Idealism, Materialism and Zen

[jamesmorton]

A “Zen” Perspective (1)

The word “Zen” refers to the form of yoga that has been the central practice of Buddhism since the beginning. The ultimate objective of all Buddhist practice, including that of the Zen school, and that which alone gives it all its meaning and beauty, is the occurrence, or creation of the optimum conditions for the occurrence of, a very specific psychic event in the mind of the individual. People normally experience reality only in the form of a dizzying stream of concepts in which they constantly struggle to see stable and useful patterns. In spite of their artificial and ephemeral quality, we try to hold on to these concepts and are thereby twisted this way and that. This in itself is a source of suffering but it also magnifies the other psychological and physical suffering that we must inevitably endure as living organisms. The nature of the psychic event of which I speak is the permanent opening of the mind to the perception of an all-encompassing, ungraspable, undifferentiated field of reality/mind which includes, underlies or forms the true nature of all phenomenal reality

This stream of concepts is the only way we can think, but seeing at the same time that they are ephemeral and not to be relied upon or grasped, except in a tentative way, releases the individual from much feeling of pressure, anxiety, fear, etc. Few people actually fully achieve this release, but a life spent in pursuit of it, ideally under the guidance of one who has, can be more peaceful, beautiful and meaningful than one spent in the blind pursuit of an endlessly shifting parade of ephemeral goals.

What I am calling a “psychic event” is not an experience in itself (to say nothing of “belief” or “faith”), but we can experience it in an infinite number of ways throughout our lives if it is once attained. Just about the only idea that is truly universal within Buddhism is that of “Emptiness”. This term originates from a kind of feeling or awareness -- that is beyond sense or emotion in their ordinary meanings -- rather than any intellectual conclusion. On the occurrence of the psychic event referred to above, even though all sense information remains the same, the individual sees that the distinct and exclusive “existence”, the perception of a separate core or essence of each object or person, including (most importantly) of him- or herself, which he or she had previously understood to be the very meaning and definition of “reality”, had been but an illusion since the beginning. It is as though he or she had awakened from a dream. The realization that all space and time, matter and energy, life and consciousness are all included in one seamless existence makes the conclusion that the nature of reality is basically mind or consciousness rather unavoidable, at least from a human (as opposed to absolute or “factual”) viewpoint.

Such a characterization seems to have taken a few centuries to finally appear in Buddhist teachings, however. This was perhaps because the concept of consciousness itself took some time to evolve. Nonetheless, whether or not one actually describes the situation in this way, any individual, having attained this awakening, will see reality as having a kind of “living” quality within which he or she is included. On the other hand, it is equally obvious that the lifeless or remote, i.e. objective, idea of reality envisioned by Materialism is but an illusion.

By the way, the word “ungraspable”, which appears perfectly descriptive to anyone who has attained this state, is likely to cause some confusion to those who have not. It doesn’t mean here that there is anything murky, confusing or complex to deal with. The true condition of reality is perfectly clear and obvious, and in fact, simplicity itself. It is just that it cannot be touched, retained in the mind, owned or controlled as can anything that is perceived only in conceptual form, which is normally the case. This condition is necessarily utterly new and previously unimaginable to anyone who sees it for the first time, but quickly becomes normal afterwards, and one simply goes on with everyday life.

Within the Eastern Cultural Tradition, idealistic or pantheistic ideas are considered to have always been mainstream, but the idea that all reality is basically consciousness would never have been less bewildering to the average Asian as to any Westerner. On the other hand, to anyone deeply involved with the Zen school, for one example, as a lay person or monk, such ideas would be quite familiar, but thought of by the average person as a kind of subtle metaphor, or else belonging to some transcendental plane of consciousness. I have no trouble thinking such statements to be literally true in the simplest and most straightforward sense, but I’ve been fully aware for well over 50 years that there is no real objective reality as distinct from the subjective.

There is something interesting here of which we should all take careful note. Bernardo often expresses astonishment that such a crude and inadequate picture of reality as that of Materialism or Physicalism could have become the dominant viewpoint of a worldwide civilization and destroyed culture everywhere. If we try to imagine the probable motivations of a thoughtful but intransigent Materialist, however, I think we would find that he (typically a man) was most likely aware of its limitations, but felt that any acceptable answer to the questions it has left unanswered would have to be of a “factual” nature as science demands. The Materialist expects that even though we may never know the answers to many of our questions, they must all be at least potentially answerable in a scientifically provable “objective” form. That is, in a very particular mode of knowledge or definition of truth. The idea that reality is basically mental in nature, however deep a chord it may strike in us, and however many more questions it seems to answer, appears to cross over into the realm of aesthetic -- as opposed to “factual” -- truth. It is a different mode of experience or knowledge that is not available to scientific examination.

