swimming: like being back in the womb

In the spirit of #OpenPractice, below is my latest conversation with Shinzen Young regarding my chosen form of practice. I hope this will be of some use for others out there who have a similar form of practice.

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:54:24 -0800
Subject: Re: The Dark Night
From: "~C4Chaos"
To: Shinzen Young

a.k.a. ~C4Chaos

Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 21:19:54 -0500
Subject: Re: The Dark Night
From: Shinzen Young
To: "~C4Chaos"

Shinzen


Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 20:10:27 -080
Subject: Re: The Dark Night
From: "~C4Chaos"
To: Shinzen Young

~ Sent from my iPhone

Integral Life just published an audio of Ken Wilber tracing back his developmental stages and making a matter-of-fact self-assessment of his shadows and current stage of development. I find this to be very juicy. I’m already familiar with Ken’s history regarding his spiritual practice but this audio revealed more dimensions to his personal story. This is my new fave Ken Wilber audio. It’s a must-hear for all integral geeks out there. Here’s the blurb:

The Many Faces of Ken Wilber

“As merely an autobiographical account of Ken’s own vertical development, spiritual growth, and shadow work, this story stands as a compelling account of his early psychoanalytic work with Bob Young, his journey through Gestalt, dream, and Jungian therapies, and his first satori with Soto Zen teacher, Katagiri Roshi. It then unfolds through his subsequent work in the Vajrayana tradition, where he encountered his root teacher, Chagdud Tulku, along with his second major satori, which extended his exploration into a relationship with Trungpa and Kalu Rinpoches, along with Pema Norbu, who offered the Longchen Nintig teachings, some of the highest transmissions in Dzogchen. He completes the journey with reflections on Adi Da, the most recent teacher who he had considered engaging in a formal relationship, before ending with a summary of his personal psychograph and brief insight into his current inquiry practice, which is a composite of Ramana Maharshi’s “Who am I?” inquiry, Zen’s Shikantaza, Da’s avoiding inquiry, and the core of Dzogchen’s Maha Ati teachings.”

(Note: This is premium content. You need to be logged into your premium Integral Life account in order to listen to this dialogue. Also, Ken uses the latest coloring scheme for describing his developmental level. For more details on colors and altitudes, read up on “An All-Inclusive Framework for the 21st Century – An Overview of Integral Theory” – by Sean Esbjorn-Hargens)

Like I said, very juicy.

As I expected this generated some discussions on Facebook. One of my FB friends wrote:

“…first bit of Wilber for a while – really liked it. What I wondered is whether Ken still has the guys around him to kick his butt, as he critiqued Da for not having…

…

Even though Ken has been really explicit that he does not see himself, or want to be treated as a guru…and that he doesn’t have ‘students’, I do have this impression that a lot of people defer to him as a supreme authority. Somehow I don’t hear in him the humility I used to, and it makes me wonder…”

That comment is a very honest and valid observation from someone who is looking from the outside of Ken Wilber’s circle. So it compelled me to open up and share my first-hand, albeit brief and limited, experience with Ken. So here’s what I wrote (with some edits and spelling corrections):

i can’t speak for everyone, but based on my own experience with my brief involvement with the Integral Institute years ago, i could confidently say that Ken is very open to criticisms. he’s open to hearing people (including young people who are in his circle) voicing their opinions and ideas. i used to have email conversations with him along with others challenging him and he often gets our opinion on things. that said, being the de facto head of I-I he calls the shots on important decisions (from this perspective you can think of Ken as channeling his inner Steve Jobs). from a leadership perspective it’s just natural to call the shots.

also, understand that there’s another level of circle that Ken has, those of his old friends and intellectual peers, who could really call Ken’s b.s. whenever necessary (e.g. Roger Walsh, Frances Vaughan, and others).

let me point out that most people who are attracted to Ken’s work are highly intelligent and are aware of the cultic mentality. we often joked a lot how cultic we were, or how cultic we were perceived by other people. i believe that a lot of us were there because of his *ideas*, his call for *awakening*, not his personality or “guru” authority. for me, it’s a bonus that Ken’s personality is very likeable. he obviously is freakingly intelligent but he also has a sick sense of humor. and i could sense that there’s a deep calm and serenity behind his passion for sharing his ideas.

but that’s just my impression when i was there. i wasn’t really that close to Ken to witness and experience a deeper side of his personality (or whatever personality issues he has). maybe people who got up-close to him have a different picture. but from what i know based on my conversations with people who really got close to Ken, he, in general, is really a wonderful human being. and that’s why i love that bald guy.

And here’s my follow up comment:

Gearoid said: “it’s also worth noting that he’s often said that if he didn’t lay down AQAL theory someone else probably would have”

it’s true. i think he sincerely means that. however, AQAL is the result of Ken’s genius and his obsessive personality (btw, if you’ve seen his scribbles and diagrams on paper, you’d think that the guy is way out there… but that is a feature that a lot of geniuses share: obsessive focus on the chosen subject). there other integral theorists out there whose done a fine job, but in my opinion, nothing comes close to the comprehensiveness of AQAL (and therein lies both its strength and weakness).

anyway, for those who don’t have the opportunity to meet Ken but want to get a sneak peek at his personal side, i highly recommend the following: “Grace and Grit”, “One Taste”, “Simple Feeling of Being”, and “Kosmic Consciousness (CD audio series)”, and this classic interview by Jordan Gruber (which is the first audio interview i’ve listened to) – http://www.enlightenment.com/media/interviews/wilber1.html

Ken’s personality shine in those books and audio. that said, of course, those are only partial look at the many faces of Ken. but that’s the closest thing you can get without actually meeting, working with, and/or living with the bald guy.

