Monday, March 2, 2009

The Unsustainable Modern Buddhist Agenda








Here is a recent quote from one of the many “enlightenment” sites I visit from time to time. This site is a very well traveled spiritual website containing all the enlightened lingo and lofty eastern terminology.

"Information is helpful to understand concepts, develop intelligence, and inform my philosophy, but by itself it won’t get me “there.” So what I mean by “there” is none other than the ultimate prize: satori, moksha, arahatship, liberation, awakening, enlightenment.”

Note that the author proclaims his desire for an end to the functions of mind and everything about the “mind” must be subsequently negated and, essentially, denounced as mere "information." Most refuse to call it denunciation, but clearly the concept of "enlightenment" has an origin that, for many, is conceptually denied to the 'mind.'

You are consistently informed that to attain "enlightenment" you must GET OUT OF YOUR MIND.

It’s interesting that the basic Buddhist precepts, or rules, have been distorted over many centuries. Many of these discombobulated rules demand adherents embark on a life-long journey to escape the mind and this is pursued through “practices.” Practices are the rules of the game and note that, as the above quote displays, only by following the rules will one attain the “ultimate prize,” which goes by many names, but all the specialized concepts signify an outcome or the attainment of a reward.

Yet, you can't just declare yourself a winner.

Who will know? You are “you” because of a ‘world.’ More importantly, what gives that ‘world’ substance and meaning for an ego-self is the existence of ‘others.’ To conduct yourself as if “awakening" were nothing more than a solitary process of having heightened experiences, is to deny your experience of others. In your solitary journey, seeking specialized rewards, 'others' are unnecessary.

But a solitary process is impossible, simply because who and what “you” are is entirely contingent on there being ‘others.’ You cannot be a "you" without 'others' equally identifying your 'self.' Even if all 'others' were to disappear tomorrow, your self-construct would still be defined through 'others,' except in this case it would be defined through an absence of 'others' (Heidegger).

It’s very interesting how these “ultimate prize” winners eventually publish books and go on the talk circuit teaching the rules to 'others.' That’s because to be a winner, one or more ‘others’ must attest to your having acquired the prize and this is as applicable in the "enlightenment-awakening" paradigm as in any other world-based paradigm. However, winning can be very subtle, as many winners employ the covert subterfuge of wanting you to be a winner, just like them. Of course, for you to achieve the “ultimate prize” you must play by the same rules they did and then you too can teach 'others.'

Here is another website (different from the one above) with some very serious and detailed rules to help you acquire the “ultimate prize” of "enlightenment." Credibility is crucial because, if ‘others’ doubt your enlightened status, how can it be claimed and who would follow your rules? Notice the authors title and credentials, particularly the last credential of “arahat.”

I don’t doubt that following the rules will get you what you want. But that’s only because you will give it to your ‘self’ by expecting to have it and this includes experiencing the teacher of your choice. Nevertheless, the experiences will conform to what the rules have determined CAN be experienced. Any alteration from the preordained experience can be only slight, since all ego-self interpretations of "enlightenment" will conform directly to the rulebook.

However, these 'slight' alterations have been necessary over many centuries as each ego-self adherent desires to create his or her own unique addition to the rules. This has culminated in the current modern Buddhist agenda which, in some cases, does not even resemble traditional Buddhism. In fact, many modern "masters" will deny that their path is even derived from Buddhism, even though Buddhist rules are often clearly evident in the teaching.

THE PSYCHIC POWERS
You can generate all manner of psychic or magical experiences, or “jhanas,” at numerous levels and degrees of intensity. As I discussed previously, the fact these same experiences can be attained through chemical substance ingestion should provide commentary on the usefulness of psychic experiences. They serve little purpose. However, it seems tht the neo-Buddhists use this as a measuring device in determining psychic evolutionary progress. Here is a quote from the above website:

“These may include all kinds of strange experiences, including full blown and extremely realistic experiences of other realms that can seem quite magical and fall quite in line with what one might think of when one thinks of various 'psychic powers'."