The latest discoveries in quantum mechanics, sub-atomic physics, astrophysics, etc. have finally brought us to the end of the world, so to speak, as ancient people imagined would happen if a mariner sailed too far in one direction. Before the advent of science, there were no "facts" in the Modern sense. People understood the nature of mathematical fact in various places around the world since very ancient times, but such thought was strictly compartmentalized and its concept of truth was not widely applied to the examination of nature in general until the age of science. This way of examining nature has been successful beyond anyone’s wildest dreams, stimulated our cravings for power, wealth and entertainment, and has resulted in the disastrous Materialist viewpoint, but this understanding of truth is now finally reaching its limits all by itself. How fascinating it is to see.

But this is a very deep matter and needs to be dealt with separately. Bernardo is starting to write about myth and allegory. This matter deserves consideration, but it is very deep water he’s getting into. His contribution to culture and civilization thus far has been marvelous, I think, but if he’s not careful he could endanger the credibility he has already rightfully established. (to be continued)

James Morton

[AshvinP]

This stream of concepts is the only way we can think, but seeing at the same time that they are ephemeral and not to be relied upon or grasped, except in a tentative way, releases the individual from much feeling of pressure, anxiety, fear, etc.

James,

This above is the subject of quite a lot of debate here. And pretty much everything hinges on the answer to whether the 'stream of concepts' is "the only way we can think". I will check back later and just quote something previously written which addresses that issue.

[AshvinP]

But this is a very deep matter and needs to be dealt with separately. Bernardo is starting to write about myth and allegory. This matter deserves consideration, but it is very deep water he’s getting into. His contribution to culture and civilization thus far has been marvelous, I think, but if he’s not careful he could endanger the credibility he has already rightfully established. (to be continued)

James Morton

I see now this was only Part I of a longer treatment, so I will hold off on commenting more for now. I am very interested to hear your take on myth and allegory and its connection to where we are now. Thanks.

[jamesmorton]

AshvinP,

Thank you for your comments. Let me clarify what I mean by the word "thought". I use the word "thought" to refer to the creative or constructive mental process the raw material of which is "concept" (i.e. imagined verbal or visualized "existences" which may or may not refer to actual experience). In the above piece I also refer to a kind of pure awareness of limitless undifferentiated reality that is entirely free from concept, and resists any attempt to reduce it to this form. The realization of this awareness permanently changes one's attitude toward concepts, moreover.
In Buddhist yogic practice (in Zen, called "zazen"), by focusing one's attention as exclusively as possible on some point of sense input -- such as the sensation in the lower abdomen, the sound of the out-breath, etc.-- one tries to dissociate oneself from one's mind's ceaseless flow of concepts and images as one might deal with a conversation going on in a neighboring room. This effort requires a force of will entirely independent from ordinary desire and the concept flow.
In addition, there are emotions (which are usually accompanied by physical manifestations such as blushing, increased breathing and pulse rate, feelings of constriction in the chest, etc.), most of which are caused by the perception of some benefit or threat to one's concept of self. Conceptual structures may also become vehicles for aesthetic expression just as with a work of art and this brings us up against the topic of myth and allegory, which I hope to get to later.
This is a general outline of my understanding of the word "thought". All of the above could be considered thought if one weren't particular, but for my purposes such distinctions are necessary. I look forward to hearing your ideas.

By the way, my use of the words "deep water" was not intended to mean that the topic of myth and allegory was in any way deeper than that with which Bernardo has previously dealt. I mean that Modern civilization has already deprived us of most of the language and forms we need to discuss such aesthetic and moral matters, so this area should be approached with some trepidation.

