|
Post by David on May 26, 2010 16:44:18 GMT -5
I study Philosophy, but trying to find the connection between my own ecstatic experiences and the complexity of contemporary philosophy is just mind boggling. It always seems that someone knows or understands it better, and then you get these guys who do acid and talk about Deleuze and the plane of immanence, multiplicities and singularities, the interconnection of all disciplines, and what strikes me as the impossibility to ever know what the hell is going on. Like now they have first hand 'experience' of altered states of consciousness, which forms the basis, the ontology, of any philosophy. The buddhas experience was the basis of his philosophy, but what is the purpose of philosophy, what is it that we are trying to grasp at a deeper level? Is philosophy what unravels as collected insights from the experience of being in the world?
|
|
|
Post by bert on Jun 25, 2010 7:05:00 GMT -5
@david, I've been away for a long time, but now and then i peek at this board. It's even so long ago that i've forgotten my login. But your post kept being unanswered, so i'll do my best in writing what i think about this subject.
Philosophy is about thinking. It's about making maps. It is about how these maps can be constructed, and about what these maps are made of, what concepts are, and not are. It's about knowledge and how knowledge can be acquired, and then what it eventually represents. And much more.
- You can think about the 'real' world -> we call that empiricism. We use the senses to evaluate our thinking. Most people today call this science.
- Philosophy is in the same street as maths. It can be about the real world, but it doesn't have to be. We can calculate the surface of an existing structure in 3d space, but we can also mathematically construct anything from scratch beyond our imagination.
- When one meditates, one leaves the plane of thinking. It is shut down in certain forms of meditation, like shamata. But experiences keep coming. These experiences are not thoughts, and not sensations of the body (although the body can be activated in the process), and we could give them the name of contemplation.
We can philosophically think about contemplation, just as we can think about black holes and mathematics and human nature. But in doing so, the experience is downgraded.
If we describe color scientifically, we will talk about frequencies and energy. It will never recreate the sensation of the color.
In the same way, any contemplative experience, downgraded by thoughts and words will never be able to transfer the real thing.
We can talk about colors to people who have seen colors, but not to the ones born blind. We can talk about square roots to people who ever got maths in school, but not to those who never had the thought-experience of a square root. We can talk about contemplative experiences with other mystics, but not with those who never had such an experience.
We can philosophically construct or deconstruct these concepts, but the world of ideas never touches the world of contemplative experiences.
You can see these contemplative experiences from many angles: 1. your experience, 2. an observer watching you having the experience (national geographic) 3. somebody collecting many experiences and trying to make a systematic approach (like near death experiences research) 4. somebody who thinks (s)he has experienced the same as you, but hasn't, and tries to talk about it. 5. somebody who has really experienced the same thing but gives it a different value. 6 ... you can go on.
7. philosophy only seldom (i don't want to write the word never) will touch your experience. They will in postmodernism only try to deconstruct into elementary concepts that will have no value at all. A letter has no value by and in itself, but in a sentence and in a context it makes sense and has a value. You can deconstruct anything. Nothing is left. Value is gone. Postmodernism does that. Postmodernism has good points, (here and there) and one of them is the elimination of metaphysics, but most of the time it is like the french revolution (or the taliban), only praising itself and destroying anything else.
8. In the end, "I" can never experience what "You" experience! But we can try to find touching points. If we don't, it's better to keep silent about it.
9. You need a master, (but i think you know one or two) who has long since experienced what you have experienced. (S)He will put things into perspective, so that overpowering experiences will not be overvalued. This has happened too often. Hitler and Pol Pot or Mao, only became monsters because they had (accepted) no counsellors above themselves. Masters are seldom found in the philosopical circles. :-)
|
|
|
Post by David on Jul 2, 2010 18:00:10 GMT -5
Thx for the reply. I was thinking about this today, where does philosophy come from? Isn't a philosophy ultimately about how to lead your life? Or should I say, when did philosophy become seperate from leading a contemplative life? And from the life of the mystics? The enlightenment? This is when we started to question the abuses of authority that religion held over people, and philosophy separated into a intellectual discipline devoted to find the 'truth' of matters of both the actual world and the metaphysical 'other' world.
