Indigo Buddhism?

In Integral Spirituality (IS) Ken talks about evolutionary enlightenment. He defines enlightenment as the highest level and state at a given historical period. When the originators of the perennial tradition formulated its paradigm it was pre-modern, or possibly mythical-rational. But it had yet to achieve modernity and certain not postmodernity. And it would appear that the higher stages of cognitive development only arrived on the scene in the latter periods. Yes, rationality “started” a long time ago, in India, Greece etc. But it wasn’t the more developed egoic-rationality of today.

Ken takes account of this is IS with the Wilber-Combs lattice. The states are no longer stacked on top of the stages as future stages awaiting stable development. And states are interpreted by the stage that apprehends them, as states can be experienced at any stage. Even full, stable non-dual realization can be experienced by a meditation “master,” yet said master can very well be, and often is, coming from an ethnocentric level.

There are, however, stages above those on the W-C lattice that sound similar to the states, hence Ken’s prior association of them with stable, higher stages. But it seems that those stages lie in our collective future, not past. So I’m wondering, given the following quotes from IS, if the originators of meditative states were somehow in their micro-communities really also advanced to the turquoise or indigo level as well? It’s difficult to know from the quotes because Ken first says “systemic Global View” is a recent emergent, unless 2000 years ago is “recent.” But later he says that such writings on states indeed arose in tuquoise or indigo cognition?

So assuming that Nagarjuna and Padmasambhava and even the current Dalai Lama are not indigo level, then we must take their interpretations of their state experiences as the interpretations of a lower level. And given that indigo level is just now forming in our kosmic groove, how does it interpret such as nonduality? It would seem vision-logical to assume that interpretation would not just be regurgitation of the traditional way, no? And those who interpret such states in that same traditional way must surely not be indigo, no? Unless the traditional interpretations really did time-warp to the future in indigo? Help me out here please.

Note the following exerpted quotes are from the draft, not the book. Having perused the book I can tell you that much of the draft survives verbatim in the book, just at different page numbers. From IS draft:

A second problem quickly compounded that one. If “enlightenment” (or any sort of unio mystica) really meant going through all of those 8 stages, then how could somebody 2000 years ago be enlightened, since some of the stages, like systemic GlobalView, are recent emergents? (107)

It allowed us to see how individuals at even some of the lower stages of development—such as magic or mythic—could still have profound religious, spiritual, and meditative state experiences. Thus, gross/psychic, subtle, causal, and nondual were no longer stages stacked on top of the Western conventional stages, but were states (including altered states and peak experiences) that can and did occur alongside any of those stages. (110)

(What was so doubly confusing to us is the fact that, as indicated on fig. 6, there are also 3 or 4 higher structures beyond the centaur, and they have similar-sounding characteristics as these 3 or 4 higher states, which made it almost impossible to spot the differences. (110)

Anybody familiar with the monastic traditions, East and West, from Zen to Benedictine, will recognize those souls who might be quite spiritually advanced in Underhill’s sense (very advanced in contemplative illumination and unification) and yet might still have a very conformist and conventional mentality—sometimes shockingly xenophobic and ethnocentric—and this goes, unfortunately, for many Tibetan and Japanese meditation masters. Although they are very advanced in meditative states training, their structures are amber-to-orange, and thus their available interpretive repertoire is loaded by the Lower-Left quadrant with very ethnocentric and parochial ideas that pass for timeless Buddhadharma. (E.g., according to his secretary, the Dalai Lama believes homosexuality is a sin, anal sex is a sin, oral sex is bad karma, etc.—when everybody knows that oral sex is not bad karma, only bad oral sex is bad karma…. But these sadly are typical mythic-amber beliefs.) (117-18)

In the meantime, Asian meditation teachers, with a LL-quadrant that is heavily amber, or mythic-membership, and hence “non-egoic” in the sense of PREinvidualistic, and therefore used to having students simply obey them unhesitatingly and in a conformist-stage fashion, don’t quite know what to do with individualistic-stage Westerners, whose LL-quadrant is loaded orange-to-green. (118)

…many of the great contemplative texts, sutras, and tantras were written in the cognitive line from at least the turquoise and often indigo or violet levels. (127)

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

Hello Edward,

I think that to acknowledge that a line, or set of lines, had reached a stage, and expressed such, isn't the same as calling the center of gravity of the person.
 
I don't know where the kinesthetic lines of the monks who originally developed martial arts may have been, but Ken placing Micheal Jordan at indigo does not surprise me.

From my Zen lineage, (a school of mind-to-mind transmition, of no reliance on words and letters, etc. ), two turns of phrase come to mind. 1. “That the Buddhadharma takes the shape of the Vessel that contains it.” And 2.” That for the accomplishment of the student to equal  that of the teacher deminishes the teachings by half. In order for transmition to be complete, the student must surpass the teacher.”

I don't know enough to subscribe to an absolute, gross linear sequentiality to kosmic unfolding.

The more interesting question to me is, “Why do you ask?”

prajna paramita,

jikishin

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

Here’s what Chris Dierkes responded in the same inquiry at Open Integral (www.openintegral.net)

Thanks for the post.

On one level I think eventually all rational mental level systems reach their carrying capacity and I think this conundrum you articulated points to one for Wilber’s integral.

On the other hand, there are a couple of lines of possible harmony.

In the last line Wilber writes that many of the ancient great contemplative texts in the cognitive line come from turquoise, indigo, etc.

That would seem to imply the texts are not necessarily coming from such a level in other lines, particularly say the worldviews or values.

If we indeed imagine any mystic charting ahead in some very small way into the higher levels, it would make sense (I think) to assume they only needed to cover the basics of any level to keep moving.

And as these higher levels would have been so infinitesimally formed, I suppose there would be very little in the way of actual content to have to come to terms with.

The cognitive line is a measure of how many perspectives one can take. In that way you can see an ancient text having room for 4th or 5th perspective but without all the content to those stages from later development. Like with green, say the intersubjective.

Just like people today might be moving into indigo-violet and yet those are so lightly engaged that in the future when they are more prominent people at those actual levels will look back on our contemporary “forerunners” and wonder how much sense it would make to say they were evolved to that stage.

What is the actual content of say violet at this juncture?

I myself am very agnostic (even skeptical) of meditation through states (state-stages) moving people vertically. I think we may discover it is something like a necessary but not sufficient condition.

Peace.

Chris

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

” And 2.” That for the accomplishment of the student to equal  that of the teacher deminishes the teachings by half. In order for transmition to be complete, the student must surpass the teacher.”

I mentioned this to Andrew Cohen once, that if not the students at least accomplishes the same level of realization or surpasses ones teacher, slowly but surely the linage will die out. He responded heartedly and made a move to leave the room saying something of the kind; well, I might as well give up now then. I held out my hands, stopping him to leave. This was all very sweet, but it made a point. Throughout history there have been exeptional teachers that revived their linaeges and breathed fresh air into the dharma. These teachers would always prompt a revival of the original teachings handed down from the founding fathers; the Buddha, Jesus etc. They would bring a fresh and new understanding to a teaching that inherently was complete but that had over time lost its deeper meaning due to the inability of its proponents. This is completly natural and that will always be the case, but as the world slowly awakes and matures, more and more people will be able to carry the dharma, informed by our growing total understanding of the world, and when a “reformer” comes around and shakes the dust of old teachings, we are so much more ready to hear the news.

I firmly believe we can sit in our room and still appreciate and embrace a world or cosmic vision regardless of the cultures/age at hand. The Buddhas understanding towards a wholistic and fully encompassing world view seems to have been complete, and Jesus outlook seemed to embrace all aspects, from the individual to society, to world and cosmic union. The Buddha and Jesus still adhered the norm of the cultures at hand, which is simply normal, but held a vision that long surpassed their own time and circumstances. This is what we're struggling with, the birthpains of a yet another renewal and reformation of consciousness and of the lives that we lead. All information helps to move it forward, but never (I believe) will the teachings of the Buddha and of Jesus become obsolete.

The Zen tradition spells out perfectly how the Dharma can ever be renewed in its expression without nullifying any of its founding tenets. A perfect teaching will last into eternity. And Ken Wilber does a good job of providing new ways of viewing it, but he hardly promotes anything new. And yet still, it's all so new to us. Ever new. The Dharma has no breaks in it, seamless it flows on. Time stops for no one.

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

Here’s what Balder said in his Intersubjectivity Part 3 blog at http://brucealderman.zaadz.com/blog. I hope Hokai joins in with his recent information.

Thanks for those quotes, Edward. I’m familiar with them – and I’ve also asked, on Integral forums, about just how this “breaks down”…what aspects of Buddhism Wilber sees as turquoise or higher, as opposed to those teachings which are clearly more mythological or at least “first tier.” I have not gotten a clear answer, and I’m not sure Ken has given one (in print).

I did ask Hokai, another member of Zaadz and the Multiplex, if he would care to comment here on my blog, since he has just returned from a conference on “Integral Mahamudra” and I expect he may have a clearer idea about Ken’s ideas in this area. I haven’t heard back from him yet, and I don’t really know if he does have a clearer idea, but we’ll see…

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

A few quick responses to the above so far.

Jiki,

Why do I ask? I inquire into things I don’t understand, and this is one of them.

Also my sense is that our ITPs (or ILPs [TM]) are not just taking up various practices “as they are” within their original context (like meditation) and then just adding an AQAL framework around them. It seems to me that the practices themselves have to evolve and be transformed by our “integral” enactive paradigm. So it’s not enough to just take up the “ususal” Buddhist meditation program if it is in fact embedded in lower memes. We have to create new practices, including meditative, that fit our developmental context. Otherwise we’re the same old embeddeness but with new AQAL clothes.

Chris,

Yes, I can see that the incipient indigo wave of cognition might’ve been involved in the formation of said meditative traditions. Like the rational wave has been around at least since the Greeks (and probably before), but it has developed in both content and context since then. But in both cases, it’s not the same wave; it has been transformed by both time and development. So again I think it’s vison-logical to posit that it’s not going to be the “same” interpretation as the originators. Granted we’re just laying down the kosmic groove and not sure what it is yet, as we’re in the process of creating it. So two things: 1) it certainly ain’t what it was originally so to regurgiate what was is a sign of error; and 2) we need to guard against closing down this incipient wave with our dogmatic insistence that it already is well defined and our preferred definition is the one, true interpretation. I’d even go so far as to say that “openness” of interpretation, short of so-called pluralistic “anything goes,” is one of the hallmarks of this wave.

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

Hi, Edward,

I think you're making some excellent points.  It relates to earlier discussions we've had where we considered whether “enlightenment” is still a useful term, for instance; or at least, whether we need to (possibly radically) reformulate what it means.  In those discussions, I resisted the suggestion that it needs to be discarded altogether, but I do agree that we cannot assume that the meaning of the term is “timeless” and unchanging.

I am not entirely sold on the WC Lattice (I think some things still need to be worked out, or at least fleshed out in ways that have not been articulated yet), but in general, I understand the suggestion to be that there are states which are relatively stable (in evolutionary history) and which are always present and/or accessible; but that there are also stages of cognitive development which are much more dynamic, and which have been unfolding throughout human evolution.  What is not clear, from what Wilber has written, is if he regards these states as universal (Kosmic) givens, which are available to all sentient holons at all times; or whether they are also evolutionarily emergent and are really only available to fairly advanced biological organisms.  If the latter, that certainly changes the “meaning” of enlightenment.  A question is, what is the relationship of “states” to what we might call the Whole - to the undivided (but also indeterminate) field of appearances that we call the universe, or the Kosmos?  Even more fundamentally, in the Kosmic scheme of things, what IS a state?  Is nonduality really a particular (discrete) state of consciousness?  (I know of some nondual teachings which would certainly dispute this).  If so, is it some sort of “window” on, or does it provide access to (or enact), a different level of order in the Kosmos?

