Bill Bodri articles

[Mushtaq Ali]

 

Mushtaq, sure, post whatever thoughts you may have on Bodri, language of the subtle body, meditation, Scott and I's "debate", etc.

 

Sean

 

Hey Sean,

 

I grabbed the last post from our conversation on RMAX as a place to pick up the thread here.

 

You said

 

One of my deepest passions in life has always been to bridge what I see as an artificial split between science, philosophy, esoteric wisdom and common sense. I don't think there is a system yet that fully integrates all four to all personality type's satisfaction. And maybe there never will be.

 

I do not see the split as "artificial". Scientific facts will describe certain types of experience, philosophical fact will describe other aspects of experience, poetic facts will describe a third. Each of these descriptions might (often will) be totally different, but each will be valid in their own area, but not in the area of another mode of observation.

 

Personally, I have always viewed personality types as a sort of confidence game, so I don't really care if a personality is satisfied or not

 

For me it is not so much a matter of integration as knowing when to apply each mode of observation.

 

 

Off the top of my head, I would have to say that I believe Love and Truth are more important to me than Health. I would rather sacrifice my health than disrespect or harm others and I would rather sacrifice my health than have reality occluded by ignorance.

 

Personally, I would rather be awake enough to maintain a balance between them all. If you start thinking that you have to sacrifice one for the other I suspect you will lose them all.

 

Of course give me all three if I may, please. But if my health begins to fail, as I grow old and die, let me still smile on those I love and continue remaining open to the truth as it simply is.

 

So why do you equate failure of health with aging? I thought this was a Taoist forum, aren't y'all working on immortality and such like?

 

Oh, and why do you think "sitting meditation" is so important?

[sean]

I do not see the split as "artificial". Scientific facts will describe certain types of experience, philosophical fact will describe other aspects of experience, poetic facts will describe a third. Each of these descriptions might (often will) be totally different, but each will be valid in their own area, but not in the area of another mode of observation.

I can agree with this to an extent. I mentioned personality because I think it has a great deal to do with which modes of observation a person prefers to apply. And preferences are fine. It's just there often comes a point in one's immersion in one mode, where one begins to find apparently irresolvable conflicts with other modes of perception. For example, immersing oneself in an objectifying, scientific worldview tends to make one highly skeptical of claims that cannot be proved by the tools of science. This has proved very useful for many things, not the least of which is discriminating legitimate theories from quackery. And yet there is an enormous, cross cultural body of knowledge derived through subjective, interior exploration and insight that typically gets thrown out when this scientific position is insisted upon as the only valid criteria for discerning truth. And it frequently is by people deeply entrenched in a scientific mode. (Along these lines you may want to check out Jean Gebser's IMO brilliant work on structures in human consciousness, particularly his theories on the effects of widespread, cultural over reliance on so called "objective" thinking.) So one of my passions is really for finding "rosetta stones" that help at the very least lubricate communication between these modes I believe are all trying to describe the same reality in different, and each very very valuable ways.

 

Personally, I would rather be awake enough to maintain a balance between them all. If you start thinking that you have to sacrifice one for the other I suspect you will lose them all.

And yet we all have a hierarchy. RMAX has a very explicit hierarchy. Health, Mobility, Function, Attributes, Physique. And as has been clarified for me recently, RMAX is a specialized system of physiological health and so much as asking how this system interfaces with what one may call a spiritual, or nonmaterial approach is obscene, prejudicial flame bait.

 

So why do you equate failure of health with aging? I thought this was a Taoist forum, aren't y'all working on immortality and such like?

I'm sorry, I only have the patience to explain this one more time. It's very simple. If your highest value in life is to have a lot of money, then you are at least momentarily failing to acheive your highest value if you run out of money and go into bad debt. If your highest value in life is to have physiologial health, then when/if you become 98 years old, and your skin is sliding off your decaying body, and your bones are brittle as twigs, and you barely have the energy to put your false teeth in and crawl to the toilet without help, and you have probably come down with any number of diseases that are almost guaranteed to strike someone as they advance into extremes of old age, then, by your own standard of health-as-highest-value, you are losing your values. You are failing to uphold your highest value. Your health is being taken from you. Your body is dying out from under you. And you are identified with not only it, but it's health as the most important thing attainable.