I’m sure we can all relate to altered states when asleep and dreaming. In fact, most meditative states are no different from the psychic experiences you engage with while dreaming and "lucid dreamers" have learned to do this effortlessly. The difference is that your ‘self-construct’ will engage with psychic phenomena through the experience of ‘awake,’ as opposed to ‘sleep,’ (conscious vs. unconscious?) and this merely indicates the ego-self’s ability to manipulate the experience of ‘time,' more than any other "psychic" ability.

Time is nothing more than the ego-self experiencing itself generating ceaseless experiences of itself and these psychic experiences have become a significant part of defining the 'self' as "enlightened."

The author of the website does point out this subtle difference between sleep and awake psychic experiences. However, the trap has been set and who would not want to fly but just not in this realm!Why wait, drop some acid and fly.

The author then goes on to say that, “the experiences of the “psychic powers” can be infinitely fascinating, as anything you can imagine experiencing is possible.”

Hmmm…how ‘bout a consistent experience of a ‘world’ in perfect peace?
However, the author states that:

“While this next point might sound a bit radical, there are good reasons to assume that we are all acting at what might be considered a magical level all the time and just doing it with little awareness of that fact.”

I wonder why he would assume this point as “radical”? Just change the rules and any finite game can become infinite and ego-self can marvel at the magic. Point is, you don’t need to drop acid or spend years attaining the esoteric levels of “jhana” to get ‘there.’ Experiential episodes are useless to a suffering world. Maybe the problem is that the content of psychic experiences are exclusive to a separate mind and, as a result, reinforces the ego-self construct of a separate, individual ‘thinker.’

That construct seems no longer sustainable and this would make the individual practices of modern Buddhism, null and void. However, what you value is what you will give credence to as an 'experience' and it makes no difference whether it's 'real' or not.

So choose wisely (or, better yet, don't choose at all)

30 comments:

  1. Why go through all the trouble meditating and precepts and koans when you can have enlightenment for just $19.95. But wait! There's more! For a one-time special offer we'll throw in a free guide on how to avoid personal pronouns so you too can sound like non-dualist! And a free blog account where you describe your big-bang enlightenment experience in real time! And a free list of email addresses of dedicated seekers, a perfect market for whatever it is that you want to sell!

    Affected humility package is extra.

    No refunds.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ingram is highly suspect of the siddhis having anything to do with enlightenment. His criteria for enlightenment does not depend on the development of jhanas or siddhis. In fact, his criteria include deconstructing the notion of any separate, individual self, which includes any separate, individual thinker. You may have more in common with Ingram than you realize.

    Once again, I find your writing interesting, but the ultimate aim eludes me. Are you simply deconstructing? What specifically is unsustainable about the modern Buddhist agenda?

    Curiously yours,
    ~Duff

    ReplyDelete
  3. Kaushik,

    So true. However, I'm not sure whether the truly devout disturb me more than the hucksters. At least with the enlightenment peddlers you know what you getting. But many of them were once truly devout and some still are. These fine lines are often not easily discernible.

    Duff,

    The infinite game has no real aim, other than to keep playing. The finite game is to become enlightened. Therefore, I have no intent other than to provide writing that is interesting.

    Actually, it is not necessarily the Buddhist game that is unsustainable, since that has been played for centuries with no real results in the macro-world (sorry I'm so impatient, but times are seeming ever more bleak). The issue I address is the unsustainability of the paradigm of the solitary seeker. Although Buddhism does address morality in the eight-fold path, this is virtually eclipsed by the self enlightenment/awakening models. The other issue is that Buddhism as become as variegated and diverse as Judeo-Christianity, with all its doctrines and dogma. Therefore what may have once been a beautiful and fulfilling philosophy has become a religion and i'm not too fond of religion. I suppose my chief aim is in examining the ego-dynamics involved in the enlightenment paradigm.

    Ingram's take on the measures, or levels and degrees, of enlightenment experience are fascinating. However, I often find it interesting when one spends numerous pages delineating the levels of experience as progressive measurements or guideposts of conscious evolution, but provides limited space to the idea of not getting hooked on those same levels (just my opinion).

    Enlightenment has no criteria because, quite frankly it is simply another egoic construct, a bit flashier, but no different than any other egos-self construct of experience. Why not make up your own criteria?

    There's more I could say but I suppose it will all come out in future posts. But don't take anything I say too seriously.

