Home (theory of the ego death and rebirth experience)
Entheogen-Diminishing Attitudes: Buddhism
Contents
Is magazine Buddhism less
satisfying than it should be?
Badiner: "Zig Zag Zen:
Buddhism and Psychedelics" (2002)
Zen is a failure, entheogens aren't
Goal of Buddhism, beyond basic ego
transcendence?
Does Buddhism and meditation
deliver its claimed results?
Against pop paradigm of spiritual
enlightenment
In what ways can entheogens and
enlightenment improve the world?
Is
magazine Buddhism less satisfying and satisfactory than it should be?
Ken Wilber
says some 90% of popular spirituality is merely sideways-translative, a kind of
limiting holding pattern, rather than vertically transformative. This would have to include most Buddhism as
it is reflected in the Buddhist meditation magazines that are evidently popular
on the newsstand shelves.
What would
Wilber commend and criticize in Buddhism as it is portrayed in these magazines?
What
possible benefits are there in critiquing magazine Buddhism?
How does
the diminishment and disparagement of entheogens in magazine Buddhism reflect
the limitations of such Buddhism?
Is this
kind of Buddhism a degraded form of the best and most true type of
Buddhism? Is that too negative a way of
putting it? Perhaps it is great but not
entirely complete -- or perhaps it is fake, ersatz, bunk, and not really
fulfilling, per Wilber's Atman project.
Is
magazine Buddhism as fulfilling as Buddhism ought to be and can be?
Has
Buddhism *ever* met or approached its true potential? I've always portrayed it as a complete failure in delivering its
promise of enlightenment. Today I'm
inclined to qualify that position: certainly it contains some components of
enlightenment.
How does
Buddhism as a system of enlightenment intertwined with life-improvement compare
with Christianity as a system of spiritual transformation intertwined with
life-improvement -- is this intertwining tighter in typical conceived Buddhism
than in typically conceived Christianity?
Christianity
has always been treated as life-improvement, conduct guidance, although it has
a large gap theologically between spiritual transformation and conduct of life:
the two are treated as more distinct compartments than in magazine
Buddhism. Does the strong distinction
between spiritual transformation and conduct of life in Christianity (or in
Christian theology and gnostic history, at least) make it easier to consider
spiritual transformation without complicating it with intertwined
conduct-of-life concerns?
Does
Buddhism inherently resist differentiating between the realm of mystic
experiencing/insight and the realm of conduct-of-life?
Why does
magazine Buddhism promote endless meditation and denigrate entheogens?
Does
magazine Buddhism promote a different view of the goal of religion or
meditation than it should?
Is
Buddhism that lacks intense religious altered-state experiencing legitimate --
fully or partially? Is the common
disparagement of intense religious altered-state experiencing illegitimate and
dishonest because such experiencing is the true source of insight that Buddhists
strive to apply to conduct-of-life?
Does the
typical quality and efficacy of meditation fall far short of that of entheogen
use, so that a grossly inferior and generally ineffective method is being
pawned off as the best method?
Does
magazine Buddhism prevent enlightenment more than it delivers the goods? If so, is this because of flawed methods, or
flawed goals?
Does the
focus on conduct-of-life restrict the spiritual enlightenment that Buddhists
strive to apply to conduct of life?
Has such
Buddhism been a success, or does it fail to reach its goals and stated
promises?
Zig Zag
Zen: Buddhism and Psychedelics
Allan
Hunt Badiner (Editor), Alex Grey (Editor), Stephen Batchelor, Huston Smith (Preface)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0811832864
March
2002
http://www.zigzagzen.com
- excerpts, info, links
http://www.csp.org/chrestomathy/a_title.html#z
-- look for Zig Zag Zen soon
http://www.henrymiller.org/Events/June.html
-- "June 8, 3PM - Zig Zag Zen -- Author Allan Hunt Badiner booksigning and
reading from the recently published book on Buddhism and Psychedelics. Buddhism
and psychedelic experimentation share a common concern: the liberation of the
mind. Zig Zag Zen launches the first serious inquiry into the moral, ethical
and transcendental considerations created by the intersection of the two. With
a foreword by Buddhist scholar Stephen Batchelor and a preface by historian
Huston Smith, along with numerous essays and interviews, it is a provocative
exploration of altered states of consciousness and the potential for
transformation. Accompanying each essay is a work of visionary art selected by
Alex Grey, such as a vividly graphic work by Robert Venosa. Packed with
enlightening entries and art, it offers eye-opening insights into alternate
methods of inner exploration. This will be an interesting afternoon."
Search Web
for zig zag zen:
http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22zig+zag+zen%22
_________________________________
As I
skimmed most excerpts, my eyes glazed over: "crap, crap, cliche, false
dichotomy, false dichotomy, crap"... but where it got my full attention
was exposing that Buddhism itself has entheogenic roots: *now* we're talking --
or in a position ready to *begin* talking and thinking and theorizing.
What must
be done is fully rediscover and recognize the entheogenic roots of Buddhism
(along with Greek myth, Christianity, Judaism, and all religion-myth), combine
this with detailed knowledge of ritual and doctrine and esotericism in the
various traditions, and forget all we think we know about these religions.
Existing
books are all more or less off the mark.
Even today's books about overlap of entheogens and myth don't really
have a firm grasp of how entheogenic myth works. It's not enough to show that religion is myth, or that myth is
entheogen allegory; what remains to be done to close the circle of
understanding is to *explain* the allegorical meaning of entheogen myth,
*including* an adequate treatment of entheogens, determinism, and self-control
cybernetics.
These
elements and understandings still need to be brought together much more clearly
than ever before. Books still waste too
much breath establishing that entheogens were present -- but we must forget the
skeptics and leap ahead into the new ancient paradigm.
