Home (theory of the ego death and rebirth experience)
Contents
Mature marriage of mind expansion
and continuing given realities.
Metaphysical enlightenment vs.
improving daily life; transcendent good vs. mundane goods
Is daily-life ord-state
spirituality opposed to mystic altered-state religion?
I don't
find this the world's most interesting topic, but it is a key topic of
unsurpassed importance that is worth the work of debating. How can the entheogenists and the
meditationists have such different opinions and views? By defining the goal and purpose of
enlightenment very differently.
We have a
very different view of the purpose of enlightenment, and its benefits and
content. I realized this while reading
Zig Zag Zen -- that I have profoundly deep issues with meditationists regarding
the entire conception of what spiritual practice is all about: what its nature
is, what its content is, what its goal is, and what its promise is. My main question I came away with is:
Just what
do you entheogen-diminishing meditationists think the goal is? Some feel-good, interpersonal
lovingkindness, social emotion, or absolutely indistinct and evasive null construct
that means nothing and denies the worth of any particular meaning? It has become standard for meditationists to
disparage everything that I think is the heart of religion.
At the
extreme, they say that meditation is not for creating an altered state, and is
not for gaining transcendent philosophical comprehension, and is instead for
some totally and pointedly evasive, unaccountable, unmeasurable achievement
vaguely in the realm of interpersonal relationships during ongoing daily life.
derinkle
wrote [paraphrased]
>>>The
point of either entheogens or meditation is lost if the enlightening experience
or revelation is not carried out into daily life.
Michael
wrote [paraphrased]:
>>It
is highly debatable whether the point of entheogens, meditation, enlightenment,
or revelation is to improve daily life.
The point of enlightenment is metaphysical enlightenment about the
hidden nature of self, time, will, control, and moral agency -- not mainly or
significantly about improving daily life.
The point of revelation is discovering these formerly hidden
relationships -- not improving daily life.
>>Daily
life and mundane ethics are not directly affected or changed by revelation and
enlightenment. Religious revelation or
enlightenment is realm that is essentially distinct from daily life, even in
the two realms have some relation or influence on each other.
Caroline
wrote [paraphrased]:
>Entheogens
give the impression that mystical realms are separate from 'daily life' realms,
because the drug is taken at a particular time, certain distinctive experiences
occur for awhile, the drug wears off, the experiences wear off, and then the
individual reenters 'mundane' cognition.
Meditation, on the other hand, works consistently from the inside out,
without making any great leaps.
Here we
see an instance of meditation advocates renouncing and denying that meditation
has a goal of satori -- reaching a point of sudden state-shift in one's mental
worldmodel. There is perhaps a
tradition of thinking of meditation as completely slow, gradual development,
set against an opposing viewpoint, that meditation provides sudden, complete
transformation of one's worldmodel.
Remember,
there are controversies and competing schools within Buddhism and meditation,
as surely as Mary Magdalene has always battled against Peter within
Christianity. As an advocate of the
entheogenic lightning path, I accuse "gradual enlightenment" of being
a false path leading nowhere -- salvation on the installment plan, that excels
at entrenching egoic delusion ever more firmly, while claiming to provide
enlightenment.
In the
end, it is a false relabelling of delusion as enlightenment. Ken Wilber claims to have attained some
exceedingly indefinable change of mental state, through years of gradual
development during meditation. At this
point it would be great if I knew the ancient debates between the advocates of
the slow, gradual path and the lightning path.
I think the slow path is a complete sham.
I have no
reason to believe that the slow-path meditationists or contemplatives are
accomplishing anything except increasing their own delusion. In making these accusations, remember that I
have a very small, specific definition of enlightenment: the discovery in
experience and in rational insight, of the idea of no-free-will -- timeless,
preexisting-future, block-universe determinism.
When I say
that slow-path meditation is a path leading only to delusion falsely labelled
as enlightenment, I am asserting that the slow path does not lead to an
experience of no-free-will and that it doesn't lead to an insight into the
soundness and frighteningly elegant simplicity of the frozen block universe
idea. Ultimately, pursuing this debate
reveals two schools that are as different as "Gnostic versus Orthodox
Christianity" (per Freke and Gandy's usage).
I've found
that in religion, there are two sets of ideas that line up, as a rule. This can be called the "two sets"
or "two paths" hypothesis.
Advocates of short-path practice normally advocate entheogens and
no-free-will, and strongly differentiate metaphysical enlightenment from
ongoing daily ethical conduct.
Conversely,
advocates of long-session contemplation normally disparage entheogens,
emphasize transformation as a very gradual process, and advocate blending a lot
of freewill into their determinism, and they make a strong connection between
ongoing daily ethical conduct and enlightenment. These two opposed camps begin and end with opposed notions of
what religion is all about, and what it can accomplish, how it its best
conceived, and how religious experiencing or religious practice relates to
daily life.
It is good
to consider this two-paths hypothesis, because if this is the case, we can
avoid unprofitably debating individual points in isolation, and debate about whole
models of religion all at once.
Dan
Merkur's book The Psychedelic Sacrament portrays the entheogen-using rabbinic
mystics as using a short-path, rational, entheogenic approach, against the
orthodox mystics, who believed in a long-path, non-rational, non-entheogenic
approach -- and I'd assume that the two camps also had a dispute about what the
whole goal and potential of contemplation is.
Likely,
these two camps had correspondingly different assumptions, different
conceptions, different goals and notions about the purpose and nature of
religion, and the content of enlightenment and mystic insight. For all intents and purposes, these two
camps disagree about *everything*, regarding what religion (or even religious
insight) is all about.
I hope
there isn't anyone who agrees with my model of basic enlightenment while
disagreeing about other main aspects of religion -- it is easier to theorize if
I can neatly divide people into two opposed grand paradigms.
I am
trying to portray the orthodox, dominant paradigm as holding:
1. Genuine
free will to some degree
2.
Diminishing entheogens
3. Read
most religious figures literally
4.
Non-rationality and unfathomable subtle complexity of enlightenment
5. Slow
and gradual, perpetual meditation /contemplation
I am trying
to define the truly enlightened, esotericists as holding this set of axiomatic
assumptions:
1. No free
will; the idea is as incoherent as separate-self
2.
Entheogens are the main mystic technique, by far
3. Read
religious figures purely mythically as mystic-state allegory
4.
Rationality and remarkable simplicity of enlightenment
5. Slow
and gradual, perpetual meditation /contemplation
This marks
a milestone for me: I may need to add a fifth main element to my recent 3, then
4 principles. I recently added
"rationality and simplicity of enlightenment" to the above-listed 3
main distinctive axioms; today I may add a fifth distinctive axiom, or expand
the fourth. However, in my ~1996
summary of the Theory, I already included "enlightenment is fast" in
my principle that "enlightenment is rational". We could almost add a distinct 6th classic
point of debate:
6.
Enlightenment should be measured by its effect on ongoing daily life.
vs.
6.
Enlightenment is far more concerned with metaphysical revelation of hidden
relationships, than with affecting ongoing daily life.
If ideas
really do line up into "the two religions" or "the two
paths" this way, then my goal in writing an updated summary article is to
"offend in every way the conventional religionists" -- to refute
every one of their main distinguishing assumptions.
Although
there are many exceptions, dividing thinking into these two sets is warranted,
because these two sets of axiomatic assumptions form the most stable polar
opposite positions. It is most natural
for advocates of interminable meditation and gradual enlightenment to disparage
entheogens and to advocate some free will, and to literalize the religious
founder figures, and to glorify non-rationality while highlighting the
limitations of rational analysis.
Similarly, it is most natural
>Meditation
gradually alters 'mundane' cognition until it is transformed into mystical
cognition, permanently, in a gentle, sustainable and balanced way.
>Meditation
is not set against entheogens -- both have a certain value.
In
significant, major ways, for all practical purposes, meditation is set against
entheogens, constituting two opposing paths.
A major contention I'm highlighting and revealing lately is the debate
between the entheogenists and the meditationists. Individuals tend toward one of two conflicting sets of ideas
about what religion is all about. Yes,
the two can be seen as bringing their own value, but I'm interested in refuting
the false and illegitimate diminishment of entheogens by meditationists.
Entheogen
researchers have barely started to criticize meditation, fairly or
unfairly. So far, all we've heard from
lately is "what do the meditationists think of entheogens, potentially and
as typically practiced?" We hear
less about "What do entheogenists think of meditation, potentially and as
typically practiced?"
>Religious
revelation and daily life are not two distinct realms. People should consider how to integrate
their highest perspective into conduct of daily life, otherwise the transcendent
perspective can only be a worthless intellectual grasping. The transcendent perspective should produce
a core transformation that releases and liberates a person into the benefits of
continuous non-egoic living.
Religious
revelation is very distinct from daily life.
We *can* consider ways to somehow integrate the highest perspective into
conduct of daily life, but the transcendent perspective remains toweringly
profound in its own right, high above the mundane realm, standing in dramatic
contrast. The transcendent perspective
produces a core transformation in the mental worldmodel, and a transient
intense change in the sense of self (contrasting with the accustomed
separate-self-sense and freewill-sense).
This
transformed worldmodel integrates and enwraps the previous egoic worldmodel,
transcending and including it, no longer taking the egoic view as literal
reality.
This may
have some effect on daily life, but such effect has been greatly exaggerated
and has not been demonstrated as a clear correlation, and should be seen as a
hypothetical ideal, and a dangerous one that may lead the metaphysically
enlightened to falsely assume that they are also morally superior as measured
by the standards of practical daily interpersonal life.
It's safe
to assume instead that one is fully metaphysically enlightened but that one
remains merely average in the realm of mundane living. It's dangerous to assume that one's
metaphysical enlightenment (knowledge of the hidden relationships of self,
mind, control, world, and time) correlates with an automatic increase in
interpersonal ethics in the daily realm.
I agree
one ought to be nice and ought to be metaphysically enlightened, but deny there
is any major correlation between the two.
They may be bundled into a package, but then, so ought other domains as
well.
Just
because enlightenment is good and ethical interpersonal conduct is good,
doesn't mean that the two are closely related and should be both dubbed as
"enlightenment". It's less
confusing, and more helpful, if we keep the labels straight, using a stricter
definition of enlightenment, and using "ethics" for the other.
What is
the purported, promised "release" and "liberation" of a
person into "the benefits of continuous non-egoic living"? What are these supposed, vague, unspecified
benefits, involved in that view of what religion is all about? The dominant model of enlightenment suffers
from chronic vagueness, a nebulous system promising nebulous results.
In my
restricted model of enlightenment as just metaphysical revelation of the hidden
way things are, enlightenment produces a *particular* kind of
"release" and "liberation" and "benefits". There is a release from some *particular*
cognitive dissonance -- the incoherent assumption of metaphysical free moral agency,
and some release from the tense contradictions that are endemic to the false
cybernetic self-control system that is based on the mind's taking as literal
the egoic prime-mover illusion.
Also, a
kind of liberation is experienced according to my 3-stage model: first, there
is the unexamined assumption of egoic control-power over one's thoughts and
actions. Then, during the peak of the
entheogenic intense mystic altered state, there is the discovery of the feeling
and logic of being frozen, affixed helplessly to the timeless block universe,
with no possible mental move to regain virtual freedom.
Then, the
mind is given its semblance of freedom back, after showing that the ego is not
ultimately in control of one's own thoughts and actions.
One walks
away from this ego death by using once again the structures inherited from the
egoic operating system, but now, with a deep and knowing caveat: my thoughts
and actions don't originate from me as egoic controller-originator, but
ultimately, are given by the ground of being, and possibly by a hypothetical
transcendent hidden controller outside the spacetime block.
Has one
gained "freedom" or "liberation"? One first had ignorant assumption of freedom and liberty, then
one awoke at the mystic peak to perceive hidden unfreedom (alarmingly), and was
finally liberated from that unfreedom.
This trajectory actually moves from freedom(1) to unfreedom to
freedom(2) -- liberation in *that* sense is something real, definite, and specific,
and attainable.
But the
common misty, vague, social, interpersonal, and superficially spiritual notion
of gaining "liberation" is no more than a hope, an ideal, a stylized
notion, a "human" (mundane) construct.
Michael
wrote:
>>The
purpose of the high realm of experiencing and insight is to attain high
experiencing and insight, not to polish and uphold the low realm of mundane
existence. The high and low realms are distinct and we cannot attain the high
realm if we insist on reducing its purpose to affirming and bolstering the low
realm.
Caroline
wrote:
>There
isn't evidence or justification for such a strong dichotomy between the
transcendent realm and the realm of daily living. When you can see the boundlessness within the boundaries [once
you can see that there is rich interaction across the boundaries that mark off
the transcendent from the daily-life realm], then you are free to act.
You refer
to "the boundaries", so I assume that you agree with me that there is
some boundary demarcating the transcendent from the mundane. Then our argument is about the degree of
interaction or relation between these realms.
I doubt you'd deny there is a difference between mundane and
transcendent realms, collapsing them into one, because that explains away the reality
of the transcendent realm, or falsely elevates the basest existence, claiming
it is enlightened.
To
converse, we must agree that there is a higher and a lower realm, and therefore
by implication, some demarcation defining the difference. The higher realm is different than the lower
realm; they are not the same thing; there *is* a difference of some sort and a
demarcation of some sort. To deny that
is to immediately terminate the conversation.
To admit
it is to make the conversation proceed to the debate over the nature of this
demarcation. You assert that the
transcendent strongly affects the mundane, whereas I assert that there is no
clear correlation between attaining to the transcendent realm and altering
one's mundane live. Is it really a good
idea to define enlightenment such that one not only gains a revealed
understanding and insight into things formerly hidden, but that one also alters
one's mundane life?
We can
define enlightenment that way only if we define a suitably two-part definition
of enlightenment, or define two distinct types of enlightenment: theoretical,
metaphysical enlightenment (which I'm systematizing), and lifestyle
enlightenment -- that is, enlightened ethical conduct in ongoing daily life.
