|
Post by Jonathon Doyle on Jul 25, 2010 12:51:28 GMT -5
he makes many profound points about the need to move beyond certain rational frameworks in order to access deeper states of being -- which, in turn, produce direct connection with the Divine.
When he says "the need to move beyond certain rational frameworks in order to access deeper states of being", what is the "rational frameworks" which he is referring to? And what is the assumption or 'expectation' implicit in those rational frameworks? What is he saying that 'rational frameworks' are trying to accomplish?
This sounds a bit like Heidegger.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Hawkins on Jul 25, 2010 13:28:29 GMT -5
It's been a few years since I last read the book, Jonathan, and I'm doing well to remember what I had for breakfast this morning... ;D As you already know (having read The Multiple States of Being -- which was actually from the mid-1930's, while Reign of Quantity originally came out in 1946), Guenon was a guardian of traditionalism and a champion of ancient metaphysical principles, which give contextual meaning to mere scientific facts. Here's a Guenon quote from the Intro to Reign of Quantity: Never until the present epoch had the study of the sensible world been regarded as self-sufficient; never would the science of this ephemeral and changing multiplicity have been judged truly worthy of the name of knowledge... According to the ancient conception... a science was less esteemed for itself than for the degree in which it expressed after its own fashion... a reflection of the higher immutable truth of which everything of any reality necessarly partakes... [All] science appeared as an extension of the traditional doctrine itself, as one of its applications, secondary and contingent no doubt... but still a veritable knowledge none the less.... Also from the Intro, Guenon wrote that modern science is disavowing the principles [of traditional metaphysics and cosmology] and in refusing to attach itself to them, robs itself both of the highest guarantee and the surest direction it could have; there is no longer anything valid in it except knowledge of details, and as soon as it seeks to rise one degree higher, it becomes dubious and vacillating. So, I guess in referring to a transcendence of "certain rational frameworks," I'm pointing to Guenon's assertion that "modern science" has divorced itself from ancient metaphysical principles, alone within which "true knowledge" may be found. To me, these "metaphysical principles" are products of the sort of deep insight that is a fruit of contemplation -- perhaps I am making too big of a jump here, although Guenon was a respected Sufi master who most likely had unitive experiences on which he could rely for validation of said metaphysical principles.
|
|
|
Post by Jonathon Doyle on Jul 25, 2010 21:35:52 GMT -5
What alternatives does he present? There's just so much bogus science out there that attempts to mix speculative 'spiritual values' with scientific 'evidence'.
Mantura and Varela are quite interesting, probably having the greatest influence in the area of systems theory, both well respected, and very into meditation, probably most famous for their theory of 'auto-poesis' - the self-organizing principles of nature.
|
|
|
Post by Jonathon Doyle on Jul 25, 2010 22:39:04 GMT -5
www.mindandlife.org/encounter.htmlThe Importance of the Encounter with Buddhism for Modern Science By Francisco J. Varela There is growing evidence that Buddhism can potentially have an important and productive influence on modern science, primarily at two levels: (i) the detailed research level evident in the study of mind, and (ii) the epistemological impact on the foundations of science, especially physics. Research The life sciences have developed enormously over the last 50 years. One main branch is the study of mind, cognition, affect and related mental phenomena, where the brain sciences (or neurosciences) play a central role. There is an unusual confluence of disciplines collectively training their focused lenses on the nature of cognition, emotion and action. These disciplines include neuroscience, molecular genetics, experimental psychology, artificial intelligence and linguistics. Several major interdisciplinary efforts have emerged from this hybridization including cognitive science, neuroscience and affective neuroscience. These new interdisciplinary hybrid sciences have rapidly embraced the study of the mind as a scientific object and have enabled modern science to approach this effort with unprecedented rigor and precision. As a result of this research frontier, science has been gradually waking up to what, until very recently, seemed "un-scientific": consciousness itself. Can a scientific study of mind leave out what is ever-present for humans: their own experience? What is consciousness? How is it related to other mental abilities generated by the brain (such as vision, emotion, and memory)? How plastic is the brain's potential for meeting human needs in medicine and education? This consciousness "revolution" has brought to center stage the simple fact that studying the brain and behavior requires an equally disciplined complement: the exploration of experience itself. It is here that Buddhism stands as an outstanding source of observations concerning human mind and experience, accumulated over centuries with great theoretical rigor, and, what is even more significant, with very precise exercises and practices for individual exploration. This treasure-trove of knowledge is an uncanny complement to science. Where the material refinement of science is unmatched in empirical studies, the experiential level is still immature and naive compared to the long-standing Buddhist tradition of studying the human mind. The natural meeting ground between science and Buddhism is thus at one of the most active research frontiers today. What is involved is learning how to put together the data from the inner examination of human experience with the empirical basis that modern cognitive