We must
say:
o *Given* that all religion is myth,
o *Given* that all myth is entheogen allegory
o *Given* that Reason in the mythic state leads
to the theory of timeless block-universe determinism
o *Given* the various religious doctrines and
debates, with input from Philosophy and cognitive psychology
*then*
what does such entheogen allegory really mean?
Yes,
entheogen allegory has always been applied to the mundane realm, but what is
its native meaning in its home turf?
Live completely in the land of mythic-state cognition, also fully
informed by religious doctrines, history, philosophy, and world mthology, and
*then* ask the meaning of the myths -- you come up with a very different kind
of answer than the portrayal of religion and meaning than is put forth by
supposedly well-informed books like Zig Zag Zen or The World of Classical Myth,
or Doherty's Jesus Puzzle.
James
Arthur and Freke & Gandy are much closer to comprehending what high
religion is about, but the notions of the collapse of personal kingship in
terms of self-control cybernetics and altered-state experiencing still need
much closer inspection and sustained attempts to explain what is being
allegorized.
Zig Zag
Zen and conventional studies of Buddhism and Psychedelics are beginner books
that don't really scratch the surface of the high *meaning* of figures such as
a deity of compassion, time, cosmic order, or death. The scholars may lift up one correct topic into the light, and
then another topic in turn, and another, but it's still all epicyclic band-aids
on a bascially Bad Paradigm. We need a
new paradigm and even books like Zig Zag Zen are mere baby steps *toward* such
a truly new paradigm.
Such
mediocre treatments are like the "determinism" of Reformed theology:
o Despite all the veneer of talk of
determinism, Reformed theology is still essentially operating within the
paradigm of freewill moralism;
o Despite the talk of Jesus being about mythic
experiencing, such thinkers are clueless literalists (operating within the
Literalist paradigm) that miss the mythic meaning and allusion to the
particular phenomena of the intense mystic state;
o Despite allowing entheogens in Buddhism, the
"new" research really just puts forth the same old modernist clueless
exoteric Buddhism (operating within a conventional,
translative-not-transformative paradigm per Wilber), not enlightenment, not
recognition and comprehension of the particular insights and experiences the
mythic tall-tale allegories point to.
Authors
publish many new theories of epicycles, when a new paradigm of the cosmos is
what's really needed. So I can dub
these books that make progress toward my area as "epicycle books" --
here comes yet another theory of epicycles, here comes yet another book
explaining what Jesus really said and did.
This
supposedly new entheogen-permitting Buddhism is like starting with shallow New
Age Buddhism and then adding shallow New Age entheogens, all the while failing
to *understand* the allegory involved.
So easily, infinitely too easily, do such "new theorists"
carelessly assume and talk about the purported historical man, Mr. Buddha. It's like Campbell saying that myths are
just allegorical and the allegory portrays initiation into puberty.
It's like
the pre-Strauss "skeptics" saying that the Bible is not supernatural
reports, but just misinterpretations of natural phenomena so that Jesus
*appeared* to walk on water but was really walking on submerged rocks and the
apostles were just mistaken in the dark.
My deepest criticism is that such entheogenists and mythicists *don't
understand what allegory is really about*.
They don't understand allegory and how it alludes to the specific mystic
state experiences such as ego death.
Ruck &
Staples have read Freudian psychology, and pollute their generally insightful
psyche-oriented explanations of "what the myths mean" by misplaced
early 20th-century phallic theory.
These
studies are so right, in so many aspects, and yet so far from understanding
their subject matter. The puzzling
question I often face is, how can the scholars be so right, while yet being so
wrong -- sort of close, but sort of far from understanding. Even if a book does bring together myth,
religion, entheogens, determinism, and self as control agent, so much more is
required to pull a truly new (ancient) paradigm for understanding into place.
>http://www.csp.org/chrestomathy/a_title.html#z
-- look for Zig Zag Zen soon
Here it is
- substantial. Read this page if you
are interested in the relation of visionary plants and Buddhism or meditation.
http://www.csp.org/chrestomathy/zig_zag_zen.html
>Zig
Zag Zen: Buddhism and Psychedelics
>Allan
Hunt Badiner (Editor), Alex Grey (Editor), Stephen Batchelor, Huston
>Smith
(Preface)
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0811832864
>March
2002
>
>http://www.zigzagzen.com
- excerpts, info, links
>
>http://www.henrymiller.org/Events/June.html
-- "June 8, 3PM - Zig Zag Zen --
>Author
Allan Hunt Badiner booksigning and reading from the recently published
>book
on Buddhism and Psychedelics. ...
>
>Search
Web for zig zag zen:
>http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22zig+zag+zen%22
The
success of a domain must first of all be measured in terms of its value system
and its own set of goals. A distinction
must also be made between its potential achievements and actual achievements so
far, and obstacles to the domain must be considered as well.
Zen has
been a failure so far, because it has failed to attain its own goals and meet
its own values. Zen says we can attain
enlightenment and that enlightenment is unsurpassed in value. But Zen doesn't enlighten many people; it's
more frustrating than successful. Its
actual achievements at providing transcendent knowledge and enlightenment have
been miniscule, perhaps with an even lower success rate than Christian
mysticism.
It would
be misguided to assess Zen's success primarily or exclusively in terms of its
contributions to sustainability or increasing the world's carrying
capacity. Its potential achievements
are limited because (as Zen is ordinarily defined) it attempts to make do
without the benefit of intellectual model-building, and without the benefit of
entheogens. Its actual achievements
have been so small and rare as to only prove and demonstrate the inefficacy of
the overall approach altogether.