Wilber has defined enlightenment as state-stabilization in the “deepest” state available to us (which discloses an experience of “oneness” with the Kosmos as a whole, at whatever stage it is in evolution at that point in time).  In his scheme, states appear to be an expression of a (relatively) timeless dimension of being…constants which may infuse and inform any relative level of development.  But I do not believe he has really spelled these things out very clearly - at least, not that I've seen.  Or else I haven't fully grasped what he's saying…since I have the sorts of questions that I mentioned above.  (E.g., the relationship of “states” to Kosmos and/or Spirit as a whole, whether they are evolutionarily emergent or involutionarily “given,” etc).

When Wilber “stacked” subtle, causal, and nondual on top of the developmental stages, that had a certain elegance, but it also involved certain problems; but it seems to me that the WC Lattice is (at this point) in the same boat:  elegant, but still partly problematic.

A question that arose for me when I first learned of this model, which may seem frivolously speculative but which I do think has bearing on the meaning of the lattice (since it appears to unearth certain presuppositions or biases in it), is this:  Can we say, universally, what “stage” Kosmic evolution has really reached?  We can testify to the stages available on earth, but who can say what has arisen on other planetary systems, assuming there is other life in the universe?  When we speak of the leading edge of Kosmic evolution, but define it in terms of what has appeared in human history, then either we are assuming that we are the most advanced species in the universe, or else we are ignoring whatever else might be out there and taking a questionable anthropocentric perspective (perhaps simply because we can't say one way or the other what has emerged elsewhere).  If you define enlightenment as “oneness” with the entire Kosmos at its leading edge of evolution, then what does this mean if there are other beings who are more advanced than we are?  Are those stages also available to human beings, if the “Kosmic grooves” have been laid down elsewhere?  If there is no way for us to tap in to whatever level other sentient beings may have reached (for whatever reason), then aren't we being irresponsible or at least hyperbolic to define enlightenment as “oneness with the leading edge of evolution”?  Shouldn't we qualify that somehow?

There are a number of presuppositions here.  One, that time is linear, and that state-stabilization and experiences of oneness put us in touch only with what has unfolded, so far, in linear history.  But linear history itself may be a fiction (at least a “field” enacted by certain limited perspectives, as Einstein's “block time” suggests).  Two, that humans are either the leading edge of the Kosmic flowering of intelligence; or else that “oneness” is spatially as well as temporally bounded, and very likely a species-specific and biologically determined phenomenon. 

Etc.

I may be off here, or just missing some vital clues.  But it seems to me there is a lot yet to work out here.

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

Balder says:

“We can testify to the stages available on earth, but who can say what has arisen on other planetary systems, assuming there is other life in the universe? When we speak of the leading edge of Kosmic evolution, but define it in terms of what has appeared in human history, then either we are assuming that we are the most advanced species in the universe, or else we are ignoring whatever else might be out there and taking a questionable anthropocentric perspective (perhaps simply because we can’t say one way or the other what has emerged elsewhere).”

Beautifully put - but why not go further? What if “our” reality is one of countless realities? What if our reality is only an atom in another reality, which is only an atom in another reality; just like all the atoms in our realities are universes in their own right, in which every atom is again a universe in it’s own right?

What if the play of Eros and Agape is playing out in all these dimensions - time is obviously meaningless (one breath would signify eons one step “up”). Realization and enlightenment in our limited perspective would surely take on a different meaning…

Just a thought - Frans

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

Thanks Edward,

My asking,”Why do you ask” came straight out of my inability to get a sense of you as a person, where the issue is active for you, simply by reading your post.

Next you wrote:”Also my sense is that our ITPs (or ILPs [TM] ) are not just taking up various practices “as they are” within their original context (like meditation) and then just adding an AQAL framework around them. It  seems to me that the practices  themselves have to evolve and be tranformed by our “integral” enactive paradigm. So it's not enough to just take up the “usual” Buddhist meditation program if it is in fact embedded in lower memes. We have to create new practices, includung meditative, that fit our developmental context. Otherwise we're the same old embeddedness but with AQAL clothes.”

It sounds to me that some of what you are calling for is already the case. That practices themselves are not set programs, inherited, embedded, or imposed but are transformed in the present occasion of the meme at which the practice is perspected. That an injunction is only enacted through the address of the practicioner and not another address of another occasion.

Bjorn spoke to this beautifully.

In my view, Buddhism allows for evolutionary impulse, for the imperminance of memetic ceilings. Dialectics and deconstruction are old habits to Zen, central to the traditions continuity. While all but immune from plateau stagnations and episodic, periodic regressions, the inevitability of transcendence / inclusion is (at best) implicit in the practice. Even doctrine, recognized as necessarily provisional, is traditionally exposed to rigorous revisioning, on-going development. Some of the open orientation I see in Zen I'd call proto-integral. Recounting the “patternless patterns” of upaya, of skillfull means, I notice an evolutionary pragmatism. Skillfull Means (say, taking-the-shape-of-the-LL-vessel, or responding in the-mirror-of-samadhi) seems to frequently refer to an acounting for all four quadrants.

Am I playing dress-up in AQAL? It's not for me to say.

                                                                     ~~~

Balder,

re: KW the cartographer

I think that Ken, or any prudent theorist, does well to taylor their puplic statements to within a range of palletable discourse, thereby gaining a traction in the current zietgiest. A credability with which they can then lead the edge with valid insights (which , if issued with blind timing may undermine the efficacy if their work).

A kind of politics of parenting, or husbandry, applied to intellectual stewardship?

Be Well Folks,

jiki

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

Jiki,

Thanks for the spirited defense of Buddhism’s openess and flexibility to innovation and growth. Those are the qualites within the context of “indigo” to which I was referring.

Now could you provide us with specific examples of how Buddhism has done so with regard to practices and doctrines? And what do you suppose Ken is referring to regarding the not so developed aspects of Buddhism, beside his one example of the Dalai Lama having an aversion to oral sex?

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

I think you'd have to take Appendix II of IS into account here (Integral Post-Metaphysics):

So, in todays world, what would constitute Enlightenment? What are the highest states and stages available in the Kosmos? At the very least, it would mean indigo altitude in the cognitive and self lines, as well as a mastery of the 4 or so major states (which includes access to gross, subtle, causal, and nondual). (Page 246)

I read this as a suggestion, see also the context of this sentence (I don't really feel like typing the entire page). I don't think KW is trying to be the one to determine who is or isn't enlightened.

Also, as I see it, we don't really need the W-C lattice to point out the need for a new definition of Enlightenment, so it doesn't depend on the validity of the lattice concept. The point here, is to have a meaningful definition which takes evolution into account: if Enlightenment is to mean being one with both Form and Emptiness, and Form changes during the course of evolution, then Enlightenment is different at different moments in evolution.

My guess would be that using a linear time perspective is what necessitates this particular definition of Enlightenment. When using a different kind of time perspective, such a definition would either be entirely different or not needed. Or do others see this differently?

Besides that: KW clearly states in IS that the W-C lattice as drawn on page 90 is a simple version. The main point is that structures and states overlap in complex ways, and KW has probably just scratched the surface by writing what he did. Maybe we should keep that in mind?

So the point is, that you can discuss or explain a definition in terms of the W-C lattice, but it doesn't have to depend on it.

This still leaves several issues open that were raised here, including Balder's remark on other highy evolved life forms in the Kosmos. Maybe we should add a spatial component to the definition, and not just a temporal one :)

Peter
 

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

Peter,

Another thing to consider is that not only Form but Emptiness changes too! How can that be? Isn't it supposed to be formless and unchanging? Well yes, and no. As I think Ken pointed out, even emptiness has to be interpreted, and that interpretation evolves. Hence we do have an unlimited, infinite in Derrida's thought, but it doesn't look like the perennial tradition's. And despite Ken's postmetaphysical turn debunking the myth of the given, it is still only applicable to the “relative” realm and not the “absolute,” He stills leaves the back door open for direct perception of this absolute where all bets are off, so to speak.

Whereas Derrida (and many other pomoers), while having a undecontructable in his view, doesn't allow that it is possible to directly perceive but we can still let that notion practically inform our ways of thinking, being and doing. The notion of emptiness is still there but it is reinterpreted appropriately within the developmental, contextual milieu. And it seems that Ken is still interpreting emptiness within a traditional context so I'm suggesting even emptiness has to change in this regard.

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

What is evolving? Is form evolving or thoughts about form? Both? Does it matter in regards to emptiness?

Let's look at the heart sutra for some help.


Here, Sariputra, form is emptiness and the very emptiness is form; emptiness does not differ from form, form does not differ from emptiness; whatever is form, that is emptiness, whatever is emptiness, that is form, the same is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness.

Here, Sariputra, all dharmas are marked with emptiness; they are not produced or stopped, not defiled or immaculate, not deficient or complete.

(yes so they are free to evolve or devolve)

Therefore, Sariputra, in emptiness there is no form, nor feeling, nor perception, nor impulse, nor consciousness; …

At the end here you can keep adding to the list as far as the mind can conceive. And so you see that emptiness does not change.


peace & love,

e

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

theurj:
Another thing to consider is that not only Form but Emptiness changes too! How can that be? Isn't it supposed to be formless and unchanging? Well yes, and no. As I think Ken pointed out, even emptiness has to be interpreted, and that interpretation evolves.

What changes are perspectives on Emptiness, and these perspectives are part of Form. This leaves Emptiness itself unchanged. Any interpretation takes place in the relative realm. So I agree with ~e~ here.

And despite Ken's postmetaphysical turn debunking the myth of the given, it is still only applicable to the “relative” realm and not the “absolute” He stills leaves the back door open for direct perception of this absolute where all bets are off, so to speak.

There's a difference between direct perception of the absolute, and the interpretation of the experience afterwards. Again, that interpretation is done from the relative realm, which is subject to Ken's post-metaphysics. So I don't really see a problem here; could you point out what I'm overlooking?

Peter

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

Can there be any experience, including what we think is an experience of the “absolute,” without interpretation? And is that interpretation only “afterward” or is it involved in the very experience in the first place? Is it possible to have direct perception of the infinite without interpretation, even in the moment of that experience? Is that not the myth of the given?

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

As Ken said in Integral Spirituality (draft) regarding the myth of the given, pp. 207-8:

–the belief that the consciousness of an individual will deliver truth. This is why
Habermas calls the myth of the given by the phrase “the philosophy of consciousness”-
and that is what he is criticizing because it is blind to intersubjectivity, among other
things. As we have been saying throughout this book, consciousness itself simply cannot see zones #2 and #4, and therefore is deficient in and of itself (e.g., “Not through
introspection but through history do we come to know ourselves”). You can introspect
all you want and you won’t see those other truths. So consciousness itself is deficient-
whether personal or transpersonal, whether pure or not pure, essential or relative, high or
low, big mind or small mind, vipassana, bare attention, centering prayer, contemplative
awareness-none of them can see these other truths, and that is why Habermas and the
postmodernists extensively criticize “the philosophy of consciousness.”

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

Theurj:

“Can there be any experience, including what we think is an experience of the “absolute,” without interpretation? And is that interpretation only “afterward” or is it involved in the very experience in the first place? Is it possible to have direct perception of the infinite without interpretation, even in the moment of that experience? Is that not the myth of the given?”

