doc benway

The Buddhists look at this from two parallel and integrated perspectives - the relative and the absolute. At the relative level, there are doers - clearly you typed that post, I did not. I am typing this one. At the absolute level, the wholeness of being does not divide itself. Karma acts at the relative level. While the "law" is quite simple - our actions lead to other actions and results of those actions - the fruition is unimaginably complex. All things on the relatively level are interrelated in a complex web of relationship. The immense complexity of this relationship makes it so that, in the short term, results are completely unpredictable and often seem unrelated. From a larger perspective all actions are interconnected in ways that make perfect sense and give rise to the observation, not the theory, of karma.

Be more aware Be more open Be more warm Be more helpful Be more playful

We can think about the Earth - is it alive, is there some sort of independent sentience, is there a collective intelligence that is beyond our capacity to conceive, is it just a rock, is it dead, and so forth. I wonder just how far that takes us? When I am stressed or upset by something or other there is nothing that makes me feel better than spending some time in nature whether looking at a mountain, hiking through the forest, sitting or swimming at a beach or lake. I connect to the space of the open sky, I feel and breath the air and hear it rustling the leaves, I feel the warmth of the sun and the soothing power of water, and I connect to the solid root of earth, of all material structure that shelters, feeds, and clothes me. When I am able to quiet the internal dialogue and really connect to these external manifestations of the elements, I feel myself becoming more balanced, the internal aspects of the elements are balanced by connection to the external elements. There is nothing more healing, grounding, and balancing than opening to these elemental aspects of our existence. When I feel that connection and benefit from that, I feel deep gratitude, I feel supported. I feel the power and central role of the Earth and all the elements in my life and I begin to feel respect for it, I feel dwarfed, and awed by it, by the sheer mystery. There has never existed any living organism of any type in the absence of its environment. Our independence is completely illusory and based on our mobility and sensory apparatus contained within a bag of skin. It is much more accurate to refer to living creatures in terms of organism-environment as any separation is artificial and gratuitous. Shamanic traditions represent our dependence on and connection with the environment in the form of spirits and deities. It is a very beautiful way of relating to the world if it makes sense to you. It seems silly and ineffective if that frame of reference is not familiar. I agree that there is a danger to looking at the Earth in a completely mechanistic and materialistic way, which is how most look at it since the 19th century. This leads to exploitation, disrespect, and disregard for the Earth unless and until it threatens our own existence and comfort. And while the Earth can take an awful lot of shit, there will be a limit at some point. The Earth is much more important and mysterious to me to simply brush it off as a dead hunk of rock and dirt. That very rock and dirt is ever changing and without it there would be no trees, no oxygen, no food source, no life... Is there some level of independent sentience inherent in Earth? Who could know? I personally feel that there is some level of higher intelligence in the organization of our environment that is beyond my comprehension. I can feel it in the elegant structure and function of all around me. To me it seems ridiculous and arrogant to assume that we, as humans, are the highest level of organized intelligence in existence. Perhaps we are but I doubt it. And if we are, there is still no reason to elevate ourselves above other creatures. Indigenous cultures all held great respect for the Earth and environment as they were at its mercy. In the arrogance of our reasoning and knowledge, and our ability to shield ourselves from the elements and environment, we have lost this reverence. I suspect that will come back to bite us very hard some day. I also feel that it is at the core of all of our collective dysfunction and distress - the violence, the sadness, depression, desperation, and so forth. We've lost our connection to our fundamental self - our connection to all living things and the environment we share. It makes me more sad than angry.

I'm curious also, I suspect meaning is assigned like form. However, what gives rise to that meaning may be related to the deep connection between all things at a level that is beneath recognition for many of us. In that sense, it is not limited to a single perspective but a manifestation of the connection between all perspectives. Great question and I intend to contemplate that further... time to go to work!