We have
proven that that approach it a failure on its own terms, by its own goals,
because it only achieves a success rate of one person out of many
thousands. Some Buddhists say that
there are only a few people at any point in time who have attained
enlightenment. Buddhism also proposes
that we are now in the darkest age, where enlightenment is nowhere to be found.
Thus on
its own terms, by its own measures, Zen can only be considered a failure, a
doomed approach that cannot attain its goals or fulfill its stated values. We do not measure Zen primarily in terms of
its ability to increase the carrying capacity of the planet, but on its ability
to provide the enlightenment which it claims to be able to deliver. Zen has not failed due to obstacles put in
its path, but due to its own innate limitations.
Entheogens
have been a tremendous, record-breaking success at their stated goals and
endorsed value-system. They are
extremely reliable. It is typical and
commonplace for entheogens to produce primary religious experience. They have a tremendous potential, and
insofar as they have been tried, have had tremendous achievements.
Entheogens
immediately present the timeless block-universe conception of determinism even
in an age overtaken completely by causal-chain determinism as the only known
alternative to metaphysical free will.
Entheogens led to ego death becoming familiar and popular in the 1960s
(Stephen Gaskin, Timothy Leary, Grateful Dead), and re-formed a modern-day
initiatory mystery-religion that proved flexible in style (Psychedelic Rock,
Acid Rock, Heavy Rock, Metal, Electronica), and led to what people thought was
impossible: a systematic rational explanation of the ego death and rebirth
experience.
Entheogens
were popular in the personal computer revolution and are a major factor in
computer science culture since the very beginning of the 1960s entheogen
movement. Entheogens accomplished all
this despite the heaviest taboos and attempts at suppression. Entheogens have been strongly praised by
many leading thinkers, artists, scientists, writers, and religionists and have
been credited with fundamental breakthroughs in various fields. Entheogens were immediately influential:
they were essential in the social consciousness revolution of the 1960s and are
often associated with awakening people to environmental consciousness.
By its own
goals and values, Zen is a dismal failure, and admits it although no obstacle
has blocked it.
By its own
goals and values, entheogens are a huge success, and the field claims much more
is possible if the suppression of them is lifted."
>In
Buddhism they called the preparatory ego death or Nirvana, what we translate as
"extinction." But then that in itself is not really the goal of
Buddhism, just a step
Who is to
say what "the goal of Buddhism" is?
Can they justify their definition of Buddhism's goal, and I mean justify
in an accountable, clear, comprehensible way that is meaningful in some common
way to practitioners in general? If all
they can say is "the real goal of Buddhism is lasting realization of
ineffable nothingness", I'd describe that goal statement as worthless for
real people in real life -- an essentially and practically irrelevant goal, a
goal that is really as minor and incidental as it is "ultimate".
It's a
mistake to define the goal of religion as something so vastly lofty and
unattainable that it wanders off into irrelevance. For all relevant purposes, the goal of religion -- the relevant
and attainable and meaningful goal -- is ego transcendence, which is easy to
gain through entheogenic loose cognition in conjunction with a clear,
systematic model of the transcendent mental worldmodel.
I include
in attainable "ego transcendence" the experience of white-light
perceptual feedback and the experience of cessation of experience. Beyond that definite, publically agreeable
achievement, and those easily reproducible experiences and insights, we enter
the realm of the doubtfully relevant, the realm of claims and assertions of the
few.
The first
and main order of business will always be the basic achievement of standard,
uncontroversial ego transcendence, which is well within the domain of shared
science and knowledge. Beyond that is
great wilderness and soft ground. The
glorification of hyperspeculative "ultimate" religion in fact causes
people to fail to attain the rudimentary enlightenment of simple, classic ego
transcendence.
For my
purposes, per the principle of axiom-selection that's based on *seek the
simplest explanation*, I deny the importance and relevance of religion beyond
the universally achievable basic transformation from an easily definable egoic
mental worldmodel to an easily definable transcendent mental worldmodel. This particular transformation is
profitable, standard, common, attainable, certain -- it merely needs to be
systematized.
In contrast,
Ken Wilber's impenetrable theory, characterization, or model of "ultimate
consciousness", I find to be useless, meaningless, speculative,
incomprehensible, debatable, soft, hearsay, and deservedly controversial. Buddha refused metaphysical speculation when
the patient was shot through with arrows -- in practice, in the real, shared
world of actual people, the basic problem of ego transcendence towers far above
the proposed further goals of religion.
Conventional
scientists won't have any problem evaluating, understanding, and accepting the
theory I put forward, with its characterization of the nature of transcendent
knowledge. The distinguishing features
of this model are the following axioms:
o Enlightenment is essentially rational and
easily explicable; rational insight works together with what's sensed in
altered state experiencing
o Entheogens rather than meditation is the
best model of mystic-state trigger;
o Religion in its best and truest aspect is
purely mythic metaphor for intense mystic experiencing;
o No-free-will/no-separate-self; timeless
frozen block-universe determinism with a single, atemporally preexisting
future.
I don't
claim that this *simple, rational* model of ego transcendence and transcendent
knowledge is all-encompassing or certain: I claim that this model is the most
basic, most sure, most common and practical model of transcendent knowledge
that any mystic explorer is bound to quickly come across and have to work
out. This model is certainly where the
vast bulk of the importance lies; this model -- not some further speculations
-- is the true and best essence of religion.
An
interesting comparison would be to align this model and the "vastly
abstruse ultimate" model against Newtonian spacetime theory, Einsteinian
spacetime theory, and perhaps quantum mechanics. In a way, I'd be glad to compare this model of transcendent
knowledge to Newton's spacetime theory, and disparage the "vastly abstruse
ultimate" model as being of little unimportance, merely a minor adjustment
of the main, Newtonian model.