 

Conversely, if your highest value transcends and includes your body and your body's health, yet doesn't depend on your body functioning in any particular way or even living, then aging and death may be seen from this higher identification as part of a natural process that you are witness to. As part of God's plan for your soul, or as phenemonon arising within an inherently empty space of pure awareness that you truly are.

 

Regarding Taoist immortality, as far as I am aware, historically only small sects of Taoists ever believed or attempted physiological immortality. It's a metaphor for a spiritual process of identifying one's consciousness more and more with that which never changes, never dies. In so doing "you" in your truest sense become immortal because you recongize the truth that you are not merely your body, you are something that includes the body and is also much more than it. Exactly what I was just referring to.

 

Oh, and why do you think "sitting meditation" is so important?

I don't recall referring to "sitting meditation" specifically in any of the RMAX discussions. I believe I referred to "stillness meditation" which can be done in any comfortable position in which the body will not unnecessarily distract you. Some style of sitting is a good one though.

 

The reason I think it's so important, besides the voluminous body of meticulous scientific research showing it's mental, emotional and physical health benefits across the board (which have not been scientifically correlative with exercise studies btw), and besides the fact that it's a form of practice found in almost every single culture and held by nearly every wisdom tradition to be one of the most crucial forms of practice, is simply my own, undeniable empirical experience.

 

 

Sean

[BobD]

One of my deepest passions in life has always been to bridge what I see as an artificial split between science, philosophy, esoteric wisdom and common sense. I don't think there is a system yet that fully integrates all four to all personality type's satisfaction. And maybe there never will be.

Hi Guys. Sorry to jump in on a discussion you (seem to) have been having for some time, but I have recently been getting into such things as The Holographic Universe and similar titles/themese. These seem to be describing very much a scientific approach/theory that matches the eastern philosophical thought quite closely. Or if not matches, then at least does not argue against as much as traditional science. It doesnt tie in exactly with your point Sean, but just thought I'd throw it out there anyway!

[freeform]

.

Edited December 18, 2019 by freeform

[sean]

To most people there must be a right framework and a wrong framework, because we're so deeply entrenched in an Aristotelian/objective way of thinking. Light must either be waves or particles - they're incompatible... but the surprising truth is that both the groups had major success with their experiments and undeniably proved their hypothesise... So that's where all the confusion started! How can both experiments be 'correct'? It's like saying 'that person is a man, but also a woman'... It drove people mad! Some started thinking of 'waveicles' as the answer to the riddle

Yet through consciousness, we did figure out that both are describing the same thing. We know this. We are not in the dark about this. And some things are not describing the same thing very accurately. If someone had a theory that these are not waves or particles or waveicles, they are literally miniature gremlins, piggybacking each other, we would know that were not accurate. And their theory's inaccuracy is not just because it is an efficient belief for getting what they want. It really is less accurate.

 

This is probably another big discussion we should have. Is everything relative? I think postmodernism actually leads to something more when it is radical enough to turn it's own beliefs on itself. Everything is relative including that everything is relative. It's not PC, but some things are actually universally more true than other things. They are not simple, fundamentalist or even capable of being systematized necessarily. But you could say that the universe has a thrust to it that keeps cutting deep, reoccurring patterns into everything that unfolds. And this universal directionality has a wisdom that is not just a pragmatic preference. In my mind it's more like patterns of inevitability intrinsic in the cosmic seed manifestation is born from.

 

Sean

[freeform]

.

Edited December 18, 2019 by freeform

[Mushtaq Ali]

I can agree with this to an extent. I mentioned personality because I think it has a great deal to do with which modes of observation a person prefers to apply.

 

We are pretty much in agreement here. If one is identified with a particular mode of observation then there will always be trouble.

 

And preferences are fine. It's just there often comes a point in one's immersion in one mode, where one begins to find apparently irresolvable conflicts with other modes of perception.

 

I think even a preference will get you into trouble sometimes.

 

Here's the thing. If you use the wrong tool, and each mode of observation is nothing more than a tool, you end up getting bad results.

 

For instance, Christian creationism is the result of trying to use theological tools to address scientific data. What you get just dosn't work in the real world. The reverse is also true. Scientific attempts to quantify "faith" or the experence of "oneness" are as absurd as creationism.

