Beginning - Middle - ???

I guess a certain amount of what I see here is what I would refer to as arguments from the absolute. Which is fine, right, nothing to do, this is simply happening, how could it be otherwise, etc. It does seem that this perspective should theoretically lead to no discussion at all.

But it at least appears to me that (and I hate to say it) effort of some kind had a role. For an advanced musical improviser, the instruction may be more along the lines of letting go, letting the music play you, etc. But in a one room schoolhouse, it seems like there are going to be some people who would at some point benefit from learning songs, riffs, scales, arpeggios, harmony, rhythms, etc.

To me, it seems like it might be a disservice to beginners to advocate instruction from the endgame point of view. Not that this is necessarily "instruction." In some ways I see the mainstream "keep 'em in the dark culture" as being from that perspective.

It seems as if a certain momentum has to be generated first, and from there things can be let go of a bit, in fact need to be let go of.

Curious if this would spark any discussion. To me it seems like some degree of distinction or mapping makes some sense, and at certain points effort makes sense.

Another factor I notice is that although relatively new to this, I am to some degree already forgetting what my mind was like for decades. The mind still has its tendencies, but I suspect that after a while it would be increasingly difficult to have this conversation, in the same way that I have a hard time remembering what it was like to believe in Santa Claus.

I think there's almost no one on this forum (that I know of) who is a total beginner. If a person has never meditated, I usually give them a mechanical practice like counting the breath or saying a phrase over and over until they have established the motivation to sit 30 minutes a day (which usually coincides with some engaged level of concentration). This can take a few months, depending. Once they have that, they usually don't need the simple crutch, and practice can start evolving depending on the personality, issues and proclivities of the individual. One might really thrive moving to a devotional practice. Another might do very well watching body sensations. Another watching the breath. Another doing visualizations or spirit work. People are so different, in my experience, it seems quite counterproductive to make a "way to do things" or even "one process map" and then shoe horn everyone into it.

I've always liked talking about insight practices in terms of skills development. I've even written some short essays on this topic, more or less. Learning skills requires conscious effort, and when relative mastery is reached those skills become more implicit than explicit. Think of driving, riding a bike, or even walking. We don't think about it anymore. We just get up and move. Hell, even learning to relax takes practice. I tink what freaks people out about talking about awakening as a result, rather than an always-already reality, has more to do with language than anything else; that is to say, verbs. "Jump" is a verb, and so is "relax." According to language, both are activities one "does." Though one is active and the other passive. Not-doing is still doing, according to our common grammar. Of course there's something wrong with this picture, which is (at least in part) why we have discussions like this.

Anyway, whether we're practicing to get somewhere, or practicing to just be here now, we're still practicing.

The view from the mountain top is that there is nothing to get and nothing to do, indeed there is no mountain, no mountain climber and no view. Ironically most of us have to climb the mountain to realize that. Those teachers who insist everybody is already enlightened and there is nothing that need be done in the way of meditation, inquiry or what not, really do people a disservice I think.

mike, i'd agree that's an extreme approach, though it may work for some people and certainly in some stages. i think the other extreme of technique/control focused micro-management has many weaknesses too. middle way and all that. but most of all customizing to the needs of individuals. which can often mean trying to nudge them away from what they want!!

Chris Marti wrote: I sort of sense something more behind what you're saying so I have to ask, Eric, is there something about the absolute POV that is bothering you?

Interesting question.

I suppose my concern is really directed towards mainstream spiritual culture. It has something to do with all the time that was wasted in my life because of that perspective. And I see so many people doing the same thing.

I could also probably say that effort/no effort is a bit of a conundrum in my own practice right now.

Regarding the "waste of life/time" idea - I have to say that's something that's radically changed for me. I cannot look back at my life and see anything as "a waste". Each thing I did led me to do something else. Doing something that "didn't work for me" led me to recognize something else as a better choice. If I had not had experience X, I might never have had experience Y. And besides the larger trajectories I can identify and verbalize, there are the millions of unnoticed causes and results that led to this decision or that decision. I do regret a few things I've done in my life that were hurtful to other people, but even those moments taught me a great deal and contributed to who I am and where I am right now.

Does anyone else have this perspective? I didn't have it until somewhere shortly before waking up. It was a big change for me.

Ona Kiser wrote: Does anyone else have this perspective? I didn't have it until somewhere shortly before waking up. It was a big change for me.

I can't say I consistently hold this perspective, but I am familiar with it.

As an aside, it's worth noting that while some people might discover this perspective during the so-called awakening process, others seem to see things this way without any spiritual practice (as we commonly define it). I'm skeptical that the adoption of this view is a reliable feature of awakening for a significant percentage of awakees (that's a new term!). "Correlation does not imply causation" and all that jazz.

