|
Post by Julie on Jul 15, 2010 17:07:28 GMT -5
...and all there would be is...community? Community based on what?
Wouldn't enlightened beings have no need for community? The respect, value, and support would be unnecessary. There would be no suffering, every 'problem' would be dissolved. People could feed themselves. Becoming a mystic, and a society of enlightened mystics would be completely self sufficient would they not?
And most importantly, as the current death rate is approximately 56 million people/year, mystics and the human race would be extinct within one century. Mystics dont procreate, and their aim is to not return to this world: 'desire' is the 'root' of all suffering.
|
|
|
Post by David on Jul 15, 2010 18:21:18 GMT -5
Michael, in another post you say: "in the range between late third jhana through fourth jhana, the same kundalini intensity tends to be present, without my typical LSD experience of fracturing in the mind/emotion bodies."
I want to know what you mean by 'fracturing', (and if this would be the same as what is often described as a 'multiplicity'), is that an experience specific to LSD, or do we get that in Jhana as well?
|
|
|
Post by jhananda on Jul 15, 2010 18:44:29 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'? Interesting point, Jonathan, after all if we compare the religious experiences and practices of the major mystics (Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Rumi, Kabir, Patanjali and Siddhartha Gautama) we find there experiences and methods are far more alike than we find the individual mystics compared to members of their own religion. This suggests, that the differences between the various religions might just be cultural, and thus irrelevant when it comes to enlightenment. As for Julie's comment regarding if all humans were enlightened, then the species Homo sapiens sapiens would become extinct. What is the problem with that? After all humans have caused many species to become extinct, and they have disrupted the ecosystem considerably. So, it seems to me the eco system of the planet would most probably be a lot better off if there were no humans, or if all of the humans at least returned to hunter-gatherers as they were before they left the "garden of Eden" and turned it into a parking lot.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Cowdery on Jul 15, 2010 19:18:43 GMT -5
I am a Zen Buddhist, because I like their philosophy, and I like to meditate.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Hawkins on Jul 15, 2010 22:34:15 GMT -5
Hello Julie, You wrote: Those aren't utopias guys, those are worlds according to your own belief system. Michael answers: (After a good chuckle)...Best I could do in one short paragraph! To develop a full-fledged utopia would, indeed, take a book or two... and since I'm not holding my breath that anyone's utopia will occur any time soon, it's not something I spend a lot of time on. I'm into the "one person at a time" concept, rippling out in concentric circles as a contribution to the overall betterment -- without attachment to outcome. As for the idea that utopia may entail everyone waking to enlightenment and living according to that... sounds good! Mahayana Buddhists suggest that this is where it's all headed, although it may take a few gazillion yugas to get there. Perhaps a definition of "enlightenment" would be helpful -- everyone seems to have a different one! The Buddha, of course, defined enlightenment (Nibbana) in terms of stages of absorption, since this is the vehicle for removing all hindrances to said enlightenment. So, in my "world according to my own belief system," utopia would indeed include (among many other things, I suspect) a universal cultural ethic that honors, practices, supports, fosters and promotes meditative absorption. The Buddha insisted on the same thing for his followers (making it the culmination of his Noble Eightfold Path), and I can only imagine what it was like to live amongst a couple thousand Arahants -- the world could use a little of that right now, for sure. In any case, thanks for the provocative discussion. Best, Michael
|
|
|
Post by Jonathon Doyle on Jul 16, 2010 16:26:15 GMT -5
I'm into the "one person at a time" concept, rippling out in concentric circles as a contribution to the overall betterment -- without attachment to outcome.
Well thats more realistic too, 'Utopia' is a very modernist notion anyways, I think if humanist ideals have taught us anything its that life is what you make of it, period. There are no grand narratives, no Utopias, no 'backgrounds' against which we are 'foregrounded'.
However, your point Julie is interesting, as it exposes, actually, the philosophical 'implications' of leading a contemplative life as we, here, seem to understand it.
'Extinction' is a rather 'bleak' outlook for anyone here who is considering the possibility of whether or not to turn their life 'upside down' for the sake of Jhana. Perhaps suicide then should also be an option, as that would cut straight to the chase, would it not?
