A crisis of perception

Dr Deepak Chopra explains how the environmental crisis directly challenges the way humanity perceives reality. Science has spent hundreds of years making distinctions that don’t really exist. As a result, we think of ourselves as separate from the environment. The reality, he explains, is that we humans are an integral part of the environment – and that the environment is part of us.

Watch the short video

Not making chutney

George G Clark, 30 September 2009

This morning there are no urgent calls on my time so I am free to do whatever 'I' want. But this can be viewed as problematic as there is presently a lack of clarity about who 'I' am let alone what 'I' want. The following thought train was set in motion by the quote at the bottom of the page.

Words and concepts are not subtle enough to capture the constant flow of nuances that are thought and felt; but, at the moment, the territory to be mapped links to 'world weary', 'burn out', 'depression' and 'low self esteem'[1]. Google and Wikipedia offer a broad range of wordy, conceptual unpackings that have their uses: but these lead to 'knowing about' rather than to 'first hand knowing' - to intellectuality rather than to intuition - to head stuff rather than to heart stuff.

The goal of first hand knowing is intuitive and subjective in-sight rather than what might be called objective, intellectual out-sight. Most of us are familiar with the intellectual out-sights that populate upfront consciousness and, at a push, we can 'explain' them in some quasi-reasonable manner. So how might we 'explain' intuitive insight? Is it possible to develop an objective, intellectual outsight regarding subjective, intuitive insight?

Yes. And there is no need to invoke mumbo jumbo or magic. The unconscious has its causes and conditions rooted in nature, nurture and chance. And there is constant flux. And there is some room for manoeuvre. By using the heart/mind (conscious and unconscious) this way rather than that your mental state will move in this direction rather than that.

The task is to move to non-egoic mental states that are beyond space and time. This will allow (a) moving beyond the suffering that links to egoic concerns that are rooted in the past and future, and thus (b) first hand knowing of the peace that passes all understanding.

Intuitive in-sight emerges from the practice of stillness such that there is intimate awareness of what the heart/mind gets up to. There is then (a) a letting go of the illusion of individuality and permanence and (b) a manifestation of the ever-present real reality of interconnected Oneness.

The issue has been alive for a long time:

What Really Matters The Buddha refused to deal with those things that don't lead to the extinction of dukkha (suffering). He didn't discuss them. Take the question of whether or not there is rebirth after death. What is reborn? How is it reborn? What is its "karmic inheritance"? These questions don't aim at the extinction of dukkha. That being so, they are not the Buddha's teaching nor are they connected with it. They don't lie within the range of Buddhism. Also, the one who asks about such matters has no choice but to believe indiscriminately any answer that's given, because the one who answers won't be able to produce any proofs and will just be speaking according to his own memory and feeling. The listener can't see for himself and consequently must blindly believe the other's words. Little by little the subject strays from dharma until it becomes something else altogether, unconnected with the extinction of dukkha. - Buddhadasa Bhikkhu[2] from "A Single Handful[3]," Tricycle Winter 1996

 

SO - I use my free time being objectively intellectual about subjective intuition. There is the option of making chutney!

---

[1] A neurotic nihilist living in an existential vacuum!

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhadasa

[3] http://www.tricycle.com/30september2009

Money-rich, time-poor

George G Clark, 25 September 2009

There has been much in the news about big time bankers with their bounteous bonuses. Many are said to be 'money-rich but time-poor'. The phrase suggests a thought provoking set of four categories related to the work-life balance. Some initial, gut-reaction thoughts are listed below:

Money-rich, time-poor - Workaholic control freak bosses and factory line workers who are dedicated to work to support their doing and having: they are wage slaves operating in institutionalised hierarchies.

"The devil finds work for idle hands to do."

Money-poor, time-rich - Lazy, work-shy hippies and artists and craftsmen who appreciate leisure and just being: they are usually autonomous, self-employed and a bit anarchic. This group also includes the underemployed and the unemployed.

"All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy."

Money-rich, time rich - Those with inherited wealth and those in well funded retirement. Also those who win the lottery and give up their jobs.

The idle rich.

Money-poor, time-poor - Those in cheap-labour sweatshops.

The working poor.

Some related articles on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_ethic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workaholic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_aversion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work-life_balance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money-rich,_time-poor

let-slip-from-mind

let slip from mind

George G Clark, 14 September 2009

If there is a real ten-ton truck careering down the hill then step out of its way. If you are imagining a ten-ton truck careering down the hill then you can safely ignore it and let it slip from mind.

To change the metaphor, think of a flight simulator and a real plane. The real plane has to be carefully returned to earth before you can safely switch it off: but you can switch off the simulator at any time and walk away - you can let it slip from mind.

