Discussion: Haquan's "An Alternative View of the Maps"

By the way Ken, I just want to state clearly that my statement about the 20 strata really has nothing to do with you, your ability to perceive this stuff with clarity, etc.

The problem is with maps in general - they inevitably contain distortions or deletions, and they wouldn't be useful if they didn't. The "One True Map" would actually be the territory, see?

I really like the 6 realms of Tibetan Buddhism - really rings a bell for me. I can see the truth of it - but is it absolutely "true"? It can't be. There are shortcomings to any model - and I think Godel's theorem really does apply here, at least by analogy.

"Alajavijnana or Kunzhi solves many problems and explains many things. It is the answer to the self / no-self debate. It explains karma. Above all, it provides an answer to the main topic of the discussion."

I'm interested to hear how you think it provides an answer.

"Alayavijnana or Kunzhi solves many problems and explains many things. It is the answer to the self / no-self debate. It explains karma. Above all, it provides an answer to the main topic of the discussion.
- I'm interested to hear how you think it provides an answer."

One should write a whole book to explain that. Yogachara Buddhism is the philosophical basis for Dzogchen, Mahumudra and Zen. The main idea is that the aggregate of consciousness is not limited to 6 vijnanas (5 senses and thoughts). It postulates the existence of a 7th consciousness, Manovijnana (similar to what we call 'ego' or sense of 'self') and an 8th consciousness, Alayavijnana.

Alayavijnana is seen as the Matrix that creates the universe and contains the seeds of karma. It is also the unconscious (individual and collective) of modern psychology. Above all, it pervades the other vijnanas (reason why we also call it Buddha-nature present in all sentient beings). It is not a self as it is not a thing but the unborn source of the universe seen as a magical display of the mind. It is also not a no-self, because being unborn -as well as the source of existence- it is eternal. We could say that its essence is Nirvana and its projection Samsara. Two sides of the same coin. You might call is chaos. But is it not raw chaos. It creates tangible and apparently solid worlds as well as more malleable astral planes ruled by the laws of karma within our mind (think about the film "The Matrix" that combines Yogachara Buddhism and Gnosticism in a cyberpunk environment).

If we follow this hypothesis, we can explain many incoherence of Abhidharma as well as the experience of chaos magicians. But it is a vast subject and I am afraid that, without further explanation, it might sound absurd. If you read more about it you will see that it is really fascinating. Of course is it only a philosophical hypothesis based on Asanga and Vasubandhu's insight.

"The problem is with maps in general - they inevitably contain distortions or deletions, and they wouldn't be useful if they didn't. The "One True Map" would actually be the territory, see?"-Haquan

Hi David,

I appreciate your response because it helps me see how thoroughly I failed to make my point. My goal is at once less ambitious and more sweeping than convincing you of anything. There is no One True anything, and the map is not the territory. These assumptions are foundational to this discussion. My aim is rather to plant a seed; I'd like to introduce everyone within earshot to the possibility that the mind is not a chaotic jumble and that we only perceive it that way because we aren't observing it carefully. The map I've drawn up is one way to conceive of the territory. The essential point is this: there is territory to be mapped. If the mind were a chaotic jumble, it would not be possible to map it. Almost any map will do, as long as it is based on systematic exploration of the mind. The map I'm using is my favorite because in addition to my own experience in verifying its utility, I've successfully used it to teach others to become adept at exploring their minds.

(cont)

(cont from above)

The understanding that the mind has a structure of its own that cannot be changed by our imaginings in turn leads to the understanding that we can break our habitual identification with the mind gradually, layer by layer. This is the thesis that Ken Wilber lays out in his Buddhist Geeks interview with Vince Horn. I can't emphasize enough how important this concept is. It is the inherent, stratified nature of the mind that makes developmental enlightenment possible. By objectifying each stratum of mind in turn, beginning with the grossest layer and moving ever toward more subtle layers, we see that we are not our minds. Because the basic structure of mind is finite (there are a finite number of strata), it is possible to become enlightened where enlightenment is defined as the end of the tendency to mistake the mind as self. The mind, with its many layers, each of which can be taken as object and is therefore not 'me,' can be seen for what it is'”an embarrassingly predictable mechanism that churns out responses to input. Having seen this, however, the enlightened person's mind does not cease to operate. It continues to function more or less as before, but without the stickiness of identification.

