|
Post by jhananda on Jan 1, 2011 15:06:37 GMT -5
Hello Don, sorry about the delay in my reply, but I have been recuperating from a flu since Christmas Day, and then I got snowed in a few days ago, and I am only just getting mobile after it. The temps have dropped to 10F (-12c), which I Think has frozen both the crankcase oil and my batteries. Yesterday it was 4PM before I could get the engine to start.
Anyway. Yes, Hildegard of Bingen is a most interesting mystic to research. Yes, she had visions, but most interestingly, she claimed her “visions” came in all of her senses, which is what I, and many of my research subjects experience. I agree, though, one must check the original source language, because the translators seem to have a lot of trouble getting it right.
It is not surprising to me to hear that you are experiencing non-dual states while in the second and third contemplations (jhanas). It has been my experience, and it is supported by my case histories. Oddly, none of the Theravadan priests who write extensively on jhana seen to experience non-dual states. They also think jhana just concentration. I guess that would explain why they are not having non-dual experiences, because they are not experiencing jhana, they are just experiencing concentration.
Love to all for the new year, Jeffrey
|
|
|
Post by don on Jan 9, 2011 16:22:21 GMT -5
Jeffrey, were we ever non-dual? It seems an interesting point in regard to the the music, how music seems to have evolved with the idea of a separation between the music and the listener, creating a space 'between' them. Or perhaps this is related to the rise of music as a commodity, thought of in terms of how it will appeal and sell to a particular audience, as opposed to how it will sound in the close proximity of a small chamber, sounded between friends after an evening meal.
The general tendency in new music these days is to perform music in living rooms, lofts, odd warehouse like spaces, I guess in an effort to return the listener to a place where there is no 'separation' between the music, the listener, and the 'act' of experiencing the music. Because really the music is what happens inside us, which is never the same for any one person. It seems the rise of the concert hall, and standardization of instruments, was an effort to create a kind of uniformity, or a certain predefined notion of 'clarity', and what that means, for a particular era of musical 'taste'. All interconnected, or fighting against, the particular 'insanity' of the rest of the world around it, and which gave birth to it.
|
|
|
Post by don on Jan 12, 2011 18:12:37 GMT -5
Jeffrey, I've been listening to a lot of silverblatt discussions with various famous authors, with Susan Sontag, Sadie Smith, David foster Wallace, Richard Powers, Ben Marcus, tom McCarthy, salmon Rushdie, Umberto Eco, and its always fascinating because, well Michael Silverblatt is perhaps one of the best readers/interviewers in America, writers love him because he is so insightful, and the various authors speak on all kinds of fascinating topics...and...while I'm not trying to negate the importance of what they are discussing, and the very excellent thoughts and right livelihood that they are engaged in as pre-eminant contemporary authors of this age, but I have to say, the one person I would like to hear interviewed is Sidhartha Gothma. Wouldn't all of the question have simple and straightforward answers, aren't what they are all talking about always issues to do with our being in the world, and all of the problems that we live in and create for ourselves? Perhaps not simple and straightforward answers, but he would outline a path, a way out of all of the conundrums, however absurd they may sound to our insane world, and show that the answer to our problems can be solved by basic transformations of the way we lead our lives. I guess the question I'm asking, is it really necessary to read alot, and all these contemporary authors, do they really have solutions and way of experiencing the world that only literature can give us? As impressive as much of it is, and as lucid and interesting as the authors speak about the issues they are grappling with, they are always incomplete, and don't really, significantly transform our lives enough to relieve the suffering that prevails through out our lives. What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by jhananda on Jan 12, 2011 18:26:15 GMT -5
Hello Don, if we want transformation, then we need to find a living mystic to learn from, because mystics are all about transformation, and the progenitors of all of the major religions were mystics. So, we do not have to hypothetically, or wishfully, interview Siddhartha Gautama, or any other dead mystic, we just need to find a living one to study from. And, we can do some broad reading and exercise some logic and critical thinking, and comparative literary analysis to determine who is actually an authentic mystic, verse who is just selling snake oil.
|
|
|
Post by don on Jan 13, 2011 16:59:02 GMT -5
I like your point Jeffrey, pulls things into perspective in a rather forceful way. Are you saying that art and culture are snake oil compared to the work of true mystics? Or that true transformation is only possible through mystics?
|
|
|
Post by jhananda on Jan 14, 2011 8:07:25 GMT -5
No, I am not saying art and culture are just a roadside attraction. I am saying religion, and especially charismatic religious leaders are, in most cases, just another roadside attraction, and they tend to use art as a vehicle to make their roadside attraction much more attractive and attention getting.
|
|
|
Post by don on Jan 15, 2011 18:12:49 GMT -5
Ok. I'm not really aware of such people, perhaps because by most serious artists, they are not taken seriously. Your comments Jeffrey always make me see things in a fresh way, I was re listening, and listening to new interviews, and wow I really heard them differently. I said to a friend that as intelligent, talented, and accomplished as some of these people are, there is this feeling that what they are saying is like a delusion becoming aware of itself. Richard Powers strikes me as one of the most interesting and deepest younger writers working today, praised by John Barth, compared to Thomas Pynchon, he touches on a lot of excellent points. Here is a link to his interview if you would like to listen: www.kcrw.com/etc/programs/bw/bw010315richard_powers
|
|
|
Post by don on Jan 18, 2011 17:33:01 GMT -5
Dear Jeffrey, I find no sooner have I posted a question than I see its flaws, I find my own answers, or fail to have seen anything at all. I was just writing to a friend who was depressed about their work as an artist, where they felt they had failed in the eyes of many of his peers. I replied to him:
if you define success in terms of how other people see you, then there is no one to blame for that. I agree that what remains constant through morphological change is what is important in life, however, I also believe that there is much more to life than art. Art is meant to put us more in touch with being, when it fails to do that, it serves a purpose foreign to that, which goes against life itself. Martin has several metaphors he uses to describe this process, wherein art 'casts' off it's forms, defies them, and shows us how identification with them is an illusion. I have to say I find myself yawning a bit when reading these program notes, if you were to just pick up the work of any true mystic, you would find a well-spring infinitely richer than anything Arnold has to offer. But this is in the nature of art, to 're-cast', or 're-invent' itself, meaning, as you mentioned about my own work, that what is essential, never changes. Where I disagree with you concerns 'either you have it or you don't', I would say, 'either you are aware of it, becoming aware of it, or not really'.
I think what I saw after writing that reply to my friend, is that mystics have done what all art strives to do, artists glimpse the eternal truths, and 're-cast' them into new forms, forms which can rupture the stagnant energy of a society, freeing it into a more 'enlightened' stages of being. It would seem that art always searches for new ways of seeing, and experiencing being in its manifest state.
|
|
|
Post by jhananda on Jan 19, 2011 20:16:04 GMT -5
|
|