and affective neuroscience can provide. Such first-person accounts are not a mere "confirmation" of what science can find anyway. It is a necessary complement. For instance, unless refined internal descriptions are taken into account in current experiments that use brain imaging to study the neural substrates of emotions or attention, the empirical data cannot be properly interpreted. Thus, we foresee in the future that the mind sciences will evolve into a form of experiential neuroscience, bridging the gap between external and internal descriptions. Such a unification of our understanding of the world, a new frame for a mind science, is one of the major contributions Buddhism is capable of offering. The interest in such cross-fertilization with science was one of the main inspirations for the Mind & LIfe initiative, and remains at the center of its efforts to transform this vision into concrete laboratory collaborations. Two related implications of the dialogue between science and Buddhism include contributions to our understanding of behavioral and neural plasticity and to the development of specific interventions for the promotion of psychological and physical well-being. Modern cognitive science and psychology makes certain assumptions about what is normative in mental functioning and also what the limits of change are for such functioning. For example, in the cognitive domain it is regarded as normative for individuals to be incapable of attending to a single object for more than several seconds. In the affective domain, the emotion of anger is regarded as a normative emotion that naturally arises in situations where our goals are thwarted. Buddhism teaches us that each of these assumptions about the "normal operating mode" of humans is faulty and that with training (i.e., in meditation), significant transformations in these abilities are likely to occur. This perspective poses an important challenge to Western scientists and calls into question some of our deepest assumptions about the "nature" of human behavior. Moreover, Buddhism provides a detailed specification of the methods that enable such plasticity to occur. This meeting ground will provide a critical impetus for change in the Western conception of the fixedness of mental function, with a clear call for new research to explore the capacity for plastic transformation in basic biobehavioral functions that were once regarded as unchanging components of our mental landscape. The experientially based technology of meditation and related practices offered by Buddhism is currently having a major impact on modern medicine and psychotherapeutic intervention. Claims about the beneficial effects of these practices on both mental and physical health and well-being have catalyzed serious efforts to examine the mechanisms by which meditation produces salubrious consequences. The Mind & LIfe dialogues have directly spawned new research demonstrating changes in both brain and immune function produced by meditation. This work is helping to restore the brain back into the context of the body to examine how changes in the brain have downstream effects on the immune, autonomic and endocrine systems, all of which are implicated in health and disease. Epistemology Although the life and cognitive sciences are where Buddhism can touch science intimately, at the detailed research level, it can also have a great importance at the more fundamental or epistemological level. In fact, the philosophical refinements in the Buddhist tradition concerning the nature of reality, perception and logic, are as deep as its observational base of human experience. This includes notions such as designated identity, co-dependent origination and emptiness that have no counterpart in the philosophical heritage of the West. Modern physics is perhaps where this second meeting ground is most visible. Physics is in the middle of a conceptual revolution pursuing the so-called unification efforts, in order to relate the minute universe of quantum mechanism to that of macrophysics and gravitation. As is well known, such research has opened numerous gaping epistemological questions; for example non-locality, the origin of the universe, and the role of the observer. Philosophers of science and research physicists have found these conceptual or epistemological exchanges potentially precious. See GEO Magazine, cover story, January, 1999. The Mind & LIfe Institute has decided to continue this line of mutual exploration as the second major contribution Buddhism can offer to modern science.
|
|
|
Post by jhananda on Jul 26, 2010 14:40:59 GMT -5
I agree with you Jonathon, research into meditation has only resulted in a lot of bogus research, because it is most often about promoting the personality of a guru, such as TM research, or about promoting a flawed model of meditation and Buddhism, which is what Jon Kabat Zinn and the Mind and Life Institute are doing. If you read the following essay you will see my points: A Critique of Western Research on Meditation as revealed in the article “The Lama in the Lab” www.greatwesternvehicle.org/criticism/meditationresearch.htmJhananda
|
|
|
Post by Jonathon Doyle on Jul 26, 2010 21:29:32 GMT -5
Yes your point is well taken Jeffrey. In the article you provided, and the one I posted by Varela, as 'good' as it is to see science acknowledging the 'need' for contemplative dialogue, the question remains, now where are your mystics? (That understand and have traversed all stages of absorption).
|
|
|
Post by Chris White on Jul 27, 2010 13:54:41 GMT -5
I just took a quick look at the site, I didn't see any 'results', it would seem that they would need to have very broad 'populations' of contemplatives and mystics, fully aware of their attainments within a Buddhist context, to study. But how do they study those 'attainments? Where is the dialogue? Whats with the Dalia Lama, is this a case of each institution simply 'using' the other to offer bogus 'substantiation' to one another? Where are the results? I clicked around but didn't find anything.
