compelled to share

To even refer to this most fundamental of realities as "it" or to call it anything at all, including "Primordial Awareness" is to risk reducing it to a concept and thereby missing it. Nonetheless, having once discovered it and learned to trust it, we feel compelled to share, so we do our best to point using the words we have.

Kenneth: Mazel tov on your new website. Great idea. I'm wondering about the idea of being compelled to share whatever it is that cannot be communicated. Compelled by what? How does this work? Are we really compelled to share, or are there some bits of ego in this sharing.? What the "I" that "needs" to do anything. What the implied "other" that "needs" or even "wants" to have something, someone sharing with the "me." Blessings on this site; that the levels of communication reach whatever it is that needs to share. david

Hi, David. I can try to answer one of your questions re: "Are we really compelled to share...?" I'd say yes. That's one of the first things that occurred to me immediately after I happened upon the state of being called "rigpa." I was so blown away, floored, and moved (and so on and so on) -- that afterward, when "me" arose again, I wanted everyone alive to be able to experience the same thing. Of course, I don't walk around during the day yakking about it but I do believe the state engenders a desire to sort of share itself, so to speak.

Does that make sense?

As to your point about describing being "it" in words, yeah, that's definitely "not it.". But beyond being able to wave a magic wand and put someone else into "it" all we can do is struggle with the words.

Hi there, David.

Are we compelled to share? I think so, but I don't know if "compelled" is the best word to use in this context. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that we are motivated to share.

If we take some of the great wisdom teachers as our example (The Buddha, Jesus, and others), their motivation to share their message seemed to stem more out of a genuine love, compassion, and appreciation for their fellow human beings. In the case of the Buddha, one of the mythic stories of the initial days following his enlightenment is that he was reluctant to share his dharma because he thought no one would listen. Thank goodness he came to his senses!

Anyways, my point is that this willingness to share a way of liberation must come out of our genuine human goodness. I'm sure there are people who do it for attention, or to get laid, or whatever. But there are also those who think, "If I can do it, others can do it too!" And so they help

~Jackson

Edit: grammar.

Hello Chris & Jackson:
Thanks for your replies re: my inquiry about the experience of being compelled to share. My question is what is it that compels us, how does it work? I understand the feeling that surges up when we touch something "special," by whatever name we wish to call it. But I am questionning if in fact this surge is coming out of Primordial Awareness, which we really cannot define by characterization, or is it coming out of our own "desire." The Tibetan approach is that Bodhichitta arises spontaneously as we touch into rigpa. In doing so, the teaching assumes that the cognizance of emptiness is somehow connected with that compulsion to share, which suggests yet something more that accompanies rigpa than simply a "Knowing" quality. So my question has to do with the nature of the cognizance that is itself the nature of emptiness.
Does that clarify?
I question this as an inquiry into whether or not there is "genuine human goodness" as Jackson suggests, and if it is something that invites us to share the "good news," so to speak. best, david

Hi David,

I think I see where you're going with this. I tend to like simple answers best, so I'll avoid using metaphysical lingo and stick to common sense.

Here's one way to look at it'¦ most people respond to things they like by sharing them with the people they care about. If you read a good book, you will probably recommend it. We do the same thing with restaurants, movies, clothing, you name it. This, to me, is not much different than the desire to share that arises within us when we experience Emptiness/Buddha Nature/Rigpa/Liberation/Etc, only it's on a different scale. The basic idea is that when we discover something that can benefit others in some way, we desire to share it. This way of responding and sharing is part of what I mean by "basic human goodness."

Now, I am in no way putting realization on the level of literature or cuisine. My point is that this is just the way that we conditioned human beings respond to things enjoy and love. I do not think that cognizant emptiness is doing anything other than being what it is.

I could be wrong, though. There could be more to it than this. I'd like hear some other opinions on this topic for the sake of gaining a wider perspective.

~Jackson

"Kenneth: Mazel tov on your new website."-davidcoop99

Thanks, David. It's great to see you here.