There is such a thing as “ultimat Experience” - interpretation is the ego influence of that experience, just the same as introspection is ego activity. It has nothing to do with ultimate Experience. Experience has nothing to do with the belief that an individual’s consciousness will deliver truth - it has nothing to do with any philosophy, it has nothing to do with anything, it JUST IS.

Frans

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

“Can there be any experience, including what we think is an experience of the “absolute,” without interpretation?

I would say yes. This is how I recall my awakening,

Then came the day that would be the end of my search and the beginning of a new life. Maybe a week ten days after first meeting Andrew I was strolling around the stupa when suddenly I saw and understood: I have always been free and I have always known it. This was so subtle, so fine, I almost forgot it. But in the days that came I recalled it. Listening to Andrew in satsang suddenly I realized I understood what he was speaking about. Then I remembered everything clearly what had happened the day before. I had always been free and I had always enjoyed this natural freedom. This mystified me as why then had I been seeking. So I searched in my memory to see if it was true. I looked back on when I was five years old, when I had been 10 and when I had been 15 years of age, and at every instance I had been free. There never had been any obstacles, there are no obstacles and there never will be any obstacles. It was so easy, so simple. I was full of joy. When I recollected the event and remembered the view I had I saw that I had seen the scenery in front of my eyes just I as I do now but the seeing itself was coming from a limitless depth behind my eyes. I who saw was out of this world, out of time, seeing through my eyes, into this world, into a world that was a dream. This is such a gem. I wondered why I had almost missed it, why it hadn't been obvious at the time it happened. So I looked at the event again and saw that the view wasn't anything other than this everyday vision I have every day, here and now (and as you have right now too). That was why I hadn't recognized it immediately, because it is this ordinary view that we have all the time. Nothing had changed, nothing happened, there was no “experience”. The seeing had just been there when understanding came. But the understanding cleared the egos veils of wrongly identifying with this person. This really blew me away, that this is our everyday seeing, right now as I write this. Nothing extraordinary, just plain normal. I just saw my true nature, my real self.

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

“Can there be any experience, including what we think is an experience of the “absolute,”
without interpretation?

Yes, sort of, as Emptiness is not really an experience subject/object wise.

“Therefore, in Emptiness There Are No Forms,
No Feelings, Perceptions, Volitions or Consciousness.”

(You are 'not in Kansas' at this point. *You* and *Kansas* exiting stage left. : -) )




And is that interpretation only “afterward” or is it involved in the very experience in the first place?

Any discursive thoughts while in emptiness will be seen to be empty. Sliding out of awarness like water off a duck's back.




Is it possible to have direct perception of the infinite without interpretation, even in the moment of that experience? Is that not the myth of the given?”

The myth of the given is predicated on the 'ding an sich' (thing in itself).

Emptiness is not a thing. All things are empty (of an ontological self). Even emptiness is empty.



p&l,

e

PS Emptiness is not properly infinite. But finite and infinte cognition is empty.

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

Hey everyone

Some of the points in this discussion came up when I was talking to Ken on the IS Appendix 2 Con Call on Saturday.  I'll do my best to articulate some of his points, though I might miss some of the finer points as this is from memory…

3rd tier structure-stages (indego and beyond) are inextricably linked to state-stages - thus the reason he confused them for so long.  so…in order to achive an ultraviolet structure stage CoG, you also have to have a state stage CoG at Causal - you sumply cannot attain ultra-violet without it, that aweness is part of the actual structure.  You can however, achieve the reverse…as is obvious.

He said pretty catagorically that people like Nargajuna and Plotinus were operating from turquiose cognitively…but no more.  They were laying down state-stage Kosmic groves NOT structure-stage Kosmic grooves.  They develop independantly!

Ewan

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

Ewan:
3rd tier structure-stages (indego and beyond) are inextricably linked to state-stages - thus the reason he confused them for so long.  so…in order to achive an ultraviolet structure stage CoG, you also have to have a state stage CoG at Causal - you sumply cannot attain ultra-violet without it, that aweness is part of the actual structure.  You can however, achieve the reverse…as is obvious.

Okay, I think this is pretty much what KW says in IS as well.


He said pretty catagorically that people like Nargajuna and Plotinus were operating from turquiose cognitively…but no more.  They were laying down state-stage Kosmic groves NOT structure-stage Kosmic grooves.  They develop independantly!

In order to operate from turquoise cognitively, you need to have developed the corresponding structure in the cognitive line (so they might have been laying these particular grooves down as well? Or was that already available?). And indeed, this does not mean that they had their CoG at turquoise, since that usually is below your top cognitive capacity. They wouldn't have been laying down the entire turquoise structure-stage, then. Is this what Ken was saying?

Still not clear if Ken literally means turquoise here, or integral (teal/turquoise). Business as usual … :)

Anyhow, full development of a structure-stage takes a lot of time, apparently. Having a funky deep groove, I mean.

The state-stage they were laying down would have been the nondual state? As I understand, Nagarjuna and Plotinus were among the first to reach that stage, somewhere around 250 AD. For Guatama Buddha, for instance, who lived some 600 years earlier, causal was the highest state.

Makes sense.

Peter

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

Hey Peter

In order to operate from turquoise cognitively, you need to have developed the corresponding structure in the cognitive line (so they might have been laying these particular grooves down as well? Or was that already available?). And indeed, this does not mean that they had their CoG at turquoise, since that usually is below your top cognitive capacity. They wouldn't have been laying down the entire turquoise structure-stage, then. Is this what Ken was saying?

Yes, I think so.  They were laying down parts of turquiose structure grooves - cognitive structures are always going to be the first - but I think its safe to say they wern't operating from a turquiose CoG.

Anyhow, full development of a structure-stage takes a lot of time, apparently. Having a funky deep groove, I mean.

Yeah, absolutely, its still happening now.  Turquiose grooves in the lower quadrants are very un-developed still.

The state-stage they were laying down would have been the nondual state? As I understand, Nagarjuna and Plotinus were among the first to reach that stage, somewhere around 250 AD. For Guatama Buddha, for instance, who lived some 600 years earlier, causal was the highest state.

Yes, thats my understanding as well.  Which is also why he mentions in the 1-2-3 of god that early shamans can be said to have been enlightened at Magenta/Red, Causal.  Non-dual wasn't available to them.  So what comes after non-dual, thats what I want to know! :)

Ewan

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

theurj,
“(E.g., according to his secretary, the Dalai Lama believes homosexuality is a sin, anal sex is a sin, oral sex is bad karma, etc.—when everybody knows that oral sex is not bad karma, only bad oral sex is bad karma…. But these sadly are typical mythic-amber beliefs.) (117-18)

In the meantime, Asian meditation teachers, with a LL-quadrant that is heavily amber, or mythic-membership, and hence “non-egoic” in the sense of PREinvidualistic, and therefore used to having students simply obey them unhesitatingly and in a conformist-stage fashion, don’t quite know what to do with individualistic-stage Westerners, whose LL-quadrant is loaded orange-to-green. (118)”

First, let's not assume that the Dalai Lama is an enlightened being. He was born into a political position, and his own development is up to him. Whereas the Grandmaster for the Chung Tain Ch'an sect of Chinese Zen in Taiwan began with a small meditation hall, and now operates dozens of meditation centers around the world, and has built the largest Buddhist Temple in the world, in his lifetime. We have to see the difference between individual merit and an esoteric political appointment.
Also, from what I understand, the Kalama Sutra was never translated into Tibetian. This is the Zen sutra in which the Buddha tells the Kalamas not to believe in anything they see, hear or read from an outside source, until they have examined it in detail and compared it to direct experience. I believe it was Steven Batchelor who talks about his experience transitioning from being a Tibetan monk to a Zen monk in Korea. He talks about going from not questioning anything, to having to question literally everything.

Another thing that we have to look at, and which is almost wholly ignored, is that meditation is only 1 part of the 8 fold path. KW is absolutely right, that meditative practice will only get you so far, but it seems that he fails to mention that that is what the other 7 parts are for.
When taken in totality, the 8 fold path doesn't somehow cause enlightenment, after all to say so would be to invalidate the concept of dependence origination. The 8 fold path, when taken seriously, opens up the space to allow for personal development.

When we look at our lives deeply, we find that we have very little control over the whole thing. What we have control over are the moment-to-moment things that facilitate certain outcomes. So, if you would like to have a certain career, there are a great many steps that contain further steps, etc… we can't just wake up one day and have the dream career, but we can put things in motion moment-to-moment. Enlightenment is like this.

So, if a person meditated regularly, but doesn't follow the other 7 steps, then they aren't really commited to the process of ending suffering. I know this from personal experience, because I still haven't fully commited. But I do know that when trying to overcome the delusion of inherent characteristics, it is counter-productive to meditate and still do things like watch porn, or drinking/drugs, non-commited sex, etc… By meditating you are developing the space and concentration necessary, but all the other things are reinforcing the status quo. Its all about conditioning the mind.

That is why there are so few really enlightened beings, and why we sit around and muse about enlightenment.

E has posted a part of the Heart Sutra that really says it all, and wasn't written by someone merely able to acheive high meditative states. When we look at what ethnocentrism is, it is really just saying and expressing the belief in inherent characteristics. Without that base belief, there would be no way of expressing either aversion or attraction to various behaviors, beliefs, or customs; be them your own or another's. When you read Nargarjuna, for example, he so thoroughly destroys any attempt towards realism and belief in inherent characteristics, that to think the man was only meditatively achieved is too much.

Let's face it. When someone creates a theoretical framework to explain everything and encompass the whole, they will always have inconsistencies in the system. The most commmon course of action when dealing with inconsistencies or inconguities, is to either ignore them or explain them away. So, I'm skeptical when KW says that because certain people in history don't seem to fit neatly into his AQAL framework, that they have to change and not his framework.
As Katagiri says, “Whatever you think, that is delusion.”

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

holden:
So, I'm skeptical when KW says that because certain people in history don't seem to fit neatly into his AQAL framework, that they have to change and not his framework.

And where exactly did he say that???

As Katagiri says, “Whatever you think, that is delusion.”

I'm going to remind you on that one :)

Peter

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

“And where exactly did he say that???”

I am responding more to what people are saying that KW is saying than to anything that I've actually heard or read him say. To say that the Buddha could only be at a Causal level, because that is the only thing that the model allows. That seems to be imposing a post de facto reasoning upon history.
People can say anything they want about enlightenment, but within the sphere of Buddhism is it largely undefined, in that it is a quality of mind that isn't able to be defined. It is said over and over, that if you fundementally understand the true nature of mind and reality itself, not theoretically, but know it like you know the sun is shinning, then you are enlightened. After that, there may be degrees of relative knowledge that are different or a deeper understanding incorporated upon this fundamental understanding, but that doesn't change the essential quality of the enlightened mind; which is empty of an inherent self. There are not greater or lesser degrees of emptiness.
What I see KW doing is pioneering a greater understanding and inquiry into the relative nature of things, but the absolute nature of things doesn't change.
As Bodhidharma says:

“When a thought begins, you enter the three realms. When a thought ends, you leave the three realms. The beginning or end of the three realms, the existence or nonexistence of anything, depends on the mind. This applies to everything, even to such inanimate objects as rocks and sticks.

Whoever knows that the mind is a fiction and devoid of anything real knows that his own mind neither exists nor doesn’t exist. Mortals keep creating the mind, claiming it exists. And Arhats keep negating the mind, claiming it doesn’t exist. But bodhisattvas and Buddhas neither create nor negate the mind. This is what’s meant by the mind that neither exists nor doesn’t exist. The mind that neither exists nor doesn’t exist is called the Middle Way.