Nigel's metaphor of freezing into shapes is apt. At the level of the unconditioned, it wouldn't be accurate to say that the mind has structure. Once the subject/object duality has occurred, however, the freezing is a fait d'accompli; a stratified structure has emerged and is operating whether we see it that way or not. Again I point to the human body as analogy; no amount of imagining will change the fact that the body consists of a head, a torso, two arms, and two legs. You may say that you object to that map on experiential or philosophical grounds, but once the subject/object duality emerges in consciousness, your body is as it is.

(cont)

edit: spelling

(cont from above)

Accepting that the mind has a stratified structure is pragmatic and empowering. It gives us the conceptual framework to go beyond the frozen world to a deeper reality. The observable fact that developmental enlightenment in any tradition (or indeed without any tradition) takes place in predictable stages is a clue toward understanding the stratified nature of the mind. The most compelling evidence, however, comes from training in the recognition of the layers of mind themselves, devoid of content. Upon seeing the jhanas arise in invariable order for the umpteenth time and realizing that nothing you can do will change this structure, ideas of mind-as-infinitely-scriptable-chaotic-jumble are no longer compelling.

"I'd like to introduce everyone within earshot to the possibility that the mind is not a chaotic jumble and that we only perceive it that way because we aren't observing it carefully."

There's a point we reach in a practice that gives us confidence that what you are saying, Kenneth, is the truth of the matter. It's both an intellectual understanding and a felt sense. I used to sit and wonder, "How will I ever know I'm getting anywhere? Will I ever get anywhere?" The resolution to these questions lies in the knowing (or Knowing with a capital K) that the mind ihas discernable structure and that we can observe that. Getting to this one point in practice makes a huge difference.

But that's what you said already.

"I can't emphasize enough how important this concept is. It is the inherent, stratified nature of the mind that makes developmental enlightenment possible. By objectifying each stratum of mind in turn, beginning with the grossest layer and moving ever toward more subtle layers, we see that we are not our minds. Because the basic structure of mind is finite (there are a finite number of strata), it is possible to become enlightened where enlightenment is defined as the end of the tendency to mistake the mind as self."

!!!

thank you!

thanks!!!!!!

dharma!

"I'd like to introduce everyone within earshot to the possibility that the mind is not a chaotic jumble and that we only perceive it that way because we aren't observing it carefully..... At the level of the unconditioned, it wouldn't be accurate to say that the mind has structure."

For the record, I have not here or anywhere claimed that the mind is a chaotic jumble. Also for the record, I'd like to point out that the term "Chaos" in the original Greek meant literally a "yawn" or "gap" through which the universe sprang forth (familiar anyone?).

When I say that I think the mind has implicit structure, I'd like to clarify what I mean by that term. I mean the space inside a vessel which makes it useful, the squinches of a cathedral, what's *not* there. In the case of the 20 strata, when I consider this, I think, well, what's *between* the strata? There would be 15 transitions, or liminal states, little bardos... What are the relationships across the strata? etc. What are the temporal relationships, why is this a static structure?

The other important bit is that I personally can not confirm that the mind is finite, and have no reason to believe so. In fact, there seems to be some corroboration from Daniel's account of the Samatha jhanas - and his discovery of the "pure land jhanas" along with his speculation that there might be an infinite progression - just as easily parallel jhanas or strange loops.

I agree that the idea that the mind can be mapped means something interesting though, and that starts to get at the implicit structure (what chaos originally referred to). In fact, the Void is a kind of universal web of implicit connections and spaces between.

