Cultivation without ideology?

[Birch]

Inspired by several threads and my own personal experiences, I'd like to open the discussion about the ideologies that may be vehicled by different vehicles of practice. Has anyone else noticed such things in their practice?

Can practices that unbind 'blockages' also create them? What about the 'witness' in mindfulness practice? What of 'control' of emotions and 'choice'? What about dietary restrictions?

 

 

[PLB]

Ideology is an idea that always includes a witness. If it is included as a prerequisite, it probobly doesn't need me to activate it. That doesn't make it false, it just makes the idea of things being self evident a matter of careful discrimination.

 

There is a peculiar lack of experience discussed in most forms of empiricism.

 

Insight is like waiting before a door that only opens for reasons that are probably perfectly reasonable but the reasonability or not has nothing to do with whether one is ready when the door opens.

That is why it is important to operate by principles. Otherwise, there would be no waiting, no experience.

 

Just aimless questions one has already decided not to pursue.

[ShenLung]

K, yer makin' my head hurt .. so many questions, and the opening topic I need clarified ... when refering to ideaologies vehicled by ... vehicles, are you meaning "a belief or set of beliefs that are not directly passed on as instruction, but that one naturally adopts as a result of another practice" Ie, due to my experiences, I feel or believe that (x), not because someone told me this was so?

Ok, I'll tackle these one at a time, starting from the end question, Dietary restrictions.

I grew up as a meat eater, and one of the most deeply viscerally satisfying experiences for me is a nice, juicy medium rare prime rib with horseradish. However, it does require more energy to digest properly than lighter fare. In a quest to gain the maximum net energy from food, less waste, ect., I found myself going vegetarian, but not due entirely to a set of ideals lent to me by teachings. The vegetarianism is there in the core Buddhist doctrine with regard to the treatment of other sentient beings, but I'm of the mind that, if I were a cow, part of the existance includes an acceptance that my body might be used for the nourishment of other sentient beings, just as I don't begrudge the critters for munching on my meat when I'm done with it.

Meat eating thread stuff, but the primary deciding factor for me was the net energy gain.

[Birch]

Not intent to hurt heads (stop thinking!)

When referring to 'vehicles' I'm referring to a set of practices (a 'do this' instruction) which may or may not be accompanied by suggestions to 'think this' or 'look at things this way'.

Does that make the questions clearer?

 

 

[deci belle]

Cultivation without ideology?

 

God, yes. Please.

[Aetherous]

If you don't have ideology, what are you cultivating?

[Birch]

If you don't have ideology, what are you cultivating?

 

That's a great question.

[doc benway]

When the witness is there, there is already separation.

Krishnamurti put it succinctly - truth is a pathless land.

[ShenLung]

Not intent to hurt heads (stop thinking!)

When referring to 'vehicles' I'm referring to a set of practices (a 'do this' instruction) which may or may not be accompanied by suggestions to 'think this' or 'look at things this way'.

Does that make the questions clearer?

 

Yes'm, a bit ... I've done a fair bit of walking around the mountain, trying to figure out which bits of what systems are functional, and which parts are wind, so i've picked up a mixed bag of tricks. Stuff that seems to work based upon personal experience I tend to keep, stuff that seems reasonable but is unproven goes in the theory drawer. I'll admit to having a certain fondness for some theories, even though I have no reliable method to test them - reincarnation for one. That would be nice, although I don't remember being someone else, nor am I dying to put it to the test

 

Choice: a topic so pregnant with theoretics that I am going to pass over it for now. Short version: yes there is, and no there isn't, and both may be true. Gonna need more coffee for that one.

 

Control of emotions: Due to the unpleasantness of certain emotional states and the apparant reactions to indulging in them, or at least indulgence to excess, I favor efforts to manage and/or subliminate them. Love, I enjoy in all of its manifestations from affection to eros, although not in equal measures for all persons. If that is hypocritical, I can live with that. For the management of disturbing emotions, I have found application of some Buddhist teaching to be effective for me, like medicine for disease. Pride it hasn't licked yet ... not even sure I want to give that one up, maybe just crank it down a little.

