benefit, comes straight from God, etc." It's too dualistic. We have a role to play as well, and it's not just to be on the receiving end of everyone's garbage.

Also, whoever wins in those situations is usually the person who keeps it together emotionally. Probably most people in most of the disputes we have aren't going to understand what the hell we are saying, but they will be able to tell if we are able to keep it together emotionally and continue to come from our highest self. That will register. Usually the winner is decided by whoever doesn't "lose it" or whoever loses it the least. We might be giving some ultraviolet dharma, but if we're delivering it in a Red manner, that's what people are going to see, and they're going to think it's Red. So it's really the altitude of the delivery that counts most in most situations. This is a really important subject, and I would love to hear what others have to say about this.

With love,

David

Re: Buddhism and the Fire of Postmodernism

http://monk.gaia.com — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 16:34:50 GMT

Rick said: "David, I still don't really understand your line graph. Where does this concept of the deeper psychic come from? It sounds like a make up kind of thing that sounds good."

I originally got it from Hokai, but he got it from Ken Wilber, who published it in One Taste (Sunday, November 16) and also online. Here is a short excerpt:

"The traditions generally maintain that men and women have two major personality systems, as it were: the frontal and the deeper psychic. The traditional Great Chain theorists (and wilber-2) would simply say that the frontal is the self associated with the body and mind, and the deeper psychic is associated with the soul. . . .

"The frontal being is the gross-oriented personality--in the widest sense, what we mean by "ego," or the personality that is oriented outwardly to the sensorimotor world. . . .

"The traditions would maintain that [prenatal, perinatal, and neonatal] memories are being carried by the deeper psychic being . . . Likewise, past-life memories, if they are genuine, would be carried by the deeper psychic. . . .

"As the frontal personality begins to fade, the deeper psychic being comes increasingly to the fore."

So that last sentence is why the deeper psychic is important to us. Because we want the frontal personality to fade and the deeper psychic to come to the fore, right? :) And get up to those cool colors like ultraviolet? :) Ken Wilber and Andrew Cohen have a fantastic, two-page discussion about the deeper psychic, which Andrew Cohen calls the "authentic self," here. An excerpt:

"Cohen: Understanding the Authentic Self fills in the important gaps, especially for people who are interested in enlightenment today, because the old model just doesn't--

Wilber:--doesn't quite work.

Cohen: No, it doesn't answer the important questions about the right relationship to the manifest realm and to an evolving universe. So the Authentic Self has to help us really redefine and give birth to a new context--a new spiritual, philosophical, and moral framework. But very few people seem to know about it. In fact, besides Aurobindo, I've never heard anybody speak about the Authentic Self in this way.

Wilber: You have to do a fair amount of translation and it wouldn't fit quite as well, but a lot of the Christian mystics, in their orientation to the soul, are pretty good on some of that. Also, a lot of Kabbalists are pretty good on that kind of stuff, as is tantra. But even those profound mystics have always been an extreme minority--East or West--in terms of what's really going on."

Ramana Maharshi was speaking about the deeper psychic here:

Q: I see you doing things. How can you say that you never perform actions?

A: The radio sings and speaks, but if you open it you will find noone inside. Similarly, my existence is like the space, though the body speaks like the radio, there is no one inside as a doer. . . . The fact is that any amount of action can be performed, and performed quite well, by the jnani (one who has realized the Self) without his identifying himself with it in any way or ever imagining that he is the doer. Some power acts through his body and uses his body to get the work done."

As Johnny Carson used to say, "That's some wierd, wild stuff." Very few teachers talk about it, and many holding themselves out as realized don't understand it. Hokai didn't call it "the esoteric approach" for nothing. I would love to hear what others have to say about it. Bruce? Hokai? They could put it all in Buddhist language for us. As A. H. Almaas once said (paraphrasing), it's one thing to realize emptiness, and it's quite another to learn what emptiness wants to do with you.

Here's an excerpt from Hokai's blog:

"Not gods or even mahasattvas, but esoteric Deities; embodiments not of a distant Goal, but of an immediate Path; not dualistic meanings, but non-dual mantras; not words and objects and actions, but microcosmic enactments of Reality-as-such. The esoteric Deity is always emptiness Itself, quite devoid of meaninglessness, here and now."

