Indigo Buddhism?

In Integral Spirituality (IS) Ken talks about evolutionary enlightenment. He defines enlightenment as the highest level and state at a given historical period. When the originators of the perennial tradition formulated its paradigm it was pre-modern, or possibly mythical-rational. But it had yet to achieve modernity and certain not postmodernity. And it would appear that the higher stages of cognitive development only arrived on the scene in the latter periods. Yes, rationality “started” a long time ago, in India, Greece etc. But it wasn’t the more developed egoic-rationality of today.

Ken takes account of this is IS with the Wilber-Combs lattice. The states are no longer stacked on top of the stages as future stages awaiting stable development. And states are interpreted by the stage that apprehends them, as states can be experienced at any stage. Even full, stable non-dual realization can be experienced by a meditation “master,” yet said master can very well be, and often is, coming from an ethnocentric level.

There are, however, stages above those on the W-C lattice that sound similar to the states, hence Ken’s prior association of them with stable, higher stages. But it seems that those stages lie in our collective future, not past. So I’m wondering, given the following quotes from IS, if the originators of meditative states were somehow in their micro-communities really also advanced to the turquoise or indigo level as well? It’s difficult to know from the quotes because Ken first says “systemic Global View” is a recent emergent, unless 2000 years ago is “recent.” But later he says that such writings on states indeed arose in tuquoise or indigo cognition?

So assuming that Nagarjuna and Padmasambhava and even the current Dalai Lama are not indigo level, then we must take their interpretations of their state experiences as the interpretations of a lower level. And given that indigo level is just now forming in our kosmic groove, how does it interpret such as nonduality? It would seem vision-logical to assume that interpretation would not just be regurgitation of the traditional way, no? And those who interpret such states in that same traditional way must surely not be indigo, no? Unless the traditional interpretations really did time-warp to the future in indigo? Help me out here please.

Note the following exerpted quotes are from the draft, not the book. Having perused the book I can tell you that much of the draft survives verbatim in the book, just at different page numbers. From IS draft:

A second problem quickly compounded that one. If “enlightenment” (or any sort of unio mystica) really meant going through all of those 8 stages, then how could somebody 2000 years ago be enlightened, since some of the stages, like systemic GlobalView, are recent emergents? (107)

It allowed us to see how individuals at even some of the lower stages of development—such as magic or mythic—could still have profound religious, spiritual, and meditative state experiences. Thus, gross/psychic, subtle, causal, and nondual were no longer stages stacked on top of the Western conventional stages, but were states (including altered states and peak experiences) that can and did occur alongside any of those stages. (110)

(What was so doubly confusing to us is the fact that, as indicated on fig. 6, there are also 3 or 4 higher structures beyond the centaur, and they have similar-sounding characteristics as these 3 or 4 higher states, which made it almost impossible to spot the differences. (110)

Anybody familiar with the monastic traditions, East and West, from Zen to Benedictine, will recognize those souls who might be quite spiritually advanced in Underhill’s sense (very advanced in contemplative illumination and unification) and yet might still have a very conformist and conventional mentality—sometimes shockingly xenophobic and ethnocentric—and this goes, unfortunately, for many Tibetan and Japanese meditation masters. Although they are very advanced in meditative states training, their structures are amber-to-orange, and thus their available interpretive repertoire is loaded by the Lower-Left quadrant with very ethnocentric and parochial ideas that pass for timeless Buddhadharma. (E.g., according to his secretary, the Dalai Lama believes homosexuality is a sin, anal sex is a sin, oral sex is bad karma, etc.—when everybody knows that oral sex is not bad karma, only bad oral sex is bad karma…. But these sadly are typical mythic-amber beliefs.) (117-18)

In the meantime, Asian meditation teachers, with a LL-quadrant that is heavily amber, or mythic-membership, and hence “non-egoic” in the sense of PREinvidualistic, and therefore used to having students simply obey them unhesitatingly and in a conformist-stage fashion, don’t quite know what to do with individualistic-stage Westerners, whose LL-quadrant is loaded orange-to-green. (118)

…many of the great contemplative texts, sutras, and tantras were written in the cognitive line from at least the turquoise and often indigo or violet levels. (127)

     permalink

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

Hello Edward,

I think that to acknowledge that a line, or set of lines, had reached a stage, and expressed such, isn't the same as calling the center of gravity of the person.
 
I don't know where the kinesthetic lines of the monks who originally developed martial arts may have been, but Ken placing Micheal Jordan at indigo does not surprise me.

From my Zen lineage, (a school of mind-to-mind transmition, of no reliance on words and letters, etc. ), two turns of phrase come to mind. 1. “That the Buddhadharma takes the shape of the Vessel that contains it.” And 2.” That for the accomplishment of the student to equal  that of the teacher deminishes the teachings by half. In order for transmition to be complete, the student must surpass the teacher.”