A note on one item from that toolkit: Anger can be defeated by compassion, arising from understanding, which, for me, came forth from a realisation of unity through qi gong practices elevating and refining the living being that is "I", not from simply meditating on emptiness, which is all the rage in some circles these days. That does not invalidate the experience of those who took that route, of course.

[Taomeow]

There's taoist cultivation routines that aim at easy competence in all aspects of everyday life, good health, and longevity, nothing more ambitious or ideologically charged than that. (One of my teachers is a cultivator of this nature, and he excels at reaching exactly these goals so far -- always contented and joyous, never sick, and I think he can realistically aim to reach an exceptionally ripe old age in this state.) If, however, these goals are cranked up a notch to the level of the "three treasures" of Perfection, Nondecay, Immortality... well, this may entail some ideological framework. If you want Perfection rather than mere competence, you need to figure out what that is. If you want Nondecay rather than just good health, you need to have a working model of what that entails (indestructible unchanging what exactly?..), and if you want Immortality rather than just longevity, you have to contemplate the phenomenon and decide what's in it for you or anybody else... So, I'd say ideologies kick in when goals become lofty. There's plenty of room for cultivation without such goals, but once someone is after whatever outside ren, one's natural uncomplicated humanity... that's when one has to really watch out.

 

Another thing to watch out for -- and that's the trickiest of them all -- practices with built-in ideology, even when nothing is verbalized about a particular ideology. A simple example would be, um, going to the gym, weight lifting, working the machines... This practice is as ideology-laden as it gets!! It's a default ideology that's built in, and it is based on certain ideals which are taken for granted... but are well worth examining and getting to the bottom of. A not-so-simple example -- upward vs. downward flow practices. They have built-in ideologies too, and someone who doesn't know it may develop the ideology through the practice rather than the other way around. An upward flow always stimulates the very process of hooking onto (or creating) ideologies because the gong is aimed upward at the brain -- what it will do there is stimulate what brains do. Ideologies are what brains do. Whatever organ gets the cultivation energy, gong, will be the one whose output of its proprietary product will be emphasized pretty much on autopilot. So this can definitely be worked with -- if one wants "more" ideology or "less," the practice has to be chosen consciously toward this goal... otherwise surprises (not always nice ones) are guaranteed.

[Taomeow]

Another thought about ideologies... I know a couple that are too big for anyone to make a cosy home there, too wild to tame into pets and take for a walk on a leash... But with most, trying to fit in (at least for me) has been not unlike this cat's endeavor:

 

[media]

[/media]

[skydog]

lucid dreaming, sleeping qigong

Edited December 31, 2012 by sinansencer

[Apech]

Are we making a distinction between ideology and philosophical view? I think the later supports practice especially in 'difficult' times in that it kind of carries you through ... and more importantly cultivation (of any kind) is cultivation of the mind as well as body/energy etc. so philosophy of the path is a way of refining your mind in tune with other practice.

 

Ideology and belief I think have all been distorted by our Judeo-Christian culture which requires belief without understanding and a kind of compliance with an unexamined view. So when we see the word 'belief' we don't think of a helpful sustaining faith that carries us through moments of darkness (i.e. faith = will or similar) we think 'blind faith' or 'you must believe without questioning'. You can understand belief to mean 'love to be' ... I would love to be healthier, wiser, more spiritually attained (however defined) and I will to develop ... this is not a blindness in itself but indeed a kind of light for times of darkness ...

 

Ideology as a set of beliefs/ideas imposed from outside ... yes beware ... any suggestion about compliance or fitting in to a view without examination is not helpful ... I think this comes especially where groups of people meet together ...

[GrandmasterP]

Osho's USP back in the day was that most faith paths and sects were largely defined by those outside them according to what they didn't permit such as smoking, booze, dancing, having fun on Sundays, not accepting blood transfusions, not allowed to spend 10% of their own salary as it had to go to the church.

Endless lists of "DONT'S".

So Bhagwan (as Osho then was) turns up saying... " Do whatever comes naturally, no sweat" and although that is a given these days back then it was a radical message coming from someone who was perceived as a 'religious' leader ( even though he wasn't one as such).