Want to say anymore?

Re: Buddhism and the Fire of Postmodernism

http://klarelim.gaia.com — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 04:35:36 GMT

One more thing I wanted to add about teachers and student relationships.
There's some stereotyping of students by teachers that happens as well and not just by the student of the teacher.

Although I experience that some teachers have achieved some stages of "awakening", there are teachers who do stereotype students. Not sure, but I've heard stories of this nature.

Re: Buddhism and the Fire of Postmodernism

http://klarelim.gaia.com — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 04:29:04 GMT

Juicy discussion. This will take a few days to digest and respond. But I just scanned your ambitious rhetoric Balder and wanted to say that you are taking on quite a challenging task.
My question would be why just Buddhism in comparison to Postmodernism?
What would be interesting is how postmodernism is embracing Christianity or even Wiccanism?

I still think there's more work to be done in Modernism. I can't say but I feel as if modernism is misunderstood by postmodernists. It still bothers me to some degree when we coin modernism as "scientific materliasm". I mean there's seems to be some romanticism going on about "how the world came to be" inquiry via technology and science. and it just seems that it hasn't been completely and absolutely defined that some philosophers were modernists vs. pre-postmoderns.

For me, the way I understand postmodernism is a critique of itself, it's constructs, contexts, and yeah, there's relativism when you're discussing "it" from various given perspectives.
I wasn't quite happy with Wilber's brief writings on postmodern. I might be wrong but having read briefly several postmoderns, it's really hard to give it a "framework" in which it pears out through it's self-reflecting lens/filter because you have to know which lens it's pearing out from. I suppose that is the problem most have with postmodernism.

I am no expert though on postmodernism nor buddhism.

Re: Buddhism and the Fire of Postmodernism

http://theurj.gaia.com — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 23:18:45 GMT

Bruce,

I appreciate your diplomatic nature. To respohd I can say that I have had very strong positions on the issues I've posted on but that I'm in a transitional phase with them, i.e., I'm not so sure about them anymore. And I have yet to replace them with new, "solid" positions. So in that sense yes, I'm doing a lot of speculative and comparative "shopping."

I disagree that pomo is generally relativistic (at least as it's been characterized) or cognitive-centered, or that it isn't related to (some) Buddhistic ideas as those I've suggested. (For example the last article referenced in the "integral ethics" thread.) And many respected authorities in the east-west investigation would also disagree. That you don't see much convincing evidence of that (aside from Delequze and Guattari, for example) is too bad. There is quite a bit "behind it" but if you are not seeing it then you're right that I'm barking up the wrong tree here with this. I'll be interested in your continuing research into this area but we can communicate that via email.

Re: Buddhism and the Fire of Postmodernism

http://brucealderman.gaia.com — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 20:21:33 GMT

Hi, Edward, I recognize in Hokai's recent comments a couple concerns I've also felt: 1) that you are saying you do not know, or don't have a definite position, but then are using quotes from a number of sources to back up what seems like a fairly strong position; and 2) the nature of this conversation, at present, is in a highly speculative phase, with suggestions that pomo writers might also have a firm understanding of nonduality and rigpa; that they might have significant state development, or that subtle-state access and stability may not be important anyway; that the unconditional motivation described by Bauman might be similar to the Buddhist notion of the unconditioned or unborn, etc.

Please don't misunderstand me: I do not think it is wrong to raise these questions, and I agree with you that pomo probably cannot be neatly captured by the "Green" label -- that there are likely some theorists working at a "second tier" level or whatever, or with a fuller "palette" of resources than is sometimes associated with Green. (The work of Deleuze and Guattari, particularly around the Body Without Organs, suggests to me some unusual state experience in addition to their relativistic, decentered perspectivism).