I don't know enough to subscribe to an absolute, gross linear sequentiality to kosmic unfolding.

The more interesting question to me is, “Why do you ask?”

prajna paramita,

jikishin

     permalink

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

Here’s what Chris Dierkes responded in the same inquiry at Open Integral (www.openintegral.net)

Thanks for the post.

On one level I think eventually all rational mental level systems reach their carrying capacity and I think this conundrum you articulated points to one for Wilber’s integral.

On the other hand, there are a couple of lines of possible harmony.

In the last line Wilber writes that many of the ancient great contemplative texts in the cognitive line come from turquoise, indigo, etc.

That would seem to imply the texts are not necessarily coming from such a level in other lines, particularly say the worldviews or values.

If we indeed imagine any mystic charting ahead in some very small way into the higher levels, it would make sense (I think) to assume they only needed to cover the basics of any level to keep moving.

And as these higher levels would have been so infinitesimally formed, I suppose there would be very little in the way of actual content to have to come to terms with.

The cognitive line is a measure of how many perspectives one can take. In that way you can see an ancient text having room for 4th or 5th perspective but without all the content to those stages from later development. Like with green, say the intersubjective.

Just like people today might be moving into indigo-violet and yet those are so lightly engaged that in the future when they are more prominent people at those actual levels will look back on our contemporary “forerunners” and wonder how much sense it would make to say they were evolved to that stage.

What is the actual content of say violet at this juncture?

I myself am very agnostic (even skeptical) of meditation through states (state-stages) moving people vertically. I think we may discover it is something like a necessary but not sufficient condition.

Peace.

Chris

     permalink

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

” And 2.” That for the accomplishment of the student to equal  that of the teacher deminishes the teachings by half. In order for transmition to be complete, the student must surpass the teacher.”

I mentioned this to Andrew Cohen once, that if not the students at least accomplishes the same level of realization or surpasses ones teacher, slowly but surely the linage will die out. He responded heartedly and made a move to leave the room saying something of the kind; well, I might as well give up now then. I held out my hands, stopping him to leave. This was all very sweet, but it made a point. Throughout history there have been exeptional teachers that revived their linaeges and breathed fresh air into the dharma. These teachers would always prompt a revival of the original teachings handed down from the founding fathers; the Buddha, Jesus etc. They would bring a fresh and new understanding to a teaching that inherently was complete but that had over time lost its deeper meaning due to the inability of its proponents. This is completly natural and that will always be the case, but as the world slowly awakes and matures, more and more people will be able to carry the dharma, informed by our growing total understanding of the world, and when a “reformer” comes around and shakes the dust of old teachings, we are so much more ready to hear the news.

I firmly believe we can sit in our room and still appreciate and embrace a world or cosmic vision regardless of the cultures/age at hand. The Buddhas understanding towards a wholistic and fully encompassing world view seems to have been complete, and Jesus outlook seemed to embrace all aspects, from the individual to society, to world and cosmic union. The Buddha and Jesus still adhered the norm of the cultures at hand, which is simply normal, but held a vision that long surpassed their own time and circumstances. This is what we're struggling with, the birthpains of a yet another renewal and reformation of consciousness and of the lives that we lead. All information helps to move it forward, but never (I believe) will the teachings of the Buddha and of Jesus become obsolete.

The Zen tradition spells out perfectly how the Dharma can ever be renewed in its expression without nullifying any of its founding tenets. A perfect teaching will last into eternity. And Ken Wilber does a good job of providing new ways of viewing it, but he hardly promotes anything new. And yet still, it's all so new to us. Ever new. The Dharma has no breaks in it, seamless it flows on. Time stops for no one.

     permalink

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

Here’s what Balder said in his Intersubjectivity Part 3 blog at http://brucealderman.zaadz.com/blog. I hope Hokai joins in with his recent information.

Thanks for those quotes, Edward. I’m familiar with them – and I’ve also asked, on Integral forums, about just how this “breaks down”…what aspects of Buddhism Wilber sees as turquoise or higher, as opposed to those teachings which are clearly more mythological or at least “first tier.” I have not gotten a clear answer, and I’m not sure Ken has given one (in print).

I did ask Hokai, another member of Zaadz and the Multiplex, if he would care to comment here on my blog, since he has just returned from a conference on “Integral Mahamudra” and I expect he may have a clearer idea about Ken’s ideas in this area. I haven’t heard back from him yet, and I don’t really know if he does have a clearer idea, but we’ll see…

     permalink

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

A few quick responses to the above so far.

Jiki,

Why do I ask? I inquire into things I don’t understand, and this is one of them.

Also my sense is that our ITPs (or ILPs [TM]) are not just taking up various practices “as they are” within their original context (like meditation) and then just adding an AQAL framework around them. It seems to me that the practices themselves have to evolve and be transformed by our “integral” enactive paradigm. So it’s not enough to just take up the “ususal” Buddhist meditation program if it is in fact embedded in lower memes. We have to create new practices, including meditative, that fit our developmental context. Otherwise we’re the same old embeddeness but with new AQAL clothes.