Funny, I watched 'Inception' tonight, a new movie out, where one of the plots, the central 'parallel' theme of the movie actually, was how one of the characters falls in love with the 'Utopia' of living in her dreams, where she becomes convinced that the dream is the reality, and that reality is the 'false' existence.
Aren't we aiming for some form of balance? (To use an old cliche).
|
|
|
Post by David on Jul 17, 2010 13:50:50 GMT -5
Well, getting back to my question, does philosophy grow out of a practice, such as meditation which traverses Jhana?
Since Jeffrey would appear to be the best person to answer this question here, and since he has stated that he finds philosophy 'boring', might we conclude that philosophy does not in any way arise from absorption?
I can understand that philosophy arises in reflection, from 'un-altered' states of consciousness, as a way to 'situate'(?) 'experience' into a frame of reference, and therefore enters the world of tools, like language, as a means to 'unravel' the material world, to bring us back to a state of 'experience'. So enlightenment is the end of this 'circularity', this process of 'becoming', which can only become what it already 'is'.
Civilization, in all of its misguided destruction, War, hatred, love, and peace, seems in this way to be about nothing other than this simple explanation, that each and every one of us wants to see an end to 'circularity', did the Buddha think that 'materiality' is synonymous with suffering?
|
|
|
Post by Jonathon Doyle on Jul 17, 2010 14:27:20 GMT -5
David, I don't agree that we should reduce the 'potential' of 'thinking philosophically' to just "what we all want is to see an end to 'circularity'". There is nothing wrong with thinking! It's just that for most of us, that usually leads to further confusion of finding a greater sense of 'balance' between what you call the 'material' and the 'non-material'.
I know that Ken Wilber has been harshly criticized for what often appears like "undergraduate generalizations", none the less, you might find his major work "Sex, Ecology, Spirituality: The Spirit of Evolution", to be of interest.
Here is a quote from Wilber:
"Put differently, I sought a world philosophy. I sought an integral philosophy, one that would believably weave together the many pluralistic contexts of science, morals, aesthetics, Eastern as well as Western philosophy, and the world's great wisdom traditions. Not on the level of details—that is finitely impossible; but on the level of orienting generalizations: a way to suggest that the world is one, undivided whole, and related to itself in every way: a holistic philosophy for a holistic Kosmos: a world philosophy, an integral philosophy." — Ken Wilber, "Introduction to Volume Six of the Collected Works".
|
|
|
Post by Julie on Jul 17, 2010 19:31:20 GMT -5
...or skip it and stick with the Tipitaka...
|
|
|
Post by Chris White on Jul 18, 2010 17:25:16 GMT -5
...or if all of the humans at least returned to hunter-gatherers as they were before they left the "garden of Eden" and turned it into a parking lot.
Interesting point, Jeffrey, can you elaborate on that? Any recommended reading?
|
|
|
Post by jhananda on Jul 19, 2010 14:37:03 GMT -5
Hello Chris, I cannot think of any recommended reading right now, unless you just want to return to a hunter-gatherer existence, then there are a lot of books on survival, etc.
According to anthropology theory, hunter-gatherer societies are healthier, more intelligent, have lower stress and the people are more satisfied and least worked. I theorize that returning to a hunter-gatherer society will stimulate mysticism.
I believe the reason why mystics retreat into the wilderness is to simulate the hunter-gatherer lifestyle, which they find helps them to become mystics. This suggests that hunter-gatherer societies might have had more mystics, than agrarian or industrial societies had.
Best regards, Jhananda
|
|
|
Post by Chris White on Jul 19, 2010 16:17:11 GMT -5
Well no, haha, I dont think survival guides would be of much use...but very interesting about anthropology theory, and how hunter-gatherer societies are healthier, more intelligent, have lower stress and the people are more satisfied and least worked. Do you mean living societies? Any examples?
As for yourself, did retreating into the wilderness 'simulate' (only simulate? which suggests a kind of 'pretending'), the hunter-gatherer lifestyle, and did that help you to become (more of) a mystic?
