Lost in secular land?

[DISCLAIMER: If you like clear, coherent, decisive points, this post will probably frustrate you.]

I find it difficult to get on board with statements like "there's nothing to do" and "everything is perfect just as it is." (Saying "there's nowhere to go" seems to be less problematic for me). There are times when I think it might be useful to take on these perspectives as a way to let go of assumptions that are resulting in some kind of "stuckness" to another less helpful point of view. But, I think this is not a particularly helpful assumption to have when starting a practice. And, I think such a view ("everything is already perfect"/ "there's nothing to do") is just as likely to get freeze someone into a place where further growth is unlikely. They may be temporarily useful, but they, too, will need to be let go of at some point. [Thus, revealing my functional contextualist view/assumption/bias that "it's true if it is useful."] I'll elaborate...

I like to think of such statements as pointers rather than awakened views or ultimate realizations. Implicit in the idea of "pointers" is the idea that something is moving, changing, transforming, traveling, etc.; and, that there's something that isn't being realized by the individual in a given moment. So, it would seem that I have a sort of "path" or "practice" bias with regard to awakening. Well, sort of, but there's more...

I also awakening as dialectical in nature. We are continually returning our focus to present experiencing, and not with an agenda for direct change or manipulation through personal agency, per se. But, the activity of impermanence continues to flux. Change occurs. It would be a stretch say that all change is illusory. The suchness of things is simultaneously One and Many, which means it is both and it is neither. And, there is something about practicing "letting be" in a way that allows for the activity of impermanence to move freely, without blockages due to mis-perception. If there is a practice at all, it is continually bring our limited, deluded assumptions into awareness so they can be let go of, again and again and again. Let the activity of impermanence go on unimpeded!

Do we DO transformation? Not directly. Does intention play a role? YES! But intention is not-self (empty) just like all of present experiencing... and the dialectic continues.

I think it's possible to continually discover "the way things are". But, being direct and experiential in nature, I don't think the practice of penning axioms about what awakening is or isn't is all that helpful in all situations [Assumption: there is no absolute frame reference], which - for me - again points to emptiness. But even emptiness is empty, no?

Maybe all I'm trying to say is that awakening is completely ungraspable, as not stable "thing" exists to grasp, and no reference point is there which may grasp. And yet... awakening happens.

Dogen really puts all of this so much better

I'm also a little taken aback by how unenlightened this all makes me sound! Maybe that's a good thing.

One last thing before I set off to do a great deal of yard work on this sunny Saturday in the NW...

If there were a statement I could get behind with regard to a core feature of awakening, it would be akin to Franklin Merrell-Wolff's well-known aphorism...

Consciousness-without-an-object is.

... because this is something I can confidently say I know from experience.

That, as well as the opening lines of Eihei Dogen's Genjo Koan, are about as pithy as it gets for me.

Yes, awaking is not really graspable, but as has been pointed out here a few times, all we have is the language we share. If we realize that, and I think we all do, it seems to me it's okay to use that language in less than rigorous ways sometimes to talk about the commonalities and differences of our individual experiences, to share, to agree, to disagree, whatever. I liken this discusion to a cocktail party conversation as opposed to a philosophical discussion in a more academic setting.

Make sense?

-cmarti

Yes, it makes sense. I know I can come off as a bit serious sometimes, particularly with how I tend to bring-down-the-hammer on language "stuff".

I like your depiction of this discussion as being more like a "cocktail party conversation", and I can see that this is what is happening here. A funny thing about me, though, is that my cocktail party conversations tend to get really philosophical and academic REALLY fast. It's actually one of the things my wife and I have in common, which had a lot to do with why we fell for each other in the first place. But I digress...

I hope I don't appear argumentative. My responses make clear that I'm in a practice-space where some assumptions work better than others, and I can get a little protective of that sometimes. It's something to work on. I think it is due in part to my personal history of getting stuck in certain places, as well as seeing others I care about get stuck there, too. I get a little enthusiastic about acting as a solvent, dissolving the sticky stuff that keeps people stuck. I could probably tone it down.

I hope this conversation continues as long as we have more to say. And please, everyone, feel free to openly question, challenge, or otherwise agree or disagree with anything I post here. I really do learn so much from you all.

I think you are making a lot of valid points, Jackson.

What each person needs to hear and learn in terms of their own practice is going to be completely different, and a forum is not a monastery, retreat, guru or great work of academic research either.