But I'm wondering if we're spinning our wheels here. What do you think? I feel we're bouncing maybes off of each other, but not going deeper. How can we do that? Personally, I do not feel the generally cognitively-centered pomo approach is sufficient to grasp the full import of Dzogchen, Mahamudra, Shingon, or Zen teachings, for instance; and I have not seen much convincing evidence to date that the dimensions that are vitally at play in the Buddhist context are at play in pomo, as a whole (there may be a few exceptions). So, suggestions that pomo'ers might also have equal state experience and insight strikes me as highly speculative and not something that can be meaningfully engaged or debated, because there doesn't appear to be anything (that I've seen) behind it. And the suggestion that state training (or, even, the whole emotional/cognitive/energetic context in which such training takes place) is unimportant does not align with my experience with these traditions, particularly when it comes to understanding emptiness other than as an object of analysis. Yes, it is fair to ask the question, and I do not see a reason to be dogmatic about the issue, but I also do not know how far we'll get if we continue to bounce "maybes" off of each other in this way.

What do you think?

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: Buddhism and the Fire of Postmodernism

http://rickholden76.gaia.com — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:00:57 GMT

David, I still don't really understand your line graph. Where does this concept of the deeper psychic come from? It sounds like a make up kind of thing that sounds good. Who came up with it, and if it was responsible for creating the universe, then who created it. The need to have an ontology or creation imbues only paradox and confusion. There simply cannot be a first cause, and that simply doesn't fit into the normal way a rational mind thinks.
That being said, I am actually asking about the chart, because you've posted it many times before, and I would really like to understand your point of view.

I do have a lot to say about the Andrew Cohen quote, but not as a Buddhist, but as an student anthropologist. What he's saying deals with the complexity of culture and cognition, and it isn't going to be examined easily or quickly.
I really am taking a break from speaking with authority in Buddhist matters for a while, because I really lost my temper yesterday and really engaged with a complete dualistic mind. I yelled and everything.
But, what he's saying is at the heart of post-modern anthropology and the debates within the discipline, so I'll speak from there. I'll do it later though.
The gist of my argument will most likely be something about how applicable to actual reality his congnitive ideas are. That is, these sound like they came from a thinking man and not a field academic who is actually doing real world research. I can feel it in the text, because this is the way ethnographies start, but then they go into methodology and then the actual results and often a conclusion which is backed up by these things. It sounds like he's only got the first part.
There simply is only so much that we can understand about the social processes of spirituality in a room somewhere. Boots on the ground are essential. Even then there are holes in his argument academically.
As Julian Steward taught us about cultural evolution in the 50's. To understand how a cultural core changes over time, you have to actually be there. Predictive models simply won't work for accuracy.

Re: Buddhism and the Fire of Postmodernism

http://theurj.gaia.com — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 17:13:36 GMT

I posted an article in the Integral Code of Ethics thread that bears a strong relation to what we've been discussing here. Please check out the whole article there. A few points of reference here though:

Pomo (ethics or otherwise) is not merely relativistic. For example:

"Because the term ‘post-modernism' is often equated with relativism it should be made clear from the outset that the postmodern position outlined by Bauman does not reject the idea of a universal basis to ethics."

"In other words, Bauman does not wish to reject a universal basis to morality, which he sees as ultimately residing in the ‘moral impulse' of the autonomous subject. Rather, it is the view that this moral impulse can be neatly expressed in (or even replaced by) a set of rational rules which apply to all situations that Bauman rejects."

And this "moral impulse" is from a direct experience of unconditionality, contrary to another claim that pomo doesn't have an "ultimate" truth, only a relative truth.

"In presenting his own basis for ethics Bauman draws heavily on the French philosopher Levinas, who describes the moral stance as one of ‘being for the Other'.... In contrast to a limited set of duties, my moral responsibility in ‘being for the Other' is infinite, unconditional and not dependent on the Other reciprocating by acting in a like manner towards me....

"This mode of being somehow transcends our natural self-centred inclinations. It is first and foremost in my ‘being for the Other' that I transcend my own narrow ego-based self and reach for a new way of being, a way that could ultimately even be characterized as ‘saintliness'....It is this...transcendent mode of being that is brought into being to the extent that we are able to put aside our own narrow self-interested point of view and be for the Other."

