Contemplative Recovery

[jhananda]

Hello Don, it is a pleasure to dialog with you on Michael’s excellent forum. To answer your first question: an 'ecstatic' contemplative is a definition of a mystics. If we call ourselves mystics people may not realize that we were contemplative first. And, we also point out by using that definition that no all contemplative become ecstatic. Only those contemplative who are both rigorous and skillful in their contemplative life become ecstatics, or mystics.

Yes, I agree with you there are other problems with using the term ‘mystic’ such as people thinking we are “flaky.” This is another reason why some of us are using the term 'ecstatic contemplative.’ And, still others think mystics are just naïve new-agers.

Transcendentalism was a term used in the early to mid 19th century, but I see little evidence that the Transcendentalists understood what the contemplative life was about, or what a mystic was, although they certainly were getting warm.

I agree with you, there is a lot of ego addiction in many successful artists, and anyone who is a genuine mystic would not at all be egotistical, or narcissistic. So, I can see your conflict. However, defining oneself as a contemplative artist just means that one is hopefully self-aware and a genuine contemplative, who is also an artist; whereas, most artists might be a little self-aware, but they are genuinely not contemplative.

You made some good points about art and sacred space being conducive to experiencing ecstatic altered states of consciousness; however, most mainstream religious followers and art viewing public are not contemplatives, therefore they rarely move beyond the first jhana, which means their religious experience is superficial.

On reading translations of The dark night by St John of the Cross, and the Interior Castle by st Teresa of Avila: At this time I do not recommend any translation over another. I recommend reading any and all translations of their work to understand them better.

On the five stages of the spiritual crisis: I believe they are indispensible on the spiritual journey, and indicators of whether an individual has actually negotiated the stage of spiritual development that they believe they have undergone. For instance, we have had a lot of gurus claim they are enlightened in the last 50 years, and yet not a single one that I am aware of have reported anything like a spiritual crisis, and also none of them have provided a detailed description of the stages of the religious experience, and most of them turned out to manifest one or more of the 7 deadly sins in the extreme, which should suggest that these so-called-masters were fakes.

On going back to school late in life: I went back to college after 40, and spent 10 years there jumping through hoops and found that only a few of my professors valued my work. I accumulated over 200 units, but had to leave the mess behind and accept only 3 BAs for all of that work. However, I am considering going back to get an MA and/or PhD, because three Bas has done nothing for my ability to get a job. On the other hand, I get so few job offers, that I am pretty sure I am being marginalized because of being a mystic. So, get your degrees and jobs now, because once it is known you are a mystic you are likely to become broke and homeless, like me.

Best regards, Jhananda

[don]

Jeffrey, I would suspect that the lack of job offers may be age related and lack of Phd. I know for music that unless you have a Phd, you simply wont be considered, because there are 100 others who have the Phd plus++. I was stupid and went and did an MA in linguistics, because I thought I would escape from all the political crap of the music world, and teach english instead. Now I see how those degrees do nothing more than open the doors into your respective field, but then its what you have ON TOP of that Phd, experience, papers, mainly.
So I have a BMus, and MA in applied linguistics. I started my post-grad music degree but then got sick and had to retreat from it. Now the place I want to go study says I'm about 5 years too old, its true, i'm turning 39 next month, and should be well into some sort of career. I see going back to school in Holland as a way to jump start my career again, and am working on curating some concerts where I am, stuff for my CV, and because I like it.
I really dont want to be dumpster diving when i'm 50, so this is future talk, I feel that i should invest the saving I have in that future, go for a grant while I'm still not over the hill, and take a last stab at getting the MA, performances by internationally renown ensembles is the priority there, and go from there. I have been teaching english and music for the last 12 years, but i just don't fit in with other people, 'teachers', I always felt like I was just pretending to be a teacher, and that who I really am was invisible to them. I don't know, teaching feels right at times, but its a very hard profession.

[jhananda]

Hello Don, since I am 57 years old, and I have been dumpster diving for 7 years, my experience supports your observations. So, sure, go for the advanced degrees in music, if that work inspires you, then it is right livelihood. But, do keep up your contemplative life while you are putting food on the table.

