Doubting the Appearance of Spiritual Phenomena
Silouan
Veteran
I recently read a most liberating commentary by Thinley Norbu Rinpoche. In his book, 'A Cascading Waterfall of Nectar', there is a section on Buddhist cosmology and after reading it I became aware that I have been actually harboring a nihilist point of view which has been fueling doubt in relation to my belief in the appearance of spiritual phenomena.
It has been like playing a game of tug of war between the two, but now rather than saying I don't believe or harbor doubt it has been beneficial to merely recognize that it is beyond my current perception and just leave it at that.
Here is an excerpt from the above mentioned commentary. I hope others may find it useful for their own spiritual development too.
"...All religions recognize that there is something beyond ordinary reality that cannot be seen by everyone, and followers are taught to pray and receive blessings through believing in what they may not yet be able to see. Even if spiritual phenomena are temporarily imperceptible to them, they will still create positive energy through faith and belief, increasing their spiritual connection. Even though inexperienced religious people do not see spiritual phenomena with their physical senses, they believe that they exist and can definitely be seen. In Islam, there are angels and entire cities of jinn that only the prophets can perceive. In Judaism, different Kabbalah texts describe up to five different realms of angels. Hindus believe that divine beings live in realms not seen by those who do not believe in them, but that the faithful can communicate with them through worship. Christians believe in heaven, God, and the Holy Spirit, all of which are imperceptible to the senses of non-believers. Buddhists believe that cyclic existence occurs from dualistic habit but can be transformed into immeasurable purelands of Buddhas by believing in them with faith, through prayer and meditation.
It is important to understand the characteristics of phenomena and not only drawn to substantialization. Obviously, beings have different phenomena, and beings are countless, so countless different beings have countless different phenomena. Some beings can perceive phenomena that other beings cannot perceive. Even within one day, some beings perceive the same phenomena together, but other beings situated in a different location cannot perceive those phenomena at the same time. Likewise, even though there are different religions in this world, and even though each religion talks about oneness, they still preach various beliefs, such as the Christian belief in Jesus and the Islamic belief in Muhammad, due to different perceptions of phenomena.
According to relative truth, if Buddhists reject the existence of Mount Meru, they must also say that all objects of faith of externalist religions not seen by nihilists or proven by science do not exist. By the logic of this view, the spiritual beliefs of all religious traditions are invalidated because it is thought that no one sees what is believed, and no one is supposed to believe in anything that is not immediately visible. This kind of logic does not take into account that the phenomena of beings are different because of their different habits, and therefore spiritual phenomena are not always invisible. Those who have spiritual phenomena see positive spiritual appearances, believe in them, and write texts about them. Then their followers believe their teachings, and through faith and pure phenomena, these followers can also see spiritual appearances.
The existence of spiritual appearances cannot be verified from a nihilist view of accepting only what can be materially seen with ordinary perception. Whatever seems to exist or not exist is the phenomena of beings, including negative and positive appearances of the universe. It is sad when supposedly spiritual Buddhists become too excited about modern scientific ideas and begin to think that spiritual phenomena do not exist because they cannot be explained by scientific theories or detected by scientific instruments. Nihilists are born to be nihilists, but those who are spiritual should not agree with them believing one-sidedly in nihilist ideas."
Comments
I recently had an experience of clear-seeing for about a week. Clearer than I have ever experienced before. It was as if I could see everyone's Buddha nature shining out through their eyes and I felt a strong connection with everyone. I was full of energy and focus-of-mind, with a strong sense of compassion for myself and EVERYONE else.
I was talking to a trusted friend about this and he said, "are you sure you're not just having a manic episode?" Now that burst my bubble. I sat with the idea.
I wonder in our modern don't-believe-anything society, if spiritual experiences are always going to be perceived as some form of psychosis. Certainly, it's worth taking spiritual experiences with a grain of salt. I wasn't running around with my clothes off claiming to be Jesus or anything. But internally there was such a dramatic shift in my perception of things, and everything was just so much more beautiful than usual and everything just made so much more sense. I felt that I clearly knew the appropriate response to every situation; that the right words were just flowing off my tongue.
How should we approach such profound experiences without writing them off as delusion or psychosis, and also without accepting everything we experience without question? The middle way I suppose. But, to expand, what is "the middle way" in relation to such experiences?
I became aware that I have been actually harboring a nihilist point of view which has been fueling doubt in relation to my belief in the appearance of spiritual phenomena.
Seeing Jinn, Angels or having visions of Micky Mouse equates as mental illness. I have never experienced such things. Did Thinley Norbu Rinpoche? Doubt it. So what are we talking about as 'spiritual phenomena'?
The Buddhist teaching is anatta
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta
personally I find the concept of Neti Neti simpler and clearer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neti_neti
Your experience sounded genuine. It did not sound psychotic BUT such experiences can lead one to believe one is an advanced attainer. Caution. Neti Neti. Experiences come, they go, clarity, dullness.
Onward.