Re: Buddhism and the Fire of Postmodernism

http://monk.gaia.com — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 16:46:53 GMT

Rick said: "The masters who teach seemingly theistic or mythological concepts to beginning students are always aware that they are metephorical skill means. They don't actually buy into this stuff themselves. . . . David, what higher energies? There is just energy, so how can some of it be higher than another energy? Any relative difference you point out will always be a product of your own mind."

This is a simple chart, but a great one. The Frontal represents Rick and David; the Deeper Psychic represents what Rick and David were between lives, and the Witness is the Unborn. The Frontal we know acts in time; the Witness does not act in time, but the Deeper Psychic does act in time. Some people refer to the Deeper Psychic as "the energy and intelligence that created the universe." We can also break it all down into more levels than this: Indigo, Violet, Ultra Violet, and Clear Light all representing increasingly clear expressions of the Deeper Psychic, which many people consider just the flip side of the Witness, an aspect of the Unborn.

What do you think of this quote from Andrew Cohen?

"When God Falls Out of the Sky

Human beings have experienced the spiritual impulse for millennia. But what is so significant about this particular time in history is that now, because our postmodern culture has outgrown traditional worldviews, it is beginning to become possible for more and more of us to look at our own spiritual experiences less and less encumbered by the outdated interpretive filters of premodern mythical belief systems. Only human beings at the leading edge of the evolution of culture have the cognitive capacity to be able to interpret the presence or felt experience of the spiritual impulse as the expression of the evolutionary impulse. In a traditional context, that impulse would be filtered through metaphysical beliefs-projected toward a mythic God or heavenly realm "out there" and interpreted, more often than not, as a longing for transcendence of this world. It is only now, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, when the mythical God has fallen out of the sky, that we gain this capacity to interpret the movement of the spiritual impulse as the evolutionary impulse itself, which is our own authentic self. A thousand years ago, "I Am That" meant "I am Consciousness." But now, as our understanding of enlightenment evolves to encompass the developmental nature of the process itself, "I am That" means "I am the creative principle; I am the energy and intelligence that chose to create the universe..." And what is so profoundly significant in this evolution of enlightenment itself is that in light of the entire deep-time developmental process, the capacity to consciously evolve, as that creative principle, has only just appeared."

The interesting thing is, the Deeper Psychic is a different You and Me but from a completely different dimension than the Frontal, "parallel lines that never meet," as Andrew Cohen puts it. So it can seem like "Other" to the Frontal, enough so that some teachers will teach it as some sort of Diety. There is something literal about that diety, but ultimately it's just a higher You and Me. So when people into deep spirituality pray or do some sort of diety yoga, they are trying to evoke this Deeper Psychic, to which the Frontal will "surrender," as some people put it. Not "a Mythic God," as a WIE editor put it, but "a Real God: Eros, the creative impulse behind the evolving multiverse."

Re: Buddhism and the Fire of Postmodernism

http://hokai.gaia.com — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 16:27:35 GMT

You just don't give up, Edward, do you? At least something is not relative in "your" position.

Re: Buddhism and the Fire of Postmodernism

http://ericonline.gaia.com — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 16:25:01 GMT

"Ontology per se just does not exist. Metaphysics is then a broad name for the type of thinking that can't figure this out. Or, metaphysics is thinking that falls prey to the myth of the given (269)."

:-)))))))))

I thought the experience and the interpretation, or ontology-epistemology, arise together?

And they cease together...sunyata is at the end of the rainbow of perspectives...

love

Re: Buddhism and the Fire of Postmodernism

http://theurj.gaia.com — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 14:28:36 GMT

Thanks Balder. I'm becoming clearer on how Dzogchen distinguishes between the lack of inherent self existence and yet posits rigpa. I'm still not convinced philosophically, despite having this "direct experience" of "everyday" mind myself. But that's one of the distinctions Reynolds makes, between the philosophical (or epistemological) and the direct experience (ontological). Yet in Integral Spiritiuality (draft) Ken says repeated things like the following:

"Ontology per se just does not exist. Metaphysics is then a broad name for the type of thinking that can't figure this out. Or, metaphysics is thinking that falls prey to the myth of the given (269)."

