It seems that being required to purchase a new computer has lured me back to my long deserted blog. I can't explain why exact but so be it! I will try again share my psychic space with all who are bored enough to follow along.
While perusing previously highlighted portions of Alan Clements book, Instinct For Freedom, I ran across two quotes - one his and the other by Martin Luther King - that were some 20 pages apart but rang my eureka-bell. I have always had a difficult time finding a clear understanding of Dr. Kings statement but when I read both in closer proximity to one another....well let me try to explain.
Clements wrote, "As the theory goes, freeing the mind of one's primordial ignorance is considered a great act of compassion." A personal note in the margin said, "Think about why?" And immediately I remembered reading, some minutes earlier, the statement by Martin Luther King. "All persons are tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly....I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be, and you can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be. This is the interrelated structure of reality."
First let's think about the idea of primordial ignorance. I have come to recognize that our most basic ignorance, or simply - our failure - is to readily see that life is never alone. That is, all that we commonly refer to as life is not a group of individual, separate and unique, items that exist unconnected to one another. Life is a living tapestry - or as Dr. King wrote, a "single garment." And as a result the destiny of each, apparently separate, individual (or thread) in that tapestry is affected by every other thread. Each thread, each living organism in that cosmic tapestry is inexplicably connected to every other organism. We each happen to be but one such thread; a biologically dependent, myth-making mammal in a vast universe of living, interconnected, diversity. Each act by any thread in the garment (through what we know as cause and effect) impacts, directly and indirectly, each thread in the garment. And our primordial ignorance is the biochemical constitution that makes seeing this fact not only counter-intuitive but, confusing and very difficult to imagine and accept.
It is for this reason that freeing the mind of this ignorance is to be considered a great act of compassion. It is an act that requires choice and a determined, intentional effort to pull back the shroud of our own ignorance in order to achieve the compassion that awaits our labor. And if we recognize that we are part of this enormous, living, interconnected process of life and death, and that what we can become is forever intertwined with others - and others with me - like the threads of a vast tapestry of all different colors, shapes, and sizes -- then and only then can I become all that I am able to be; that is the destiny of which he spoke.
And it is the very nature of this process that eludes us and imprisons us within the confines of our biological heritage. Our freedom however is not impossible to achieve. Just as many wise men and women have noted, the world is created by each of us within our minds. And the key is the freeing of our minds from the ignorance that plagues us all. It does, as always, begin with me. For I can't change others directly. I can only change myself directly but when I do, there is an indirect affect on all who I interact with, as stated by Dr. King --"whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly."
So, I am left with, once again another moment of clarity that will surely slip from my awareness once more, as I continue to struggle to see the mountain that is no longer a mountain and bring it back to my everyday vision of my world and the interrelated structure of reality.
April 20, 2014
August 9, 2013
Who am I?
Who
am I? Actually the better question is "what" is this "I" that Bob is so attached to?
Back in 2011 I besieged your mind with an inquiry in order to articulate the process by which the self is born. Today I would like to restate my position in a far more concise fashion. I've been away for some time and perhaps this will jump start a new era (era?) of journaling. That said I give you the latest articulation on "who" or "what" I am.
“I” am named Bob. And Bob is an impermanent, evolving aggregate, born within a specific sequence of DNA, which includes
an experiential history, which is comprised of actions and outcomes, which are interpreted and reinforced by self-referential
dialogue.
September 26, 2011
A Dialogue
The following dialogue was excerpted from an ongoing communication with a friend in Asheville wherein we joust back and forth on any number of topics. For clarity I offer it with my friends comments highlighted and MY REPLYs noted as such.
I think a major difficulty in accepting that Nirvana is here and now is that if one takes this seriously, one is likely to respond: “Yikes! You mean this is it? There ain't nuthin' else? What a disappointment!” I read someone write that spiritual practice represents a mental sickness and the role of the teacher is to show the student that his/her practice is useless and the only thing keeping the student from enlightenment is the student's very thinking that there is such a thing as enlightenment.
MY REPLY: I am in 100% agreement that this is a situation that arises quite often. It doesn’t mean that one ceases to practice, but rather that they realize that their grasping after an end result, making it something “out there,” only causes them to miss the experience itself.
I’m fairly sure I wrote this sometime in the past but my realization about this issue was when I was driving down a long stretch of highway in which there was no street-illumination, and the distance I was traveling consisted of many long, gradual curves. It was late at night and I could see the reflection of city lights rising up from the horizon against the dark sky. At some point I realized that if I maintained my sight on the lights along my circuitous path, I would surely find myself careening off the highway into a tree or at least some remote part of the countryside. That I needed to keep my eye on the road itself in order to safely achieve my goal, became apparent. Luckily this experience was not lost in relation to other parts of my life.
The manner in which the Master expressed his teaching was extreme and lends itself to rejection, but the truth remains. If I ignore the present and focus on my goal at the expense of the present, moment to moment process, I am likely to forever miss the desired end.
That's one valid point of view though it sounds a little cynical to me.
MY REPLY: I don’t think it is cynical at all. It speaks to the fact that if I am so intent on arriving at some pre-ordained state or place, I will miss the process or steps that actually lead me there, as expressed in “to travel hopefully is a better thing than to arrive and the true success is in the labor.” – Robert L Stevenson.
