August 24, 2010
- Bernadette Roberts on the East and the West -
As a Christian, I saw the no-self experience as the true nature of Christ’s death, the movement beyond even is oneness with the divine, the movement from God to Godhead. Though not articulated in contemplative literature, Christ dramatized this experience on the cross for all ages to see and ponder. Where Buddha described the experience, Christ manifested it without words; yet they both make the same statement and reveal the same truth – that ultimately, eternal life is beyond self or consciousness. After one has seen it manifested or heard it said, the only thing left is to experience it.
Paradoxical though it may seem, the passage through consciousness or self moves contrary to self, rubs it the wrong way – and in the end, will even rub it out. Because this passage goes against the grain of self, it is, therefore, a path of suffering. Both Christ and Buddha saw the passage as one of suffering, and basically found identical ways out. What they discovered and revealed to us was that each of us has within himself or herself a “stillpoint” – comparable, perhaps to the eye of a cyclone, a spot or center of calm, imperturbability, and non-movement. Buddha articulated this central eye in negative terms as “emptiness” or “void”, a refuge from the swirling cyclone of endless suffering. Christ articulated the eye in more positive terms as the “Kingdom of God” or the “Spirit within”, a place of refuge and salvation from a suffering self.
Comment by Ian — August 24, 2010 @ 11:31 am
For both of them, the easy out was first to find that stillpoint and then, by attaching ourselves to it, by becoming one with it, to find a stabilizing, balanced anchor in our lives. After that, the cyclone is gradually drawn into the eye, and the suffering self comes to an end. And when there is no longer a cyclone, there is also no longer an eye. So the storms, crises, and sufferings of life are a way of finding the eye. When everything is going our way, we do not see the eye, and we feel no need to find it. But when everything is going against us, then we find the eye. So the avoidance of suffering and the desire to have everything go our own way runs contrary to the whole movement of our journey; it is all a wrong view. With the right view, however, one should be able to come to the state of oneness in six or seven years – years not merely of suffering, but years of enlightenment, for right suffering is the essence of enlightenment. Because self is everyone’s experience underlying all culture. I do not regard cultural wrong views as an excuse for not searching out right views. After all, each person’s passage is his or her own; there is no such thing as a collective passage.
Comment by Ian — August 24, 2010 @ 11:32 am
Are these comments your own words or did you cut and paste that?
Anyway, this makes a lot of sense to me. I know what she is talking about. That’s why, even though we argue and disagree, I like your blog. You talk about really important stuff.
So anyway, I’ve located this “eye” within myself and I am very ambivalent about it, to say the least.
I think its like this: Athiests have it partly right. We are going to die. And the popular quasi-Christian idea of “heaven” and the “after life” is a fiction.
But on the other hand they are deluded in positing a completely material Universe only.
But I am grudgingly coming to the conclusion, that this “no self” doctrine might be true. Because I will die. My body will die, my personality, what I think of as my identity, my ego, will die. So then what is left?
There is something left there that is within us, the ground of all being. So the goal seems to be to identify completelty with this part and I guess that would entail eventually shedding the other part. This is the part I have a problem with, which I guess everyone does, that’s why it entails suffering.
This also kind of implies that “self help” is all ultimately bullshit, as well as achieving “success” and “happiness”
So that’s kind of sad. I have however had a fairly hard life, and that has caused me to encounter this “eye” whereas maybe if things had gone better for me I wouldn’t have. But anyway its disturbing.
I also believe reincarnation is true also, and fits into this scheme somehow, but that its not really a positive thing. Its something to be liberated from eventually also. But its related to electo magnetic energy somehow and some kind of imprint out aura makes or something.
But anyway, I know what the “eye” is. I just wanted to say that.
Comment by Ted — August 26, 2010 @ 12:51 pm
It’s a very interesting article, though I don’t know what to make of it. Or its style and approach. But very interesting.
*
STRANGE resonance with my current bedtime reading, which quotes the following from a 1594 play by Robert Greene, ‘Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay’. Check out the asterisks:
“… thou knowest that I have dived into Hell
And sought the darkest places of fiends,
That with my magic spells great Belcephon
Hath left his lodge and kneeled at my cell;
*The rafters of the earth rent from the poles*
And three-formed Luna hid her silver looks,
Trembling upon her concave continent
When Bacon read upon his magic book.”
in Maxwell-Stuart, P.G., ‘Wizards: a History”, Tempus 2007
Comment by speedbird — August 26, 2010 @ 1:01 pm
@ Ted: Thanks I think this is important stuff too, glad to hear I’m not alone on that. And I actually kind of like our arguments, after they’re over. :)
None of that is mine, its all cut/paste from an interview with her.