Tony Parsons whose little book I posted the other day is an example of an ideology-free sorta guy and there are sure to be more out there.

One thing about TTB I've noticed since I joined a coupla months ago is that ideologies lead to fallings out and I am trying to be more careful towards not causing offence to folk by my posts.

If someone sincerely believes in an ideology then good luck, most bums though; I suspect are pretty eclectic in their approach to any and all ideologies.

We can pick the fruit that suits us from lots of trees in many orchards without having to lock ourselves into one particular orchard for life.

But if others like their own orchard best then that's fine too just as long as they don't throw apples at the people just popping in for a taste or passing by on the perimiter paths outside their fences.

Edited December 31, 2012 by GrandmasterP

[Birch]

Apech, that's a really interesting post. I don't see much of a difference between ideology and philosophy but perhaps there is a huge one.

 

Shen Lung, I'm very curious as to how you decided what was 'wind' vs not

 

Mr GranP, seems Osho was an 'anti' kind of a guy. I read Mr Parsons and I guess this is a misunderstanding on my part due to my own 'structure' (the way this particular locus of consciouness is filtered) but he did make some suggestions that I found of the 'do this' variety and I wondered about that.

 

Taomeow, indeed, the issues you spoke to are exactly what I'm trying to get at. Thankfully my 'dominant' organ is not my brain (jokes welcomeness:-))

[GrandmasterP]

Yep good point K, being counter-cultural is 'against' prevailing ideology for sure.

Seems like most things sorta start off revolutionary and new then become ossified into yet another ideology over time.

[Apech]

Apech, that's a really interesting post. I don't see much of a difference between ideology and philosophy but perhaps there is a huge one.

 

Shen Lung, I'm very curious as to how you decided what was 'wind' vs not

 

Mr GranP, seems Osho was an 'anti' kind of a guy. I read Mr Parsons and I guess this is a misunderstanding on my part due to my own 'structure' (the way this particular locus of consciouness is filtered) but he did make some suggestions that I found of the 'do this' variety and I wondered about that.

 

Taomeow, indeed, the issues you spoke to are exactly what I'm trying to get at. Thankfully my 'dominant' organ is not my brain (jokes welcomeness:-))

 

Maybe the difference that I'm thinking of is really about active versus passive ideas. I would advocate the following for myself and anyone who agrees. Continually strive to construct the most self-consistent and 'true' conceptual framework for your work. Then test it to destruction ... actively try to find weaknesses and inconsistencies ... and if it doesn't stand up throw it away and get a new one. Most likely this will not result in complete rubbishing of previous thoughts but in refinement, knocking off the rough edges and too easy assumptions. Ideas are NOT abstract dead forms ... they are active energy structures with their own vibrational state (phrase this how you like) ... on their own level they are entities (don't believe this if you don't agree of course) but if you look at the history of how ideas have been understood by human beings .... for a far longer time than not they were understood in this way. Treated with respect they are impeccable allies (see other thread) of a kind.

 

Anything ... anyone who discourages one from treating ideas in this way is not to be trusted. There are too many people pulling wool over the eyes of others. Just like Jing, just like chi, an idea is a power ... friend or foe. Those who would pour passive ideas into us are our enemies. Its like eating bad food.

[Vmarco]

Ideology and belief I think have all been distorted by our Judeo-Christian culture which requires belief without understanding and a kind of compliance with an unexamined view. So when we see the word 'belief' we don't think of a helpful sustaining faith that carries us through moments of darkness (i.e. faith = will or similar) we think 'blind faith' or 'you must believe without questioning'. You can understand belief to mean 'love to be' ... I would love to be healthier, wiser, more spiritually attained (however defined) and I will to develop ... this is not a blindness in itself but indeed a kind of light for times of darkness ...

 

 

Those are quite necessary points to reduce before responding to the question "cultivation without ideology." What is ideology? Yes, it is a belief. Are all belief bad? No,...but all beliefs are false. From my point of view, the only useful beliefs are those that are understood to be false. In other words, to use a belief as a tool, fully acknowledging its limitation. Thus, a useful tool is one that precipitates Un-cultivating, and effortlessly dissolves upon that un-cultivating.