If you
insist on jamming these two together so that enlightenment by definition
necessarily involves improved daily life *and* metaphysical enlightenment, then
what would you call the state of a person who doesn't lead a significantly
transformed life -- suppose an average life -- and yet gains what I promise to
offer, metaphysical enlightenment? You
advocate always packaging enlightenment as a two-part deal, a two-part system,
and labelling that "authentic enlightenment".
If someone
becomes metaphysically enlightened but continues to lead an ordinary daily
life, you would label that "mere metaphysical intellectual enlightenment,
rather than full-bandwidth authentic enlightenment of both mind and
conduct." My approach, in
contrast, is to downplay the degree of interpenetration between metaphysical
enlightenment and the realm of daily conduct (enlightened conduct).
There is
only speculation, not evidence, that metaphysical enlightenment should normally
be expected to highly improve daily ethical conduct. I say, we cannot gain metaphysical enlightenment when we
overpromise what it can be expected to deliver.
We cram
too many campaign promises onto the back of metaphysical enlightenment, and
then fail to attain even the basic goal of metaphysical enlightenment, much
less all the other goals that we have hopefully and idealistically loaded on
top of that achievement. Per Ken
Wilber's model, the person develops in many distinct areas, which have only a
partial and moderate interaction.
Will
enlightenment make you physically stronger, smarter, kinder, and more ethical,
too, in addition to providing basic enlightenment? There is no evidence and no good reason to think so. Can we say that people who attain
metaphysical enlightenment are normally ethically superior to unenlightened
people? There is no evidence for such
correlation.
I'm sticking
with the most basic, streamlined, minimalist, and solid and defensible
definition of enlightenment or basic enlightenment. You advocate fancy enlightenment, some sort of Integral
Enlightenment. That's a long shot; good
luck. I advocate first securing a far
more modest and basic definition of enlightenment: strictly metaphysical
enlightenment, with no necessary correlation promised between this and daily
life conduct.
Yes, it is
possible to legitimately define "enlightenment" as involving a combination
of metaphysical enlightenment and some sort of enlightened ethical daily
conduct, as do typical religionists.
But who can deliver on that promised *combined* two-part goal, and is
there any evidence such a strong correlation between attaining metaphysical
enlightenment and enlightened ethical daily conduct?
There is
no evidence that attainment of metaphysical enlightenment is correlated with
improved or right ethical daily conduct; the supposed connection between them
is just an arbitrary convention; everyone assumes that they go together, that
unenlightened people act worse than enlightened people, though there is no
evidence to support such a put-down of the conduct of metaphysically
unenlightened people and elevation of the conduct of the enlightened.
It is
purely idealistic, and nothing more than an expression of what one would
*expect*, to define "authentic enlightenment" as involving both
metaphysical enlightenment and daily enlightened conduct. That construct, two-part authentic
enlightenment, expresses a value system, rather than a discovered reality. My definition of enlightenment, in contrast,
restricts itself to what there is evidence for, and what it can promise to
deliver.
My
definition of enlightenment is scientific; a report of what we definitely and
consistently have found, rather that of what we expect and hope to find and may
or may not find in the future. My
approach is not to be driven by ideals, but by making sense of observations of
actual dynamics of the world.
That is an
arbitrary or unclear goal, the goal of "becoming free to act". You assert that the main goal of
transcendence is to transform the realm of daily living in order to gain
"the freedom to act". You
assert that attaining transcendence is desirable because it increases one's
"freedom to act". I question
whether transcendence increases one's "freedom to act" -- whatever
that means -- and I question whether the goal or value of transcendence is to
increase one's "freedom to act".
Do
unenlightened people suffer from a restricted "freedom to act",
because of their unenlightenment? What
problem does enlightenment solve -- the problem of "restricted freedom to
act"? That problem definition and
that promise of enlightenment seem arbitrary.
Does
meditation deliver the goods it promises, or not? What does meditation promise and deliver? Meditation promises vague results, and
refuses to be held accountable when no significant result is delivered --
atheistic relaxation training and plain, unassuming, straightforward philosophy
of ethics perhaps would have been a better investment of one's time.
The model
of enlightenment I've pulled together -- the simplest model of ego
transcendence -- promises less than any other spiritual tradition, *and
delivers* on its promise: you *will* get metaphysical enlightenment as it is
defined by this model, and you might or might not get other benefits -- I sure
can't guarantee that you will get other benefits, but I can easily guarantee
the attainment of the modest and highly bounded type of enlightenment defined
in this model.
Michael
wrote:
>>Enlightenment
transcends the mundane purpose of mundane self-help for daily life, as surely
as Christianity should not be degraded by being restricted to the level of
Christian-style self-help books that clog the shelves of the bookstores. It may
be true that enlightenment should positively affect daily life, but no way can
enlightenment be reduced to being measured in terms of what it can do for mere
daily life.
Caroline
wrote:
>'Mere'
daily life is our very existence...I love and accept my daily life...it is what
I am now...and it is divine.
That
collapses and dissolves the distinction between the lower and higher
realms. You have either falsely denied
the existence of the higher realm, falsely relabelled ordinary life as
transcendent consciousness, or compromised them both by halfway elevating the
lower realm and halfway lowering the higher realm. This is why today's popular American Buddhism leads to nothing
determinate, nothing reproducible, nothing that ordinary ethics could produce
just as well.
What is
the difference between a good unenlightened Christian church person and a good
Buddhist who rejects a distinction between lower and higher? None; they are both ethical systems that
style themselves as "spiritual".
American Buddhism is actually low (unenlightened, mundane) Christianity
with the "Christian" styled skin replaced by a "Buddha"
styled skin, but it's the same thing underneath: ongoing daily ethics mistaken
for religion.
Where is
the profound transformation and revelation?
It is entirely absent from lower Christianity and from lower
Buddhism. Lower Buddhism denies the
existence or importance or separateness of a higher Buddhism.
Just as in
the official denial of a second, gnostic, higher Eucharist than the Church's
placebo Eucharist, so does today's popular Buddhist deny that there is a truly
higher, distinct, profound transformation that is distinct from the lower
realm; the two are collapsed into a single realm which can only devolve into
the old situation of the lower realm relabelled as the higher.
What would
I say to someone who agrees with my simple model of basic metaphysical
enlightenment but who then advocates a definition of "full authentic
enlightenment" that adds "enlightened ongoing daily conduct" to
basic metaphysical enlightenment, requiring both aspects, for one to qualify as
"fully authentically enlightened"?
I would say that they are detracting from basic enlightenment by
arbitrarily saddling it and harnessing it to something that is essentially and
mostly distinct -- daily ethical conduct.
There is
no great justification for so strongly correlating ordinary ethical conduct and
metaphysical enlightenment. I warn that
the unwillingness to keep distinct fields carefully separated and bounded as
distinct, will cause the inability to gain success in either field. If you can't differentiate politics and
religion, you'll end up with bad politics and bad religion.
Actually
my most general principle in the theory of "domains" is
"differentiate and integrate".
The best daily conduct and the best metaphysical enlightenment require
that you fully differentiate and integrate the two areas or domains.
Differentiate
*and* integrate ongoing daily ethical conduct and metaphysical enlightenment. Don't confuse the two and insist on fully
jamming them together into one, or both domains of life will be degraded,
resulting in malformed enlightenment and malformed daily conduct. Likewise, don't totally isolate the two
domains, because they actually reflect on each other to some extent.
>The
enlightenment experience has to be incorporated into one's being, not just
revealed in a time of relaxation or intensity of understanding.
Michael
wrote:
>It's
too vague to just assert that legitimate enlightenment must be
"incorporated into one's being" or must be "carried out into
daily life".
Caroline
wrote [paraphrased]:
>When
one can live and respond in the knowledge that 'I am not these thoughts; I am
not this body; I am not these emotions; all will pass, all is changing, all is
impermanent',
one can live truly freely, liberated from the kneejerk reactions of blame. The
systematic reconception of self, control, etc. leads to right action. 'Integration into daily life' is a specific
concept.
Having a
metaphysically enlightened worldmodel does open up some alternative ways of
thinking about interactions in daily life, but it's by no means a cure-all;
jerks remain jerks, problems remain problematic, labor remains labor. It remains an open question and a matter of
debate and discussion, the extent to which a transformed mental worldmodel can
be correlated with improved ongoing daily life.
It is
highly questionable whether we should measure the value of a transformed mental
worldmodel purely in terms of its practical value in mundane life. Revelation is awesome and valuable in its
own right, and the transcendent realm remains distinct and demarcated from the
realm of daily living. This is not an
easy, simple debate, identifying the best understanding of the relation between
the realms of the transcendent and mundane.
>Transcendent
experiencing on certain circumscribed occasions, set apart from 'daily life',
*plays a role* in complete transformation.
>But
transcendent experiencing on certain circumscribed occasions, set apart from
'daily life', *cannot effect complete* transformation.
How should
we define "complete transformation"?
Is it a good idea or a natural, justified combination, to marry
metaphysical enlightenment closely to conduct of daily life? A debate at some length is needed, to
adequately investigate this and to identify different defensible
positions. Certainly I'm against the
common assertion that "meditation isn't about the temporary altered state,
but about how we conduct daily life".
That's
often used as a flimsy excuse to explain why meditation is unable to produce
the tangible cognitive results of entheogens and yet is supposedly better, more
effective, and more legitimate. True
meditation is very much concerned with the temporary altered state, as the main
instrument of transcendent insight and transformation of the mental worldmodel.
This
transformation *can* improve daily life in certain distinctive ways, but
there's no evidence for a strong correlation of metaphysical enlightenment and
improved interpersonal conduct -- such correlation is essentially an ethical
ideal rather than a reported, observed reality. I acknowledge that the other side has somewhat of a case; this
suggests further discussion could be profitable.
We perhaps
must reject both extremes: the false story that meditation is only hindered by
altered-state fireworks and that meditation should be measured purely in terms
of mundane ethical conduct, and the notion I advocated that the transformed
worldmodel has basically no effect on or relevance to daily living. Still, I hold a higher view of mundane
ethics and self-help "art of conduct" than most American Buddhists,
and I hold a lower view of the potential of enlightenment than most American
Buddhists.
Equating
enlightenment with excellent ongoing living tends to overly put down the
ordinary conduct of the unenlightened and declare ordinary people's lives to be
religiously corrupt and despicable, and it tends to attribute too many benefits
to enlightenment, so that enlightenment is given credit that actually belongs
to the venerable field of ethics.
Enlightenment sheds light on ethics and ethical agency, but the realm of
enlightenment is distinct from the realm of ethics, or ongoing daily
interpersonal conduct.
It's *not*
as though ethics (ongoing daily interpersonal conduct) is utterly lost and
hopeless without enlightenment, and it's not as though enlightenment makes all
interpersonal problems just evaporate.
>Supposing
that 'daily life' cannot be experienced directly as divine, what does
'enlightenment' mean?
Ongoing
daily life can only be experienced as divine a little bit; only like a shadow
of full, intense mystic-state insight and experiencing of the way things
are. Enlightenment is a series of
modifications of the mental worldmodel and self-control operating system, in
and out of the intense mystic altered state, that results in a specific,
clearly specifiable systematic transformation from one specific mental
worldmodel (egoic) to another (transcendent).
A mature
enlightened mind has a certain quality of experience and insight when in the
altered state of cognition and when in the daily, default state of cognition
(tight cognitive association binding).
To be
enlightened, according to my minimalist model of ego death and transcendence,
is to understand the basic concepts and principles such as listed in the
Overview page at the Egodeath.com site, or at the start of this discussion
group. More classically, and quite
reasonably, a more robust definition also includes the experience of
no-separate-self and no-free-will, in conjunction with full conceptual
understanding.
The full
experiencing and full understanding mutually support and enable each
other. These two components are easily
justifiable -- but to drag in the idealistic applied requirement, that full
enlightenment also requires ongoing daily ethical interpersonal enlightened
conduct? That would be a move from
metaphysical enlightenment into what I'd call mundane ethics, though I admit
that metaphysical enlightenment has the potential to provide a greater range of
conceptions, applicable to daily life.
But what
is on top must stay on top, and not flip upside down; the transcendent provides
its own justification independently of its possible applicability to daily
life, and it is a grave insult (reductionism) to the transcendent to subject it
to the measure of worth provided by ongoing daily life. What use is enlightenment to "real
life"? It provides perspective and
can be useful, but enlightenment cannot be reduced being measured solely by how
useful of a tool it is for daily living.
Our
argument lies near here: yes enlightenment can possibly help ongoing daily
life, but ought we measure it solely in terms of improving daily life? That would be some sort of blasphemy,
reductionism, or category error, falsely collapsing transcendent religion into
mundane ethics.
And beware
of forked tongues who try to cover for the ineffectiveness of meditation vis a
vis entheogens by blaspheming the holy spirit (an unpardonable sin, according
to some theology). This is the first
hypothesis I've found to explain the meaning of "blaspheming the holy
spirit": saying that it is not needed, that religion is centered on daily
living rather than on transcendent experiencing.
Differentiate
between states (default/altered) and stages (egoic/transcendent); there are
really 4 combinations to consider: unenlightened/default, unenlightened/altered
state, enlightened/default state, enlightened/altered state.
or
untransformed/default,
untransformed/altered state, transformed/default state, transformed/altered
state.
Metaphysical
enlightenment is a domain that contains its own great value even aside from any
combining of this domain with ongoing daily life. Like Wilber's Integral Theory, consider my "theory of domain
dynamics" in general, at a higher level of abstraction.
A 'holon'
is a bounded area or domain that interacts with other areas. Wilber pictures these mainly positioned into
a nested hierarchy, but also in other, diverse architectures as well.