I get that distinction - I didn't read the post closely enough the first time. Thanks for clarifying. I was referring to the second part of your comment. Yes, that is part of the problem. Well stated. I would say that quantum mechanics in general leads us in that direction by establishing that the observer inflences the observation. I'll work on some more specific examples and get back to you on that.

You have mastered the art of gratuitous assertion and rhetorical tautology. Congratulations.

Similarly what form does anything have without a sensory apparatus and conceptual processing connected to it? What does that tree look like without an eye/brain to see it? It is our sensory apparatus and conceptual processing which creates form out of emptiness/energy. Change the sensory apparatus and/or processing and the form changes.

I can equally say that the body is resident in consciousness - both are gratuitous assertions and I've seen science based evidence for both. One can be unconscious and alive, whether transiently or for a prolonged time. You say that the material does not cause conscious. What then irrevocably links mind and body?

Materialism relates to your view of the thinker, not the thought. Materialists believe that everything is either material or created by something material.

That is a rhetorical tautology but not a logical one. The Buddhist (Indian) investigation into modes of existence goes much deeper and is more consistent with modern physics than the materialistic view you propose. Materialism is so 19th century.... It was essentially disproved by Heisenberg in the 1920's.

No - the fundamental cause of suffering is ignorance, failure to recognize our true nature. One aspect of that could be stated as mistaking our ability to reason for who we are, so it is a not the ability to reason that causes the problem - it is identification with that ability. In the philosophical categories, it's also useful to include the Buddhist view which is the fourfold negation of the modes of existence, first applied to things, then to self, then to emptiness: It cannot be said that things have inherent existence It cannot be said that things do not have inherent existence It cannot be said that things both have and do not have inherent existence It cannot be said that things neither have nor do not have inherent existence Each of these four ways of describing the inherent nature of things has validity and flaws from different perspectives. Buddhist logic and reasoning has been elevated to very high levels and is a fascinating study (and I'm no expert). Here's a book I've heard is quite amazing on the subject but I've yet to read it, philosophy is not that important to my current practice: http://www.shambhala.com/a-course-in-buddhist-reasoning-and-debate.html

You forgot to mention that the materialist says it is something... Yes, let us let go of all the philosophy and just let it be as it is. That is the highest (non)practice

And yet we are living in this life and are faced with the day to day... so the relative invariably comes in to play. I agree with all you have said except the last piece. The Absolute, Purpose, and the authentic Self ARE room - space/awareness That space IS eternal, all else is story as you point out. The problem with nihilism is that it denies that very awareness of being on the beach, without the stories and the concepts, without the distinction of beach and beachgoer. That very being remains as it is. One cannot say it is nothing anymore than say it is something. It simply is - so we let it be as it is.

I love this, and in some ways it's even better that the author is anonymous.

Each of us has to discover purpose for ourselves. And it may change depending on where we are along our path. It is for us to "set" or, better to say, uncover through our process of "self" discovery. It is nothing set by anyone and it is not something we have to obey. It arises naturally and spontaneously as we connect more deeply to our authentic self. There is that we can refer to as absolute and we are all living in the relative, attempting to make contact with the absolute, which we are already a manifestation of. Like fish looking for water. It is both personal and impersonal as all perspectives related to person collapse in non-duality.

While thought is not proof of an "I" - the inability to find the "I" is not proof that it does not exist. The experience of thought is there even though the thinker cannot be found. The thought and thinker collapse into non-duality. They arise from emptiness, abide in awareness, and return to emptiness. The fourfold negation dispels the error of nihilism.