The reason this is true in Bob-ism, is that what Nirvana is, is a state of mind - or "be-ing" if you will - a be-ing that is manifested here and now, not there and then. It is one of the beautiful, subtle truths that are pointed to in the seemingly arcane and paradoxical teachings in Zen.
That Nirvana is here and now: one reads that from time to time. To me it sounds a little like the Christians who say that Heaven is here; we just have to open our eyes.
MY REPLY: I believe that those two statements are identical even though they are from such dissimilar ideologies. They mean the exact same thing to me.
Or that all you need to do to be saved is to accept that you're saved.
MY REPLY:Well, if we are able to see that what we understand as our life arises from our attitudes, and thoughts about it, then it’s ontologically reasonable. If you believe you are saved, since there is no overt proof of such an assertion being possible (a matter of faith), then your believing trumps all.
They all have the same logic and maybe they're all true.
MY REPLY: I’m not sure about what you mean by “we all have the same logic?” If that were true we wouldn’t argue with the logic some people use to explain those ideas we determine to be in opposition to our own???
How can Nirvana be here and now and also not be here and now?
MY REPLY: If nirvana is not interpreted as a static location outside the mind, but rather a posture, here and now - resulting from the extinction of the root cause of whatever our dis-ease may be (say, grasping-after or non-acceptance) - we will have an opportunity to see clearly the path to liberation in this life.
My statement implies that the goal, in this case Nirvana or Heaven, is not here for me in this moment since I am being told to do something in order for it to be manifested at some point. And if we remember that there is no tomorrow but rather just Now, then arriving at the place where Nirvana/Heavens reward arises in my life, it too will be Now. So it is achievable in the here and now, and at the same time I do not have it here and now because I am in the process of achieving it. When the object is found, the search ends, and this will always be Now. The way this is understood in Bob-ism is as follows.
If we are able to understand Nirvana/Heaven as a new way of being-in-the-world, wherein we embrace or absorb the impact of the constant flow of data upon our senses with emotional and intellectual equanimity (the distinguishing characteristic of nirvana), we will be without judgment (attraction or aversion) and our suffering/dissatisfaction will be extinguished (to the limited degree possible for a physical being).
This equanimity requires us to see deeply into the connection between four very important truths about our existence - Impermanence, Emptiness, No-self, and Dependent-Arising - and how they are manifested in our everyday life. Or in the words of Christmas Humphreys in his book, A Western Approach to Zen, (pg.182), “Zen does not deliver us from the conditions of manifestation; it enables us to deal with them efficiently."
Nirvana, samsara, enlightenment – all these are illusions created by our dualistic mental processes. They are illusions in the sense that there is no separate, identifiable essence inherent in them (unless one chooses to identify this essence as their referents). They are as “fingers pointing to the moon” – thoughts or ideas that represent something, and in this case, a process; a path out of the woods. “Posture is everything.” - Japanese Zen master, Shunryu Suzuki.
So I think this explains what seems to be an unacceptable paradox. Nirvana or enlightenment are not places, so in that sense they don’t exist, they are illusory notions. However, at the same time they are achievable postures with which we embrace the ever-changing onslaught of experiences that assail us as we go through our lives in each present moment. In doing so, we find that an emotional and intellectual “middle ground” can be achieved in the Now. And when we reach this middle ground and it becomes our of way of relating to the world as presented to us, we will no longer be thinking, feeling, and acting from the previous perspective. Thus I hear the sages advice to “be the change you want to see in the world, and your world will change.”
And in order to comment on this difference or change, we will have to step out of the present perspective in order to objectify it. They can now be seen as two separate realms, realities, or whatever term suits one’s way of ordering one’s experiences. But the entire process is achieved in this present lifetime.
Now this is just the tip of the iceberg, but suffice it to say that it is achieved in the “here and now.” One must not get caught in the trap of thinking that by “here and now,” one should expect to have an instantaneous liberation. The reference to here and now is intended to counter the idea of after-life acquisition and to help us stay focused on this existence, and to work diligently.
Just as when tomorrow comes it will always be here and now, today - so it is not an “is that all there is” situation as you alluded to earlier. But rather, it is a journey wherein one changes gradually as a result of the effort put forth until one suddenly realizes there are changes that he/she didn’t notice as their practice proceeded. It is just another answer to the previously noted comments by teachers about not focusing on some idea or evaluative understanding of enlightenment or nirvana or heaven, but to just practice with one’s nose firmly entrenched in the present.
What are we really meaning here? That one “enters” Nirvana if one just drops all one's hang-ups and anxieties?
MY REPLY: First, the term "enter" is misleading as you may have surmised by what I’ve suggested above. There is no need to consider entering something that is always present. In this case it presents as a “possibility,” if one lives through an appropriate practice.
And second, if one always thinks in simple terms likes hang-ups and anxieties instead of focusing on the actual work to be done involving a deeper understanding of Impermanence, No-self, Emptiness, and Contingent-Arising as they specifically relate to one’s life - as well as daily experiences wherein we attempt to nurture the ideas of Compassion and Tolerance, and attempt to become more experientially aware of our own Grasping, Aversion, Judging, Anger, and Fear (just a cursory list) - it will all remain rhetorical. To focus on terms like “hang-ups” and “anxieties,” while they are colloquially acceptable, they are also dismissive of the depth and value of what is pointed to with the use of the terms mentioned above.