"I'm wondering about the idea of being compelled to share whatever it is that cannot be communicated. Compelled by what? How does this work? Are we really compelled to share, or are there some bits of ego in this sharing?" -davidcoop99

I had to laugh when I read this, because I know that you have been selflessly sharing as both a rabbi and a meditation teacher for decades. So, I don't have anything very enlightening to say about this. In fact, it may be that, as humans, we feel compelled to share our experience at every stage of the way. I may be just waxing grandiose to suggest that the need to share has anything to do with enlightenment. As for the question of whether the sharing is motivated by the ego, I would say that seems likely, assuming we want to make the arbitrary distinction between egoic and non-egoic action. This makes sense in the context of the Mahayana vow, in which people vow not to get enlightened until all sentient beings are enlightened. I'm not a Mahayanist, but my understanding is that the vow arises out of the concern that "too much" selflessness is not a good thing, as it leaves everyone else behind to suffer their ignominious collective fate. From this point of view, we should be celebrating the ego! Ha, ha.

Kenneth

"The Tibetan approach is that Bodhichitta arises spontaneously as we touch into rigpa. In doing so, the teaching assumes that the cognizance of emptiness is somehow connected with that compulsion to share, which suggests yet something more that accompanies rigpa than simply a "Knowing" quality." -davidcoop99

I think I see where you are going here. If we say that the moment of rigpa is "simply a 'Knowing' quality,'" we fail to do it justice. I agree without reservation. On the other hand, we fail to do it justice no matter what words we use to point to it...and yet we doggedly continue to point, knowing we are failing, but also knowing that every once in a while someone will look at the moon instead of the finger. And in that moment of overarching success, all of our previous failings are redeemed.

Sometimes I think that when we presume to teach dharma we should be required to run around behind ourselves with little pooper-scoopers and sweep up the mess that we are constantly leaving. Nothing we say could possibly be right. Every once in awhile, you hear someone make the blanket disclaimer that the Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao, etc. And then they go on to talk for hours! That's what I mean when I say we do the best we can with the tools we have...and it's okay. It's better than okay, it's the most good anyone can possibly do while failing so miserably. I think it's important to just keep spouting this nonsense while understanding that it's nonsense. In order to be really meticulous, we should follow every sentence with "and, by the way, it's not really like that at all." But, if we did that, even fewer people would listen and no one would glance at the moon. All right... we soldier on.

"That's one of the first things that occurred to me immediately after I happened upon the state of being called 'rigpa.' I was so blown away, floored, and moved (and so on and so on) -- that afterward, when 'me' arose again, I wanted everyone alive to be able to experience the same thing." -cmarti

Beautiful. So here we have the phenomenon that David and the Tibetans are talking about. When the "me" arose again, it was filled with this desire for "everyone alive to be able to experience the same thing." The moment of rigpa, rather than threatening the small self with extinction, reintegrated the "me" with the rest, at least for a moment. And that precious recognition left behind the perfume of charity.

I believe that human beings are hardwired to communicate important things to other human beings. Being the state of "it" is so monumentally important as far as the little me is concerned that I desire to praise that state of being to others. It opens the universe up to a way of being that was, to me, unexperienced in the life I can recall. No matter how enlightened a human being gets I suspect (but cannot prove, of course) that there are a lot of hardwired parts of us that don't go away. Those are probably the things that evolution built and that we simply cannot rid ourselves of. The desire/need to communicate is, I think, one of those things.

"
From this point of view, we should be celebrating the ego!

Kenneth"

Hello Kenneth:
Delighted to hear from you. Yes, the bodhisattva vows certainly suggest that too much selflessness is not such a great thing the rest of us sentient beings. I just happened to come across a new book in the library entitled OUT OF OUR HEADS, by Alva Noe, yet another book on "consciousness," that admits that with all the studies up to date, we still "don't have a clue" about how consciousness works.

However, his thesis is quite interesting. While the brain and nervous system play significant roles in the workings of consciousness, the rest of the body, the sensory experiences, the environment in which we are in at any moment, the entire gestalt of the setting, all are significant contributors to the unfolding of consciousness, which is not something individual, but rather collective...always! So, from this perspective, we are going to have to return to Freud regarding the ego, for it is not "my" ego, not "my" consciousness, but something that unfolds interactively with everthing else that is unfolding in that moment. So, from this perspective, the idea of "sharing" is a given rather than a choice. That we are "compelled" as it turns out, is almost an oxymoron, for our consciousness is a function of all the shared experiences unfolding in any particular moment.

