David Eagleman for Buddha

Or ... practice brings us the recognition that everything is chaos, always, that there is nothing to anchor us or to hold on to, and in that realization there is peace. I'm not arguing, either, Mike. But I see this differently. I don't want to find anchors. I want to be part of the free floating chaos and flow with it, be at one with it. That seems to me to be a path with less resistance.

-cmarti

No, we see it the same for sure.

Though I've thought for a while now that we had different ideas or perceptions of this (most likely due to a misunderstanding on my part). To me there is peace in the realization of chaos, that everything was empty of self, constantly changing, unsatisfying, just a series of uncaring inevitable events. But I thought you and so many others see some kind of anchoring, grounded, primordial awareness, something that was without self but that was not unsatisfactory or impermanent in nature.

The thing that Christopher talks about that only has one out of the three characteristics

I might take issue with "chaos," unless you mean it in a specific way relating to a scientific field or something.

Surely "order" and "chaos" don't apply, but are just more boxes we like to put things in?

Gotcha Chris - I think my reaction was you call something chaos when it's messy or unpleasantly disorganized or I can't apply any meaning (order) to it, and thus don't like it. In other words for me it tends to have a negative connotation. I think you are using it more neutrally though.

This topic is reminding me a bit of the less-technical ideas that were in "the inner game of tennis". Basically, the body/mind is making 1000's of micro-adjustments to respond to a particular shot, while the so-called "self" is willing to itself "aim over there, aim over there", not really helping things. The author even says there is self 1 and self 2, self 1 does all the hard work and self 2 just sits there and trys to manipulate, control, force, etc.



If the body works this way, no doubt "the mind" does something very similar.



Interestingly, the way the author improves performance is basically by enhancing attention. Rather than trying to tweak one's form, he instructs "watch the way the seams move on the ball as it moves over the net" or "listen to the sound of the ball" --- basically grounding in momentary sensations to give self 2 something to do and get it pointed in the right direction to gather broad data that further refine the program.



Good book, by the way. It has survived many cycles of my shelf-space purging.

One of the examples that Josh cited about that process is the metaphor of the monkey on the elephant—the elephant roams around, eating, knocking things over, getting angry, wandering through villages; and all the while the monkey sits on his back, holding on to the elephant's ears and explaining to himself how he's actually directing the elephant all day.

Which comes back to the driving metaphor I cited once, from Adyashanti, where you think you are driving the car, but you are actually just a passenger. And as long as you keep grabbing at the steering wheel and reaching for the brake you are just messing up the trip, and deluding yourself that you can actually do a good job at it, too.

ETA: That said, it's all well and good to talk about these things, but they don't make much sense until you meditate enough to realize you can't find anyone doing anything, just stuff happening by itself.

"Mike, yes, primordial awareness. I wouldn't call it "anchoring" though. I'm not quite sure how to describe it but it is that which Titmuss describes. Maybe we should call it "consciousness without an object" because while that's a rather complicated phrase it's also pretty darned accurate." ~Chris

I agree with Chris that there is no "anchoring" going on at all. Any attempt to anchor mind essence is sure to obscure it. Any time you are bringing conscious attention to experience without getting caught up in it, you are actualizing this awareness to some degree. A paradoxical aspect of this realization is that the more you gain a capacity to sit with contracted states, the greater your capacity to rest as open, reference-less, ineffable awareness-as-such (this "light which reveals") - when such contracted states dismantle themselves. From what I hear (and know from my limited experience), this alteration between expansion and contraction goes on endlessly. Thus, anchoring is not an option. Besides (and I'm going to sound like a nondualist buffoon, here), you can't anchor to what you already are.

"Consciousness without an object" is quite good!

I'm not sure how anchoring got in here anyway. I'm not even sure what it is -- my mistake.

Primordial awareness -- consciousness without an object, whatever. I'm probably going to shelve this for a while because it is something that I just don't get.

To me, our brains get us into trouble based upon instinct, development, trauma, experience, needs, etc. all that stuff of being alive. Certain minds states and qualities of awareness are always happening based upon huge amounts of factors. Certain activities and influences -- such as a spiritual practice -- can and may often create states that seem peaceful, insightful, quiet, compassionate, intimate, etc. Maybe, maybe not. Sometimes. It comes and goes.

But, it is an organic thing based in our bodies/brains.

There isn't anything else.



Does this contradict "primordial awareness" or is what I just said not even related?