I think a major difficulty in accepting that Nirvana is here and now is that if one takes this seriously, one is likely to respond: “Yikes! You mean this is it? There ain't nuthin' else? What a disappointment!” I read someone write that spiritual practice represents a mental sickness and the role of the teacher is to show the student that his/her practice is useless and the only thing keeping the student from enlightenment is the student's very thinking that there is such a thing as enlightenment.
MY REPLY: I am in 100% agreement that this is a situation that arises quite often. It doesn’t mean that one ceases to practice, but rather that they realize that their grasping after an end result, making it something “out there,” only causes them to miss the experience itself.
I’m fairly sure I wrote this sometime in the past but my realization about this issue was when I was driving down a long stretch of highway in which there was no street-illumination, and the distance I was traveling consisted of many long, gradual curves. It was late at night and I could see the reflection of city lights rising up from the horizon against the dark sky. At some point I realized that if I maintained my sight on the lights along my circuitous path, I would surely find myself careening off the highway into a tree or at least some remote part of the countryside. That I needed to keep my eye on the road itself in order to safely achieve my goal, became apparent. Luckily this experience was not lost in relation to other parts of my life.
The manner in which the Master expressed his teaching was extreme and lends itself to rejection, but the truth remains. If I ignore the present and focus on my goal at the expense of the present, moment to moment process, I am likely to forever miss the desired end.
That's one valid point of view though it sounds a little cynical to me.
MY REPLY: I don’t think it is cynical at all. It speaks to the fact that if I am so intent on arriving at some pre-ordained state or place, I will miss the process or steps that actually lead me there, as expressed in “to travel hopefully is a better thing than to arrive and the true success is in the labor.” – Robert L Stevenson.
The reason this is true in Bob-ism, is that what Nirvana is, is a state of mind - or "be-ing" if you will - a be-ing that is manifested here and now, not there and then. It is one of the beautiful, subtle truths that are pointed to in the seemingly arcane and paradoxical teachings in Zen.
That Nirvana is here and now: one reads that from time to time. To me it sounds a little like the Christians who say that Heaven is here; we just have to open our eyes.
MY REPLY: I believe that those two statements are identical even though they are from such dissimilar ideologies. They mean the exact same thing to me.
Or that all you need to do to be saved is to accept that you're saved.
MY REPLY:Well, if we are able to see that what we understand as our life arises from our attitudes, and thoughts about it, then it’s ontologically reasonable. If you believe you are saved, since there is no overt proof of such an assertion being possible (a matter of faith), then your believing trumps all.
They all have the same logic and maybe they're all true.
MY REPLY: I’m not sure about what you mean by “we all have the same logic?” If that were true we wouldn’t argue with the logic some people use to explain those ideas we determine to be in opposition to our own???
How can Nirvana be here and now and also not be here and now?
MY REPLY: If nirvana is not interpreted as a static location outside the mind, but rather a posture, here and now - resulting from the extinction of the root cause of whatever our dis-ease may be (say, grasping-after or non-acceptance) - we will have an opportunity to see clearly the path to liberation in this life.
My statement implies that the goal, in this case Nirvana or Heaven, is not here for me in this moment since I am being told to do something in order for it to be manifested at some point. And if we remember that there is no tomorrow but rather just Now, then arriving at the place where Nirvana/Heavens reward arises in my life, it too will be Now. So it is achievable in the here and now, and at the same time I do not have it here and now because I am in the process of achieving it. When the object is found, the search ends, and this will always be Now. The way this is understood in Bob-ism is as follows.
If we are able to understand Nirvana/Heaven as a new way of being-in-the-world, wherein we embrace or absorb the impact of the constant flow of data upon our senses with emotional and intellectual equanimity (the distinguishing characteristic of nirvana), we will be without judgment (attraction or aversion) and our suffering/dissatisfaction will be extinguished (to the limited degree possible for a physical being).
This equanimity requires us to see deeply into the connection between four very important truths about our existence - Impermanence, Emptiness, No-self, and Dependent-Arising - and how they are manifested in our everyday life. Or in the words of Christmas Humphreys in his book, A Western Approach to Zen, (pg.182), “Zen does not deliver us from the conditions of manifestation; it enables us to deal with them efficiently."
Nirvana, samsara, enlightenment – all these are illusions created by our dualistic mental processes. They are illusions in the sense that there is no separate, identifiable essence inherent in them (unless one chooses to identify this essence as their referents). They are as “fingers pointing to the moon” – thoughts or ideas that represent something, and in this case, a process; a path out of the woods. “Posture is everything.” - Japanese Zen master, Shunryu Suzuki.
So I think this explains what seems to be an unacceptable paradox. Nirvana or enlightenment are not places, so in that sense they don’t exist, they are illusory notions. However, at the same time they are achievable postures with which we embrace the ever-changing onslaught of experiences that assail us as we go through our lives in each present moment. In doing so, we find that an emotional and intellectual “middle ground” can be achieved in the Now. And when we reach this middle ground and it becomes our of way of relating to the world as presented to us, we will no longer be thinking, feeling, and acting from the previous perspective. Thus I hear the sages advice to “be the change you want to see in the world, and your world will change.”