 

For example, immersing oneself in an objectifying, scientific worldview tends to make one highly skeptical of claims that cannot be proved by the tools of science.

 

Immersing oneself into anything, to the point of identification, is perhaps not so good for you. Identification with science as truth will stunt your growth. So will identification with theology, philosophy, metaphysics, poetics, or anything else.

 

This has proved very useful for many things, not the least of which is discriminating legitimate theories from quackery. And yet there is an enormous, cross cultural body of knowledge derived through subjective, interior exploration and insight that typically gets thrown out when this scientific position is insisted upon as the only valid criteria for discerning truth.

 

It should only get thrown out of a particular mode of observation when it does not fit. This is one of the areas that you have run into problems. If you try to fit poetic facts into a scientific framework you will fail, or the reverse as well. Sometime try to write a poem about a sunset using only scientific observation.

 

And it frequently is by people deeply entrenched in a scientific mode.

 

As I mentioned, entrenchment in any mode will produce the same sort of negitive effect. While you thought you were seeing a place where perhaps Scott was locked into a particular mode, what you failed to notice is that you were at least as locked into your mode in that conversation, therefore your communication was poor.

 

(Along these lines you may want to check out Jean Gebser's IMO brilliant work on structures in human consciousness, particularly his theories on the effects of widespread, cultural over reliance on so called "objective" thinking.)

 

I am quite familiar with his work, though I must allow that I am less impressed with him than you seem to be.

 

So one of my passions is really for finding "rosetta stones" that help at the very least lubricate communication between these mods I believe are all trying to describe the same reality in different, and each very very valuable ways.

 

I think that this is a laudable goal, in fact it is one that is very close to what I have devoted myself to for the last several decades. Here's the rub though, in order to find your "Rosetta stones" you must be very familiar with each modality and understand their strengths and their limitations. You must also not have an emotional attachment or repulsion to any of the modalities. In other words, you need to use the right tool for the job and not become attached to the tool.

 

Unless you approach the problem with that kind of clarity you will have difficulties with your understanding.

 

And yet we all have a hierarchy. RMAX has a very explicit hierarchy. Health, Mobility, Function, Attributes, Physique. And as has been clarified for me recently,

 

Are you really clear on it, or just miffed?

 

If you had applied yourself to your "Rosetta stones", you would have noticed that the RMAX model has both a linear (hierarchical) and a nonlinear (process) aspect.

 

When I view the list you mention, I orginize it thusly,

 

 

which allows me to understand both the linear and nonlinear relationships and to grasp why they are organized in the way they are.

 

The inability to think outside of a liner, sequential mode is one of the greatest weaknesses of "Western" perception. You seem to have fallen prey to that way of thinking as far as I can tell.

 

Since you are interested in "cross cultural" material, and since you have mentioned the enneagram in some of your other posts (though in its debased form) you might be able to use it as a tool for understanding the nonlinear aspects of process. There are links to two PDF documents on the subject contained in this article that may of use to you.

Breath Play

They may provide you with some ideas on how to adapt yourself to a more nonlinear, non-Aristotelian mode of perception.

 

RMAX is a specialized system of physiological health and so much as asking how this system interfaces with what one may call a spiritual, or nonmaterial approach is obscene, prejudicial flame bait.

 

The interesting thing is that Scott and I talk about spiritual things and their relationship to RMAX all the time, and we have never once had a cross word over the subject. I have even, from time to time, posted material of a spiritual nature to Scott's forum and had no negative feedback whatsoever.

 

I have to assume, because of my own experiences, that the reasons for conflict had to do with things other than your post addressing "spiritual" content.

 

I'm sorry, I only have the patience to explain this one more time.

 

So are you going to lock the thread since you have run out of patience?

 

Perhaps you are seeing me asking the same sort of question because you keep giving me answers that to not relate to the question.