Now, for those of you who have been following my blog, you might wonder why I’ve categorized this entry under “Open Practice.” Two reasons: First, my own psychological development has been in a sort of quantum entanglement with Ken Wilber’s work ever since he blew my mind away back in the early 90s. Second, I think that Ken’s openness in the audio is an excellent example of how one should critically approach one’s self-evaluation. Ken exemplifies what my vision for Open Practice is all about–radical openness and honesty about our practice and self-assessment, as best as we possibly can.

This reminded me once again how profoundly I was influenced (and continue to be influenced) by Ken’s writings. I am quite sure that a lot of people out there feel the same.

Buddhist Geeks Conference 2011

It turned out that it was in my good karma to attend the first ever Buddhist Geeks Conference in L.A. I owe a deep gratitude to my wife for swapping her work schedule so I could attend. She told me that she knows how important this is to me so she gave me her blessings. I’m a lucky guy.

So to those who will be attending the conference, see you there! Buddhist Geeks Conference 2011 is shaping up to be the TED of Western Buddhism.

While the stereotypical psychopath is a serial killer, I believe that psychopaths of varying degrees are all around us, with some of them even exerting great influence on our lives through their high positions in politics, business, military, religion, and spiritual circles. So I’m glad that Jon Ronson wrote the book, How to Spot a Psychopath, so that I don’t have to do the research myself.

When it comes to spirituality and psychopathy, I have another pet theory. Although psychopaths can fake their way into spiritual circles and mimic the speech and bodily movements of stereotypical spiritual teachers, I believe that they too are capable of cultivating and experiencing classical enlightenment.

To gauge whether my geeky Buddhist buddies share my pet theory on psychopathy, I tweeted this question: “so, is it possible for a psychopath to be enlightened?” I received mixed responses: “Absolutely not“; “yes, I suppose so…“; “enlightenment without genuine responsiveness to others is not enlightenment“; “no correlation between enlightenment and behavior“; “Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely. I don’t think so…”

I guess it boils down to one’s definition of enlightenment. I define “classical enlightenment” as stream-entry as described in the classic Buddhist texts. However, I’m willing to stretch my theory all the way. After all, Angulimala, a serial killer who took fingers for trophies, became an Arhant after changing his ways and following the Buddha.

In any case, while this topic is still fresh in my head, I’ve decided to bounce off this idea with my teacher, Shinzen Young. So I sent him an email to get his opinion on this matter. Below is our email conversation.

from: ~C4Chaos
to: Shinzen Young
date: Mon, May 23, 2011 at 9:10 PM
subject: Question: Can psychopaths be enlightened?

Hi Shinzen,

I hope you're doing well as you read this.

I'm writing to ask you a question that has nothing to do with practice whatsoever but has everything to do with my curiosity. So I hope you entertain my musings in your free time

I posted the question "Can psychopaths be enlightened?" on my Twitter stream and I got mixed reactions. Some say that it's plausible though unlikely, while some say that enlightenment is not enlightenment without genuine responsiveness to others. The latter suggests that morality and empathy are requisite qualities of enlightenment. However, my understanding of the Buddhist precepts is that they are not specifically intended as moral guidelines. They're more of injunctions to facilitate one's practice.

For example, a psychopath, who has no sense of empathy and guilt, can continue to perform meditation practices even without adhering to the precepts. So in theory a psychopath would have more equanimity and could focus more on the practices. (Well, at least that's my projection on how a psychopath thinks ) Therefore, I would assume that psychopaths can attain classical enlightenment (aka stream-entry) or even go all the way to Fourth path. However, the way they would express their enlightenment experience in the real world is another story. Maybe this is one explanation why some so-called enlightened teachers still end up behaving as jerks without regard for their fellow human beings. Then they justify their actions as "crazy wisdom". That sounds psychopathic to me As the computer lingo goes "garbage in, garbage out", a psychopath who achieves enlightenment is still a psychopath and would likely do more harm than good.

So, can psychopaths be enlightened? I would love to hear your thoughts about this based on your understanding of enlightenment and your own experience.

Take care and keep it flowing.
~Rommel



from: Shinzen Young
to: ~C4Chaos
date: Tue, May 24, 2011 at 7:48 AM
subject: Re: Question: Can psychopaths be enlightened?

Hi Rommel,

Of course, the issue is how do we define enlightenment? If I were constrained to shoot from the hip and give a grossly oversimplified definition, it would be something like seeing beyond the Self plus improving the Self. By that definition, a psychopath would have difficulty being enlightened unless they really wanted to work on their psychopathicness. But here's where the rub comes. It's possible to have deep, deep experiences of No Self, i.e., transcending the Self in certain ways without working much on the issue of improving the Self. So from that perspective, there can be a strong link between No Self and psychopathicness. I suggest you look up a book by William Hamilton called Saints and Psychopaths. Hamilton is one of the great unrecognized heros of the dharma in the West. He was one of my best friends, and influenced my pratice strongly when I was shifting from Zen to Vipassana. I'm pretty sure that he was also a teacher of Dan Ingram and Kenneth Folk.

All the best,
Shinzen



from: ~C4Chaos
to: Shinzen Young
date: Tue, May 24, 2011 at 8:58 AM
subject: Re: Question: Can psychopaths be enlightened?

Shinzen,

Thank you so much for entertaining my musings. I was thinking along the same lines as you've expressed below. Good to know that I wasn't that far off the mark

Basically my reasoning is this: If cultivation of enlightenment (I'll define it as stream-entry, or enlightenment-lite) require skills in concentration, clarity and equanimity, then it can be compared to cultivating one's skill in science or mathematics. I don't doubt that even psychopaths could master science and mathematics. We have historical examples of this. So by the same token, the skills required to cultivate enlightenment can also be mastered by psychopaths. However, a psychopath would fall short on the other facet of enlightenment which is "Improving Self and World".