Chris,

Yes, I can see that the incipient indigo wave of cognition might’ve been involved in the formation of said meditative traditions. Like the rational wave has been around at least since the Greeks (and probably before), but it has developed in both content and context since then. But in both cases, it’s not the same wave; it has been transformed by both time and development. So again I think it’s vison-logical to posit that it’s not going to be the “same” interpretation as the originators. Granted we’re just laying down the kosmic groove and not sure what it is yet, as we’re in the process of creating it. So two things: 1) it certainly ain’t what it was originally so to regurgiate what was is a sign of error; and 2) we need to guard against closing down this incipient wave with our dogmatic insistence that it already is well defined and our preferred definition is the one, true interpretation. I’d even go so far as to say that “openness” of interpretation, short of so-called pluralistic “anything goes,” is one of the hallmarks of this wave.

     permalink

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

Hi, Edward,

I think you're making some excellent points.  It relates to earlier discussions we've had where we considered whether “enlightenment” is still a useful term, for instance; or at least, whether we need to (possibly radically) reformulate what it means.  In those discussions, I resisted the suggestion that it needs to be discarded altogether, but I do agree that we cannot assume that the meaning of the term is “timeless” and unchanging.

I am not entirely sold on the WC Lattice (I think some things still need to be worked out, or at least fleshed out in ways that have not been articulated yet), but in general, I understand the suggestion to be that there are states which are relatively stable (in evolutionary history) and which are always present and/or accessible; but that there are also stages of cognitive development which are much more dynamic, and which have been unfolding throughout human evolution.  What is not clear, from what Wilber has written, is if he regards these states as universal (Kosmic) givens, which are available to all sentient holons at all times; or whether they are also evolutionarily emergent and are really only available to fairly advanced biological organisms.  If the latter, that certainly changes the “meaning” of enlightenment.  A question is, what is the relationship of “states” to what we might call the Whole - to the undivided (but also indeterminate) field of appearances that we call the universe, or the Kosmos?  Even more fundamentally, in the Kosmic scheme of things, what IS a state?  Is nonduality really a particular (discrete) state of consciousness?  (I know of some nondual teachings which would certainly dispute this).  If so, is it some sort of “window” on, or does it provide access to (or enact), a different level of order in the Kosmos?

Wilber has defined enlightenment as state-stabilization in the “deepest” state available to us (which discloses an experience of “oneness” with the Kosmos as a whole, at whatever stage it is in evolution at that point in time).  In his scheme, states appear to be an expression of a (relatively) timeless dimension of being…constants which may infuse and inform any relative level of development.  But I do not believe he has really spelled these things out very clearly - at least, not that I've seen.  Or else I haven't fully grasped what he's saying…since I have the sorts of questions that I mentioned above.  (E.g., the relationship of “states” to Kosmos and/or Spirit as a whole, whether they are evolutionarily emergent or involutionarily “given,” etc).

When Wilber “stacked” subtle, causal, and nondual on top of the developmental stages, that had a certain elegance, but it also involved certain problems; but it seems to me that the WC Lattice is (at this point) in the same boat:  elegant, but still partly problematic.

A question that arose for me when I first learned of this model, which may seem frivolously speculative but which I do think has bearing on the meaning of the lattice (since it appears to unearth certain presuppositions or biases in it), is this:  Can we say, universally, what “stage” Kosmic evolution has really reached?  We can testify to the stages available on earth, but who can say what has arisen on other planetary systems, assuming there is other life in the universe?  When we speak of the leading edge of Kosmic evolution, but define it in terms of what has appeared in human history, then either we are assuming that we are the most advanced species in the universe, or else we are ignoring whatever else might be out there and taking a questionable anthropocentric perspective (perhaps simply because we can't say one way or the other what has emerged elsewhere).  If you define enlightenment as “oneness” with the entire Kosmos at its leading edge of evolution, then what does this mean if there are other beings who are more advanced than we are?  Are those stages also available to human beings, if the “Kosmic grooves” have been laid down elsewhere?  If there is no way for us to tap in to whatever level other sentient beings may have reached (for whatever reason), then aren't we being irresponsible or at least hyperbolic to define enlightenment as “oneness with the leading edge of evolution”?  Shouldn't we qualify that somehow?

There are a number of presuppositions here.  One, that time is linear, and that state-stabilization and experiences of oneness put us in touch only with what has unfolded, so far, in linear history.  But linear history itself may be a fiction (at least a “field” enacted by certain limited perspectives, as Einstein's “block time” suggests).  Two, that humans are either the leading edge of the Kosmic flowering of intelligence; or else that “oneness” is spatially as well as temporally bounded, and very likely a species-specific and biologically determined phenomenon. 

