The Nature of Experience

[Aaron]

It's been awhile since I did a "Nature of" post, but I thought this one might be a good start, especially with the recent threads that have been going on. I think many of us look at our experiences and define ourselves based on those experiences, I had a bad/good childhood, I like/hate chocolate, I am ugly/beautiful, and that's all fine/horrible, depending on how you view it. The problem is that in many cases we look at these experiences and don't see how they're intricately linked. That there is a connection just beneath the surface.

 

Many people look at Taoism and believe that it teaches that there isn't one unified experience that ties these things together, rather there are opposites, that in order to have good, you must have bad, in order for there to be beauty there must be ugliness, but they rarely look at the deeper picture, that in fact good and bad are the same experience, just at opposite ends.

 

Take for example hate and love. If we look at it as a scale of black and white, with black being hate (obviously) and love being white, then we can also see that there are a myriad of different shades of experience as one moves from one side to the other. In the center, where it's grey we may find apathy, pristine in all it's greyness.

 

My point is that when we understand that experiences are not set apart by a solid line, we can begin to examine them in a different light, we can see that we can hate someone just as easily as love them, that the only thing that's changed our opinion of them is where our experience with that person has allowed them to fall. It's also easier to understand how one can hate someone that they once loved, because after all, that experience will not change rather our notion of that experience changes, how we identify it.

 

And that's the gist of it, that the notion is what causes us to separate these experiences, to quantify them. Rather than say I have a relationship with this person, we have to quantify it's value, define it as being hate or love or even apathy. We feel this need because we are caught up in this game of black and white (as Allan Watts calls it), this notion that things are either on or off, good or bad, and so on.

 

The key in my opinion, to truly understanding our own nature is when we can look at things objectively, understand them as being the process by which we are not really identifying this person, but rather identifying our relationship with this person, and from this knowledge we can then honestly look at our relationship and judge it based on the breadth of that experience, rather than the degree.

 

I love and hate you. I do or don't like sex. I believe in or doubt the existence of God. Each of these experiences are tied to each other and because they are tied to each other, we can't completely be tied to one spectrum or the other, but rather that spectrum fluctuates and changes, in fact it must change. It's understanding this change that will help free us from those experiences, because beyond those experiences, in my opinion, there is a transcendence, the ability to view an experience without having an attachment to one side or the other, but rather seeing it for the breadth of what it really is.

 

When we reach this point, I believe that we can finally begin to understand our true nature and from that honestly behave as we should, rather than how society has conditioned us to behave.

 

I hope this wasn't that long, but that's all I've got right now. I look forward to hearing your comments.

 

Aaron

 

edited for grammar

Edited June 9, 2011 by Twinner

[fizix]

we can look at things objectively, understand them as being the process by which we are not really identifying this person, but rather identifying our relationship with this person, and from this knowledge we can then honestly look at our relationship and judge it based on the breadth of that experience, rather than the degree.

Ahh yes, I'm glad you pointed this out; this notion is truly so important... in contrast to rational identification, the automatic, faulty action of the computer-like illusory ego mind sees another and instantaneously judges and compares he or she in various contexts... initially and predominantly that of general superiority or inferiority, "am I better or worse?" often based on superficial and ultimately meaningless aspects such as physical appearance; attractiveness, height, weight, race, age, gender... though the ego knows no bounds as it constantly attempts to fill the void of infinity with self-serving and narcissistic affirmation, though this void can only truly be filled with union with the Tao, infinity itself; how else could one hope to appease an insatiable desire to experience infinity.. through the ego? Infinite suffering instead of infinite love and bliss, ceaseless desiring and greed of superficial status, materialism, drama, superiority, fame and all its decadence...