Mike, as with most (if not all) good dharma teaching, metaphors like "primordial awareness" and "consciousness without an object" are concepts pointing to an experiential realization - not to empirical, rational, scientific facts. In that sense, nothing you wrote contradicts "primodial awareness" as a pointer. If I were somehow make a case for primordial awareness as being something objective and "out there", than we'd probably be at odds (particularly with your "There isn't anything else" statement).

In other words, it's not about understanding so much as recognizing.

[If I were a nondual teacher, I might say something like this...]

Where is your mind? Does it have a shape, color, texture, location?
Clearly, from the view of direct, non-verbal experience, the mind is nowhere.
And yet, wakefulness makes all of this clear. If there were no wakefulness, there would be no experience.
Appearances come and go, arise and pass, within this space of wakefulness.
Even the thought "there is no awareness" happens within awareness.
Do phenomenal appearances harm this wakefulness? Scar it? Damage it? Or, does it remain even when the most difficult experiences pass through?

Because this isn't something that can be grasped - but rather, something that is always available in experience, because experience is impossible without it - it is trustworthy.

I think that's the kind of thing that Titmuss points to with his "light which reveals" pointer.

And, I don't think it's the only way of pointing to this awakening thing we all talk about so much. Just one of the many skillful means available, take it or leave it.

Jackson said:

"Besides (and I'm going to sound like a nondualist buffoon, here)..."

"[If I were a nondual teacher, I might say something like this...]"

Are you implying that you find nondual teachings to be mostly garbage, but now and then they have a way of expressing things that is pretty useful?

@cmarti-- Now, Nagarjuna, you stop that: 'tisn't nice!

How about a limerick?

Much of this thread has been challenging to me.
It has made me aware of how little I know of or understand all the philosophical systems of thought contained in the dharma. It's really just a chaotic jumble of words and ideas to me and I really don't get it.

I think all these years I've been engaged with this stuff my compulsion has been mostly on trying out different techniques with the drive to have more intimacy, insight, peace and stuff like that. So, I've gotten some knowledge of techniques but never made very much effort into learning about all the doctrines, philosophies and ideas behind it all. So far, this has had mixed results. I would trade the work I've done and the resultant insights for anything (huh .... that is nice to know I'd never thought about it that way before) but certainly I've wasted a lot of time and energy jumping around and not sticking with any one technique and I wonder how much I've missed by not learning more basic philosophy. Maybe nothing -- I'm sure there are many who would argue that.

Okay, so I admit that my practice is very results oriented. I have poor eyesight and I want to be given the best glasses to put on so I can see better. I don't care at all about all the technology that went into diagosing my vision problems and creating the exact right pair of spectacles. But I love my freaking glasses.

Absolutely ditto Chris.

I also think, Mike, that this:

"I've wasted a lot of time and energy jumping around and not sticking with any one technique"

is a really, really common problem for most people. The jumping might occur at first out of curiousity, but often it is a way of avoiding the hard or boring parts of any practice or not wanting to hear the stuff a teacher is saying that doesn't synch with what you'd like to hear. Sticking out a method of practice (and a good teacher) through thick and thin is likely to be very productive.

There were a few times I wanted to punch my teacher in the nose and more than a few I spent swearing like a pirate or weeping in disgust at the stupid waste of human beings who had invented this stupid method and useless waste of practice blah blah blah. (I tend to be overdramatic.) Or just bored out of my skull.
It's all part of the process.

"Are you implying that you find nondual teachings to be mostly garbage, but now and then they have a way of expressing things that is pretty useful? " ~Ona

Well, I'm not saying the actual teachings are mostly garbage. It's just really, REALLY easy to fake nondual wisdom by mimicking gurus. A classic example of this is what Andrew Cohen termed the "Advaita Shuffle" - which is, basically, answering every question with, "Who wants to know?" or, "Who is asking?" As helpful as this kind of questioning can be at times, it can also be a HUGE cop-out; a convenient loop-hole used to get out of answering a valid question.

[Side note: I don't think Andrew Cohen is a good teacher. I think he's weird, and somewhat scary. I just think the "Advaita Shuffle" thing is funny, and I read in a book that he came up with it.]

I'm finding a lot of nondual teachings very helpful right now, particularly that of Zen and Vajrayana Buddhism. It's helpful to me that both tend to acknowledge the importance of embodying one's realization, so Universal and personal are both fully embrace and expressed. In other words, bringing heaven and earth together.

Chris, you are absolutely right about this. Thanks for adding the qualification.