So when someone, somehow, touches momentarily a vast state that for lack of better words we will call a tap into Primordial Awareness, boom! happens to all consciousness, just like a pebble setting off expanding ripples in a quiet pond.
david

"

Sometimes I think that when we presume to teach dharma we should be required to run around behind ourselves with little pooper-scoopers and sweep up the mess that we are constantly leaving. Nothing we say could possibly be right. "

I had to laugh with the idea of chasing behind ourselves with little pooper-scoopers as this rhymes with cooper the pooper scooper, which was what the kids call me in grammer school, my initiation into the amazing concept of scooping poop. At a recent retreat, a whole crowd of gardeners followed a flock of geese all around the land, scooping great organic material to nurture the robust garden. Oh, I so agree that hardly anything is really like what we think it is, and we do soldier on.

The idea that we fail miserably is, of course, relative. (I laugh as I write this, failing as each word unfolds...) Just as science is amazed that consciousness can arise out of non-consciousness material, we should recognize that "success" is the eventual result of ongoing failure. That is to say, assuming there ever is an end-point we call success...and I think there is, even though it may not be what I think it is in any particular moment.. Still as you point out..."by the way, it's not really like that at all," but there we go...that in itself is a relatively powerful truth statement, one way or another. david

" No matter how enlightened a human being gets I suspect (but cannot prove, of course) that there are a lot of hardwired parts of us that don't go away. Those are probably the things that evolution built and that we simply cannot rid ourselves of. The desire/need to communicate is, I think, one of those things."

hi chris:
Thanks for your comments for being hardwired to communicate important things to others. I agree. I think it is an aspect of survival. It shows up clearly in many aspects of life. So, along the lines of my initial inquiry, I think the Knowing part of emptiness includes many aspects that have evolved, including the need to communicate with other sentient beings. See above in my earlier posting to Kenneth the thesis that what I think is my consciousness is actually not distinct and different from other conscious beings with whom "i" am communicating. Instead, consider that there is a collective consciousness happening, which can be "amplified" through verbalization (itself a considerable modality of inter-consciousness happening.

So, the past 24 hours have shifted my original question into the realization of a different way to approach the idea of "sharing" and consciousness to quite a different level of respecting not just the need but the actuality, in fact, of how we relate to what we think (erroneously) is our own consciousness.

Quoting from the book OUT OF OUR HEADS, "The brain is not the locus of consciousness inside us because consciousness has no locus inside us. Consciousness isn't something that happens inside us: it is something that we do actively, in our dynamic interaction with the world around us."
He goes on to say: "Consciousness is not a thing at all. The brain's job is to enable us to carry on as we do in relation to the world around us. Brain, body and world--each plays a critical role... best, david

Hello, David. You said:

"See above in my earlier posting to Kenneth the thesis that what I think is my consciousness is actually not distinct and different from other conscious beings with whom "i" am communicating. Instead, consider that there is a collective consciousness happening, which can be "amplified" through verbalization (itself a considerable modality of inter-consciousness happening."

I find this to be a fascinating area of investigation. I have for some time felt myself to be no more than a particular view on the world. This view, the lens through which the world is observed, adds to the confusion that there is a separate consciousness when there is not. There is consciousness and it is knowing from the perspective of one particular set of eyes, ears, tastes, thoughts, and so on. But the universe is always being experienced collectively.

- Chris

" There is consciousness and it is knowing from the perspective of one particular set of eyes, ears, tastes, thoughts, and so on. But the universe is always being experienced collectively.

- Chris"

Hi Chris

Yes, I too find this a fascinating area. It is literally "mind blowing," in the sense that rather than view "ourselves" as the focus of a consciousnesss that seems so much to be "ours," we now can alter perspective to the possibility/realization that the total universe IS A MIND EXPERIENCING ITSELF! We confuse ourselves as unique entities when it would seem that we are somehow simply like cells in the collective universal brain/mind (for lack of better words to describe this possibility).

In this context, the idea of "compelled to share" turns out to be an obvious conclusion, for the interdependence is so complex, not to share would be like a brain cell "deciding" to stop doing what it is designed to do. (Of course, when that happens, that is called a "dead" cell. So simply by being alive with the understanding that we are an integral part of the universal mind, everything fits "just so." best, david