I get what your saying about the ground of being, no self, reincarnation, auras, all that. I’m just not any clearer on it than you are. There’s this fleeting feeling that it will all make sense, but I also want to experience it, you know? Like who ever came up with those ideas originally didn’t just think them up, they were based on something they experienced. I’d like to do that, if I can.
@ speedbird:
re: rafters and central poles, check this out. And check out where the cross is, in relationship to those columns.
Interesting bedtime reading. What’re your dreams like after reading something like that? :)
Comment by Ian — August 26, 2010 @ 3:24 pm
>> check out where the cross is
Don’t get it…?
Canterbury’s cool. Check out the story of Thomas Beckett. They whipped the King round the streets and the place became so popular for pilgrims that they had to knock an extra doorway in the side of the building and people queued for hours to see the shrine. All this in like 1200AD.
>> Interesting bedtime reading
Hey, I like funky dreams ;)
Comment by speedbird — August 26, 2010 @ 4:22 pm
This is my glimpse of it:
Total stillness feels kind of like death, but also it makes me feel powerful, also there are no cravings for anything.
It feels like death because nothing alive is totally still like that. I mean even the Earth is moving. So you are more still than the Earth itself. Also time appears to stop. I feel powerful because I feel like I could master things like martial arts, plus I don’t feel afraid of anything.
But its a feeling that is out of tune with everyone and everything around me and one that would cause big changes in my life because of that. So its not a place I felt like staying for long.
I feel like other things I am interested in, are at odds with this. Like for example low brow art. Lusting after a tatooed bohemian hippy girl, for example is about as far from the “diamond mind” or whatever as you could possibly get. Its a feeling that is the opposite of anything hedonistic. There is nothing sexy or humorous about it. Its really really hard core. That’s all I can say. I felt kind of like some Sadhu, living Naked in the Himalayas or some wicked hard core Zen Master.
I have access to this state due to being hedonistic and desirous of things related to material success. My spirit feels dissatisfied with pursuing these things and whenever I make headway toward things like that, you know pursuing worldly goals, I feel a blockage. Instead of feeling pleasure I feel pain.
So then I meditate on that feeling and it leads to the place I described above.
I feel more like running away from this experience than I do pursuing it. So I guess that means I will have to suffer more.
Comment by Ted — August 26, 2010 @ 7:14 pm
@ Ted:
In my humble and limited experience, yes, running from it isn’t really going to do much good. I can’t say what the experience is, whether its diamond mind or zen master mind or what. It sounds to me like a problem of the sacred versus the profane, but the sacred really is everywhere, so maybe its not quite as antagonistic between the two as it seems. However, if you feel blocked, I’d say that’s probably something in you trying to tell you something. Maybe it’d be good to listen to it? see if it has anything to say? Or at least explore it and become a little more familiar with what it is? I dunno man, you seem to know more about this than I do…
Well, I’ve heard it said that hedonistic pleasures really are painful, and most people just don’t know it. Its something I’ve heard from various mindfulness people, that lust and greed and things can be, at their heart if your honest with yourself, a painful experience. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t other ways to enjoy life that are actually enjoyable. If anything I’d say something is forcing you to be really honest with yourself. :)
Good luck Ted, keep with it.
@ speedbird:
The cross is above the pillars, like the sun is above the clouds. ;)
The pillars fall just like the clouds dissipate, at least in theory.
Comment by Ian — August 27, 2010 @ 11:52 am
Sorry, I’ve been away or else I would have commented sooner…
Thanks for this post, Ian. It was through a Christian contemplative practice that allowed me to understand what the message of Zen was about, and I would agree that they are essentially the same. In my limited experience, this “eye” or “stillpoint” does not necessarily clear up the enigma of suffering. I am not sure if there is a single answer to suffering, because suffering is expressed in myriad ways/experiences. I think mindfulness is an exercise of tracing an experience back to its root, and each experience has its own interesting path of twists and turns. I think many practitioners who are looking for the root of suffering try to jump immediately to the root of each experience without tracing its path. I am not skilled enough to do this, and I often become frustrated when trying to jump to the root and skip the experience. Basically, jumping doesn’t work for me. Maybe this is why Bernadette Roberts says that it is through suffering that we gain salvation.