Etc.

I may be off here, or just missing some vital clues.  But it seems to me there is a lot yet to work out here.

Best wishes,

Balder

     permalink

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

Balder says:

“We can testify to the stages available on earth, but who can say what has arisen on other planetary systems, assuming there is other life in the universe? When we speak of the leading edge of Kosmic evolution, but define it in terms of what has appeared in human history, then either we are assuming that we are the most advanced species in the universe, or else we are ignoring whatever else might be out there and taking a questionable anthropocentric perspective (perhaps simply because we can’t say one way or the other what has emerged elsewhere).”

Beautifully put - but why not go further? What if “our” reality is one of countless realities? What if our reality is only an atom in another reality, which is only an atom in another reality; just like all the atoms in our realities are universes in their own right, in which every atom is again a universe in it’s own right?

What if the play of Eros and Agape is playing out in all these dimensions - time is obviously meaningless (one breath would signify eons one step “up”). Realization and enlightenment in our limited perspective would surely take on a different meaning…

Just a thought - Frans

     permalink

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

Thanks Edward,

My asking,”Why do you ask” came straight out of my inability to get a sense of you as a person, where the issue is active for you, simply by reading your post.

Next you wrote:”Also my sense is that our ITPs (or ILPs [TM] ) are not just taking up various practices “as they are” within their original context (like meditation) and then just adding an AQAL framework around them. It  seems to me that the practices  themselves have to evolve and be tranformed by our “integral” enactive paradigm. So it's not enough to just take up the “usual” Buddhist meditation program if it is in fact embedded in lower memes. We have to create new practices, includung meditative, that fit our developmental context. Otherwise we're the same old embeddedness but with AQAL clothes.”

It sounds to me that some of what you are calling for is already the case. That practices themselves are not set programs, inherited, embedded, or imposed but are transformed in the present occasion of the meme at which the practice is perspected. That an injunction is only enacted through the address of the practicioner and not another address of another occasion.

Bjorn spoke to this beautifully.

In my view, Buddhism allows for evolutionary impulse, for the imperminance of memetic ceilings. Dialectics and deconstruction are old habits to Zen, central to the traditions continuity. While all but immune from plateau stagnations and episodic, periodic regressions, the inevitability of transcendence / inclusion is (at best) implicit in the practice. Even doctrine, recognized as necessarily provisional, is traditionally exposed to rigorous revisioning, on-going development. Some of the open orientation I see in Zen I'd call proto-integral. Recounting the “patternless patterns” of upaya, of skillfull means, I notice an evolutionary pragmatism. Skillfull Means (say, taking-the-shape-of-the-LL-vessel, or responding in the-mirror-of-samadhi) seems to frequently refer to an acounting for all four quadrants.

Am I playing dress-up in AQAL? It's not for me to say.

                                                                     ~~~

Balder,

re: KW the cartographer

I think that Ken, or any prudent theorist, does well to taylor their puplic statements to within a range of palletable discourse, thereby gaining a traction in the current zietgiest. A credability with which they can then lead the edge with valid insights (which , if issued with blind timing may undermine the efficacy if their work).

A kind of politics of parenting, or husbandry, applied to intellectual stewardship?

Be Well Folks,

jiki

     permalink

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

Jiki,

Thanks for the spirited defense of Buddhism’s openess and flexibility to innovation and growth. Those are the qualites within the context of “indigo” to which I was referring.

Now could you provide us with specific examples of how Buddhism has done so with regard to practices and doctrines? And what do you suppose Ken is referring to regarding the not so developed aspects of Buddhism, beside his one example of the Dalai Lama having an aversion to oral sex?

     permalink

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

I think you'd have to take Appendix II of IS into account here (Integral Post-Metaphysics):

So, in todays world, what would constitute Enlightenment? What are the highest states and stages available in the Kosmos? At the very least, it would mean indigo altitude in the cognitive and self lines, as well as a mastery of the 4 or so major states (which includes access to gross, subtle, causal, and nondual). (Page 246)

I read this as a suggestion, see also the context of this sentence (I don't really feel like typing the entire page). I don't think KW is trying to be the one to determine who is or isn't enlightened.

Also, as I see it, we don't really need the W-C lattice to point out the need for a new definition of Enlightenment, so it doesn't depend on the validity of the lattice concept. The point here, is to have a meaningful definition which takes evolution into account: if Enlightenment is to mean being one with both Form and Emptiness, and Form changes during the course of evolution, then Enlightenment is different at different moments in evolution.

My guess would be that using a linear time perspective is what necessitates this particular definition of Enlightenment. When using a different kind of time perspective, such a definition would either be entirely different or not needed. Or do others see this differently?

Besides that: KW clearly states in IS that the W-C lattice as drawn on page 90 is a simple version. The main point is that structures and states overlap in complex ways, and KW has probably just scratched the surface by writing what he did. Maybe we should keep that in mind?

