Neurotheology

[Don Niederfrank]

One of the more ego-dampening things I have read is from E.O. Wilson's Consilience. Wilson writes about the brain, complexity, evolution, etc. but this is what I liked.

In talking about what the brain does automatically he says the when presented with a situation via the senses the brain processes information and first cathects memories that share to various degrees the same information (same room, same food, same words, etc.). It then constructs possible actions (say 'yes', 'no', just eat, etc.) and imagines the events that would follow these various actions. This process is automatic and almost always unavailable to our conscience. IOW, we don't preceive our brain doing this.

The brain then discerns which of the possible outcomes has the greatest value with re. to evolution of the species (community building, self-preservation, procreation, etc.) and we THEN experience a desire for the action that would bring about that outcome, i.e. we sense that we want to say 'yes' or 'no' or just eat, etc. And we do this with varying degrees of awareness. The greater the complexity, unfamiliarity, ambiguity of the situation the longer the process takes and the more aware we become of the process. The more difficult the 'decision' seems.

Now here's the kicker. Wilson says 1) this happens as automatically as the functioning of our other organs. 2) we experience the time it takes for the brain to accomplish this task, the time between perception of the situation and the discernment of the most evolutionarily positive action as "I am making a decision." But there is no "I" there acting on freewill and coming to some sort of rational, calculated decision. There is simply the brain doing what it has evolved to do--remembering, imagining, calculating/discerning, motivating the actor via desire. The perception of an independent actor is an illusion that arises in that time lapse while the brain is working.

It is, of course, happening with far greater complexity and speed than can be written/read about but the implications are very, very provocative.

[Jundo]

Hi,

David wrote ...

I think there is nothing wrong in mysticism, " A belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible by subjective experience", Buddha was a Mystic. I look at "Mysticism" as true insight. However, a mystic experience is only an answer, one cannot rely on Mysticism for food shelter or clothing. This brings me to the 10 Oxhearding Pictures. These pictures show a journey from begining to end, with a mystic experience in the middle. Korean Zen Master Seun Sahn, refered to it as the compas of Zen.
When we start our quest, wer'e after something more than we already have (enlightenment). As our journey progresses, we have a glimpse of the mind, 1st pic. Finding the tracks, we progress Through to seeing the ox, right through to no ox no I. Eventually though, we return with gift bestowing hands, 10th pic. This last pic. is returning to the start, or in the Zen compass, travelling 360degrees. However now we have real insight. We still have to work, cook and converse with each other , though now through this mystical insight, we know why!

...

The reason I believe the Buddha to be a mystic is: The life of the Buddha states, that he sat under the Bodhi tree untill he had the answers for which he was searching (enlightenment). This was a mystical experience.
If one has not achieved (attained) Enlightenment, how would one know if a mystic experience is valid or not, otherwise it's pure conjecture.

and Harry wrote ...

If I'm not mistaken - and Jundo will clear this up - the Buddha never preached any mysticism, and told people not to look for mysticism, but rather to look at everyday reality and understand it. Why do you suggest that his enlightenment was in any way a mystical experience? It was simply an understanding. (Unless we're disagreeing on the meaning of the term mystical - I tend to see it as being something with flashing lights, colors, out-of-body experiences, etc.)

and David wrote ...

If you check my earlier post, you will notice that I described a mystic experience as real insight. I don't know where you got the idea of flashing lights etc.

This is a very difficult question, and turns on the meaning of "mystic experience" I think. First, it is difficult to say exactly what the Buddha was teaching because, for the last 2500 years, his followers have been giving the Buddha's words 1001 different interpretations. However, I think we can say pretty clearly some of the things that the Buddha was -not- teaching, and also we can talk about what Zen Buddhist teachers have been teaching since that time.

It is pretty clear that the Buddha rejected many of the teachings in India at the time that we would usually consider "mysticism", e.g., merging into Brahma or seeking states of perpetual bliss. The reason I believe this is because, before he found his Truth, he spent years sampling many of the schools of meditation available at the time. Most of those schools pursued such mystic experiences, including through various degrees of denial of the physical body and of the reality of this world. After that (in my view), the Buddha seems to express almost a "to heck with it" attitude, a refusal to go to extremes, an emphasis on moderation. The emphasis was more on life IN this world, than on any escape (and, again, this depends on whose "Buddha" interpretation one takes).