:wave:
I do think that certain 'spiritual' phenomena exist outside of our everyday perceptions. However, how is one supposed to determine what is a legitimate spiritual vision or truth and what is made up or a misperception?
In my reading of the passage I would disagree with Rinpoche slightly in that I think certain religious truths can be disproven by science, like Mount Meru, and that there is a difference between disproving something and not finding it.
This isn't meant to be a criticism, it's just something I've been thinking about...but perhaps when we experience such spiritual things, we aren't really always meant to share them. I think oftentimes when we need to share those things, it's still our ego wanting to validate ourselves and our experience, to determine if the ego is still ok, still here, and so on. I increasingly try to be more cautious about labeling (assigning any words at all) to some experiences, and I'm very cautious about whether I share experiences with other people. Because most of the time, because the other person has not experienced the same thing, the meaning of the experience is totally lost in my attempt to use words. It leaves the other person confused, and sometimes afraid, and so they question my experience, and it leaves me confused, too. Some things, I think, are sacred, and not always meant to be shared because of that reason.
Also, I have noted that when people, including myself, share such experiences with teachers, they tend to simply smile and say "that's good" and carry on their way. Because we tend to get attached to those experiences as a sign that we are on the right path, that it was a good experience (thus we labeled it) and we try to attain it again, and our labeling such events as positive experiences in the right direction automatically means we label, in some sense, other things as more negative than that previous experience.
It's amusing as I think every phenomena (spiritual / profound / mundane) is not understood beyond the understanding that is required to negotiate the existence within the boundaries of the particular condition.
This is a very limited understanding.
For example - one may observe a person standing motionless and actionless - is this person motionless and actionless? on some collective level yes as for certain intents and purposes he is not moving and not taking action.
However this is not true for every condition - for example, the person is moving subtly to maintain balance, the molecules are moving in the body, the mind is a torrent etc etc. Each of these will cascade to a point where other observations are meaningless whereas the particular cascade itself will seem to be 'logical'.
Reality is not 1-0 - there is fuzziness or chaos/probability - as a result, our thinking is not 1-0 - it is rather a gradient of relative comparisons - doubt is a measure of this fuzziness.
I think if one seeks to categorise phenomena then inevitably one shall require a gradient of relative comparisons - this then requires some things to be profound say and some mundane - some accepted and some not so - the gradient is created.
But underlying this platform is chaos which our minds cannot consciously assimilate or calculate.
So the error I think is in considering that there is an 'ordinary' and 'not so ordinary' reality. The doubt has nowhere to attach but at the borders of the not so ordinary as denoted by relative gradients.
Jinn, Angels and Micky Mouse are not the same thing!
How can you be sure you've never seen or interacted with a Jinn or an angel?
I don't suppose you can be sure and I guess it's easier leaning to an understanding that may apply in another comparison which subtly seems attractive to this comparison.
Belief I think is the other end of the comparison gradient. So again, doubt and belief meet and seem to serve a similar purpose. External reference points (such as sharing an experience) are in my mind phenomena and therefore subject again to the same comparison gradient. All of these constructs are accumulated and therefore equally capable of being abandoned.
Not all visions of Micky Mouse are delusional. Some kids are transformed by the interaction. Same with non schizophrenic visitations from the formless made flesh. However outside Disney World I have had no divine visitors that seemed 'real'. Some saintly people do, no doubt.
In Tantra and alien abduction the experiences seem real. The Koran and Book of the Law are examples of angel dictation. Personally I find them underwhelming evidence of anything outside projection . . .
I find such things more disturbance than spiritual . . .
What Angels, spiritual beings do you know?
Me, none.
@lobster I have only provided a small excerpt of the commentary and in it Rinpoche did provide some examples of intangible and sublime spiritual phenomena, but he offers much more in the book and goes into depth on the nature of the mind and phenomena than obviously contained in that snippet.
If one understands the nature of the mind and phenomena as he explains in his book then those spiritual phenomena can in fact be perceived, so there really is no reason to get caught up in doubt about or have disbelief in the potential for their appearance, so I have no reason to wonder about what he may or may have not seen with his spiritual eyes.
However, if he, or anyone else for that matter, did say they have specifically seen something that I haven't I find it better to just recognize that it is beyond my perception rather than out right dismissal or saying things like the reason I left Christianity is because I don't believe in heaven, God, or the Holy Spirit. I think the former approach is less self-filing and the later its opposite.
Also, whatever spiritual phenomena I personally may have or not have seen I share with my spiritual father whose obedience I'm under, but if I did in fact see Mickey Mouse it would still be phenomena arising from habit.
OK
So you are not interested in Chaos Magick, which utilises Micky Mouse on occasion. Fair enough. You have your vision, I'll have mine . . .
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/chaos-magick
Not for now, so your vision is beyond my perception.
@Silouan Would you mind explaining what you mean by nihilism, or a nihilistic view? I don't believe in angels or demons or anything like that as a skeptic, but my understanding of nihilism isn't tied to whether or not such beings or phenomena exist.