And in order to comment on this difference or change, we will have to step out of the present perspective in order to objectify it. They can now be seen as two separate realms, realities, or whatever term suits one’s way of ordering one’s experiences. But the entire process is achieved in this present lifetime.
Now this is just the tip of the iceberg, but suffice it to say that it is achieved in the “here and now.” One must not get caught in the trap of thinking that by “here and now,” one should expect to have an instantaneous liberation. The reference to here and now is intended to counter the idea of after-life acquisition and to help us stay focused on this existence, and to work diligently.
Just as when tomorrow comes it will always be here and now, today - so it is not an “is that all there is” situation as you alluded to earlier. But rather, it is a journey wherein one changes gradually as a result of the effort put forth until one suddenly realizes there are changes that he/she didn’t notice as their practice proceeded. It is just another answer to the previously noted comments by teachers about not focusing on some idea or evaluative understanding of enlightenment or nirvana or heaven, but to just practice with one’s nose firmly entrenched in the present.
What are we really meaning here? That one “enters” Nirvana if one just drops all one's hang-ups and anxieties?
MY REPLY: First, the term "enter" is misleading as you may have surmised by what I’ve suggested above. There is no need to consider entering something that is always present. In this case it presents as a “possibility,” if one lives through an appropriate practice.
And second, if one always thinks in simple terms likes hang-ups and anxieties instead of focusing on the actual work to be done involving a deeper understanding of Impermanence, No-self, Emptiness, and Contingent-Arising as they specifically relate to one’s life - as well as daily experiences wherein we attempt to nurture the ideas of Compassion and Tolerance, and attempt to become more experientially aware of our own Grasping, Aversion, Judging, Anger, and Fear (just a cursory list) - it will all remain rhetorical. To focus on terms like “hang-ups” and “anxieties,” while they are colloquially acceptable, they are also dismissive of the depth and value of what is pointed to with the use of the terms mentioned above.
August 12, 2011
The Ultimate Parasite
On one of my daily walks I found a caterpillar furiously trekking toward the other side of the driveway. As most children do, I bent down and used a small stick to alter his journey and before long he had turned completely around and was headed off the driveway into the grass. I continued my daily Medicare stroll, and as is often the case, a thought whispered that I might have saved a life by this little redirection; perhaps to metamorphose into a beautiful butterfly, or become food for another in the cycle of life. And before long, just as if it were a dream, my train of thought switched to human existence and the delusional webs we weave as explanations for life.
Mankind is the only animal we know of with the ability to imagine a past and a future. This ability has served us well and has great benefit in the present. However, it brings with it a dark side in the form of anxiety, fear, and greed which gives birth to anger, wars, and all forms of myopic behavior. For instance, we have behind us centuries of religious texts that posit man as the “ultimate animal” anointed by god or gods, as the rightful heir to the thrown of the almighty. Few are willing to recognize that we are actually just another parasite here on our "third rock from the sun.”
I’m not suggesting that this isn’t rational for us. It seems quite logical given the brain we have to work with; the one which is responsible for everything we imagine or experience. It’s miraculous in its own right; but seriously compromised as well. In the words of Alexander Pope we are the animal “created half to rise, and half to fall; great lord of all things, yet prey to all.” And it is my belief that we, as a species are continually “falling” short on using what would seem to be our greatest asset: reason. Century after century we seem unable to look inside our own attitudes, fears, and greed, in order to recognize our true nature; parasites in a world wherein we truly are the “intellectual" lords over all. Yet we seem unable to act in accord with our position.
There is the concept of Contingent (or Mutual) Arising which informs a real and in my mind, accurate description of existence. Simply stated it posits that all things arise only in conjunction with conditions that precede it. Nothing appears on its own or unconnected. No thing arises from nothing. All of existence is contingent upon conditions that form the ground out of which all things arise. It is a statement of process, not miraculous appearance. It eliminates any rational argument regarding First Cause for those who find the whole issue beyond an ability to conceive of without falling back on anthropomorphic rhetoric.
So let’s examine the connection between this idea that all things are connected in a “continual web of creation” in which each contingency is further connected to other causes or conditions, and the idea that the human being is a parasitic entity. But first let’s be clear about what I mean by the term parasite. Normally the term brings to mind all sorts of frightening creatures. But I want to let go of these characterizations and ask to what the term really refers. What does the term parasite mean?
One such definition is an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment. And just so we don’t get sidetracked at the beginning, allow me to identify the human being as an organism, and further defined as “a form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes.” I hope there is no confusion in stating that we are a form of life so composed. I would suggest that as this human organism we:
1) Live on and within the mutually interdependent parts/species of our physical world.
2) That it would be accurate to refer to our physical world as our “host.”
3) And that all the nutrients that sustain human life come from this host.
So as an organism we have met the criteria for being parasites. That is, we exist by and through the very process that defines parasitic activity.
There is another definition for parasite that I believe is worth noting. It states: a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.
I call attention to the part of this definition which states that after receiving support or advantage they do so without giving any useful or proper return. This is an interesting distinction that can be made concerning the human being and sets us apart from all other forms of life that flourish.