What is fortunate for us is that the root of suffering is also the root of salvation. Once you’ve found the root of suffering, take one more step and there you go! Follow suffering to the “eye,” then take one more step into it.
Something Ted has indicated is that this is accessible even through hedonistic pursuits, which I think is true, though it is much more difficult mainly due to the fact that these pursuits support and emphasize the Self, which must ultimately be sacrificed to allow access to no-Self. This enigma is really hard to figure out.
Finally, these are just my thoughts and opinions; I can’t claim to know anything, nor do I have any authority whatsoever to describe the metaphysical workings of the universe. Good Luck!
Comment by Donn — August 31, 2010 @ 2:26 pm
Hey Don, good to hear from you.
I’m not near to finding the still point myself, so I don’t have much to say on that. Glad to hear this speaks to you though.
Comment by Ian — August 31, 2010 @ 2:35 pm
So what is the point of becoming extinct anyway?
I mean everyone must die eventually. So if you extrapolate this in terms of the individual living not only one mortal lifespan of 70 years or so but hundreds or even thousands of incarnations, of this soul, or whatever it is, that passes from life to life, then it, too must eventually die.
So I suppose that makes sense, but why? Why become extinct rather than live forever?
You would have to come to the conclusion that the sin qua non of individual existence is only suffering and nothing else.
So then I guess you would have to conclude that the only way out is to become extinct and to cease to be an individual altogether.
You would have to have the distinct impression that there is nothing left to seek, nothing will give you joy or fulfillment.
Is this your position Ian? That there is nothing in life that will satisfy you? That there is nothing to accomplish, nothing to experience, except complete annihilation?
I also understand that there is this underlying conviction of panpsychism, or whatever, the idea that we are all part of this eternal ground of being. So it would be a return to that.
But still “you” would no longer exist. You would be shapeless and formless and void.
Anyway, sometimes I feel Like I am anchored somehow to this still point. Like I am on a tether, I can’t get away, I can only go around and around in a circle and as I wind around and around the chord gets shorter and shorter until I am forced into it.
As far as running toward this experience, or patiently seeking it through extreme self discipline, I can’t imagine doing that.
Comment by Ted — August 31, 2010 @ 4:07 pm
Well, I’m not sure. First off, I will say I don’t have a definite position on these things, it seems to change day to day. But I can kind of examine my underlying motives a bit.
Death is an interesting thing. Sometimes I think its the ultimate inertia beater. No matter what we’re doing in life, the thought of death as both a guaranteed constant and a total unknown is something we can use as a tool to get us out of pretty much any situation. It’s kind of like that point that Archimedes was talking about, with the big enough board and a point to rest it on. Death seems to be able to function as both, we can push against it all we want to and it doesn’t move. Its rare to find something like that in life.
As far as extinction of the self, I don’t know. I can theorize a lot, and I think the places I go to in my explorations are kind of chosen based on my theories, but I try to keep an open mind about them. I think the sense of a personal self is not the only perspective we can take in life. There’s evidence from both Buddhism and from other, more shamanic type traditions that other perspectives are available to us. I think the idea of “extinguishing the self” isn’t really not-feeling-self at all, but an ability to see the incoming data from this sense of self as having equal value to the incoming data from the world around us. It just means that the data processing aspect of the mind is treating the information in the accurate and realistic way possible. I don’t mean this in a self deprecating moralistic egoless way, but in that our mind sees all information clearly and doesn’t make anything more important than it actually is. The ego, as I see it here, is not the actual self, it is only the sensations that we feel inside and that we label as “self”. Then we try to protect those sensations from trying to come into contact with other less pleasant sensations, but the truth of it is, if we’re feeling a sensation, its already something we’re in contact with, and trying to hold our “self” sensations somehow apart from other sensations is really just delusion.
So that still point, to me, is the point where the self sensations take their actual place with the sensations of life, where everything is in perfect focus as-it-is (“at the still point, there the dance is”). I think of this as kind of the enlightenment of our mentality or our reason, in that it allows our thought processes to rest in its natural ability of being perfectly aligned with what-is-happening-right-now, without needing to hold the sensations we think of as “self” separate from other sensations we are feeling. Because the truth of the situation is that all sensations that we feel are taking place in the unified moment of “now”. That’s basic common sense. Everything’s happening right now, there’s no actual barrier between what’s happening internally and what’s happening externally, but we keep the sense of separation between the two out of a kind of self compassion, trying to protect ourselves from feeling bad. This doesn’t actually work though, because it disturbs the inherent balance of the mind.