Or, this
theory could be aligned with Einsteinian spacetime, comparing the "vastly
abstruse ultimate" model with the highly garbled and controversial and
shaky theories and interpretations of quantum mechanics. But I have mixed feelings about this way of
lining up the comparison, because what theory of religion would then be
"like" Newton's theory of spacetime?
Reformed theology and conventional Buddhist thought and practice?
I think of
this theory of transcendent knowledge as switching from near chaos
(unsystematic explanations) to sudden order, to the same degree that Newton was
the first major systematizer in the field of spacetime physics. I can only be satisfied with being compared to
Newton and Einstein munged together into one:
Pre-Newtonian
physics is like
Lack of
good systematic model of high religion
Newtonian/Einsteinian
spacetime model is like
Theory of
ego transcendence
Quantum
mechanics dubious interpretation is like
The
"vastly abstruse ultimate" model of goal of Buddhism
It is
reasonable to ask what more there is to do and explore in religion after
attaining the easy, full enlightenment that is delivered by the theory of ego
transcendence. There may be some things
beyond this Theory, but none will ever be as important, because this theory is
about the basic transformation. Wilber
speculates on some 12 transformations that happen during psychospiritual
development of the individual and the collective.
His model
isn't incorrect in content, but it is incorrect in *balance*; he makes it seem
as though each level of development involves an equally significant
transformation. In contrast, it's easy
to make a strong case that there is one transformation that is far more important
than all the rest: the switch from the egoic worldmodel to the transcendent
worldmodel.
Any
further transformation or religious experience or insight can only be a
fraction as earth-shattering and important.
The most important religious transformation by far is that from the
egoic to the transcendent worldmodel.
It is *this* transformation that is the main transformation represented
by all religious art and myth. The
other transformations are faint echoes and metaphors for this comparatively
all-important transformation.
Part of
the great importance of this particular psychospiritual transformation is its
widespread relevance, due to its ease: anyone with a reasonably developed
rational mind and the use of visionary plants can attain this
transformation. The majority of the
best religion is about *this* transformation, not some earlier or later, more
mundane or yet more profound transformation.
This sense
of proportion and balance is important.
This transformation is not one of many equals, and is not less important
than some yet higher transformation.
Any transformation beyond this basic one is comparatively incidental, of
much lesser import. I don't deny there
is insight and profundity beyond this model -- I deny that such a further
development is as important and significant for people in general.
Chasing
after such long-shots before we have even systematized this undergraduate level
of basic enlightenment actually gets things backwards and prevents attaining
basic enlightenment, and prevents any presumed further-advanced insight as
well. For the most part, the
proposition that there is further insight beyond basic ego transcendence tends
to complicate the pursuit of ego transcendence so as to prevent basic success.
From the
point of view of my goal and method, which is "choose the simplest system
and reject the more complicated alternatives", my model *formally* rejects
the idea of a highly significant enlightenment beyond basic ego transcendence,
just as this theory formally rejects ESP.
This theory's goal isn't absolute certainty; it aims to define a set of
postulates that is as simple as possible to explain the bulk of religious
experiencing and insight.
It's more
important to formulate a simple, closed model, than a perfect and tentative
open model. Newton's spacetime model
isn't perfect, but it is very usefully closed or bounded; same with Einstein's
with respect to the later, speculative and controversial quantum physics.
Even
within Einstein's spacetime physics, without venturing into quantum physics, he
defined two distinct systems: special relativity and general relativity -- this
suggests the great value of simplifying assumptions and first-order
approximations. According to my theory,
which is intended as an immensely useful and relevant first-order model, the
transformation from basic egoic to basic transcendent thinking towers above all
further insights and is the real essence of religion.
The goal
of this model is to present the most simple, the most basic, and the main
theory of religious experiencing and insight.
>The
goal [of Buddhism] is not Entheos either unless we stretch the meaning [of
Buddhism? of 'entheos'?]
What is
the goal of Buddhism, if not ego transcendence or Entheos (as intended above)?
>>
For another thing, who is to say that "lasting results" are what
really matters, and how should we define "results"?
>I
think that this question about results was defined in Buddhism in the general
way..."To remove suffering from all beings." That is the "results." The only direction to head towards that kind
of result, would be with ubiquitous enlightenment, allowing research and
experimentation and underlying that would need be social and legal acceptance.
It's
impossible to hold Buddhism responsible for delivering on its promise of
removing suffering from all beings. If
"removing suffering" is taken literally and extremely, Buddhism is an
utter, dismal, and total failure.
Assessing whether Buddhism delivers its claimed results then hinges on
the meaning of "removing suffering from all beings".
I should
study popular American Buddhism more to determine what result it promises, what
result people expect from it, and evaluate the degree to which such Buddhism
delivers on its promise. I look at the
magazine stand packed with Buddhism magazines and I just don't get it: what is
motivating all this interest?
Is
American Buddhism actually nothing but a backlash, a rebellious middle finger
of the Baby Boom generation to their parents' worldview, or is this kind of
Buddhism truly seen as offering some positive value in its own terms? Is American popular Buddhism really nothing
but anti-Christianity, an active refusal of Christianity, just a cultural
rebellion? Probably my books like
Cimono's Shopping for Faith contain the answer.
My own
religious interest arises from and developed from, in chronological order:
1. The
hope of attaining and formulating transcendent knowledge which would eliminate
my cognitive dissonance regarding self-control struggle -- this was the kind of
"suffering and hope" that motivated me from the start of
investigation (10/85) to the discovery of my core theory (1/88) and the year
beyond that.