One of the reasons I ask the question is to tie it with the phenomena of supposedly enlightened teachers/guru who continue to act like psychopaths. One explanation (or justification) for such acts even has a cool-sounding name, like “crazy wisdom” (e.g. they are beyond conventional morality or what not). Another one is that they’ve lost their minds during the Dark Night and got stuck in a psychotic state. Another plausible explanation I’d like to throw in is that, maybe they were psychopaths in the first place who just happen to achieve enlightenment just by following the instructions diligently. And since there is no cure for psychopathy (at least according to the experts) then their expression of enlightenment is one of a psychopath — before enlightenment, psychopathy; after enlightenment, still psychopathy. Ergo the dark side of enlightenment.

So what's your take on supposedly enlightened teachers (e.g. the late Adi Da - http://www.strippingthegurus.com/stgsamplechapters/da.asp) who still act like they are psychopaths/sociopaths? Any theories you want to share?

Yes, I know that Daniel Ingram and Kenneth Folk speak very highly of Bill Hamilton. Per their recommendation I read the book "Saints and Psychopaths" sometime ago. It was a good read and an excellent reminder along the path.

Are you ok if I publish this email exchange to my blog? Thanks again for engaging me in this conversation.

Sincerely,
~Rommel



from: Shinzen Young
to: ~C4Chaos
date: Wed, May 25, 2011 at 1:14 PM
subject: Re: Question: Can psychopaths be enlightened?

Hi Rommel,

I think my theory on inappropriate conduct of gurus is probably pretty similar to yours. Uneven growth in the various dimensions. Enlightenment seems to be a vector-valued function. Some people overly emphasize the dimensions of No Self that are not related to improving the Self.

Here's my general theory. Practitioners in general and teachers in specific are in danger of going off the deep end if they don't have robust feedback structures, either from people around them or from other teachers and so forth. Most of the cases of teachers who I think have been inappropriate arise in that circumstance. In many cases, they either never had a teacher or they left their teacher and went off on their own too early. I don't like to name names but it's not hard to imagine who I'm talking about.

As far as sharing our emails with the world, absolutely, feel free. You're doing a great service by facilitating inner connectivity, transparency, and modernity within the ancient traditions.

All the best,
Shinzen


ultimate Inception

It’s been a while since I posted on my blog about my “Open Practice“. The truth is, I have suspended my sitting practice since I became a new dad this year. My priority had shifted to adjusting to my new role as a parent. It’s a wonderful feeling. It’s challenging, yet deeply rewarding.

Although I have temporarily stopped my sitting practice, I’ve continued my dharma studies by listening to dharma-related podcasts, watching Youtube videos, and reading books, while taking care of our baby. Being a parent should not be an excuse to procrastinate from practicing. Awakening has never been more important now that I’m a father.

As a continuation of my open practice I’ll be updating my blog to keep a journal of my progress. In addition to that I’ll be publishing my email correspondence with my teacher, Shinzen Young. Shinzen generously agreed to publish our email exchanges regarding my questions about my practice. (Thanks, Shinzen!)

Last year, while reading B. Alan Wallace, I came across the term “substrate consciousness.” I was curious on how this “substrate consciousness” mapped to Shinzen’s Five Ways system. So I sent Shinzen an email and he responded quickly. His response clarified the two terminologies (“substrate consciousness” and “complete experience“) for me, at least on a conceptual level.

Dear Shinzen,

I hope you're doing well. I have another a quick question when you get a chance

I've been catching up on my B. Alan Wallace readings to supplement my daily practice with solid science and Buddhist scholarship. While reading Wallace I came across a term that he often uses: "substrate consciousness".

(see Hidden Dimensions: The Unification of Physics and Consciousness)

Below is a relevant quote:

"As noted previously, all usual kinds of experience, both sensory and introspective, are structured by memories, language, beliefs, and expectations, which cause us to assimilate even novel experiences, whether we want to or not. One of the names for the meditative practice I am describing here is “settling the mind in its natural state,” which implies a radical deconstruction of the ways we habitually classify, evaluate, and interpret experience. The Buddhist hypothesis in this regard is that it is possible to so profoundly settle the mind that virtually all thoughts and other mental constructs eventually become dormant. The result is not a trance-like, vegetative, or comatose state. On the contrary, it is a luminous, discerningly intelligent awareness in which the physical senses are withdrawn and the normal activities of the mind have subsided.

"The culmination of this meditative process is the experience of the substrate consciousness ( ālaya-vijñāna ), which is characterized by three essential traits: bliss, luminosity, and non conceptuality. The quality of bliss does not arise in response to any sensory stimulus, for the physical senses are dormant, as if one were deep asleep. Nor does it arise in dependence upon a pleasant thought or mental image, for such mental features have become subdued. Rather, it appears to be an innate quality of the mind when settled in its natural state, beyond the disturbing influences of conscious and unconscious mental activity.

"A person who has achieved this state of attentional balance can remain effortlessly in it for at least four hours, with physical senses fully withdrawn and mental awareness highly stable and alert. The quality of luminosity is not any kind of interior light similar to what we see with the eyes. Rather, it is an intense vigilance that has the capacity to illuminate, or make consciously manifest, anything that may arise within the space of the mind."

I'm just got curious. Are you familiar with Wallace's "substrate consciousness"? Where does it fit in your system? Based on the above description, is the experience of substrate consciousness akin to stream entry. Is it prior, or post-stream entry? How would you describe "substrate consciousness" in your lingo?

I'm also interested to know if you've worked with B Alan Wallace in the integration of neuroscience and Buddhism.

