[Crossposted from VincentHorn.com]

Soon after I got back from retreat, I chatted with a friend of mine who has been a long time vipassana practitioner. After some 20 years of practice he has more or less stopped believing that vipassana leads to enlightenment (well, not exactly but bear with me), and adopted what I would call a much more “non-dual” approach. The difference between the two, according to my friend, is the difference between what he was calling “Enlightenment A” and “Enlightenment B.”

Enlightenment B is the realization that comes from a progressive unfolding of more and more refined states of consciousness. It’s often associated with the rising of kundalini, and tends to happen in a stage-like fashion. Vipassana and the “stages of enlightenment” in the Therevadin Buddhist tradition seem to be a good example of a path that leads to Enlightenment B.

Enlightenment A, on the other hand, can not be attained or acquired over time, because it is not time-bound. It’s something which is true right now, irreducible, and “ever-present.” This kind of Enlightenment seems to be expressed most clearly from teachers such as Ramana Maharshi and Eckhart Tolle.

Now, whether or not this distinction is a helpful one, has in my opinion, yet to be seen. Enlightenment B, or gradual enlightenment, has served to inspire my practice, keeping me going on retreats, etc. But it has also been the source of a great bit of frustration, striving, and discontent. Enlightenment A, or the non-dual approach, when I’ve considered it has relieved a great deal of pressure from the whole spiritual path. If there’s no where to get, then why need I stress so much? It tends to re-imbue the path with a sense of ease and relaxation. But it also seems like I tend to remember this greater ease primarily when I’ve been practicing quite a bit!!!

Part of the reason I’m not entirely sure I can simply split them apart, as my friend has done, is that there are very few cases of people who have realized Enlightenment A before pursuing Enlightenment B. A couple come to mind, whereas I’m willing to bet there are many who have pursued the gradual path, and that has someone turned into the sudden path (B pursued far enough becomes A). One could argue that this is exactly what has happened with my friend. And I’ve even gone so far as to ask him, “You mean doing vipassana for 20 years has nothing to do with what you recognize now?” His shocking answer is “No.” But is this shocking? I suppose if what is realized in Enlightenment A is actually non-dual and not bounded by time, then trying to come up with a logical (logic exists in time) and causal (causality also happens in time) explanation may be by definition pointless.

Is there a relationship here?

[Crossposted from Numinous Nonsense]

When you hear the truth, it sounds familiar. Like seeing a reflection of something you already posses. This film is that clear and simple reflection. I enjoyed every moment. - Jim Carrey

 

It has been raining for the past two days. A rare occurrence in Boulder. After going to the gym this evening (a much needed visit) I grabbed some food, a book, and caught a movie.

Inspired by Dan Millman's book, The Peaceful Warrior in movie form was quite delightful. I read the book several years ago, probably when I was 18 or so. Right around the time I was getting turned on to other quasi-mystical new-agey sort of stuff (Conversations with God, The Celestine Prophecy, etc.). [Warning: This isn't so much going to be a movie review as it is a stream of consciousness post-movie reflection, which oddly may tell you some about the movie.]

The movie itself seemed to get pretty bad marks, in part because it was filled with a bunch of cheesy and awkwardly timed new-age platitudes. The other reason is that many of the reviewers probably didn't get the movie. It was simply over their heads. Here is what Roger Ebert had to say:

The story arc of Peaceful Warrior is so familiar that in addition to being inspired by fact, it is inspired by at least two-thirds of all the sports movies ever made.

 

It's true that many movies, where the main character is trying to achieve some fantastic feat (in this case a sports related one) they are confronted intense obstacles, dig down to find some deeply buried or newly cultivated self-confidence, and then go on to accomplish their original goal to the amazement of everyone around. Ebert is right that many of the best movie-makers have perfected this kind of movie. But Peaceful Warrior wasn't really about that. It was actually about self-transcendence, of going beyond and dropping the bondage of self-referential anything.

The odd thing is that our hero actually did achieve something in the movie, but in the end he realized it wasn't at all about achieving the "thing." Instead, it was about resting with the Truth of Things, just as they are and were. Achievement still happens (or not), but that isn't the point of this movie, or the point of the spiritual path. I'm coming to see now, as our main character Dan does, that it isn't so much about anything at all.