Early in
my research, I read more Buddhist than Christian writings, and used the notion
of "suffering", though what I had in mind was cognitive dissonance
due to lack of control over one's thoughts and actions, hoping that such
control would end the dissonance.
Largely true -- but "suffering" is a label of debatable
usefulness and relevance.
2. Making
sense of intense mystic-state experiences which were originally motivated by
the hope of eliminating self-control dissonance, and then connecting this
understanding to Christianity, for several years with the distorted guiding
axiom that the historical Jesus expressed and understood the same principles of
transcendent knowledge.
3. Lately,
my motivation for studying religion has been the pleasure of intellectual
discovery, and the drive to closure in formulating a core theory of
transcendent knowledge and firmly connecting it to religion, to show that
religion is essentially a more or less distorted expression of transcendent
knowledge.
It's
existentially arbitrary what motivates the interest for involvement with any
subject. What do people hope to gain
from reading music or guitar magazines?
What do people hope to get from life?
Those questions are off-base.
Life is just life; music is just life -- it's something people do, not
really a matter of gaining or achieving something specific, but more of a
matter of existentially baseless values.
People
"do" popular American Buddhism because it is a framework, just as
other people "do" music as their framework, or "do"
technology as their framework that gives some shape to their lives. What is the "promised goal" of
this Buddhism? It's not so much a
promised goal, as a framework for living.
Considering that such Buddhism is valued as a framework of living, it
certainly *does* achieve its goal of being a framework for living.
However,
if people value American popular Buddhism because of its claim to be a system
that provides deep transformation, I, with Ken Wilber, would have to strongly
object and claim that Buddhism on those terms is a failure. This Buddhism succeeds at being a framework
of living, but it fails at being a system of deep transformation. This Buddhism in practice provides only a
holding pattern, a framework of sideways translation rather than vertical
transformation.
All
indications are that this Buddhism is nontransformative Buddhism. Popular American Buddhism is
nontransformative Buddhism, just as all low religion/psychology/philosophy is
essentially nontransformative. Although
ultimately, all values are existentially baseless and arbitrary, and I
emphatically do not put forth transcendent knowledge as a way of improving the
world, my value system can be detected.
Clearly I
treat the prohibition and diminishment of psychoactives as bad, and assert that
psychoactives combined with rationality are the best path to good, truth,
knowledge, enlightenment, or spiritual salvation. Ignorance is bad, knowledge is good. A coherent mental worldmodel is good. Knowing the truth about Jesus and Buddha is good (I'm too
ignorant to venture any statements about the Mohammed figure).
Falsity is
bad. Improving the world is good, but I
don't automatically equate transcendent knowledge or enlightenment with the
mundane general improvement of the world.
Giving full amnesty to all the Drug War prisoners and firmly ending
prohibition would be good -- that project is closely related to the entheogenic
truth about religion and to transcendent knowledge, but is a distinct project.
At this
point, the main thing that motivates me is the intellectual satisfaction of
reaching closure in formulating a coherent theory of transcendent knowledge,
closure in both the core theory and in showing that the ultimate referent of
religion and myth is this same core theory or mental worldmodel -- to define
the perennial philosophy better, more insightfully and powerfully and relevantly
than has been done before.
What did
the early Christian Jews hope to get from religion? Some combination of improvement of the world, and religious
knowledge of God, religious experiencing and transcendent insight.
What do
people hope to get from entheogens and psychoactives? Adventure, insight, enlightenment, inspiration. The same could be said for something I hold
in such disdain as American popular Buddhism: do its proponents merely see it
as a framework for ordinary mundane living?
No, they see it as both a framework for all-around living, and a
framework that to be worthwhile, they see it as a framework that includes, as
part of it, a transcendent level.
The same
could be said for Rock music: it provides a framework of living including both
a mundane lifestyle and a transcendent level, particularly if you conceive of
acid mysticism as the house religion of Rock.
By this
measure, the deficiency of the cybernetic theory of transcendent knowledge is
that it doesn't attempt to provide a framework for mundane living, only a
theory of the high level of all fields and of all religions and
philosophies. I tend to see it as an
insult to religion to conceive of religion as a framework for mere mundane life
-- like an apocalyptic prophet, I center everything on the near experience of
salvation and revelation.
But even
the prophets promised not just high knowledge, but mundane peace and goodness
too. I try to solve the problem of
meaningfully and successfully systematizing transcendent knowledge by eliminating
the complexity of mixing mundane ethics and conduct with high theory. You can't solve the problem of systematizing
high theory if you also demand, a-priori, that mundane ethics and conduct must
be integrated at the same time.
My
strategy is to forget about mundane ethics: transcendent knowledge is a
distinct hard problem that must be roped off, to solve it. The whole reason that transcendent knowledge
so eludes the world is that the world insists on jumbling the mundane concerns
with the transcendent concerns.
Here's
where I adhere to modern scientific thinking: to solve the problem of
rationally systematizing transcendent knowledge, it must be cut off and fully
differentiated from all other fields -- only after solving the problem can we
then integrate the solution with mundane concerns. Enlightenment can only be initially gained when it is separated
from the concerns of the world.
However,
all this view I'm espousing really only applies to a narrow period; if
enlightenment really is as easy and rational and communicable as I uniquely
claim it to be, we can now take systematized enlightenment for granted, and
focus on mundane improvement of the world, with enlightenment in hand as one of
many tools.
The
Hellenistic world largely did this; their system of enlightenment and salvation
and transcendence was fairly systematized and effective, through their mastery
of the science of myth in conjunction with intense mystic-state experiencing
via visionary plants, integrated into myth and ritual. Enlightenment was dirt cheap, common as dirt
(though I think my systematization or core theory is clearer than any of the
Hellenistic age); what was harder to accomplish was mundane goodness, peace,
and justice.