So are we to assume that he means that ontology doesn't exist only in the "manifest" or relative realm? Or that epistemology doesn't exist in the "ultimate" realm? I thought the experience and the interpretation, or ontology-epistemology, arise together?

Re: Buddhism and the Fire of Postmodernism

http://brucealderman.gaia.com — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 06:40:40 GMT

Hi, Edward,

I had intended to put something together this evening that addressed several of the points you raised, but I just haven't had enough time. I am leaving on vacation tomorrow directly after work, and you know how that is -- lots to prepare.

So, for now, I'll just post a few excerpts from another source which I think speak to the "controversy" you've been alluding to, but this time from the Dzogchen point of view. This is a bit off topic from postmodernism, but it is relevant, to the extent that it deals with questions of epistemology and ontology that postmodernism also attempts to address.

The following quotes are from The Golden Letters, by John Myrdhin Reynolds, a Tibetan translator and Dzogchen (Bon and Nyingma) practitioner.

"Is the Dzogchen doctrine of the Base (gzhi) radically different than the shunyata of the Madhyamaka, the so-called orthodoxy of Tibetan Buddhism? Is Dzogchen the one Buddhist doctrine that steps out of the mainstream of Buddhist teaching -- its central doctrine of the Primordial State postulating the existence of a positive entity? This would make Dzogchen and Madhyamaka diametrically opposed, for if Dzogchen asserts the real existence of some positive entity, then the Madhyamaka dialectic would negate the arguments invoked for the existence of any such entity.

The thrust of Indian Buddhist philosophy, both Madhyamaka and Chittamatra, is epistemological, concerned with the problem of valid knowledge, whereas Tibetan thought is more ontological, concerned with the problem of being. Therefore, in Tibetan thought, and particularly in Dzogchen thought, a rather different philosophical vocabulary developed than that found in the translations of the Buddhist Shastras of Indian origin. In the Sutra system, shunyata is treated as an object of knowledge (yul). And here there is a specific method involved. By means of an exhaustive philosophical analysis, an empirical object is resolved into its ultimate constituents, which are defined as clusters of momentary events or "dharmas" occurring in empty space. The process of ordinary perception is dependent upon the anatomy and physiology of the sense organs and the nervous system, as well as the processing of sensory information correlated with memory by Manas (yid) or the bio-computer of the brain. Out of this raw sense data, a recognizable object is constructed by the Manas, like a color picture on a television screen or like a hologram. However, these bits of data, these dharmas or momentary events, are contingent and lack any inherent nature, and so, by way of a process of exhaustive analysis, the higher critical intellect (Skt. prajna) discovers that they are empty. They lack any abiding self; they lack any substance whatsoever. They are as ephemeral as electrical impulses, and they are not the same as consciousness (Skt. caitta). Yet these dharmas are all the mind knows of the external world. Indeed, out of these ephemeral dharmas or momentary event phenomena, the mind creates the perceived world. And through the discipline of repeated exhaustive analysis, the process known as Prajna, the practitioner discovers that all things, external and internal, are empty and lacking any substantial reality. All that remains after the completion of this exhaustive analysis is shunyata. Thus, this shunyata is an object of intellectual knowledge. But this is not how Dzogchen speaks of shunyata.

Some scholars assert that Dzogchen appears to speak of the Base (gzhi) as a subject or an existence which cognizes something (yul-can). Therefore they say that Dzogchen is like the gzhan-stong (shentong) theory entertained by the Jonangpa school of Tibet. A lively controversy has continued for several centuries between the proponents of this gzhan-stong theory and the orthodox proponents of the rang-stong position...

[However], the Nyingmapa presentation of Dzogchen is not an eternalist view (rtag lta-ba), as some scholars assert. Rather, according to their own account, Dzogchen represents a middle way between the extremes of eternalism (rtag) and nihilism (chad). One should not be led astray by the ontological rather than epistemological language employed in Dzogchen texts. According to Dzogchen, those who rigidly follow the Prasangika Madhyamika of Chandrakirti perpetually find themselves in danger of falling into the extreme of nihilism and asserting that nothing exists. They overly stress the negative side of shunyata. But the balance is redressed in Tantra and in Dzogchen, where shunyata has its positive side, which is luminous clarity (gsal-ba). This should not be perceived as an abandoning of the middle way by the Tantra system, and it must be remembered that there exists more than one interpretation of Madhyamaka.