That's all. Thanks again for your time. I consider you and B. Alan Wallace as two of my kick ass dharma teachers

Take care and godspeed,

~Rommel

Dear Rommel,

Yes, I am familiar with the notion of substrate consciousness as Alan describes it. It is just another take on what I call complete experience. All of the Five Ways are designed to point a person in that direction. Complete experience comes about when consciousness is so engaged in the activity of experiencing that there is no time to fixate that activity into a thing. So there is no time to fixate any thought into a thing, so even if you are thinking, it's not a concept, but you are very very conscious. Super-conscious in fact, hence "luminosity," and although experience has become an empty wave which is neither pleasant nor unpleasant, whatever is left of the human within one responds to that with great joy, hence bliss.

Within the Five Ways system, the expansion-contraction version of focus on flow, and the do nothing version of focus on rest, are particularly designed to point people to the aspect of enlightenment that Alan is describing.

One of the reasons that teachers don't like to talk about enlightenment, is that it has so many aspects; there are so many ways of looking at it. So when someone like yourself, who is fairly early on in their practice, reads what different teachers have to say, it is very confusing and conducive to comparison-mind. You hear so many descriptions and you want to make sure that you are on the path to the deepest or best state. It makes it look like there is a lot more to it than there really is. So I wouldn't waste too much time comparing maps and descriptions. Instead, spend a lot of time with your own practice.

By and large, people who have had enlightenment and teach enlightenment are more or less equally incompetent. That includes me, Alan, and all the guys you are so interested in. Hopefully you will live long enough to see the next REAL innovation in this field.

All the best,
Shinzen

Shinzen once said that, “When the teacher is ready, the students appear.” I guess Shinzen is ready for me. For those who are wondering why I picked Shinzen as my main dharma teacher, here’s a welcoming video wherein he summarized the reasons.

Another reason is that I like his geeky approach to the dharma and his unique interactive meditation style. But most importantly, he’s a no non-sense teacher who’s not afraid to talk about enlightenment and his first-hand experience as a “liberated” person (Shinzen never calls himself liberated or enlightened, but I believe him to be, otherwise I won’t pick him as a dharma teacher. but that’s just me.).

Finally, on top of it all, his humility and honesty is disarming and he laughs like a geeky kid.

Most you of who are following this blog, my (hyper)stream, and tweets are probably sick of me pimping out Shinzen. But what can I say? I find tremendous value in his teaching so I’m just paying it forward. I hope you find value in them as well. And if you do find value in them, please pay it forward. It’s good karma

May you be safe, be healthy, live with ease… and may Happiness be.

P.S. As of this writing more videos of Shinzen Young are being added to his YouTube channel (big thanks to HPK for recording and uploading these videos). There’s also another YouTube channel with Shinzen’s up-close interviews conducted by Stephanie Nash. Collectively, these videos contain all the up-to-date version of Shinzen’s teachings condensed from his four decades of experience. As an example, here’s the technical foundation of Shinzen’s contemporary reworking of the Buddha’s five aggregates – see The Human Sensory (TSSFIT) System.

I’m glad that Shinzen is doing this “brain dump” online so that many more people will benefit from his style of teaching (which in my opinion is the best that I’ve encountered out there). The best part is that, from what I know, whatever Shinzen talks about in those videos are the same things he teaches in his home-based retreats. This means that Shinzen is making his teachings available as “open source”. You don’t have to pay him anyting to get the gist of his teachings. You don’t have to buy any of his books (though I highly recommend The Science of Enlightenment). You don’t have to pay him squat to benefit from his teachings. You can basically just watch all the available videos and implement it in your daily practice. That’s essentially what I’ve done. I have never met Shinzen in person. I have never attended (yet) any of his residential retreats. Yet, I feel that he’s provided me with all the information I need through his free videos. If that is not Open Source Enlightenment, then I don’t know what Open Source Enlightenment is.

Thank you, Shinzen for your teaching, generosity, humility, and openness. May you live long and kick more ass.

However, I had some questions on how to continue with my meditation practice whenever I find myself lucid in my dream. After all, the purpose of my lucid dream practice is to extend my meditative awareness within the dream and flow from there. So I submitted a question to Shinzen so that he could shed some light on it.

Question: When doing the Five Ways in a lucid dream, should I label the experience Touch, Sight, Sound or Image/Talk ? (For those who are not familiar with Shinzen’s lingo [pdf], I’m asking Shinzen whether to note lucid dream sensory experiences as “objective” reality or “subjective” reality.) See Shinzen’s answer in this video.

Thanks to HPK and Shinzen for entertaining my questions. May happiness be.

(via Flickr ~ wignaz)

In my previous posts I transcribed tracks from Session 13 of The Science of Enlightenment. Session 13 is one of my favorite sessions in the series because it’s a good reminder for everyone who are consciously taking a spiritual path.

In this post I’ve transcribed the last three tracks in the session. This is the part where Shinzen Young described in detail three possible extreme reactions or attitudes of people in the Intermediate Realms of Power.

Before reading my transcription below, if you haven’t read my previous posts yet, I suggest that you read them first so you can appreciate this post from a bigger context. Here are the links to the previous tracks that I have transcribed.

The Science of Enlightenment: The Pathless Land

The Science of Enlightenment: Consciousness as a Three-Layered Cake

The following are last the three tracks on Session 13. I hope this helps you along your journey. May you be safe, be healthy, live with ease… and may Happiness be.

Session 13: Track 4 – Relating to Your Intermediate Realms

As I mentioned, in my book, the yardstick, the barometer of spiritual maturity lies in how one conceives of and relates to the phenomena of this Intermediate Realm. I can suggest to you that there are three extreme cases and an infinity of intermediate cases.