[AshvinP]

AshvinP,

Thank you for your comments. Let me clarify what I mean by the word "thought". I use the word "thought" to refer to the creative or constructive mental process the raw material of which is "concept" (i.e. imagined verbal or visualized "existences" which may or may not refer to actual experience). In the above piece I also refer to a kind of pure awareness of limitless undifferentiated reality that is entirely free from concept, and resists any attempt to reduce it to this form. The realization of this awareness permanently changes one's attitude toward concepts, moreover.
In Buddhist yogic practice (in Zen, called "zazen"), by focusing one's attention as exclusively as possible on some point of sense input -- such as the sensation in the lower abdomen, the sound of the out-breath, etc.-- one tries to dissociate oneself from one's mind's ceaseless flow of concepts and images as one might deal with a conversation going on in a neighboring room. This effort requires a force of will entirely independent from ordinary desire and the concept flow.
In addition, there are emotions (which are usually accompanied by physical manifestations such as blushing, increased breathing and pulse rate, feelings of constriction in the chest, etc.), most of which are caused by the perception of some benefit or threat to one's concept of self. Conceptual structures may also become vehicles for aesthetic expression just as with a work of art and this brings us up against the topic of myth and allegory, which I hope to get to later.
This is a general outline of my understanding of the word "thought". All of the above could be considered thought if one weren't particular, but for my purposes such distinctions are necessary. I look forward to hearing your ideas.

By the way, my use of the words "deep water" was not intended to mean that the topic of myth and allegory was in any way deeper than that with which Bernardo has previously dealt. I mean that Modern civilization has already deprived us of most of the language and forms we need to discuss such aesthetic and moral matters, so this area should be approached with some trepidation.

James,

Thanks for the elaboration. That is the sense I had of your meaning. There is another poster here, Cleric, who is very familiar with nondual meditative practice and has illustrated the inherent problem in this 'thinking-dissociative' approach. In short, the practitioner has rid himself of intellectual thoughts but is still flowing within higher order flows of thinking, feeling, and desiring, but has also removed the capacity to perceive and understand these higher order flows by dissociating from the Ego-"I" who Thinks. Therefore, the practitioner feels he has reached the pinnacle of 'oneness' and 'pure awareness' in this lifetime and that all other processes beyond the field of 'pure awareness' can only be revealed after physical death. But what if that feeling was an artifact of the desire to rid oneself of the Ego and Thinking which was set out with? What if there are focused, Thinking-based meditative practices which have yielded much deeper results in this current lifetime, penetrating to layers beyond the threshold of physical death?

My experience here is that, no matter what logical arguments are presented and how coherently reasoned they are, the seasoned nondual practitioner will find everything to be misrepresentation of mystical practice, wild speculation, or some kind of intellectual trick. It is similar for those who have gotten into regular psychedelic use. I hope that maybe I am wrong here, and you will be able to consider what is below with an open mind. As mentioned before, practically everything hinges on this question of what the real nature of Thinking is in our concrete experience when encountering the world content. All that we think and conclude about ancient spiritual traditions and modern philosophies alike, and what deeper layers of meaning we can mine from them, will be directly influenced by whether we leave Thinking in the blind spot or not. It is important to remember that there are no "wrong" worldviews here, only incomplete ones, which have arbitrarily stopped reasoning through the givens of experience (perceptions and associated conceptual meanings) when reaching desired conclusions.