Deleuze, being postmodern, created an immanent philosophy, built on the 3 part relation of the virtual/intensive/actual states of being. Immanent in the sense that they are all tied together in a singlular topological continuum. Everyone who loves Deleuze does acid and drugs for their altered states of consciousness 'contemplative' side of the bargain. Do acid and say, aha, i see what he was talking about. Deleuze talked a bit like a mystic, but his followers worship him, he is like a modern day mystic. Advocating a relaist, materialist vision of the world. But it all come down to how you lead your life, he proposes a complete philosophy on how to lead your life, that is coherent with the complex dimensionality of the world as it is becoming today.
|
|
|
Post by David on Jul 2, 2010 18:04:01 GMT -5
So anyways, my point was, shouldn't a philosophy grow out of a contemplative life? Or the life of a mystic? And isn't the test of a great philosophy the test of how well it adds to the quality and joy of being alive now and today?
|
|
|
Post by David on Jul 2, 2010 18:05:56 GMT -5
and whats all this talk about multiplicities? When on acid, everything becomes multiplicities? Is that like in the deeper states of Jhana?
|
|
|
Post by Jonathon Doyle on Jul 11, 2010 14:38:00 GMT -5
David, there is a lot to deal with in your posts. Let me start with the ethical point. All disciplines involve actualizing our potential to develop the skills required to perform that discipline. If you want Jhana, you have to practice everyday, just like Jeffrey says over and over. If you want to be a politician, you study politics, then 'practice' everyday. If you want to be a musician, you study music, actualize your potential, and then 'practice' it everyday. This is a simple formula, out of which an 'ethics' usually evolves. To 'perform' at your 'full' potential, everyday, you're behavior, and habits, will and must adapt to the 'form', or 'shape', of your practice. That is what you would call 'ethics' - the way you care for yourself and others as a matter which springs from the practice of that which brings joy, bliss, love, (etc) and happiness into the world.
From there, you might begin to wonder about things a little more. To speculate about the 'phenomenon' that arise without the mental 'clutter' attached to it. Which of course, introduces an element of clutter to your 'practice'. Now it is only clutter in so far as it does not lead to an 'expansion' of your practice - which in other words, if you want to talk philosophy, is your ontology. Your 'theory' about your experience of 'being', and its relationship to the rest of the 'world'. World could be understood in many different ways, but lets just say, the 'cognitive' world for now, or the one you wake up to everyday.
Having said that, I should say that you are probably barking up the wrong tree on this forum, as it only deals with the first part of my post, the contemplative part, not how that then may lead to further speculation, or a deeper look into our 'existence', or what it means to be a contemplative in this day and age. Not a lot of discussion in that regard anyways.
As for Deleuze and multiplicities, well, I'll get back to that. Maybe others on this forum who have reached the deeper Jhana can tell you how close that is to an acid trip. I do know what you mean though when talking about 'the multiplication' effect that one experiences on acid. More later.
|
|
|
Post by Julie on Jul 14, 2010 15:26:18 GMT -5
This is a question for Jeffrey, Michael, and others, you've stated many times how the problem with society is that they do not read, understand, or value mystics, would you say then that a utopia for you would be a society of nothing but fully enlightened mystics, or the extinction of humanity altogether?
|
|
|
Post by David on Jul 14, 2010 15:59:54 GMT -5
Bert, thanks for your reply.