One extreme relationship to the phenomena of the Intermediate Realm is as follows. A person starts out on the surface like everyone, either because of a cultivated path, or simply spontaneously, or perhaps because of some condition like and illness or being expose to sleep deprivation or hot or cold or who knows what — drugs. For whatever reason a person turns 90 degrees from the surface and starts to go down a bit into the substance of consciousness. They go down a bit and they encounter some phenomenon that may be unusual. It may be strange, and they get frightened, and they say, “That is not for me. I don’t ever want to go back to that place.” So one extreme response or relationship to this intermediate realm is, you go down a little bit you freak out, you scramble back to the surface, and you stay on dry land, you stay on that surface for the rest of your life, and you do not go back there.

A second extreme relationship, once again for whatever reason, either through a cultivated path or some circumstance, or spontaneously due to random flow of probabilities, for whatever reason you have an experience when you go into the substance of consciousness below the surface. Start to move towards the source, something happens, and you like it. It’s interesting. It’s empowering. It’s enticing. You say, “This is for me. I want to learn about this.” You start to explore. But the way that you explore is not by going any deeper. You turn 90 degrees again and you begin to go out horizontally out into the phenomena of that realm. Now you start to go out and explore this rich, empowering, interesting world of special phenomena — kundalini energy, psychic powers. I think you can see that the range of phenomena that constitute that realm is pretty much the range of mainline New Age stuff. That’s the New Age material down there. There’s no end. Once you go out horizontally there’s no end to new stuff you can experience — more interesting stuff, more powerful stuff, weirder stuff. The problem is you think you’re making spiritual progress. You think you’re getting closer to the spiritual source. But in this extreme case you are not, and you don’t know it. And your followers don’t know it. Because the vocabulary that you use is almost indistinguishable from the vocabulary used by the people that are going the mainline plummeting straight down to the source without following any byways horizontally out. The vocabulary is almost indistinguishable. The concepts is almost indistinguishable. It’s all spiritually correct stuff. And this is one of the reasons why teachers are very useful, if not absolutely necessary. Only somebody that has traversed those realms can really distinguish whether you’re going on a horizontal path out into the powers or whether you’re following a direct line to the spiritual source.

Session 13: Track 5 – Problems with the Realms of Power

There are a number of problems with this whole New Age phenomenology. Of course New Age is just a late 20th century term for something that has been recognized and known for millennia. In the Buddhist terminology it is sometimes called the Realms of Power. The surface ordinary awareness is referred to in traditional Buddhism as the Nirmanakaya — which means kaya, the body of appearance. The phenomena in the intermediate realm are called the Sambhogakaya — which means the body of glory. And the Source is called the Dharmakaya — the body of the Absolute, or the supporter, dharma means that which supports. So they talk about the three kaya, or three bodies. Every buddha has three bodies — nirmanakaya, sambhogakaya, and dharmakaya — because every buddha, every fully enlightened man or woman, has experience in each of these three realms.

So here are the problems with the phenomena of the Realms of Power. The first and foremost is, because the realms of power are near the Source, if you get caught up in the appearances in the realms of power, you’re losing this wonderful opportunity to have a direct experience of the Source. You have to be able to see through those phenomena just like you have to be able to see through the phenomena of conventional reality. That’s the first problem. The second problem of course is, this whole aspect of turning 90 degrees again and going out into exploring these realms, because as I say without knowing it you could think that you are on a spiritual path and you could convince others that this is a spiritual path. When in fact it is literally parallel to the movement that people make on the surface of consciousness which is a movement of statis. When we move on the surface of consciousness we get statis. Basically the same trip that’s why this phenomena, this extreme case of going out horizontally is sometimes referred to as “spiritual materialism.”

The other problem is for every person that is interested in traversing the vertical path to the Source, there are a thousand people that are interested in the ego ornaments of the realms of power. So the ration is about a thousand to one in terms of where people’s money goes, where their time and energy goes, who they’re likely to follow on a spiritual path. The more you have a component of the powers, the more likely you are to attract a lot of people and to make money.

Another extreme, the third extreme, I’ve already obviously implied what it is: You go straight down. Whatever comes up you just view with mindfulness and equanimity. If nothing special happens, you pay attention to the ordinary. If something special happens and it’s frightening and painful, you view it with mindfulness and equanimity. If something special happens and it’s blissful and gives you special powers, you view it with mindfulness and equanimity. You make no distinctions. It’s a zero-tolerance policy. It also represents a certain extreme. In general, the Buddhist tradition would prefer that people follow that extreme. However, I should say that I have had teachers whose main interest was the special powers, BUT from a certain context.

I live with this teacher in Taiwan for almost a year, just he and I living together. He was a total Taoist Tantric Wizard. His entire interest was in the spirit realm and getting powers, BUT that interest had developed after his enlightenment. Why he had that interest was, within his culture and given his educational background, that was the best way he could help people — by curing their illnesses, by locating runaway children with psychic powers, by exorcising people that have been demonically possessed (which I saw him doing. very fascinating. Chinese possession phenomena, culturally quite different from Western possession phenomena). In any event, he cultivated all this stuff because that was part of his path of engagement to help other people. It wasn’t he was particularly interested for himself. He was liberated. He lived in the Source.

In the Buddhist tradition, if you’re interested in this stuff, it’s ok to put a lot of time and energy into it AFTER you have contacted the Source. Because after you have contacted the Source all of this phenomena take on such a different context. You realize where it really comes from. And until you have realized where it really comes from, there’s every probability that you’re going to develop problems in your relationship to these powers, which will then translate into problems in relationship with your fellow human beings.

We have three extremes:

You go down a little way, you encounter this stuff, you freak out, and you pop back up.