 

It's very simple. If your highest value in life is to have a lot of money, then you are at least momentarily failing to acheive your highest value if you run out of money and go into bad debt. If your highest value in life is to have physiologial health, then when/if you become 98 years old, and your skin is sliding off your decaying body, and your bones are brittle as twigs, and you barely have the energy to put your false teeth in and crawl to the toilet without help, and you have probably come down with any number of diseases that are almost guaranteed to strike someone as they advance into extremes of old age, then, by your own standard of health-as-highest-value, you are losing your values. You are failing to uphold your highest value. Your health is being taken from you. Your body is dying out from under you. And you are identified with not only it, but it's health as the most important thing attainable.

 

Conversely, if your highest value transcends and includes your body and your body's health, yet doesn't depend on your body functioning in any particular way or even living, then aging and death may be seen from this higher identification as part of a natural process that you are witness to. As part of God's plan for your soul, or as phenemonon arising within an inherently empty space of pure awareness that you truly are.

 

From the rest of the response you have given to my question, I have to assume that you have created a false dichotomy around the idea of aging and are operating from it rather than from any direct experence. I suggest this because you seem stuck in an odd sort of "internal loop" around the idea of aging. Until you can break out of what seems to me to be a rather binary mode of thinking on the subject I don't think we can really exchange meaningful ideas.

 

Regarding Taoist immortality, as far as I am aware, historically only small sects of Taoists ever believed or attempted physiological immortality. It's a metaphor for a spiritual process of identifying one's consciousness more and more with that which never changes, never dies. In so doing "you" in your truest sense become immortal because you recongize the truth that you are not merely your body, you are something that includes the body and is also much more than it. Exactly what I was just referring to.

 

See, at some level you understand the difference between scientific fact and theological or poetic fact, though you do seem to still be enamored with the "ghost in the machine" model.

 

I don't recall referring to "sitting meditation" specifically in any of the RMAX discussions. I believe I referred to "stillness meditation" which can be done in any comfortable position in which the body will not unnecessarily distract you. Some style of sitting is a good one though.

 

Perhaps it would be useful here to ask you to explain what you mean when you say "meditation". Perhaps you might also cover "stillness" and "stillness meditation" because I don't want to make any false assumptions about what you are talking about.

 

The reason I think it's so important, besides the voluminous body of meticulous scientific research showing it's mental, emotional and physical health benefits across the board (which have not been scientifically correlative with exercise studies btw), and besides the fact that it's a form of practice found in almost every single culture and held by nearly every wisdom tradition to be one of the most crucial forms of practice, is simply my own, undeniable empirical experience.

 

Well, from things you have said here and elsewhere your definition of "voluminous body of meticulous scientific research" might be a bit different than my own.

 

As to the "cross cultural" aspect of the practice, I am dubious that you are correct for a couple of reasons.

 

There are no doubt any number of practices that have one or two points in common, but to assume that those points make the practice identical is rarely correct. Most often, in my experience, there is a great deal of difference between two practices from unrelated cultures. It is also a bit unlikely seeming to me that you have enough experience with enough cultures to make any meaningful comments on practices cross culturally.

 

Your statement, "..fact that it's a form of practice found in almost every single culture and held by nearly every wisdom tradition to be one of the most crucial forms of practice..." reads more like a "game rule" than anything else.

 

Also, you do not seem to have the sensitivity to cultural shifts that would be necessary to find the subtle nuances that differentiate between cultural experience. Understanding different cultural views is at the best of times a difficult process, but is impossible when you overlay your cultural bias on your experience. (you might benefit from the study of Garfinkel's work here) I don't mean this as a put down, just an observation that may be useful.

 

So there you have it. This is either a start to a useful dialog, or something you can get pissed about. If it is the former then perhaps something good will come of it, if the later then you and your friends here can fond some humor and enjoyment from it.

[sean]

Mushtaq, I'm not really sure where to begin responding to your post. I don't find much in either you or Scott's writing that inspires much argument, much less thread locking. There are some things I disagree with, sure, but not many I find so important I feel any compulsion to clarify them at length. Maybe better left at "agree to disagree". But let's see if I can go through post and find something interesting enough for me to comment on.

 

It should only get thrown out of a particular mode of observation when it does not fit. This is one of the areas that you have run into problems. If you try to fit poetic facts into a scientific framework you will fail, or the reverse as well. Sometime try to write a poem about a sunset using only scientific observation.