If you use your mind to study reality, you won’t understand either your mind or reality. If you study reality without using your mind, you’ll understand both. Those who don’t understand don’t understand understanding. And those who understand, understand not understanding. People capable of true vision know that the mind is empty. They transcend both understanding and not understanding. The absence of both understanding and not understanding is true understanding Seen with true vision, form isn’t simply form, because form depends on mind. And mind isn’t simply mind, because mind depends on form. Mind and form create and negate each other. That which exists exists in relation to that which doesn’t exist. And that which doesn’t exist doesn’t exist in relation to that which exists. This is true vision. By means of such vision nothing is seen and nothing is not seen. Such vision reaches throughout the ten directions without seeing: because nothing is seen; because not seeing is seen; because seeing isn’t seeing. What mortals see are delusions. True vision is detached from seeing. The mind and the world are opposites, and vision arises where they meet. When your mind doesn’t stir inside, the world doesn’t arise outside. When the world and the mind are both transparent, this is true vision. And such understanding is true understanding.”

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

Nicely put Holden.

It’s the paradox: you can never understand by studying reality, yet studying reality is the only way to get to that realization. This is the point where mind gets left behind - no matter if it exists or doesn’t exist.

I think KW would agree with you too; he is trying to get more people to that realization…

Frans

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

theurj,
“Another thing to consider is that not only Form but Emptiness changes too! How can that be? Isn't it supposed to be formless and unchanging? Well yes, and no. As I think Ken pointed out, even emptiness has to be interpreted, and that interpretation evolves.”

Again, e already posted the Heart Sutra, but it seems that more elaboration needs to be done. When the Sutra says, “Form is emptiness and emptiness is form. Form is no different from emptiness and neither….”
It is being very literal. I've found that myterious and esoteric sounding sutras are actually very literal, but only sound vague because the person isn't at the stage yet needed to understand them. That's why we have koans. If you don't get it, then keep working, and if you think you've found an answer to the koan, then a lot more work needs to be done.
If you think of emptiness as a thing or something that changes in time or the place that form happens in, like emptiness is another way of saying Spirit, then your not looking closely. Form “is” emptiness. This is expressing an understanding of two truths. The relative and the absolute. The absolute truth of everything does not change, it does not evolve. All things were empty of inherent characteristics 10,000 years ago as they are now. This hasn't changed. The understanding of this doesn't change.  This is saying that there is relative “form” and form is really just a confusing and esoteric way of saying “matter.” But, that this relative truth can't be explained or expressed. Anything that can be explained is something, and we are not dealing with something; yet there is something and that is “ungraspable”. Relative reality, the reality of picking something out of the Whole to measure via consciousness, and seeing that there is evolving in what is measured, is true. Therefore there is evolution, as there is nothing that isn't change itself.  But, the reality of whatever that you have decided to measure not having any inherent and unconditioned characteristics is the same, it does not evolve. There is nothing to evolve.

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

The issue is not whether emptiness itself changes. Obvioulsy the timeless and unchanging doesn't change. The issues are 1) whether we can directly experience this “absolute” free of relative interpretations. Whether that is yes or no it still seems we 2) have to interpret the experience and that, it seems all are agreed, is relative-develomental (it changes). And I'm saying is that more recent, postmodern (and/or integral) interpretations of this “emptiness” might be more accurate than the more traditional ones, like the sutras. It certainly seems, given Ken's above arguments, to make some sense.

Another issue is this: What is a center of gravity? Previously Ken said it had to do with the self-related lines, like cognition and ego development, which act as an organizer of all the other lines. In IS though we get this notion of overall altitutude being measured by “consciounsess per se” (CPS). It's description as the open space in which phenomenon arise to be the causal emptiness in the scale of the emptiness/form duality. In which case I'm still confused because I thought that consciousess of any variety, including transcendental, is UL and blind to the other zones, particularly intersubjectivity.

Regarding the latter topic in relation to all this, see Balder's blog on intersubjectivity part 3. If Habermas/Mead are correct that an “I” cannot even exist without the socialization process in regard to others, and if this “I” is developmental, and if this “I” is a prerequisted to awareness of states in the first place…I think you can see where this is going.

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

Theurj:   In which case I'm still confused because I thought that consciousess of any variety, including transcendental, is UL and blind to the other zones, particularly intersubjectivity.

Can you spell out what you mean here?  Because if consciousness is blind to all of the other zones, then of course there would be no awareness whatsoever of any of the zones; we wouldn't even be able to speak about them.  I think this drives an unwarranted (reified) wedge between the quadrants.  When Wilber mentions that Zone 1 is blind to intersubjectivity (for instance), I believe what he is saying is that certain Zone 1 methods (such as “bare attention”) cannot, of themselves, discover the data disclosed by other methods of inquiry. 

Although this is something of an aside, it seems to me that some of Wilber's “indigenous perspectives” should more properly be termed con-perspectives, because there is a significant amount of “thinking” and analysis involved in them.  They hardly appear to be primordial or “indigenous,” at least on the level that we commonly deal with them (the examples Wilber lists on his chart); they must be learned and sometimes require high-level training.

Theurj:  Regarding the latter topic in relation to all this, see Balder's blog on intersubjectivity part 3. If Habermas/Mead are correct that an “I” cannot even exist without the socialization process in regard to others, and if this “I” is developmental, and if this “I” is a prerequisted to awareness of states in the first place…I think you can see where this is going.

I've been thinking about this over the weekend, and have been doing a little reading (most recently, two of David Loy's essays on Derrida and Nagarjuna).  Buddhist teachings are quite clear that the I lacks self-existence (or, in Derrida's terms, self-presence.)  The I is empty – it is dependently originated, bearing the traces of not-I in its very constitution.

Here is the challenge I think you are posing:  Not only is the self a construct (the Buddhists admit this), but the self is a developmentally necessary precondition for being able to perceive/realize/integrate with the states and insights which constitute Buddhist soteriology.  In other words, the “buddhanature” which Buddhists perceive and consider to be atemporally present, is actually a conperception which can only be enacted by a sufficiently developed mind (and therefore is actually not atemporal at all).

If my understanding of the challenge you are raising is correct, I'll attempt an answer in another post.

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

Balder,

Yes, as usual you clarify with specificity. It didn't make sense to me either that consciousness per se is not aware of intersubjectivity (IS), for as you say, then how did it become aware of it at all? So more specifically, methods that produce “states” by themselves cannot see IS. And it seems the IS methods developed by pomo were not available to our meditation originators, although you provided an article contending that in your blog.

And yes, I am suggesting as you say that buddhanature might not be atemporal for the stated reasons. I look forward to your response, which I'm guessing will include the above reference? I hope so, as it's an interesting one to explore.

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

A laying down of the idea of separate self-hood. There is no individual, no entity, no separate selves. There exist no separate life. Non-duality means not two. There is no “my life”. There is existence, life and consciousness. There is only the whole. You don't exist. If you believe it, you separate yourself from life and become unreachable, because you place yourself on an island. The Buddha called it “the conceit of I”. A belief in “I” places you among the non-believers. The laying down of this idea of a separate self-hood places you among the normal.

Being nobody implies laying down the notion of separate existence. Being nobody implies freedom from self. “Buddha nature” signifies no separate existence. Being nobody implies no entity. Being nobody refers to no one. Absence of separate self.

There is, there is not. Positive, negative. Views, convictions. All create proportional emotional experiences. As you view life so it appears to you, and so it will respond to you, affirming your view. Your view projects itself outwards, and like in a mirror, is reflected back in precise detail. And you say, “-See, I was right!”

What does it matter which view is true if the personal doesn't exist? Anything you are holding up fall within the realm of existence and non-existence. Freedom is not about choosing the positive over the negative. Freedom signifies freedom from belief in separate self-hood. Freedom being all one. Freedom signifies no boundaries, no limits. Freedom means nothing to protect nothing to justify. Freedom from self.

Mind is Buddha. This mind of ours is really nothing wrong with, and it's not even limited. Our mind is infinite and contains everything. Thinking is not limited. Thinking is activity of total freedom. Where is there a limit to your thinking? Mind is really ungraspable. It is the most mysterious of all the secrets. Mind is Buddha, and you are using mind every day, and you are using Buddha without even knowing it. It has infinite capacity. It has no shape. The only mistake you make is to postulate an “I”. This is pure mind. -Not tainted by ignorance.

Real Time. Mind exists within real time. Real time is the arena of mind. Real time is the lifeblood of the Buddha.

Seeing freed from misidentification one sees the world in its true light, and everything is seen as it is. False as false and true as true. All things perfect as they are. Of one taste, of one flavor. All being an expression of THAT which lays behind, -the never changing nature. Seeing all in this true perspective one knows how to act in accordance with the changing circumstances. Everything and everybody are revealed by their appearances. Nothing is hidden. All being of one taste, there is nothing to avoid. Seeing freed from belief in separate self-hood reveals a limitless and timeless objective view. In THAT oneself and everything else is seen clearly just as it is.

As long as there is any need to keep yourself at arms length, at a safe distance, there haven't been a breakthrough and it will always keep you from true union, true love. Give up the idea of personal ego hood. Realize that there is nothing to protect, nothing to justify. Dare to give up the idea of being special.

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

Regarding the latter topic in relation to all this, see Balder's blog on intersubjectivity part 3. If Habermas/Mead are correct that an “I” cannot even exist without the socialization process in regard to others, and if this “I” is developmental, and if this “I” is a prerequisted to awareness of states in the first place…I think you can see where this is going.

In my experience that is not correct. When I was less than one year old I had a lucid clear awakening/experience that has stayed in my memory ever since. I was sitting in my fathers lap in front of an open fire. Everything was safe, warm and comfortable. My mind just opened to a lucid understanding of myself just as I was. The room and surroundings were imbued with this “feeling-knowledge” of who I was. Knowing exactly who and what I was; free and perfectly at ease. This first realization of an absolute being revealed my inherent knowledge of myself, of my “I”. This is not something that needs to be developed. It is inherent in our fundamental absolute being.

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

“The issue is not whether emptiness itself changes. Obvioulsy the timeless and unchanging doesn't change. The issues are 1) whether we can directly experience this “absolute” free of relative interpretations. Whether that is yes or no it still seems we 2) have to interpret the experience and that, it seems all are agreed, is relative-develomental (it changes).”

As my mother says, “All I have to do is die.”
The traditions are clear and direct experience bears out the fact that you can only experience the absolute nature of self and other directly. There is no other way to do it. In fact your doing it right now, and you can be no other way. We don't have to interpret anything. We can choose to interpret the nature of direct perception and the nature of form and emptiness, and in fact we have to if we choose to explain it or write about it, but this isn't a given.
Yes, relative truth changes. We know more about the relative nature of reality today than we knew yesterday, although, most people don't. But, any relative explanation of the Whole, or actual experience, will always be incomplete. It will always be a What aspect. That is, if I ask you what an atom are you can tell me they are a collection of sub-atom particles and we can go on forever like that, but in the end you still have no idea what an atom actually is. You've labeled it and created the illusion of certainty, but saying the word atom doesn’t tell you any more than the object it compromises.