 

Living as a slave to ego, one is molded by life rather than molding life oneself, reacting instead of acting.... always victim to external circumstance. What if one were mentally trained to see all others as himself? Or even seeing life as just the dream it truly is? What to judge then? The old adage, treat others as you yourself would want to be treated... truth lies therein, in that you are more connected to other people than one might ever know, and it is embracing this connection that allows one to further unify with the Tao, rather than excluding oneself from society, being a recluse, pariah, as if spiritual evolution were only possible in the populace-less confines of the mountains... this is just social fear manifest, subconscious aversion of relationships masked by a practical ruse of training regiment, a guise of dedication to avoid having to encounter those that may judge you, or whom you may judge... but true spiritual development seeks challenge, obstacles in that in order to grow, one must face and conquer his fears and alchemically transform that negative energy to a positive, higher vibrational frequency; through love, by love, for love, to love... the greatest power in the universe, the eternal force behind all creation.. ubiquitous, unconditional, all-pervading...love... therein lies the answer.

Edited June 8, 2011 by fizix

[Aaron]

Ahh yes, I'm glad you pointed this out; this notion is truly so important... in contrast to rational identification, the automatic, faulty action of the computer-like illusory ego mind sees another and instantaneously judges and compares he or she in various contexts... initially and predominantly that of general superiority or inferiority, "am I better or worse?" often based on superficial and ultimately meaningless aspects such as physical appearance; attractiveness, height, weight, race, age, gender... though the ego knows no bounds as it constantly attempts to fill the void of infinity with self-serving and narcissistic affirmation, though this void can only truly be filled with union with the Tao, infinity itself; how else could one hope to appease an insatiable desire to experience infinity.. through the ego? Infinite suffering instead of infinite love and bliss, ceaseless desiring and greed of superficial status, materialism, drama, superiority, fame and all its decadence...

 

Living as a slave to ego, one is molded by life rather than molding life oneself, reacting instead of acting.... always victim to external circumstance. What if one were mentally trained to see all others as himself? Or even seeing life as just the dream it truly is? What to judge then? The old adage, treat others as you yourself would want to be treated... truth lies therein, in that you are more connected to other people than one might ever know, and it is embracing this connection that allows one to further unify with the Tao, rather than excluding oneself from society, being a recluse, pariah, as if spiritual evolution were only possible in the populace-less confines of the mountains... this is just social fear manifest, subconscious aversion of relationships masked by a practical ruse of training regiment, a guise of dedication to avoid having to encounter those that may judge you, or whom you may judge... but true spiritual development seeks challenge, obstacles in that in order to grow, one must face and conquer his fears and alchemically transform that negative energy to a positive, higher vibrational frequency; through love, by love, for love, to love... the greatest power in the universe, the eternal force behind all creation.. ubiquitous, unconditional, all-pervading...love... therein lies the answer.

 

Hello Fizix,

 

I definitely find your outlook positive. I agree with much of it. In relation to the experience, I think seeing the actual experience does help us to relate better to others. The more I think of this, the more I begin to understand that it's not all about compassion and love, that it's also about cruelty and hate, that without them, there can be no compassion and love.

 

Aaron

Edited June 8, 2011 by Twinner

[Vajrahridaya]

Hi Aaron!

 

That's a beautiful post, and I agree with every word of it. I really don't have much to add. Sorry... other than a heart felt compliment.

 

I think, as a Buddhist, that it's important not to reify or deify our transcendent objectivity either, but just realize that this is just as relative as conventional appearance.

 

Indeed, we are all intimately co-dependent, yet we can individually rise above and find a birds eye view which grants us objectivity about ourselves and our personal conditions that makes us unique aspects of this mass of inter-vibrancy, this grants us openness and detachment from our clinging tendencies which allows positive evolution to occur on both a psychological and biological level.

 

I don't use the word natural too much, unless it's in reference to the natural fact of inter-connectivity. I feel that we make what natural is through our group focus. This group dynamic can be both micro and macro in reference.

 

I've gotta get ready to go out for the night... see ya later Aaron.

[deci belle]

In the center, where it's grey we may find apathy, pristine in all it's greyness.