>How
can you separate transcendent knowledge/experiencing from daily living and
mundane life & ethics? When the
transcendent butterfly moves out from the more mundane cocoon, nature continues
to need caterpillars. High religion and
transcendent knowledge in some sense comes up from the lower level of life. After one has transcended, one cannot ignore
the ordinary world, which is as much a part of its life as high knowledge and
vertical, transformative experience.
I don't
say that after one has transcended, one should completely ignore all else. The word "separate" is
ambiguous. You confirm the legitimacy
of differentiating between mundane (caterpillar) and transcendent
(cocoon). I don't extremely and
completely separate the transcendent (with goal of attaining systematic theory
of transcendent knowledge) from the mundane in all ways; it's a more skilled
and strategic and dynamic separation.
The modern
era tends to think that two areas are either totally separate with no relevance
whatsoever, or totally intertwined into one.
The transcendent realm and the mundane realms -- such as Buddhism as a
daily lifestyle versus as a technique of deep and intense transformation -- are
distinct, though related. Differentiate
and then integrate; that is the way to successfully solve the puzzle of what
transcendent knowledge is.
Differentiate
transcendent knowledge from daily-lifestyle religio-philosophy (such as
ethics), solve the problem of transcendent knowledge as a completely bounded
and circumscribed problem, and only then, ask how it can relate to mundane life
and ethics -- being sure to keep clear that transcendent knowledge is distinct
from mundane life & ethics.
If mundane
life & ethics is always jumbled up and undifferentiated from high
transcendent knowledge and insight, transcendent insight could never arise;
there would be too much confusion.
After high insight is attained, then the insight may be used to shed
some light on mundane life, but high insight still remains a field that is
distinct from mundane life.
Against
the "Spiritual Enlightenment" paradigm. Also discussed: posting techniques, transcendent knowledge, and
social harmony.
The
mainstream view holds that developing authentic compassion has tremendous
benefits. That view asserts that wisdom
and compassion, or metaphysical enlightenment and interpersonal social harmony,
are inherently and deeply, inseparably related. I disagree. The
mainstream view is harmful and prevents enlightenment, and leads to a plague of
inauthentic and superficial conduct, a plague of niceness posing as
enlightenment while blocking actual enlightenment.
An
enlightened person should not apologize for or compromise on their views. My conception of enlightenment is
straight-dealing, not niceness.
Niceness is artifice; enlightenment is about reality and truth. One should be decent, more than nice, and
one should deal straight in online postings and in positions or views
maintained. I am perfectly decent, and
straight-dealing, but not particularly nice.
It's bad
for an enlightened person to be nice, because then people assume that
enlightenment is about niceness, which is actually artifice. There is some wisdom to trickster-gurus, who
constitutionally thrive on demolishing nonsense wherever they find it, and
where better to demolish nonsense than in popping the balloons that people
bring regarding the nature of what enlightenment is really about? If you think enlightenment is really about
niceness, pop goes that balloon.
Enlightenment
is really about truth, which has merely a tendency toward niceness and must not
be assumed to be rigidly associated with niceness. The most enlightened manner is a manner of truth, of no-nonsense
dealing -- polite, perhaps; pleasant perhaps -- but you don't have to be
enlightened to be nice and polite and pleasant, and that proves that
enlightenment is distinct from social conduct.
If you
like compassion and pleasant interaction style, than develop compassion and
pleasant interaction style, but don't conflate it with religion or enlightenment;
don't drag down and distort enlightenment by equating it with nice
interpersonal interaction style. If you
meet Buddha on the road, kill him. If
people equate transcendent truth with pleasant interaction style, deny that
equation. There is nothing wrong with
pleasant interaction style, but it has only a minor connection with
transcendent enlightenment.
Social
enlightenment is not very close to metaphysical enlightenment. You can be socially enlightened, while
metaphysically not particularly enlightened.
*Ought* one be both socially enlightened and metaphysically
enlightened? Sure, as ought's go, who
could reject this? One should be
socially enlightened and metaphysically enlightened, but they are two distinct
areas with only a limited, minority overlap.
They are essentially different realms or domains.
The
popular paradigm of "spiritual enlightenment" defines enlightenment
as necessarily entailing both social enlightenment and metaphysical
enlightenment. I have solved the puzzle
of systematizing metaphysical enlightenment by isolating it from the project of
social enlightenment. I'm against
too-close identification of metaphysical enlightenment with social
enlightenment.
What is
the relation between social interaction style and metaphysical enlightenment? Social interaction style is not a subject
I'm interested in, but it must be covered, because today's conception of what
enlightenment is about is prevented from attaining enlightenment by holding incorrect
assumptions about ideal social interpersonal style of conduct, and the
incorrect assumption that enlightenment is very closely related to social
interaction style, particularly the stereotypical "spiritual" style
of interpersonal conduct.
Enlightenment
is not in fact predominantly concerned with social interaction style or manner
of interpersonal conduct, and the popular ideal of a spiritually enlightened
style of interpersonal conduct is not in fact the best ideal for a social
interaction style.
The
religious theorist's life inherently is a life of resistance to many current
views. The theorist has to be fully
ready to drive away the majority, because the majority's view is the view to be
refuted. My theory is set to battle
against all existing views about what religion is all about. In many respects, I'm against Christianity,
against Buddhism, against spirituality, against existing models of
enlightenment.
Of course,
in many respects I'm in harmony. I get
along chummily with any traditions that agree with me. I don't get along with the majority, but my
theory gets along fine with the parts of the theories that agree with my
theory.