 

An absolute bodhicitta ideological proverb say, FIND THE CONSCIOUSNESS YOU HAD BEFORE YOU WERE BORN,...your Unborn Awareness. Once uncovered, the ideology instantly dissolves.

 

The Tao Te Ching says, the door (or gateway/threshold) to wisdom and enlightenment is by way of the mystic feminine.

 

The Mystic Feminine is as an ideology,...not one that cultivates, but un-cultivates. The mystic feminine cools, spirals out, discharges, conducts, radiates, diverges, exhales, disintegrates, unwinds. Thus, directly opposing the question "cultivating without ideology."

 

IMO, one cannot cultivate without ideology,...cultivation is a process of accumulating delusion, to sustain delusion,..sort of how wisdom is an accumulation of knowledge, that is, stored memories, which arise from the 6 senses, which propagate delusion.

 

"the ego is a monkey catapulting through the jungle; totally fascinated by the realm of the senses....if anyone threaten it, it actually fears for its life. Let this monkey go. Let the [6] senses go." Lao-zu

Edited December 31, 2012 by Vmarco

[deci belle]

If you don't have ideology, what are you cultivating?

 

Self-refinement is a matter of clarifying the human mentality that only thinks I am without ever knowing that that self is baseless.

 

"Cultivating" reality is gradually refining away the human mentality to the point where self-reflection isn't the primary attribute of mind. Self reflection is valid, but not primal. It should be the servant, not the master.

 

Anyone who knows about farming knows that cultivation is about breaking up and opening the surface crust (ego-reflective habituation) that supports weed growth, in order to allow the underlying earth (primal mind ground of true awareness) to come to the fore.

[C T]

Self-refinement is a matter of clarifying the human mentality that only thinks I am without ever knowing that that self is baseless.

 

"Cultivating" reality is gradually refining away the human mentality to the point where self-reflection isn't the primary attribute of mind. Self reflection is valid, but not primal. It should be the servant, not the master.

 

Anyone who knows about farming knows that cultivation is about breaking up and opening the surface crust (ego-reflective habituation) that supports weed growth, in order to allow the underlying earth (primal mind ground of true awareness) to come to the fore.

 

So, is churning an ideology, or not?

 

I would think that a process is simply that. It can get cumbersome when its given more vitality than necessary. Its so easy to get overly-impressed and caught up with methods and practices, to the point where it becomes such a habitual thing -- and then, even good methods and practices turn into burdens (masters!) Any dependency becomes ideological anchors at some stage. It creeps in, quietly, harnessing momentum, akin to frenetic weed growth in ideal conditions.

[Aetherous]

Self-refinement is a matter of clarifying the human mentality that only thinks I am without ever knowing that that self is baseless.

 

"Cultivating" reality is gradually refining away the human mentality to the point where self-reflection isn't the primary attribute of mind. Self reflection is valid, but not primal. It should be the servant, not the master.

 

Anyone who knows about farming knows that cultivation is about breaking up and opening the surface crust (ego-reflective habituation) that supports weed growth, in order to allow the underlying earth (primal mind ground of true awareness) to come to the fore.

 

I suppose this point of view is as the Taoists say, "superior virtue". And then cultivating in the sense of planting, growing, and harvesting (of ideas and feelings) would be "inferior virtue".

[ShenLung]

Seperating "wind":

Religeons, customs, traditions, and schools of thought ... people all over the world have them.

I believe that it would be fair to say that the average person among the seven billion-ish In our world are affected by their own particular environment of ideologies, but the majority do not give them much deep scrutiny. Most people just live their lives, engage in the local customs, attend the religeous ceremonies and participate in a very practical way. They do not need any sort of deep understanding for the questions that they might bring to the 'priest' caste of society.

 

People who come to TTB, generally, do not fit into this category. Being told "you must sacrifice a goat in order to appease the deity" is not an answer that the typical bummer can accept ... but all over the world, that is good enough, for the average person (depending on the culture, of course) In the company of bummers, I am just another amongst the throngs of seekers, priests, kings, and gods of their own particular universes.