As a linguist I would not have expected this opinion from you. Poetry is frequently analyzed from a scientific mode. This is actually exactly why I brought up Ken Wilber's four quadrant model in my discussion with Scott. I think you may get something out of studying it as well. It's true, poetry is mostly an upper left quadrant experience, seen as words flowing from the subject experience of I and then appreciated by an audience similarly. But poetry can be appreciated by consciousness from any of the other quadrants. In the upper right quadrant, poetry is more clearly distinguished from other forms of writing, it's categorized into different genres, common themes in grammatical structure, tone and rhythm are clarified, etc.. In the lower left one might analyze the social impact of different forms of poetry throughout history, etc, etc.

 

As you say, you will probably write a poem from the upper left. Yet I think many great poets have probably spent at least some time perceiving poetry in all the modes, to more broadly inform their discipline.

 

I think that this is a laudable goal, in fact it is one that is very close to what I have devoted myself to for the last several decades. Here's the rub though, in order to find your "Rosetta stones" you must be very familiar with each modality and understand their strengths and their limitations. You must also not have an emotional attachment or repulsion to any of the modalities. In other words, you need to use the right tool for the job and not become attached to the tool.

Agreed to an extent, although with the important distinction above that one can approach any phenemonon from any quadrant. I don't think one need be all things at all times. Some quadrants are better suited for having a particular type of experience, as you pointed out. And I don't even think there is anything wrong with someone who has a strong preferred mode of operation but devotes the majority of their efforts working with the so-called "wrong" objects. For example, a person passionate about poetry but with a scientific bent so she spends her life refining a study of poetry into sublime analytical distinctions that working poets and historians can use to glean useful distinctions from the art.

 

The inability to think outside of a liner, sequential mode is one of the greatest weaknesses of "Western" perception. You seem to have fallen prey to that way of thinking as far as I can tell.

I disagree. In fact one of the reasons I enjoy Scott's work is his repeated use of spirals in his frameworks which are IMO a very elegant postpostmodern synthesis of linear and circular thought. I simply don't need a lesson on this.

 

Since you are interested in "cross cultural" material, and since you have mentioned the enneagram in some of your other posts (though in its debased form) you might be able to use it as a tool for understanding the nonlinear aspects of process. There are links to two PDF documents on the subject contained in this article that may of use to you.

Breath Play

I am familiar with the authentic depth of the enneagram but not that interested as I have plenty of other things I'd prefer studying. I also do think there is value to the modern, enneagram of personality model and have noticed fourth way enneagram "purists" don't like to admit this possibility.

 

The interesting thing is that Scott and I talk about spiritual things and their relationship to RMAX all the time, and we have never once had a cross word over the subject. I have even, from time to time, posted material of a spiritual nature to Scott's forum and had no negative feedback whatsoever.

That is wonderful that you have a relationship like this with Scott. But the fact is, many people do not and have perceived Scott and his system as being rather quick to pile punches on different viewpoints. I've actually gotten so many emails from people on Scott's forum that witnessed our "debate" I haven't even had time to respond to them all. People expressing that they've seen this kind of "Sonnonism" many times before (I wasn't even aware of this term) and that they also didn't see the reasoning for Scott basically flaming me. Responding to these emails has put me in an awkward situation because I've always been a very outspoken supporter of Scott and his work, but now I've been "publicly" disrespected and given an "apology" that amounted to "I'm sorry you think I was wrong, but here's why I wasn't".

 

So are you going to lock the thread since you have run out of patience?

No I'm not, but frankly you have a degree of abrasiveness that doesn't make me want to hang out with you anytime soon, man. No worries though.

 

See, at some level you understand the difference between scientific fact and theological or poetic fact, though you do seem to still be enamored with the "ghost in the machine" model.

It's not a "ghost in the machine" model. It's a Tantric cosmology with a nondual vision of samsara and nirvana, form and emptiness, movement and stillness, immersion and transcendence, paganism and escapism, body and soul, love and freedom, and on and on.

 

Evolutionary, incarnational, nonduality.

 

Perhaps it would be useful here to ask you to explain what you mean when you say "meditation". Perhaps you might also cover "stillness" and "stillness meditation" because I don't want to make any false assumptions about what you are talking about.