    Thanks,
    mikeS

    ReplyDelete
  4. I guess I missed it in your other posts that you think enlightenment is an ego-construct. It would have to be a very subtle, clever one. This is entirely possible. But then again, if it brings peace and joy, it's completely fine that it's an ego construct. It points out that the worthy goal is not awakening, for we cannot know if such a thing exists--the worthy goal is expanding awareness.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Kaushik,

    Yes, possibly enlightenment is more subtle than all other experiences, since it is an experience so unlike all others, or at least if that's the experience the ego wants, then that's what it expects.

    It may bring peace and joy to a 'self' and this certainly seems to be the goal of most enlightenment projects. But what good is the peace and joy of consciousness if it also includes the suffering of others.

    This is why I have difficulty with the conventional concepts of "awakening" because they fail to include the 'world.'Flying around in another dimensions is swell. But the 'self' is bound to the 'ordinary' and must always return.

    Possibly, if the ideology 'you' go in with is the interpretation you come out with, an enlightened 'self' may lose the world because it did not include the world in its experience of "enlightenment." The collective consciousness is displaying no real evolving consciousness and in fact, seems to be regressing at the moment.

    There certainly is something to be said for expanded consciousness, but can it be worthy if the world is not also evolving to that expansion?

    As evident in some of my posts I grapple with this issue of 'self-enlightenment.' It seems to me we are either all enlightened together equally, or we remain bound to live through our levels and degrees of suffering.

    No matter. I'm just philosophizing...

    Thanks,
    mikeS

    ReplyDelete
  6. The infinite game has no real aim, other than to keep playing. The finite game is to become enlightened. Therefore, I have no intent other than to provide writing that is interesting.

    Well, I definitely find your writing interesting, if at times a bit harsh and rambling. I'd find it even more interesting if you would have more direct conversations with people like Ingram and C4Chaos, but I prefer the dialogue game more than the deconstruction game.

    It may bring peace and joy to a 'self' and this certainly seems to be the goal of most enlightenment projects. But what good is the peace and joy of consciousness if it also includes the suffering of others.

    Ok, I'm game. :) You are now playing the Mahayana Buddhist game, the one in which one critiques the Theravada Buddhist game by calling it selfish.

    This is why I have difficulty with the conventional concepts of "awakening" because they fail to include the 'world.'Flying around in another dimensions is swell. But the 'self' is bound to the 'ordinary' and must always return.

    Similarly, here you are playing the bodhisattva game, the post-enlightenment game of enlightening the world after enlightening the self. I like this game too.

    The collective consciousness is displaying no real evolving consciousness and in fact, seems to be regressing at the moment.

    This is the postmodern deconstructivist pessimist game. I prefer the archetypal/systems theoretic optimist game, which says "it was the worst of times, it had the potential to bring about the best of times."

    Although Buddhism does address morality in the eight-fold path, this is virtually eclipsed by the self enlightenment/awakening models.

    I agree that morality is nearly totally abstracted from the self-enlightenment models, which includes Ingram, Jed McKenna, etc. I also find value in the abstraction as part of a dialectic, in that it removes a lot of the cultural baggage, making the path clearer. But I prefer more integrated approaches that include the world and action in the world, as this is another form of separation.

    Ever read Charles Eisenstein? You might enjoy his stuff, or at least enjoy critiquing it:
    http://ascentofhumanity.com

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hey Duff,

    I'm willing to converse with anyone regarding these concepts. Unfortunately, I have found that many are not free from certain paradigm investments and they often consider their game the only game in town. I am thus, quite quickly, summarily dismissed (but I've become used to it). I suppose this is why I no longer comment on blogs or in spiritual forums.

    True, I play many different games and many tend to overlap one another. I suppose the only valid perspective I take is that I recognize they are all games and most have rules toward seeking finite outcomes (although this is often camouflaged).

    Not to have some finite outcome would cause the ego to doubt the need to play. Finite outcomes require a sense of seriousness to the playing. On this blog I play most games with little serious intent and therefore, certainly expect to challenged.

    Although I am familiar with postmodern deconstructivism, I'm not familiar with the "postmodern deconstructivist pessimist game." Did you make that one up? LOL.

