Integral Theory

the zen master told the novice to go to his room and meditate until he no longer thought about the white horse. the novice was puzzled by this advice, as he did not usually have white horses in his thoughts, so he started meditating thinking he would easily achieve what the master asked...

after three months he returned to the master, a ragged shadow of his former self. almost in tears he said " help me master, i have sat and sat and i have been thinking of nothing but the white horse for all this time. how do i still this mind??"

the master roared with laughter and said "now you know - the mind will chatter as long as you are alive. meditation is making peace with that chatter."

 

denise has some great advice right there. I learned from dzogchen meditation that, you can just leave it alone. if thoughts arise, watch them, observe them, let them flutter like wind or rain or water. watch them effortlessly arise in your awareness and effortlessly fall, you aren't bound to them anyway. who are you?

 

So if the thoughts are to be simply observed, how is this anything to do with an integral consciousness? 'Integral' in my book means encompassing every aspect of reality, including the thinking mind.
It isn't the end of thinking that's needed in an integral approach, but a transformation of thinking into something higher.

 

Agreed. That's what integral does, at least in what I've read and tried to practice. Zen and other spiritual arts that assist in silencing the mind for a moment can be transformative along the spiritual lines of development, but do nothing for our general thoughts. For instance a Zen monk could be experiencing transpersonal states of awareness, but his thoughts are still narrow, limited, maybe dangerously so. But the point of integral practice is to include, but not be limited to practices such as "sitting" meditation, dzogchen, etc. And in these higher awareness states one could practice the ability to see through anothers' eyes, to be them, to understand the inter-subjective nature and be able to dance back and forth, between and around the perspectives, easily weaving through points of view - that is, natural integral awareness.

Note: Dzogchen meditation, despite it's limitations as far as developmental thoughts go, is at a base level good for integral practice. It allows the awareness to simply be, and anything that arises, anything at all, passes through effortlessly. It's an all-inclusive state where nothing is rejected or accepted, and awareness gradually expands to engulf the universe, inside and outside, thoughts are another object fluttering in and out of awareness, to the point where even the individual self is encompassed and transcended. For further development, western study of the psyche has become extremely valuable for inclusive practitioners.

 

Personally, I think you're more likely to get above the thinking mind through more dynamic activities than sitting meditation. At least that's my experience.

 

(this became a long post) promise i wont do that again

the true nature of being is like the open sky, which zen often uses as a teaching analogy. clouds, birds, aeroplanes, etc come and go, but the sky itself does not alter. it is simply a space in which things happen. similarly, if you throw paint up into the air, it does not change the colour of the air. thoughts come and go. they do not actually alter true being.

the true nature of being is ever-present, and everything, including the thought of "me" arises within it, and is made of it. in the bible this is described as "in him i live and move and have my being," using the word "him" because christians (and many other belief systems) have taken the understanding of pure being and given it a name, a sex, a residence, etc. we are conditioned to believe that it is separate to us: in some higher zone or dimension, some other state of mind, some other time, etc, and that by our efforts, with either prayer, celibacy (or tantra), meditation, or paying tithes, or doing charity work, or insert-belief-here, we will achieve union, nirvana, transcendence, bliss, heaven, eternal life, etc.

all those ideas also arise in pure being, which is advaita: one, not-two, and always already present - eternal, in other words. eternal means "timeless", not "forever".

there is no outside of oneness. and you - the idea you think of as you - arises in oneness with no effort on your part. you don't believe that? well, like shaman sun says - who are you? when you wake first thing in the morning, as you become aware of thoughts, body sensations, the bedding against skin - are you trying to do that? or does it just flow effortlessly into conscious awareness, upon which you seize it, make it yours, this is happening to me...

as the caterpillar said to alice: who are you?

the idea of "me" is simply an event taking place in the open sky of pure being. like a cloud that forms under certain conditions within that sky, and, when those conditions change, it dissipates. once this is seen, the beauty, mystery and wonder of simply being frees us from the desperate search for that elusive "other" state. it is realised that being is a miracle in itself, perfect and flawless like the clear sky. pure being is our true nature, and all our ideas about who we are, are just the paint we throw in the air. then the paint lands on the ground of that we think of as our mind, and that is when the fun starts, and the trauma, and all of life's picture unfolds on the canvas of what we think is our consciousness.

as always, i repeat that these things are so much better said on a website called theopensecret.com, which i recommend anywhere i see beings struggling to reach something other than that perfect miracle they already are.

 

So perfect we haven't had a day without war since.....well, never.
So perfect that a tiny virus could destroy the existence of millions overnight.
So perfect that uncaring morons in the west drive 4WD's whilst millions in the third world live on less than a dollar a day.
A strange definition of perfection to me.

 

i cannot say it any better than theopensecret.com
the same questions are raised there, and answered.
i can only say wholeness is wholeness. within it arise all things, including the list of events above that you see as imperfect because compassion arises, in wholeness manifesting as you and your responses.

 

I wouldn't like to use "perfect", as it invokes that positive idealism which is merely a romantic notion of a world we'd rather be in. The perfection doesn't lie in the objects, per se, but the awareness, as denise said the wholeness of that open 'observing'.

Again, a lot more would have to be explored, and this little self that's arising in the awareness has alot to learn, and not necessarily in terms of a silent mind, but definitely in communion with it.

 

and without meaning to offend, btw

who are you ? where does it come from and where does it go?

in the 1200's a zen monk gave a talk to his students called "one bright pearl." a line from it runs "the entire universe, all the directions, all the ten thousand things, all is one bright pearl. wondering and discussing whether or not it is one bright pearl, is one bright pearl."

 

You explain things really well! I don't mean this as a challenge, only curious, you know how Ken Wilber talks about applying the scientific method to spiritual growth as a way of collecting and recording data? Have you tried that?