My
"domain dynamics" model of the realms of knowledge or human concern
is inherently more open than Wilber's hierarchical theory of holons, though his
recent models with lines, threads, levels, quadrants, etc. have become almost
unmanagably baroque. "Domain
dynamics" is simple and general because fairly abstract: there are
different domains of knowledge or concern, and they each interact in
distinctive ways.
In this
thread we are debating the value relationships between the two domains:
o Metaphysical enlightenment
o Ongoing daily life when informed by
metaphysical enlightenment.
Consider
domain A and domain B, such as metaphysical enlightenment and ongoing daily
interpersonal ethics. Domain A (or
"holon A") has its own value, and domain B has its own value, and the
combination of domains A and B has yet another value. The various positions in the present debate can be permutated:
Does A
(metaphysical enlightenment) have value, on its own? Does B (ongoing daily ethical interpersonal
conduct/consciousness) have value on its own?
Does the combination of A and B have some systemic combined value?
There are
8 combinations, forming 8 possible positions in the debate:
000 <-
nihilist existentialist. Nothing has
any intrinsic value. For any domain,
take it or leave it. Metaphysical
enlightenment simply exists, beyond value.
Daily life is just daily life conduct and consciousness, not essentially
good or bad, commendable or redeemable.
001 <-
altered-state-disparaging meditationists who disparage unenlightened ethics;
the only valuable thing is ongoing daily conduct/consciousness that is informed
by metaphysical enlightenment; metaphysical enlightenment has no intrinsic
value on its own
010 <-
ignorant atheists; Ayn Rand/Earl Doherty - there is only good mundane ethics;
no such thing as valuable metaphysical enlightenment, and no metaphysical
enlightenment about moral agency to inform daily conduct/consciousness
011 <-
altered-state-disparaging meditationists who respect unenlightened ethics and
daily living. Metaphysical
enlightenment has no value at all on its own, and is only valuable to the
extent that it enhances the realm of all good, which is ongoing daily living. This is the dominant position lately in
American Buddhism.
100 <- dualist
world-haters: only metaphysical enlightenment is valuable; ongoing daily
consciousness is thoroughly fallen and evil, and cannot be redeemed by
enlightenment.
101 <-
despisers of the unenlightened: metaphysical enlightenment is the source and
home base of goodness, and the only kind of respectable daily consciousness is
that which is informed by metaphysical enlightenment.
110 <-
daily life has practically nothing to do with metaphysical enlightenment. Ongoing daily ethical consciousness is good,
and metaphysical enlightenment is good, but the two remain separate realms.
111 <-
integral theory (Wilber), domain dynamics (Hoffman). Unenlightened daily ethical consciousness is valuable even on its
own; metaphysical enlightenment is good even on its own; ongoing daily
consciousness informed by metaphysical enlightenment is also good in a distinct
way.
1 means
yes, very valuable. 0 means no, not
very valuable.
Upon
seeing these choice-combinations spelled out, many or most people would choose
position 111: metaphysical enlightenment carries its own sphere of lofty value,
and regular daily living is its own valuable sphere or realm, and there is some
potential for metaphysical enlightenment to enhance and expand the value in
ongoing daily life.
Then the
main area of debate becomes the amount of relative value between domains A and
B, and whether the combination A+B (daily life informed by enlightenment) is
valuable mainly because it is informed by enlightenment, or mainly because it
is concerned with ongoing daily living.
I lean
toward some sort of 1+, 1-, 1- combination: I strongly uphold the value of
enlightenment as its own sphere of ultimate value, and I damn daily living with
faint praise whether or not it is informed by metaphysical enlightenment --
yes, daily living can be slightly enhanced by metaphysical enlightenment, but
that capability of enlightenment is certainly not what makes enlightenment
valuable.
Today's
dominant Buddhist position would lean the opposite way, a sort of 1-, 1-, 1+ --
unenlightened daily living is to be disparaged as mundane, and metaphysical
enlightenment by itself is almost wholly worthless because it is irrelevant to
the center of all that is valuable, by which all value is measured -- ongoing
daily living. The only really valuable
thing, such meditationists maintain, is that daily living which is informed by
metaphysical enlightenment.
Daily
living by itself is fallen, worthless, dishonorable, undesirable; and
metaphysical enlightenment by itself is fallen, worthless, dishonorable, and
undesirable. The only way for
enlightenment to have any real worth, they say, is to the degree that it
enhances ongoing daily living, daily consciousness.
derinkle
wrote that "the point of either entheogens or meditation is lost if the
enlightening experience or revelation is not carried out into daily life"
[paraphrased], implying that enlightenment has no value on its own, having
value only insofar as it enhances daily life -- which is position 001:
enlightenment itself isn't particularly valuable; daily living itself when
unenlightened isn't particularly desirable or valuable; all value lies in daily
living that is informed by enlightenment.
I myself
began with that position. The only
reason I pursued transcendent knowledge was because I assumed that it would
resolve the cognitive dissonance that I thought was the only thing preventing
me from possessing posi-control: complete, straightforward self-control over
time. I wanted to be the complete,
unproblematic complete captain of my mind and actions, and I thought there was
no reason at all to not have this ideal, complete self-determination and full,
natural integrity of personal self-control.
I thought
enlightenment was valuable because it would give me full, unchallenged, unproblematic,
harmonious and simple posi-control. I
wasn't aware of enlightenment as an ultimately valuable domain in its own
right, or a domain that would be far more valuable than daily conduct of life.
I merely
wanted to improve my daily life by eliminating the problematic cognitive
dissonance of self-control grappling; I worked against myself and simply wanted
to figure out how to quit working against myself, to quit rebelling against my
own self-control schemes. I was
completely afflicted by the disease of controlaholism, like alcoholism where
alcohol is replaced by generalized self-control struggle, independent of any
particular action representing the control problem.
Not a
problem of self-control regarding any one particular habit, but just a self-control
struggle around self-control itself.
The only, driving reason I desired enlightenment was to overcome my
generalized self-control problem. My
values started to invert after transformative insights: I then valued the
self-control problem because it led to enlightenment.
The curse
and affliction of my seemingly pointless and absurd self-control struggle
turned out to be the path that led most quickly and directly to the heart of
enlightenment, which turns out to be centrally about the metaphysics of
self-control, including no-free-will and no-separate-self.
The
resulting mental worldmodel may happen to broaden one's range of possible
cognitive processing options in daily life, but enlightenment -- not harmonious
daily living -- is the loftiest destination of the soul, loftier than enhanced
daily living.
I picture
an up-then-down trajectory: first one is merely unenlightened, then attains to
the highest goal: enlightenment, and then continues in mere daily life,
retaining enlightenment and somewhat applying it, almost incidentally. Today's meditationists picture an up-up
trajectory: first there is mere unenlightened daily life, then some moderately
valuable metaphysical enlightenment, and then the thing of greatest worth:
daily life that is informed by enlightenment.
The latter
upholds the value of daily life too much at the expense of the transcendent
realm of metaphysical enlightenment. I
don't want to overstate the value of transcendent metaphysical enlightenment. We should be cautious about putting *either*
on an unrealistically high pedestal.
Should we
glorify and worship the transcendent all by itself, aside from daily
living? Such an attitude tends to
prevent and push away enlightenment, respecting it so much that it is carried
far out of reach, when in fact it's actually simple and routinely and quickly
attainable.
Should we
glorify and worship and idealize daily life which is informed by metaphysical
enlightenment? No, that distorts and
overinflates the task of daily life, and overcomplicates the finite simplicity
and attainability of metaphysical enlightenment.
Enlightenment
is the most lofty thing, but also, it's not infinitely grand and remote and out
of reach -- it's actually rather simple, and easily and quickly
attainable. Similarly, leading a daily
life that is healthy and informed by metaphysical enlightenment is not such a
huge and difficult task that we should conceive of it as alien and vastly
difficult, a hard, never-ending uphill path.
It's a
mistake to have too low of a view of the intrinsic value of metaphysical
enlightenment, and a mistake to have too high or too encompassing a view of
it. Metaphysical enlightenment has its
place in the whole of life, and the whole of life cannot be reduced to any one
department of life, whether ongoing daily life or the transcendent realm of
insight and peak experiencing.
A good
model of the relation between the mundane and transcendent realms must have a
nuanced, qualified balance and relation between the parts. "All value lies in the transcendent
revelation realm" tends to distort that realm by overinflating it, and
"all value is measured in terms of ongoing daily life" tends to
distort that realm by overinflating it.
This
avoidance of extremes may seem like the least simple position, but its
simplicity is conveyed in the Integral Theory idea, or domain dynamics idea,
that each domain is a holon (a bounded area that interacts with other areas)
that has its own intrinsic value, as well as building up value through
relations with other areas.
Greg wrote
[paraphrased]:
>I read
Alan Watts' The Book.
The Book:
On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
Alan
Watts
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679723005
>Afterwards,
an English teacher recommended the Ego Death site. After reading the sections on mystery religions, I became
engrossed in the concept of ego death.
>You
defined a position '111' regarding the value of enlightened experience and its
application in daily life, characterizing this position as the Integral Theory
position, in which all three are true:
>o Metaphysical enlightenment, including
insight and experiencing in the mystic altered state, has its own intrinsic
high value even without reference to ongoing daily life.
>o Daily life and mundane ethics has its own intrinsic
value even without reference to metaphysical enlightenment.
>o There is some potential for metaphysical
enlightenment to enhance and interact with ongoing daily life, grounding
enlightenment in day-to-day thought and action, while elevating ongoing daily
life.
>I am
motivated by passionate desire to figure out the Truth, wherever that may lead
me.
I advocate
that attitude, which Richard Double characterizes as the science-driven rather
than a-priori morality-driven motivation for investigating metaphysics and for
holding a position about it. Legitimate
metaphysics is something we discover and then apply, rather than something we
construct and mold to fulfill some given need such as protecting conventional moral
agency.
Our work
as philosophers is to construct an accurate model of metaphysical reality that
holds up to scrutiny and strives for accurate reflection of fully-observed
reality first of all, and separately, strive to apply that model to practical
life.
>If
each "holon" or "domain of human concern" has its own
value, as well as the value that is made when combined, that implies the
following.
>If we
understand everyday living as a static assortment of patterns, in which we are
all puppeted through, daily life would be meaningless.
Daily life
would continue to have some sort of meaning, but not meaning that depends on
the assumption of metaphysical free agency, or metachange, or an open
future. You are mixing two concepts or
definitions: "everyday living" and "static patterns". This phrase usage is ambiguous and
tangential to my usage, and therefore needs clarification before pursuing the
discussion.
Your
phrase "everyday living" corresponds to my expression "daily
life", which is that day-to-day, ordinary living which the mystic altered state
and its resulting metaphysical enlightenment may or may not be applicable
to.
Your
phrase "static patterns", on the surface, appears to correspond to my
concept of "tight cognitive binding" (or rutted thinking), which is
the normal, default state of cognition, as opposed to "loose cognitive
binding", which is the main attribute of the intense mystic altered state,
which stands emphatically in contrast to the default cognitive state.
The
following elementary progression is isomorphic to mythic storylines of the
Hellenistic and Jewish mythic rituals.
We can't get anywhere without clearly differentiating between
"states and stages" (per Ken Wilber) or "cognitive binding
intensity" and "mental worldmodels" (per Theory of Ego
Death).
This
distinction between cognitive binding intensity and mental worldmodels is an
elementary part of the core Theory.
The mind
goes through the following stages:
1. Tight
cognition, with the egoic mental worldmodel.
2. Loose
cognition, with the egoic mental worldmodel.
3. Loose
cognition, with the transcendent mental worldmodel.
4. Tight
cognition, with the transcendent mental worldmodel.
Daily life
in state 1 is particularly characterized by "static patterns". State 4 also is characterized by
"static patterns", in that tight cognitive binding has returned. Even for the fully enlightened mind,
ongoing, ordinary day-to-day life is relatively "static patterns",
compared to the loose-cognition "fireworks" (as mysticism-disparaging
Buddhists say) of the intense mystic altered state.
>We
would all be subject to this block universe, like a giant clock.
The
"clock" metaphor is risky, possibly leading to familiar
misunderstanding.. Too many
philosophers are ignorant of tenseless time and the frozen block universe idea,
so the "clock" analogy is apt to play into too much of the accustomed
conception of time, using egoic, in-time, moving-time assumptions about the
metaphysics of time. I'd use a less
time-centered metaphor, such as a reel of film on a shelf, or a deterministic
train on fixed tracks.
[paraphrased]
>Transcendent
experience is a stepping outside of the patterns of day-to-day life and the
default state of cognition, gaining explicit recognition of the patterns, and
then going back into the patterns but using the knowledge you received to
produce a different product, value, reading, interpretation, perception, or
experience of the patterns.
>Everyday
life would be reconceived as being like a movie we are all starring in. The flashes on a movie screen are illusions
and projected virtual images, which we mistake as literally real. Similarly, the unenlightened mind mistakes
the static patterns of everyday life as literally real.
>A
religious experience resulting in enlightenment is a stepping out of the movie,
recognizing the "larger picture" and using that knowledge to create a
different ending or a different way of watching the movie, upon returning to
workaday life. Mind-altering drugs, or
cognitive-association loosening agents, allow the mind to step out of the
static matrix or arrangement of patterns, and receive union with the dynamic.
Rutted,
tight cognitive associations are suspended, cognitive associations and mental
contruct matrixes loosen and become highly dynamic, enabling the mind to
experience and conceptually assemble a changed mental worldmodel. Upon the return of tight cognition, the
mental worldmodel is changed, with a changed interpretive framework for reading
the events of ordinary, relatively unmystical, ongoing daily life.
The
extremely dynamic and loose cognitive association is replaced by the accustomed
tight cognitive-association binding state, but the transcendent mental
worldmodel remains. The transcendent
worldmodel was able to be constructed because of dynamic, loose cognition, but
the transcendent worldmodel is wholly distinct from the dynamic cognition which
enabled it.