For example, have you ever been in a store and seen an unfamiliar kind of fruit or vegetable? You can ask someone what it is, and they can tell you a name, and some how that is satisfying, but you don’t know any more about it then you did before; you just now have something to call it. The only way to really know what it is in any real way is to taste it. Then you’ll know more about it than if you studying its nutritional values and chemical make up. I'll satisfy Pelle by elaborating on this point. The fruit won't taste exactly like it does for you as it does for me, as the taste is dependent upon a great deal of conditioning. The  evolutionary biology of a person over millions of years, social/cultural, and psychological conditioning all play a role in how something tastes to a person. But, the act of tasting is universal. Just as hearing a sound is universal. Not how you feel about the sound, but the sound before any thought occurs, before any judgement, just the sound. Even a deaf person is aware that they are deaf, because that awareness is universal and that awareness is your mind. It is unconditioned, unborn and undying. It is the same as you were when you were 5 as it is now, as it will be tomorrow. That is the absolute nature of mind. Can you interpret it? 

Do you have to interpret the taste of an apple? That sounds ridiculous, but it’s no different than what you’re saying. You know what an apple tastes like, but you could never describe it to anyone in any real way. You would be left having to compare it to all that it isn’t. So is an apple just an apple or is it also everything that it is not? After all, how else would we know an apple, unless we could compare it to everything that it’s not?

Enlightenment isn’t adding anything, there is nothing to add and you couldn’t add anything if you wanted to. Let us for a moment, think about what happens as we move up the stages. Do we gain information that wasn’t there before? No, we understand what was there the whole time, right in front of us. It is a stripping away of greed, anger and delusion. People don’t just become more connected when a person moves to a green understanding. They were always interconnected, yet the world does realign itself for that one person. Objects don’t exist without mind and mind doesn’t exist without objects. Form is emptiness and emptiness is form.  

The act of interpreting is the very thing that keeps us from understanding the true nature of mind, self and other.

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

Hear hear

You are putting it very nicly Holden, thank you. You explain it clearly.

The traditions are clear and direct experience bears out the fact that you can only experience the absolute nature of self and other directly. There is no other way to do it. In fact your doing it right now, and you can be no other way. We don't have to interpret anything. We can choose to interpret the nature of direct perception and the nature of form and emptiness, and in fact we have to if we choose to explain it or write about it, but this isn't a given.

This is what Andrew Cohen in his teachings refer to when he describes that first we must be able to appreciate/understand what no relationship to mind means, and then what a perfect relationship to mind is. First we realize the empty nature of ourselves, then we know how to relate and understand our thought process, how we use mind when needed.

Then we will for the first time be able to not be fooled by our own mind. We will now be able to use it, like any other tool in the box.

Holden, from this perspective, as more and more people gather to share and to explore together, this common ground becomes a platform from which we can take communal leaps from. Leaps that reveals a new creation, a new way of relationships. A coming together that is inherent in our make up but that yet has to be awaken and made manifest among many together simultaniously. This is what can be called evolution of consciousness, as we move into a higher order of union. Something that is a more aligned manifestation of our already absolute understanding. Conscious awakening brings about real changes in the way we live and interact.

But it never will jeperdize our true common ground.

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

Hey Rick

I am responding more to what people are saying that KW is saying than to anything that I've actually heard or read him say. To say that the Buddha could only be at a Causal level, because that is the only thing that the model allows. That seems to be imposing a post de facto reasoning upon history.

If you havn't actually read or grasped the original argument I'd advise a little more caution when making assessments of Wilber's position on it.  Bending reality to fit his model is the very last thing he'd ever do.  Simplification, yes; distortion, no.


Ewan

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

Holden said: “The act of interpreting is the very thing that keeps us from understanding the true nature of mind, self and other.”

I can understand that Holden and Bjorn subscribe to this interpretation, even though they seem convinced it is not an interpretation. To me it's the myth of the given that Ken talks about. And it is precisely my point, that such interpretations of “state” experiences are outdated and in need ot transcendence in postformal cognition. We'll just have to resepctfully (hopefully) disagree on that.

And by the way, I meditate and have such experiences too, I just don't interpret them that way. I'm sure one can find a denigrating kosmic address for me due to that.

To change to topic, what is the center of gravity? I think this is important because some above have claimed that while the originators of Buddhism were turquoise cognition their COG was lower. And if the COG is cognition and the self-related lines then I'd suggest by certain criteria the originators were postformal, then how did they display such ethnocentric behavior? And how is Ken's CPS now the new COG?

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

“I can understand that Holden and Bjorn subscribe to this interpretation, even though they seem convinced it is not an interpretation. To me it's the myth of the given that Ken talks about.”

This I don't understand. People throw around the term “Myth of the Given,” a lot around here, and I want to make sure that we're all on the same page. From what I understand from Pelle, the myth of the given is to believe that what you see and conceive from a certain stage is a direct perception of reality. That a rock is a rock, etc… That is not close to what I'm talking about, nor is it was the Buddhist sages are talking about. To fall prey to this myth, one must assume that reality and the objects of awareness are something solid, something in particular, with particular and inherent characteristics of being, which is far from what I have expressed.
What I'm talking about is like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. That is you can either know the position or the velocity of an electron, but you cannot know both at the same time.
Like this you can interpret what you experience and label it via your stage of consciousness and your relative knowledge, but to do so you have to divide up the whole into parts for measurement. You can directly perceive reality, but to do so is to see only the whole, and not interpret it with concepts and relative knowledge.
The reason this isn't an interpretation is because I'm not interpreting direct experience. I have no explanation. I have no idea about what This is. I have no way to explain this present moment or direct experience, yet there is experience. My explanation for This may change over time, but my experience of this is constant. All my life there has only ever been This. This awareness hasn't changed over time, and it is the only thing that hasn't. This isn't merely a relative interpretation, because it is the same for you and everyone else.
Therefore there is not Myth of the Given in this awareness, because nothing is Given.
A rock is not just a rock, yet it is not more than a rock. This is seeing before seeing, or perceiving before conceiving.
In mathematics relative knowledge is like real numbers, or the What of experience. This is the same kind of cognition that a computer has. Yet a computer can't tell the difference between a dog and a cat, something a bird can do. This awareness can be represented with the imaginary numbers i. Together the two help explain in relative terms what we experience r + i; r for relative truth.
Now you may accuse me of relative explanation and interpretation, but it is for you benefit.
There's an ancient Zen saying that describes this:

Say “barrier” and two appears.
See “barrier” and two cannot be found.

This is spoken from a Non-dual mind.
What's crazy about KW's theory is that it explains that we can literally not understand the next higher stage of consciousness until out consciousness unfolds to incorporate more of the Whole. The theory itself states the futility of even trying to theorize about these states or imagining what they are like, and tells us that the only way we will know is to know directly.
I am in full agreement with KW on this, yet the people that follow what he says the most seem to completely ignore his main points.
If I hold a pebble in one hand and ask you to choose which one it is in, you will never be certain until I just open my hands and then you will know. Before that happens, the futility of debate and conjecture over what hand the pebble is in seems like a waste of energy.

Also, if you think that you are experiencing anything in particular during meditation, that is your mind. If you think that you have seen or learned or experienced anything different during meditation this is also mind made.

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

For example in IS (draft) Ken says (I'll add comments later):

“There are two theories available that attempt to explain this, and AQAL uses them both.

One theory, accepted by most developmentalists, is that the basic yardstick is the cognitive line, because, alone of all the lines, there does seem to be a mechanism relating it to the others. Namely, research has continued to demonstrate that growth in the cognitive line is necessary but not sufficient for the growth in the other lines. Thus, you can be highly developed in the cognitive line and poorly developed in the moral line (very smart but not very moral: Nazi doctors), but we don't find the reverse (low IQ, highly moral). This is why you can have formal operational cognition and red values, but not preoperational cognition and orange values (again, something that cannot be explained if Spiral Dynamics vMEMEs were the only levels). So in this view, the altitude is the cognitive line, which is necessary but not sufficient for the other lines. The other lines are not variations on the cognitive, but they are dependent on it.

in the posted excerpts from volume 2) is that the y-axis is consciousness per se. Thus, “degree of consciousness” is itself is the altitude: the more consciousness, the higher the altitude (subconscious to self-conscious to superconscious). In this view, all of the developmental lines move through the same altitude gradient-and that gradient is consciousness, which is the y-axis, or the “height” of any of the lines on the psychograph. So a level can be said to be “higher” in any line the greater the degree of consciousness in it.

“ This happens to fit nicely with the Madhyamaka-Yogachara Buddhist view of

consciousness as emptiness or openness. Consciousness is not anything itself, just the degree of openness or emptiness, the clearing in which the phenomena of the various lines appear (but consciousness is not itself a phenomena-it is the space in which phenomena arise).” 

“ (There is one more theory, a third contender, that explains altitude, and that is the theory

of basic structures, also known as ladder, climber, view, a theory offered by AQAL. Suffice it to say that it is something of a combination of both of the above, and can be used with both fruitfully in the AQAL system. There is no need to pursue this theory in any detail, since its major points don't alter this discussion. Interested readers can follow up the references and the article “Ladder, Climber, View” posted on kenwilber.com.)

 ” Likewise with “consciousness” when used in this fashion. It is not a thing or a content or

a phenomenon. It has no description. It is not worldviews, it is not values, it is not morals, not cognition, not value-MEMEs, mathematico-logico structures, adaptive intelligences, nor multiple intelligences. In particular, consciousness is not itself a line among other lines, but the space in which lines arise. Consciousness is the emptiness, the openness, the clearing in which various phenomena arise, and if those phenomena develop in stages, they constitute a developmental line (cognitive, moral, self, values, needs, memes, etc.). The more phenomena in that line that can arise in consciousness, the higher the level in that line. Again, consciousness itself is not a phenomenon, but the space in which phenomena arise.” (84-6)

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

Holden,

What you describe sounds similar to Ken's description of CPS, no?

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

Here are a few more excepts from IS (draft) to take into consideration, pp. 134-6:

 

Those individuals who assume otherwise are simply assuming a premodernist epistemology, that there is a single pregiven reality that I can know, and that meditation will show me this independently existing reality, which therefore must be the same for everybody who discovers it; instead of realizing that the subject of knowing co-creates the reality it knows, and that therefore some aspects of reality will literally be created by the subject and the interpretation it gives to that reality.*

* Emptiness itself is not created or co-created, but Form is, and Emptiness is co-emergent with Form, therefore Nondual realization is in part interpretive.

And Brown's work is an example of what we are talking about here, namely, there isn't

just meditative experience per se-that simply does not exist. There is meditative experience

plus the interpretations you give it. And this means, among other things, that we should choose our interpretations, view, and framework very carefully. Traleg Rinpoche:

In the Buddha's early discourses on the Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold

Path begins with the cultivation of the correct view…. Without a conceptual framework,

meditative experiences would be totally incomprehensible. What we experience in

meditation has to be properly interpreted, and its significance-or lack thereof-has to be

understood. This interpretative act requires appropriate conceptual categories and the

correct use of those categories. While we are often told that meditation is about emptying the mind, that it is the discursive, agitated thoughts of our mind that keeps us trapped in false appearances, meditative experiences are in fact impossible without the use of conceptual formulations.