We tend to believe ourselves to be the “great lord of all things” and in our taking, we have convinced ourselves that we needn’t be part of the symbiotic relationships in life. We take and use until there is depletion, extinction, or destruction; and our minds are so deluded by myth that we believe it our right to do so.
I think it would behoove us to recognize that life will survive without us. And it occurs to me that it may have to eliminate us in order to do so. The parasite that doesn’t give back to the process that supports it, will be eliminated……that seems to be the real “great lord of all things.”
Or in the words of Stephen Batchelor, "In dissolving this view through a vision of the world as a dynamic and interrelated whole of which we are an integral part, we are likewise freed to engage with the world afresh.” ---Buddhism Without Beliefs.
Mankind is the only animal we know of with the ability to imagine a past and a future. This ability has served us well and has great benefit in the present. However, it brings with it a dark side in the form of anxiety, fear, and greed which gives birth to anger, wars, and all forms of myopic behavior. For instance, we have behind us centuries of religious texts that posit man as the “ultimate animal” anointed by god or gods, as the rightful heir to the thrown of the almighty. Few are willing to recognize that we are actually just another parasite here on our "third rock from the sun.”
I’m not suggesting that this isn’t rational for us. It seems quite logical given the brain we have to work with; the one which is responsible for everything we imagine or experience. It’s miraculous in its own right; but seriously compromised as well. In the words of Alexander Pope we are the animal “created half to rise, and half to fall; great lord of all things, yet prey to all.” And it is my belief that we, as a species are continually “falling” short on using what would seem to be our greatest asset: reason. Century after century we seem unable to look inside our own attitudes, fears, and greed, in order to recognize our true nature; parasites in a world wherein we truly are the “intellectual" lords over all. Yet we seem unable to act in accord with our position.
There is the concept of Contingent (or Mutual) Arising which informs a real and in my mind, accurate description of existence. Simply stated it posits that all things arise only in conjunction with conditions that precede it. Nothing appears on its own or unconnected. No thing arises from nothing. All of existence is contingent upon conditions that form the ground out of which all things arise. It is a statement of process, not miraculous appearance. It eliminates any rational argument regarding First Cause for those who find the whole issue beyond an ability to conceive of without falling back on anthropomorphic rhetoric.
So let’s examine the connection between this idea that all things are connected in a “continual web of creation” in which each contingency is further connected to other causes or conditions, and the idea that the human being is a parasitic entity. But first let’s be clear about what I mean by the term parasite. Normally the term brings to mind all sorts of frightening creatures. But I want to let go of these characterizations and ask to what the term really refers. What does the term parasite mean?
One such definition is an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment. And just so we don’t get sidetracked at the beginning, allow me to identify the human being as an organism, and further defined as “a form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes.” I hope there is no confusion in stating that we are a form of life so composed. I would suggest that as this human organism we:
1) Live on and within the mutually interdependent parts/species of our physical world.
2) That it would be accurate to refer to our physical world as our “host.”
3) And that all the nutrients that sustain human life come from this host.
So as an organism we have met the criteria for being parasites. That is, we exist by and through the very process that defines parasitic activity.
There is another definition for parasite that I believe is worth noting. It states: a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.
I call attention to the part of this definition which states that after receiving support or advantage they do so without giving any useful or proper return. This is an interesting distinction that can be made concerning the human being and sets us apart from all other forms of life that flourish.
We tend to believe ourselves to be the “great lord of all things” and in our taking, we have convinced ourselves that we needn’t be part of the symbiotic relationships in life. We take and use until there is depletion, extinction, or destruction; and our minds are so deluded by myth that we believe it our right to do so.
I think it would behoove us to recognize that life will survive without us. And it occurs to me that it may have to eliminate us in order to do so. The parasite that doesn’t give back to the process that supports it, will be eliminated……that seems to be the real “great lord of all things.”
Or in the words of Stephen Batchelor, "In dissolving this view through a vision of the world as a dynamic and interrelated whole of which we are an integral part, we are likewise freed to engage with the world afresh.” ---Buddhism Without Beliefs.
July 21, 2011
A Boy Just Like Me
It was many years ago and some things seem to change very slowly. I made my way through the parked cars, enjoying the bright afternoon sun. The leaves were beginning to turn dull and fluttered against the crisp blue sky. Stretching the kinks out of my legs, I took a deep breath. My lungs screamed betrayal as the smell of burned cooking fat rode the cool September breeze from the dumpster across the parking lot.
As I approached the drive-thru lane a young man carefully backed through the glass door and turned in my direction. The remains of a Value-meal box in his right hand, his left shoulder dipped downward toward the whining ball of flesh that he held firmly by the hand.
“Come on now,” he pleaded, “You’ve got to stand up.”
The boy’s rebellion reminded me of an outraged chimpanzee. Legs curled up into his stomach, he dangled at the end of his father’s arm. A vanilla complexion now scarlet against his long blonde hair, and with eyes closed in a grimace of wrinkles, he flailed against his father’s grip.
His father continued in a calm clear voice, “Come on now, stand up like a big boy.”