>>>You can see these contemplative experiences from many angles: 2. an observer watching you having the experience (national geographic)
I like your example of 'national geographic', (or documentaries in general), that try to stand as an 'authentic' experience. A kind of 'posing' that they have 'captured' nature in the making. Is postmodern art about drawing our awareness to the 'constructed' nature of our everyday world? If all is reduced to the void, as Nietzsche had it, what is the alternative? Become a mystic? How to reconfigure society to be 'fair' to all?
|
|
|
Post by jhananda on Jul 14, 2010 16:01:00 GMT -5
Hello, Jullie, a realistic "utopia" for me would be a world in which every religion understood that the holy life is the contemplative life, and holiness is defined by one being a mystic, and every religion valuing mystics and inviting them to lead their congregation.
Best regards, Jeffrey
|
|
|
Post by Michael Hawkins on Jul 15, 2010 10:04:45 GMT -5
Hello David and friends, Sorry to have been away from the board and missed this interesting thread. I have not yet read through the various responses, but wanted to give my own take on David's initial post. David wrote: Thebuddhas experience was the basis of his philosophy, but what is the purpose of philosophy, what is it that we are trying to grasp at a deeper level? Is philosophy what unravels as collected insights from the experience of being in the world? I can't claim to be well-read in philosophy, as it tends to send me into spasms of boredom. On the other hand, I've gone through phases wherein I found worthy insights in some of them -- Heidegger's idea of "waiting" always struck me as a metaphor for meditation, although it's unclear as to whether his "waiting" ever led to absorption; and the concept of "simulacra" in Jean Baudrillard is sort of a mind-bender in terms of contemporary "reality," which (according to his philosophy) is made up of multi-layered tiers of replications -- nothing is original, there is nothing that has not been done to death in a million ways, etc. Mostly, however, I find that philosophers are so stuck in their heads that, no matter how magnificent their linguistic calisthenics, it's almost painful to see them inevitably drawing short of true succor. The Buddha's "philosophy" (Buddhadhamma) had at its core the imperative to lead his followers out of suffering and into permanent bliss, joy and ecstasy. Perhaps the same can be said of other "spiritual" thinkers, although it seems that the Buddha's system is the most direct and complete, without bringing into it a concept of God. So, I've found it useful as a practice orientation and strategy, especially when it discusses the 8th fold of the Noble Path -- i.e., Right Absorption -- which is what one must attain in order to fully benefit from the Buddha's teachings -- which, in turn, leads to the Ultimate Succor, Nibbana. For me, then, most philosophy amounts to intellectual masturbation, unless it leads the student to ultimate emancipation from the difficult aspects of life. If it leads to saturation in bliss, joy and ecstasy, it is a philosophical system worthy of a lifetime's commitment. If it leads to confusion, frustration and eternal bickering, it is a philosophical system that needs to be avoided. Apologies if this response is superficial and misses the point of your post -- it's just how my answer came out! Blessings, Michael
|
|
|
Post by Michael Hawkins on Jul 15, 2010 10:19:22 GMT -5
Hello Julie, You asked: ...would you say then that a utopia for you would be a society of nothing but fully enlightened mystics, or the extinction of humanity altogether? Similar to what Jeffrey wrote above (in response to your question), a utopia for me would replace reliance on external stimulation (drugs, philosophy, religion, media, politics, etc.) with self-arising bliss, joy and ecstasy. As the Buddha (and others) showed, we humans have the capacity to give rise to charismatic phenomena that have been described in terms of jhana and samadhi. The world has pretty much always repressed and demonized this natural ability, but in my utopia, it would be fostered from a very early age, and it would be supported throughout a person's life. If we were all -- and I mean ALL -- giving rise to perpetual bliss, joy and ecstasy, I can only imagine the world that would evolve. Perhaps it would be heaven... yes? Warmly, Michael
|
|
|
Post by chris on Jul 15, 2010 13:25:18 GMT -5
I'm no philosopher either, (some experience with Jhana), but what i find as a teacher, is that you cannot really 'teach' someone something, with words, most people would probably agree with that, or as Wilde would add, 'nothing worth learning'. When I first started teaching kids, I was overwhelmed at times by what appeared to be 'chaos'. Absolutely uncontrollable. But as I started to have experience with Jhana, that Chaos came to appear more and more like a perfectly natural order.