Examination of what’s actually going on shows that this isn’t true, but its a hard realization to make stick on an experiential level. Its not exactly that the sense of being an individual disappears, I think, more that it’s not seen as anything separate from what’s happening around it.
Still, joy and fulfillment do exist, suffering does exists, but its all understood as temporary, as sensations. There’s nothing inherently “wrong” with either of them, though obviously the joy and fulfillment are nicer. But understanding when each arises and when each departs is an important thing. Its not like we can actually hold onto feelings in any case, I think its better to try and experience them directly as they are.
just as the eye can’t see itself, if you can see or sense something, its not “you”. Its just experience. Not being able to let experience rest, rise, and fall as-it-is because we’re thinking of it as somehow “me” is what causes a lot of unnecessary suffering. But letting it be as-it-is also means letting the sense of self be as-it-is. Just recognizing that it’s only an experience of self-in-the-moment, nothing more (or less) than that experience.
No worries, I don’t think you have to. Each of us has a different way that we need to approach this. I think being drawn into it is as good a way as any. My only advice (for what its worth, as I fully admit that I could be wrong on this) is not to fight it when it happens. Don’t seek it out, don’t try to force it to happen, but if you find that it is happening, don’t resist it either. In the end, this is a natural process, and natural processes seem to go best when we just go with the flow of them. Like taking a shit. Its no fun trying to force it and its no fun trying to stop it. But it can be nice when it just kind of happens. :)
Comment by Ian — September 1, 2010 @ 10:15 am
From the boards over at Kenneth Folk’s site:
From a Dzogchen text by Longchenpa, translated as “Old Man Basking in the Sun” by Keith Dowman:
‘So stay right here, you lucky people;
let go and be happy in the natural state.
Let your complicated life and everyday confusion alone
and out of quietude, doing nothing, watch the nature of mind.
This piece of advice is from the bottom of my heart;
fully engage in contemplation and understanding is born;
cherish non-attachment and delusion dissolves;
and forming no agenda at all reality dawns.
Whatever occurs, whatever it may be, that itself is the key,
and without stopping it or nourishing it, in an even flow,
freely resting, surrendering to ultimate contemplation,
in naked pristine purity we reach consummation.’
Comment by Ian — September 1, 2010 @ 10:45 am
Some really excellent quotes from Dag Hammarskjold over at Intense City:
http://lukestorms.wordpress.com/2010/08/31/dag-hammarskjold/
Too many good ones to do anything other than repost exactly as is, so I’ll link to it instead!
Great insights on blending action with surrender.
Comment by Ian — September 1, 2010 @ 1:01 pm
And check out this comment by Pavel over at OE:
Right now it seems to me that there are three different attitudes, or behaviours, that one can adopt in general and moment-to-moment. There is surrender to the way things are, there is the use of will in order to force a result and there is the surrender (or giving in) to the environment (outside or inside influences). There seems to be a great difference in the general feel and effect of either one, but I think that it’s helpful to differentiate between the first (surrender) and the third (giving in) as it can be pretty easy to mistake one for the other. The first has the ease of doing that which naturally wants to be done and is in accord with how things are, whereas the third only has the appearance of ease as it is giving in to a much smaller force than how things are fundamentally (ie. how karma is, how the learnt responses are, how the situation is).
You seem to be saying, if I understand you correctly, that there is only one correct response, which is equally will and surrender, which I understand as there inherently being will, or action, in the practice of surrender.
Comment by Ian — September 1, 2010 @ 1:03 pm
I think the doctrine of “no self” stands in opposition to the Jungian process of “individuation.”
That is the way it seems to me. Perhaps its a more advanced stage of development. If it is the ultimate stage then it would have to be.
I can see the contrast to giving in “to the way things are” i.e. truth and giving in to “the environment” Which would be kind of like following inertia of the status quo or whatever influences are around you.
It seems to me however that its possible that we have a choice in the matter of our existence here on Earth. We have a choice to continue with it and seek to improve things…you know “make the world a better place” by whatever small contribution we can.
So one school of thought is that while we all have an underlying divine nature we have willingly taken on limitation in order to do just that.