 

I'll go with pristine any day as it's not the degree, but the nature that is real. Pristine greyness!! Apathy? Let's put an enlightened spin on that and call it dispassion. k?❤

 

It would be that experience of objectivity that we bring back and assimilate in ordinary worldly situations is the whole point of transcendent experience.

 

Nice post, Aaron.

[Aaron]

Hello Deci and Vaj,

 

Thanks for the responses. I'm not sure what else to say. I was kind of expecting to have someone add a comment correcting the idea, this may be a first for me.

 

Aaron

[Stigweard]

Hello Deci and Vaj,

 

Thanks for the responses. I'm not sure what else to say. I was kind of expecting to have someone add a comment correcting the idea, this may be a first for me.

 

Aaron

 

Actually Aaron I think your OP is both well written and shows a great degree of vision.

 

I wonder though, how does this compare to your emphatic assertions in The Dao within The Dao that you can conceptually designate "what is Tao" and "what isn't Tao"? Shouldn't we be looking for the common thread that ties all things together instead of creating opposites of "this is Tao" and "this isn't Tao", wild foraging is "good" and gardening is "folly"?

 

Shouldn't we be looking for your "pristine greyness" of no attachment to one opposite or the other? Isn't that what you are promoting here Aaron?

[Aaron]

 

Actually Aaron I think your OP is both well written and shows a great degree of vision.

 

I wonder though, how does this compare to your emphatic assertions in The Dao within The Dao that you can conceptually designate "what is Tao" and "what isn't Tao"? Shouldn't we be looking for the common thread that ties all things together instead of creating opposites of "this is Tao" and "this isn't Tao", wild foraging is "good" and gardening is "folly"?

 

Shouldn't we be looking for your "pristine greyness" of no attachment to one opposite or the other? Isn't that what you are promoting here Aaron?

 

Hello Stig,

 

Thanks for the kind words regarding my OP. In regards to the Dao within Dao thread, the first thing I think needs to be pointed out is that my assertions weren't really emphatic... okay, perhaps they were, it was awhile ago. The reason I brought up the idea that I believed that gardening wasn't natural, was simply because I could see how it wasn't. I know that sounds strange, but I can see it, that even though it has to do with planting and cultivating, that in fact planting and cultivating, controlling those processes, rather than allowing them to occur as they naturally do, makes the act unnatural. That's all I was saying in regards to that. Now if you want to examine it along the lines of experience, then gardening and foraging are an excellent example. When you examine this experience, you see that natural doesn't really matter, that at its root it isn't about nature at all, but rather about gathering food. When you look at it in that light you understand that people do not do one thing or another with the intention of doing harm, rather they do it to meet a very basic need, which is to eat. There is no good or bad attached to either act, it is what it is.

 

In regards to this is and isn't Tao, well that's a little easier to define because it's simply an abstract construct within our minds. It really doesn't matter if it is or isn't Tao, rather it is about the experience of understanding Tao and what that understanding essentially is.

 

Anyways, I hope that helps to answer your questions.

 

Aaron

 

edit- I also wanted to add that we shouldn't be focusing on the pristine grey either (imo), rather we need to be aware the entirety of the experience, black to grey to white. It is only when we can examine the breadth of the experience that we can understand what it is and then transcend it. I was just using grey as an example of what lies at the middle.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Twinner

[Otis]

Nice OP, Aaron.

 

I think the principle you mention is important, not only in our affective response to the world, but also in the way we make meaning of the world.

 

What I derive from this experience = a truth? No, it only equals a viewpoint, a way of looking at things, a point along the spectrum.

 

And if I step back from each question, in a meta- fashion, I see that the spectrum itself is another illusion, another point along another spectrum. And so on. The spectra themselves are just metaphors for describing difference.

 

The mathematics of phenomena, both physical and behavioral, is statistics. Nothing is certain; everything is probabilistic.

[C T]

Nothing is certain; everything is probabilistic.