So the point is, that you can discuss or explain a definition in terms of the W-C lattice, but it doesn't have to depend on it.

This still leaves several issues open that were raised here, including Balder's remark on other highy evolved life forms in the Kosmos. Maybe we should add a spatial component to the definition, and not just a temporal one :)

Peter
 

     permalink

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

Peter,

Another thing to consider is that not only Form but Emptiness changes too! How can that be? Isn't it supposed to be formless and unchanging? Well yes, and no. As I think Ken pointed out, even emptiness has to be interpreted, and that interpretation evolves. Hence we do have an unlimited, infinite in Derrida's thought, but it doesn't look like the perennial tradition's. And despite Ken's postmetaphysical turn debunking the myth of the given, it is still only applicable to the “relative” realm and not the “absolute,” He stills leaves the back door open for direct perception of this absolute where all bets are off, so to speak.

Whereas Derrida (and many other pomoers), while having a undecontructable in his view, doesn't allow that it is possible to directly perceive but we can still let that notion practically inform our ways of thinking, being and doing. The notion of emptiness is still there but it is reinterpreted appropriately within the developmental, contextual milieu. And it seems that Ken is still interpreting emptiness within a traditional context so I'm suggesting even emptiness has to change in this regard.

     permalink

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

What is evolving? Is form evolving or thoughts about form? Both? Does it matter in regards to emptiness?

Let's look at the heart sutra for some help.


Here, Sariputra, form is emptiness and the very emptiness is form; emptiness does not differ from form, form does not differ from emptiness; whatever is form, that is emptiness, whatever is emptiness, that is form, the same is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness.

Here, Sariputra, all dharmas are marked with emptiness; they are not produced or stopped, not defiled or immaculate, not deficient or complete.

(yes so they are free to evolve or devolve)

Therefore, Sariputra, in emptiness there is no form, nor feeling, nor perception, nor impulse, nor consciousness; …

At the end here you can keep adding to the list as far as the mind can conceive. And so you see that emptiness does not change.


peace & love,

e

     permalink

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

theurj:
Another thing to consider is that not only Form but Emptiness changes too! How can that be? Isn't it supposed to be formless and unchanging? Well yes, and no. As I think Ken pointed out, even emptiness has to be interpreted, and that interpretation evolves.

What changes are perspectives on Emptiness, and these perspectives are part of Form. This leaves Emptiness itself unchanged. Any interpretation takes place in the relative realm. So I agree with ~e~ here.

And despite Ken's postmetaphysical turn debunking the myth of the given, it is still only applicable to the “relative” realm and not the “absolute” He stills leaves the back door open for direct perception of this absolute where all bets are off, so to speak.

There's a difference between direct perception of the absolute, and the interpretation of the experience afterwards. Again, that interpretation is done from the relative realm, which is subject to Ken's post-metaphysics. So I don't really see a problem here; could you point out what I'm overlooking?

Peter

     permalink

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

Can there be any experience, including what we think is an experience of the “absolute,” without interpretation? And is that interpretation only “afterward” or is it involved in the very experience in the first place? Is it possible to have direct perception of the infinite without interpretation, even in the moment of that experience? Is that not the myth of the given?

     permalink

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

As Ken said in Integral Spirituality (draft) regarding the myth of the given, pp. 207-8:

–the belief that the consciousness of an individual will deliver truth. This is why
Habermas calls the myth of the given by the phrase “the philosophy of consciousness”-
and that is what he is criticizing because it is blind to intersubjectivity, among other
things. As we have been saying throughout this book, consciousness itself simply cannot see zones #2 and #4, and therefore is deficient in and of itself (e.g., “Not through
introspection but through history do we come to know ourselves”). You can introspect
all you want and you won’t see those other truths. So consciousness itself is deficient-
whether personal or transpersonal, whether pure or not pure, essential or relative, high or
low, big mind or small mind, vipassana, bare attention, centering prayer, contemplative
awareness-none of them can see these other truths, and that is why Habermas and the
postmodernists extensively criticize “the philosophy of consciousness.”

     permalink

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

Theurj:

“Can there be any experience, including what we think is an experience of the “absolute,” without interpretation? And is that interpretation only “afterward” or is it involved in the very experience in the first place? Is it possible to have direct perception of the infinite without interpretation, even in the moment of that experience? Is that not the myth of the given?”

There is such a thing as “ultimat Experience” - interpretation is the ego influence of that experience, just the same as introspection is ego activity. It has nothing to do with ultimate Experience. Experience has nothing to do with the belief that an individual’s consciousness will deliver truth - it has nothing to do with any philosophy, it has nothing to do with anything, it JUST IS.

Frans

     permalink

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

“Can there be any experience, including what we think is an experience of the “absolute,” without interpretation?