I agree
that metaphysical enlightenment and interpersonal harmony have some degree of
relationship, but the extent of that relationship has been greatly exaggerated,
tending to falsely restrict enlightenment to the merely or solely social
realm. And I oppose the popular
conception of what interpersonal social harmony amounts to, and what the ideal
manner of conducting oneself socially is.
I'm
against the popular ideal of the spiritually enlightened style of social
conduct, and I'm against the popular assumption that enlightenment and social
conduct are two very closely related parts of one thing.
The ideal
style of social conduct is different than the popular picture of spiritually
enlightened social conduct, and the whole realm of social conduct is much less
closely related to the realm of religious or metaphysical or spiritual
enlightenment than assumed by the popular view. I'm against the popular conception of what "spiritual
enlightenment" is all about; I'm against the paradigm that we might label
"the spiritual enlightenment paradigm".
My theory
of transcendent knowledge is a refutation of the popular spiritual
enlightenment paradigm, which holds that a certain spirituality-styled
interpersonal conduct is ideal, and that such conduct is intimately related and
fused with metaphysical enlightenment.
I try to break apart popular spiritual enlightenment and refute and
revise and improve both halves.
Separate
the social aspect of popular spiritual enlightenment from the intellectual
aspect of popular spiritual enlightenment, and then thoroughly revise the
implicit social conduct theory, and thoroughly revise the implicit intellectual
metaphysics theory. I would ideally put
forth a better social conduct theory than is packed into the popular paradigm
of spiritual enlightenment, and I do put forth a better intellectual
metaphysics theory than is packed into the popular paradigm of spiritual
enlightenment.
The only
messages I've deleted are blatant repeated spam like weekly reposts of
"join my spirituality discussion group", and the only person I've
banned was the same -- a man with an automatic spam gun aimed at the group. The archives, I remind everyone, are visible
to the public -- for better or worse. I
have considered making this a literally moderated group, but that would require
too much time commitment, so it is a virtually moderated group, with the intended
scope of postings spelled out.
A moderator
is a designer-god of their group, and there is *much* to be said for the
potential and value of tightly moderated discussion groups.
Despite my
support for better interpersonal harmony, I don't agree that the conventional
assumptions about what a spiritually enlightened style of interpersonal conduct
would amount to.
A
half-baked superficially spiritual style of conduct has become a noxious, false
substitute for actual enlightenment, so I'm firmly against such a view of
spirituality. The assumption that
spirituality amounts to a warm and fuzzy style of interpersonal conduct is a
noxious, false, obstacle toward attaining the goal. So I have a sort of negative neutrality toward that mindset about
"spiritual enlightenment".
Against
Concern with Social Harmony in the Conduct of Theoretical Discussion about
Transcendent Knowledge
This is a
place to theorize, not to socialize or to worry about social harmony in the
discussions. I almost reject social
harmony in discussions, but actually I'm wholly unconcerned with it as
irrelevant. Are people offended by some
postulate or idea or assertion? That is
generally irrelevant. If you have ideas,
put them out on the table. The ideas
are the thing, *not* getting along socially.
I am not interested in reassuring people, nor abusing them, though my
unconcern with harmony will be felt as abuse.
If you
feel warm and fuzzy because of what I write, that is irrelevant; if you feel
personally hurt by what I write, that is irrelevant. Personal feelings are irrelevant in this discussion group, which
is strictly for theorizing. If you
don't like that, I recommend following the droves of other people who leave all
the time and have always done so since the start.
Go to the
other spirituality groups or online spiritual love-fests of warm and fuzzy
feelings. This is one of the few groups
that are idea-driven, in a sea of feeling-driven, social-oriented and
emotion-driven discussion areas. I bow
down to those moderators who have banned me.
A moderator is a god of his realm.
I have high honors for those who know what they want in shaping the
scope of discussion and writing style.
Yet I don't literally moderate this group, except to strongly define
what kind of postings and what kind of membership self-selection I want.
Against
Close Identification of Interpersonal Harmony with Enlightenment
What is
the relation between ego transcendence and social conformity and social
harmony? It's weaker than people
assume. Ego transcendence does *not*
revolve around mundane social harmony.
If you want social harmony, go to a social harmony discussion
group. Ego transcendence is a distinct
field from the field of social harmony.
Conflating the two is one factor that has prevented widespread ego
transcendence.
It's an
artificial preconceived notion of religion or transcendent knowledge, the very
popular assumption that transcendent knowledge amounts to social harmony. They are distinct areas that can uplift each
other best when treated as distinct areas.
It may be bad to offend others socially, but that's an issue essentially
separate from transcendent knowledge proper
I'm not
against social harmony, but neither am I centrally concerned with it. Social harmony is a minor topic, one of many
possible applications of transcendent knowledge, or, per what I call
"domain dynamics", it is a distinct domain; the domains of social
harmony and transcendent knowledge are distinct domains that have a degree of
overlap and cross-influence.
Similarly,
the domain of entheogens and the domain of social harmony are distinct domains;
same with the domain of meditation and social harmony. They can have a conversation and
relationship, but meditation or enlightenment does not automatically,
necessarily correlate with social harmony.
The best way to improve social harmony, entheogens, and meditation is to
"differentiate and integrate" -- develop each domain as an
independent and interdependent domain.
It would
be on-topic in this discussion group to discuss social harmony *if* that
distinct topic were explicitly related in the discussion to the topic of ego
transcendence. I'm in sync with Ken
Wilber on these views. People want to
tangle together all sorts of concerns, integrating without differentiating
these areas of concern. Wilber has
written much of value about the tone of writing and criticism.