That appears to me to be the project at hand.
To want to withdraw from this and return to the void, which is not finite but rather infinite, and therefore featureless and without individuality or character…would seem to me to be the height of pessimism. It would seem to me to be dispair and as Nietzsche would say “Nay saying” to the World.
I think perhaps there is a dynamic here related to your idea of the space fire. I think this risk of falling into dispair and pessimism is like a counterveiling force juxtaposed to the process of individuation i.e. “making a (personal and individual)contribution towards progress.”
Just some thoughts
Comment by Ted — September 1, 2010 @ 6:22 pm
I follow you Ted, I totally agree on this:
I’m just not sure that “no self” is actually giving up on this project. I think that realizing the truth about our selves, might be the actual resolution of that project, as much as we are able to resolve this in our lifetimes. Ramana Maharshi has said “Your own Self-Realization is the greatest service you can render the world.” What better way to improve things than to really know the divine as completely present in yourself and in everything equally?
Maharshi also said:
Wanting to reform the world without discovering one’s true self is like trying to cover the world with leather to avoid the pain of walking on stones and thorns. It is much simpler to wear shoes.
And, wearing shoes, to be able to walk amongst the thorns and stones unharmed, to remove them, if such is what the divine nature that we are is here to do. But without discovering that divine nature, how can we know what is actually necessary and what is our own reactions to the false reality we believe we live in? We have to know what is real before we can begin to act.
Gurdjieff said something about this to, something along the lines of “pay for your own arising as quickly as you can, and then help relieve the suffering of our common cosmic father” or something like that, I can’t find it on line.
But that’s just my take on this, it doesn’t mean I’m right. For me though, this kind of attitude involved both Individuation and No Self Realization. Both are necessary, I think, in the same way that Steiner described Christ as lying between the aspects he called Lucifer (ultimate no self, in this case) and Ahriman (ultimate individuation, in this case).
As the zen people say, the enlightened person is not subject to the laws of karma, but neither does he ignore them.
Comment by Ian — September 2, 2010 @ 11:24 am
Check these out:
Jack Kerouac’s Letter to his Ex-Wife
Bill Hicks on the Ride
Comment by Ian — September 2, 2010 @ 1:08 pm
Ian,
I think your comments are interesteing, I am thinking about them. More later.
Comment by Ted — September 2, 2010 @ 2:09 pm
Cool, let me know!
As the I Ching says:
Knowledge should be a refreshing and vitalizing force. It becomes so only through stimulating intercourse with congenial friends with whom one holds discussion and practices application of the truths of life. In this way learning becomes many-sided and takes on a cheerful lightness, whereas there is always something ponderous and one-sided about the learning of the self-taught.
:)
Comment by Ian — September 2, 2010 @ 2:24 pm
Good quote!
I guess I was thinking this:
That makes sense to me about reaching enlightenment quickly and then helping other people, once you know what is what, because otherwise you are useless to help anyone since you would have a basic misunderstanding about life.
But there *is* this idea in Eastern Religions about “extinction” I didn’t just get that garbled up. That Doctor guy Dharma Dan even talks about it.
I did read Jack Kerouac’s letter to his ex-wife.
I have heard those sentiments expressed elsewhere. I guess its good news if you are in a situation where you take everything so seriously, that you feel totally paralyzed and have fallen into deep despair. Then it might be a relief to hear that nothing really matters, anyway.
But there is an aspect of the idea expressed in that letter that is very nihilistic. What if you are in a situation, where you feel called to accomplish something that you feel is very important but is also very hard? Why would those words be encouraging in that scenario?
The latter scenario is the one I feel that I am in, but I do find some value, however, in the ideas expressed in the letter, in the sense that its kind of humbling.
But anyway, I find a certain philosophy, implicit in Steven Pressfield’s book “the War of Art” that really resonates with me. The philosophy seems to be that Life in the World does matter and that its a work in progress. The role of the artist is to WORK hard to bring into the World the inspiration he or she receives from accessing these higher realms and higher beings.
So in that sense I see the World not as simply a big delusion, filled with suffering that one must escape from, but rather an unfinished work of art that I may have some role in contributing to, if I keep at it and continue to Work.
Comment by Ted — September 2, 2010 @ 3:44 pm
I typed up a whole response, but then I realized something. I don’t think of the world as a something that must be escaped from, rather it is something that must be escaped to. Real life is free, real life does not suffer, real life is undeluded. If I do not feel free, if I suffer, or if I feel deluded (ie: the feeling that there is something wrong but I don’t know what it is) than I am not in the real world.