viewtopic.php?t=730

Here we'll connect once again with the Central Topic and what we spoke with Mike here. There we more or less arrived at the terms 'funnel' and 'tunnel'. In the current context we can roughly relate them to the X and Y axes. The Y axis corresponds to the continuous stepping out of the movie, revealing more and more of the funnel, trying to grasp it more and more objectively, to be aware of the full spectrum of reality. The tunnel is when we're flowing in the narrow subjective, linear time-flow down the funnel, without much meta cognition of what we're doing. I said that simply backing up from the movie, can lead us only to an extent. As Mike puts it, at that point things become difficult to put into words. This is where we're pressing our back at the veil. From what we said here, it should be already clear why this is the case. When we step out from the movie in order to grasp as much as possible, we put aside our thinking voice and try to expand awareness. Yet as we said, there's still something missing here. Practically all that we can be aware of in this way has the nature of memory images. Furthermore, we can only be aware of things which we can make sense of. This is such an important point and yet it is almost universally neglected. It is imagined that when awareness expands and objectifies everything, this should automatically make it meaningful too. But this is simply not the case. We understand only that which can be grasped by our thinking in (T). What does it really mean to grasp something? If we're moving on the surface of the Earth it looks flat. Then an alien ship beams us onboard and we see the curvature of the planet. Suddenly we experience new kind of geometry within which our previous sensory experiences fit. It is similar with thinking. When we're working on a problem we're struggling as within a labyrinth. When we find the solution it is as if we attain to a bird's eye position and we can then understand all our previous thoughts. We can see where we were very close to the solution but then took the wrong turn, we can see where we were hitting our head against the wall of a dead end. In this sense, when we hit the veil, the panorama within awareness makes sense only as far as we can grasp its meaningful geometry. All of that is part of a higher order labyrinth but we can't comprehend it by simply wanting to perceive it as we perceive things that we're familiar with. Instead we say "I feel it is there, I sense it with all my being, I'm living and moving within it but there are simply no words to describe it. It's inexplicable". There are no words because the gap between the thinking gestures that trace the higher order geometry and those which we use in everyday life, is too wide. Similarly, when we walk upon Earth we also trace curved path but we don't notice it. In the same way, without building the gradient of cognition, we simply haven't developed spiritual gestures which have the right 'wavelength' to resonate with the higher order labyrinths. This is where mysticism generally gets stuck and declares that the full picture will be beheld only after death. Alas, the conditions to build the gradient of cognition are here while we still have the firm support of our body on Earth. After death we live in the understanding that we have prepared here. Without this understanding, consciousness will indeed expand into Cosmic space but it faces us as an inexplicable panorama, of which we can make sense only as far as we've developed spiritual conceptions on Earth. It is as expecting that one will learn to read automatically as soon as he sees the hieroglyphs. But this is not how it works. We'll pass through a Grand Cosmic 'Trip' in hieroglyphic space where we'll have a 'breakthrough' and when we 'come down' we'll find ourselves growing up in a different body, where we'll continue to learn to read.

The building of the gradient of cognition is not developed in the ordinary sense, as simple accumulation of theories and data. We need living understanding. When we're detaching from (T) (extreme Y axis), we're missing something. We're missing the fact that we're trying to gain pure awareness while, however, ignoring the fact that we're living as a human being on Earth. This is something which we should have learned by now. Quantum mechanics hints that there's no measurement without disturbance. The pursuit of pure awareness takes too much for granted. It imagines that as consciousness becomes more and more detached, it can behold reality as invisible observer. However, the more we try to emancipate ourselves in this way from our human condition, the more we lose any means to be conscious of how this human condition might be shaping the experience that we imagine to be pure awareness. This state really corresponds to extreme polarization. We dissociate from all conscious phenomena and behold them as a panorama. Any hint of subjectivity is thrust down into the panorama immediately. But then what means do we have to understand if what we experience in this way is really some pure awareness? If an alien with different consciousness does the same meditation, would its pure awareness be the same as ours? We don't really know. The reason is that we don't try to understand how our human condition shapes consciousness. We simply want to polarize and thrust everything on one side, while we believe to be living in pure awareness on the other. We can only gain true insight into our human condition if we begin to investigate how it shapes our conscious experience. We're in particular epoch of evolutionary development where certain level of consciousness is present. We live in concrete body placed in complicated context of social interactions. We have certain ideas, desires. We make limited sense of our aperture of consciousness. All these living contexts are generally not reflected when we simply try to step out of the movie. As a matter of fact, we're pressing our back precisely at all these temporal layers but we don't know the spiritual gestures which can match their geometry. Instead, we only behold what is compatible with our current knowledge. Our ordinary thinking gestures (condensed into concepts) act as a filter for what we can understand from the panorama of experiencing.
...
The thing is that we can't grasp that geometry by simply stepping more and more out of the movie. This would work if that geometry was similar to something we already know. But it isn't. And this is the great difficulty when speaking of these things. We need a dose of humility that no matter how much we see of the movie, unless we can experience the spiritual activity behind the panorama, we'll never be able to reconstruct the higher geometry from combinations of the lower. In the same sense no amount of rearranging 2D shapes in a plane, can produce a 3D form.

[Eugene I.]

James, thank you for such eloquent outline of Zen, looking forward to the 2nd part

[Ben Iscatus]

James, thank you for such eloquent outline of Zen, looking forward to the 2nd part

Ditto, thank you James - very interesting. But surely BK must interpret myths in his own way? - it's unavoidable.