Enlightenment
that is carried into day-to-day life isn't as "dynamic" as people
wishfully envision. The term
"dynamic" is particularly well-suited for the expression that *all*
mental constructs are "dynamic mental construct association
matrixes". Like language itself,
egoic thinking is highly dynamic, within certain boundaries or ruts, or space. Egoic rutted thinking is dynamic, but has
tight cognitive association binding, compared to the intense mystic altered
state.
Possessing
enlightenment while in day-to-day life may increase the range of interpretive
and responses a mind has, and in that sense, the enlightened mind may be more
"dynamic" than the unenlightened mind during day-to-day life. But I would not mainly characterize the
possession of enlightenment as "dynamic".
When a
mind possesses enlightenment in day-to-day life, that mind contains and can use
a mental worldmodel that is different than the egoic worldmodel: in certain
aspects, very different, but in many aspects, just a modification of parts of
the egoic worldmodel. The transcendent
worldmodel may be "radically" different than the egoic worldmodel in
certain respects, but we should not exagerrate and portray them as wholly
differrent, like "mostly static" vs. "mostly dynamic".
Both
worldmodels are highly dynamic. Where
we *can* starkly contrast two things as relatively very static and dynamic, is
cognitive binding association intensity in the default state and the intense
mystic altered state. Egoic thinking in
the normal state is a combination of mental constructs (which are always quite
dynamic) with static (relatively tight) cognitive associations.
Transcendent
thinking in the normal, day-to-day state is a combination of slightly more
dynamic mental constructs, with slightly more dynamic cognitive
associations. Any thinking, whether
egoic of transcendent, in the intense mystic altered state, is a combiation of
mental constructs (which are always quite dynamic) which unusually dynamic
cognitive association binding.
Mental
constructs are essentially inherently quite dynamic, and we can separate out
the tightness/looseness, or static/dynamic aspect, as a distinct, separate
parameter: "cognitive association binding intensity". The word "dynamic" deserves to be
used to characterize mental constructs in general, and the intense mystic
altered state, but I wouldn't use it to contrast the egoic vs. enlightened mind
in daily life.
The
enlightened mind in daily life is only moderately more dynamic than the egoic
mind in daily life, and only in certain respects. Less dynamic, in fewer and different ways, than the marketing
copy asserts. To find somethign dynamic, study cognitive association in
general, or study the intense mystic altered state -- because enlightened
thinking in daily life isn't such a vivid and strong example of
"dynamic".
>The
dynamic, always existing, but on a completely different way than this
space-time universe, is always "behind the scenes," available for our
union.
The
transcendent worldmodel is always close by as a potential model to be
discovered, if the mind relaxes out of the accustomed egoic worldmodel and has
the intellectual tools to conceptually construct (or reflect) and retain the
transcendent worldmodel.
In a
stereograph, the 3-D picture is always there as a potential way of seeing
things, whether the mind sees it or not.
Both relaxing out of the old focus and then refocusing are required to
lock onto seeing the 3-D picture. This
refocusing involves a dynamic move, but after locking onto the new worldmodel,
the new way of seeing things, most of the dynamic phase is past.
Rebirth is
not an ongoing thing. After Satori,
there isn't a continuous Satori; one must put it down and fall into relatively
static life, not a continuous nonstop breakthrough like a continuous
climax. It's wishful thinking to think
of enlightened daily life as a continual climax. Watts makes this point strongly in the book The Way of Zen. Wishing that enlightenment is continuous
bliss or continuously highly "dynamic" risks leading to
disappointment.
What do
you want from life: continuous revelation, nonstop spiritual rebirth, walking
through the gates of heaven in an incessantly repeated grand entrance?
>We
just find the static patterns of the movie as more safe or entertaining than
the unknown dynamic so we choose not to be in constant union with it. This is why anyone can have a moment of
Satori. Satori would be classified as a
break from the static, a recognition of the static, the an application of the
Satori into the static.
Satori is
not explicitly well-characterized as "a break from the static into the
dynamic, or a breaking in of the dynamic reality into the static
world". For a systematic
explanation of mysticism, instead of loosely evocative poetry, avoid a
description that is confusing when read as a specific, explicit model of what
literally happens. Tighter precision is
needed to form a clear and accurate explanation.
Satori is a
shift from one worldmodel to another, and this shift involves a dynamic
reconfiguration of many networks of conceptual connections and
word-meanings. After this shift has
been secured, after a series of satoris or initiations combined with
appropriate sustained thinking and conceptual reflection, the mind returns to a
relatively static state, with mental construct associations returning to a
normal degree of dynamic processing.
Consider
these ideas, bracketed to indicate that I don't necessarily endorse them but am
only putting them forward for critique and improvement:
>Enlightenment
experience is partially valuable through integrating it with daily living, an
integration that can be full and natural rather than artificially
"stinking of Zen". Like music,
metaphysical enlightenment attained in the emphatically non-ordinary mystic
altered state can be applicable to many aspects of daily life. Enlightenment can enhance some aspects of
"peace" in ongoing daily life (which is here differentiated from the
"fireworks" of the temporary intense mystic altered state).
>Daily
life can have a mood, sense, feeling, and emotion that is influenced by
mystic-state revelation and enlightenment, or explicit and intense unity
consciousness. Ordinary ups and downs
of life continue, when enlightenment is added, but more often now, they are
free to flow without interpretation by a mediator. [The latter phrase is too unclear; it's conventionally
spiritual-sounding, but vague, arbitrary, and undebatable.-mh] The greatest potential of enlightenment
requires highlighting the potential for integration of metaphysical
enlightenment with peace and understanding.
>What
transpires in daily life after metaphysical enlightenment depends on many
factors, varying on an individual basis.
A theory of enlightenment is harmed by venturing statements about the
relationship of daily life and enlightenment.
Leave this relationship open, to avoid shutting out those who experience
enlightenment and its relationship with daily life differently.
>Interpretations
of enlightenment after the intense mystic altered state (when loose cognition
gives way once again to default, tight cognitive binding) are heavily dependent
on one's individual outlook on life and other factors. The best theory of enlightenment is that
which is the simplest viable theory.
Such simplicity requires openness regarding the relationship of
enlightenment with daily life.
There
currently exists a serious problem regarding daily life and enlightenment.
American
Buddhist meditationists are diminishing the importance of entheogens and are
making excuses for the failure of meditation to produce loose cognition, based
on the now-standard dogmatic assertion that the intense mystic altered state in
and of itself is definitely unimportant and irrelevant and worthless, and that
metaphysical enlightenment in and of itself is unimportant and irrelevant and
worthless, and that the only possible value of the mystic altered state and of
metaphysical enlightenment is strictly measured by the standard of enhancing
ongoing day-to-day life.
The
proponents of that dogmatic assertion of the worthlessness of metaphysical
enlightenment and the mystic altered state in and of itself, don't bother to
provide justification for their mysticism-disparaging position: they simply
state it as an incontrovertible fact.
I really
don't know what the range of views is within global and historical Buddhism,
regarding whether metaphysical enlightenment and the mystic altered state are
valuable in and of themselves, independently of their enhancement of ongoing,
not-explicitly-mystical daily life. The
view of Christian theology is that the supreme goal and purpose of human life
is to worship transcendent God, not to enhance ongoing daily life. In Christianity, often it is in practice
reduced to an enhancement of daily life, such as in socially activist liberal
theology.
A theory
should not be too driven by fear of contradicting the experience of
individuals. There are always
conflicting theories of religion and enlightenment. Heavy conflict is a given and no great guide to forming the
simplest viable theory. There are
advantages in committing to a narrow, specific, particular theory, rejecting
others: it lightens the load of the theory in certain ways.
Rejecting
many ideas greatly simplifies a theory.
I reject ESP, the paranormal, spirit-creatures, metaphysical free will,
the historicity of practically all the Bible figures, the irrationality of
mystic insight, and the practical effectiveness of non-entheogenic
meditation. I also so routinely reject
the assumption that the value of metaphysical enlightenment ought to be
measured by how much it enhances ongoing, not-explicitly-mystical, daily life.
And I
axiomatically reject the complicating assumption or assertion that metaphysical
enlightenment strongly tends to enhance and drastically transform daily
life. I agree that it is possible that
one may have a bad daily life and then gain metaphysical enlightenment and then
thereby have a good daily life. I have no
problem taking sides on issues.
A theorist
who is afraid to take sides cannot contribute any usefully specific
theory. There is an argument, and I am
taking sides. Mainstream Buddhism
currently takes sides in this argument, saying that there is no valuable
enlightenment except that which is utilized to enhance daily life. I take the counter position in this
argument, and defend the large separation and distinctness of the realms of
enlightenment and daily life. Picture a
vertical axis with three views:
A.
Metaphysical enlightenment is all-important and is the top of the axis of
value. Daily life is unimportant and
the bottom of the axis. The two are
wholly distinct and completely separate.
B. True
metaphysical enlightenment joins with elevated daily life, so that all value
lies in the middle of the axis. This is
the dominant American Buddhist position now; such thinking finds it offensive
to make any claim to distinguishing between enlightenment and daily life.
C. My
position is in between, and fits with Integral Theory. Enlightenment is distinct from daily life,
and is largely but not entirely separate from daily life. Enlightenment and daily life must be
differentiated into distinct realms of human concern, and there is some
*limited* potential for cross-influence between daily life and enlightenment.
It would
be a huge fallacy to fail to distinguish between enlightenment and daily life,
and it would also be incorrect to say that enlightenment and daily life are
totally irrelevant to each other. The
only argument I consider worth participating in is the argument about whether
enlightenment and daily life are moderately farther apart or closer
together. I won't bother talking to
someone who thinks they are completely the same or completely separate.
The only
profitable conversation is about whether they are somewhat closer or farther --
that is, the extent of the *certainly partial* overlap. If you maintain that enlightenment and daily
life don't have a partial overlap -- either because they are the same thing, or
because they have no connection at all, I won't waste time debating with you.
Today's
pop Buddhists commit to the position that enlightenment is the same thing as
desirable daily life; this is a kind of reductionism (the false conflation of
two distinct domains of reality and human concern, collapsing one into the
other) that Integral Theory is intent on avoiding. A common view of Gnostics is that they made the other error,
portraying the world or daily life and entirely bad, with all good being
reserved for the purely transcendent realm.
We must
not elevate daily life too much, falsely glorifying it, nor condemn it as
worthless.
Similarly,
we must not drag down the transcendent heights to totally lose them in the
mundane practical world, to the point where we disparage the mystic altered
state like pop Buddhists now are dogmatically doing, and we must not falsely
elevate mystic enlightenment like conservative scholars do, falsely pushing
enlightenment far out of reach by putting it on an exaggeratedly high pedestal,
dogmatically asserting that no ordinary person can attain it.
The
simplest theory of enlightenment is informed by Integral Theory: when you
falsely conflate two distinct areas, a more complicated system ensues. The simplest system is one that incorporates
*partial overlap between distinct domains*.
In a block diagram, there must be both separate boxes, and arrows
connecting them.
If there
is only one box, or if there is no arrow, that is like saying that
enlightenment and daily life are the same thing or that they are totally
unrelated -- and we end up with not with simplest viable system, but with no
real "system" at all, just the current *lack* of a helpful, useful,
specific theory of enlightenment that respects daily life on its own terms and
respects the distinctiveness of mystic insight on its own terms and recognizes
a significant but realistically limited potential effect of one on the other.
I
highlight the abuse and bad motives pop Buddhists have for putting down the intense
mystic altered state and for putting down metaphysical enlightenment as a realm
with its own distinctive worth. Pop
Buddhism has become a mundane, untransformative, moralistic, convention-driven
system of overinflating what is actually unremarkable, social-driven,
emotion-driven, superficially "spirituality"-styled lifestyle
religion.
There is a
huge difference between low, run-of-the-mill, superficial lifestyle religion,
and genuine, high, transformative, remarkable, distinctive, intense mystic Satori,
revelation, insight. There is a huge
difference between high religion and low religion. Today's Buddhism is mostly uninformed by high religion; it
falsely relabels as high religion what is really just low religion.
This false
inflation of run-of-the-mill, non-mystical religion is directly a result of
lacking the classic entheogenic insights and the entheogenic intense altered
state. Why is it important for a theory
of religious revelation to take a firm stand against today's equation of daily
life and enlightenment? Because such
equation ends up denying the existence of and the importance of genuine,
intense, authentic and truly religious experiencing and insight.
It ends up
relabelling ignorance as enlightenment, and freely invents a mundane moralistic
lifestyle-oriented and uninspired religion, shutting out the existence and
value of a truly transcendent or truly transformative religion. Such a conflationary position as is now
based on diminishing and disparaging mystic experiencing itself, results in the
loss of transformative religion, replaced by mere superficially
"spirituality"-styled self-help.
Genuine
religion and real mystic experiencing can have some positive effect on daily
life, but there is a distinction between the two realms, and real mystic
experiencing carries its own value apart from daily life, a value that is lost
if the only thing one cares about is the enhancement of ongoing, nonmystical
daily life.
The
question at hand, to take positions on, is: does or does not mystic experiencing
provide something of value on its own terms, even apart from the potential of
enhancing not-explicitly-mystical ongoing daily life? I maintain that the simplest viable theory of enlightenment
axiomatically assumes metaphysical enlightenment is a largely distinct
value-realm from even the most enhanced type of ongoing, non-mystical daily
life.
The
alternative position, maintained by pop Buddhism today, ends up falsely putting
down the mystic altered state and making it subservient to ongoing daily life. There are several motives for today's
Buddhism putting down the mystic state: a main motive is ignorance, alienation,
jealously, and social convention.
Today's Buddhism knows full well that it fails to deliver on the
promises which it has borrowed and finally stolen from the mystic state.