    However, many of my posts are constructivist as well and that is the dialectic of seeking synthesis. Actually I am exploring the potential of enlightenment for both world and self simultaneously and not one after the other. If this is true, then no such grand liberation as "enlightenment" has yet been discovered.

    I recognize that the inability to pin me down to any particular dogma can be frustrating. But it allows me a sense of freedom in the Drive-to-question all perspectives.

    Sorry Duff, I haven't had a chance to fully visit your site. However, I take it from your comments that you have an investment in Buddhist ideology? I'll have to stop by soon.

    Much thanks for your comments!
    mikeS

    ReplyDelete
  8. M: This is why I have difficulty with the conventional concepts of "awakening" because they fail to include the 'world.'...

    What's conventional? If we go by popularity, Buddhism, Advaita, Non-dualism are conventional. If by conventional you mean having fixed ideas, that can include everyone. One could say, for example, that Mike is fixated on being an iconoclast! I would fall into the same category. The point is it is difficult to be entirely open. Unconventional is not the same as anti-conventional.

    As far as the suffering of world, I leave that to the hundredth monkey. No guarantees.

    It's hard to say if the world is regressing. My belief is it is awakening, but I can also see how that belief could be flimsy. It could very well be an egoic awakening--more of the same madness. I imagine Buddhism, Advaita, and possibly Christianity started with the lofty goals of awakening the world, and very quickly became ego structures. Tolle has reached millions. Does this mean millions are awakening, or does it mean it's just another build-up of idealogy?

    I see your point about self-enlightenment. It could be seen as yet another division: the have's and have not's. Certainly the internet awakened are suspicious. Claiming enlightenment seems to me like screaming for silence. But then again, what do I know? I have no direct experience with it.

    The mind is a squirrely thing.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Kaushik,

    I suppose by 'convention' I mean, established as the way. Yet, I relate to what you're saying about fixed ideas and it's these fixations that I seek to examine closely. But I don't deny that I'm as much a victim of fixation as anyone else since the ego demands anchoring to an ideology that will save it. What i tend to take issue with are those who deny fixation through 'enlightenment.'

    I feel the world is regressing, but I'm open, and hopeful, that I may be wrong. This may be my fixation for some, as of yet, unknown reason. Yet, maybe the regression of consciousness serves a purpose to equalize the collective experience. I've often wondered if we all need to experience an equality of suffering before we will be ready to experience an equality of awakening. But I'm accused of pessimism and I lose in the optimistic popularity game. Oh well...

    Thanks, Great Ideas!
    mikeS

    ReplyDelete
  10. MikeS,

    first of all, i love that graphic of the laptop buddha! made me smile.

    thanks for linking to my post. i understand your concern about what i originally posted. talking about enlightenment gets paradoxical due to the limitation of language. on one end, i agree with you that it should not be seen as a goal. i like your take when you said:

    "Enlightenment has no criteria because, quite frankly it is simply another egoic construct, a bit flashier, but no different than any other egos-self construct of experience. Why not make up your own criteria?"

    from an "enlightened" perspective, (at least from my conceptual understanding) i believe that what you said is true. however, i don't experience that and i don't live in that reality yet. so taking your word and believing what you said will just be another dogma for me. that's why i practice meditation (and other consciousness expanding practice), so that maybe someday (that's another goal of illusion) i can speak what you've just said above with understanding of every fiber of being. until then, enlightenment is a game i'm willing to play until i can play the game no longer and just surrender.

    btw, i equate "ultimate prize" to Grace.

    take care and keep it flowing.

    ~C

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hey C4,

    Thanks for commenting. I also "meditate" (if sitting still for long periods is 'meditating').

    However, for me, there is no end to the game, just a continuation of play on many different levels. I try to engage in consciousness studies, or meditation, with as little ideology as possible. I suppose we will always engage through some ideological perspective, yet, seems to me the less the better.

    Peter Fenners' "Radiant Mind" is a good read about the non-ideological practices, however, as a previous practicing Buddhist, even he can't keep all the ideology out.

    My take on all this is that - whatever you go in with, you come out with, only magnified by the heightened/altered conscious state.

    Anyway, I only discuss spiritual perspectives along the path to enlightenment and my philosophizing is just that, nothing more than talk.