So - there are real ten-ton trucks; but less than we commonly suppose! Most often we have the option to withdraw attention from the imagined past and future and to be at peace in the reality of the present moment.  So why do we routinely ignore the option?

Is it because between birth and death we are (a) obliged to meet our essential basic needs and (b) urged to indulge in many extra fads and fashions? To most of us the extremes are undesirable ie joyless, ascetic renunciation at one end, and rampant, frivolous consumerism at the other. So how do we decide where to strike the balance?

It has a lot to do with social programming - but this is not carved in stone! It is an ongoing process that drives and is driven by internal and external forces. And there is some freedom to thoughtfully choose this rather than that.

So do you feel called to let slip from mind the imaginary ten-ton trucks that appear in your fad and fashion simulator? What matters in your life - to what should you give mind space - what is really real?

We don't have to let go, we simply have to not hold on.
Joseph Goldstein

entrepreneurs rejuvenate the human condition?

George G Clark, 11 September 2009

A BBC video clip[1] suggests that the further development of the planet might be driven in part by fire in the bellies of young entrepreneurs[2]. These are the shakers and movers with the get up and go that is needed to promote change for the better. But there is always the danger that there will not be enough of them and that many will burn out. So - what sparks the fires, what fuels them, and how brightly should they burn?

The simple answer is that there is no simple answer! Entrepreneurial priorities vary with context and that is constantly changing. And appreciation of context depends on the breadth and depth of the appreciator's point of view. Gloriously expansive viewpoints now exist[3] - they range from quantum to cosmic levels and attempt to deal in an integrated way with issues in themes such as the social, technological, environmental, economic, political, legal and spiritual[4].

From my own point of view the raging fire in the belly that drove my early multi-tasking as a social entrepreneur[5] is now a mild, mature glow in the unconscious. I prefer doing only one thing at a time - and with regular intervals for time out. Should this be viewed as (a) pathological and regressive or (b) a natural evolution towards a long-established pattern of social and spiritual entrepreneurship that embraces the transpersonal and the transcendent?[6] What place therefore for older heads in the grander scheme of things? In rejuvenating the economy and the human condition what might be the optimal mix for youthful, raging fires as against mature, relaxed glows?

A social entrepreneur is someone who recognizes a social problem and uses entrepreneurial principles to organize, create, and manage a venture to make social change[7].

A spiritual entrepreneur is someone who recognises and seeks to address a spiritual challenge (personal or cultural): they use entrepreneurial principles to mobilise growth in the breadth and depth of spiritual knowledge, speech and action that increases happiness, peace, and compassionate justice.

---

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8249760.stm

[2] the video relates to business entrepreneurs, but there are social and spiritual variations on the theme

[3] see for example the works of Fritjof Capra and of Ken Wilber

[4] STEEPLeS

[5] the youthful urge was to discover better ways to be human

[6] most cultural traditions recognise stages on the path from cradle to grave

[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_entrepreneur

Target Essay: Robert A.F. Thurman Professor of Buddhism, Columbia University

heart/mind horticulturists

George G Clark, 04 September 2009

Some people are more concerned than others about the inner workings of their hearts and minds. The concern can take many forms: we can think of heart/mind horticulturists, farmers, engineers, doctors and even policemen. Note that the images transform radically when concern shifts from one's own heart/mind to those of other people.

It is useful to split heart/mind concerns into secular and sacred varieties. There are overlaps between them (notably transpersonal psychology) but they help to map the territory.

On the secular side are the so-called neutral observers. These include psychiatrists, psychotherapists and psychologists, the less formal counselors, and the informal, everyday, wise friends. Here the main concern is with having a 'normal' and 'well adjusted' heart/mind such that you do not rock too many boats and thus disturb the status quo. Being normal is thought to be good for you personally and for society at large; it involves having a secure sense of self.

On the sacred side there are two main branches, the religious and the spiritual. The religious branch is often ritualised and bureaucratised and closely linked to the secular concept of being a normal and good citizen who knows their place and who is willing to stay in it. The spiritual branch, by way of contrast, embraces the abnormal and transcendent.

The spiritual branch is radical in pointing to uncommon sense and to counterintuitive appreciations of the heart/mind. Being radical in this way involves mind training through discipline and meditation. In its extreme form it might involve enclosure in a monastic setting or seclusion in ascetic retreat; in its everyday form it might involve belonging to a community of like-minded souls. Being abnormal in this way is thought to be excellent for you personally and for society at large. It involves cultivating stillness such that the chatterbox mind is calmed and clarity and peace of heart/mind results. It involves seeing through the illusion of an individuated and abiding 'self'.