This
lifestyle-Buddhism cannot deliver on the promised goods, promises that are
co-opted from the entheogenic intense mystic altered state. Such Buddhism is forced to resort to coming
up with excuses for its failure; forced to redefine the terms, forced to put
down mysticism altogether and falsely elevate ordinary daily life, falsely
relabelling ordinary self-help and ethics as nonordinary and enlightened.
Ultimately,
enlightenment is lost, because not secured and informed by actual mystic
enlightenment. Actual enlightenment is
based on mystic experiencing, and when one so puts down mystic experiencing by
subverting its worth relative to daily life, one can only lose enlightenment
together with losing the altered state that is the source of enlightenment and
must be respected as such or else will be essentially lost entirely, as has
been done.
Enlightenment
is largely suppressed and present today in popular Buddhism only as a shadow,
just as in Christianity, because of the denial of the high value of the intense
mystic altered state and its distinctive insights and experiences.
Lowering
the mystic state to make it subservient to ongoing daily life is really just an
excuse for getting rid of mystic insight entirely and falsely elevating
ordinary life as enlightened: it is an attempt of the ordinary realm to steal
the product of the mystic state and claim it as its own product. It is crucial that we attribute correctly
the source of enlightenment to the mystic altered state, and differentiate
between the realms of mysticism and daily life.
If we
don't, we end up with today's situation, in which daily life tries
ineffectively to steal the goods from the mystic state and jealously do away
with the real source of enlightenment.
Today's Buddhism smells like a lie, a false elevation of the ordinary
into something it is not and cannot be.
Enlightenment is not daily life.
Enlightenment
is limited in its ability to enhance daily life, because they are distinct
realms and must be considered as only partly overlapping, or else we will lose
enlightenment just as today's entheogen-disparaging and
mystic-state-disparaging meditationism has lost enlightenment and cannot be the
source of enlightenment in any strong, genuine, effective sense.
This
subject is important because the inflation of daily life and enlightenment is a
key basis for today's standard anti-entheogen meditation position. What is more important now is to
systematically list the arguments of anti-entheogen meditationists and refute
them systematically, from a position that real Buddhism is entheogenic Buddhism
and real religion is entheogenic religion, and that meditation is a minor
adjunct to entheogens, rather than the reverse.
Today's
meditation establishment asserts that entheogens are only about 10% as
effective as meditation, at accomplishing the real goal of meditation and
religion, which is the elevation and enhancement of not-explicitly-mystical
ongoing daily life.
Against
that firm majority position, I advocate the firm minority position that the
real measure of mystic technique is entheogens, not meditation, and that
meditation is less than *1%* as effective as entheogens, at accomplishing the
real goal of religion, which is metaphysical enlightenment and a more enduring,
stable, robust mental worldmodel, one that remains standing when the chips are
down during the storm of the intense mystic altered state without which there
is nothing worthy of being called "religion", but merely
over-glorified ethics and superficially "spirituality"-styled
self-help -- not enlightenment or ego transcendence.
I do
everyone a favor by holding a particular, definite, definable, specifiable,
specific, exclusive position on various points. The challenge that one must not shrink from is that challenge of
formulating a simple model that accounts for the variety in the world while
also identifying certain "constant dynamics".
The
alternative to defining a particular and specific theory of enlightenment, is
just what dominates today: a vague and unhelpful haze that politely affirms
anything at all, and rejects any system of evaluating whether to accept or
reject ideas; the only thing such a vague and infinitely malleable system can
do is affirm people as they already are and affirm every idea, while only
rejecting the proposal that some ideas are more valid and useful than others.
Unstructured
non-theories of religion that don't dare put forward any specific principles of
evaluation offend no one in particular, and neither do they contribute or
accomplish anything; they are as unaccountable as they are ineffective. For every definite assertion a theorist
makes, 3/4 of the audience goes away -- that's normal. Paradigm shifts are based on being willing
to scare away everyone, and then attract a later generation. One even must be fully willing to alienate
those who currently agree with the model so far.
Model
construction requires a full commitment to the principle of "only for
those who have ears to hear, even if no one", not a commitment to
maximizing one's audience by the "systematic haze" and strategic
vagueness that are the hallmark of today's non-theories of enlightenment.
Ken Wilber
has done much to break ground here and lay the way for defining *specific*
models of enlightenment that are measurable, definite, and constructively
debatable -- rather than the alternative, dominant approach of scented fog,
anti-systematic *and* anti-mystic-state superficial pretend-spirituality,
make-it-up-as-you-go spirituality, that fills the Buddhism magazines on the
newsstand shelves.
Such
spirituality would collapse like a house of cards under the stresses and
strains of actual mystic experiencing.
It is to a large extent, perishable spirituality, uninformed by the
broader data-set provided by the intense mystic altered state. In this sense, it is a half-baked
spirituality, that is useful for daily life, but that is liable to fail when
put to the test of the mystic state.
What use is a system of spirituality that cannot serve one well during
the storm of the *non*-ordinary state of loose cognition?
Expand the
model of "low vs. high" religion, in terms of whether loose cognition
is or has been present.
Low
religion is that religion which is uninformed by loose cognition, mystic
experiencing, or the intense mystic altered state.
High
religion is that religion which is informed by intense mystic experiencing, the
nonordinary mystic altered state.
It's a
hallmark of low religion to falsely claim to be informed by mystic
experiencing, while denying the very existence of or importance of actual,
intense, emphatically non-ordinary mystic-state experiencing. Low religion inherently is inclined to steal
the claims of high religion for itself, in cargo-cult or monkey-copy or parrot
fashion.
It is this
lie, this pretense, this falsity, that surely characterizes and gives away
today's bunk Buddhism, which really takes the ordinary and falsely elevates and
glorifies it as something it's not, the supra-ordinary. Such Buddhism denies and puts down the
mystic state, while claiming that all the good and all the insight of the
mystic state is present in the ordinary state, when really, the ordinary state
has lost any grip it may have had on the results and benefits of the mystic
state.
The same
thing is easy to see in Christianity around the debate over whether there is a
second, higher baptism, or whether the placebo baptism that obviously does
nothing is to be considered "the baptism of the Holy Spirit". All sorts of excuses are made for the
manifest *lack* of the Holy Spirit, and in the end, one is forced to *redefine*
the Holy Spirit in some low way, and redefine the ordinary as the transcendent,
and redefine the barely religious as fully religious.
Enlightenment
is only weakly and derivatively present in entheogen-disparaging meditation or
mystic-state-disparaging meditation.
Such ordinary-state meditation is false advertising, offering a weak and
inferior product and claiming it to be the real thing and the genuine article,
the best that can be produced.
This is
just like taking a guitar amp simulator -- the Line 6 POD -- and claiming that
it produces a more authentic sound than an actual cranked tube amp: a claim
that is false, dishonest, and the opposite of the truth. The intense (and entheogenic) mystic altered
state is the source of enlightenment, and being the source, carries its own
value, distinct from daily life which it might or might not happen to enhance,
and to which it cannot legitimately be considered subservient.
People ask
"What use is enlightenment to daily life?", but a more legitimate and
justified question may be "What use is daily life to enlightenment and the
mystic state?" The mystic realm
and daily life are two distinct realms of value that are only partially
overlapping -- this is hardly the world's most extreme or controversial
assertion; it's actually a moderate, reasonable, and a robust, specific,
defensible position.
Do people
want an example of a position that is extremist and hard to defend in light of
the full range of human experiencing?
"The mystic realm is completely without value in itself. Its value is less than that of the realm of
daily living, and the only value the mystic realm has is the degree to which it
can elevate not-explicitly-mystical day-to-day life."
I'm glad
*I'm* not burdened with defending that shaky, extreme, indefensible position,
which is the position that results from Buddhism that is alienated from the
bona fide knock-your-socks-off full-on mystic altered state. If someone is stepping up to the plate to defend
that position, if I bother to even take notice with such an over-the-top,
extreme, and untenable position, I can only wish them luck in keeping such an
unseaworthy position afloat for more than five minutes in the storm of
disciplined debate.
It is so
much simpler and robust and defensible of a position, that the mystic and daily
realms are just partially overlapping realms of value and relevance. All the profitable debate, with a
longer-term future, concerns the exact extent of the partial overlap -- not the
fact of partial overlap.
The price
of making progress toward a simple viable model of enlightenment and changing
the paradigm of what religion ultimately is about is that one must drive off
pretty much all of one's audience, by virtue of providing an alternative to
today's reigning, entrenched assumptions.
There may
be an incidental few who are amenable to the position defined by the proposed
new systematic model. Ken Wilber has
gained a large audience by declaring bankrupt and worthless some 90% of today's
spirituality.
That is
really a pretty undeniable assertion, as surely as pointing out that today's
Buddhism spectacularly fails to deliver on its promises and only succeeds to
the extent that it redefines its purpose as being nothing more than what really
amounts to just ordinary self-help and a specifically spiritual lifestyle.
If *that*
is all that Buddhism is -- the enhancement and elevation of day-to-day life as
asserted by the entheogen-diminishing, mystic-state-disparaging American pop Buddhists
-- then Buddhism is no more than low religion and has abandoned and denied its
source, high religion, which is entheogenic and mystic-state religion and
stands distinct from day-to-day life.
In no way
does my taking a specific position, that there is partial overlap of mystic and
daily realms, imply that enlightenment can only have one particular effect on
daily living. Enlightenment can have a
variety of effects on daily life. The
only question is the extent of these effects and the degree of overlap or
identity of the mystic and daily realms.
Denying
some degree of independence of the mystic realm results inevitably in losing
the mystic realm, distorting it right out of existence by collapsing it into
the false form of practical superficial spirituality-styled self-help. A mysticism that has no existence apart from
daily life is a stunted, shrunken, and ultimately lost mysticism.
Today's
popular Buddhism puts down entheogens, which has resulted necessarily in
putting down the mystic state itself, and thereby, today's Buddhism is a
religion that has lost a grip on its mysticism, even if it retains doctrines of
no-self.
Official
Christianity retains doctrines such as that conventional baptism is that of the
Holy spirit, but abstract doctrine is a far cry from the full experience which
is the actual source and fountainhead of that doctrine and rightfully deserves
to be credited and acknowledged as such.
Today's
purely practical Buddhist enlightenment is only a minor, derivative, fractional
enlightenment, alienated from mystic comprehension nearly as much as it is
alienated from mystic experiencing, just as official conceptual Christian
theology is but a weak, pale shadow of the fullness of the Holy Spirit. We cannot rightly point to the feeble shadow
of mysticism and assert that it is the genuine product.
Cheap,
fake, plastic flowers are not the original, valuable, real thing, even if they
do give the impression of flowers.
Derivative, cardboard Buddhism, the kind that is based on making the
intense mystic altered state subservient to the utilitarian enhancing of
day-to-day life, is no more than a
shadow of that authentic, high Buddhism which can hold up under the pressure of
the full range of experiencing as encountered in the mystic state.
Lifestyle
Buddhism is just derivative, secondary, knock-off religion, and it disparages
entheogens and the mystic state out of envy and jealousy, because it secretly
knows that it is a thief and delivers only an ersatz product, a product that
holds up only as long as no serious and ultimate demands are made of it.
If we
accept the claim of the entheogen-disparaging meditationists that the value of
mysticism is only a function of its enhancement of day-to-day living, then we
necessarily lose the mystical realm overall, and in practice, end up with
essentially false, fake religion that claims to be full, complete, and
significant. We lose a direct
familiarity with the very state of experiencing and insight that is the source
of those very ideas and insights which we claim to be effectively utilizing to
enhance day-to-day life.
The sure
outcome of this position is that not only will direct familiarity with the
source of mystic insight be lost, and falsely disparaged, but any significant
ability that full and actual mysticism may in fact have for enhancing daily
life will also be lost. We end up with
what we have: broken traces and distorted fragments of enlightenment that were
inherited from a now alienated and lost mystic realm.
Enlightenment
without the mystic altered state and without even the respect for the mystic
altered state, does not deserve to be considered enlightenment.
Enlightenment
can be simply and easily rationally systematized and communicated, but the
full, classic, and definitive system of enlightenment includes competent
familiarity with the intense mystic altered state as well, and there is no real
good reason not to have this intense mystic altered state just as easily as we
can teach the systematic principles of metaphysical enlightenment.
Straightforward,
ergonomic, classic and time-tested reliable methods are available in visionary
plants. If we try to retain the
systematic understanding of metaphysical enlightenment while quitting,
disowning, and disparaging the mystic state, like today's anti-entheogen
meditationists, it's doubtful that we'll retain the understanding
significantly, and we'll lose the bulk of the value that the mystic realm has
to contribute, just as the transcendent realm has been lost in official
Christianity.
Buddhism
without the use of or intrinsic respect for the intense mystic altered state,
is by definition "low religion", which inherently falsely claims to
be the only and most real religion.
Such Buddhism thus effectively denies the existence of real religion, which
is high religion, which is mystic altered state religion. Such Buddhism is fit only for demons, and
saints ought to refute it as the outrageous lie, falsehood, and
anti-enlightenment anti-religion that it is: shadow claiming to be light.
>>I
have lost interest in mind expansion.
The greatest relief now comes with being able to stand up within the
essence that requires no theory or postulation for support -- only breath,
flesh and bones.
The
ordinary state of consciousness and the intense mystic altered state of
consciousness in some sense need a theory or postulation to support their
fullness of experiencing. A systematic
theory of anything contributes depth and fullness of experiencing to that
subject matter. If the ordinary state
of consciousness needs no theory or postulation, then neither does it need any
poetry, commentary, investigation, text, or consideration.
If one
finds relief, breath, flesh, and bones of greatest interest, and considers
theory and postulation and systematic reflection only a detriment to such
focus, then one should avoid all such thinking. If one wants more perspectives on consciousness, then one should
intellectually investigate and construct theories.
What do
people want and expect from life, from enlightenment, from existence? What are one's values? What gives satisfaction? Do theory construction and proposals for
methods of remarkable experiences provide what one wants and expects? Do they give the greatest relief or
pleasure? This depends on what one
expects and how one construes pleasure; and such feelings of interest and
relevance can vary.