    Thanks for your comment and I have always loved visiting your blog.

    mikeS

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mike,

    You sometimes quote Heidegger. Would you please give me the title of the book? I would love to read Heidegger. I can recommend Alfred North Whitehead to you (Process and Reality, a metaphysics of experience).
    The entire book is a reconstructing of experience.
    kind regards
    anna

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hi Anna,

    Yes, the book is Being and Time and you'll find it listed in the right sidebar.

    Thanks for your suggestion!
    mikeS

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thanks Mike,
    Sorry i didn't recognize it -I am dutch.

    Found your sites just a few days ago, I am happy with all you write. I came from lot's of struggling with `deconstuction only' (not reconstruction-not another view) of worlds and it felt not good to just skip the world. But I could not defend myself against it. The believers in deconstruction-only are really not very nice if one goes on questioning it.

    But here is the point what I am still struggling with: I can see `deconstruction' is only going `halfway' and I am defending myself against it. At the same time I know that it is ME seeing that, ME rejecting it. Makes me having gone halfwey or not??

    regards
    anna

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anna,

    Unfortunately, as it seems to me, the ego can only deconstruct itself to a point...

    ...after which it can go no further. However, to deconstruct another ego and allow that ego to deconstruct "you," may have benefits. But I would imagine complete and utter trust must be built up before the deconstructing begins.

    still developing...
    mikeS

    ReplyDelete
  16. Mike hi,

    Yes I read it, the developing. Hence the question I suppose.
    Another nice book is Margaret Laird's book (christian science re-explored). Very clear.

    Trusting another is the same as trusting oneself I guess. In my view there is no building up of it.
    I keep continuing reading your texts. I consider myself lucky I found them.

    take care
    anna

    ReplyDelete
  17. anna,

    "Trusting another is the same as trusting oneself I guess. In my view there is no building up of it."

    Yes, in some respects. However, our greatest fear is other people. If our spiritual practices do not take us past that, then there is little hope. The earth does not wait for us to heal it, but to heal each other, since our deep distrust of one another is what is destroying our home. It seems humans really do loathe humanity...weird...

    peace...
    mikeS

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hi Mike,

    I remember the story of the king who wanted all he touched to turn into gold. This wish was granted. I imagine his life after this was granted is like nondual life:-) Of course he had his wish because his wish was granted too.

    Distrust is granted I mean -can't be any different.

    anna

    ReplyDelete
  19. Yep, we can't see it any other way.

    Yet, that doesn't mean it can't be any different.

    Just that we don't want it to be...

    ReplyDelete
  20. which has been granted--- (before you knew it)

    ReplyDelete
  21. Mike, I was looking for your emailadress, thought I saw it somewhere but can't find it. I was going to ask you if you wrote anyting about `responsibily' and `constituting our world'
    I am looking for the meaning of the word responsibilty after one found that it is not the same as guilt or -what buddhists call- the I which has to be `dismissed' (instead of transformed)
    kind regards
    anna

    ReplyDelete
  22. anna,

    Yes, "responsibility" is in just about every post in here, since we are responsible for every experience we encounter, even the experience of not being responsible. Might want to look under subject "finite and infinite players.

    Thanks,
    mikeS

    ReplyDelete
  23. "You are consistently informed that to attain "enlightenment" you must GET OUT OF YOUR MIND."

    No, in the Buddhadharma, spirituality means DEALING WITH the working basis of existence, which is mind. Nowhere are we ever taught to deny mind, nor do I know of a single practitioner who holds this view, so to call this a "modern agenda" of Buddhadharma is quite incorrect. You are clearly confusing the 'stoppings' with denial, a very common misconception.

    Practices in most traditions are ENTIRELY about the welfare of others, so perceiving the practices as "solitary" is likewise misconceived. In 'practice', when one stops engaging with the fabrications of ego, there becomes less concern for 'self', and one becomes more authentic and available to others. One becomes more-self-less.

    One does engage in stopping the fabrications of ego through meditation and other practices requiring the exercise of INDIVIDUAL will and effort, but one does this precisely so that one becomes more capable of engaging with and helping others. If one undertakes meditation practices solely to attain personal liberation without concern for others, then one may realize the stillness or bliss of Nirvana, but this is NOT full Awakening.

