Wilberrrrrrrr

At the root of some of this discussion is this question, no? "Isn't it true that as ones practice deepens one experiences more synchronicities, a sense of being guided, and even "magickal" phenomena?"

To that question I'd say yes, in general that seems to be the case with everyone I know, including myself. It's just that the explanation for why it happens is going to depend on your belief system, which could be shamanistic, Hindu, scientific, or Christian or whatever floats your boat.

I guess I just don't separate "mind only" from "matter based
reality". My experience of the sofa I am sitting on or my conversation
with the person sitting next to me is merely data processed through the senses,
too. I don't give it more or less validity than conversation with an angel or
deity in a vision, for example. I guess there is this assumption that if
something is "mind-only" it is less important or less real or less
valid than if it takes place in the "matter based reality". I don't
mean it that way at all. It's just as valid, just as important and so on. But I
also don't think it's MORE important either.

- ona

I didn't think you were degrading nor giving more importance to the mind.
It just seemed to me that you didn't think these experiences have any
matter-based component. You feel they are mind-only. I thought
this primarily because you said: “I have relationships with angels, gods,
spirits, etc. But it is, I believe, equally a metaphor, a way of
describing experience. It is not necessarily real (nor unreal) in some dogmatic
way.” However, if you give your
perceptions of angels and spirits the same validity as your perception of a
sofa, how can you accept the materiality of the sofa while saying that an angel
is only a metaphor? Perhaps you don’t
accept the materiality of a sofa however.

I definitely agree that when something is claimed to have a
dimension of mind, mainstream science tends to disparage this contention as
nonsense. (Although, as Chris alluded
to, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle holds water in physics. But this seems to be an aberration in a way.) It’s so funny how if something cannot be
falsified in science, then it is considered pseudoscience, where pseudoscience
is a euphemism for ignorant delusion. So
if it doesn’t fit into science’s paradigm, then it is dismissed. No thought of altering the scientific method
at all or consideration that another means to scientia might
suffice: just an outright dismissal.
Thus, the shadow of science.

What's important, I think, is how this practice
or belief impacts your personal spiritual practice. What's your experience?
What do you want to learn, do, try or explore? What do you hope to gain? What
are you seeking? (I'm not asking you to answer, as it is none of my business,
but just throwing these out there as the kinds of questions I think are more
important than whether an angel or demon is "real" or
"imaginary".)

Does that help clarify where I'm coming from? Just my perspective on things. No
need for anyone else to share it.

-ona

I think these are super questions and I want to take a stab
at them if you don’t mind.

What’s your experience?

I have very little experience beyond everyday sensory
awareness and discursive reasoning. I
have discovered how to access my heart/intuition by asking myself yes-no
questions and receiving answers at my ajnacakra. These questions only apply to me however; I
cannot glean answers about things beyond me as far as I can tell. I have not had any non-dual experiences.

What do you want to learn, do, try or explore?

I want to learn about the deep nature of reality. I want
to expand my awareness beyond the more-physical. I want to perfect my personality. I want to help others grow. I want to help others by pinpointing the
origins of their problems via intuition and showing them techniques to resolve
them. I want to explore less-physical
realms and the properties on which they operate. In particular, I’d like to test
experientially some of what Motoyama contends.
I’d like to build an always tenuous holistic explanatory model of the
universe that is based on scientific and spiritual investigation.

What do you hope to gain?

Nothing. I don’t want
to gain anything. I want to all be in service to others.

What are you seeking?

The breakthrough.
Despite how much I clean my psyche of emotional garbage, none of this
satisfies me. I am insatiable. I want the breakthrough.

Sounds excellent. I know most of the people on this forum (including several in person) and they are full of sound advice, should you need it. You may also find www.salomesrevenge.com interesting for discussion of more magickal/ritual stuff (I participate there also and help moderate it).

You can experience all sorts of interesting things simply by doing a regular daily meditation practice, with or without supplemental energy work or magickal practices, as you are inclined. It takes the time it takes for such stuff to develop, and how long it takes can vary for each person.

Just an aside: I accidentally discovered a similar "internal divination" system years ago, feeling a sort of energy pulse in my body when I'd hit on the right answer to a question. I think I still use it: it sort of became automatic after a while and I don't think about it.

@Chris: I think I read too much. And I really don't even think I read that much. I have a lot of emptying to do I think.

I wonder how you feel the following passage applies to your experience of the process of dependent origination. The passage is from an article called "The Diamondsutra's Logic of Not: Toward an Holistic Mode of Thinking" and it was written by my professor/sensei. It also clarifies what I meant by "non-discriminatory wisdom" previously. Sorry, but it's a little long.