What do we
demand from Nirvana and from the common bottom-line givens of breath, flesh,
and bones, and what can they provide?
Most views are unbalanced; I advocate a balanced view on the ordinary
state of consciousness, the experience of enlightenment, and the retained
mental model of enlightenment.
Should we
make an all-consuming religion and a universe of meaning and see the purpose of
existence as being mind expansion -- or as being the ever-given
incontrovertible realities of breath, flesh, and bones?
I propose
making an all-consuming religion out of the *whole* of the psyche's potential,
as opposed to reducing our purpose and cares to one fraction of the life of the
psyche; my proposed conception of a well-rounded life-concern divides the life
of the psyche into two main halves: the ordinary and the nonordinary states of
consciousness, with the two shining light on each other.
Spiritual
writings talk about reaching wholeness; I concur but conceive of wholeness as a
matter of experiencing the worldview of the ordinary state of consciousness and
the altered state, with the two perspectives illuminating each other. We should not reject climax and the
nonordinary on the argument that they are not ever-present. We should put them in their rightful place
and neither worship them nor reject them for failing to be a panacea and
ongoing unbroken bliss.
The ordinary
state of existence is important because it is present most of the time; the
nonordinary state is important because it is relatively rare (a few hours a
week, at most). Ultimately, the mind
needs to be comfortable with daily life (illuminated and inflected by higher
thinking and higher experiencing) and constant experiences of reality, and, the
mind needs to be comfortable with the nonordinary realm of experiencing as
well. Both have their place and they
reach a symbiotic coherent relationship.
I am
against putting enlightenment on a pedestal; that elevates it too much,
demanding too much from it, demanding the wrong types of things from it, and
makes it unavailable. By reducing the
scope and expectations for enlightenment, it becomes attainable and realistic,
and amenable to integration into a balanced psyche and mental worldmodel.
I aim to
take enlightenment down off of its pedestal and make it easily available for
everyone in compact, ergonomic form that is well suited for adding to one's busy
life with practical needs, more convenient and effective than attending Church
or many long days of meditation.
For those
who are committed to focusing on the continuing given realities, this model of
transcendent experiencing and transcendent insights and the conceived potential
packaging of this model provide the most ergonomic, potent, and practical
model, superior to other models in being more specific, more focused, and more
experiential. The phony war on some
drugs is a distinct issue, although even now there are some effective
non-tabooed psychoactive sacraments.
I've
determined what mystic enlightenment is essentially about, at its best. The question remains of what potential
mystic enlightenment has for enhancing all of life, where "all of
life" is not conceived of as a winner-takes-all war between the day-to-day
given realities against the mystic altered state and its metaphysical insights,
but rather, a coherent and integrated combination of both, just as life is not
conceived of as a winner-takes-all war between sex adventures and the rest of
life, but rather, an integrated marriage of both halves, leading to maturity --
not a rejection and denial of the importance of the higher or the lower, the
ordinary or nonordinary, but rather, a coherent integration of them.
This does
not require endlessly reading models of wholeness such as I have dedicated my
decades to writing and studying; my goal is to provide writings that convey the
most sound basics of mind expansion through reading a single introductory-level
article; any reading beyond that hour is considered repetitive coverage of the
same ground, to add details.
My model
of mind expansion is so utterly simple, and so successful and explaining the
history of mystic religion, myth, and philosophy, there is not much to be
gained in basic knowledge after reading my introductory works or a handful of
postings for an hour or two.
My job is
to give you essentially the entire theory in a single page, an entire model of
the classic mind expansion arena, so that contacting my writings instantly
gives you essentially all that I have of basic value -- with further reading
being just a peripheral layer of details around the core model.
A project
distinct from conveying efficiently a useful model of mind expansion, is the
project of applying enlightenment to increasing personal management and
personal control, for greater amounts of accomplishment in life and for greater
pleasure and less cognitive dissonance in life.
Many
people want self-help, for increase of their power of personal management,
rather than wanting mind expansion.
Many who stumble across mind expansion were only looking for an increase
in their power of personal management.
Metaphysical
enlightenment versus improving/elevating daily life; transcendent good versus
mundane good
The
magazine What Is Enlightenment is only barely worth reading, but the new issue
"Can God Handle the 21st Century?" has quite a few passages
discussing the main topic of debate in this discussion group recently: is
enlightenment an area that is essentially distinct from improving daily
life?
I think
the current issue of Tricycle, a Buddhism magazine, has an interview with Karen
Armstrong, that has what is by now a standard insistence -- one could say a
flimsy dogma -- that enlightenment without compassion is entirely
worthless. In this WIE issue, Ken
Wilber basically refutes that assertion, and I applaud his defending a
(penetrable) wall around enlightenment.
Wilber seems to persuade Cohen not to make the mistake of
Armstrong.
By the end
of the issue, page 168, Cohen is repeating Wilber's warning that elevating good
works over enlightenment risks losing enlightenment:
>>our
enlightenment may be stunted by the very broadness of our view [save the
planet, be compassionate to other people, elevate daily life, etc.] It may be
that our perspective has become so inclusive that we have unknowingly negated
the awesome, transformative power of the very thing that we were so attracted
to in the first place -- enlightenment itself.
Why? Because the always overwhelming and infinitely challenging truth of
enlightenment is the mind-shattering and ego-destroying recognition that the
many [interpersonal relations, political reformation, ecological activism,
etc.] must be replaced by the ONE. So
we are in a difficult predicament. How
do we retain the broadness of our view [such as ecological activism and social
reform] without sacrificing the radical simplicity of the enlightened
mind? How do we transcend the ego
[metaphysical enlightenment] while simultaneously and wholeheartedly embracing
the complexity of our unsettled world [for example, ecological activism]?
>>We
may have to let go in a deeper way ... to continue to move forward, our
attachment to the broadness of our hard-won perspective [that includes social
reform and ecological activism as the "point" of spirituality] may
need to be given up. ... we have to be willing to go beyond ... the very
knowing mind and inclusive worldview that has become our cherished "new
paradigm." ... be able to see the many through the eyes of the One. It was this irreducible mind-transcending
vision that was unknowingly sacrificed when our broad perspective [social
reform, lovingkindness, elevation of daily life, environmental
consciousness...] became more important to us than the height of our spiritual
attainment. We began to see the One
through the eyes of the many, without even knowing it.
Page 84-88
-- Ken Wilber and Andrew Cohen discuss the tendency to sacrifice transcendent
enlightenment in the pursuit of applied spirituality. It starts with the question of what "an integral
spirituality" would be like.
Wilber
lists various definitions or conceptions of spirituality, warning about partial
definitions. "Spirituality,
integral spirituality, certainly has to include a profound realization of the
unborn, the unmanifest, the timeless, the spaceless, combined with a reverence
for the world of form -- all of it, ecological, personal, global, and so
on. My experience is that people tend
to err on one side or the other. Either
they get into this transcendental purity that doesn't care about the earth and
Gaia, or they merely identify with Gaia and the forget the unborn. What we want to try to do, of course, is
include both.
Page 87,
Cohen makes an eloquent assertion of the familiar idea that enlightenment is
obliged to totally transform the world.
"... we may also need to redefine what the meaning of enlightenment
itself is for the time we're living in. We may need ... a more
"relevant" definition.
Traditionally, the emphasis has been on transcendence or the discovery
of and abidance on the empty ground of being beyond the world and beyond
time. ... I question whether this kind
of orientation is really relevant or appropriate. ... I feel that the whole
purpose of enlightenment or going beyond ego, in our own time is to enable us
to finally be truly available to participate in the transformation of the manifest
world from a position of higher consciousness or development. ... as long as
there remains in the seeker of enlightenment any clinging to a posture of
transcendence, ... one will still be divided.
And that division will inhibit one's ability to act because one will
still be holding on. [So we should] give the evolutionary [mundane applied
spirituality] context more and more precedence in the way the path to
enlightenment is presented.
[Note:
Wilber has a more natural command of expression than Cohen.]
Wilber
replies that both "worlds", "of form" and "of the
formless", and then their union, are needed. He then refers to them as I do, as "domains".
"There
is always a pitfall if one emphasizes only one of them. ... And you're
describing beautifully the pitfall of continuing to get into merely the
transcendental component, which, in fact, is the subtlest block to nondual
realization."
Cohen
eventually states "So the whole point is to be able to embrace
manifestation [improving the mundane world] with an ever-widening reach while
ever remaining rooted in the unborn, unmanifest ground [metaphysical
enlightenment] that always is and always was.
Wilber
replies "Yes, that's true. Because
... the other pitfall ... much more common in today's culture, is the mere
immersion in the manifest realm [applied spirituality of improving daily life],
the merely pagan [non-spiritual, non-transcendent] orientation. The pitfall
there, of course, is that you have no transcendence. You have no freedom from the finite realm. ... And then that's
celebrated as if it's integral spirituality!
And all of the transcendental impulses are condemned. But unfortunately, you can't really embrace
Gaia until you transcend Gaia.
Otherwise, you have a mere addiction to the finite realm. You're not embracing it with love; you're
embracing it with basically the same addiction you would ... any sort of
sensory indulgence. ... as a spiritual teacher ... the pitfall you [Cohen]
would run into most often is people still clinging to that transcendental
escapism. ... but .... in the world at large, most people are addicted to the
manifest finite domain."
My
solution is to package metaphysical enlightenment as a neutral pluggable module
that is separate from any comprehensive lifestyle system of applied
spirituality. I push away ethics and
improvement of the world, and then welcome it back to shake its hand and make
it a potential ally that is essentially separate.
If core or
theoretical metaphysical enlightenment is a separate, distinct domain from the
domain of ethics or "spiritual lovingkindness" or what-have-you, and
the two domains can contribute to each other where they overlap, I emphasize
the *distinctness* and resist emphasizing the overlap. Metaphysical enlightenment must be protected
from becoming absorbed by and distorted into daily applied spirituality.
This view
fits with Alan Watts, and conflicts with popular spirituality.
In Way of
Zen, Watts talks of Confucianism similar to the way I keep daily applied
spirituality at bay -- when daily applied spirituality is completely fused with
metaphysical enlightenment and one treats metaphysical enlightenment as a mere
means to the goal of daily applied spirituality, the resulting form of
spirituality is fake, complicated, arbitrary, and misrepresents mundane ethics
as a lofty religion, ending up with distorted, fake, smug ethics -- I sincerely
characterize it as a self-righteous ethics -- and ending up with a stunted and
retarded version of metaphysical enlightenment.
In
Christian theology, transcendent knowledge is treated as the main goal, and
mundane ethics is treated as a mere secondary echo. In popular Western Buddhism, mundane ethics is treated as the
main goal, with transcendent knowledge as a mere utilitarian means to that
end. My solution is to get rid of
mundane ethics and put it in its place by tearing it apart from metaphysical
enlightenment and separately elevating both domains, on separate terms.
Then, *as*
separate domains, they have some *limited* influence on each other. Only by separating metaphysical
enlightenment from the improvement of daily life can we effectively and
honestly maximize both domains -- this distinction and interrelation,
differentiating and integrating, has the most potential, and is the most
modular approach.
Five
groups might have different views on what the improvement of daily life ought
to be like, and I am committed to making the same modular technology of
metaphysical enlightenment theory available to be pluggable into any lifestyle
system or comprehensive system of conduct.
I used to be working mainly on a system of conduct, a personal operating
system -- gradually I separated out my particular life goals (applied
transcendent knowledge) from the core theory (metaphysical enlightenment).
Others can
plug my core theory into their own preferred system of conduct or applied
spirituality. I refuse to marry any
particular system of applied spirituality; thus I keep the core theory
available for integration into multiple different systems. There is no single conception of daily
applied spirituality that is inherent in the core model of transcendent
knowledge I've pulled together, except perhaps a Zen-like minimalist, natural,
straightforward system of conduct, as opposed to stinking of spirituality.
I'm very
no-nonsense and to-the-point, basically, not introducing fake nonsense. We should not mistake decent, kind treatment
of others for the peak of metaphysical insight. Does possessing the core transcendent knowledge cause one to be
compassionate in daily life and applied spirituality? What style of daily applied spirituality is implied by this core
transcendent knowledge?
The short
answer is none -- core transcendent knowledge is essentially a separate realm
that can be applied to various systems of daily applied spirituality, but only
negatively implies any particular system.
When you have the core transcendent knowledge, you would not seriously
think of other people as freewill moral agents, for example.
How
*would* you treat them? As virtual freewill
moral agents -- and that applies very little about the details of your manifest
conduct and actions. I preserve
existential and virtual moral freedom for everyone by rejecting the attempt to
fuse transcendent knowledge with some particular ethical system or specific
system or style of daily interpersonal conduct. How does the enlightened person act? Any way the person damn well pleases.
How does
that person think of other people? Any
way, except for taking them seriously as literal egoic agents. The transcendent mind treats other people as
virtual egoic agents -- what does that mean in particular? Nothing much. If you say it means always smiling, then you fall straight to the
depths of delusion. Enlightenment is
gnosis, not conduct in any usual sense.
It's a switch from one operating system to a revised, more stable and
comprehensive operating system.
What
program styles run on the new operating system? Any program styles, except for the style of taking the egoic
convention for an absolute reality. In
the end, conduct is nearly useless in determining who is metaphysically
enlightened. I'm determined to keep
enlightenment defined as compactly as possible, so that any broad system of
daily conduct that incorporates it includes a strong distinction between the
core and the applied periphery.
That's one
way of putting it: I draw a clear boundary between core enlightenment and the
peripheral layers. Many say core
enlightenment has no worth on its own, and only has a derivative worth; enlightenment's
worth is to be measured only by the resulting worth in the degree of
improvement of daily life it brings. In
contrast, I have a certain respect for the lowlifes that enter the kingdom of
god: they may be bad people in daily life, but they are in the kingdom of god.