To be honest, one of my own "hang-ups" of sorts is this idea that we should all sit around not saying anything that might accidentally make someone practice "wrong" because god forbid they heard something they misunderstood on a forum on the internet. The world is not a padded room. People have to fumble their way through it as best they can. Some of them will walk into quicksand even if you stand in front of them shouting that it's there (I've actually done that in real life btw!).

This is a personal thing, too, because one of the things that most profoundly changed my life was running into the circle of pragmatic/hardcore/open dharma forums where people were *not* being cagey and mysterious and evasive about just saying what the hell was going on. If being mysterious is what's best, then the hierarchical initiatory priesthood traditions have it right - the masses should best stand in the temple nodding and smiling and handing over coins while the monks and priests study, practice and learn how things really work.

I realize that world, like any other, is full of people who've gotten into all kinds of strange self-delusions and mistaken beliefs. So is every kind of practice. That's human nature.

[I'm being a bit strong in my tone here just to get across how important this point seems to me right now.]

What might be helpful to me, Jackson, is if you could be more specific about the situations you've seen where certain ways of talking about awakening have led people to problems? Are there specific examples that might clarify where you're coming from?

Ona, I would love to provide some examples. I'll come back to this thread tomorrow if possible, as I think the rest of my Saturday is booked

I've been carefully considering this topic since yesterday, and I think I'm starting to get to the bottom of what it is that troubles me about certain ways of speaking about awakening. In a broad sense, it most certainly has a lot to do with "where I'm at" - in practice, and thus, in life.

My recent personal history with certain teachers and friends in these online dharma communities (I need not name names) has shown me enough evidence to know that operating within a fixed, closed system has myriad unfortunate consequences. When it is no longer acceptable to consider another point of view, the more pithy facets of what awakening "is" are not easily distilled from what it is not.

[Technical side note: It is possible for a system to be rigid even though it changes all the time. It's like the lid opens up for a few days to let in new information, and than snaps shut. The information is reorganize, and then ferociously clung to. But the person who does this can say, "No, I'm not rigid. Look, I changed my mind about this and that and the other thing." Therefore, I think it often goes undetected.]

So, I find myself wanting to describe things in open, functional ways, rather than making grand claims about awakening, reality, and Everything. But, in doing so, I seem to be ignoring the fact that there are facets of experience that seem to be more or less consistent for those who have awakened to some degree. And, the only way to point these out is to make statements about them. I've become so overly sensitive to statements that seem definitive that I tend to throw them all out. When a statement like, "Everything is perfect just as it is," is filtered through my postmodern lens and its many distorting assumptions, the message that comes through is, "Everything is perfect just as it is, period. There's not other way to look at it." It isn't fair of me to treat such statements this way. And, for someone who claims to be a "contextual" thinker, I should probably take a step back and explore the context in which such statements are made before I go on listing all of the reasons why I don't like such statements.

This site has only encountered truly rigid, inflexible thinking on less than a handful of occasions. In this context, I think I can relax my schtick and be better at participating with the topics in a less sensitive way.

I posted this Ken Wilber quote to my Facebook wall yesterday: "Extreme reactions are often the mirror images of what they loathe." It was a reminder to myself, more than anything.

Thoughts?
-Jackson

Not to comment specifically on what Jackson is saying, but to chime in with maybe a side note: I think saying everything is "perfect" is a little off, for me.

Why "perfect?"

Certainly all kinds of stuff is happening all the time, but the term perfect brings in a value judgement that I think will distort reality and distort one's ability to really look at what is going on. Perfect brings in, for me, the separate self, and gives it strength, conviction, a discriminating vision. If everything is empty of a self -- who is there to say "perfect?" The same thing that was just before saying things were NOT perfect - and, as long as such judgments are being made, will, certainly, once again find things to be not so perfect a moment or two later.

Stuff is happening, patterns are getting played out by all of these things here. I think an awakened awareness will include the ability to see that, often, things don't SEEM perfect at all -- and live with and practice with that as well.

Nit picky - I know.

Jackson, that felt like a really honest and relevant answer to me, and I've been through some "getting burned" type situations myself. I spent a long time in a rigid hierarchical initiatory religious system with lots of esoteric terminology and very rigid rules. I actually think there are loads of benefits to putting oneself through that kind of rigor and discipline, but it comes with loads of crap, misuse, misunderstandings and power trips, too.

I also understand pretty much anything you say to try to describe experiences in the mind (or even body) ends up being pointers and metaphors. Even something as straightforward as physical pain: "it feels like a knife in my toe; it feels like a bee stung me; it feels like someone's rubbing sandpaper on my toe" etc. There's no other way to do it. None of those are actually accurate descriptions of the pain in my toe, but there is no actual way to convey exactly how it feels.