I would say yes. This is how I recall my awakening,

Then came the day that would be the end of my search and the beginning of a new life. Maybe a week ten days after first meeting Andrew I was strolling around the stupa when suddenly I saw and understood: I have always been free and I have always known it. This was so subtle, so fine, I almost forgot it. But in the days that came I recalled it. Listening to Andrew in satsang suddenly I realized I understood what he was speaking about. Then I remembered everything clearly what had happened the day before. I had always been free and I had always enjoyed this natural freedom. This mystified me as why then had I been seeking. So I searched in my memory to see if it was true. I looked back on when I was five years old, when I had been 10 and when I had been 15 years of age, and at every instance I had been free. There never had been any obstacles, there are no obstacles and there never will be any obstacles. It was so easy, so simple. I was full of joy. When I recollected the event and remembered the view I had I saw that I had seen the scenery in front of my eyes just I as I do now but the seeing itself was coming from a limitless depth behind my eyes. I who saw was out of this world, out of time, seeing through my eyes, into this world, into a world that was a dream. This is such a gem. I wondered why I had almost missed it, why it hadn't been obvious at the time it happened. So I looked at the event again and saw that the view wasn't anything other than this everyday vision I have every day, here and now (and as you have right now too). That was why I hadn't recognized it immediately, because it is this ordinary view that we have all the time. Nothing had changed, nothing happened, there was no “experience”. The seeing had just been there when understanding came. But the understanding cleared the egos veils of wrongly identifying with this person. This really blew me away, that this is our everyday seeing, right now as I write this. Nothing extraordinary, just plain normal. I just saw my true nature, my real self.

     permalink

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

“Can there be any experience, including what we think is an experience of the “absolute,”
without interpretation?

Yes, sort of, as Emptiness is not really an experience subject/object wise.

“Therefore, in Emptiness There Are No Forms,
No Feelings, Perceptions, Volitions or Consciousness.”

(You are 'not in Kansas' at this point. *You* and *Kansas* exiting stage left. : -) )




And is that interpretation only “afterward” or is it involved in the very experience in the first place?

Any discursive thoughts while in emptiness will be seen to be empty. Sliding out of awarness like water off a duck's back.




Is it possible to have direct perception of the infinite without interpretation, even in the moment of that experience? Is that not the myth of the given?”

The myth of the given is predicated on the 'ding an sich' (thing in itself).

Emptiness is not a thing. All things are empty (of an ontological self). Even emptiness is empty.



p&l,

e

PS Emptiness is not properly infinite. But finite and infinte cognition is empty.

     permalink

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

Hey everyone

Some of the points in this discussion came up when I was talking to Ken on the IS Appendix 2 Con Call on Saturday.  I'll do my best to articulate some of his points, though I might miss some of the finer points as this is from memory…

3rd tier structure-stages (indego and beyond) are inextricably linked to state-stages - thus the reason he confused them for so long.  so…in order to achive an ultraviolet structure stage CoG, you also have to have a state stage CoG at Causal - you sumply cannot attain ultra-violet without it, that aweness is part of the actual structure.  You can however, achieve the reverse…as is obvious.

He said pretty catagorically that people like Nargajuna and Plotinus were operating from turquiose cognitively…but no more.  They were laying down state-stage Kosmic groves NOT structure-stage Kosmic grooves.  They develop independantly!

Ewan

     permalink

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

Ewan:
3rd tier structure-stages (indego and beyond) are inextricably linked to state-stages - thus the reason he confused them for so long.  so…in order to achive an ultraviolet structure stage CoG, you also have to have a state stage CoG at Causal - you sumply cannot attain ultra-violet without it, that aweness is part of the actual structure.  You can however, achieve the reverse…as is obvious.

Okay, I think this is pretty much what KW says in IS as well.


He said pretty catagorically that people like Nargajuna and Plotinus were operating from turquiose cognitively…but no more.  They were laying down state-stage Kosmic groves NOT structure-stage Kosmic grooves.  They develop independantly!

In order to operate from turquoise cognitively, you need to have developed the corresponding structure in the cognitive line (so they might have been laying these particular grooves down as well? Or was that already available?). And indeed, this does not mean that they had their CoG at turquoise, since that usually is below your top cognitive capacity. They wouldn't have been laying down the entire turquoise structure-stage, then. Is this what Ken was saying?

Still not clear if Ken literally means turquoise here, or integral (teal/turquoise). Business as usual … :)

Anyhow, full development of a structure-stage takes a lot of time, apparently. Having a funky deep groove, I mean.

The state-stage they were laying down would have been the nondual state? As I understand, Nagarjuna and Plotinus were among the first to reach that stage, somewhere around 250 AD. For Guatama Buddha, for instance, who lived some 600 years earlier, causal was the highest state.

Makes sense.