"" The essential point is this: there is territory to be mapped. If the mind were a chaotic jumble, it would not be possible to map it. Almost any map will do, as long as it is based on systematic exploration of the mind. ""

Well now that I look more closely, I see that we are generally in agreement (though we probably differ on some fine points). It's just that you are more impressed by the fact that the mind can be mapped at all, while I'm more impressed by the idea that not only can the mind be mapped, ALMOST ANY MAP WILL DO!

By the way, I am not merely theorizing here, but have confirmed this extensively, over many years by using different maps, making my own maps, and no maps - and actually finding ways to test the hypothesis. Granted, some of my intentions were not directed towards self-development or the ultimate end of enlightenment - and I'll be the first to proclaim that intent makes a huge difference - but I did have a genuine curiosity and attempted to explore and analyze my experiences extensively and impartially. Point is, I'm more adept at absorption states than anything else. So that's the limits of me as an instrument. I do think I hit some fruitions in the past, and yeah - I can see that as a kind of absolute limit to experience, but I wasn't either aware that stages existed, or that I was going through them... So...

All I can say about my general thesis is, try it out, and see if I'm not right. The only way I know to do this is to paradigm shift, and that's what you all would have to do to confirm this.

In a certain way, none of this makes much of a practical difference if you are only interested in getting enlightened personally. If you know this, you pick a system and you work it. But in another way, it makes a big difference - because it means that the right teacher is more important than the system you pick. Cont...

It also means that there are powerful ways that you could leverage your insight at any particular stage of your chosen map, that I would be happy to discuss with you.

If you are interested in teaching others, understanding the meta-processes at work could be helpful in unexpected ways - we'll have to see what emerges.

See, doing this for so many years - when all I did for several years is explore different maps and systems, finding what was common to them, finding correspondences, and then noting that often that there were NOT good correspondences, and sometimes crucial differences... and seeing the arbitrary nature of a good bit of it ---
has made me uber-Zen-like in my approach. For me it seems more important to view experience directly, without the medium of maps

Hi David,

Lots of things I'd like to discuss with you, but I must put it off until tomorrow night as I have an early wake-up in the morning. Meanwhile, if you'll read my page on the 3-Speed Transmission, I think it will provide even more fodder for discussion in addition to showing you where you and I already have common ground.

kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/page/The+...e+Speed+Transmission

Last thing for tonight: Daniel did not "discover" the Pureland jhanas; I taught them to him, as I taught him the maps of the jhanas and ñanas and the techniques for experiencing them. More later, sorry for the cliff hanger.

Kenneth

edit: added link

"
Last thing for tonight: Daniel did not "discover" the Pureland jhanas; I taught them to him, as I taught him the maps of the jhanas and ñanas and the techniques for experiencing them. More later, sorry for the cliff hanger.


"

I beg your pardon, sir. Do go on...

Right now the universe is laughing.

"
Right now the universe is laughing.

"

Oh it always seems to be doing that in my World - I hardly even notice anymore...

When I do, I always tell myself that the universe is actually laughing *with* me...

Anyway, go on, Kenneth, I'm interested.

You know, I just spent some time reading some of the material that Kenneth has put up regarding the stages of insight. It's definitely some of the best stuff I've read on this material.

It almost makes me regret I brought any of this stuff up. Thinking of things in terms of being a "physio-energetic process" is indeed both comforting and empowering - and also, most importantly, it should not only work, but expedite the process (though the cycles sound a bit annoying)... It's almost better "not to begin" to ask who the little man behind the curtain is. But once begun, it is better to finish.

For purposes of actually working the system, I recommend fully investing belief in the idea of a physio-energetic process, and forgetting about all this.

Me - I'm a special case. I'm compelled to try to see through to the primary reality, and for me, it's not a hindrance.

In a certain way, viewing the "physio-energetic" process as an experiential metaphor for something more akin to archetypal individuation doesn't make it any less concrete or predictable - it just seems that way initially. I would be the last to argue with the utility of the energy model - but I think the literal acceptance of it has created an almost insurmountable barrier to the acceptance of spiritual and magical technologies by the scientific community. I believe that "energy" is an emergent phenomenon of consciousness itself - with a quasi-existence rather like spirits - and therefore, it will never be detected until a device is created that can detect consciousness.