[jamesmorton]

Thanks for the elaboration. That is the sense I had of your meaning. There is another poster here, Cleric, who is very familiar with nondual meditative practice and has illustrated the inherent problem in this 'thinking-dissociative' approach. In short, the practitioner has rid himself of intellectual thoughts but is still flowing within higher order flows of thinking, feeling, and desiring, but has also removed the capacity to perceive and understand these higher order flows by dissociating from the Ego-"I" who Thinks. Therefore, the practitioner feels he has reached the pinnacle of 'oneness' and 'pure awareness' in this lifetime and that all other processes beyond the field of 'pure awareness' can only be revealed after physical death. But what if that feeling was an artifact of the desire to rid oneself of the Ego and Thinking which was set out with? What if there are focused, Thinking-based meditative practices which have yielded much deeper results in this current lifetime, penetrating to layers beyond the threshold of physical death?

My experience here is that, no matter what logical arguments are presented and how coherently reasoned they are, the seasoned nondual practitioner will find everything to be misrepresentation of mystical practice, wild speculation, or some kind of intellectual trick. It is similar for those who have gotten into regular psychedelic use. I hope that maybe I am wrong here, and you will be able to consider what is below with an open mind. As mentioned before, practically everything hinges on this question of what the real nature of Thinking is in our concrete experience when encountering the world content. All that we think and conclude about ancient spiritual traditions and modern philosophies alike, and what deeper layers of meaning we can mine from them, will be directly influenced by whether we leave Thinking in the blind spot or not. It is important to remember that there are no "wrong" worldviews here, only incomplete ones, which have arbitrarily stopped reasoning through the givens of experience (perceptions and associated conceptual meanings) when reaching desired conclusions.]

AshvinP,

There is simply no inherent problem in "this thinking-dissociative approach". Everyone does this all the time. We all focus away from our eternal inner dialogue, etc. to perform demanding tasks like threading a needle or playing some sport. The concentration that one practices in zazen, say, is just normal concentration. The "seasoned practitioner" is alert on all levels during practice. He may be involved in the deepest samadhi but still able to get up and answer the phone immediately. Afterwards he can return to his seat and re-enter samadhi in seconds. Our egos (small and exclusive or big and inclusive) are a built-in aspect of our understanding of reality in any state of mind and can never be removed or blocked.

To my understanding, Mysticism is by definition a system of thought/practice that holds that it is possible to attain some ultimate resolution, state of grace, etc. during this lifetime.

No previous knowledge or intellectual preparation is necessary in order to practice zazen. One might be better off without it. It's more like a sport. When one enters into it, one finds that it is its own reality independent of the world of words. I can't think of anything more refreshing and beneficial to any other kind of human endeavor. I don't intend to deride it, but I find your quotation from Cleric's post practically impossible to relate to. I question the real extent of his or her actual experience. In my 56 years of Zen practice, I've yet to encounter a higher or lower geometry or labyrinth and my Self has always been ready at hand.

There are all kinds of practices and practitioners out there. The vast majority of people don't understand the practice in which they are supposedly engaged, but still, for ego gratification or sense of identity, feel it necessary to believe they do. Thus they invent all kinds of their own homemade explanations, ordain one another as priests and go around calling each other "roshi". There are far too few real teachers around to disabuse such people of their delusions. Would-be teachers spewing incomprehensible nonsense in hopes that their gullible audiences will believe their utterances to be some kind of profound trans-rational truths is sadly getting to be a major industry nowadays. I suppose many of those people actually believe that they must have attained something.

Intellectual activity can produce good directions for action, but ultimately real results only arise from action, I think. Do you really think real change can come out of intellection alone? Bertrand Russell himself said that Western philosophy only winds up back in the same place again and again. Martin Heidegger was the most influential philosopher of the 20th century. His ideas and insights were good, often even from the point of view of Zen, yet it didn't save him from becoming an enthusiastic Nazi, did it? Sam Harris is one of the smartest public intellectuals around now. He's really good at pointing out what is not true, yet when it comes to pointing out what is, he is weak, even though he is a long- time practitioner of meditation himself. If he truly awakens to the real nature of Buddhist practice, this will change instantly, however. Great intelligence or knowledge don't really help in attaining true understanding, but they really come in handy later when it comes to trying to help others.