My definition of meditation is not much different than Scott's actually. It's just the process of bringing mindfulness to what is. There are probably thousands of forms of meditation described as specific practices in various traditions and I think they all embody some form of mindfulness. Although sometimes the practices are described somewhat paradoxically as "letting go of the mind", this is really meant to mean staying present with reality and not allowing discursive thought processes to limit the opening of awareness.

 

As for stillness, first I'd like to say that stillness and movement are relative terms. Like many so called dichotomies, there is also a nonduality to them which both contains and is neither and both of them (etc). Any two things can be thought of as being contained within something larger. Something that is the space between them that makes it possible to make a distinction between "this and that". It's in this sense that, ultimately we are, as the new agers are fond of saying, "all one". It's also in this sense that the concept that a thing is moving is only in relation to our relative distinctions that that thing is separate, which it is not in any absolute sense.

 

In a similar way, stillness is relative to the sense that something is actually moving. Things are moving only in relation to a perception that other things, often the space containing the movement, is moving less. As the mind's job is to perpetually make distinctions, the "manifest world" appears to be in constant motion. Yet we can still speak in context and say, relatively, that there is more physical movement in Jazz dancing than in lying down and remaining still.

 

So stillness meditation is mindfulness of what is while in a relatively relaxed, relatively still posture. Preferably one that can be kept still and relaxed for the duration of your mindfulness practice. Stillness meditation can be practiced successfully seated in a regular, comfortable chair, sitting up in bed with your legs in front of you, in any of the various "Eastern" meditative asanas ... really any comfortable still posture.

 

And again, my belief, and it's a belief I hold similarly to a strong aesthetic preference, without dogma but a deep preference for beauty to ugliness, is that any complete system of human evolution should encourage one to explore the full range of mindfulness through stillness to movement and back. I think consistently neglecting one side of the equation makes for monks who can't dance and calisthenics instructors without depth.

 

Ok, looks like I did have a few comments.

 

 

Sean

[Lozen]

Does anybody have this thread saved anywhere that could e-mail it to me? Assuming, of course, that this doesn't infringe on anyone's copyright, or anything like that. When I clicked on the link it said the thread does not exist...

Edited April 4, 2006 by Lozen

[Cameron]

Oh, unless I am mistaken it looks like Scott erased the thread?

Edited April 4, 2006 by Cameron

[Lozen]

I really loved some postmodernist authors when I was in college--namely Jane Flax. I remember trying to resolve my belief in absolute truths with postmodernism and I decided that if somebody believes that something is reality, that is the reality that they are experiencing, so therefore it is the truth for them, even though it may not be the truth.

 

Like for example, if you FEEL like you have no other options in a given situation, then that is your reality, even though in more objective reality you do have other options

 

But I think that what ended up clinching the deal for me (besides the fact that postmodernism is pretty much inaccessible to the people it purported to be helping--since the precept behind it was to disrupt authority, basically, the victims of that authority could mostly not understand the text...) was that I figured that from the viewpoint of "no ultimate truth", anybody who says there is ultimate truth would be wrong. Or maybe they'd be right. Uh, how do I word this? If person a says there is no true reality, and person b says there is true reality, they are both telling the other that the other is wrong. But person a, not believing in true reality, really has no grounds to tell anyone they are wrong about anything, so therefore person b must be correct. I'm sure many people could pick this theory apart, but it worked for me at the time.

 

Yet through consciousness, we did figure out that both are describing the same thing. We know this. We are not in the dark about this. And some things are not describing the same thing very accurately. If someone had a theory that these are not waves or particles or waveicles, they are literally miniature gremlins, piggybacking each other, we would know that were not accurate. And their theory's inaccuracy is not just because it is an efficient belief for getting what they want. It really is less accurate.

 

This is probably another big discussion we should have. Is everything relative? I think postmodernism actually leads to something more when it is radical enough to turn it's own beliefs on itself. Everything is relative including that everything is relative. It's not PC, but some things are actually universally more true than other things. They are not simple, fundamentalist or even capable of being systematized necessarily. But you could say that the universe has a thrust to it that keeps cutting deep, reoccurring patterns into everything that unfolds. And this universal directionality has a wisdom that is not just a pragmatic preference. In my mind it's more like patterns of inevitability intrinsic in the cosmic seed manifestation is born from.

 

Sean