I believe that this synthesis between scientific thought and spiritual technologies is vital to our survival as a species. Science, while it has provided an explicit understanding of many things, and has improved our quality of life, has completely failed to address the basic problems of human existence.

In re Science & spiritual technologies: I recommend, Haquan, that you get and read Susan Blackmore's book "Ten Zen Questions." It is a home run if you believe that science and mysticism need to cooperate. Personally, I think they meet up somewhere. We human beings just haven't figured out where -- yet.

Haquan, I really hear what you're saying.

I'm not surprised that you resonate with the ocnept of the alaya vijnana. It seems to be in the same line as your view.

So many things depend upont he current circumstances, conditionsa nd development of the person.

There is really no way to guarantee another person's interpretation or experience of a concept that has been communicated (apart from making that concept virtually irrelevant to the person's subjective experience).

I don't experience these guidelines/teachings as dogma or doctrines to be believed. I experience them as invitations and also as something like guardrails. (That's just my own experience.)

The experience of seeing. So immediate and so profound. This activity and play of awareness. There is no need to reduce it to dogma.

All types of metaphors can be used.

Yet the metaphor will ultimately be deconstructed. The point is not to tell an interesting story about something. I'd hope not. What alot of effort just to be able to tell an interesting story.

Well, I'm out of my depth here.

Time to stop.

"I believe that "energy" is an emergent phenomenon of consciousness itself - with a quasi-existence rather like spirits - and therefore, it will never be detected until a device is created that can detect consciousness.

"I believe that this synthesis between scientific thought and spiritual technologies is vital to our survival as a species. Science, while it has provided an explicit understanding of many things, and has improved our quality of life, has completely failed to address the basic problems of human existence." -David (haquan)

Brilliant.

"Personally, I think [science and mysticism] meet up somewhere. We human beings just haven't figured out where -- yet." -Chris (cmarti)

Wonderful.

"The experience of seeing. So immediate and so profound. This activity and play of awareness. There is no need to reduce it to dogma. All types of metaphors can be used. Yet the metaphor will ultimately be deconstructed." -Nigel

Yes!

Thank you, Nigel, Chris, and David, for sharing the depth of your insight on this forum. It's an honor and a privilege to discuss these matters with you.

Kenneth

"Me - I'm a special case. I'm compelled to try to see through to the primary reality, and for me, it's not a hindrance.
."


"Our conscious motivations, ideas, and beliefs are a blend of false information, biases, irrational passions, rationalizations, prejudices, in which morsels of truth swim around and give the reassurance albeit false, that the whole mixture is real and true. The thinking processes attempt to organize this whole cesspool of illusions according to the laws of plausibility. This level of consciousness is supposed to reflect reality; it is the map we use for organizing our life. "
-Erich Fromm,

So the truth be a hindrance ... perhaps in words it just gets too differcult to find expression without proper foundation.

Kenneth; thanks for putting this on the forum, and Haquan thanks for you detailed responses.

"
"Our conscious motivations, ideas, and beliefs are a blend of false information, biases, irrational passions, rationalizations, prejudices, in which morsels of truth swim around and give the reassurance albeit false, that the whole mixture is real and true. The thinking processes attempt to organize this whole cesspool of illusions according to the laws of plausibility. This level of consciousness is supposed to reflect reality; it is the map we use for organizing our life. "
-Erich Fromm,

So the truth be a hindrance ... perhaps in words it just gets too differcult to find expression without proper foundation.

"

Great quote, and good point.

One thing I can say is that I tend to do all this theorizing from an outside point of view. When I actually try to learn a system, I banish all disbelief in it's literal reality and try to learn it as it is presented, from it's own point of view. To do otherwise doesn't give enough credit to it's authenticity and is ethnocentric. I'm pretty used to this approach and good at it, and my beliefs are quite malleable - I can step into and out of worldviews fluidly after having trained to do it.