Something is keeping me from that real world and I want to see through it. Once I see the real world, I will know what to do with is. The world is not a delusion, delusion is what keeps us from the world.
Comment by Ian — September 3, 2010 @ 11:23 am
Ted, a friend just sent me a link to this article in Tricycle. I think its pretty relevant to our discussion.
http://www.tricycle.com/portfolio/free-expression
I love the way this guy talks about creativity. Its pretty humbling, in a full-of-awe kind of way.
Comment by Ian — September 3, 2010 @ 11:35 am
I couldn’t really figure out what he was talking about, other than the idea that we create the universe as we experience it.
What do you think of this paragraph?
Comment by Ted — September 4, 2010 @ 9:38 am
I have to say, I favor low brow art, Pop surrealism and Sci Fi and fantasy Illustration.
Comment by Ted — September 4, 2010 @ 9:40 am
@Ian: Great Tricycle article! I don’t follow the Tibetans much, but I think I’ll check out this guy’s work. As an improvisational musician, I have become keenly aware of “When it comes to art, the process we engage in is reflected in its expression. If we trust in the basic nature—it is communicated. If art is contrived and self-focused—it is communicated.” I’ve noticed that this same thing is true in all of my actions, artistic or otherwise.
@Ted: I’d like to respond to that particular paragraph because it resonates with some guidance I was given concerning insights that come during meditation. I was told not to get distracted, hang on to, or try to remember insights that come during meditation. It is not the created object that is important so much as the state of mind or process that allowed the creation to take place. This has allowed me to forget a lot of great thoughts! ;) I have found great benefit in the type of destruction Dzigar Kongtrul Rinpoche is talking about.
Comment by Donn — September 4, 2010 @ 11:27 am
>>Real life is free, real life does not suffer, real life is undeluded. If I do not feel free, if I suffer, or if I feel deluded (ie: the feeling that there is something wrong but I don’t know what it is) than I am not in the real world.
>>Something is keeping me from that real world and I want to see through it. Once I see the real world, I will know what to do with is. The world is not a delusion, delusion is what keeps us from the world.
Well put Ian, massive kudos. Wonder if I have a frame anywhere round here…
Comment by speedbird — September 4, 2010 @ 2:23 pm
>>Something is keeping me from that real world …
Actually I have a name for it. I call it the Campaign. It’s a slippery beast, not easily pinned down in words. I have no idea if it can be fought, or even if we’re supposed to.
Comment by speedbird — September 4, 2010 @ 2:30 pm
Speedbird, I think what you’re calling the campaign is pretty much the same as that quote Donn posted from that article: “If art is contrived and self-focused”. In order to have a campaign, there has to be some sense at the heart of it that it is a plan that is being carried through despite what is happening in the moment.
So then, the opposite of “the campaign” would be “trust in basic nature” (no need to carry through a campaign despite what is going on, what-is-going-on becomes the campaign itself. Which, if I’m right, would mean that the campaign shouldn’t be fought against, just seen through.
And thanks for the kind words, though I sincerely hope you don’t manage to find that frame…
Donn, glad you like the post, and thanks for your take on the passage. Though not much of an improvisational artists myself, I really agree with what you’re saying. Even my own “artistic” work (as on display on this site) comes from pretty much the same process. And the key in any action is this communication of trust. The key for us is to cultivate that trust through repeatedly turning to the creative moment, again and again, and know that the communication will take care of itself, if we but turn back again and again.
Ted, what I like most of that article was “creative energy is innate and spontaneously present. It is unborn, with no center or boundary, yet nothing exists outside of it. The mountains and oceans, the sun and moon, even the seasons arise spontaneously from it. What has become “our life,” everything we are and everything we have been since we stepped into this world, is spontaneously present. ”
It doesn’t matter really, I’d say, if it’s high brow, abstract, low brow, sci-fi/fantasy or whatever. All art, and in some sense, all life could be seen as a creative act, in this sense. Either we are allowing something new to spontaneously come into being through us, holding that connection-to-creation as the foremost important part of the act, or else we are working within a closed system of what-has-already-been created (and closed systems create entropy).
In the section you posted, I think he’s talking about exactly what we were discussing earlier here. The “beautiful thing” he’s talking about being attached to is as much our sense of what our “self” is as it is a beautiful result on the canvas/paper/whatever.