"In order for this to occur, the mind of the “foolish, ordinary people” must become,
to use a Zen Buddhist terminology, no-mind. No-mind does not mean a mindless state,
much less losing the mind. Nor does it mean a disappearance of the mind. Rather it means
a disappearance of the discriminatory activity of the mind vis-a-vis the practical
transcendence, wherein there is no operation of the dualistic, either-or ego-logical activity
of the mind. In the state of no-mind, the named is nameless and the discriminated is
nondiscriminatory, for in this case the object alone shines forth. That is to say, there is no
longer the belief that there is a “real” object corresponding to a linguistic activity, because
there is no concern with no-mind to substantialize or ontologize it. Nonetheless, no-mind
mirrors desires, ideas, and/or images as they are, for there is in no-mind no
superimposition of categories, concepts, nor is there a projection from the unconscious.
They are mirrored against the background that is nothing, which is the no-mind. Yet, each
individual thing that is mirrored is acknowledged to be an individual thing qua individual
thing with the sense of equality that is due of other individual things. No-mind is a free
mind that is not delimited by any idea, desire, or image. Moreover, no-mind is no-place in
which both A and not-A occur. It is nothing, but this nothing is not a relative nothing. It is
absolutely nothing in the sense that it cuts off any polar concept. Where there is absolutely
nothing, there is no determination whatsoever except its own self-determination via
negation. Here we can have a glimpse of what it means to achieve “perfection of wisdom”
in which discernment occurs vis-ˆ-vis non-discernment, i.e. non-discriminatory
knowledge."

If you're ever interested in reading the entire piece, it can be found here:

http://sunyatawellness.com/resources/logicofnot.pdf

At the root of some of this discussion is this question, no? "Isn't it true that as ones practice deepens one experiences more synchronicities, a sense of being guided, and even "magickal" phenomena?"
To that question I'd say yes, in general that seems to be the case with everyone I know, including myself. It's just that the explanation for why it happens is going to depend on your belief system, which could be shamanistic, Hindu, scientific, or Christian or whatever floats your boat.


-ona

Or no explanation at all. The deeper I go the more I think "explanations" are just descriptions over- stepping their bounds. Who really knows what is happening, or why, or who/what we really are? The deeper I go the more my life and practice just leave those things behind like a snake's old skin. It's enough for me to know, pragmatically and simply, to put my rain coat on when it's raining.

But you said something interesting above, Sunyata: you posed a question along the lines of "isn't there a [non-relative, non-filtered] wisdom-knowing of the suchness [of relative, filtered, conditioned experiences]?" And I definitely agree that there is. One of the tricks is learning that suchness is equally true of every little experienced event of ordinary life, and the growing appreciation that it is effortlessly showing itself in these ordinary events is an important element of practice. Can we appreciate suchness waiting in line at an airport? In a car with a crying baby? Can we allow the suchness of physical pain to sparkle through?

To me, this is why questions about the "why" and "what" of experience seem to lose importance (to me)--- whatever experience is, whatever may be "beyond it", however reality is constituted in a physical or phenomenal sense, there will be this flavor of suchness. It satisfies my desire to "know" and yet leaves me increasingly content with what is, in all honesty, a vast magnificent ignorance: "It" (Great Nature, Universe, Reality) is just too friggin' BIG (for "me" to "know"). Best I can do is be radically honest about the exquisitely fragile nature of all my "knowledge" and learn to live more in the intimacy with small things. That's where the vastness and clarity sparkle through anyway

yacov 1

@jake 1: Bingo. Beautifully said.

As Alan told me several times: "not knowing is not a problem"


(But, to add, it is certainly not an easy thing to understand. We are brought up valuing a certain kind of conceptual knowing and scholarly investigation and explanations, and it makes little sense when we try to imagine how one could possibly not give that so much weight. It's almost a matter of going on faith and trust for a while, in my experience.)

Yes, and we're also brought up valuing whatever balance is normative in our groups-of-origin between personally-felt convictions/biases/opinions <

---

> the biases/convictions/opinions that define our family, social class, etc. In other words, most of the "knowledge" we are raised to rely on is more like supposition, received opinion, and strongly-felt judgments/standards.

"conceptual knowing and scholarly investigation and explanations" could be one of those things we're raised to feel strongly about or else have a temperamental affinity for. Of course, I think above and beyond what we're raised to feel strongly about, basing one's opinions off of evidence and careful, logical thought is likely to be more pragmatic than simply believing in the things we're raised to feel strongly about. But yeah, even such "rational" knowledge (whether materialist, esoteric, or whatever) is in the end just the dry husk of once living experience--- at best

"It" (Great Nature, Universe, Reality) is just too friggin' BIG (for "me" to "know").


-jake

I'm just throwin' this out there because I remember it being said elsewhere. It might not have basis in experience...but by knowing one thing don't you immediately then know everything? I guess that's the holographic model that seems to be often invoked. Part qua whole and such. I guess this is put forth because of the basis in sunyata.

The problem is we often use the word "knowing" to refer to this process of sorting and organizing and drawing little boxes around everything. Knowing from direct experience of the Absolute is completely different than knowing (small k) from concepts, study, etc. So to my mind from the perspective of awakening the question becomes inapplicable. The words people use to talk about these experiences are analogies. The best strategy is to practice and find out for yourself.