I suppose ashrams, or in countries such as Thailand, monks can choose to become mendicants, with 'systems' already set in place that support, value, and respect this choice of life.
David, you can look at the idea of 'philosophy' as being present in each and every action that we experience. 'Action' being expressive of what in 'culture' could be seen as 'traits' of a 'living' philosophy, how a culture collectively 'negotiates' its relationship with the world. (Thats up for discussion).
You could also look at culture as an articulation of 'spirit', a kind of system of traits, rituals, practices, etc, that evolve and grow from a peoples 'sense of being' in a particular part of the world.
Culture appeals to the senses, our senses are 'intelligent', you might become more aware of that when you leave your own, and enter another.
Go anywhere in the East for example, that feeling of 'strangeness' that you get, but can't really 'talk' about, (other than as being 'different' from your own 'experience' of the world), that is what I mean. You experience a 'heightened' sense of 'awareness', but awareness of what? (open for discussion)...
|
|
|
Post by Dave the Rave on Jul 19, 2010 16:42:38 GMT -5
Awareness of no longer 'functioning'. Which allows us then to become more aware of how others are 'functioning'. 'Acting' with a different set of 'rules' that, in some (or most) cases, means something 'other' than what we know.
The 'other' being either a kind of 'pleasure' or enjoyment of experiencing a loss of meaning in favor of simple 'experience' (perhaps as a new 'palette' of sense, sensual, 'sensations'), or which could also lead some to a feeling of disorientation or 'fear' (fear of the unknown - 'that' which means something 'other' than what we (think) we know).
1st world nations tend to be the ones who want to adopt the 'traits', that you call, of nations (cultures) that seem to still 'practice' what they perceive as a more 'authentic' way of 'being'. (Namaste, putting the hands together and bowing the head, buying buddha icons, adopting eastern practices, and vice-versa).
What they usually miss is the context in which those symbols, practices, or traits, have meaning. So you get little 'mini' cultures within larger contexts (joining a yoga studio, a meditation group, etc). These then become communities that engage in a shared, mutual form of practice, which basically stems from personal issues of spirituality.
The GWV would be one such community.
Good points Chris! Over to you (or whoever)...
|
|
|
Post by Ron on Jul 19, 2010 21:14:11 GMT -5
In the west, the majority of people I meet who meditate, let me know they meditate for the sake of their ego; as though they want a reward or something. I always tell them, well, so long as it is on your 'list' of personality perks, it ain't integrated in or with your life. So who cares!
It's like meeting a dog who can talk, "I like to piss on your bushes." "Ah is that so, wow, so is that something you do on a regular basis, or just when you have time."
Or take those sparrows that just flew past my window, like Jeffrey says, their still in Eden, we're the ones stuck outside....
|
|
|
Post by Linda on Jul 19, 2010 21:47:34 GMT -5
Ron, I find myself in similar situations quite often, even in communities which are supposed to be supportive of contemplatives.
Where it may be a point of common interest, there is very often more ego attached to it than a genuine commitment, understanding, or sense that it has in fact altered their life to the extent that they have made changes, or even sacrifices, for the sake of that 'practice'.
I think it is also true that the idea of meditation is much more integrated in Eastern contexts, and so is not really such a big deal to them, certainly not something they would go around 'boasting' (or even talking or thinking) about.
When I traveled in SE Asia, it was beautiful to see people wai, the cities are filled with religious iconography, very open, people are 'wai-ing' all over the place. Little open temples on street corners, people passing through like we might do at a drive through fast food place, then carrying on with their life, in a very 'continuous', open and uninhibited way. In the mornings you can see monks everywhere, and people who get up specifically to make and give food to them.
There is no 'why' involved, nobody questions 'why' you might do that (not saying that is either good or bad, just that its not a part of a cultural 'cognitive' process), or as Michael says, there is no attachment to 'outcome'.
Making merit in however small a way, is valued in and of itself, without attachment to outcome. You could probably even get away with saying that that is a 'living' philosophy. And isn't the legacy of Siddhartha Gautama one that is truly 'alive'?
|
|