    "Unfortunately, as it seems to me, the ego can only deconstruct itself to a point..."

    This is because of confusing conceptual mind with non-conceptual awareness. All of these common misconceptions can easily be overcome in an afternoon or two with an authentic teacher.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Rich, the ego chooses the teacher. Hence, in doing so, it receives exactly what it expects (else it simply seeks out another "teacher" that meets its conditioned ideological perspective).

    When you state IN "the Buddhadharma," you superimpose an ideology upon the objects of consciousness and, through meditation, the experiences you encounter will be interpreted through that ideology.

    The question is....

    Can you do it completely without any modern or ancient ideology telling you WHAT you are experiencing?

    jettison you ideological beliefs and experience...

    ...nothing at all.

    Hard to do, because the ego demands an ideological anchor point for which to INTERPRET what it experiences. This is always pure ego...

    Good rule of thumb is that when you think you KNOW...

    Kill the Buddha!

    Ha, just kidding, Rich...
    mikeS

    ReplyDelete
  25. "When you state IN "the Buddhadharma," you superimpose an ideology upon the objects of consciousness and, through meditation, the experiences you encounter will be interpreted through that ideology."

    No, Buddhadharma contains nothing to adopt. Just because one CAN view it as an ideology, doesn't make it one. Buddha never instructed anyone to adopt any view whatsoever.

    No, there is no "interpretation" of experience involved in meditation. The process you describe is just the conceptual mind labeling experience, not meditation at all. This is another very basic misconception held by non-meditators.

    "the ego chooses the teacher"
    Yes. Same with "others". One must realize that all such separation (apprehender & apprehended) is false.

    "jettison ideological beliefs"
    Yes. Buddha taught precisely this. This is neither "easy" nor "difficult". If one thinks it "easy", or "hard", or "blue", or "salty", then one has already preconceived an "interpretation" instead of looking into the nature of reality.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Rich,

    ALL prescribed precepts are ideological. Do this, don't do that, is ideological. How to live right in right mind is ideological. It is a marketed belief system (and a very good on indeed! Better than most, but still a belief system).

    "No, there is no "interpretation" of experience involved in meditation. The process you describe is just the conceptual mind labeling experience, not meditation at all. This is another very basic misconception held by non-meditators."

    C'mon Rich, all basic schools prescribe technique. Not one mind goes into meditation WITHOUT seeking an ideological outcome (RESULTS) through a prescribed technique And that is pure egocentricity. ALL results are egocentric and if there were NO results, no one would meditate, since it would be presumed a waste of "time." Rule of thumb is: Seek a result and it is EGO, without a doubt.

    Think about it, Rich, what one thing do you do in your entire life, that is not "just the conceptual mind labeling experience"????

    "Yes. Buddha taught precisely this. This is neither "easy" nor "difficult". If one thinks it "easy", or "hard", or "blue", or "salty", then one has already preconceived an "interpretation" instead of looking into the nature of reality."

    So what is the "nature of reality"? If you think it is something other than what you see out your eyeballs, then you're caught in the trap. But then, if you think it is what you SEE, still, you're trapped.

    Rich, if you can't break free of your ideological premises, based on the past, I will continue to post your comments...

    ...but I will not be able to respond.
    mikeS

    ReplyDelete
  27. Mike,
    You are correct, one should NOT seek a result, yet we all WILL when meditating to varying degrees. This does not imply that one CANNOT STOP this through meditation itself. Meditation is not a DOING, it is an UNdoing. This is the MOST common misconception of non-meditators.

    The nature of reality can indeed be known through non-conceptual awareness. If you doubt your ability in this regard, I would encourage you to check for yourself. No one can convince you that you possess this capacity however, and I certainly won't attempt to.

    Yes, this is where we stop. I have put forth no ideology, and Buddha taught his followers not to accept his, or any other teachings on blind faith, but to check for themselves. You have the freedom to check or not to check, how you use that freedom is entirely up to you.

    Best wishes~

    ReplyDelete
  28. Rich,

    Thank you.

    We must all go our path.

    Wih Deep Respect,
    mikeS

    ReplyDelete