Peter

     permalink

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

Hey Peter

In order to operate from turquoise cognitively, you need to have developed the corresponding structure in the cognitive line (so they might have been laying these particular grooves down as well? Or was that already available?). And indeed, this does not mean that they had their CoG at turquoise, since that usually is below your top cognitive capacity. They wouldn't have been laying down the entire turquoise structure-stage, then. Is this what Ken was saying?

Yes, I think so.  They were laying down parts of turquiose structure grooves - cognitive structures are always going to be the first - but I think its safe to say they wern't operating from a turquiose CoG.

Anyhow, full development of a structure-stage takes a lot of time, apparently. Having a funky deep groove, I mean.

Yeah, absolutely, its still happening now.  Turquiose grooves in the lower quadrants are very un-developed still.

The state-stage they were laying down would have been the nondual state? As I understand, Nagarjuna and Plotinus were among the first to reach that stage, somewhere around 250 AD. For Guatama Buddha, for instance, who lived some 600 years earlier, causal was the highest state.

Yes, thats my understanding as well.  Which is also why he mentions in the 1-2-3 of god that early shamans can be said to have been enlightened at Magenta/Red, Causal.  Non-dual wasn't available to them.  So what comes after non-dual, thats what I want to know! :)

Ewan

     permalink

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

theurj,
“(E.g., according to his secretary, the Dalai Lama believes homosexuality is a sin, anal sex is a sin, oral sex is bad karma, etc.—when everybody knows that oral sex is not bad karma, only bad oral sex is bad karma…. But these sadly are typical mythic-amber beliefs.) (117-18)

In the meantime, Asian meditation teachers, with a LL-quadrant that is heavily amber, or mythic-membership, and hence “non-egoic” in the sense of PREinvidualistic, and therefore used to having students simply obey them unhesitatingly and in a conformist-stage fashion, don’t quite know what to do with individualistic-stage Westerners, whose LL-quadrant is loaded orange-to-green. (118)”

First, let's not assume that the Dalai Lama is an enlightened being. He was born into a political position, and his own development is up to him. Whereas the Grandmaster for the Chung Tain Ch'an sect of Chinese Zen in Taiwan began with a small meditation hall, and now operates dozens of meditation centers around the world, and has built the largest Buddhist Temple in the world, in his lifetime. We have to see the difference between individual merit and an esoteric political appointment.
Also, from what I understand, the Kalama Sutra was never translated into Tibetian. This is the Zen sutra in which the Buddha tells the Kalamas not to believe in anything they see, hear or read from an outside source, until they have examined it in detail and compared it to direct experience. I believe it was Steven Batchelor who talks about his experience transitioning from being a Tibetan monk to a Zen monk in Korea. He talks about going from not questioning anything, to having to question literally everything.

Another thing that we have to look at, and which is almost wholly ignored, is that meditation is only 1 part of the 8 fold path. KW is absolutely right, that meditative practice will only get you so far, but it seems that he fails to mention that that is what the other 7 parts are for.
When taken in totality, the 8 fold path doesn't somehow cause enlightenment, after all to say so would be to invalidate the concept of dependence origination. The 8 fold path, when taken seriously, opens up the space to allow for personal development.

When we look at our lives deeply, we find that we have very little control over the whole thing. What we have control over are the moment-to-moment things that facilitate certain outcomes. So, if you would like to have a certain career, there are a great many steps that contain further steps, etc… we can't just wake up one day and have the dream career, but we can put things in motion moment-to-moment. Enlightenment is like this.

So, if a person meditated regularly, but doesn't follow the other 7 steps, then they aren't really commited to the process of ending suffering. I know this from personal experience, because I still haven't fully commited. But I do know that when trying to overcome the delusion of inherent characteristics, it is counter-productive to meditate and still do things like watch porn, or drinking/drugs, non-commited sex, etc… By meditating you are developing the space and concentration necessary, but all the other things are reinforcing the status quo. Its all about conditioning the mind.

That is why there are so few really enlightened beings, and why we sit around and muse about enlightenment.

E has posted a part of the Heart Sutra that really says it all, and wasn't written by someone merely able to acheive high meditative states. When we look at what ethnocentrism is, it is really just saying and expressing the belief in inherent characteristics. Without that base belief, there would be no way of expressing either aversion or attraction to various behaviors, beliefs, or customs; be them your own or another's. When you read Nargarjuna, for example, he so thoroughly destroys any attempt towards realism and belief in inherent characteristics, that to think the man was only meditatively achieved is too much.

Let's face it. When someone creates a theoretical framework to explain everything and encompass the whole, they will always have inconsistencies in the system. The most commmon course of action when dealing with inconsistencies or inconguities, is to either ignore them or explain them away. So, I'm skeptical when KW says that because certain people in history don't seem to fit neatly into his AQAL framework, that they have to change and not his framework.
As Katagiri says, “Whatever you think, that is delusion.”

     permalink

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

holden:
So, I'm skeptical when KW says that because certain people in history don't seem to fit neatly into his AQAL framework, that they have to change and not his framework.

