The Nature of Reality

Interesting piece by Jayarava on 'the nature of reality,' as experienced by meditators and described (or, as he argues, not described) in the Pali canon. I don't agree with all his points but I found it a thought-provoking read - he suggests that 'reality' is neither here nor there, rather both the canon, and meditators describing their insights, discuss experience rather than reality. Of course what I would ask is whether there is an assumption here that there can be a reality - or rather, that the term 'reality' can have any meaning - outside of or separate from 'experience'...

jayarava.blogspot.com.au/2014/09/the-nature-of-reality.html

Haven't read the article yet but I resonate with your reflections. To put a fine point on it, the concept of 'reality' being separate from 'experience' just doesn't make sense to me. Not that 'experience' and 'reality' are synonymous-- I am happy to admit there are lots of things going on within and around me that are outside my current moment's experience-- but just that, it seems completely incoherent to say that experience is somehow outside of reality, or the only reality; either way doesn't make sense to me and seems very abstract. My sense is something like this: the totality of reality is active in every moment of experience, but any moment of experience is a unique ratio of implicit/explicit. That is, only a portion of things are explicit in any given experience, yet the totality of things is implicit in each moment. There is a sense of 'pregnance' in each moment that so much (infinite!) is implied beyond the immediate fleeting data. Each moment is the Universe.

His interaction with Culadasa was interesting in the comments.

I sympathize with his desire to use language clearly... but there are limits to that (which is one aspect of what emptiness means, to me). He seems, possibly, a bit hung up on controlling how others articulate things.

i'm a bit of a fan of pointing to the moon with whatever finger, toe, pointy stick, elbow, etc helps communicate. which seems to me not the same as pointing to mars instead of the moon. but more important to try get the general idea across than fuss about the form of the gesture. i don't understand how this coordinates with my own total passion for the very fussy structure of something like the latin mass and traditional catholicism, but there ya go. so i can identify with jayarava's passion for a very formal and specific practice and understanding of Buddhism, but less with his preference for fussing about other's not sharing his passion. i also feel like most any declaration i make like i just did may very well not be true. one reason i write less lately. but oh well.

Ona Kiser wrote: i also feel like most any declaration i make like i just did may very well not be true. one reason i write less lately. but oh well.

in that case we could get into definitions of 'truth'

Ona Kiser wrote: i'm a bit of a fan of pointing to the moon with whatever finger, toe, pointy stick, elbow, etc helps communicate [...] i don't understand how this coordinates with my own total passion for the very fussy structure of something like the latin mass and traditional catholicism, but there ya go.

Yeah I can relate to this inner tension or whatever you want to call it. For me it's part of being a serial monogamist with polyamorous leanings, in terms of traditions. I love to understand them from the inside out-- their Big Pictures, including all the little details-- but I love to be able to step in and out of them like houses. In the end, the whole tradition no matter how much I respect and may even love it-- is just basically an aesthetic presentation or sturucturalization of something much more fleeting, open-ended, rich and complex. I can't live 'inside' forever. I keep returning to the wilderness.

jake wrote:

Ona Kiser wrote: i'm a bit of a fan of pointing to the moon with whatever finger, toe, pointy stick, elbow, etc helps communicate [...] i don't understand how this coordinates with my own total passion for the very fussy structure of something like the latin mass and traditional catholicism, but there ya go.

Yeah I can relate to this inner tension or whatever you want to call it. For me it's part of being a serial monogamist with polyamorous leanings, in terms of traditions. I love to understand them from the inside out-- their Big Pictures, including all the little details-- but I love to be able to step in and out of them like houses. In the end, the whole tradition no matter how much I respect and may even love it-- is just basically an aesthetic presentation or sturucturalization of something much more fleeting, open-ended, rich and complex. I can't live 'inside' forever. I keep returning to the wilderness.

Re: "the whole tradition no matter how much I respect and may even love it-- is just basically an aesthetic presentation or sturucturalization of something much more fleeting, open-ended, rich and complex" - No, see, that's exactly the part that is gone. I didn't even realize how much that relationship to religion/traditions was simply a given in my day to day environment/circles of acquaintance/culture/etc. until one day I noticed it didn't make any sense to me any more, and then I started seeing the contrast everywhere.

Your "polyamorous" joke later struck me as possibly deeper than it was intended. Imagine this: "A man or woman, no matter how much I respect or may even love him/her - is just basically an aesthetic presentation or structuralization of something much more fleeting, open-ended, rich and complex." or "I love to be able to step in and out of them like houses...." - See? Even with a bit of humor, it struck me that this is actually quite relevant. Perhaps the way I feel engaged with Catholicism feels like a long-term, Sacramental, til-death-do-us-part marriage, rather than part of a polyamorous adventure?

Haha! nice. Yeah I get that you are in that kind of relationship with your tradition and think that's great; I guess I was responding more to the 'pointing with whatever...' part of your quote.

I actually like the translations you made in your second paragraph. I actually am pretty sure that the sides of people (including of myself) of which I am conscious at any given moment are indeed 'aesthetic presentations of something much more fleeting, open ended, rich and complex'. So when I cracked that joke I actually felt it resonating on lots of levels, and I feel it expresses something really authentic about how I engage LIFE.

To me that is a huge element of respect, to try to keep aware of all that is hidden or merely implicit in each moment, each relationship. It keeps me open to learning. But this can be done whether one is a strict monogamist or not of course. That's why I don't judge the lifestyle choice, so much as how it is carried out

Obviously you seem to find a bottomless well of growth and deepening in Catholocism and I think that's awesome. Also I think that bottomless well exists in all the traditions which I have encountered... and for me so far, I follow where my aesthetic sense leads in this. That said, it's entirely possible that one day I will really settle down in one of them. I try not to be precocious and get ahead of myself but rather just be in my process as authentically as possible and see how things unfold.