As if in a vision, there I was whirling in outrage against life with eyes locked tight against everything around me. Kicking and screaming against the firm hand of an unflinching world. And how I was so often like this little boy, with vision clenched behind a wall of anger, unable to grasp the depth of my sufferings.
As I approached the drive-thru lane a young man carefully backed through the glass door and turned in my direction. The remains of a Value-meal box in his right hand, his left shoulder dipped downward toward the whining ball of flesh that he held firmly by the hand.
“Come on now,” he pleaded, “You’ve got to stand up.”
The boy’s rebellion reminded me of an outraged chimpanzee. Legs curled up into his stomach, he dangled at the end of his father’s arm. A vanilla complexion now scarlet against his long blonde hair, and with eyes closed in a grimace of wrinkles, he flailed against his father’s grip.
His father continued in a calm clear voice, “Come on now, stand up like a big boy.”
As if in a vision, there I was whirling in outrage against life with eyes locked tight against everything around me. Kicking and screaming against the firm hand of an unflinching world. And how I was so often like this little boy, with vision clenched behind a wall of anger, unable to grasp the depth of my sufferings.
June 15, 2011
How I Was Born
In the Guy Ritchie film Revolver, I was treated to a compelling, if not mind-bending, commentary on one man’s journey to transcend the power and influence of the human ego. The movie itself serves as a training film for those who are serious about winning mankind’s greatest battle, and arguably the real “war to end all wars.”
The human brain is the seat of our ability to experience a distinction between the “seer and the seen.” With each sensory experience there is a biological imperative at work. Some may call it “dualism,” others, the “Principle of Complementarity,” or even the “Uncertainty Principle.” Whatever name best suits your philosophical profile, the process is the same.
When the human organism registers a sensation, the resulting psychic experience is processed on two fronts: one is objective and the other is subjective. And though we may speak as though these two modes of experience are separate, they seem to arise simultaneously – even from day-one. We need but to observe the young child. His behaviors suggest the presence an innate perspective dictating a sense that whatever he observes belongs to him. If he touches the toy it’s his alone, and any suggestion of sharing is initially met with disturbing results. (Then again perhaps it’s a bit naïve to equate this kind of behavior with only the young – it seems to be something all too human regardless of age.) As the child becomes molded by his culture and familial environment, he is able to recognize that just because the bedroom light goes out it isn’t a personal attack on his existence. His experience testifies that if he goes to sleep tonight, he will awaken in the morning. Our brains function in such a way as to make itself believe that it is the center of all that is surveyed. How does this happen?
What causes this ego-centric or self-centered perspective regardless of education or age? A moment of honest introspection as well as self-observation over time, shows us that any attempt at living a spiritual life is forever handicapped by this selfishness. Ancient philosophers and theologians have gone to great lengths to advise us of this self-evident fact. We function as self-conscious beings and require an experiential antidote to grow beyond this - dare I say it - innate, egoistic perspective. This is an easy thing to suppose, but how can we really understand it?
In order to explore this for ourselves let us first accept a simple premise or two: the brain is the field out of which our difficulties arise and that our self-centered perspective is hard-wired within that miraculous lump of grey matter sitting between our ears. From here we could begin our analysis with any sensate experience, but sight seems the easiest with which to relate, so let’s begin there.
When I look at any object there are two things that occur - at a speed so fast, I think it’s reasonable for us to say - at the same time. There is the object observed – in this case, let’s say a horse – and there is also an awareness of this “act of seeing” the horse. The awareness may not always be the focus of our conscious attention, but it is nevertheless always present, enabling us to focus our attention on it if we wish.
So without going too far out on a philosophical limb, I think we can say that the brain informs itself, simultaneously, of an awareness of action – “seeing” – and a static, pictorial representation of the object observed. Or stated somewhat differently; the brain registers a static picture, as well as the fluid process (action) in conjunction with this picture. Even if the horse is galloping through a meadow, the object is still a static, mental representation or ideation – though moving through space. The process of that seeing-moment, though not always the focus of our awareness, is a dynamic function juxtaposed to, yet part of, a static representation in what one might think of as a dualistic, mental symbiosis.
The brain, in conjunction with the visual sensory mechanism, registers and imprints the form we observe into memory while simultaneously, within a separate yet connected area of the brain, allows for awareness of that “action” we call seeing. Making this point may seem unnecessarily repetitious of me. However the salient point here is that the contingently arising connection between observing and the observation is more familiar to us perhaps as the seer and the seen.
To see the horse and to recognize the action within which that object arises, allows us to understand the process within which the sense of “I” is born. In the absence of the brains ability to reflectively re-cognize the result of its own act of objectification, the human psychological landscape would not be as we know it today. Neither the notion, nor the experience, of what we refer to as the “self” or ego, would be part of our mental or experiential world. The human organism would merely experience sense data, and never “own” or question the origin of that experience.
As it is however, when Bob says, “I see the horse” there is reason to suggest that the “I” references the brain which is doing the seeing. There is no seer; there is just a process of seeing (seeing and seen) which is co-registered; once as the object seen and also as the action of seeing. When the self-referential process of the human brain reflects upon the object of its own process – the appearance of an observation - the brain identifies the process as itself and the “I” is born. It is the mind recognizing its own process.