I disagree as do all folks who understand Buddhist metaphysics - the fourfold negation: Not this / Not that / Not both / Not neither It is related to the Vedic process of inquiry (Neti / Neti) and to the via negativa of Aquinus. I agree with the necessity of defining terms and maintain that there are things which defy definition. Poetry has to do with more than feelings. My approach to spirituality is not limited to reason and argument but includes experiential practice. Meditation transcends definition and reason. I am not implying that deities exist. To conclude that is to miss the point. I am pointing out that there are aspects of our experience that are beyond definition. To communicate about experience requires labels. We are here to communicate about the spiritual realm. As you rightly point out, if we do not have some common frame of shared experience it is difficult to communicate. If you've never tasted a mango and I try to explain that taste, you will not understand what I am pointing to. Please define the word "red" for me, assuming that I am blind. It has no inherent meaning. Similarly, if one's life has never been touched by the divine, the river of unconditional love, the power of Great Mystery, then the words are empty and no matter how we define it in words, it will mean nothing. Wrong - God has everything to do with morality for Christians and the highest understanding of God in Christianity is to know that we cannot know. I do know why I am here. I am the eyes and ears of the universe, I am the living manifestation of Great Mystery, and I am here to do what I can to perfect myself through helping others. You are correct, I don't know what an open mind is. But I do know how to be open and I practice that daily. Spiritual growth for me is movement away from fixed and limited patterns into the openness of being. And everything that has ever been built has decayed and returned (or will return) to its unbuilt state. The permanence of sound construction is an illusion, no matter how precise or sound. Think of a child. Growth is a spontaneous process that does not require thought or intention. Does a tree need to precisely place its elements in order to progress from a seed to an oak? The process is of itself so... And the child and tree eventually die. If you only seek to discover that which you already know, you will never find anything new. You will go round and round in circles. Wrong, an undefined concept underlies the foundation upon which all building occurs. All that we see, know, and are arises from and abides in space - there is no defining space, it is that which cannot be defined. Similarly, that space has the quality of awareness, there is no defining awareness, neuroscientists have yet to do so. It is that which knows. And from that space and awareness comes warmth - love. There is no defining love it can only be experienced. I agree - everything needs to be questioned but what you do not seem to be willing to face is that not all questions can or should be answered. The very process of questioning is what is alive with potential and possibility. The addiction to answering is death and stagnation in the realm of spiritual cultivation. Once we convince ourselves that we know, we stop questioning, and we no longer make progress. There comes a time when we need to let go of a thirst for knowledge and rest in the brilliance and spaciousness of this very moment, undefined and unattached. Acceptance is not belief. Acceptance is allowing what is to simply be, as it is. Resting in that which is, beyond the conscious process of trying to define, trying to answer, or trying to understand. That is openness, that is meditation. That is where my current practice is (un)focused. And when we are able to rest in that space, awareness, and warmth, unattached to concept or thought form, there arises knowing and wisdom which is completely empty and unrestricted. It is the source of creativity, beyond the limitations of reason and argument. It is the source of everything. It cannot be defined or understood. All pith instructions of the meditation masters say the same thing - leave it as it is.

I agree, defining our terms is important and I often advocate for that on this forum. What is more important than defining the words, however, is that those words and definitions actually represent what they are intended to represent, otherwise they are worse than worthless, they are misleading. In some cases, what we are pointing at simply cannot be defined or captured in words. This is why poetry exists, why spirituality exists - to point to experiences or concepts that defy convenient and concise definition. Reality is reality... Existence exists... Labels, not definitions - such labels do not deepen our understanding. Aquinas is not my authority but you mentioned your appreciation for Christianity so I though it would be useful to point out what is widely accepted in Christianity as the impossibility of defining God. There is plenty of reason in my life and mind when and where it is of use. And there is an aspect to reality that defies definition and I have invited that in as well. I can make room in my life for both and with some patience and openness they can be reconciled. It is your privilege to ignore anything that you cannot pin down with definition and reason but that begs the question, why does this spiritually oriented forum and these discussions interest you? Closing ourselves off to everything we cannot explain or understand is a recipe for stagnation and limitation. The key to growth is to be open.