In the early period of Tibet, the syncretistic Madhyamaka system of Shantirakshita was the prevalent form of Madhyamaka philosophy. This system of Shantirakshita was able to use the vocabulary of the Chittamatra (Yogachara) philosophy, but this did not mean that it uncritically adopted the philosophical standpoint of Chittamatra, "mind only." The Tantra system likewise did this. But whereas the Sutra system, by means of philosophical analysis culminates in the realization of a universal shunyata as its conclusion, the Tantra system begins with the state of shunyata as a given, in terms of the three samadhis or contemplations, and it is out of this state of emptiness (stong-nyid ngang nas) that the transformation arises. This state of emptiness, the Tathata-samadhi, "the contemplation reality," is the primal phase with which any sadhana or process of transformation begins. But this state is not just empty; it is simultaneously clear luminosity (gsal-ba), and this aspect is the second samadhi, the Samantabhasa-samadhi, "the contemplation of what manifests everywhere." It is light or luminosity, whereas the first samashi refers to the depths of open empty space. The inseparable unity of these two brings into being the third samadhi, the Hetu-samadhi, or "causal contemplation," the seed or germ out of which manifest forms are generated or created (bskyed-pa), like a tree growing from a seed. Commencing the sadhana practice in the purified primordial state of emptiness, which is like the clear open sky, the method of the Tantra proceeds to invoke and develop the energy that is concealed, enfolded, and inherent in the state of emptiness -- that is to say, visible forms are regenerated or remanifested out of the pristine state of shunyata, just as they were at the time of the beginning, symbolically the time of the first creation. Shunyata, the state of emptiness itself, is the source of this primordial energy that brings all possible forms, even the universe itself, into manifestation. The vast and infinite empty space of the state of shunyata is pregnant with all possibilities; it has within itself the potentiality or creative energy for manifesting all possible manifestations, whether pure vision or impure vision, whether Samsara or Nirvana. In this way, during the course of sadhana practice, one's obscurations of knowledge and one's impure karmic vision are progressively purified.

Thus, the Base, the Primordial State, is not just emptiness in the sense of void or nothingness, a mere absence of something. Rather, the state of shunyata, the vast empty space where emptiness and luminosity are inseparable, represents the state of pure potentiality. It is the space or dimension or matrix of all existence out of which all possible forms or manifestations arise, like clouds appearing spontaneously in the empty open sky. It is not just that forms lack an inherent nature (rang-bzhin med-pa) or substance, but equally inherent in shunyata is the potentiality for the arising of forms; this is the meaning of luminosity (gsal-ba). Thus Dzogchen speaks of stong-cha and gsal-cha, "the side of emptiness" and "the side of clarity," which are the two aspects or sides of the Primordial Base. These two aspects are also known as ka-dag, "primordial purity," and lhun-grub, "spontaneous self-perfection." This fact transcends conventional logic, because it is not a matter of the Base being either A or not-A, of being either emptiness or manifestation. If shunyata were a mere nothing, then nothing would arise at all. But this pure nonexistence or nothingness contradicts our experience. Thoughts and appearances are arising all the time, arising continuously, and this is only natural. But equally, if forms were not empty, then there would exist no possibility for change because all things would be locked up in a static unchanging state of their own self-identical essence or inherent nature (rang-bzhin, Skt. svabhava). But that is not our experience. We experience that things continuously change. They are in a state of becoming.

When Dzogchen speaks of the Base, it speaks of its qualities (gzhi'i yon-tan) in terms of Essence, Nature, and Energy. Its Essence (ngo-bo) is shunyata, and its Nature (rang-bzhin) is luminous clarity (gsal-ba), whereas their unity or inseparability is Energy (thugs-rje). Both of the Tibetan terms ngo-bo and rang-bzhin translate the single Sanskrit word, svabhava. Perhaps this is indicative that this particular line of philosophical thought developed in Tibet rather than India. But making these statements about the Base is not the same thing as asserting that it is a substance or an entity. The Base is empty. Dzogchen does not lapse or deviate from the central Buddhist teaching of Anatman into some kind of Shashvatavada, or eternalist view.