I see 'nothing is...' as one extreme, and 'everything is...', as the other extreme. In my experience, rainbows do not manifest in either of these places. Not that rainbows are to be coveted, but to understand balance, we can contemplate how, by the coming together of conditions, they appear, and by the dissipation of said conditions, they cease to appear. Without substance, yet totally vivid whenever there is the necessary conglomeration of causes. Such is with all phenomena. Its pure wizardry.... also known as the magic of illusions.

[Otis]

I see 'nothing is...' as one extreme, and 'everything is...', as the other extreme. In my experience, rainbows do not manifest in either of these places. Not that rainbows are to be coveted, but to understand balance, we can contemplate how, by the coming together of conditions, they appear, and by the dissipation of said conditions, they cease to appear. Without substance, yet totally vivid whenever there is the necessary conglomeration of causes. Such is with all phenomena. Its pure wizardry.... also known as the magic of illusions.

My point was: we do not know that the sun will rise tomorrow. We only know that the probability is very very high.

 

Illusions arise from mistaking my model, for what's real. Magic is the act of stepping outside of the model, not that of stepping outside of what's real. What's real, by definition, cannot be circumvented, or it wouldn't be what's real. If "reality" seems to be sidestepped, it just means our idea of what's happening, or what's real, is wrong.

 

Magic tricks are most easily played upon the certain.

[C T]

My point was: we do not know that the sun will rise tomorrow. We only know that the probability is very very high.

 

Illusions arise from mistaking my model, for what's real. Magic is the act of stepping outside of the model, not that of stepping outside of what's real. What's real, by definition, cannot be circumvented, or it wouldn't be what's real. If "reality" seems to be sidestepped, it just means our idea of what's happening, or what's real, is wrong.

 

Magic tricks are most easily played upon the certain.

But my point was... there are no extremes. If you cannot see this, how can you move outside boundaries? What is Reality, other than a temporal manifestation of causes and conditions? That was the idea behind what i wrote. I do not think you grasped it all. Wasn't being critical of what you wrote, was I? If ideas are never right to begin with, how can they be wrong? One cannot work from an imagined premise and expect anything to take shape, even though things may appear to appear, but they actually only appear in accordance, or within the limits of what we choose to grasp with the senses. Can you operate outside of the senses? If you cant, then perimeters are set up, and we trap our limitations. If you think there is more than what can be experienced and felt beyond these boundaries of words and concepts, there in lies inspiration, and many other wonderful things! As a dancer, a person of fluidity, you can relate to this, i am sure. Illusion can be seen as the empty yet pregnant potential that exists in the spaces between each of your movement! In these spaces there are no limitations. Focus on the movements and there is awkwardness... to avoid awkwardness, what is to be done? Move in the unrestricted, empty spaces between extremes, perhaps? Think about it.

Edited June 9, 2011 by CowTao

[C T]

DP

Edited June 9, 2011 by CowTao

[Aaron]

Nice OP, Aaron.

 

I think the principle you mention is important, not only in our affective response to the world, but also in the way we make meaning of the world.

 

What I derive from this experience = a truth? No, it only equals a viewpoint, a way of looking at things, a point along the spectrum.

 

And if I step back from each question, in a meta- fashion, I see that the spectrum itself is another illusion, another point along another spectrum. And so on. The spectra themselves are just metaphors for describing difference.

 

The mathematics of phenomena, both physical and behavioral, is statistics. Nothing is certain; everything is probabilistic.

 

Hello Otis,

 

I think people overuse the word illusion. Experience isn't an illusion, it is real, it's just not everything that is, it is impermanent. There is something that lies beyond experience and by understanding the nature of experience, that there is no black and white, or on and off, but rather a thousand myriad different degrees of the same experience, then one can also understand the full experience. Life to death, love to hate, happiness to sadness, and compassion to cruelty are not opposites as well, but the same experience. Joy is suffering and hate is love, because they are the same experience, the only thing that changes is our perception and understanding of that experience.