This idea
is deeply offensive to people who want to make enlightenment subservient to
improving daily life. The best solution
is to assert that a very bad person can very well be enlightened, and uphold
two distinct value spheres: it is good to be enlightened, and it is
*separately* good to improve daily life.
This is similar to the law of loving God and neighbor: loving
metaphysical enlightenment and improving the daily world, both, distinctly.
It is
possible to do one without doing the other, but morally we ought to do
both. A good religious leader must
bring both but separately: transcendent knowledge, and mundane morality. No matter how elevated daily life is, it
must not be conflated with enlightenment proper. To do so is to stunt and fail to obtain enlightenment. Now, I can theorize well about one half,
which is certain and clear: metaphysical enlightenment; that's a report of how
things are.
The other
half is a different kind of area: ethics; how things ought to be; how one ought
to act. Is and ought are two separate
domains and ought to be packaged and put forth as distinct modular
domains. A system of enlightenment,
narrowly speaking, shouldn't be also a system of conduct -- modular separation
of a system of enlightenment from systems of conduct enables freedom to
existentially choose your own system of conduct, but what cannot be chosen is
the system of enlightenment.
A
comprehensive system of spirituality includes *the* transcendent knowledge
module together with *a* system of conduct or ethics. The moment we falsely assert that transcendent knowledge can only
be paired with one system of ethics, we prove we lack transcendent
knowledge. Transcendent knowledge is
absolutely not a particular system of ethics.
Possessing the system of transcendent knowledge is valuable on its own,
distinct from the value of any particular system of ethics.
The most
transcendent good is possession of the system of transcendent knowledge --
"loving God". Improving daily
life is not the most transcendent good, but is only immanent good. If one claims to absorb the transcendent
good into the immanent good, saying that transcendent knowledge has no value if
it doesn't cause immanent good (improvement of daily life), one proves one's
lack of the transcendent good.
I advocate
possessing the transcendent good (possessing transcendent knowledge), and
separately, striving for immanent good.
Yes, it is possible to apply transcendent knowledge to improving daily
life, but it's evil and delusion to measure transcendent knowledge strictly in
terms of its contribution to improving daily life. That would be evil because the attempt to do so can only appear
to succeed when transcendent knowledge is absent.
Transcendent
knowledge is only possible if transcendent knowledge is protected as a distinct
realm of value from any particular system of conduct and improvement of daily
life. The heart of transcendent
knowledge is "is", not "ought". The only "ought" recognized within the core of
transcendent knowledge is "you *ought* to gain metaphysical enlightenment
and stop assuming you are a freewill sovereign moral agent and prime
mover".
That is
the sacred "ought", the set-apart "ought". The other "oughts" must be kept
separately amassed as the mere ordinary "oughts" -- you ought to
improve daily life. Another possible
sacred "ought" is "you ought to spread metaphysical
enlightenment". Part of spreading
metaphysical enlightenment is defending transcendent knowledge as a separate,
sacred value realm, different in kind than mundane ethics.
There are
two wholly different types of evil, or axes of good-to-evil: the transcendent
axis of good-to-evil is that it is good to be metaphysically enlightened, and
it is evil to be deluded and believe in egoic agency as a literal reality. The mundane (like the egoic) axis of
good-to-evil is that it is good to have good moral conduct, and evil to have
bad moral conduct.
The godman
plans an entheogenic banquet, and invites those who are unenlightened but who
strive to be morally good. They find
that the godman's kingdom is centered on enlightenment rather than good mundane
moral conduct, so they don't come to the banquet. Instead, the people of random mundane moral goodness are invited
in, and accept the invitation, finding that the kingdom is about metaphysical
enlightenment rather than the improvement of daily life.
This
allegory reflects the essential standoff and distinction between transcendent
good (metaphysical enlightenment about the illusory nature of moral agency) and
mundane good (systems of ethical conduct for daily life). If you say that transcendent good is only
good insofar as it increases mundane good, you have had to decapitate and wreck
transcendent good in order to attempt in vain to force it into the mold of
mundane good.
There is a
huge distinction between the value-realm of metaphysical enlightenment, and the
value-realm of mundane good. They can
no more than influence each other, and it's highly conjectural and speculative
to suppose that possessing transcendent good (enlightenment) necessarily tends
to increase one's mundane good. It is
*possible* to apply metaphysical enlightenment to improving daily life, but it
is impossible to measure a person's metaphysical enlightenment by their conduct
of daily life.
Mundane
systems of ethics are speculative and conjectural; the ideal style of conduct
is fully debatable and highly culture-relative. What is not speculative, conjectural, and debatable is the core
transcendent knowledge. The two realms
are highly distinct, even if highly cross-applicable.
To deny
they are highly distinct is to distort and reduce the transcendent realm,
losing the core of enlightenment, retaining merely "human",
preconceived, "man-made" mundane ethical systems not matter how elegant
and superficially spirituality-styled.
Eight coats of spirituality paint cannot compensate for the absence of
core enlightenment that must result from trying to say that enlightenment
necessarily is paired with some particular system of mundane ethics and
improving daily life.
Enlightenment
must be protected from ethics, in order to make it available for multiple
systems of ethics, and to protect its own transcendent sphere of value, a
sphere of value that cannot legitimately bow and be subservient to any other.
Neither
would I falsely distort and diminish the glorious realm of daily mundane ethics
by saying, like an inverse of Karen Armstrong, that "without metaphysical
enlightenment, daily ethics and improvement of daily life has no value whatsoever...
the only possible worth of daily life is to lead to and support metaphysical
enlightenment". They must be kept
as distinct value realms, or you lose one of them through a kind of
reductionist distortion (per Wilber) when falsely absorbed into the other
realm.
My core
theory of enlightenment is designed as a compact pluggable technology, useful
for various fully comprehensive systems of conduct and systems of spirituality
or ethics -- useful for all, and servant to none.
Enlightenment
is not a style of conduct, and per Watts, the enlightened man may very well
ride off with the farmer's ox; enlightenment exists in the sphere of
transcendent ethics (one ought to be coherent in one's self-concept as a
control-agent, and is subject to eventual mystic death/crash if not yet so
coherent) and does not reside (is not rooted or grounded primarily) in the
sphere of mundane ethics, applied spirituality, or improvement of daily
life.
The
purpose of enlightenment is not daily ethics, and the purpose of daily life is
not enlightenment; they are mainly their own purpose. A full life includes metaphysical enlightenment as a value in
itself, and daily ethics as a value in itself, and the two can shine light on
each other, but remain distinct and not answerable to the other. The worth of
one cannot legitimately be reduced to the worth of the other.
Against a
complicated comprehensive system that strives to mix the two, I'm focused on
providing the most compact and simple model of metaphysical enlightenment
possible. As a very minor separate
goal, I only suggest a very simple minimalist system of ethics.
Some items
that come to mind: help each other become metaphysically enlightened, legalize
psychoactives, release the prisoners, stop the fake prohibition-for-profit,
stop dumping poison on psychoactive crops, be decent to other people, be real,
don't make conduct artificially spiritual, and don't confuse shallow spiritual
style of mannerisms and feelings with metaphysical enlightenment.
Someone
could adopt a different system of mundane, immanent, daily ethics, and yet
remain enlightened (with full basic enlightenment), if they possess the core
transcendent knowledge. This view
protects the core for everyone, by keeping it bounded and distinct from any
particular system of conduct. How does
the enlightened person behave? Any way
they want. How can you tell if someone
is enlightened based on their daily life?
In
principle, you can't, in general. To
say we could tell would be to handcuff the Buddha and tell him what he can and
cannot do, denying his existential practical freedom.
>...a
Taoist butcher should be as cognitively dissonant as a Nazi mystic. And yet, Joscelyn Godwin, in Arktos, raised
the possibility of "Nazi Spirituality," as sort of over-development
of the sterotypical Gnostic or Manichean world hatred,
Arktos:
The Polar Myth in Science, Symbolism, and Nazi Survival
Joscelyn
Godwin
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0932813356/qid=1055096617/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-8475295-0313752?v=glance&s=books
Julius
Evola (what book?)
Miguel
Serrano -- Adolph Hitler, the Last Avatar
No such
book.
Black Sun:
Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism and the Politics of Identity
Nicholas
Goodrick-Clarke
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0814731244
The Occult
Roots of Nazism: Secret Aryan Cults and Their Influence on Nazi Ideology: The
Ariosophists of Austria and Germany, 1890-1935
Nicholas
Goodrick-Clarke
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0814730604
>or
"spirituality of the heights," to account for such figures as Julius
Evola, or Miguel Serrano (author of "Adolph Hitler, the Last Avatar")
to say nothing of Himmler's SS grail knights and Rudolph Hess's crystals and
ley lines. [Take a look at Goodrick- Clarke's book; the "esoteric library
series" that German publishers were putting out in the 1910s could put out
by Shambhala or Inner Traditions today]
>This
is also what would be predicted if "core transcendent knowledge is
essentially a separate realm" from ethics ...
I don't
call it a "separate realm", but rather a "distinct
realm". In either case, I
emphasize that transcendent knowledge may shine light on mundane ethics and the
two realms may be said to "overlap", but they remain distinct and are
not one and the same realm. The realm
of enlightenment is not one and the same as the realm of mundane ethics --
that's one way, a favorable way, of putting my main point.
It is
possible to have enlightenment without ethical conduct, and ethical conduct
without enlightenment. This distinction
and this tearing apart high religion from the clutches of low religion (ethics)
is necessary to form a clear, stable, solidly founded model of
enlightenment. The moment we jumble
ethical conduct into that model, it contaminates the higher like trying to mix
confusion with clarity.
The realm
of mundane ethics is, in a way, the realm of confusion and
unenlightenment. Mystery religions put
the emphasis on metaphysical enlightenment rather than mundane ethics. Then Christianity ended up putting more
emphasis on mundane ethics -- losing metaphysical enlightenment. It's ok with me to talk of a balanced system
of spirituality, balancing mundane ethics and metaphysical enlightenment,
because that implies differentiation between the two realms.
A related
topic is the problem of evil. There's a
big stink in the magazine What Is Enlightenment?: much of the readership is
shocked and horrified at Ramesh Balsekar's "enligthenment is realization
of no-free-will" Advaita Vedanta -- yes, it is *still* echoing, several
issues later -- in fact I'd say it is much of what lies behind the current
discussion between Wilber and Cohen about "fix-the-world"
spirituality vs. metaphysical enlightenment.
Wilber in
some ways must be as shocking to those readers as Balsekar -- but Wilber
strives to promote all realms together, though distinctly. Balsekar is accused of *only* advocating
metaphysical enlightenment, without also advocating a "fix-the-world"
mentality -- perhaps a true reflection of his words that were printed in the
magazine. Like Wilber, I advocate a
"fix-the-world" mentality but that proceeds from me as an advocate of
moral action, not as a theorist of metaphysical enlightenment.
*Many*
things share this property of being able to be used by the bad guys. The bomb, metaphysical enlightenment, and
LSD are all neutral technologies that themselves are distinct from ethics of
conduct. The good guys don't
"own" metaphysical enlightenment; it is a free agent and answers to
no one.
Enlightenment
is about moral agency, but involves a leap away from the conventional axis of
good-evil to the axis of enlightened-unenlightened, which is then
metaphorically called "good-evil" but of course the latter usage is
ironic. An important meaning of Eden is
that "the eyes of Adam and Eve were opened and they knew good and
evil" means that they saw through the illusion of freewill moral agency.
What if we
could bring enlightenment within easy reach of all humanity, but the moralists
(or conventional moral thinking) hate certain aspects of it? I'd say if you want moralism, then promote
moralism, but don't confuse it with enlightenment, which transcends
moralism. Enlightenment is centrally
*about* moralism, but doesn't make one's conduct morally good. This is an old tension between lower,
moralistic religion and higher, transcendent religion.
Evil
people may very well be metaphysically enlightened, and it is sheer wishful
thinking or arbitrary definition to hold that being enlightened must necessary
entail good conduct in the mundane realm.
Low
religion objects to high religion and wants to jumble conventional
ethics/morality -- the kind we teach children -- with the high things, but
there is good reason to keep them theoretically distinct, though doing so is
immensely painful to conventional moral sensibilities, which want to attach
themselves to metaphysical enlightenment.
High religion profoundly transcends conventional moral sensibilities;
that's one message of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac.
It's
frustrating to conventional morality, but enlightenment elusively remains a
distinct realm -- similarly, it is frustrating to literalist Christians that
esoteric religion isn't owned by Christianity.
You can be the most moral person and be almost completely unenlightened,
taking freewill moral agency as literally real. And there's technically no reason why a conventionally morally
evil person can't be metaphysically enlightened.
Many
people will choose to remain in hell, outside the kingdom of heaven such as I
and others define it, when they find that entering heaven means not taking
freewill moral agency as literally real.
I fully advocate being nice to people, but I fully reject identifying
any such system of conduct with the core of enlightenment. Sure, I suppose that being metaphysically
enlightened might positively influence behavior, but that's speculation,
usually mixed with wishful thinking.
Being
metaphysically good (enlightened, high good) *ought* to include being mundanely
good (low good, religion as ethics), we think, but that is our wish and opinion
and assumption, without a very solid, clear connection.
How
exactly does having metaphysical enlightenment necessarily imply being
mundanely good? We could speculate and
conjecture, but it's a matter of attempting to convert 'is' into 'ought'. Forcing these two into a shotgun wedding
risks distorting both, most likely losing enlightenment and falsely labelling
worldly ethics as that which transcends worldly ethics.
dc wrote:
>The
Older Buddhism of Gautama, had the stated goal to achieve personal
"extinction/nirvana," and thereby "remove suffering of all
beings."