[AshvinP]

AshvinP,

There is simply no inherent problem in "this thinking-dissociative approach". Everyone does this all the time. We all focus away from our eternal inner dialogue, etc. to perform demanding tasks like threading a needle or playing some sport. The concentration that one practices in zazen, say, is just normal concentration. The "seasoned practitioner" is alert on all levels during practice. He may be involved in the deepest samadhi but still able to get up and answer the phone immediately. Afterwards he can return to his seat and re-enter samadhi in seconds. Our egos (small and exclusive or big and inclusive) are a built-in aspect of our understanding of reality in any state of mind and can never be removed or blocked.

To my understanding, Mysticism is by definition a system of thought/practice that holds that it is possible to attain some ultimate resolution, state of grace, etc. during this lifetime.

No previous knowledge or intellectual preparation is necessary in order to practice zazen. One might be better off without it. It's more like a sport. When one enters into it, one finds that it is its own reality independent of the world of words. I can't think of anything more refreshing and beneficial to any other kind of human endeavor. I don't intend to deride it, but I find your quotation from Cleric's post practically impossible to relate to. I question the real extent of his or her actual experience. In my 56 years of Zen practice, I've yet to encounter a higher or lower geometry or labyrinth and my Self has always been ready at hand.

Yes, of course we do it all the time. The question is whether those are the only modes of thinking. We could say one mode (mystical practice) prioritizes the pole of formlessness and another (reflective intellect) prioritizes the pole of form. Both poles are inseperable and eternal - they are never actually eliminated from consciousness or permanently lost. Related to that, the question is not whether we are personally able to attain what we feel is "ultimate resolution" or "state of grace", but whether the depth structure between our egoic perspective and the eternally unified Consciousness (a) exists (we are not simply imagining a void 'between' them), and (b) can be precisely investigated in this lifetime. Just as 'between' my current vision through my physical eye there exists the rest of Earth beyond the limits of that vision, the upper atmosphere, Earth's orbit, the Moon, the other planets and their moons, the constellations, etc., does any similar depth structure exist beyond my intellectual thinking vision, my current spiritual "I"?

There are all kinds of practices and practitioners out there. The vast majority of people don't understand the practice in which they are supposedly engaged, but still, for ego gratification or sense of identity, feel it necessary to believe they do. Thus they invent all kinds of their own homemade explanations, ordain one another as priests and go around calling each other "roshi". There are far too few real teachers around to disabuse such people of their delusions. Would-be teachers spewing incomprehensible nonsense in hopes that their gullible audiences will believe their utterances to be some kind of profound trans-rational truths is sadly getting to be a major industry nowadays. I suppose many of those people actually believe that they must have attained something.

So is this your attempt at addressing what I quoted from Cleric, or are you referring to something else entirely?

Intellectual activity can produce good directions for action, but ultimately real results only arise from action, I think. Do you really think real change can come out of intellection alone? Bertrand Russell himself said that Western philosophy only winds up back in the same place again and again. Martin Heidegger was the most influential philosopher of the 20th century. His ideas and insights were good, often even from the point of view of Zen, yet it didn't save him from becoming an enthusiastic Nazi, did it? Sam Harris is one of the smartest public intellectuals around now. He's really good at pointing out what is not true, yet when it comes to pointing out what is, he is weak, even though he is a long- time practitioner of meditation himself. If he truly awakens to the real nature of Buddhist practice, this will change instantly, however. Great intelligence or knowledge don't really help in attaining true understanding, but they really come in handy later when it comes to trying to help others.

I have not claimed "intellectual activity" is the basis for all positive practical results in the world. I am trying to see if you are willing to consider the possibility that your own intellect (and my own intellect), on January 11, 2022, is not the max capacity of human thinking as such for all people and for all time, that there could be higher modes of Thinking and higher order Logic, and that we will never find the likelihood of that possibility if we refuse to logically reason through the arguments for them (or simply the givens of our experience). I'm not asking you to accept it on faith, but I am asking whether you will even consider the possibility? I ask these things because there are quite a few in the analytic idealist and mystically-inclined philosophy who have proven here they will not even consider any logically reasoned arguments for such things.

Beyond that, your argument above seems to be, "there are people who are intellectually smart and have done bad things, so thinking cannot produce positive change, only Zen practice". I cannot find any coherence in that argument. I also don't understand what you are claiming "comes in handy when trying to help others". Help them do what, exactly?