You go down a little way, you encounter this stuff, you get interested, and you go out into the world of exploration.

The third extreme: You go down and whatever you encounter you view it with mindfulness, equanimity, and a cognizance of its impermanence, and you just auger, auger, deeper, and deeper, and deeper, until you touch the Source. And you have direct experience of where both the surface and the intermediate zone come from.

Session 13: Track 6 – The Ascent of St. John of the Cross

Ascent of Mt. Carmel - English Translation of the Terms Used in St. John the Cross' Original Drawings

A good historical example of the third extreme, from the Western tradition, is St. John of the Cross. He was a great Christian mystic-poet. lived in the 16th century in Spain. He used the model of going up rather than going down but the idea is the same. He described the path to God as Subida Del Monte Carmelo (The Ascent of Mt. Carmel). He belonged to the Carmelite order of Christianity, which is one of the main meditating orders in the Roman Catholic tradition. He drew a picture (and we actually have the picture that he himself drew) of this Mt. Carmel — different stages that you go through as you’re ascending. And of course, the peak of Mt. Carmel is Dios, it’s God. Except he didn’t write Dios on the peak. Here’s what he wrote: At each stage of going up this mountain, he wrote Nada, Nada, Nada, Nada. And on the very top he wrote Y El Monte Nada. And at the peak also you’re going to experience Nada. Nothing, ok. But of course, the Nada of that peak is a very special nothing: the Zero of which you have heard me speak, many, many times. That’s the Nada that is Todo. And with this picture is a poem in Spanish. And I’m paraphrasing, I can’t remember either in Spanish or in English the exact thing that he said but it is something to the effect of: If you want to climb this mountain, you cannot let yourself be frightened by the beasts, neither can you stop to pick any flowers. It’s exactly the description of a really mature relationship to the intermediate realm — Not frightened by the beasts, but you’re not picking any flowers either.

(via Flickr ~ noblerobinette)

In my previous post I transcribed Session 13: Track 1 – The Pathless Land of The Science of Enlightenment series. In that talk Shinzen Young uses a metaphor of a “three-layered cake” to describe the journey from the surface of consciousness to the Source of consciousness. In this post I’ve transcribed the next two tracks so that readers would have more context of what Shinzen is talking about, and have more understanding of the usefulness of the three-layered cake metaphor.

Personally, I find that metaphor very useful as a conceptual model for my own practice. In this session Shinzen treated paranormal phenomena as if they were real, but without elevating them — a true sign of a matured teacher. Shinzen’s articulate description of the Intermediate Realms is an important reminder to everyone who are on a spiritual path.

I hope you find this teaching useful as you tread along the pathless land…

Session 13: Track 2 – Three Layers of Consciousness

Basically I like to think of three layers, although of course there are many subdivisions. The first layer is none other than surface consciousness — ordinary waking, consensual reality. The second layer is rather thick. It corresponds to what in the West is called, the subconscious and the unconscious. And then the third layer is not really a layer, but that’s where the metaphor gets a little misleading. But we could, for simplicity’s sake, think of it at least initially as a layer.

The third layer is, of course, the core of consciousness, the Source of consciousness. If you want to call that God, you can call that God. If you want to call that the Nature of Nature, you can call it the Nature of Nature. If you want to call it Brahma, which is the Sanskrit word for God, or if you want to call it the Tao, or if you want to call it the True Self, or the No Self — any of these words are completely legitimate.

The words don’t matter. The important thing, of course, is to have direct contact with it — direct contact as opposed to indirect contact. Nothing wrong with indirect contact, but it really doesn’t bring the satisfaction that direct contact brings. Indirect contact is when we think about our spiritual Source — we believe in it, we have certain ideas about it. Indirect contact is when we feel at an emotional level our spiritual Source — we have a sense of the numinous, we have a sense of piety, of Grace. That’s believing, feeling, it’s all great. But that’s indirect contact. If we want to have direct contact it means we have to go there. Where the confusion lies, in many cases, is with the experiences that a person has in the Intermediate Realms of consciousness — between the surface and the Source.

In those intermediate realms of consciousness one may experience various unusual phenomena. When we look at how these unconscious and subconscious has been dealt with in the West, it’s very revealing. If you look at the early history of analysis, psychoanalysis, psychotherapy, you have, on one hand, Freud who spoke about the unconscious as this dark cellar, wherein all of these ghosts and demons and cobwebs and snakes and centipedes are hiding — the repressed poison and pain of our life, this pool of poison and pain of unresolved past experiences and conflicts. There is a certain truth to this. The basic impurities — the cravings, the aversions, etc. — are sort of stored down there. And in fact, it is the existence of those impurities that forms the impeding material that prevents surface ordinary awareness from constantly touching the Source of consciousness. And so from that perspective, the path is not really a journey, but rather it is a cleaning out of that intervening material, so that the surface and the Source fall together. When we shine the lights of mindfulness, and when we pour the water of equanimity into any experience that brightness and softening agents seep down into those areas where the blockages are and things get clarified and dissolved. And so the surface gets closer and closer to the Source. It drops one quantum shelf after another, until finally there’s a touching, and that’s your initial moment of enlightenment. And from that time on, in ordinary life, one is always aware that ordinary experience is in contact with the spiritual Source of all things.