I guess to say I don't feel like there should be some purpose here of writing a manifesto or anything. I just want(ed) to explore what works for whom and when, where it gets tangled and why, and so on. I have always had a particular interest in trying to take things that are very complex or obscure and making them simple enough be accessible to a broader audience. (Simple doesn't mean easy.)

Mike - That's useful. I think Chris referred to this a little when I suggested that usage of the word "perfect." He said:

"My wording would be "nothing to take away, nothing to add, everything is always complete" -- or something like that..."

To my mind something is technically perfect if it doesn't lack or need anything. But the word 'perfect' is a bit more loaded, as you point out, it can carry a connotation of judgment, such as "it is not lacking anything and I really like it a lot" or even "I really like it, and am ignoring the fact that it is not whole and complete."

So perhaps Chris' wording is a better fit.

Mike, the meaning of that phrase, as I interpret it, has absolutely nothing to do with a self and everything to do with the realization that we cannot add, subtract or change anything that we experience. We can quibble over the use of the word "perfect" and I would be happy to substitute the word "whole" or "complete." But without question, this feeling is a part of awakening. It is, for me, about encountering, seeing and accepting the universe AS IT IS. As it just IS. As it always IS.
See what I mean?
[/quote



I don't.

However, I certainly lack your clarity and conviction on this point so there is a pretty good chance that you have/are seeing something that I just haven't (yet?)

To me so far the universe seems chaotic and constantly out of balance with no underlying sense of unity or wholeness/completeness



I can get a wonderful sense of unity, clarity and peace when my brain gets quiet and the patterns of the mike thing slow and sync.



But, my hunch is that is just how things can be sometimes. That's all



But I'm open for more to be revealed.

I like the way Chris put the word "perfect" in its applicable context with regard to awakening. "Complete" and "whole" are qualities of experience I am familiar with. As Ram Dass has reportedly said, "The world is perfect just as it is, including my desire to change it."

Suzuki Roshi is quoted as having said to his sangha : 'You are all perfect just as you are. And you can all use a little work.' I've always loved that.

Another quality of IT, now that I think about it, is the idea that the universe just IS, and that it is endless, timeless and without any thought or "feeling" of whatever is passing for me in this second. I can recall the first time I experienced this IS-ness and one of the things that really hit me afterward was the powerful feeling of "it's not about YOU at all." Gozen says he had a similar feeling. I've heard others say the same thing, too.

Good morning, everybody!


-cmarti

Okay, this paragraph conveys my sense of things exactly. "I" am not just small and irrelevent - I don't even make a dent in things, in the real universe. I am an echo of the imagination of this little brain only.
And I like it that way.

Chris, "recalibrating" is a good word this process we're describing. It is very much process of discovering what one is leaving out (which is often determined by what one is most strongly reacting to), and then expanding one's view to include and integrate the previously neglected perspective(s). This is no easy, comfortable task.

I will say - in praise of this site - that the process is a lot less painful when: (1) no one involved has assumed the role of being the one authoritative voice of the group, and (2) everyone communicates with each other in a respectful way, even when there is disagreement. I think we have accomplished that here thus far, and I will continue to do what I can to make sure it continues. There should be opportunities for everyone involved in this forum to be challenged, and thus, to grow. (And I mean "challenged" in a good way, not as though we are supposed to be getting into fights.)

Happy Independence Day to you all! (Well, for those of us living in the US. Is anyone here living elsewhere?)

-Jackson

Chris, "recalibrating" is a good word this process we're describing. It is very much process of discovering what one is leaving out (which is often determined by what one is most strongly reacting to), and then expanding one's view to include and integrate the previously neglected perspective(s). This is no easy, comfortable task.
I will say - in praise of this site - that the process is a lot less painful when: (1) no one involved has assumed the role of being the one authoritative voice of the group, and (2) everyone communicates with each other in a respectful way, even when there is disagreement. I think we have accomplished that here thus far, and I will continue to do what I can to make sure it continues. There should be opportunities for everyone involved in this forum to be challenged, and thus, to grow. (And I mean "challenged" in a good way, not as though we are supposed to be getting into fights.)
Happy Independence Day to you all! (Well, for those of us living in the US. Is anyone here living elsewhere?)
-Jackson


-awouldbehipster

I think this site is doing a grand job of both 1&2. That is incredibly hard to sustain on a forum with a diverse group of participants. I am finding it very beneficial to hit points of "huh?" because those always seem to point to something I haven't thought about before, or haven't thought about in a certain way, at least. And then I get the chance to ponder something new.

Cheers, Ona