 

So, in studying the belief systems of the peoples of the world, I try to discern what parts are meant to appease the casual visitor, what parts are meant to mold society, what parts elevate the novice towards greater understanding, and what parts reflect the deeper mysteries. To refer to any part as 'mere wind' seems dismissive, but it is from a personal perspective, as it does nothing for advancing my own understanding. The bared bones of any ideology are still usefull when holding discourse with another who is steeped in that particular ideology - I don't completely discard and dismiss them; for someone, they have value and meaning.

 

And that someone just might be one who extracted something that I might have missed.

[thetaoiseasy]

Cultivation without ideology focuses on what we share in common. You will find that we do not share the same Jesus, Muhammad, or Buddha. But we do share the sage's humanistic heart. We may not share the same Father in Heaven, but we do share the light of the Sun. Some people do Tai Chi, some people kneel in mosques, others burn incense to idols, some do mass -- but we all walk on the same mother earth. The only universalist view is the that which focuses on nature.

Edited December 31, 2012 by thetaoiseasy

[ShenLung]

Can practices that remove one blockage create another?

Absolutely. On a small scale, looking at medicine, one can observe that treatments for one ailment often have side effects that lead to the development of a whole litany of other problems. on a larger scale, locking one's self or society as a whole into a set of beliefs can aleviate many ills, but lay the ground for a host of other problems at the same time.

The whole self, the whole of society, the entire mass of humanity, have issues that result in suffering.

 

The thought that I am pondering is likely repeated here and there in many ideologies, but it goes something like this:

All illness has it's root in a spiritual problem. Once the root problem has been cured, the whole being will be cured.

 

Like the joining of meridians at the crown, the major systems of belief have, at their root, a base in Tao. Disjointed as they are, the hand does not see it's connection to the heart, the foot does not see it's connection to the liver. Treating a sick person with kiatsu, I can move the disturbance through the systems until it is dispelled. If that can be done quicker than nature will accomplish the task without interferance, then the treatment is good; otherwise, it is a farce perpetuated solely for the purpose of maintaining my status as a 'healer'. I don't get much business.

 

Does the heart envy the creative potential of the hand? Does the foot resent the liver for just going along for the ride?

I feel that if all beings were to embrace Tao, and practice it's principles, then we could experience a world at peace, yet there are passages in TTC that indicate that sages, in governing, keep the people ignorant of such wisdom. Better, then, that sages embrace Tao, and do nothing ... the cure may be worse than the ill.

[ShenLung]

Choice:

This one is hard to approach, and the outcome of discussion will wind up being split between the free will camp, and the destiny camp, and the axis of descision depends upon one's understanding of the very critical nature of reality itself.

 

Tao, at the heart of it, comes from a particular perspective. Lightning strikes where it does due to certain principles that, although unseen, still dictate the resulting manifestations of reality. All cause and effect, verifiable positions in the understanding of reality are based upon the hidden law of nature. If the inumerable variables were known, could be calculated, could be put forth into practical life, then the outcome of any sequence of events could be known.

 

The joke, in my particular circle of freinds, is that the man, in the middle of a plane crash says suddenly, "Oh, I forgot to carry the two!" The circle is, apparently, quite small.

 

True choice comes in at two points of perception. One point is that, although one cannot always determine what experiences one will have, one always has a choice in how one chooses to percieve, or think about that experience. This is a perspective approach that I think anyone can embrace and gain benefit from.

 

The other point of perception is a bit more metaphysical, a bit more steeped in quantum theory. Let us suppose that there are infinite universes coexisting, and that each one has, at it's heart, an individual that is primarily 'experiencing' that universe. In the infinite combination of possibilities, each "I'", could, being empowered to do so, make different choices, and have different experiences. At some point, the "I" could exchange their present conciousness with their analog in another universe, and experience existance from that point of view instead of the point of view that their current universe would seem to dictate.

 

The choice, in the second example, seems to be rooted in what the individual conciousness wishes to experience, dependant upon having an analog that desires to make the exchange. Know yourself, in the tradition of the ancient mystery schools, seems to be the key to exploring this system of reality exchange. What kind of reality do you wish to experience?

Edited January 1, 2013 by ShenLung