And where exactly did he say that???

As Katagiri says, “Whatever you think, that is delusion.”

I'm going to remind you on that one :)

Peter

     permalink

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

“And where exactly did he say that???”

I am responding more to what people are saying that KW is saying than to anything that I've actually heard or read him say. To say that the Buddha could only be at a Causal level, because that is the only thing that the model allows. That seems to be imposing a post de facto reasoning upon history.
People can say anything they want about enlightenment, but within the sphere of Buddhism is it largely undefined, in that it is a quality of mind that isn't able to be defined. It is said over and over, that if you fundementally understand the true nature of mind and reality itself, not theoretically, but know it like you know the sun is shinning, then you are enlightened. After that, there may be degrees of relative knowledge that are different or a deeper understanding incorporated upon this fundamental understanding, but that doesn't change the essential quality of the enlightened mind; which is empty of an inherent self. There are not greater or lesser degrees of emptiness.
What I see KW doing is pioneering a greater understanding and inquiry into the relative nature of things, but the absolute nature of things doesn't change.
As Bodhidharma says:

“When a thought begins, you enter the three realms. When a thought ends, you leave the three realms. The beginning or end of the three realms, the existence or nonexistence of anything, depends on the mind. This applies to everything, even to such inanimate objects as rocks and sticks.

Whoever knows that the mind is a fiction and devoid of anything real knows that his own mind neither exists nor doesn’t exist. Mortals keep creating the mind, claiming it exists. And Arhats keep negating the mind, claiming it doesn’t exist. But bodhisattvas and Buddhas neither create nor negate the mind. This is what’s meant by the mind that neither exists nor doesn’t exist. The mind that neither exists nor doesn’t exist is called the Middle Way.

If you use your mind to study reality, you won’t understand either your mind or reality. If you study reality without using your mind, you’ll understand both. Those who don’t understand don’t understand understanding. And those who understand, understand not understanding. People capable of true vision know that the mind is empty. They transcend both understanding and not understanding. The absence of both understanding and not understanding is true understanding Seen with true vision, form isn’t simply form, because form depends on mind. And mind isn’t simply mind, because mind depends on form. Mind and form create and negate each other. That which exists exists in relation to that which doesn’t exist. And that which doesn’t exist doesn’t exist in relation to that which exists. This is true vision. By means of such vision nothing is seen and nothing is not seen. Such vision reaches throughout the ten directions without seeing: because nothing is seen; because not seeing is seen; because seeing isn’t seeing. What mortals see are delusions. True vision is detached from seeing. The mind and the world are opposites, and vision arises where they meet. When your mind doesn’t stir inside, the world doesn’t arise outside. When the world and the mind are both transparent, this is true vision. And such understanding is true understanding.”

     permalink

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

Nicely put Holden.

It’s the paradox: you can never understand by studying reality, yet studying reality is the only way to get to that realization. This is the point where mind gets left behind - no matter if it exists or doesn’t exist.

I think KW would agree with you too; he is trying to get more people to that realization…

Frans

     permalink

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

theurj,
“Another thing to consider is that not only Form but Emptiness changes too! How can that be? Isn't it supposed to be formless and unchanging? Well yes, and no. As I think Ken pointed out, even emptiness has to be interpreted, and that interpretation evolves.”

Again, e already posted the Heart Sutra, but it seems that more elaboration needs to be done. When the Sutra says, “Form is emptiness and emptiness is form. Form is no different from emptiness and neither….”
It is being very literal. I've found that myterious and esoteric sounding sutras are actually very literal, but only sound vague because the person isn't at the stage yet needed to understand them. That's why we have koans. If you don't get it, then keep working, and if you think you've found an answer to the koan, then a lot more work needs to be done.
If you think of emptiness as a thing or something that changes in time or the place that form happens in, like emptiness is another way of saying Spirit, then your not looking closely. Form “is” emptiness. This is expressing an understanding of two truths. The relative and the absolute. The absolute truth of everything does not change, it does not evolve. All things were empty of inherent characteristics 10,000 years ago as they are now. This hasn't changed. The understanding of this doesn't change.  This is saying that there is relative “form” and form is really just a confusing and esoteric way of saying “matter.” But, that this relative truth can't be explained or expressed. Anything that can be explained is something, and we are not dealing with something; yet there is something and that is “ungraspable”. Relative reality, the reality of picking something out of the Whole to measure via consciousness, and seeing that there is evolving in what is measured, is true. Therefore there is evolution, as there is nothing that isn't change itself.  But, the reality of whatever that you have decided to measure not having any inherent and unconditioned characteristics is the same, it does not evolve. There is nothing to evolve.

     permalink

Re: Indigo Buddhism?

The issue is not whether emptiness itself changes. Obvioulsy the timeless and unchanging doesn't change. The issues are 1) whether we can directly experience this “absolute” free of relative interpretations. Whether that is y