It is so
easy to shock the brittle spiritual bourgeoisie, because they have certain
assumptions or commitments about what spirituality is about. Transcendent knowledge is not a style of
talking or a style of social harmony.
Does
"developing authentic compassion" have a very close relationship with
enlightenment, spirituality, or religion?
Is enlightenment a matter of mundane social ethics? I am an enemy of the dominant conflation of
enlightenment with social, interpersonal ethics. Metaphysical enlightenment is a good project, and social
interpersonal ethics is a good project, but to develop both projects, they must
be differentiated as well as integrated.
Metaphysical
enlightenment and mystic enlightenment is distinct and differentiated from
social, interpersonal ethics. If we
jumble them together and say that enlightenment is nearly the same thing as
social interpersonal ethics, it becomes impossible to gain enlightenment,
because we start off with false assumptions about the scope of the realm of
enlightenment.
There is
only a minor, topical, partial overlap between the domain of enlightenment and
interpersonal ethics. Stop conflating
enlightenment with interpersonal ethics -- they are not the same thing, and are
not rigidly and simply connected as though two parts of one thing. Enlightenment and interpersonal ethics are
two out of many distinct, interacting domains.
Mystic
insight and metaphysical revelation and enlightenment and transcendent
knowledge cannot, should not, and must not be reduced or distorted into
interpersonal relations. Transcendent
knowledge sheds light on interpersonal relations, but doesn't have a direct,
necessary effect.
You cannot
measure one's enlightenment by one's conduct of interpersonal relations. Also, spiritualists assume that one
particular emotional, warm and fuzzy style of interpersonal relations is
"the enlightened style", but that assumption has no real foundation. I idealize a very straightforward manner of
interpersonal relations; I think the "spiritual, compassionate"
superficial style of interpersonal relations is harmful and prone to backfire.
People
ought to be decent and straight with each other -- who can argue with that
limited, reasonable view? But the
spiritualists go beyond that; they synthesize an artificial notion of
"enlightened interpersonal style" which is fake and unreal. Enlightenment is not a style of
interpersonal relations. Enlightenment
is mainly about grasping a set of concepts and experiencing a set of
experiential insights.
Spiritual
seekers are suckers for any guru who conducts themselves in a superficially
enlightened manner of warm and fuzzy and emotion-centric way.
I agree
that both an intellectual grasp of enlightenment and a decent style of
interpersonal conduct are good, but this discussion group is wholly oriented to
the intellectual grasp of enlightenment, which hasn't been developed enough
elsewhere, because most other forums are dominated to death by practicing
interpersonal conduct in a sappy spiritual style, at the expense of
intellectual content.
One group,
for example, was named "Mindspace", but I rechristened it
"Heartspace". Experiential
enlightenment does have an element of interpersonal unity consciousness and harmony,
but that aspect often becomes a vicious weed that insists on taking over the
entirety of the subject, so that enlightenment becomes retarded and stunted.
Distinct
topics:
What is
the ideal enlightened style of interpersonal conduct in general life?
What is
the ideal enlightened style of interpersonal conduct in postings in spiritual
online discussion groups?
What is
the ideal enlightened style of interpersonal conduct in postings in a technical
theory development group such as this one?
>with
all the non entheognenic religious practices and in the world, the world is still a mess. This is because in truth, people are not capable of accomplishing the
most profound experiences without the use of entheogens. If this were possible, then the result would
already be obvious in the state of the world.
>dc
I caution
about making the old claim that entheogens will save the world or improve the
world. It may well be just a
preconception and wishful thinking to assume that the nature of mystic insight
is such that mystic insight will save or improve the world. Many people with no outstanding mystic
insight seem to take it as an axiomatic given that enlightenment will bring
about all sorts of improvements. It is
a matter of speculation, however, the extent of these potential improvements.
I don't
maintain that entheogens are likely to improve the mundane world. I only maintain that entheogens are more
likely than meditation to deliver on a particular, limited, bounded promise:
the experience of unity and timelessness, and a particular shift from one
mental worldmodel to a different, more nuanced worldmodel regarding space,
time, will, control, and self.
My
attitude is that of an Xer skeptic: maybe the mundane world would improve,
maybe it wouldn't. I'm skeptical of
overly optimistic hopes; better to be stoically restrained than go chasing
after rainbows and then fall down to the hard earth.
It would
be a liability, a burden, and a complication to my basic framework were I to
add the promise that entheogens will also improve daily life for the individual
and the collective. By reigning in the
scope of promises, we can gain a surer grasp of the basics of what we *can*
know and assert about entheogens and religion (or mystic philosophy or
meditation or whatever you feel like labelling it).
I
guarantee a method of easy enlightenment, by restricting the definition of
enlightenment and refraining from claiming that it will bring about some
tangible heaven on earth. Entheogens do
bring certain definite benefits and *might* bring other benefits, but the
latter is speculation, while the former is systematic and warranted by the
evidence.
Mystic
insight certainly brings on a mystical type of heaven on earth, but there's no
evidence that if many have mystic insight, the world will be a better place by
mundane, non-mystical measures. The
world has problems -- is mystic insight the solution to the world's problems? There we enter a realm of hypothetical
speculation other than the speculation I'm forced to do in my basic theory of
mysticism.
I want to
minimize speculation, though I'm forced to do a lot of it. I differ on what speculation is most
justified and valuable. It's a proven
fact, not speculation, that entheogens are widely present throughout religious
history. What's speculative is the exact extent of this presence. Firming up this particular speculation about
extent seems to be the current state of entheogen scholarship. We're finding that the extent is greater
than thought, but we can only wildly guess, at this point, how much greater.
Home (theory of the ego death and rebirth experience)