[Don]

Jeffrey, you seem to be doing very well, everyone says no regrets, but is there anything you would prefer to be different? I know the feeling of being marginalized, I have been all my life. For every person that hears my work but says nothing, I mean depending on how I respect that person as an artist, I feel that by saying nothing they are suppressing my work. Stopping it from spreading, from becoming. I have faith in what i do, I believe in myself and my work, and there are a few people whom I do respect and hold in high regard for there work who have made positive comments that lead me to believe that the ones I know who say nothing, are selfish, egotistical, and want to see you fail by refusing to make that comment that would simply validate the work I have done. I dont know why I need that validation, I think it makes me doubt myself, if the people I respect most say nothing, then maybe there is something they see that I dont! But I dont know, you cant confront them and say, hey, why dont you say anything, do you think I gave you that music for safe keeping??? That was to listen to and give me feedback. I mean, even if I dont like something, I will say something, anything, and usually just what i honestly feel to be the truth. The trans-formative power of art, the altered states that art can provide are only paralleled by the ectstaic states of mediation IMO. I feel like I should start some sort of contemplative recovery program as a part of my art practice. But that would be really pretentious, or document my own experience and connection to my work in an interview type format, something that would tell people that I am an ecstatic, that that is where I believe, and how I believe art should bring us to, that altered state of consciousness. There are people talking about this, but they are not contemplatives, but they understand that nature of art, the 'wonder' of art, the ability of art to lead us into altered states of consciousness. I'm trying to find the bridge, where I can bring my experience 'out' into the open without the fear of being laughed at, or seen as some sort of flaky new age creep.

[jhananda]

Hello Don, I find your most recent message provides excellent arguments for why validation is so important. A lot of my critics have argued that I am just an insecure person seeking validation. Well, I am not insecure, nor am I seeking validation; however, back when I was a naive seeker I needed some direction, which validation serves, but I found no validation coming from my many Buddhist priests and meditation teachers. Why is that? Because obviously none of them had the experience of jhana, or understood its importance.

However, I believe you are a bit too hard on your audience, when you expect a response. I would say most people are not sophisticated enough to provide a response to any of the arts, so do go easier on them.

I recently recieved a request from someone, maybe you, to review their music; however, I receive so much SPAM, that the request seemed dangerously close to a SPAM engine, that I did not click on the link. I generally do not click on links in emails if I do not have a high degree of confidence in the origins of the request.

Best, Jeffrey

[don]

Hi Jeffrey, thanks for your reply. No the request was not from me, I am not looking for validation from none musicians. I am referring to people who are professional composers and who are in political positions of power so to speak. I would say that the whole artistic community of a country is one big peer review body, basically everyone who is a serious artist, generally, knows everyone else. So to get zero response from someone who could potentially pass on a positive recommendation, suggests that they are subjugating the work by saying nothing. The reason I am a bit paranoid (I guess) about this, is because I get great response from some people (whom I have a high regard for), and then not even a reply from others (whom I also have a high regard for). They are all more than capable of responding with either a positive or negative response, but no response suggests....I really feel when it comes to dealing with what one believes in, the ego becomes involved. It strikes me that the whole artistic world is full of ego-maniacs, me included, we all have this belief that what we are doing is 'right', or is 'interesting' in some way, we all want to be validated and show how are work follows a 'lineage' of some kind, which is another form of validating. What could be more valid than showing how your work is tied directly to a progenitor 'master'? Anyways it brings the ego into the picture, its a bit like artists are all at war with one another, or rather the schools of thought that usually center around a progenitor, someone who was a great innovator of some kind, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, John Cage, Morton Feldman, Pierre Boulez, the 'cult' of Stockhausen, and many others. So you have the disciples of these figures, and then wars within the inner circles which are at war with the other circles, its total insanity, its seems no different than the 'religious' wars of who is right about which God is true and so on. I dont want to be a follower, and dont see myself that way, but I do want to be acknowledged, otherwise whats the point, if nobody hears or cares about your work, or everyone thinks its garbage, what use is it? You have nothing but your own faith, with or without peer review, you always are in a position of being the only one who really 'knows'. People may love what you do, which would be nice, but you still must be the one with the vision, to keep pushing the boundaries, taking the risks, nothing that anyone says, good or bad about your work, can change that fact. The irony being that here I am saying I want validation, and on the other hand, that it makes no difference. The validation requires entering into the political world of insanity, a place I have avoided for many years, the risk perhaps is not losing your own mind, or giving way to the ego.