[Cleric K]

A “Zen” Perspective (1)

Thanks James,

I enjoyed your living and concise tour on Zen.

I would like to add few words to what Ashvin said above in order elucidate the core questions from yet another angle.

It's undisputable that meditation, in the way you describe it, leads to the mode of consciousness you portray. Recently here in the forum we spoke about something similar and used the words "stepping out of the movie". It's a very characteristic mode and it's unmistakable for anyone who knows it from experience.

The first thing to clear is that when Ashvin speaks of higher order Thinking, he doesn't mean something that happens in the movie that we have stepped out of. That is - higher cognition is not simply a fancier logic system that still arranges concepts. Consider the following: stepping out of the movie (and thus the inner chatter) is still a kind of spiritual activity, it is something we innerly do. After so many years of practice you surely know how to step out. You know what inner 'incantation' you should do in order to step out. Also you surely would accept that this stepping out spiritual activity is not at all what you call willing the dizzying stream of concepts. When we will the stream, we employ our spiritual activity, commonly called 'thinking'. When we're stepping out of the movie-stream, we're once again employing spiritual activity but this time in a quite different way. If our normal thinking (stream of concepts) is seen as looping on a plane, then the stepping out is spiritual activity that acts perpendicular to the plane - we distance ourselves from the projection plane of the movie-thoughts.

To repeat: we have a plane with movie-stream of thought-concepts. When we think intensively we can say that these thoughts appear as the result of our inner spiritual activity. We can surely say "I think these thoughts" (whether we consider this to be illusion or not is irrelevant here). On the other hand we have a peculiar form of spiritual activity which moves us in a direction perpendicular to the movie plane. This form of activity is by no means conceptual thinking. It's quite different. But if we observe what we're doing with our thoughts in the plane (1) and what we do when we're stepping out of the movie plane (2), we surely feel that in both cases the activity proceeds from the same essential source.

What Ashvin tries to point out above is that this stepping out activity that we perform (which, I remind, is non-conceptual) is only one inner gesture of a much larger palette of non-conceptual spiritual activity, which is still meaningful, similarly to the way thinking is. It's like a higher order cognitive spiritual activity which acts perpendicularly to the plane.

To clarify further, think about the following. We all agree that stepping out the concept-stream makes us conscious of many other things which we otherwise completely miss because we're tightly merged with that stream. You say:

The realization that all space and time, matter and energy, life and consciousness are all included in one seamless existence makes the conclusion that the nature of reality is basically mind or consciousness rather unavoidable

Let's think about how the details of this reality come about. We certainly know how our thoughts come about. They are the stuff of consciousness that we can shape in the freest way possible. Then we have also feelings. These are little harder to shape. Actually most of the time feelings press in our consciousness as a force greater than us. Think about being depressed or being joyful. We can't really say that we personally manifested these feelings. It's much rather that they press into us similarly to the way weather does. Of course, through self-mastery, we can be increasingly creative even in the domain of feelings. Finally, in our life of (bodily) will, we're completely constrained by our musculoskeletal and other systems. We can manifest our imagination only within these bodily constraints (while in thought we're constrained only by the broadness of our imagination).

So we have a very clear gradient of our spiritual activity - from the most inner, where we are least constrained, towards the most external where we're fully restrained by bodily and external environment. The logical question is, what is it that is responsible for these more and more remote layers of reality? We agree that they are of spiritual nature. If we follow this to its logical conclusions it would mean that there should be some state of consciousness from whose perspective, what we know for example as a tree, should be experienced as an actual manifestation of inner activity. Similarly, there should be a state of consciousness which is not simply constrained by our body, but builds it as a result of conscious activity. So the question is, what are those states of consciousness and to what beings they belong, which are responsible for the mineral, plant, animal kingdoms, the four elements, the planets and stars, their rotations and so on.

I hope you see what Ashvin tries to point out. If you say that the stepping out of the conceptual stream presents us with the grounds of reality, from that perspective we should know how everything comes about. Clearly we don't. We only learn to observe our perceptions more detachedly. But in this observation we don't at all perceive what makes a tree grow.

So what is your view on these things? Do you think there should exist such states of consciousness and corresponding levels of being, which are creatively responsible (in the way we're responsible for thoughts) for the world contents. If yes, where do you place the 'stepped out of the movie' human state, along the spectrum of consciousness which must also include the levels which can be responsible for the Sun, for example?