That's why it's not a hindrance to me. I tend to think there are two different modes of belief - pragmatic, and epistemic. Pragmatically it's better to believe concretely and literally in a given system of development. From an epistemic point of view, one attempt to deconstruct the systems one just acquired to get at the underlying reality (in order to deepen understanding of all such systems, and create technical improvements)

Actually, I'm doing this with the jhanas right now.

"Pragmatically it's better to believe concretely and literally in a given system of development.
"

I agree with what I have quoted above, if you are looking for a particular experience or state. From an insight perspectiove pragmatically there is no need to know all possible states and experiences because there is no right one. All states and experiences are of the same "stuff" and an experience or state IS this "stuff". Kenneth's 3 gears is a progression for the "stuff" to know itself and align with "no stuff". So for insight it it pragmatic to immerse onself and believe concretely theses are all just appearances one and the same. With the conditioned there is no blank slate and there is a starting point. As a starting point Kenneth's 3 gears model is accessable to most with little baggage, but in another sense these things take a course of their own and there is no right way. People consider these things from where they are, and as such there are a many traditions that are aligned with the source. This is a point I take from the many individual paths and at least part of what you have presented.

I just saw this, and thought it was very relevant to the subject of this thread:

Thanks, Haquan, for bringing up this topic. I think of chaos magick as a stance rather than a full featured
philosophy, and I do define myself as much a Chaos Magician as Buddhist. A Chao-Buddhist!
In my view Chaos Magick is a cluster of attitudes towards magick and spirituality mixed with a few techniques.
At the center of these attitudes is the proposition that it is the structure of belief rather than the content that is
determinative in any magickal or spiritual undertaking. The Chaos Magician is willing to adopt any belief
system that will plausibly create the result she is seeking. But the stance, and I use the words in
the sense common to martial arts, is fundamentally neutral, even empty. The ground state of the Chaos
Magician is empty of belief and hopefully, even of self. The maxim of Chaos Magick, a confrontative statement
that inspires considerable bile in its critics, is: Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted. However this statement is
abused in practice it does refer to a refusal to believe in absolutes and the proposition that all belief
systems are equally valid to the extent which they get the job done. My initial enthusiasm in encountering Daniel's
book came from a since modified assumption that Daniel was primarily interested in a results oriented series of
meditative techniques, an orientation that was certainly a breath of fresh air compared the vagueness that surrounds
much of the conversation about meditation, Buddhist or otherwise. CONTINUED IN NEXT POST

Yet what I sense is that beliefs about the maps
of the Progress of Insight are closely held, and so fundamental that they appear to be intrinsic to the self identities of
practitioners. Enlightenment, a state of being that among most Buddhists is considered indescribable (being beyond
language), but very definitely asserted to entail freedom from suffering, is reduced to a far narrower and describable
event resulting from technical accomplishment of meditative states. Strange assertions that Buddhism is limited because
limited model enlightenment has not freed practitioners from suffering have been heard on DhO, and elsewhere . I suggest
that a more useful attitude, and one that would avoid the quite evident pain of disappointment that some self-described
arahants manifest, would be to recognize that the limited model of enlightenment is a technical accomplishment,
achievement of which is both powerful and transformative but is not the complete, unequalled and indescribable state
of freedom achieved by Gautama Buddha. If, on the contrary, the Buddha's enlightenment was limited, it
isn't particularly useful to believe that because this belief causes toxic effects. Kenneth suggests the vertical
and horizontal metaphor used by Ken Wilbur as a solution to this problem, but I wonder if there's not a more
serious problem with the adoption of hierarchies of goals. Hierarchies of goals create hierarchies of needs which increase
craving. I would prefer to regard the spiritual path as a series of unfolding revelations rather than the more linear hierarchy
of progress leading to the rather unfortunately phrased state of being "done". At least then I don't have to wonder why, being
"done", I may still be unhappy.

- Mark