[jhananda]

Hello Don, I have much to agree with you, because I have a fine art degree and a creative writing degree, so I am well aware of the various movements in the arts, and how important it is for artists to identify with a movement. And, I know quite a few famous artists, poets, and writers, so I am well aware of the egotism that runs rampant in them from recognition. I believe it is the responsibility of every artist to mentor the next generation of artists, which should not only be about constructive criticism, but also introductions into getting their work seen and sold. But, they almost never do this.

Because part of my work is to unpack the faulsehoods that abound in religion, then I very often receive offensive messages from priests and their naive devotees, and I have received no empowerment from Buddhism, or any other religion.

In religion there are movements as well, which people follow and identify with. religion should be about recognizing genuine mystics and helping them along; however, religion has never been about empowering the next generation of mystics, and is too often full of the same kind of egotism we see in the arts, which results in marginalizing every mystic.

Love to all, Jhananda

[don]

Dear Jeffrey, a heart felt thank you for those words. I feel almost overwhelmed with response that it seems appropriate to start a new thread on the topic. The main figures in art history (or mystics) have very often been 'prodigies' of one kind or another, seemingly born at the right time in the right place and so on. But it was really only until the the 20th C that all this began to be questioned, moving away from the 'individual' genius (a channel to 'God'), to the artist who does everything possible to 'negate' themselves from the work itself ('God' is everyone). We may be wiser for it, but has very much changed? I think it has, but it has also opened up the possibility for every ego to say "I am valid", and "here's my reason", here's my "school of thought", there is no longer any 'measure' as to what is 'great' and what is 'not'. And so on...

The ego issue is a big one, there are just so many people trying to be 'validated' that you are not only forced to defend, but to retaliate and attack, become clever and sly about dealing with people, and manipulative. I was reading Ekhard Tolles "New Earth" book yesterday, where he is talking about ego, and he says that "ego always has a hidden agenda, there is never a case where there is not something that the ego is trying to get from other people". That really struck me, like I can't interact with anyone without being accused of having a hidden agenda? Or is it the case that all action is political? But when I really stop to think about it, he seems to be right.

So what is the issue here? How do we know what is 'valid' and what is not? Where do we get validation from? I think what you say is very true Jeffrey, and I totally agree. But even when there are people who do this type of mentoring, could it be done better? While we are all looking for validation, who are the ones that revolutionize the world? Mystics of course. Is 'vision' not something about seeing into the 'future' as it is about seeing what is going on right now at this very moment? Tolle stole one hell of a good idea...

[jhananda]

Hello Don, it seems to me the issue is egotism, whether we are looking at addiction, or the arts. And, I have found leading a rigorous, self-aware contemplative life that produces the ecstatic altered states of consciousness that are associated with the deep contemplations, effaces and erases the ego. Thus it is only the mystic who has effaced and erased the ego, and this is supported by the suttas.

Ariyapariyesana Sutta (MN 26.28)
“...a seeker of Buddhahood renounces sensuality, renounces unwholesome mental states and beliefs with applied and sustained attention and bliss and joy one resides in the clarity of the first contemplation. This seeker of Buddhahood is said to have blinded Mara. Trackless, he has destroyed Mara's vision and has become invisible to the Evil One.”

Seeking validation is essential for the seeker; however, only a genuine mystic can direct another person to mysticism. All others will distract the seeker, because the priest, who is not a mystic, has not resolved his or her underlying delusions.