 

Aaron

 

edit- I do think you make some very valid points, especially in regards to people equating experience with truth. I think it's better to understand that truth and lies are the same experience as well, so you cannot have a truth that is not also a lie. Perhaps nothing is true or a lie, rather it just is.

 

Aaron

Edited June 9, 2011 by Twinner

[doc benway]

Hello Deci and Vaj,

 

Thanks for the responses. I'm not sure what else to say. I was kind of expecting to have someone add a comment correcting the idea, this may be a first for me.

 

Aaron

Nice!

[doc benway]

the only thing that changes is our perception and understanding of that experience.

 

Aaron

 

 

But that's the rub - illusion arises when perception and understanding are inaccurate. And since the mind is limited, they are very often, if not always, somewhat inaccurate.

It's not the experience that is illusory - experience exists, regardless of the presence or absence of background substance. But I think Otis is referring to the fact that illusion arises as a consequence of misinterpretation.

[Aaron]

But that's the rub - illusion arises when perception and understanding are inaccurate. And since the mind is limited, they are very often, if not always, somewhat inaccurate.

It's not the experience that is illusory - experience exists, regardless of the presence or absence of background substance. But I think Otis is referring to the fact that illusion arises as a consequence of misinterpretation.

 

Hello Steve,

 

I agree, but I think that it is a misinterpretation, not an illusion. As you said the experience exists, it's our interpretation that's off. Now if one wants to see illusion as a misinterpretation, that's fine, I just think it's better to describe it as simply as possible, so that there isn't so much confusion about it.

 

Aaron

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Otis]

But my point was... there are no extremes. If you cannot see this, how can you move outside boundaries? What is Reality, other than a temporal manifestation of causes and conditions? That was the idea behind what i wrote. I do not think you grasped it all. Wasn't being critical of what you wrote, was I? If ideas are never right to begin with, how can they be wrong? One cannot work from an imagined premise and expect anything to take shape, even though things may appear to appear, but they actually only appear in accordance, or within the limits of what we choose to grasp with the senses. Can you operate outside of the senses? If you cant, then perimeters are set up, and we trap our limitations. If you think there is more than what can be experienced and felt beyond these boundaries of words and concepts, there in lies inspiration, and many other wonderful things! As a dancer, a person of fluidity, you can relate to this, i am sure. Illusion can be seen as the empty yet pregnant potential that exists in the spaces between each of your movement! In these spaces there are no limitations. Focus on the movements and there is awkwardness... to avoid awkwardness, what is to be done? Move in the unrestricted, empty spaces between extremes, perhaps? Think about it.

I think that saying "there are no extremes" is essentially the same thing as saying "Nothing is certain; everything is probabilistic."

[Otis]

Hello Steve,

 

I agree, but I think that it is a misinterpretation, not an illusion. As you said the experience exists, it's our interpretation that's off. Now if one wants to see illusion as a misinterpretation, that's fine, I just think it's better to describe it as simply as possible, so that there isn't so much confusion about it.

 

Aaron

An easy example: a mirage. The experience is certainly no illusion, because the mirage is "real" (i.e. the person next to you will have a similar experience, etc.). But the conclusion that is drawn: "there is water there"; that is the illusion.

[JustARandomPanda]

And just to lob my 2 cent grenade into this discussion (because sometimes TaoBums seems so steeped in pie-in-the-sky theoretical debates) I wanted to point people to this essay (actually an excerpt of a book).

 

May I introduce you all to:

 

 

Shop Class as Soul Craft

 

 

Surely this article is "Taoist" enough for debating in this forum if I ever heard of one.

[Aaron]

An easy example: a mirage. The experience is certainly no illusion, because the mirage is "real" (i.e. the person next to you will have a similar experience, etc.). But the conclusion that is drawn: "there is water there"; that is the illusion.

 

 

I just don't care for the word illusion, because it is too broad a term. I think it's better to actually explain what it is. A mirage is better, in my opinion, than illusion, because at least it explains what's going on.

 

Aaron