weirdway

Part 1

At some point I've come to realize that I've been underestimating the role of mental life conventional people call "imagination." From the POV of convention imagination serves as inspiration for art and science, but more often than not imagination is something that is said to take people away from the so-called "reality." Thus the term "imagination" has a lot of pejorative uses from the POV of convention.

From the POV of subjective idealism, imagination is any kind of experience. Why so? Because when no experience can be said to be informative or conclusive, it has to be understood as imaginary. Experiences are merely suggestive because there is always a choice in how to interpret and how to relate to them. This is what allows a peer to perform subjectively strange transformations of experiences. Experience is malleable and so it can be bent, shaped, molded, restructured, orchestrated, charmed, enchanted, cajoled, invited, attracted or repelled, guided, to name only a few possibilities. And experience is malleable precisely because it is merely suggestive and isn't informative.

If a person believes in an objective domain of some sort, then they typically will view some of their experiences as hailing from that domain, and therefore will view such experiences as being informative. For a subjective idealist an objective domain is only at best a play-pretend commitment to an imaginary mental fabrication.

For the purpose of this article I want the reader to be aware that imagination can be extremely varied. It can be any sort of concrete imagery, such as what happens when visualizing a tree along with some scenery. And it can also be supremely abstract, such as what is experienced during abstract thinking. One can imagine different ways of structuring experience, and that's something very abstract.

I find it useful to distinguish subjectively different grades or types of imagination. Ultimately all imaginary activity can be understood to belong to a smooth continuum of imagination, but for the sake of communication I will identify a few types. However any time I talk about the types of imagination the reader should realize that I don't want to imply rigid and always unambiguous distinctions between these types.

I think it's best to start with the most obvious and proceed toward the most subtle.

The most obvious type of imagination is the content of the 5 conventional senses: sight, sound, human body sense (touch, heat/cold, up/down, hunger, thirst, internal pressure, etc.), taste, smell. This content often hovers like a very dynamic cloud right at the center of one's experience, and it tends to be very structured, patterned and cyclical for a typical reader whom I imagine is reading this. And the reader maybe imagines someone must have written this post. This sort of imagination could be called central or centered potential. It's that which has been most emphasized in the mind.

Next is the imaginary near potential. So for example, if you see an electronic screen in front of you right now, it's very easy to imagine the same screen being slightly to the left of where it is now. Notice, I am not necessarily talking about visualizing yet. Visualization is a kind of imagination too, but imagination is not limited to only visualization. For the purpose of this article being able to conceive of a possibility is also a kind of imagination. So it's easy to imagine the screen being in a slightly different position. It's also easy to imagine some of the words in this post being slightly different while retaining the same meaning and so on. Most conventional possibilities may belong here. Very well practiced magickal transformations belong here. So for example, if you're a practiced lucid dreamer, then the possibility of a lucid dream will be in the near potential. Thus you can imagine yourself having a lucid dream and this falls firmly with the range of expected and reliable possibilities.

Next is the imaginary medium potential. This is something that you believe is hard, but possible. So maybe you can imagine your body lifting a very heavy weight that is somewhat heavier than the heaviest you remember yourself lifting before. In terms of convention, you might imagine a type of device that could conceivably be engineered within say 20 years of research and development. As far as magickal transformations go, think of some that you think you could achieve in this lifetime, but haven't yet. Or think of those transformations that don't work very reliably.

Next is the imaginary far potential. Far potential is everything that's pretty much subjectively ludicrous, but still imaginable. So for example, let's say I imagine my body going through a wall during the so-called "waking" state. (My body goes through my wall.) I can imagine that. I can imagine myself creating a universe or twisting space and time. Presently it doesn't feel like such things are in the cards, so to speak, but because I can conceive of them they are contained in my imaginary far potential.

Next is the infinite region of imagination that is imaginable only in principle, but is presently unimaginable. This is a very important type of imagination. If anyone is interested in mastery of imagination, then it's crucial to recognize that imagination is not limited to only that which you can presently imagine.

Originally posted by u/mindseal on 2016-05-15 15:30:31

Part 1

I want to present some ideas I’ve been having. I’m sure some of you will see holes in my il/logic or errors in my understanding, so I’m open to critique. I also apologize if I’m simply repeating ideas in other posts in this sub that I have not yet read. Also, fair warning, a lot of Tibetan philosophy is wrapped up in this post.

These ideas are around how it is both possible and profound to use a framework of animism within an overall framework of subjective idealism.

Animism can embody a physicalist mindset or can fall on the side of idealism. I would say that animist frameworks would most often fall in the middle with some form of objective idealism—a philosophy that asserts that common-sense physical matter actually exists and that mind/spirit/consciousness inhabits or interplays with this matter. A mind/spirit may exist as some sort of ideal state of the matter itself. It could be perceived as something like the forms of Plato’s allegory of the cave or as a perfected archetype of its manifest self–one that holds the true mind of that individual. On the slightly more physicalist side, you have panpsychism, and on the slightly more idealist side, pantheism, both of which can fall, in a general way, under the umbrella of animism, though animism does usually account for greater individuation of being than those do.

I’m relatively new to subjective idealism in a western sense. Solipsism seems a popular topic on this sub, as it seems to be a very powerful form of subjective idealism and perhaps its most extreme expression. Don’t get me wrong, solipsism interests me, and dabbling in it certainly has revealed it to be powerful, but it also feels lacking to me, like it’s missing something important, and I have felt drawn toward other frameworks within the overall framework of subjective idealism.