Love to all, Jhananda

[don]

Jeffrey, you seem to have hit the nail on the head, everything, everyone, is a distraction that is not pointing towards leading a rigorous contemplative life. Distractions from not only our own personal liberation, but remaining focused and clear minded enough to do whatever it is we need to do - art would probably be one of the better occupations for the contemplative. But I must say I feel a sense of relief at hearing your words, particularly in relation to people who try and thwart our attempts at being an artist/contemplative. Validation must come from within, would you say? The ecstatic states are there own validation, creating art seems an entirely different affair, but who ever said that artists are supposed to be all crazy, unhappy, and marginalized misfits. Mystics fall into the same class, the people that revolutionize the world, why are we so disrespected and unvalued? What is it that we threaten? Ego and its dominant structure that organize the world?

[jhananda]

Hello Don, yes, the ecstasies are self-validating. And, I find them even completely fulfilling.

Mystics are consistently marginalized by every culture and religion. The reason why Mystics are consistently marginalized by every culture and religion is because everyone on earth that has not led a rigorous self-ware contemplative life is addicted and deluded. Since the mystics had all led a rigorous self-ware contemplative life which has resulted in no addictions and no delusions, then all of those crazy people out there running the world are threatened by them, so they marginalize them.

This weekend I saw a movie about a mystic in France in the early 20th century who was also an artist. Her name was Seraphine.

Love to all, Jhananda

[Don]

That certainly seems to sum things up! I don't know how many artists were actual mystics, but there seems to be a very close relation between art and the divine. There is also the case of Adolf Wölfi (1864 - 1930), he most certainly was a mystic but suffered from severe psychosis...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Wölfli

[don]

actually i correct myself, i dont think Adolf Wölfi was a mystic, but certainly possessed by some powerful kundalini movements...his art is testament to something way beyond the capabilities of any ego, and unique perhaps in the same way that Henry Darger created worlds that folded from a spiritual place that not even they could fathom.

[jhananda]

Yes, I am willing to agree that there might be a significant number of artists, poets, musicians, etc. who were mystics. And, I agree that some people might have been on the edge of mysticism and ended up just plane crazy.

[don]

haha, that made me laugh Jeffrey, the dividing line seems always to be a fine one with artists...

However Foucault took the question very seriously, showing how the idea of madness from the Middle Ages through the Renaissance and the Enlightenment to the present, has undergone several transformations of meaning. For Foucault, the way in which each historical phase interprets insanity is always an essential key to understanding that phase's entire value system. The projection of the idea of madness on the other allows society to carve out its idea of itself as 'sane'.

And what we are saying, as Ekhard Tolle likes to say, is that the majority, mainstream, of society that considers itself 'normal', is what we are calling totally insane.

In the Renaissance, the mad were often viewed ambiguously as the potential possessors of higher truth (as in King Lear) while the sane could be victims of their own severely limited ideas, and slaves to custom and tradition. The upside-down night-world of A Midsummer Nights Dream and other renaissance fantasies reminds us that madness and sanity could engage in creative interchange. The bastions of world order in those days were hereditary inheritors holders of power, but not yet self-made lords of reason. Even the greatest earthly power was over-ruled by the higher reality of God and Satan and the supernatural realm was inherently a miraculous, magical world, a realm above and beyond earthly reason.

As the belief in pure reason emerged in the 17th and 18th centuries, however, madness and sanity became polarized. Science abolished God and His angels, and made itself the ultimate source of truth and reason. No higher authority existed than the human mind in its "reasonable" aspect. The arbiters of reason could now judge and condemn all others to the inescapable hell of the asylum.

In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, psychiatry finally rehabilitated madness as an "illness" subject to cure or normalization through therapy and drugs. This final "kind" mutation of the history of madness, is in many ways the most insidious and hypocritical. Especially when we look at some of the more remarkable achievements -- Hiroshima, Nazi Germany, The Iraq War -- of our hideously "sane" and rational society.

Foucault sees the history of knowledge as skin-shedding, self-justifying forms of control. Rather than a strict critique of psychiatry, Foucault's analysis is a window onto the social struggles which constitute mental illness as something to be combated in the first place, rather than as poorly-calibrated religiosity or aesthetic sentiment.