The human brain is the seat of our ability to experience a distinction between the “seer and the seen.” With each sensory experience there is a biological imperative at work. Some may call it “dualism,” others, the “Principle of Complementarity,” or even the “Uncertainty Principle.” Whatever name best suits your philosophical profile, the process is the same.
When the human organism registers a sensation, the resulting psychic experience is processed on two fronts: one is objective and the other is subjective. And though we may speak as though these two modes of experience are separate, they seem to arise simultaneously – even from day-one. We need but to observe the young child. His behaviors suggest the presence an innate perspective dictating a sense that whatever he observes belongs to him. If he touches the toy it’s his alone, and any suggestion of sharing is initially met with disturbing results. (Then again perhaps it’s a bit naïve to equate this kind of behavior with only the young – it seems to be something all too human regardless of age.) As the child becomes molded by his culture and familial environment, he is able to recognize that just because the bedroom light goes out it isn’t a personal attack on his existence. His experience testifies that if he goes to sleep tonight, he will awaken in the morning. Our brains function in such a way as to make itself believe that it is the center of all that is surveyed. How does this happen?
What causes this ego-centric or self-centered perspective regardless of education or age? A moment of honest introspection as well as self-observation over time, shows us that any attempt at living a spiritual life is forever handicapped by this selfishness. Ancient philosophers and theologians have gone to great lengths to advise us of this self-evident fact. We function as self-conscious beings and require an experiential antidote to grow beyond this - dare I say it - innate, egoistic perspective. This is an easy thing to suppose, but how can we really understand it?
In order to explore this for ourselves let us first accept a simple premise or two: the brain is the field out of which our difficulties arise and that our self-centered perspective is hard-wired within that miraculous lump of grey matter sitting between our ears. From here we could begin our analysis with any sensate experience, but sight seems the easiest with which to relate, so let’s begin there.
When I look at any object there are two things that occur - at a speed so fast, I think it’s reasonable for us to say - at the same time. There is the object observed – in this case, let’s say a horse – and there is also an awareness of this “act of seeing” the horse. The awareness may not always be the focus of our conscious attention, but it is nevertheless always present, enabling us to focus our attention on it if we wish.
So without going too far out on a philosophical limb, I think we can say that the brain informs itself, simultaneously, of an awareness of action – “seeing” – and a static, pictorial representation of the object observed. Or stated somewhat differently; the brain registers a static picture, as well as the fluid process (action) in conjunction with this picture. Even if the horse is galloping through a meadow, the object is still a static, mental representation or ideation – though moving through space. The process of that seeing-moment, though not always the focus of our awareness, is a dynamic function juxtaposed to, yet part of, a static representation in what one might think of as a dualistic, mental symbiosis.
The brain, in conjunction with the visual sensory mechanism, registers and imprints the form we observe into memory while simultaneously, within a separate yet connected area of the brain, allows for awareness of that “action” we call seeing. Making this point may seem unnecessarily repetitious of me. However the salient point here is that the contingently arising connection between observing and the observation is more familiar to us perhaps as the seer and the seen.
To see the horse and to recognize the action within which that object arises, allows us to understand the process within which the sense of “I” is born. In the absence of the brains ability to reflectively re-cognize the result of its own act of objectification, the human psychological landscape would not be as we know it today. Neither the notion, nor the experience, of what we refer to as the “self” or ego, would be part of our mental or experiential world. The human organism would merely experience sense data, and never “own” or question the origin of that experience.
As it is however, when Bob says, “I see the horse” there is reason to suggest that the “I” references the brain which is doing the seeing. There is no seer; there is just a process of seeing (seeing and seen) which is co-registered; once as the object seen and also as the action of seeing. When the self-referential process of the human brain reflects upon the object of its own process – the appearance of an observation - the brain identifies the process as itself and the “I” is born. It is the mind recognizing its own process.
April 29, 2011
Thoughts: From Sound To Anger
On a day not unlike today, a thought scurried out from another of those dark corners of my brain and the following ensued after an inner voice inquired, “If there were no sounds, would there still be hearing?”
The conversation went something like this. “If there were no sounds - none whatsoever, including the sea-shell-like white noise that we notice sometimes when there seems to be total silence – could we say that hearing still exists? Is hearing an entity separate from sound?” A moment’s thought and I answered “no.” My reasoning, whether solid or at best, ephemeral, was that if the process of hearing requires a mechanism of reception – as in our case the brain/ear continuum – as well as a sound for this mechanism to process, then it seems to make sense that no hearing will arise in the absence of the necessary conditions of sound and ear. In the absence of either one of these contingencies hearing does not arise and is therefore not a separate entity.
The same reasoning can be applied to sight. In the absence of an eye, an object, and the presence of the necessary light - seeing will not arise. After a quick perusal, it would appear that the same is true for the other senses. This is because the senses, which we fallaciously consider the arbiter of our truths, are merely contingent processes. That is, the sensations are contingent on the presence of other factors which ultimately rest in biologically determined parameters of operation. For example, there are only a limited number of wavelengths of light and sound that we are, through the operation of these mechanisms, able to register. The same holds true for every sensate experience and each of us can take the time to verify this for ourselves.