As for the typical modern Western Buddhist that Traleg is criticizing, who so often sees

Buddhism as a “no concepts” and “no intellect” stance, it is unfortunately true that, among other things, this anti-intellectualism has often turned Buddhism into a type of “feelings only” school. Cognition is the great dirty word for these individuals. “That's too cognitive” means “that is not spiritual.” In reality, it's almost exactly the opposite, as Traleg is indicating. In that regard, notice that “cognition” is actually derived from the root gni (co-gni-tion), and this gni is the same as gno, which is the same root as gno-sis, or gnosis. Thus, cognition is really co-gnosis, or that which is the co-element of gnosis and nondual awareness. This why Traleg is saying that cognition or co-gnosis is indeed the vehicle of our spiritual path. (Incidentally, this is why, as we saw, developmentalists repeatedly have found that the cognitive line is necessary but not sufficient for ALL of the other developmental lines, including feelings, emotions, art, andspiritual intelligence-exactly the opposite you would expect if the anti-intellectualist and anticognitive stance was right.*)

In Sanskrit, this gno appears as jna, which we find in both prajna and jnana. Prajna is

supreme discriminating awareness necessary for full awakening of gnosis (pra-jna = pro-gnosis), itself a boomeritis twist on cittamatra. and jnana is pure gnosis itself. Once again, cognition as co-gnosis is the root of the development that is necessary for the full awakening of gnosis, of jnana, of nondual liberating awareness. So the next time you hear the word “cognitive,” you might hesitate before labeling it anti-spiritual.

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

“Holden,

What you describe sounds similar to Ken's description of CPS, no?”

Yeah, KW of course is taking it to the next logical level, and since he is more knowledgable and more developed than I am in many ways, I'll have to defer to him. He likes to push the envelope more than I personally would.
Emptiness could be said to be the space in which form or matter take place, and that's the way he always describes it, but that's not exactly what I was saying. Emptiness is a description of the quality of reality of form and self. Since all things are not inherently existent, that is they are dependent upon conditions. We have to steer clear of calling them causal factors, because all of these conditions are themselves, equally made up of conditions. This is true of all form, “all the way up and all the way down.” So there's never a place to gain solid footing and say that there is something in particular, that there is only this emptiness that defines the nature of all things. You can say that emptiness is the space in which form takes place, but that might confuse some people by making them  think that emptiness is somehow the base for or the space around which form happens, when it is really the quality of form itself. There are not two things going on like a Marxist model whereby the infrastructure is what houses the structure and superstructure.
That's the way I used to think of it years ago.

I really like what KW has to say about the co-creation of consciousness and form, I haven't heard him write anything like that before.

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

Thanks Holden. Actually we are in agreement about the nature of emptiness. And I am questioning Ken's description because as you noted it seems to set up a reified and dual emptiness that “is somehow the base for or the space around which form happens, when it is really the quality of form itself.”

So what I'm trying to understand, given that emptiness is not a “direct perception” opposed to an “interpretation,” is how, in Ken's statements above, he can still separate emptiness and form by saying: “Emptiness itself is not created or co-created, but Form is, and Emptiness is co-emergent with Form, therefore Nondual realization is in part interpretive.” Since the former is the quality of form itself it seems that relative form with its interpretative perspectives is accurate. As as form evolves it makes sense to me that there are more developed perspectives, hence legitimacy to altitude in the various lines. Thus it also makes sense to me to use cognition and the self-related lines (and ladder, climber, view) as some sort of COG. I can even see Ken's use of CPS as a sort of general altitude marker by not only the amount of, but by the type of, phenomenon that arise in a given line. But CPS as itself as some kind of measure seems to fall prey to the dual and reified emptiness above.

Also see this link for an extended discussion.

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

And also this link that explores the dual-nondual nonduality topic, with brief excerpt below.
 

From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Wilber

Others, including Georg Feuerstein, argue that Wilber's Neo-perennial Philosophy is a confusion between concepts of differentiated nondualist doctrines (such as Plotinus's neo-Platonism and Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita Vedanta) and truly unitary monism of Zen and Advaita Vedanta: the former philosophies distinguish between emanated or manifest reality and the unchangeable source, while for Zen or Advaita the Source and reality are essentially one and the same. This is expressed in a famous Zen saying of which Wilber is quite fond: “Nirvana is Samsara fully realized; Samsara is Nirvana rightly understood.”[citation needed]

Wilber's response to criticisms like this is typified in this quotation from the extended audio interview Speaking of Everything: “…when I lay out the stages of development, I am giving what I explicitly called in SES a ‘rational reconstruction of the trans-rational'.[12] Thus, differentiated non-dual doctrines and truly unitary monist doctrines are describing (or coming from) different levels of consciousness, the former from a causal perspective that differentiates between emptiness and form (and hence must see form as emanationary), and the latter from a nondual perspective that equates emptiness and form (and hence renders emanation a redundant concept).

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

So what I'm trying to understand, given that emptiness is not a “direct perception” opposed to an “interpretation,” is how, in Ken's statements above, he can still separate emptiness and form by saying: “Emptiness itself is not created or co-created, but Form is, ….

Therefore, Sariputra, in emptiness there is no form, nor feeling, nor perception, nor impulse, nor consciousness, (nor rules, nor formal,  nor-vision logic, etc.>>>)

In emptiness there are no Zone 1 or Zone 2 designations. Form is evolving but not *in* emptiness. When the traditions use space to describe emptiness it is done as metaphor. Emptiness is like space in that everything arising and changing in space does not effect space. To reify emptiness to space is ultimately a hindrance to understanding emptiness.




…and Emptiness is co-emergent with Form, therefore Nondual realization is in part interpretive.”

Here, Sariputra, form is emptiness and the very emptiness is form; emptiness does not differ from form, form does not differ from emptiness; whatever is form, that is emptiness, whatever is emptiness, that is form, the same is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness and ( rules,  formal,  vision logic, etc.>>>)

Non-dual realization is interpretive in the sense of expression thru evolving form in time is empty. The fact of Emptiness allows for Form to evolve and change. Emptiness is not changing but form is because it is none other then emptiness after all. If Form was not empty, it would not and could not change.




Since the former is the quality of form itself it seems that relative form with its interpretative perspectives is accurate.

To say Emptiness is a quality of form is a bit misleading also. As there is not a thing e.g. form that inherently exists with a quality of emptiness. Form is Emptiness and Emptiness is Form!




…. But CPS as itself as some kind of measure seems to fall prey to the dual and reified emptiness above.


The bolded text above are 2 deepening realizations.  The realization of Emptiness (sans evolving Form e.g causal ) and the realization that Emptiness is Form (e.g. non-dual).

peace & love,

e

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

theurj,

I see what your saying. I've thought the same thing myself and questioned KW's seemingly incongruous statements about the nature of form and emptiness.
I agree with what e says 100% as well. Although he is right when he says that to say the quality of form is emptiness isn't quite right, is also right; even though I'm the one who said that.
But, again we can't forget that we are talking about two truths, the conventional and the absolute. There is existence and there are phenomena and they are empty of inherent characteristics and therefore that is the only absolute quality to describe them in a conventional sense. So it's a yes and no situation. After all, we are trying to rationally discuss the trans-rational.
Also I think what KW is saying about co-creation is the effect of consciousness itself. We can't say that reality or the world out there exists apart from consciousness. Consciousness is that which brakes up the whole into parts, and that act of measurement affects not just the present moment, but every moment that has ever been.
Listen to the cosmologist Davies, from the thread, “An interview cosmologist Paul Davies,” here:  http://pods.zaadz.com/ii/discussions/view/148770
And to quote people smarter than I am:
Mathematician John Von Neumann, “From a strictly logical point of view, only the presence of consciousness can solve the measurement problem… …the world is not objectively real but depends on the mind of the observer.”

Physicist J.S. Bell, [paraphrase and quote] “the most simple and natural… [way] in which quantum mechanics can be presented is called… 'wave mechanics.' [That is waves of water are the surface oscillations of water, sound waves are the pressure of air oscillating. With light we are a little vague about what's waving] …and even about whether the question made sense. In the case of the waves of wave mechanics we have no idea of what is waving… …and do not ask the question.”

Physicist Nick Herbert, “New quantum facts destroy the once sharp distinction between matter and field. With two magic quantum phrases we can… [turn] matter into field and vice versa. It's beginning to look as if everything is made of one substance- call it 'quantumstuff'- which combines particle and wave at once in a peculiar quantum style all its own.
The world is one substance. As satisfying as this discovery may be to philosophers, it is profoundly distressing to physicists as long as they do not understand the nature of that substance. For if quantumstuff is all there is and you don't understand quantumsruff, you ignorance is complete.”

Then my hero, Zen priest, Steve Hagen:

“For those of us who agree with the definition that the mind is what the brain does, consider how the brain is made of atoms made of subatomic particles made of … what? Motion? Energy? And what are motion and energy made of? What is the material world?
One of the central problems in quantum physics today is how it is possible for an arrangement of atoms to support consciousness (that is, constitute a measuring device).  But why the foregone conclusion? Does it make any sense that consciousness is constituted of atoms at all? According to scientists, the world remains in a state of superimposed possibilities until a measurement is made, thus determining which possibility is actual. The act of taking a measurement collapses a potential into an actual. [Paul Davies also notes this is true not just in the preset moment, but the act also affects all past events] And what is the act of taking a measurement? It's not simply taking your ruler out… …it's conception itself. As we shall see, measurement is an alteration within consciousness–an alteration which opens the door to uncertainty and probability.
What is known as “measurement” is a function of consciousness which collapses perceived Reality into conceived reality, into objects (concepts) in the mind.
We can devise a theory of everything and say, “This is Reality,” “This is Truth.” Or we may even say, “Mind is moving–that's the Truth, believe it.” But our explanations don't cut it. It's only consciousness itself which cuts Reality–literally…”

This last statement by Hagen, is what I was trying to say in the Susan Blackmore thread about Psi to Grey. When we assume that matter is antecedent to consciousness then psi phenomenon is… well… psi phenomenon. But, when we see that consciousness is antecedent to matter, then there's no mystery. Also what I think KW is getting at.

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

When we assume that matter is antecedent to consciousness then psi phenomenon is… well… psi phenomenon. But, when we see that consciousness is antecedent to matter, then there's no mystery.

Its worth noting that the Whitehead-ian aspect of AQAL says that for every exterior, there's an interior (consciousness or prehension). So its not just human consciousness that collapses a potential into an actual, but any time an interior “sees” a potential. And that interior could be held in a molecule, an atom, a photon, etc. But saying that consciousness collapses the potential is very different from saying that your intention collapses the potential, and your cat doesn't turn into “potential” when you turn around because all the other “consciousnesses” in the room can still see it.

So to me, this aspect of AQAL is incompatible with any attempt reduce psi to quantum effects. Secondly, in the AQAL model, interiors and exteriors co-arise, so neither mind nor matter are antecedent to the other.