The sacred and secular varieties of concern might thus be seen as irreconcilable. But there are common features. Both are based on the idea that 'reality' is not what it seems. An individual's reality is heart/mind-made and is due to a unique set of causes and conditions that come in part from nature and in part from nurture. By paying attention to what goes on in your heart/mind it becomes possible to transform reality as you know it. It is never too late to change your mind!

But, as we noted above, some people are more concerned than others about the inner workings of their hearts and minds. What chance (a) that the key global opinion leaders and decision makers are among the concerned, (b) that they might change their view of reality, and thus (c) that we move towards a more socially just, peaceful and environmentally sustainable future? In short, what chance of heart/mind horticulturists having the upper hand?

"Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed."
From the preamble of UNESCO's Constitution

 

 

dumbstruck dharma dabbling dilettante

George G Clark, 31 August 2009

Passing thought - dharma teachers, at least some of the time, will be playing a role rather than being totally genuine. Does this matter?

I extrapolate from my own experience of snapping into being Mr Clark the Science Teacher when stepping into school after a long summer holiday. After many years playing the part it came easily - but I knew it was not the real me. My self-image was as an aspiring, spiritual seeker rather than as an established, reductionist  brainwasher.

But there are many tales[1] of dharma teachers finding enlightenment and then losing it again. It would appear that there are no existential safe havens - other perhaps than those that embrace change and impermanence. But the embracing has to be heartfelt. Intellectual understanding is not enough.

I have 'known' for many years that the only constant thing is change and the only certainty is doubt but this did not prevent me seeking a solid viewpoint and worldview. As a spiritual seeker I was a dabbling dilettante.

It is thus perhaps worth noting that I have recently become acutely aware of the parallels between scientific and spiritual ways of knowing. Especially about particular flowers in the garden. Botanically I note their sepals, petals and reproductive bits and I appreciate how these ensure the pollination that is but one stage in a vast life cycle. But, beyond the botany, I am also dumbstruck by the notion that each species is a vibrant example of the life force converting air, sunshine and dung into impossibly lush vegetation, stunning floral displays, and emanating oxygen as a by product! It is awe-full and wonder-full.

So the dabbling dilettante is dumbstruck and begins to get real through appreciating that 'the reality that can be described is not the real reality'. There is a new humility and a sometimes heartfelt appreciation that knowledge (science) is about 'the best working hypothesis in the light of evidence presently available' ie it is not about a 'truth' that is out there.

The humility links to being dumbstruck. 'Those who know do not speak'. All the mystic traditions agree that reality is un-speakable but yet that it is 'knowable' by those minds that are suitably in tune. And this un-speakable knowing is beyond the grasp of linear language: it is all pervading and numinous; it is rooted in the Oneness. Words cannot do it justice.

So how might we do it justice? 'Be still and know.' Withdraw the tentacles that flail in second hand time. The chatterbox mind stirs up the mental mud - be still and let it settle.

For details on how, consult a dharma teacher. Even when flawed they can still offer assistance to spiritual seekers who would be more than dumbstruck dharma dabbling dilettantes!

"Times of great wisdom, deep compassion, and a real knowing of freedom alternate with periods of fear, confusion, neurosis and struggle. Most teachers will readily admit this truth." (Jack Kornfield (2000))

 

---

[1] see Jack Kornfield (2000) "After the Ecstasy the Laundry"; isbn 0712606580

Meditation/Psychology - Jack Kornfield

Meditation/Psychology - Jack Kornfield: "Even the Best Meditators Have Old Wounds to Heal"

right speech

Right Speech - Samma Vacca
by Bhikkhu Bodhi
http://www.audiodharma.org/documents/paramis/RightSpeech.html

 

The Buddha divides right speech into four components: abstaining from false speech, abstaining from slanderous speech, abstaining from harsh speech, and abstaining from idle chatter.

 
Because the effects of speech are not as immediately evident as those of bodily action, its importance and potential is easily overlooked. But a little reflection will show that speech and its offshoot, the written word, can have enormous consequences for good or for harm.

 
In fact, whereas for beings such as animals who live at the preverbal level physical action is of dominant concern, for humans immersed in verbal communication speech gains the ascendancy. Speech can break lives, create enemies, and start wars, or it can give wisdom, heal divisions, and create peace. This has always been so, yet in the modern age the positive and negative potentials of speech have been vastly multiplied by the tremendous increase in the means, speed, and range of communications.

 
The capacity for verbal expression, oral and written, has often been regarded as the distinguishing mark of the human species. From this we can appreciate the need to make this capacity the means to human excellence rather than, as too often has been the case, the sign of human degradation.