That “destroying” this thing isn’t an attack on the self, isn’t nihilistic or an attempt at actual “self-extinction”. It is instead “a natural wearing away of attachment and becomes a part of the creative process itself—a way to engage a bigger mind.”
Only by ceasing to hold onto our sense of “self” as permanent in any way can we allow it to continue to grow, to grow beyond itself and rejoin the creative act going on all around us that is the universe. Only the defined self is limited, the undefined is also unlimited.
This is kind of what I was trying to figure out before when I said the ego was about the sense of being done when you’re not. The only way we can ever actually be done is to hold nothing back from the creation act that is the present moment. Then we’re done before we even start. :)
Comment by Ian — September 6, 2010 @ 12:53 pm
>> the Campaign shouldn’t be fought against, just seen through.
Possibly, yes. I prefer ‘seen around’, seeing as the Campaign is something of a dark glass.
Comment by speedbird — September 6, 2010 @ 1:05 pm
True enough. In either case, it is a withdrawing of the belief that this thing is a reality, to see if it still stands. Or something like that.
Comment by Ian — September 7, 2010 @ 1:37 pm
I was just thinking that trying to draw a likeness of something, in an idealized or stylized way, especially in an erotic or dramatic or campy or sensationalistic way, is different than creating a totally abstract creation and striving to have absolutely no attachment to it.
So in that sense I think abstract expressionism is different than pop surrealism, Low brow and Science fiction/fantasy art.
But I do think you have some excellent points about the connection to this guy’s method and meditation and insight practice.
I also liked your insights about the ego being static etc and striving to be in a process or continual”becoming” or whatever.
Comment by Ted — September 7, 2010 @ 5:14 pm
Yeah, I’d agree with you there. Its creativity, but it is a different flavor of creativity than an abstract piece.
Anyway, thanks, I’m glad what I’m saying makes sense. It is reassuring. ;)
Comment by Ian — September 8, 2010 @ 11:33 am
See we can’t both be crazy :)
Comment by Ted — September 8, 2010 @ 1:43 pm
Indeed. :)
Comment by Ian — September 8, 2010 @ 1:51 pm
Some thoughts relevant to this discussion from Shinzen Young:
The word Nirvana literally means extinction.[*] Not the extinction of self, but extinction of the klesas, the “afflictions” which prevent happiness. The klesas may be broadly grouped under three headings: raga, dvesa and moha. Raga (desire) is the drive to repeat pleasant experiences. Dvesa (aversion, hate or antipathy) is the rejection of unpleasant experience. Moha is confusion and lack of clarity. Moha is responsible for our sense of limited identity and prevents us from noticing the subtle malaise and discomfort which underlie all experience.
Concerning raga and dvesa, there is an important point which is sometimes missed. Raga means hankering for mental and physical pleasure, not the pleasure itself. The serious Buddhist seeks to eliminate this hankering because it is a source of suffering. Pleasure of itself is most definitely not evil and need not be abjured. Likewise, dvesa is the reaction of rejecting psychologically and physically painful situations. Fighting with pain causes suffering. Pain, if not frantically rejected, causes little suffering. One who has come to grips with raga and dvesa, then enjoys the pleasant without feeling frustrated when the pleasant cannot be had. Likewise, he or she naturally avoids hurt yet does not feel imposed upon when hurt is unavoidable. Such a person no longer carries around that internal sword of Damocles under which the majority of humanity labors, i.e., the constant threat of hell within if we don’t get what we want.
So Nirvana is what life feels like to a person for whom:
No matter how assailed, anger need not arise.
No matter what the pleasure, compulsive longing need not arise.
No matter what the circumstances, a feeling of limitation need not arise.
Such a person is in a position to live exuberantly, to experience life fully, and also to fully experience death. The former is called “Nirvana with a remnant”, the latter “Nirvana without a remnant”.
Comment by Ian — September 9, 2010 @ 2:44 pm
Some more from the same article:
According to Buddhist concepts, at this first breakthrough, one realizes “no-self”. But this expression, no-self, which Buddhists are so fond of, can be very misleading. At first blush, the idea seems uninviting if not absurd. It sounds like a negation of individuality, a frightening loss of controlling center, or a kind of deluded regression. But what is meant by no-self is becoming free from the concept of self (satkayadrsti). And this is not quite the same thing as losing self nor does it even imply the absence of a concept of self.