One view of the concept of nihilism may be expressed in a few sentences, as opposed to 'a buddhist view of emptiness that is a source of everything and liberation' yet has not been properly defined in 2500 years:
If regarded as true, it can be a real downer btw...
Nihilism is the lawful antithesis of everything 'and' nothing. It is the perfected absolute and complete denial of anything 'and' nothing in that the reality of it's existence instantly negates itself and anything of consequence or substance that may be permitted to arise even before it can become something,in matter or consciousness.
But it's not, cos nihilism's been overcome... Or you/we/I would not be here.
Now where was I?
Oh yes trying to overcome views of worlds of Angels and Demons...
@anataman I didn't understand any of what you said.
Good! Neither did I and don't want to.
I don't dispute that people can experience spiritual 'visions' as one of our other learned posters discusses in experiencing and seeking to attain the Thogal visions, which I place in the same spiritual phenomena camp as those you express in the OP @Silouan.
Whilst I have destroyed nihilism, although as a philosophy it lingers on to pass away in the shadows, I have no intention of destroying spiritual phenomena, in fact I would like to experience pure land phenomena, but other things have my attention, and I must rely on the practitioner who created the pure land to open up and let me share some of their merit. And they are not going to share it with a fool like me.
Birth and death are phenomenons too, and you can't deny those.
I would never deny those as phenomena, as that would be entertaining nihilism again
I think its human psyche to deny things and create a form of comfort. What we like to disbelieve is probably going to slap us in the face one day.
Buddha Keanu Reeves
battling with the evil one
I guess the term "spiritual phenomena" means supernatural experiences? Anything from out of body or psychic or visions? Either everyone's supernatural visions are true, or none of them, or one religion has the right key to unlock the doorway to the supernatural and the rest are deluded. Take your pick.
But who says Buddhism or any spiritual path has to include the supernatural? It's not nihilism to say if you're seeing the world as it is, then changing a baby's diaper can be a spiritual experience while having a vision of the Buddha sitting in the clouds is just a distraction that means nothing.
Pretty weird to think of Keanu Reeves as The Buddha.
They really would have been better suited not to play that ridiculously overdramatic music through the entire 14:16. It prevented me from being able to watch it through the whole way. Are these clips from a movie?
yes @thegoldeneternity I believe it is a movie from the early nineties called little buddha and I missed it completely until today.
I actually like the music (it is a called requiem for a dream, which is a fitting title; I haven't seen the film, and someone may have layered it with the music for effect - and to clarify further, and without trying to derail the thread the point of this particular video comment comes right at the end - when Buddha Keanu slays Mara once and for all with the words 'with earth as my witness' and touches the ground (I was taught to do this when I learned to meditate, but did not realise the significance of the gesture) It now makes a lot of sense to me to do this, and I will be doing it when I dedicate merit (not because Buddha Keanu did it, but because it makes sense to be grounded - you have to be grounded to view and overcome the illusion 'of the architect' as it is put in the film, and then the emanation of light infuses and reveals everything from within and that is the spiritual phenomenon I have always sought, but now I am colouring it for you.
View it as an action movie if you will. The bad guy is brought to account in the end.
The clip makes it look like the movie is just a movie about Buddha's life, which it's not. The life of Buddha is explained as a story, read to an American boy who is sought out as a possible tulku. He and 2 other boys are brought to...India? I can't recall the country, to be tested as to which is the tulku. The story is about one of the boys and his journey and testing, and the story of Buddha is told within it. The music in the clip is NOT in the movie, which is a full length feature fill. It's decent. But I have a problem seeing Keanu as anything but Ted from Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, LOL.
@karasti Whaaat? You no like Neo from Matrix?
The Matrix is also a different film about the same thing I suppose @AldrisTorvalds, and Buddha Keanu aka Neo, is just as ignorant, just as surprised and upset by what he finds to be the reality of his world and still saves the world and gets the girl - the historical however had everything including the girl first ! - lol
I am going to have to see the whole film now film because I am intrigued.
Now I believe I have given cinematographic representations unnecessary attention, which should not cast doubt on spiritual phenomena as represented by the OP.
@AldrisTorvalds I apologize for the delayed response.
Despite the many interpretations of Nihilism they are ultimately just forms of ucchedavada or materialism (annihilationism). Basically an aspect I'm referring to is only believing in what the senses perceive and experience in this momentary life.
Dr. Y. Karunadasa provides an excellent overivew of sasssatavada (eternalism) and ucchedavada (annihilationism) here: budsas.org/ebud/ebdha263.htm
@Silouan Reading the link you gave, it's clear that author is conflating Nihilism/Annihilationism with what they think the consequences are of holding a Materialistic view. I can't say this is the first time I've seen the conflation-effect, and it's not limited to just Buddhists.
It's true that materialists can easily be nihilists, in the same vein that idealists can easily be eternalists. It's just not necessarily the case, and faulty premises should not be the foundation of entire articles or worldviews.