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

It isn't human consciousness per say, but Awareness itself. Awareness is a part of the Whole, but awareness becomes aware of the Whole and the first thing it does is to split the Whole in various parts.
The act of intention is the act of taking a measurement, that this what collapses the potential.
Scientists have yet to find any evidence that our everyday world behaves any differently from the world of quantum reality. As physicist Henry Stapp points out, “the ontology extends in an unbroken way from the microscopic to the macroscopic.
Though we can't confirm through our consciousness that an external, objectively real world exists, after all we have no direct experience of experience without experience, that is, conscious awareness; direct experience does confirm consciousness itself, i.e., perception that this is going on. It's from this perspective that I am arguing for the primacy of consciousness over matter.
To say otherwise is to imagine a time that precedes “our consciousness.” But this is just a concept. No such time is actually given to direct experience, that is, no such a time is available to perception, either to me or anyone that has ever lived. We all lack any direct experience of a time outside of actual Consciousness. No one can vouch for a time when Consciousness was not present; before their birth or while they are sleeping and not dreaming. No one is ever conscious of not being conscious, and to be conscious of not being conscious is to be conscious.
When seen this way there is no need to explain direct experience or the evolution of awareness. Of course, this is incomprehensible, however it also eliminates all of the paradox that we encounter when seeing the world any other way.
Conscious can then be seen to be that which divides what is otherwise a seamless Whole. It is the function of consciousness to divide subject from object.
If we are all saying that reality is a seamless Whole that we divide up as a function of our consciousness, and that moving up the Spiral is seeing the world in more of a Whole and less of a thing built upon a bunch of parts, then logically certain things are assumed.
For starters, we must assume that, since consciousness is obviously present in all experience (if it weren't then there would be no experience to have), this seamless Wholeness, in that it is unitary, would not merely have to contain consciousness, but would actually be consciousness. In other words, if Reality were a seamless Whole, that Wholeness is necessarily Consciousness, i.e., it is what is necessarily what is immediate and Self-evident.  If all isn't a seamless Whole then everything that KW and everyone hear talk about don't make sense. Otherwise, for example, the objects of our awareness are actually something. We can't have it both ways and avoid paradox.
It is tantamount to believing that a thing can both persist through time and also change. One has to be wrong. They are mutually exclusive paradigms.
The dynamic attributes of quantum objects arise only within the quantum object's “measurement context,” which links the object to the rest of the universe, including any observer or measuring device. So a quantum object's dynamic attributes, that is position or momentum, are contextual. They will exhibit different attributes depending on how you measure them. These attributes are jointly shared by the object and the measuring device; which is consciousness.
Take away the measuring device and the object no longer possess these attributes, i.e., the photon isn't anywhere and has no motion or lack of motion when no one is looking. The physicist Nick Herbert talks about this in detail in Quantum Reality, ”We cannot picture such a state of being, but nature seems to have no trouble producing such entities. Indeed, such entities are all this world is made of.”
But then we can't picture it and that's the point. It's not registering in consciousness, it's not being conceived; nevertheless, we perceive.
Herbert also points out that John Von Neumann, the great mathematician, showed that if we “…assume that electrons or photons are ordinary objects or are constructed of ordinary objects–entities with innate dynamic attributes–then the behavior of these objects must contradict the predictions of quantum theory.”
But quantum theory is the most successful theory within science. So quantum object don't behave like ordinary objects, yet ordinary objects are made of nothing but quantum objects. As has been stated, no one has been able to prove that the two act the exact same way.
So we start form this understand, and we know that experiments, the most successful in science, that things like photons behave differently depending upon whether they are measured. That is they are waves, yet when observed become particles. That this is so even if the object of measure is a photon detector. Not only that, but when we observe something that has taken place in the past, like star light millions of years old, it behaves differently in the past when it is observed in the present. That is, quantum objects exibit awareness. This can only be so if consciousness is antecedent to matter.
While you right that conception can't take place without matter, and that matter and concept co-arise, Awareness itself is absolute, unborn, unceasing, unchanging, and undying. It is not dependent or affected by any change in the flux that we call form.
So the act of measuring, i.e., obverving a random number generator can have the effect of changing its results, which is one of the things listed by Grey for the evidence of psi phenomena.

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

The following paper, though long and a little dense, has several sections in it that may be relevant to this discussion – particularly his exploration in terms of the phenomenon of being, the different types of emptiness in Buddhism, his discussion of “meta-phenomenology” and “meta-ontology,” etc.

http://eliascapriles.dzogchen.ru/bmh1.pdf

I have been distracted recently by some developments that are occupying my time and attention, but I hope to return to this discussion and contribute more soon.

Best wishes,

Bruce

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

I really like what KW has to say about the co-creation of consciousness and form, I haven't heard him write anything like that before.

This is a mystery that baffles the mind. Huang-Po speaks of it as “Emptiness being co-extensive with the Void”.

I see it like this: Emptiness “follows” and “fills” the Void upon its expansion. The manifest Universe (=space and all things in it) that is constantly expanding due to the initial burst at the big bang, its velocity being deemed as time, and its expansion as space.

Huang-Po, I believe, means with the “Void” all space that the Universe consists of and all things contained within it. “Form” is both our Universal space and its content.

So when “form” expands (the constant expansion of the Universe) it is followed closely (exactly) by its underlying Emptiness.

So Consciousness follows closely the creation of form. This is our everyday experience all the time.

This is so beautiful. Huang-Po was the first one that was able to describe this to me. Is there any other references to this mystery that predates him? Did the Buddha point to this?

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

The act of intention is the act of taking a measurement, that this what collapses the potential.

But this is a minority interpretation of quantum behavior. I'm suggesting that the AQAL model can unify this model with the mainstream model by saying that interiority, not intention, collapses the potential. Actually Whitehead ascribed intentionality to interiority, even atoms, but mainly because he had a committment to a personal, intentional god. If we take the Buddhist understanding of nondual reality as non-intentional, Whitehead's metaphysics, and both conventional and unconventional quantum interpretations, it fits together really well. Now, the quantum psi people really don't care about nonduality and don't care about Whitehead, and their model is only plausible and coherent if you exclude those two things.

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

It's great to hear all this talk about emptiness, but I'm also interested in the original question, “What is indigo Buddhism?” I may have missed the answer somewhere, but I know that the answer would involve more than a discussion of emptiness. The stage realization of a person involves what they do once they're off of the meditation cushion, what they say and do, and there's acting from emptiness at amber, orange, etc. In early Buddhism the thing to do was just get off the wheel, escape to nirvikilpaka. Later there was the addition of compassionate action and the boddhisatva vow. Saintly commitment and bodhisatvic compasion occur in third tier in Ken's chart on page 212 of Integral Psychology, so that sort of thing would definitely be a part of indigo Buddhism, but is there anything else? An understanding and appreciation of evolution in addition to or as a refinement of compassionate action for all sentient beings would also seem to be essential.

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

Yes, the tangent into emptiness serves part of the overall purpose of exploring indigo Buddhism in that one of my questions is: How would traditional Buddhist doctrine on key issues look different at indigo? This applies whether it was orginated at a lower level or even if it was originated at indigo. In the latter case, even if the first inklings of indigo were being laid down, that would certainly have developed by now and would look differently within our western cultural matrix. One point was that if we interpret is exactly the same then that is an indication that we're not moving forward. Another point is that even in that traditional interpretation there are different perspectives, some more complete than others.

So I'm still curious to hear how Buddhism might be less than 2nd-tier in some respects, how indigo in others, and how we can develop both within our postmodern milieu. Also another issue related to this is the notion of center of gravity (COG), as it seems one can be cognitively at indigo but not their COG. If COG has to do with cognition first (as being necessary but not sufficient) and the self-related lines (what are they exactly, besides ego development?), then how does a notion of CPS (or emptiness per above) act as a measure of anything? To “measure” indigo (or any level) is certainly at issue here, as without a kosmic address indigo anything is meaningless.

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

Thanks for the link Balder. I had come across this book* in previous research but have yet had the time to read it in its entirety.

Here are a couple relevant quotes though regarding this discussion on the subtopic of the immediacy of experience:
 

“The use of the term metaphenomenology is due to the fact that, although the

phenomenological epoche is an essential aspect of the method of inquiry at the root of this book, Jacques Derrida was quite right in noting that phenomenology is no more than a [crypto]metaphysics,a and that the phenomenological emphasis on the immediacy of experience is a new illusion… (22).”

“Sartre's thesis that consciousness is made possible by an underlying nondual awareness could not be rooted in the bare manifestation of that awareness upon the dissolution of dualistic consciousness, for he does not contemplate this possibility; therefore, his thesis seems to be a metaphysical position (which as such is subject to Derrida's assertion that phenomenology is a [crypto]metaphysics). The Dzogchen teachings, instead, posit an underlying awareness because Dzogchen practitioners have had the direct realization of this nondual awareness when dualistic consciousness dissolves in nirvana, and then have experienced how in the same nondual awareness dualistic consciousness arises when samsara is reestablished. Thus in the case of the Dzogchen teachings, nondual awareness is not a metaphysical postulate, but a finding rooted in the (meta)phenomenological hermeneutics of the experiences of samsara, nirvana and the base-of-all (245).”

The author also goes into an extended critique of Wilber in Chapters 8 and 9, which I have yet had time to read. For now here's a taste of his overall approach on “states”:

“ With regard to the book's subtitles, the term metatranspersonal implicitly rebukes

transpersonal psychology (within which I include Ken Wilber's “integral” psychology) for overlooking the fact that there are samsaric transpersonal states, transpersonal states that are neither samsaric nor nirvanic, and nirvanic transpersonal states-and that only nirvana may constitute the ultimate aim of psychological and spiritual therapy (xxi).”

I think this book might also contain some clarifications on the issue of this thread, indigo Buddhism. It might be a worthwhile endeavor to read this book together collectively and discuss it on its own thread?

* “Beyond being, beyond mind, beyond history” by Capriles-Arias

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

Hi, Theurj,

Yes, I was just reading volume 3 of that book this morning (at work! don't tell!), particularly the section where he discusses Derrida and the various comparisons to Nagarjuna that have been made.  I have read previous books by Capriles and know that he has issues with some of Wilber's formulations.  In this most recent book, Beyond Being, Beyond Mind, Beyond History, I think he's doing something important – he is tackling the important turns in modern Western philosophical history (Sartre, Heidegger, Hume, Nietzche, Derrida, etc.) and comparing them to Dzogchen thought.  He does remain pretty close to Dzogchen teaching, since it is clear that he thinks it surpasses these other movements in important ways, and yet he also appears to be putting forward new formulations which take account of some of the unique contributions of these modern thinkers.

So, Yes.  I do think this book is perhaps one good place to start to get a sense of what a post-postmodern / Indigo Buddhism might look like.  I actually haven't read enough of the book yet to be able to evaluate the CoG of the vision presented in this book, beyond being at least second tier, but Capriles does seem like quite a bright fellow and he attempts to wrestle with contemporary issues and findings.  

I plan on reading the book from front to back, instead of cherry picking in it as I've been doing, and will be happy to discuss it (on a new thread) with anyone else who is also interested in diving in.

Beyond Being, Beyond Mind, Beyond History

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

Following is a quote from this book in reference to Derrida and Nagarjuna. He uses Loy’s analysis as his basis, and Loy quite frankly is wrong on this. Loy’s own Buddhist prejudice (as well as this author’s) color their lens to the point of not understanding Derrida’s differance.

“However, Derrida’s method is incomplete, for it deconstructs the principle of identity without destroying that of difference, and by maintaining the latter keeps us indefinitely in the realm of delusorily valued meanings, which as de Saussure made it clear are all based on difference: as David Loy has noted, Derrida “remains in the halfway-house of proliferating ‘pure textuality’;” he remains stuck in language with its ineluctable duality (205).”

Contrast this with what Braitstein said (and that I quoted at http://www.openintegral.net/blog/?p=107):

“To hold emptiness as a view - to reify it or think of it as the essence of things - is to misunderstand it entirely. As the goal of the MMK is to show how absurd it is to hold any view whatsoever, one may with confidence conflate sunyata with Nagarjuna’s position. Therefore, whoever takes Nagarjuna’s work as proposing a view has done something wrong. Derrida writes with more words and less drama:

“What differs? Who differs? What is différance? If we answered these questions before examining them as questions, before turning them back on themselves, and before suspecting their very form, including what seems most natural and necessary about them, we would immediately fall back into what we just disengaged ourselves from. In effect, if we accepted the form of the question, in its meaning and its syntax (“what is?” “who is?” “who is it that?”), we would have to conclude that différance has been derived, has happened, is to be mastered and governed on the basis of the point a present being…a what, or a present being as a subject, a who.” (Derrida 14-15)

“In other words, asking questions of différance as though it were a concept or view like any other, immediately situates the query in precisely the conceptual context différance is meant to undermine. Put simply, “différance,” writes Derrida, “is not” (Derrida 21); “It governs nothing, reigns over nothing, and nowhere exercises any authority” (Derrida 22)[i][v] .”