Yeah, I wasn't sure. It might just be something that happened to come up for me coincident to spiritual practice.

Ona Kiser wrote: Does anyone else have this perspective? I didn't have it until somewhere shortly before waking up. It was a big change for me.

I agree with Jackson's caveats, but for me this is a view which was strengthened after practicing for a while - although it was there in some form already. It points to the timeless, the wholeness of experience. Not sure I'm making any sense.

It makes sense to me, Mike. It feels related to practice for me because of the sense of inclusivity. Wholeness works for me, too.

Ona Kiser wrote: I cannot look back at my life and see anything as "a waste".

Does anyone else have this perspective? I didn't have it until somewhere shortly before waking up. It was a big change for me.

Something similar. I absolutlely can't argue with anything that has happened. In that sense, I'm totally fine with it. But, if I saw a younger person doing some of the things I did (physically or mentally) I would say STOP! So some freedom from the guilt of the past, but also some wisdom and compassion as a result.

Ona Kiser wrote: Does anyone else have this perspective? I didn't have it until somewhere shortly before waking up. It was a big change for me.

For me, this came about during psychoanalysis, before I started spiritual practice. It wasn't something that came suddenly or was a big change. It crept up on me, gradually displacing what was there before, until one day I realized I no longer felt anger at having wasted various parts of my life.

I now look back and view my life's trajectory with gratitude, with the exception of renting the movie "The Men Who Stare at Goats." That's 94 minutes of my life I can never get back.

I'd agree, shargrol - it has nothing to do with thinking that every single thing I did was harmless fun. When I first came of drinking age I got very drunk and punched my undeserving roommate in the nose over some random useless argument neither of us could recall later. We are still friends, and it is a bit of a joke between us, but it was not an action that was appropriate or I would recommend. But I do "own it" without guilt or shame now - it is part of my life experiences, something I learned a great deal from, etc. etc. not something I beat myself up over, wish I could go back and fix, etc. So the sense of "nothing was a waste" is more of a non-rejection of my past, a sort of radical acceptance of it as exactly what it was.

As I write this I feel slightly annoyed that there are certain subjects that always require these disclaimers, so that no one will accidentally think that we mean it's okay to hurt other people. Sigh.

Something came to me as I was reading through these posts. I think part of my mild aversion to views about not seeing any event in one's past as a "waste" is how easily it can lead to teleological history making. That is to say, the whole "everything happens for a reason" view, of which I am not a fan. It can even turn into, "It was that way because it HAD to be, otherwise X, Y, and Z would never have happened, and X, Y, and Z were clearly MEANT to be."

I'm not saying that any of you hold the view I described above.

Ona, I think framing "nothing was a waste" in terms of "radical acceptance" is perhaps a very helpful way of viewing one's life. Whether or not there was profit or loss doesn't really matter in terms of NOW. What matters now is what we do now, and who we are now. Do we wallow in our remembered histories and think of all the things that went wrong, and allow ourselves to fill up with painful regret? Or do we say, "Yeah, that happened. And here I am now"? The latter is much more workable, I think.

Good conversation, guys.

Jackson Wilshire wrote: Something came to me as I was reading through these posts. I think part of my mild aversion to views about not seeing any event in one's past as a "waste" is how easily it can lead to teleological history making. That is to say, the whole "everything happens for a reason" view, of which I am not a fan. It can even turn into, "It was that way because it HAD to be, otherwise X, Y, and Z would never have happened, and X, Y, and Z were clearly MEANT to be."....

Jackson, why does this bother you? It seems to me another way of framing the same sort of radical acceptance. A slightly different vocabulary for a similar perspective. It implies a level of purpose/meaning that perhaps doesn't fit with a non-theistic worldview for instance, but would be a natural way to describe radical acceptance *from* a theistic worldview, no?

Ona, perhaps. But, even from a theistic worldview I have a hard time with the "everything happens for a reason" (i.e. everything has a preordained higher purpose) idea. In some ways it comes back around to the philosophical Problem of Evil. I don't believe an all-powerful, all-loving being would make a plan that required unnecessary suffering as a precondition for the fruition of history. Personally, I think that to think otherwise is bad theology. If there is a god, it must not be able to do anything it wants, or it must not be as concerned with the suffering of humans or other beings.

Basically, I'd like to hold any god to at least the standards of human morality.

I guess that's why it bothers me.

In other words, I don't buy the claim that we god makes us suffer in order that we grow and mature. If god is all powerful, it can make us mature and grow without suffering. The way I see it, any god that needlessly requires suffering as a precondition for growth is not worthy of my praise.