That is a gratuitous assertion. The OP does not accept your assertion of existence and yet is asking questions. Exactly, that is the point... The word definition comes from the Latin for "to limit" or to bring about the end of something. The poem and all spiritual paths point to the inability to limit or define God, Dao, reality... whatever label you prefer Limitation does not expand knowledge, it restricts it. In the Christian tradition, the highest level of knowledge of God is to know that one cannot know... (Aquinas)

The OP does not want methods that emphasize lucid dreaming... Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche recently mentioned that he's thinking of writing a second volume related to dream and sleep yoga!

Why is it necessary to accept anything? In another thread you applauded the Buddha's admonition to question everything. Perhaps starting from a belief in non-existence, an insight or evolution can occur. Withdrawing a hand from the fire implies there is a body to preserve, not a self. Quite well, actually. So does that make the rest of you pointless as well? It actually doesn't require much in the way of thinking and it's quite liberating. Chair is just a label. It can be used for many other purposes than simply sitting down. In labeling, we limit our understanding not enhance it. The value isn't in recognizing the lack of inherent existence of a chair, the value is in applying that insight to the "self" that is at the core of human problems and conflict. The chair is just an illustration. Another illustration is a person, any person. I'll pick a woman - one person sees her as their support and source of nurturing, to that person she is mother and makes them feel safe and loved; another person sees her as lover and when in her presence they are sexually charged; to another she may be a boss, a taskmaster, a beast, they may be fearful in her presence... and so on. Things exist only as they are relationship with other things not in any incontrovertible, inherent, absolute way. This is a subtle insight that can really paint the world in a different way. And the more different perspectives with which we can see the world, the more likely we are to have a more comprehensive picture. Rather than dismissing alternative perspectives as ridiculous because they don't fit your own limited view, why not open up a little and see if perhaps there is something more to learn out there in the world - 500 million Buddhists can't all be completely wrong. That is the basic message but the point is what are those values? Karma has nothing to do with punishment - that is more a Christian interpretation. Karma simply means action. The law of karma means that our actions lead to other actions, much like Newton's third law. If you do something good for others (or yourself), there's a higher likelihood that good will come of it. If you do something harmful for others (or yourself), there's a higher likelihood of harm coming from it. In Eastern religions, where reincarnation is understood and accepted those consequences are seen to occur in this life and others. Clearly karma transcends a single life - if climate change is real and we do nothing to address it, future generations will be harmed by our actions (or inaction), that is karma. It's not a mystery, it is only a mystery to you because you don't understand it. Buddhism is not pointless to Buddhists, only to you. Christianity may seem pointless to Buddhists... but you may embrace or at least be OK with it. Yet another example of the principle of dependent origination. The meaning is not in the religion it is in the mind of the follower or detractor. Show us a thought - can you hold it in your hand, can you capture it in a box, how long can you hold on to it? Thoughts are completely empty - they are invisible, they come from nowhere and return to nowhere, they are transient dances of disembodied language and memory. If you pay careful attention, you may see that you don't even think. What I mean is, thoughts come and thoughts go but where do they come from? Do you plan the thought, do you consciously sort through a selection and then pick a thought? They simply appear and then, when we tire of ruminating on them or resolve them, they are gone. They may return... Who and what is it that is controlling this? You are welcome to say me but that is nothing more than a gratuitous label. So the "self" or the "me" is simply a thought that claims the title of thinker. It's a thought like any other that usurps all others. But find that me, find that self... it's as empty as thought. And yet we can see the manifestation of thought very clearly in our lives whether it be in our choices, art, invention, and so forth. Clearly, there is awareness and then there is a tendency for us to try and limit, capture, localize, and label that awareness as a "me." That is partly due to the nature of our anatomy and physiology - sensory organs encased in a mobile bag of skin embedded in awareness. We have the tendency to see something, label it, and then assume we understand it simply because of that label. It is a natural mechanism that is rooted in our survival instinct. But that "understanding" is very limited. Some of us are satisfied with accepting labels and explanations like "me," "self," and so on, but others are motivated somehow to dig deeper or are blessed with a spontaneous insight that paints a different picture. Similarly some folks are satisfied with saying - that is a tree and leaving it at that while others are botanists and arborists who aren't satisfied with that superficial level of understanding. We can choose to brush them off and stick with the status quo or we can open our mind and heart a bit and see if there is something more. If we choose to stay closed, then I would say what Karl said earlier - it seems kind of pointless.... Spiritual people are those who are not satisfied with the superficial label "me" but prefer to dig deeper. Here's a beautiful quote from one of my favorite teachers, a Christian - a Jesuit in fact: It was lecture time and the Master said, "The genius of a composer is found in the notes of his music - but analyzing the notes will notreveal his genius. The poet's greatness is contained in his words - yet the study of his words will not disclose his inspiration. God reveals himself in creation - but scrutinize creation as minutely as you wish, you will not find God, any more than you will find the soul through the careful examination of your body." At question time someone asked, "How then shall we find God?" "By looking at creation, not by analyzing it." "And how is one to look?" "A peasant sets out to find beauty in the sunset,but all he finds is sun and cloud and sky and earth's horizon - till he understands that beauty is not a 'thing' but a special way of looking. You will seek for God in vain till you understand that God can't be seen as 'thing'; he needs a special way of looking - similar to that of little children whose sight is undistorted by prefabricated doctrines and beliefs." - Anthony de Mello