The seeking mind—the mind that wants to become—will never find what it's looking for. Once we realize this (which is bound to happen at least a few times if we care at all about true knowledge) why don't we just drop the seeking mind altogether?

"Who is it that wants to drop the seeking mind?"

Oh, you caught me again you little trickster! The seeking mind wishes to find the non-seeking mind. What a strange and funny thing! I've turned the spiritual path into yet another thing to attain, and I pat myself on the back for every step I take towards the perceived goal? When I ask, "What goal?" the question, or inquiry, reveals its own absurdity.

But wait... am I sure there is no goal? What if I'm wrong and I miss out on realizing what I've strove so hard to understand, that which is so dear to me, so important, so...

"So what?"

[Crossposted from Numinous Nonsense]

My friend Duff, who I'm convinced will probably be one of the best coaches on the planet in the next 10 years, is offering free coaching via e-mail to a limited number of people! Check it out while the checking is good.

I received coaching from another dear friend of mine (who just happens to be flying out to Boulder tomorrow!) a few years back. That entire experience, and the relationship we formed, has ranked among the top 3 most profound experiences of my life. Coaching can be phenomenally transformative (and challenging), especially if one is totally willing to take advantage of the coaching context.

Alright, that's enough blatant promotion from me. ;)

[Crossposted from Numinous Nonsense]

Last night, I was trying to explain what “Web 2.0” is to a dear friend, who although fairly tech savvy, is just now starting to explore the world of crazy web 2.0 apps. I showed him Zaadz, Ma.Gnolia, Google Calendar, and some others, and the profundity of Web 2.0, especially in regards to human relationships started to strike me.

You see, Web 2.0 has deeply impacted my relationships. I belong to a sort of collective virtual community that is made up of blogs, social networks, shared bookmarking services, RSS Readers, and much more. The net impact is that I’m deeply connected to what’s happening with the group of people I know and share interests with. I know because I’m reading their blog, because they’re commenting on mine, because I’m reading the same things they are, etc. It’s as if we’re all in a constant dialogue that usually has nothing to do with one-on-one discussion (although that is included at times too). And it isn’t just with one, or two, or even three people, but with dozens!

In a sense I feel like it’s the beginning of a small collective organism. Like systems in the body we’re each connected in near simultaneity (especially for those of us who are always online). When one person (or node or sub-system or whatever analogy we want to use) becomes aware of something, like a new web-service, story, etc. all of the other people in the collective come into “the know” almost immediately as that information ripples outwards into the collectively wired system/organism.

And what makes this a real organism (or the beginnings of one) is that after that ripple goes out, there are new ripples that respond immediately from the other nodes. The system is constantly responding to itself, taking relevant information from the outside, communicating that information to the rest of the system, and then seeing an immediate response (in the form of comments, new tags, podcasts, blog posts, etc.) from the other nodes in a process of constant mutual response and learning.

The collective is held together by mutual trust, shared interests, and similar communication mediums (in this case web 1.0 & 2.0). The outside consists of everything that we’re in contact with outside of this network (Google News, other blogs, etc.). But the cool thing, which just occurred to me, is that the outside for one node is the inside for another. One node’s deep interests and trust networks can be different, with a kind of overlapping occurring. In this way one node is simultaneously part of several collective organisms, and so there emerges in the virtual (and non-virtual) world an overlapping, inter-penetrating, collective of collectives all informing and being responded to by each individual collective and individual node, all in near-real-time with a powerful medium that is only becoming more powerful each day.

And to bring this abstract vision back down to earth—where it ultimately belongs—I have an example of how this virtual collective has profoundly impacted my local connections. I have a few very close friends who also live in Boulder that are part of my social collective network. In virtual space we are reading each others blogs, sending each other bookmarks, aggregating similar reading material, and sharing other material. When we get together in person to chat we don’t have to catch up share what we’ve been reading, etc. We just jump right in at a hyper-speed level and begin where the virtual world left off—with the beautiful addition of being able to connect in the more heartfelt and personable ways that web 2.0 simply can’t capture (yet). The conversations we then have as we’re able to weave together all of these different threads of interest, experience, and thought become the manure, motivation, inspiration for new virtual proliferations (such as this one). This proliferation, which is nothing more than an expression of what most of us have already been considering and talking about, then becomes an added piece to an already emerging puzzle.

And all of this begs the question, what exactly is emerging and where is it all heading?