Dzogchen begins with shunyata because shunyata is the Base as its Essence (ngo-bo), but an entity called shunyata will not be found anywhere. If one looks into the mind to see where thought arises, where it abides, and where it goes, one will not find any place from where it arises, nor any place where it abides, nor any place where it goes to. Thoughts arise and dissolve, but they do not arise from anywhere and they do not go anywhere. This is their aspect of emptiness (stong-cha). Yet thoughts continue to arise incessantly; this is their aspect of inexhaustible luminosity (gsal-cha). And these two aspects are inseparable in the Base (gsal stong dbyer-med). This empty aspect of mind is its primordial purity (ka-dag), but this purity is not some substance or entity, not some mind-stuff out of which thoughts are made, like ocean waves made up of the water contained in the ocean. It is only the quality of the nature of mind, and the nature of mind remains primordially uncontaminated, unchanged, and unadulterated by whatever thoughts arise in the mind. Since this nature of mind, or sems-nyid, transcends the thought process (that is to say, Samsara) from the very beginning, being itself outside of the temporal process and the causal sequence, it is said to be primordially pure. But simultaneously it is mind, or sems. Mind has the power or capacity to bring all thoughts and phenomena into manifestation in consciousness through its latent energy. Forms continuously arise as manifestations of mind, and this is called spontaneous self-perfection (lhun-grub). Here there is no contradiction with the doctrine of Anatman.

Does this teaching of a Primordial State beyond cause and effect contradict the kerygma, the original core message of the Buddha? It is said in an ancient verse that "All conditioned things are impermanent, are without a self, and are suffering -- this is the teaching of the Buddha." But the Primordial State is not a thing or a substance. It is unconditioned (asamskrta-dharma), but ultimately it cannot be defined by the intellect or expressed in words. It is the Noble Silence that the Buddha maintained after he first attained enlightenment. And yet, because of his unstinting universal compassion for all sentient beings, he spoke of that which cannot be expressed in words. It is like trying to explain the taste of sugar to a man who has never tasted anything sweet. But all speech and language, as useful and as necessary as they may be, represent limitation. Language cannot perfectly mirror reality; direct experience transcends expression in words and arrangement in syllogisms. Just as the way to the mirror is through the reflections, so the Buddha spoke of the unconditioned (asamskrta-dharma), usually by way of negative statements, employing a kind of via negativa. Hence he spoke of Anatman and shunyata.....

[Here Reynolds describes early traditions within Buddhism that did not so heavily emphasize negative discourse]

...The view we find here [in the tradition of Subhuti] is the Dharma-nairatma or Dharma-shunya, the insubstantiality of all things. These momentary events called dharmas are also not real. This Second Turning of the Wheel of the Dharma, the promulgation of the Prajnaparamita Sutras, which expound the doctrine of Shunyavada, is regarded as the ultimate teaching of the Buddha by the Tibetan Lamas. But this teaching can be carried to extremes by way of destructive dialectics and, so, unfortunately can lead to nihilism. This trend was counterbalanced by the Third Turning of the Wheel of the Dharma in such Sutras as the Sandhinirmochana Sutra and the Lankavatara Sutra, and also by the Yogachara school's emphasis on the importance of meditation practice, as against an overemphasis on philosophical analysis. In these Sutras, we find reference to the doctrine of the luminous quality of mind. Although the Second Turning in a sense is the ultimate teaching of the Buddha, the Third Turning was not just a sop thrown to those disciples who feared shunyata or who possessed a lesser intellectual capacity. Rather, it served as a corrective to a wrong or a purely negative understanding of the doctrine of shunyata. Chan, for example, when it first came to China was very much linked to the Lankavatara Sutra, which belongs to this Third Turning. Yet no one can accuse Chan of harboring a substantialist view or wrongly understanding shunyata. Like Tantra and Dzogchen, Chan approaches shunyata in terms of direct immediate experience rather than by way of philosophical analysis, as is the case with the Madhyamika school."