I could, if I wanted, just sit back, and observe it, without the slightest sense of 'dis-ease', without a single feather being ruffled, able to enjoy the 'strangeness' of it, how all these little 'pockets' (each student in his own chaotic little world, burrowing away in their own particular way, at some odd bit of activity) could appear like material multiplications of 'spirit'.
In these cases, I am not only observing, but watching with an awareness that they are aware of me observing, and I can 'feel' that in that awareness, they are 'performing' for me; a performance of which I am a part, and thus so able to intervene at an 'energetic' level, and become a part of that 'performance'.
It is remarkable how sensitive they are, a level of sensitivity that, before I came to know Jhana, I would be 'outside' of, imposing my 'grid' like 'idea' of 'order' onto what is otherwise a collection of very 'rhizomatic' performances.
So, what i find is that I am able to 'teach' with a much 'deeper' level of 'engagement', but also at a much higher cost. It is difficult to maintain that sense of constant equanimity in the face of chaos, (I think any teachers, or parents, out there will agree).
Words, when used as 'streams' of energy, are no longer about a specific meaning, but about connecting and moving at an emotional level, the level of 'feeling', tools to facilitate the flows of energy present in any context.
No matter who you ask about 'utopias', the answer is always the same: a world that reflects their own belief system. What I want to know, is how to live in the world, at this very moment, authentically. Isn't all the philosophy and theory in the world about allowing for that to happen? Is that even possible without stepping on someone else's rights?
|
|
|
Post by Julie on Jul 15, 2010 13:33:22 GMT -5
Those aren't utopias guys, those are worlds according to your own belief system. Isn't the logical 'fulfillment' of Buddhism to become enlightened? So why not have a utopia of fully enlightened people? That way there would be no need for 'congregations', and there would be no 'external stimulation' to worry about. If were being 'realistic', the conclusion is that fewer and fewer people would return to a body form, and all there would be is...?
|
|
|
Post by jhananda on Jul 15, 2010 14:55:45 GMT -5
I very much enjoyed reading Michale's two responses and concur on his points. I found Chris' description to be a very good description of equanimity, which is the product of the 3rd jhana.
Chris: "just sit back, and observe it, without the slightest sense of 'dis-ease', without a single feather being ruffled, able to enjoy the 'strangeness' of it, how all these little 'pockets' (each student in his own chaotic little world, burrowing away in their own particular way, at some odd bit of activity) could appear like material multiplications of 'spirit'."
While I agree, Julie, that a world of enlightened beings would be preferred over a world that values, respect and supports enlightened beings; nonetheless, an enlightened world would of course value, respect and support enlightened beings. And, while an enlightened world might cease to be a "congregation" it would nonetheless be a sangha, or community of enlightened beings.
However, the reality is most people are deeply threatened by the idea that enlightenment is accessible to all beings, that there is a means to enlightenment, and that means is leading a rigorous contemplative life.
My life is certainly evidence of how deeply threatened people are by the above because I was demonized by my own meditation teachers, 10 years of scouring the web has only produced a handful of individuals who get the above, have followed the above, and have reaped some of its rewards; such as Michael. Thus my conclusion is, humans are not likely to lead a rigorous contemplative life, but perhaps they could learn to value, respect and support those who do, if their priests were not see deeply threatened by those who walk their talk.
Best regards, Jhananda
|
|
|
Post by Jonathan D on Jul 15, 2010 16:46:10 GMT -5
I dont mean to interrupt, a very interesting discussion, but if I may, I would like to ask if a 'world' community of mystics wouldn't lead to a homogeneity of beliefs, understanding, values, culture...? Would the only significant difference between people be their own 'experience'?
|
|