I suppose I see God as both terribly personal and also vastly impersonal at the same time. I suppose another way of saying it is that the mechanics of the interconnected causes and conditions (which include our participation in every moment of being) are far too complex to be "about us" as individuals. Is God sitting there on a cloud saying "Oh, look, if I kill Ona's father *right now*, then she will start meditating."??First, that's too self-centered a world view (as if the decisions of God revolve around what's important in the life of a single being named Ona in the year 2006). And second that event was the culmination of millions and millions of interactions since the dawn of time, like every other moment.

But for me to recognize the causality that *was* in that experience (that indeed, it was the crisis of that loss that propelled me to really take the idea of meditating seriously for the first time) is not an excuse for anything or a way of blaming anyone (including God). It's a way of relating to an experience that was very transformative while also relating to a sense that my life feels meaningful and guided. Maybe said another way, it's not that God killed my dad so that I would start meditating. It's that God moved me to respond to that death in a way that led to me recognizing the possible importance of meditation and grow in some very profound ways.

Does that make sense? Might just be my own preference in personal delusion.

Jackson Wilshire wrote: In other words, I don't buy the claim that we god makes us suffer in order that we grow and mature. If god is all powerful, it can make us mature and grow without suffering. The way I see it, any god that needlessly requires suffering as a precondition for growth is not worthy of my praise.

This view of God is commonplace and is predicated on dualism, separating the spirit from the flesh as it were. Where is God's compassion if not in our hearts and acts? Where are her eyes, her tears, and his helping hand? They are yours. It fascinates me how some of us intuit God in emptiness and others, not so much. This is fine BTW, and this is not a pitch to adopt my view, but I don't see it as something separate who is watching us in order to dole out brownie points - nor do I see it as making me special to realize the Divine in every form/moment. It's not a Creator in the sense that we cannot discern (or imagine) a first cause. There is as Ona points out, something very impersonal in this conception - and let's be clear, if we're talking about it, then conception it is. Time and space are hermetic somehow, ineffable. Still not sure if I'm making any sense. Great discussion you guys, good points on all sides.

Ona, I think that makes sense.

Have you ever read "Man's Search for Meaning" by Viktor Frankl? It's a terrific book. He says something in that book that really resonated with me. I think it was in the context of something he was telling one of his clients (he founded of logotherapy); that is, we often look to God (or Life, or the Universe, or Whatever) for answers about why our life has gone a certain way. He suggests we reframe out question so that it works the other way around. Instead, Life is asking us why it happened, and it's our task to answer.

I don't believe everything happens to fulfill some great end of history. But I do believe we have some say in how our story is remembered, and how it is shared with others. It would be a lot easier if there was some great ultimate Meaning for the universe, but I don't think that's the case. If it is, we're too dull to see it anyway

Mike, I think there are many different ways to conceptualize the divine. Not all such concepts bother me. To see all beings as an interconnected reality, and as the hands and feet of the otherwise impersonal divine, is just fine by me. That conception works better with a "causes and conditions" mentality than it does an "it happens because it was supposed to, for some deeper purpose" mentality.

My wife takes issue with such ideas in the same manner as I do. It's what led her to describe herself as a process theist (long before we even met). She believes in god in terms of an "unmoved mover" or first point of creation. But, she doesn't believe god is all-powerful (although, she believe it must have some degree of influence or communcation, such as to nudge evolution along in an upward direction). If it was, things would be a lot different... unless god is a big fat jerk, which would be more compatible with the way things are now

Jackson, I haven't read that, though it sounds interesting. I'll put it on the list!!

And I can see how particularly in the context of people struggling with "why am I suffering" that the way they relate to a concept of God can be immensely helpful or immensely unhelpful. It's rather fascinating how diverse the relationship is, too. We can all think of examples where God is thrown into an equation in a terribly unhelpful way: such as "if God is so loving why did he let that guy shoot those children?"

But on another side I have seen people say (and believe and live from) things like "This death/poverty/illness in my family right now is really painful, but God is here for me, always a loving comfort, to sustain me in crisis. Nothing happens without being part of his plan/purpose, and that gives me the confidence to know that I will not be destroyed by this difficulty, but will grow stronger from it." These are not mentally ill people or people with poor skills in navigating the world, but some of the kindest, most open-hearted and present-in-reality people I know.

I think the duality Mike points to might have something to do with it. For example two specific people I know very well who say things like the latter do not have any exposure to dharma practice or any teachings from outside of their protestant christian churches, but do have deep prayer lives and have told me about private mystical experiences. So their relationship to God is less dualistic, perhaps, than someone who has not had that kind of experience.

Great conversation guys. This is a useful thing to explore.