Jeffrey, how would this concept of the life/mind institute work in your opinion, or is it a complete waste of time?
|
|
|
Post by Chris White on Jul 27, 2010 14:16:25 GMT -5
Guenon was a respected Sufi master who most likely had unitive experiences on which he could rely for validation of said metaphysical principles.
Again it would seem necessary to study 'populations' of mystics, and not just himself to offer valid empirical evidence.
The question is, what is the purpose of these collaborations between science and mystics? This refers back to our discussion of Utopias, and just what kind of world the aims of these projects are hoping to bring about?
Under what conditions can there be a true 'revolution' in the direction of breaking down barriers between religious obfuscation, science and the arts?
|
|
|
Post by jhananda on Jul 27, 2010 18:59:49 GMT -5
Hello Michael, Chris, Jonathon and Julie, and thank-you all for posting your comments. In answer to the questions posed by both Chris and Jonathon, “where are your mystics to study?” I do not believe that the Mind and Life Institute, TM research or any other researchers have a clue what a mystics is, nor are they even looking for them. However, my research has been focused upon identifying and understanding the mystics of the past, so that we can understand the mystics of the present. My research has shown that most of those who have a reputation for being mystics are undeserved in the title; however, there are 6 key mystics who come from four of the five major religions, who clearly demonstrated that they were mystics through their expression. Those mystics were: Teresa of Avila; John of the Cross; Rumi, Kabir, Patanajli and Siddhartha Gautama. To find the mystics of the present my approach was, instead of having a very broad population of contemplatives to chose from, 7 years ago I started a forum called the Jhana Support Group, which is for the discussion of meditation experiences, and specifically experiences that can be identified as ‘jhana.’ For the sake of argument I will accept for now any spiritual attainment, or manifestation of the charisms, as evidence of one being a mystic. About 2,000 people have joined that forum and several hundred people have posted personal case histories that reflect facility with one or more levels of spiritual attainment. The link to that forum is below: groups.yahoo.com/group/Jhanas/I have posted some of those case histories on the GWV website. You can find them at this URL: The GWV archive of personal case histories with spiritual experiences www.greatwesternvehicle.org/casehistories/casehistories.htmBest regards to all, Jhananda
|
|
|
Post by Julie on Jul 28, 2010 14:28:47 GMT -5
Friends, all roads lead to the GWV, haven't you figured that out yet? Jeffrey, is it fair to say that everything points towards the realization of 'being'? In my very simplified view of things, the whole world of wo/man's 'worlding' has been just to organize our relationships to one another, and all that that entails. But what (or who) has been the center from which we 'organize'? Is it not mystics? From where has all of our modern day institutions risen? Ivan Illich talks about this in his discussions about 'the corruption of Christianity'. Most of his books are attacks on modern day 'institutionalization' of the teachings of Christ (he was a Jesuit so go figure). Foucault analysis these institutions more rigorously in terms of the manipulation of 'power', and how they have exploited human's need for a belief in 'another', the networks and complexity of it all becoming drowned/lost throughout the ages, leaving only the power structures, and the 'elite' few who reap the benefits from the many. Over to you...
|
|
|
Post by Jonathon Doyle on Jul 28, 2010 14:42:27 GMT -5
Julie, I'll leave Jeffrey to answer the very 'broad' defining features of what it 'means' to be 'human' but in relation to what you mentioned about Foucault, I think Jeffrey's comment: However, my research has been focused upon identifying and understanding the mystics of the past, so that we can understand the mystics of the present.is a kind of Foucault-like 'archeology' which we know was his primary mode of investigating the 'institutions' that had 'stratified' human values in what he disclosed as sever abuses of 'power'. Jeffrey is doing something similar by 'disentangling' the actual teaching from the commentaries and all the other BS that has come to be part of what people tend to think of, or relate to, when talking about Mahayana Buddhism, and the practice of meditation; and what it therefore 'means' to be a true contemplative in this day and age. Is that about right Jeffrey?
|
|
|
Post by jhananda on Jul 28, 2010 16:24:25 GMT -5
Hello Michael, Chris, Jonathon and Julie, and thank-you all for posting your thoughtful comments. I am not sure what you mean Julie, when you wrote, “all roads lead to the GWV.” While I get that you are paraphrasing “All roads lead to Rome,” and how that has been applied to the new-age idea that “all paths, or religions, lead to enlightenment;” however, I do not agree. Although I would agree that all religions have buried within their canon, pseudopigraphy and commentary concepts that parallel spiritual enlightenment and liberation from one’s neuroses.