The Zen teachings, to varying degrees, tend also to emphasize life in this world more than the attaining of some state of escape from this world.

Now, that being said, many people have referred to Zen Buddhism as, for example, a mysticism of the ordinary, rational mysticism, etc. What does that mean? To me, it means accepting the simple wonder in the most ordinary aspects of life. "Enlightenment" is not seeing some other world or state that suddenly makes everything in our lives become clear. Far from it, it is that same, smiling "to heck with it, and isn't that grand!" that allows us to appreciate everything in life as just what it is. Conflict and friction dissolves because (as I discussed in one of the talks a few days ago), we see each thing as just what it is, and simultaneously, we see each thing as without separate self.

We are not merging with god or some higher state, so much as merging with our own lives and allowing each thing in life to merge with each other.

Said a different way, we just allow for a balance in our approach to life and way of perceiving the world. Is that a kind of mystical state?? Well, yes, of a kind. (I just do not like the word "mystical" because of the "other world" reality and hocus-pocus it could imply. I like to say more, finding the ordinary magic in the ordinary. I even hesitate to use the word "sacred," and instead might say that we recognize treasure in what otherwise looks like tin and brass).

It is true that some Zen teachers (I think Seung Sahn is one) overemphasize the Satori experience as attaining some mind blowing, "other" state that, when attained, makes everything in this life suddenly "fall into place". It is not so simple, and there is nothing about the lives of such teachers (there are many) that indicates in any way that, once they had such an experience, they were less a fool than the rest of us poor human beings (myself at the top of the list). Our Soto practice is much more boring.

However, if seeing the wonder of that "boring" is a form of mysticism ... than it is mystical.

Gassho, Jundo

[Urug]

Greetings,

Jundo wrote:

It is true that some Zen teachers (I think Seung Sahn is one) overemphasize the Satori experience as attaining some mind blowing, "other" state that, when attained, makes everything in this life suddenly "fall into place". It is not so simple, and there is nothing about the lives of such teachers (there are many) that indicates in any way that, once they had such an experience, they were less a fool than the rest of us poor human beings (myself at the top of the list). Our Soto practice is much more boring.

However, if seeing the wonder of that "boring" is a form of mysticism ... than it is mystical.

It seems to me that so much of what we are trying to understand is a paradox. The concept of enlightenment or satori is that way for me.

I initially thought of enlightenment as a one time, "oh-my-god", "now I see the light", completely life changing event, after which I would be transformed into some kind of sage with deep and wonderous understanding of all matters. Boy did I miss the boat on that one.

I have had some satori experiences that were quite life changing but not how I had anticipated. I had thought that the satori experience was the point. That was what I was striving for with sitting and workshops and intensives. One of the things that surprised me was that when I stopped trying for that experience and just abided in the present moment, and appreciated life as it was at that moment, then without trying or even hoping... everything changed, yet was exactly the same... everything was perfect just as it was...everything was an overwhelming sensation of bliss...there was just being...

I have had milder experiences off and on since that time, and what I have discovered is that for me this experience was not the end of the quest, but the beginning of a new road that I have only just started to walk down.

It seems to me now that satori experiences are not the point, but neither are they nothing. For me they have helped me to feel the interconnectedness and oneness of all-that-is, feeling myself an expression of the one-thing-that-is, and feeling related to everything. I think that pursuing the satori experience helped me to find my way to now, where everything is happening.

On the other hand, whenever I start getting too full of it I like to remember the poem by the Sufi Master Hafiz:

Ten Thousand Idiots

It is always a danger
To Aspirants
On the
Path

When they begin
To Believe and
Act

As if the ten thousand idiots
Who so long ruled
And lived
Inside

Have all packed their bags
And skipped town
Or
Died.

Amen.

Namaste.

Gassho,

Urug 8)