Then, as so often happens, I made a mental leap to some conversation I had recently where I was asked about the notion of “transcendence” and what that means in terms of enlightenment as well as its relationship to overcoming Klesha’s or the defilements of mind which separate us from recognizing the Buddha Mind within.
I then imagined a mind experiment concerning this question. I imagined a receptor of some sort that used a monitor to display a circle in the center of the screen. The background was white and inside the black circle appeared the color red in a range from a very light pink to the deepest and brightest red one can imagine. A change in the shade of red would correspond to the degree of anger the person experienced when hooked up to the apparatus. The darker shades indicating a greater degree of anger while less redness within the circle would indicate a diminished experience of anger.
Then I imagined that a subject would move from emotional quiescence up to a state of rage, and progressively move through to a meditative state of calm over a period of several minutes while being monitored through this process by my apparatus. To tie up any loose ends I imagined my apparatus having the ability to register all levels or degrees of anger so that if it was present to any degree whatsoever, we would be able to detect it. Isn't fantasy wonderful?
The subject was then shown a film which he said produced a "homicidal rage" when he first saw it, and upsets him still, if he thinks about it. As the experiment proceeded it became apparent when the subject became extremely angry, as evidenced by fact that the center of the circle would take on a deep red hue. Then as he calmed himself by meditating, the shade of red began to diminish slowly until the circle was the lightest shade of pink….and then melted into the white background outside the circle.
What I gleaned from this little excursion into my imagination was that to "transcend anger" is to be, ultimately, in a state devoid of anger. After the test subject let go of the stream of after-thoughts, which initially arose out of viewing the film, he gradually became "emotionally free of anger" as evidenced by the disappearance of any shade of redness. The man himself however remained. There was no outward physical change to his body. Furthermore, it occurred to me that what would also disappear would be the usual outward consequences of anger in that person’s life. In short there would be no experiential consequence for him, nor would there be a re-birth of anger, or its lesser minions, in anyone with whom he came in contact while angry. The negative karma that arises out of anger would be avoided. He would not have to practice over many life-times in order to achieve what is possible in this one; here and now.
The conversation went something like this. “If there were no sounds - none whatsoever, including the sea-shell-like white noise that we notice sometimes when there seems to be total silence – could we say that hearing still exists? Is hearing an entity separate from sound?” A moment’s thought and I answered “no.” My reasoning, whether solid or at best, ephemeral, was that if the process of hearing requires a mechanism of reception – as in our case the brain/ear continuum – as well as a sound for this mechanism to process, then it seems to make sense that no hearing will arise in the absence of the necessary conditions of sound and ear. In the absence of either one of these contingencies hearing does not arise and is therefore not a separate entity.
The same reasoning can be applied to sight. In the absence of an eye, an object, and the presence of the necessary light - seeing will not arise. After a quick perusal, it would appear that the same is true for the other senses. This is because the senses, which we fallaciously consider the arbiter of our truths, are merely contingent processes. That is, the sensations are contingent on the presence of other factors which ultimately rest in biologically determined parameters of operation. For example, there are only a limited number of wavelengths of light and sound that we are, through the operation of these mechanisms, able to register. The same holds true for every sensate experience and each of us can take the time to verify this for ourselves.
Then, as so often happens, I made a mental leap to some conversation I had recently where I was asked about the notion of “transcendence” and what that means in terms of enlightenment as well as its relationship to overcoming Klesha’s or the defilements of mind which separate us from recognizing the Buddha Mind within.
I then imagined a mind experiment concerning this question. I imagined a receptor of some sort that used a monitor to display a circle in the center of the screen. The background was white and inside the black circle appeared the color red in a range from a very light pink to the deepest and brightest red one can imagine. A change in the shade of red would correspond to the degree of anger the person experienced when hooked up to the apparatus. The darker shades indicating a greater degree of anger while less redness within the circle would indicate a diminished experience of anger.
Then I imagined that a subject would move from emotional quiescence up to a state of rage, and progressively move through to a meditative state of calm over a period of several minutes while being monitored through this process by my apparatus. To tie up any loose ends I imagined my apparatus having the ability to register all levels or degrees of anger so that if it was present to any degree whatsoever, we would be able to detect it. Isn't fantasy wonderful?
The subject was then shown a film which he said produced a "homicidal rage" when he first saw it, and upsets him still, if he thinks about it. As the experiment proceeded it became apparent when the subject became extremely angry, as evidenced by fact that the center of the circle would take on a deep red hue. Then as he calmed himself by meditating, the shade of red began to diminish slowly until the circle was the lightest shade of pink….and then melted into the white background outside the circle.
What I gleaned from this little excursion into my imagination was that to "transcend anger" is to be, ultimately, in a state devoid of anger. After the test subject let go of the stream of after-thoughts, which initially arose out of viewing the film, he gradually became "emotionally free of anger" as evidenced by the disappearance of any shade of redness. The man himself however remained. There was no outward physical change to his body. Furthermore, it occurred to me that what would also disappear would be the usual outward consequences of anger in that person’s life. In short there would be no experiential consequence for him, nor would there be a re-birth of anger, or its lesser minions, in anyone with whom he came in contact while angry. The negative karma that arises out of anger would be avoided. He would not have to practice over many life-times in order to achieve what is possible in this one; here and now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