Why is it that we jump to the conclusion that without purpose we should commit suicide? Why not just live? Take a walk, connect with nature, sit and do nothing, breathe ... these are all good things.

Yes, this is nihilism. Nihilism has nothing to do with darkness or neutrality - those are related to the thinker.

Wonderful

I'll share a few words about my feelings - I would say that I was an emotional cripple for many years. I was highly successful in non-emotional endeavors but really completely out of touch with deeper emotions in myself, though completely unaware of it. Sure, I could tell you that I felt sad or happy, and I was very good at being angry. I had a general sense of others' feelings but was not nearly as connected with others as I thought. A few things transpired that changed me profoundly from an emotional point of view. I don't plan to share details but I've become much more aware of the presence, depth, and value of my own feelings and, in doing so, I am much more sensitive to and concerned with the feelings of others. This is something that occurred over a long period of time and multiple factors played into it. It is not possible to really understand the feelings of others if we are not first in touch with ourselves deeply. And we are living in a very narrow and sterile bandwidth when we are not living a full emotional life. It is a bit painful and a bit frustrating to read so much discussion here concerning spirituality, awakening, enlightenment, higher levels of consciousness, meditation, transformation, and related topics, and seeing so little discussion or demonstration of feelings, of caring for each other, of kindness. So many intellectual discussions and arguments here but often so sterile and theoretical - so little juice! What good is a theoretical dissertation on enlightenment when we're lonely and mean? Why bother with any of this if it's just to pick fights, put others down, build up our own ego? For me, that's worthless and I'm not saying that I'm not guilty as well but I'm trying to be very aware of that and go in a different direction in my life. It's really wonderful to see this thread and I hope to see many more like it. But what I really would love to see is more kindness and friendliness here, more genuine concern for each other rather than for our arguments and points of view. Until we begin to explore our feelings, not analyze or understand intellectually, but simply spend time feeling and opening to others, and seeing how that affects our day to day lives, we are simply playing mental gymnastics with talk about awakening and spirituality. I see people use words like light and bliss but do they recognize and feel that what these words are pointing to is connection, awareness, openness, and love? We are collectively starved for human contact and relationship in our modern lives, we've lost so much of our sense of community and family. I think it's one of the great poisons in our lives and is responsible for much of the pain and suffering we see and feel. When I think of these things in my meditative practice, I can feel enormous pain and find myself in tears. And yet in that deep sadness is beauty because it's that very pain that is a manifestation of feeling and connection. Sorry for the rant and especially sorry to sound so preachy... I love you all (well, I'm trying anyway)