>Mahayana
also states it's goal to be to "remove suffering," yet using Gautama
as a metaphorical figurehead and central in the sutras they composed, it states that the use of "extinction/nirvana"
was actually a "secret and skillful (expedient) means of the
Buddha." Like wise the idea of the
"Arhat" who was the person who was supposed to have achieved
"enlightenment," by accomplishing the attainment of extinction, was
just a expedient stage of attainment.
Extinction
of the assumed-literal ego is pretty straightforwardly achievable with the
right tools. This removes certain
aspects of suffering from the individual mind, but doesn't remove all types of
suffering from the individual or from the collective.
The
inflated promise that enlightenment will remove all suffering from oneself or
from the world is like the inflated promise that entering the kingdom of
God/kingdom of heaven will lead to literal peace and harmony forever everywhere. The latter promise was partly made as a
counter to the praises of Ruler Cult, which hoped for "peace" (of a
sort) throughout the Roman Empire thanks to the emperor.
>...these
3 Vehicles are used expediently, but then refuted in High Buddhism and the
"Great White Oxen Cart" symbolizing Buddhahood, is explained to be
distinct from the three vehicles, which are said to be "provisional
teachings"
The
promise of enlightenment as a permanent floating blissed-out state that forever
makes all your whites whiter and brights brighter and is a panacea to solve all
problems and remove all conflict and cognitive dissonance is an overinflated
claim that distorts the actual scope, nature, and effect of metaphysical
enlightenment.
Can
metaphysical enlightenment be combined with a sustained programme of life
enhancement? Yes, to some degree, but
it is arbitrary to combine metaphysical enlightenment with life enhancement
(self-improvement and world-improvement) to assemble a comprehensive system of
spirituality.
A main
motive of my developing these ideas is to undermine the supposed basis for
claiming that meditation is ten times as relevant, legitimate, and effective as
entheogens. It's axiomatic for me that
entheogens are a hundred times more effective than meditation for achieving the
properly *religious* goals that are based in the realm of high religion.
Low
religion has its place: self- and world-improvement in the mundane sense,
including a spiritual quality of life that requires only some limited degree of
enlightenment or regeneration. After
the mind is trained to take seriously the freewill moral-agency illusion, the
initiate is ready to move past that phase and experience the transcendence of
moral agency, having the moral agency delusion close at hand to fall back upon.
>The
Three Vehicles represent, the life states of:
>o Intellectual learning meaning
"Arhat," or "Voice Hearer"
>o The realm of Absorption and Self-Realization (skt. Pratyekabuddha)
>o The Bodhisattava life state of comapssion.
>These
three vehicles are removed and replaced by the "Sole Vehicle," of
Buddhahood/Enlightenment.
So in
lower religion, the individual mind develops intellect, learning,
self-realization, and ethics/compassion.
Only then is the mind trained and equipped to move on to the potentially
dangerous realm of transcendence of the egoic control system. Most development of compassion is done prior
to metaphysical enlightenment. On the
whole, overall, I place ethics/compassion in the realm of lower religion,
preparatory training for higher religion.
Sure,
after enlightenment, one's compassion may still be developed further, but the
original basis and root of compassion remains primarily in lower religion. Ethics/compassion that is informed by
enlightenment is just a special-case, not the bulk of ethics/compassion. The lack of enlightenment is never an
acceptable excuse to lack ethics/compassion; ethics/compassion is fully binding
on the unenlightened as well as the enlightened.
Can
meditation enhance daily life far better than entheogens, such that meditation
is more effective and relevant than entheogens for enhancing daily life? I can accept that, by demoting such
meditation into the mundane level of life, or more neutrally, by placing such
meditation within the sphere of daily life and refusing to place that kind of
meditation within the sphere of classic religious enlightenment and
transformation.
Using
Wilber's terms, such meditation is basically *translative* and not
*transformative*. We all ought to do
such translation (non-transformative development and refinement); refining
daily conduct and non-peak existence is great, but it isn't classic religious
insight and experiencing. Here we
arrive at a standoff regarding arbitrary values.
Sellout
Buddhism is that which rejects the importance of metaphysical enlightenment
together with peak states, and "blasphemes the holy spirit" by saying
that mundane compassion is all-important and metaphysical enlightenment and the
peak state are unimportant -- that direct, primary, intense, classic religious
experiencing is much less important than improving the world.
The
closest I can come to agreeing is that the realm of classic intense religious
experiencing and the realm of improving the daily shared world are two distinct
value realms -- ethics is good, and enlightenment is good, but they are not the
same thing. Buddhism which
overemphasizes improving the world more than peak experiencing and metaphysical
enlightenment is a fallen Buddhism, mere ethics falsely posing as religion or transcendence.
There's
some kind of transcendence in improving the world, but it's not classic,
religious, sacred, peak-state set-apart transcendence.
Some
meditation proponents too easily disparage all the latter in order to put down
entheogens and inflate the worth of a kind of religion that lacks anything
clearly religious but is just ethics and world-improvement put on a pedestal --
and this move is largely done as an excuse to cover for the fact that such
mundane religion -- like the superficially decked-out but hollow, cargo-cult,
placebo-based Eucharistic liturgy -- fails to deliver its original, classic,
promise.
That kind
of improve-the-world "religion" or "spirituality" tries to
steal and claim all the great achievements of high mystic-experiencing
religion, such as metaphysical enlightenment, without the ability to deliver
the goods. At best, improve-the-world
"religion" (or "quality-of-life spirituality") can mouth
the doctrines of metaphysical enlightenment, but cannot efficiently and
reliably deliver the intense mystic altered-state experience of loose cognition
and nondual awareness, for typical minds, in practice.
With these
perspectives, distinctions, and ideas in place, now we are in a strong position
to refute the entheogen-diminishing meditation proponents such as in the book
Zig Zag Zen. To do so is largely a
matter of defining ultimate goals and ultimate values -- not just methods
usable toward goals and values.
Those who
say meditation is better than entheogens necessarily advocate a vision of
spirituality that has a weak and highly debatable foundation, and the result is
comparable to debased Christianity, in which sentimentality, supernaturalism,
activism, and ethics of personal conduct are conjoined to replace and
substitute for peak experiencing and profound transformation or actual deep
spiritual regeneration.
A kind of
insipid, evil sterling mediocrity has become a threat to deep religion, so that
something claiming to be deeply transformative (like the official placebo
Eucharist) trumpets and loudly advertises the promises it can't deliver on,
promises stolen from their real source and realm -- peak primary religious
experiencing.
The most
evil thing in the world is the common Western Buddhist assertion, such as found
in Zig Zag Zen, that meditation isn't valuable because of peak states and
metaphysical enlightenment on their own terms, but is only valuable insofar as
it enables improving the world and enhancing daily life.
That
position is the height of evil, in practice, because it ends up presenting
enhanced daily life as high religion, thereby acting as a substitute that shuts
out actual transformation, actual classic religious experiencing.
Meditation
barely works at all, for what is classically claimed for it, so meditation
proponents use several strategies: claiming it *is* efficient, redefining the
goal of religious experiencing, lowering (disparaging) the value of religious
experiencing, and elevating the value of the non-religious realm of daily
experiencing.
The origin
and classic realm of religious experiencing is then lost, shut away, while
people work their hardest to say that silver is really gold (or more neutrally,
that red is really blue, or that one realm (applied religion) is really two
full realms (primary religion and applied religion)) -- it's a con; we're told
we're getting full religion, when such meditation really can only deliver half
of a religion -- the half that is arguably the lower and less religious half.
We end up
with denatured enlightenment, denatured religion, and we lose our rightful full
inheritance. The diminishment of
entheogens threatens the fullness of religion; entheogen-disparaging religion
is a grossly reduced religion, a grossly reduced spirituality. The most enhanced and glittering daily life
in the world, fully spiritually enhanced and decked-out like an ornate liturgy,
with intense improve-the-world activism, still is only half spiritual, half a
religion, stunted, retarded, woefully incomplete.
The
current situation is that meditation doesn't typically provide the classic
higher half of religion; it *doesn't* provide clear mystic insight or
metaphysical enlightenment, and doesn't have the potential to, unlike
entheogens -- and the current elevation of enhancing daily life is bogus, a
cheap and flimsy excuse for the failure of meditation to deliver the classic
promises.
Meditation
claims but fails to provide religious experiencing, and then when entheogens
point out this dismal failure, meditationists use rear-guard action to falsely
elevate the lower into the higher and put forth a gleaming daily conduct
system, claiming that system is classic religious enlightenment and is also
better than classic religious enlightenment.
Zig Zag
Zen and suchlike writings are evil, bogus, bunk, insincere, fake, substitute
religion that's just about as bad as liberal Christianity -- a painted woman
(no offense to sex workers). Popular
Buddhism or meditationism is tricked-out lower religion that, in practice, blocks
access to religion proper -- original, core, source religion that is the very
thing that gave rise to meditation in the first place.
Meditationism
is the lower and derivative claiming to be the higher and original, the
glorified translative (Wilber) posing as the actual transformative. Woe to you moralists, who block the way for
others, and refuse to enter heaven yourselves.
>the
amount of pressure placed upon the 'innocent child', who does not divide life
into enlightenment and non-enlightenment, mundane and mystic realm. Only the mind sees the separation.
An
individual mind is enlightened or unenlightened. The distinction is real and significant. The mundane and mystic realms are distinct,
even if they provide perspective or shine light on each other, or contribute to
each other. These distinctions can be
mentally grasped and understood. If
there is no distinction, that would be a denial of the possibility of
enlightenment. A mind can be
enlightened; a concomitant assertion is that initially, each mind is not
enlightened.
Before initiation,
a mind is unenlightened and only knows
the mundane realm -- including egoic preconceptions about ego transcendence or
the egoic version of transcendent knowledge, and the deluded conception of
non-delusion. In the simplest theory,
the mind begins in a purely egoic mode, knowing nothing of religious
metaphysical principles or the mystic state.
Then the
mind undergoes a single initiation, including learning transcendent concepts
and experiencing transcendent states and insights. ("Experiencing mystic insights.") Immediately after this initiation session,
the mind is completely transformed, now using entirely and exclusively the
transcendent mental worldmodel.
In a more
realistic view, the mind begins with some spiritual knowledge, undergoes a
choppy series of mystic-state sessions mixed with increasing conceptual
knowledge, and a series of partial transformations, resulting in a mix of egoic
and transcendent thinking. The mundane and mystic realms overlap, intertwine,
and interpenetrate to some extent.
The mind
has to abstract out much of the messy detail in order to say so simplistically
"I was deluded, then I was transformed, now I am enlightened." You can zoom into different levels of detail
-- a strategy of simplicity requires starting with just two; simple polarities
are powerful abstractions: enlightenment vs. nonenlightenment, mundane vs.
mystic, lower vs. higher. There are
problems with simple polarities such as "lower, deluded religion vs.
higher, enlightened religion", but the gains outweigh the cost.
I am
addressing various points, and variations of points, raised in various
magazines, books, and postings. I am
not refuting or addressing a single person, a single posting, or a single
position, but a nexus of attitudes, particularly centered around the common
move of disparaging entheogens while advocating meditation. There are plenty of charades.
>>A
story that holds up the mystical content, flavored with personifications, and
other matter formed, which does not include the revolutions of life, the rising
and passing of daily life, is a story of unacceptance or [lopsided and
unbalanced] like the Leaning Tower of Pisa.
>>Take
the butterfly, who dons its caterpillar stature for wings: it does not become
separate from nature, nature being everything.
The sun does not barter with the moon to keep the tides in one
place. It is in the change and
exchange, which allows the breath of words to have life.
Because
the pre-moderns had entheogens on tap, thus the intense mystic altered state on
tap, they had no great need to set up a strong opposition between daily life
and mystic experiencing. Complaints
about my belittling of daily life just indicate lack of access to intense
mystic experiencing on tap. When one
*has* such access readily available, there is no great need to have a
winner-takes-all battle between two distant alienated combatants, daily life
way over here and the mystic state way over there.
The point
for one who has the mystic state routinely on tap is to think of life as a
whole, consisting of two levels (daily life, mystic state) and (equivalently)
two phases (pre-initiate; initiated).
Life is not complete and full until it includes the classic series of
mystic-state initiations, in addition to the given default which is daily
life. This is just the old debate of
how one should relate to the non-mystic dimension of life. Should one consider it as elevated by the
other, mystic state? Or should one
consider the non-mystic dimension to be bad, low, degraded, loathesome, highly
inferior?
When
debating the potential of spirituality centered on daily life (ordinary state
of consciousness rather than intense mystic altered state), we should emphasize
that the mystic state is, in fact, readily available, routinely, on-tap,
on-demand; despite all modern orthodoxy, the mystic state of consciousness is
not at all rare or hard to trigger -- it's easy, it's readily available, as
always, through visionary plants. So we
must ask the real question which is:
*Given*
that the intense mystic altered state is readily available on-tap to everyone
without delay, ergonomically, what then is the point and potential of a kind of
spirituality which is grounded in daily life and the ordinary state of
consciousness (as opposed to the other state as readily available as dreaming:
the intense mystic altered state)?
Daily-life spirituality has some relation to the ready-to-hand full-on
mystic state: what exactly is this relationship?
Today's
spiritual Establishment attempts to pose these two versions of spirituality as
irreconcilably opposed; only one of them can be legitimate.
If I
accept such an opposition, I certainly advocate the intense mystic state as
being the lone wellspring of religion/spirituality, and reject daily-life
spirituality as being in any way legitimate as far as being a source and origin
of religion/spirituality.
Ordinary-state spirituality is entirely parasitical upon or derivative
from the mystic state type of spirituality/religion.
If I
accept that the two modes of spirituality work together, I can form a
reasonable explanation of that scenario, that fitting-together; in the 1960
book On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism, Gershom Scholem discusses the complex
-- rather than simple -- relationship between mystic-state religion and
ordinary-state religion.
Home (theory of the ego death and rebirth experience)