What is meant by “becoming free from a concept?” One is free from a particular thought or concept if that thought always arises without the slightest unconscious tension, repression or break in awareness of the thought as thought. Then one is experiencing the thought so fully that there is not time for the mind to tense and solidify the thought. And so the thought ceases to be in one’s way. In other words, a thought, concept, mental image or memory has no hold over us if we always experience it totally (vipasyana) and yet remain relaxed (samatha). This is no easy matter in any case. Initial enlightenment comes when we discover that it is possible to allow our deepest moment to moment image of “me and mine” to arise in this full, empty way. From then on, the distinction between self and other (or between enlightenment and nonenlightenment) loses its hold. This, of course, is but one of many ways of interpreting the experience.
Later tradition dilates upon the great merit and kammic resources necessary to achieve this. However, it should be strongly emphasized that, with skillful guidance, a person may well come to such an experience within a few years of highly motivated practice.
Comment by Ian — September 9, 2010 @ 2:48 pm
And more:
Although in Mahayana, compassion (really love) is conceived of on a par with wisdom, in practice priority is usually initially placed on gaining liberation. It’s just more efficient that way. Clearing away some moha first makes it less likely that one’s efforts to help others will be misguided. Eliminating raga and dvesa makes it less likely that one’s zeal will lead to aggressiveness and the sacrificing of principles for an end. Further, after one is free from the concepts of helper, helped and helping, there need be no feeling of chagrin or loss of enthusiasm when one’s efforts to help fail.
(heck, just go read the whole thing)
Comment by Ian — September 9, 2010 @ 2:50 pm
Good link.
Comment by speedbird — September 11, 2010 @ 6:52 am
I mean, enlightenment as an absence… brilliant.
Comment by speedbird — September 11, 2010 @ 6:58 am
Yeah! An absence that is still completely full, cause its not like somethings missing. Its just the space that holds everything.
Or something like that. Its not a nothingness, its an anythingness.
Comment by Ian — September 11, 2010 @ 11:18 am
What is raga and dvesa?
Comment by Ted — September 15, 2010 @ 1:28 pm
Ok here it is :Raga
I did a google search on dvesa also and got explanations for both. So I guess one is like attachment and the other is aversion.
So clearing away “Raga” would be detaching from any type of pleasant experience.
Do you realize how fucking hard core that is? Going with the first reference that implies raga is kind of like the music of life.
Once again, I find myself being able to access this state and I keep having the experience of thinking WTF? Why would I want this? Why would I want to get rid of all the flavor and music of life? I just call it really hard core. That s how I describe it. Total stillness. I feel like my brainwaves are in total alpha mode, There is no chatter of inner dialogue and no flavor and no humor. No sensuality, no craving for anything, no interest, no little intrigues.
I guess I feel kind of like the Dude in the Matrix movie that ratted out all his friends and wanted to go back into virtual reality and be a famous movie star and eat steak, even though he knew it wasn’t real.
He would rather eat an artificial steak and artificial wine than REAL flavorless gruel.
Becauase really Dude this state is the Opposite of this:
Eating good gourmet food, getting drunk at a party with good friends, having sex with a beautiful girl, getting high and having a psychedelic trip, reading a really good comic book, hang gliding, sneaking into a movie, making illegal graffitti art, laughing your ass off at something until you can’t breath and tears stream down your face….anything exciting or fun.
Because life is like fluctuating between extreme states. It seems like you always have balance eventually. You get drunk, you get hung over. You gate high too much, you get brain damage, you sleep around too much and you get STD’s. You eat too much you get fat. You heli ski too m any times you break bones or die.
So this state is like the needle is flatlining.
So I dunno man.
New Age type stuff, Shamanism, paganism, Magick, its kind of shallow compared to this Zen stuff. Zen says ignore weird visions and talking to angels, because its a Side track.
Maybe I just haven’t lived enough.
What would I be good for if I were to permanently be in this state?
Comment by Ted — September 15, 2010 @ 1:55 pm
Ted, you didn’t even read the whole thing I posted! It says:
So no, none of those things need to be given up and gotten rid of. There is no opposite here. Those things might the opposite of that state you can get into, but that state isn’t what’s meant by enlightenment, not as Shinzen Young is describing it here. That sounds more like an absorption state or something. I dunno what it is.
Comment by Ian — September 15, 2010 @ 3:37 pm