Said another way, you cannot prepare sufficiently for this mountain climb. It begins when you start climbing. No amount of planning, packing or pondering will get you closer to the top than simply setting out on the journey just as you actually are. There is no dress code. There is no velvet rope. There is no college entrance exam. You just start climbing. The questions all answer themselves along the way.

The problem is we often use the word "knowing" to refer to this process of sorting and organizing and drawing little boxes around everything. Knowing from direct experience of the Absolute is completely different than knowing (small k) from concepts, study, etc. So to my mind from the perspective of awakening the question becomes inapplicable. The words people use to talk about these experiences are analogies. The best strategy is to practice and find out for yourself.


-ona

So, if I understand what you're saying correctly, one cannot know the Universe in its entirety via conceptual means, but one can know via insight into the Absolute. Since direct experience of the Absolute cannot be described exactly in language, one must use analogies to approximate it. Thus, the importance of practice over theory in coming to Know.

This question I think reveals wrong-thinking on my part, but how can we be assured that in Knowing we are in tune with the nature of reality, while everyone else is deluded? How do we know that in Knowing we are not deluded ourselves?

This question I think reveals wrong-thinking on my part, but how can we be assured that in Knowing we are in tune with the nature of reality, while everyone else is deluded? How do we know that in Knowing we are not deluded ourselves?




-sunyata

Once you Know, assurance is irrelevant because the true nature of reality is so experientially obvious there is no longer any doubt. Before you Know, no analogies, descriptions or facts can truly convince you. Only direct experience can. Part of the process is having recurring doubts and having the faith and trust to proceed anyway.

(cross posted with chris)

Once you Know, assurance is irrelevant because the true nature of reality is so experientially obvious there is no longer any doubt.


-ona

Is there a depth to Knowing? Is this connected to "deepening one's awakening?" Is there a point when you can Know no more than you already do?

I definitely have to let the fact that "once you know...the true nature of reality is... experientially obvious" percolate for a bit.

Perhaps we could say "no longer any doubt" is the real beginning of the path, and is itself usually the fruit of some dedicated practice. Then when there is no longer significant doubt (i.e., when even the true nature of passing thoughts of doubt is experientially evident in real time) the emphasis of practice can shift to allowing that experiential obviousness to sink into the deeper emotional and insitinctual-energetic levels of bodymind. It's hard to imagine how there could be an absolute end to this deepening.

@Jake: How do you think the elimination of doubt is related to Hakuin's emphasis on "great doubt" in in koan work?

"From Wikipedia: "The most important and influential teaching of Hakuin was his emphasis on, and systematization of, koan practice. Hakuin deeply believed that the most effective way for a student to achieve insight was through extensive meditation on a koan. The psychological pressure and doubt that comes when one struggles with a koan is meant to create tension that leads to awakening. Hakuin called this the "great doubt", writing, "At the bottom of great doubt lies great awakening. If you doubt fully, you will awaken fully". Only with incessant investigation of their koan will a student be able to become one with the koan, and attain enlightenment."

So in order to end doubt, you have to doubt fully?

I think that's a different kind of doubt, Jake2. The doubt I sense from you, or that we were talking about at first, as I understood it, is whether it's even worth bothering to practice at all, because there is a doubt that there is any point to practice. Am I wrong?

The Great Doubt is not about "should I do this technique or that one" or "if I meditate will this happen, really?"

My understanding of "Great Doubt" is more existential. All descriptions, all commentary, all attempts to create a reference point that binds phenomena within a stable, fixed pattern have to be fed to Great Doubt. Koan illuminate the paradoxicality of buddhanature/samsaric becoming. Some koan point more at one side of our nature or the other, but fundamentally this seems to be the point.

This paradoxicality is irreducible and can never be tamed by concepts; concepts want "samsara" and "nirvana" to be precisely separable. This reflects uncritical belief in the solidity of concepts and reference points. Great Doubt is thus the flip side of "no longer any doubt" (which isn't the same thing as the elimination of doubts... as my example of "seeing" true nature even in a passing thought, the content of which is "I doubt there is such a thing as true nature..." was meant to convey. When some class of phenomena-- like doubting thoughts, for ex-- is still felt/believed to be an actual obscuration of true nature, then there is still doubt pertaining to true nature. In other words, the thought of doubt is not doubt, any more than the thought of a solid separate self is a solid separate self .

@Ona: My question was more directed at the notion that the true nature of reality is experientially obvious and inquiring how that cannot be doubted. Although I have definitely grappled with the sense that there is no way I am ever going to awaken. I haven't had that feeling recently though. And I have definitely experimented with other practices because I doubted that I was doing it "right", especially since my progress seemed very slow. However, I received some very helpful counsel from a psychic last April who told me I need to stop worrying if I am doing the right practice. Instead, just pick the 1 or 2 practices that my heart tells me I should do. So I just follow my intuition on that one now and try my best to trust it. I haven't significantly deviated from my practice in over a year, which is probably a good sign.

@jake1: I'm gonna need to read that one a couple times and preferably not in the late afternoon.