Yes, I agree human behavior is driven by its many relationships; however, the progenitors of the major religions were all contemplatives who became mystics, but how they did that was in withdrawing from all of those many relationships to go alone into the wilderness, or a room, and pray and meditate until they were spiritually enlightened and liberation from their neuroses.
Now, I would agree with Ivan Illich and Foucault that the major religions today were founded by mystics, but were taken over by an 'elite' who formed those religions into power structures to sustain those elites at the expense of enlightenment for the many through the abuses of 'power'. Thus, Jonathon is correct when he wrote, my work is about “disentangling' the actual teaching from the commentaries and all the other BS that has come to be part of what people tend to think of...” religion and Buddhism, “and the practice of meditation; and what it therefore 'means' to be a true contemplative” and mystic “in this day and age.”
Love to all, Jhananda
|
|
|
Post by David on Jul 30, 2010 12:10:41 GMT -5
just back to the ethical question and 'philosophy', could we say Jeffrey and others that mystics, the 6 'true' mystics (I didn't see Jesus in that list?), had a complete 'system' of life, INCLUDING a philosophy and ethics that grew from and was a direct result of their leading a rigorous contemplative life?
|
|
|
Post by Jonathon Doyle on Jul 30, 2010 15:00:25 GMT -5
Yes, David, I think your on the ball there, ethics and your 'personal' (universal?) outlook on life probably comes part and parcel with the contemplative package; now whether Siddhartha Gautama went to the trouble of teaching from a desire to impart 'wisdom' (his philosophy, practice, and ethical outlook on life), or out of necessity, I don't know.
But it certainly has led to a great deal of confusion! (One could argue). You could probably say that the whole point of the GWV is an attempt to 'realign' the Buddha's teachings with actual experience, and show, as Jeffrey mentioned, that it is 'real'.
I'm guessing, Jeffrey, that there must have been many other enlightened masters who just lived out there life, without having or feeling any 'need' to impart their experience?
The point of course would be which comes first? I would say obviously one's experience, out of which one would have to find a way to 'show' or explain that knowledge/experience. The expression of that experience needs to be clear; take contemporary art for example: (all these horrible looking installations) its not just about learning what the signs mean, but about what 'kind' of 'experience' informs that language, and how do you become 'aware' of that deeper level of meaning? (Which is just a kind of 'awareness' of particular sensations). The Tipitaka in this case would be just gibberish, or a set of 'ethical' rules, open to anyone's own interpretation, without the experience of Jhana that informs everything in it.
I have the feeling David that you are struggling with the idea of 'learning' philosophy divorced from the experience that informs that thought...its a valid point. Perhaps ask, what were the 'grounds' for the divorce?
|
|
|
Post by jhananda on Jul 30, 2010 16:45:58 GMT -5
Hello Michael, Chris, Jonathon, David and Julie, and thank-you all for posting your thoughtful comments. Yes, I would agree with any mystic, such as: Teresa of Avila; John of the Cross; Rumi, Kabir, Patanajli, Siddhartha Gautama, Jesus and Mohammed, who led a rigorous contemplative life, which was a philosophy, lifestyle and ethical system that they offered as a “way, truth and life” that they followed to spiritual enlightenment, awakenment and liberation from neuroses that they believed could lead anyone to spiritual enlightenment, awakenment and liberation from neuroses.
Yes, Jonathon my work is to show that through actual experience of myself, and my students, such as Michael Hawkins, are living proof that the teaching of Teresa of Avila; John of the Cross; Rumi; Kabir; Patanajli; Siddhartha Gautama; Jesus and Mohammed is 'real' and leads to the same place, which is spiritual enlightenment, awakenment and liberation from neuroses.
While I would very much like to leave the world to its problems and retreat into a place where no other human exists, I am compelled by the force of my spiritual attainments to make accessible to as many people as possible a philosophy, lifestyle and ethical system that has led me and Michael to spiritual enlightenment, awakenment and liberation from neuroses, so I believe it is reasonable to say the method that worked, and works for us, will most probably work for everyone else.
Thus, I do not believe there was ever an enlightened master who just lived out his or her life, without having or feeling any 'need' to impart their experience or method to others. Why do you think so many mystics were martyred? They were not neurotically compelled to be abused by the hegemony. However, they were compelled by the force of their enlightenment to reveal enlightenment is accessible to all who seek it correctly.
Best regards, Jhananda
|
|