Another view of the unconscious though, would be exemplified by Carl Jung. For Jung the unconscious was the world of the archetypes — the world of the spirits, the world wherein angels and dead ancestors, entities, and spirit beings actually exist, for real. And it’s quite true. Some people when they make this journey from surface to Source encounter extraordinary experiences in that intermediate realm. Not only might they encounter spirit beings and entities, but they might have other kinds of unusual experiences such as the impression that they have psychic powers. Whether these powers exist in actuality or not, I don’t begin to comment. But one can certainly get a very strong impression that they exist. One may have experiences of seeming to leave the body — a literally floating out of the body and looking down and floating down the street and seeing what you’re neighbor is doing. One may have experiences not only of encountering entities but of having these entities sort of channel through one. One may seem to have the ability to heal, or to influence people, or to even know what people are thinking. One may seem to have the ability to know what’s about to happen. Do we really have these abilities? Can we really do these things in the objective world? To tell you the truth, I don’t know. But the impression can be extremely vivid and strong, and therefore it is significant. It is significant.

It is of the utmost importance to realize that by no means does everyone encounter such unusual experiences or special powers when they traverse that intermediate realm. Also, it is to realize that by no means does everyone encounter directly the monsters of their impurities when they traverse that realm. Some people traverse the whole intermediate realm from surface to Source and are never aware of anything other than very ordinary banal experiences like the touch of their clothes, or aches and pains in their body, or the feeling of the breath. That’s all that ever happens to them, and yet they’re able to go to the Source.

Basically, some people have very ordinary experiences for the whole path. Some people get weird and uncomfortable — events in the mind, body, and even visionary hallucinatory material. Some people get interesting, unusual, entertaining, empowering experiences. Sometimes you can have a mixture of both — unusually hellish and unusually celestial experiences, both may be involved as you traverse this path. So there’s a lot of possibilities. Different people have very different experiences in the intermediate realm.

Session 13: Track 3 – The Creative Nature of Impermanence

However, how one relates to these experiences is of the utmost importance, whatever the experience may be in terms of what we might call, “spiritual maturity.” And in fact, the gold standard, the litmus test for spiritual maturity, in my book, is related to how a person conceives of the events in that intermediate realm. The spiritually mature person treats all events in that intermediate realm exactly the same. They greet them with mindfulness and equanimity. The spiritually immature person develops cravings and aversions with respect to the phenomena of the intermediate realm. They have fears of certain unusual experiences, desire for other certain unusual experiences. They have fear they won’t have any unusual experience. One way or another there’s all sorts of preferences, cravings, and aversions that can develop with respect to possible phenomena in the intermediate realm. As I say, the mark of maturity is how the person conceives of that intermediate realm.

There’s a famous Zen story about a monk who is meditating and started to get real successful at his meditation so that he could actually sit for hour after hour and, in fact, day after day without even having to move. He got so deep in meditation that even the gods started to admire him. Now, of course, in that part of the world what they call the “gods” we might say corresponds in the West to like angels and saints and that kind of thing. After a little while these angels and saints would show up every day and shower flowers on his head and give him offerings and things like that. And this went on for several days, and then finally he just grabbed his stick and he whacked them all and he said, “Get out of here! I’m tired of you guys!” That’s one response, okay. What did that mean, whacking them and saying “get out of here”? And is in fact, that’s the whole answer to this issue of these phenomena. Well, I would suggest to you that’s part of the answer, but that might not be the whole answer.

In my own experience, after I’d been meditating for about five or six years, I started to have visionary material, very intensely. One of the interesting things about visionary material is that once it gets going it’s not necessarily limited to when you’re sitting in formal practice. That’s something that people that go through this phenomenon discover to their chagrin. Once it gets going it’s there all your waking hours often. So that means when you’re just walking around or whatever you’re seeing stuff all day. And in my case it was mostly, but not exclusively, giant insects. And they were very realistic. It’s not like seeing a static image. It moves with all of the motion of a living being. The perfect arthropod articulatory motion that you would find in an actual creature. These things, they move and they were extremely vivid. We say visionary material but I should say you can touch and hear and smell it too. That’s what I meant when I said that it’s extremely realistic, whatever its ultimate ontological status may be. In any event, that went on for a good year. And I was in school, I was in graduate school and I walk to school and there’d be giant grasshoppers greeting me along the path and all sorts of stuff, and I still function quite well. There’s no problem. It wasn’t like being schizophrenic or anything like that. It was just a phenomenon of that intermediate realm. It means that I had dropped into that realm and some material was coming up.

Well, what did I do? Nothing special. I just treated it like any other phenomenon. It’s visionary material, so you’d meditate on it the same way you’d meditate on the visual field. Like if the grasshopper is in front of you, as your awareness go to the upper right, to the lower left, how your visual awareness floats over the surface of the thing, and you try to look through it, not at it. So you have a certain equanimity, not to be either curious or frightened. The interesting thing is that the more mindfulness, equanimity, and cognizance of impermanence that you have relative to this kind of material, the more realistic it becomes. Not the less realistic. Until when you are able to experience these phenomena with complete equanimity and unbroken awareness, at which point paradoxically they become absolutely tangible. They become like the ordinary world. They become that vivid. At that time you might think that that’s very disconcerting, but actually it’s not disconcerting at all. Because you remember how I described the flow of impermanence.

Well, we’ve only described a few aspects of impermanence. One aspect of impermanence that I have not yet talked about is, the impermanence is not just a characteristic of consciousness. Impermanence is also the very creative flow of nature that forms and ferments phenomena into existence, moment by moment. The more mindfulness and equanimity I had with this visionary material, the more I was able to literally see how the flow of impermanence was molding that material. So at the point when I completely surrendered and allowed the flow of impermanence to expand and contract and vibrate, it was at that point that created these visions the same way it creates ordinary reality. That’s why the visions become so realistic. But you don’t freak out. In fact, quite the opposite. You have a deep insight by having seen how impermanence creates something that is obviously a hallucination. You now have insight into how ordinary experience — the surface consensual reality — comes into existence. I should say that it’s not so much that the hallucinations become real but rather what you formally called real proves itself to have certain aspects of a hallucination. You get a real insight into the creative nature of consciousness.