But this is a topic for another thread. Just showing one point on how this source might not be representing the “opposition” accurately.

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

Perhaps we can discuss this issue on another thread, but I don't think Braitstein has the final word either.  There are a number of meanings of emptiness in Buddhism – you might even say, a number of Kosmic addresses from which emptiness is apprehended and understood.  In Tibetan tradition, the analytical emptiness of the sutra and lower tantra traditions (and of Derrida, I would argue) is quite different from the non-analytical, nonconceptual emptiness of the higher yoga tantras. 

I admit that I am not yet very familiar with Derrida – thanks to you, I've been reading more of him; I had read On Grammatology earlier this year, but was not “captured” by it – but I think Loy's argument has merit to it.  Have you read Loy's essays, or just Capriles' summary?  Loy carefully analyzes how the Madhyamika use of causality to deconstruct things ends up ultimately deconstructing causality, and points out that Derrida does not seem to have grasped the necessity (or inevitability) of such a “double-deconstruction.”   Also, as Capriles points out (paraphrasing Loy), “since Derrida's deconstruction ends up with difference, it

necessarily initiates a new swing of the pendulum of dualistic conceptualization requiring

yet another deconstruction effort.”  And this does seem to be the end product of deconstruction: a self-perpetuating exercise, and actually a parasitic existence.

Best wishes,

B.

P.S. With that said, I do not want to give the impression that I unreservedly endorse what Capriles is saying.  I think he is presenting an interesting, challenging viewpoint that is worth considering, but it runs counter to a number of prominent ideas in Integral, and he also appears to have a fear of impending ecological doom that is stronger than I think is warranted.

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

Yes, I've not only read all of Loy's articles on Derrida and Buddhism but have also had personal email discussion with Loy. And he's wrong, plain and simple. IMO.

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

Do you think that Derrida's deconstruction leads to the same freedom that is the aim of Buddhism?

Wilber cautions against confusing Derrida and the Dharma in one of his recent talks … though I understand that you are arguing that Wilber misunderstands Derrida.

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

Honestly I’m not an expert on either Derrida or Buddhism, so I cannot answer that question with any authority. But in my study of authorities on both, and of Wilber, I can tell you that Ken is so off the mark about Derrida that it makes me question a lot of his other pronouncements.

And while Derrida might have similarities with certain brands of Buddhism there are also distinct differences, so I don’t think that we can generalize that he’s saying the “same” thing with the same aims. So in that sense I wouldn’t claim to “confuse” him with the dharma. However to the aim of this thread I’d say that by comparing and contrasting such perspectives we might create a more inclusive and comprehensive (integral) perspective than one that dismisses Derrida with an errant kosmic address.

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

I totally agree with that.  I think that's a good approach to take.

Just a few minutes ago, I dug a book out of my boxes to review in relation to this discussion.  Reasoning Into Reality, by Peter Fenner.  I started thinking that it might represent another good resource when thinking about the “shape” of modern Buddhism.  In this book, he attempts a systems-cybernetics approach to Madhyamika analysis, with the aim of delivering a “program” of analysis that can be useful in therapy.  In particular, he explores a number of analytical techniques used in Madhyamika meditation, and shows how the “movements” of this analysis can be charted with a software program he developed.

I will return to this after I've reviewed the book again.  (I read it probably six or seven years ago).  What I believe will be interesting, in this sub-conversation we're having, is the apparently strikingly different aims of Madhyamika meditation from standard postmodern deconstruction.  For instance, there are methods for generating certain thoughts, building them to the appropriate cathartic charge, and then attempting to hold them simultaneously with equally cathartically charged negations, such that the thoughts cancel each other and open onto clear, bright awareness.  The deconstruction of thought structures and polarities is used in the service of this nonconceptual realization, which is apparently quite a different aim from Derrida's deconstructive analysis of texts…

Best wishes,

Bruce

Re: Derrida sub-text

David Loy opened his 1987 essay “The Cloture of Deconstruction”* with the following quote:

 “Derrida's radical critique of Western philosophy is defective only because it is not radical enough. His deconstruction is incomplete because it does not deconstruct itself and attain clôture: that much-sought clôture of metaphysical thinking which would also be the opening to something else. This is why Derrida remains in the halfway-house of proliferating “pure textuality,” whereas deconstruction could lead to a transformed mode of experiencing the world.”

I contend, via Derrida's own works, and those that understood him (like Caputo), that Derrida did indeed go beyond the “halfway-house..of pure textuality” to “a transformed mode of experiencing the world.” In that sense he achieved one of the same goals as Buddhism, only within his own specific cultural milieu within its own AQAL matrix. So while it is the same it is also different. Or as we used to say in the coal-mining community where I was contextualized: “same difference.”

*http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-AN/33315.htm

Re: Derrida sub-text

I won't be disappointed if that's true.  I haven't seen any writings that would lead me to that conclusion yet, but I'm still a neophyte when it comes to Da.

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

theurj,

I like where your going with this. It does beg the question doesn't it? If this Awareness, as I've gone into in length in the last post, is ever present throughout, and is not effected or changed at any point of development, not just of humans, but anything really, how do we measure stages? Of more precisely, what measures stage development and how are COG and CPS logically compatible as concepts.
I think, we have to see CPS as the original state of being, where as COG and state development is a being developing back to an original state. Like building a building by tearing it down.
Again, I think Steve Hagen says it better than most:

This is how consciousness works: an awareness erupts out of the Whole, thus splitting that Whole; and the first thing that gets split off is: Here I am, over here–that is, Consciousness conceives, along with its object, a subject. It conceives a self. Furthermore, it conceives a self which necessarily sees itself as being opposed to everything else. In other words, Consciousness spontaneously creates a bogus self-consciousness.
Consciousness creates another which is set apart from me. Thus does the fragmentary, particularistic, commonsense point of view emerge from what is otherwise a seamless, boundless Whole. This, then, is the emergence of fragmentary consciousness, the origin of the fragmented mind which, in seeing itself opposed to "other," enters into perpetual conflict as it attempts ot maintain that which cannot be found in Reality–a self.
[Consciousness then continues this is rapid succession, and we can think of this as a kind of big bang for the creation of self, yet at every level the things created in this big bang remain empty of their own being.]

As per my last post, and most Buddhist text, it seems logically ridiculous that all of this happened at a discernible point in time, and it can be said that this has always been, at least for you. Since there is only really one awareness, that is, your awareness and mine and everyone else's is the exact same, so in an absolute sense we are the same. Because, how can there be two things that are identical and still be two?  So then what is different? What exactly defines your memories and thoughts as opposed to mine? The answer it seems in Karma or the conditioning that has happened since this “original sin” as it were, or the big bang of self from the birth of awareness.
As far as reconciling this, This aspect of bare awareness (CPS) and the What aspect of relative and conventional form concepts (COG), would prove to be impossible I think. It is like trying to solve the equation: r + i. When r is a flux and i remains undefined. Any answer would not quite ever be the answer, and yet here we are.
This is completely ungraspable, but that is the way it seems to be.

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

Holden, what do you think of this?

This is a mystery that baffles the mind. Huang-Po speaks of it as “Emptiness being co-extensive with the Void”.

I would really like to take this further.

In regards to our Unity, since we always have had the same mind, the only divergent being to postulate an “I” and only paying attention to the individual, we clearly see that we exist as non-separate from each-other and expresses everything we do through the same agent; that is, our Absolute common Self. You express it all the time, the only fallacy being not recognizing our inherent non-duality. Once we act from knowing and recognizing our unity there is no self to adhere to. What is a self limiting idea hold no true substance and once seen through vanishes without leaving any trace. That is how ones personal name and history at once is erased; gone back onto itself, never to have been existing in the first place.

Personality still have a place, but seen in its true context; one self. One Mind, one body, one heart.

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

Bjorn: This is so beautiful. Huang-Po was the first one that was able to describe this to me. Is there any other references to this mystery that predates him? Did the Buddha point to this?

Here is one way the Buddha explained this. Here he is explaining the decent into emptiness via the cessation of conscious activity. Going from the gross to the causal (left to right in the lattice).

“'Your question should not be phrased in this way: Where do these four great elements - the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and the wind property - cease without remainder?

Instead, it should be phrased like this:

Where do water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing?

Where are long & short, coarse & fine, fair & foul, name & form brought to an end?

“'And the answer to that is:

Consciousness without feature, without end, luminous all around:

Here water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing.

Here long & short coarse & fine fair & foul name & form are all brought to an end.

With the cessation of [the activity of] consciousness each is here brought to an end.'”

—————

MrTeacup: Secondly, in the AQAL model, interiors and exteriors co-arise, so neither mind nor matter are antecedent to the other.

It seems they co-arise in the Gross & Subtle Realm only. See my post on the Lattice in this Discussion group.

David : In early Buddhism the thing to do was just get off the wheel, escape to nirvikilpaka. Later there was the addition of compassionate action and the boddhisatva vow.

This is simply not true. In early Buddhism the only one that could be called a Boddhisatva was the current Buddha. That is, they defined a Boddhisatva as the Buddha to be in an age where there was no Dharma. So from the early teaching's point of view, Boddhisatva just referenced Gautama Buddha in his previous lives when the prior Buddha's teachings had already disappeared. From the early teachings point of view, you cannot be a Boddhisatva unless there was no Buddhism anymore. The Bodhisatva re-discovers the dharma. Regarding compassion, in early Buddhism, the 4 Brahma Viharas were/are an essential part of the path!!

Holden : This aspect of bare awareness (CPS) and the What aspect of relative and conventional form concepts (COG), would prove to be impossible I think. It is like trying to solve the equation: r + i. When r is a flux and i remains undefined. Any answer would not quite ever be the answer, and yet here we are. This is completely ungraspable, but that is the way it seems to be.

Bjorn : This is a mystery that baffles the mind. Huang-Po speaks of it as “Emptiness being co-extensive with the Void”.
I see it like this: Emptiness “follows” and “fills” the Void upon its expansion. The manifest Universe (=space and all things in it) that is constantly expanding due to the initial burst at the big bang, its velocity being deemed as time, and its expansion as space.

Hey Holden & Bjorn,

Tibetan Buddhism has a way of explaining this in a crystal clear way. Mind has (at least) 2 aspects, infinite cognition and emptiness. These two aspects are not the same but they are not separate. The problem we have is with infinite cognition. Our awareness contracts and forms objects. Along with objects, a subject is apprehended where prior there was only emptiness i.e. I am over here and others/IT/Its are over there. Space now arises between the subject and object and there is now room for the two obscuring veils of thoughts and emotion to arise. Diagrammaticly it is like this:

Emptiness+Infinity

Subject(I)/Finite Object (Not I)

I<over here<(space between) > over there>Not I

I << veils of thought and emotion >> Not I

The process to re-cognize the true empty infinite nature of mind is the reverse process. That is, first calm the obscuring veils of thoughts and emotions. Unite I & Not I by removing the separate self sense (i.e. ego). Then drop the Mind\Body unity consciousness.

PS Bjorn, you may be conflating unity consciousness with emptiness realization. Most folks who realize emptiness dont talk about Oneness, etc.

peace & love,

e