 

Thanks! And yes... In a sense I have tried it. I think many people can and do without realizing it. Generally the scientific method, I've noticed, is asked just like this: This way helps expand your awareness, will you try it? You answer this yourself by attempting the method and seeing what the results are.

And in Buddhism, inquiry is strongly encouraged, as Buddha himself says to never take anything on faith, but on inquiry. Test the method, he urges, try it out, it is one effective way of many before and after his time.

This is true! I've personally tried a few practices, some effective, some not. The teachers will propose a method to you, or perhaps a state of experience, and describe how to recognize it yourself. The scientific method is applied by trying their technique out and seeing what the results are. Are they as stated? In Zen, does sitting meditation assist you or not? What are the results of this form as compared to other various practices? Nothing is taken on faith. To help us do this, it's also good to cultivate non-meditative knowledge. That is, information about the practice, about different cultures, different spheres of knowledge. In AQAL, for instance; how does Zen hold up to other quadrants? To the "We" and "It" space? Are there limitations? How can you make your own practice more inclusive?

I've found that knowledge of the subconscious, psychology can greatly assist and complement meditation, and I still prefer natural meditation states as opposed to traditional practice (Just walking, sitting, lying down - wherever I am). You could even apply the scientific method here by going ahead and trying natural vs. traditional meditation. See what works!

I've found that by reading alot, practicing often, and studying different fields of knowledge - just being open to anything, really helps.

A close friend of mine practices something similar to reiki, but developed naturally and without schooling/techniques. She often invites me to practice it with her, and she has developed a few techniques on her own. I don't have to believe her, but I can try it out and test it, see if it is effective. We have both tried traditional forms of reiki, talked with reiki teachers, and in our experience reiki, a more traditional method, is limited because it is bound by ideas and traditions. This is our own conclusion, you can test it out too, experience both - see what is more inclusive, more effective for you. It's a mix between cultivating what is good for you individually, and what is an authentic practice.

 

Great thread. Will check out the authors mentioned.

 

Myself.

As a person who has studied the Integral Yoga philosohy of Sri Aurobondo and the Mother (although I don't agree with some of it) this is an irrelevance as regards the development of what Sri A meant by 'Integral consciousness'.

It seems to assume in line with Buddhist philosophy that the individual is in some sense unreal, or an illusion.

Integral however means integral. If you reject the individual existence, that is not to integrate but to reject.

The universe can no doubt be seen as 'one bright pearl' but that is no more absolute than seeing the incredible diversity of manifest existence.
One object of an integral consciousness would be to be able to see both the oneness and the diversity at one and the same time.

The integral consciousness is NOT an escape into a trnscendednt nirvana, or a rejection of the multiplicity of being we are a part of.

 

We need to go a lot further than observation if we are to bring in a higher consciousness and power.

'Perfection' is not a romantic idealistic notion. It is a real possibility for this planet in the future. By perfection I mean the perfection of the physical world. Not some mental state which leaves the phyisical world untouched.

Of course, if you believe in a static universe with no development then perfection is an impossibility, and the only hope woud be escape. But this is not what is meant by integral consciousness. It is more in line with the world rejecting views propounded by trad religions.
This is an EVOLUTIONARY universe. Therefore, it can continue to evolve, as it has up to now, towards a greater and greater perfection. In this process we have the choice to become conscious agents.

Check out Satprem's trilogy 'Mother - the Divine Materialism' or 'The mind of the cells'.

 

Alright, that is what I am doing as well. I have been studying world religions for about six months, and have a million notes that I will probably never sort out methodically, although I should.

So in your estimation buddhism works best as a basis with integral theory? I kinda got that impression form Andrew Cohen's stuff. I'm not so sure I am that enamored with it so far, but I still have much to learn about its deeper aspects.

 

Yes, the term 'perfection,' I mentioned, invokes or implies that sense of romanticism - of course, this doesn't make the meaning of perfection you defined idealistic. Ultimate perfection can be the course of evolution. Completely with you here.

 

I'd say Buddhism works very well with integral theory, but so does christianity, islam, shamanism, etc. Wilber focuses mostly on the deeper stands of spirituality, beyond the traditions and institutions - the ones that for the most part say the same thing in different ways. Surfaces are different, depths share the same current.

 

in oneness, there is no such thing as an irrelevance, as all is embraced, and nothing rejected.

what you call integral, i call oneness.

diversity arises in oneness and is made of it. it is not separate.

a mind still believing itself separate (not individual - separate. there is a difference. individuality can be enjoyed while knowing oneness, in fact only by knowing oneness CAN individuality start to be enjoyed)) is incapable of perceiving oneness. it becomes filled with disagreements, rejections, sorting things into perfections/ imperfections, good/bad, physical/ spiritual, past/ future etc. those are ideas (also arising in oneness and part of it) and the holding of and acting upon those ideas is what leads to the wars and 4X4's syndromes you mentioned in a previous post. the dropping of those ideas will result in different actions - and a different world.

to wonder and discuss whether or not it is one bright pearl, is one bright pearl.
the pearl is an analogy meaning oneness i.e integral. all discussion, all life, is arising in and made of oneness. i cannot think of anything more integral than that.

this is my last post on this thread, as there is no longer any need to place more words on what is already clear, perfect and beautiful: oneness manifesting as all that is, always already present here and now, wheresoever the little mind thinks it finds itself, or what opinion the mind has of what it perceives.

thank you very much for posting. i greatly enjoyed reading what you had to say. :love:

 

Check out what Sri Aurobindo had to say, as he was the originator of Integral Yoga.
It's problematic if you say yes, I'm into integral philosophy, but actually know very little about it.