If one greets the phenomena that come up in this intermediate realm with mindfulness and equanimity, because the intermediate realm phenomena are closer to the Source than consensual reality, one has a wonderful opportunity to get a deep insight into the creative process — how it is that mind creates. The reason that the Zen people talk about hitting the deities when they come is that they don’t want students to miss that opportunity. They don’t want students to get tripped out on the content of that intermediate realm, and therefore, miss their golden opportunity to get an insight into the nature of consciousness — the nature of Nature. It’s a very empowering thing to have an entity come and shower you with flowers, but that is a trivial experience relative to the empowerment that you get when you understand how the Source creates all things — yourself, the flowers, the entity, the world.

The reason that in some traditions they call this intermediate realm Makyo, which means the realm of blockages, the realm of the devil actually. Ma means like the devil. The reason why such pejorative terminology is used is that it’s so easy to miss your golden opportunity. You could get so caught up in the wonder of the spirits, that you fail to realize how close those spirits are to the Great Spirit — the Source of all things. You have to look just beyond the spirits and you can see the Great Spirit. In other words, the third layer — the activity of the Source.

(UPDATE: For the concluding tracks, see The Science of Enlightenment: Intermediate Realms of Power.)

Early on I was confused by these two seemingly paradoxical approaches to enlightenment. But over the years I’ve grown comfortable to embrace the two contradictory views. In short, I’ve gotten used to the paradox. I no longer agonize over it. It’s still a paradox to me. But I prefer to view it as enlightenment by serendipity.

So whenever I say that the ultimate “goal” of my Open Practice is enlightenment, I’m very well aware of the contradictory nature of that statement. I’m aware that it’s an illusion. I’m aware that I’m setting up myself for failure. I’m aware that I’m treading on the pathless land.

Nevertheless, I carry on, keeping in mind the core lessons I’ve learned from The Science of Enlightenment. Allow me to share some of these lessons…

In Session 13 of The Science of Enlightenment series (one of my favorites in the series), Shinzen Young started out with a track entitled, The Pathless Land. In this talk, Shinzen has captured in exquisite detail my view on enlightenment.  I’ve transcribed the talk so I can share this to all readers and to encourage people to listen to the entire series. I can’t recommend it highly enough. I’ll be transcribing more of my favorite tracks in future posts. In the meantime, here’s a sample of how eloquent Shinzen is when describing the “path” to enlightenment. 

Session 13: Track 1 – The Pathless Land

One metaphor for spirituality is that it’s a kind of path. The particular benchmarks on that path and how one describes the starting point and the ending point of that path, and the kind of vehicles that one uses — the actual techniques and approaches that carry you down that path — may differ. And in fact, the description of the path itself may differ. Often people don’t realize that two seemingly different descriptions of the path are actually referring to the same thing. Of course there’s some troubles, some problems associated with considering spirituality as a path. It leads to some misconceptions and some pitfalls.

If we describe spirituality as a path then it immediately sets up all sorts of expectations, all sorts of cravings, all sorts of aversions — “I wanna be there”; “I’m not there” — all sorts of ignorance because the goal of the path of course is to understand where you have been all the time. In a sense when you come to the goal of the path you only realize where you’ve always been. So the length of the path that you have traversed is actually, in a sense, zero. If you start thinking about a path it creates enlightenment as an object out there and in the future, which of course is the essence of illusion itself. You’re damn if you do, and you’re damn if you don’t.

If you fail to describe this spirituality as a path people don’t have a motivation, they don’t have a direction, they’re not sensitive to the benchmarks and the signs, they don’t recognize them, they don’t know what turns to make, etc.

To teach is to inevitably mislead people, to a certain degree. Any kind of teaching, as soon as you opened your mouth, you have misled people. On the other hand, to fail to teach is to mislead people even worse.

Let’s talk about aspects of this path, understanding that to speak of it as a path has dangers and is misleading. And yet on the other hand, to speak of it as a path may be of some use.

One possible model for the path to enlightenment is to look upon it as a journey from the surface of consciousness to the Source of consciousness. A lot of times people think of spirituality sort of as turning a 180 degrees away from the world. We turn away from the world and we turn towards God. And it’s a 180-degree turn going in exactly the opposite direction. But the way that I’d like to look upon spirituality is it’s not a turning of a 180 degrees, it’s a 90-degree turn. If we consider consciousness in some way as a layered cake, which I think has some validity as a model — the Earth exist in strata; there’s the surface of the earth and then underneath that are older rocks and underneath that are older rocks and the whole structure changes as we go through successive layers. In the same way we can look upon consciousness as having different layers to it.

Our usual ordinary day to day experiences — the world in which we have to sort of take care of business; subject and object are separate; we’re inside time and space; we have only the ordinary human type experiences that constitute what we might call consensual reality. And so our day to day life can be looked upon as sort of moving over the surface of consciousness — the different kinds of experiences we have in daily life: ordinary reality.

When we start to meditate we turn 90 degrees. Instead of moving just along the surface of consciousness we start to move down into consciousness. Actually, passing through successive layers in its structure. So we’re moving into the mind, into consciousness. By consciousness I mean, of course, just the six senses. Hearing, seeing, smelling, tasting, the feeling body, and the thinking mind are the six doors of consciousness. And collectively, taken together, we can use the word consciousness to describe the collective of these six senses. We’re starting to go into consciousness rather than moving on the surface of consciousness. It’s a kind of journey from the surface of consciousness to the Source of consciousness. In doing so, we pass through successive strata or layers of consciousness, encounter different kinds of phenomena.

(UPDATE: For the continuation, see The Science of Enlightenment: Consciousness as a Three-Layered Cake.)