This may due to having been deeply involved in the Bön tradition for the last five years or so. Bön, I’ll argue, practices what could be considered a hybrid of subjective idealism and animism.

In general, Buddhism (Bön included in this usage) is considered to espouse its own form of subjective idealism. (See the Wikepedia page of Idealism, where it differentiates between the Pantheism/Panentheism/Objective Idealism of the Hindus and the Subjective Idealism of the Buddhists.)

Tibetan Buddhism is a culturally-specific expression of vajrayana/tantric buddhism, with much of the culture, and spiritual practices originally based on the indigenous Old Bön animist paradigm. While this has carried through into Tibetan Buddhism (brought to Tibet from India), it perhaps carried through even more strongly into the Yungdrung Bön (brought to Tibet from Zhangzhung), but both of these, at their core, hold subjective idealist paradigms.

To illustrate this greater level of animist qualities, my teacher, a Bön monk, often tells stories of how when someone in Tibet in real physical need, be it health problems, mental problems, spirit problems, or similar, the Tibetan Buddhists would often send that person to the Bön yogi as a last resort (something they would never do if the issue related to buddhist doctrine or attaining enlightenment). Apparently, the Bön are particularly respected for their ability to manipulate reality in order to heal/exorcise/etc.

Bön has three forms of practice, Sutra, Tantra and Dzogchen. Sutra (which has the closest to a physicalist view, but is still idealist), is where one works toward enlightenment gradually and which, while being the most scriptural/philosophical/vow-oriented, also deals with the reality of spirits. For example, the famous Lu Bum text (a sacred text on the philosophies and rites for dealing with naga spirits), falls into the category of Sutra.

But within Tantra and Dzogchen, when understood correctly, there is a much stronger non-dual, subjective-idealist perspective. In tantra, spirits are now only seen as ‘poisonous’ aspects of the practitioner’s mind, while simultaneously understanding the emptiness of any inherent self. The deities that the practitioner transforms into simply constitute a magical paradigm shift. It is an overlaying the illusion of existence with a constructed illusion of perfected wisdom, compassion, power, and peaceful or wrathful energy -- depending on the deity. The texts are all clear that these deities are not inherently existent (because nothing is).

In the view (which can be different than the actual practice) of Dzogchen (a subdivision of tantra), “spirits,” like all of existence, are simply ephemeral displays of the mind, there one second and gone the next. In the true dzogchen state, there is neither self nor other, physical nor spiritual, mind nor matter. All is a perfected awareness of ultimate emptiness and clear light, and its spontaneous apparitions that are constantly on display.

Tantra and Dzogchen can be compared in some ways to active and passive subjective idealism. While one is manifesting effortlessly but interacts with that manifestation and transforms it with her Will, the other also manifests “reality” effortlessly, but within a state of realization that there is nothing that needs to be changed within that apparitional display.

However, because Dzogchen is considered the highest view of Bön, the Sutra and Tantra practices/texts are both colored by this ultimate understanding. Conversely, even within the context of tantra and dzogchen practice, preliminary rites related to appeasing natural wild spirits are performed. Within these contexts, the practitioner must hold multiple views within their mind at once. On one level—one that has a noticeable effect in the conventional world—spirits are “real” (as much as anything can be), while simultaneously within the realization that the spirits, the performance of the rite, and the practitioners themselves are all ephemeral displays of the natural state of mind. While holding seeming paradoxical understandings of reality simultaneously, a few things happen: the rites have the power to effect conventional reality while simultaneously advancing the awakening process in the practitioner. A middle way is achieved.

Furthermore, when one has a high enough realization/lucidity within the dream of subjective idealism, one can completely become the dream—they are completely transformed into the prayer or ritual that is unfolding within the dream. This adds an incredible layer of power to a conventional animist perspective, let alone the true or awakened understanding of its underlying reality.

This is the type of power you get what when you cross an animistic culture (Old Bön) with subjective-idealist ones (Vajrayana Buddhism and Yungdrung Bön).

I know this was long, but it’s easy for me to use Bön philosophies as a jumping off point for what I want to talk about, which is a generic inter-framework of Weirdway Animism…

I once read a comment from u/Nefandi that he did not like the Six Yogas of Naropa because they talked too much of the body’s central channel as if it were a real thing, and it talked about the subjective visions of old yogis as if they were real. These are texts that fall within a weirdway-animist framework. The animist portion is simply the tool for advancing the ultimate stance of subjective idealism, while simultaneously creating change within conventional reality.

The thing is, real Tibetan Bön and Buddhist yogis, the actual enlightened ones, understand that these visions/energies/energy channels/spirits are only “real” within the context of that particular tantric practice. Like any framework within an ultimate framework of subjective idealism, they are a tool—perhaps one of our most ancient ones to us as “humans.” They are a way to shift our mind. And these forms, such as energy channels within the body, or mountain spirits that become happier upon receiving offerings, or prayer flags that spread their blessings over the valley, are forms of animism that have WORKED for a large number of people for millennia. Using them within a context of subjective idealism adds power to BOTH the reality of the animist spirits and to the realization that this is a dream and that “you” are in control, should you choose to be.

Originally posted by u/nuadu on 2019-02-09 04:05:54

Part 1

For the purpose of this post I am defining enlightenment as a kind of practico-theoretical dream wisdom in line with what we're discussing here on this sub.

First, substance. One way to define substance is to say it is that which allows observation from multiple perspectives. And the corollary to this is that if we say things lack substance, we are saying things appear as they appear to a single perspective, yours, and whatever other perspective observes, is not the same thing at all. Or in effect, you're not observing things! You are observing only the emanational consequences of your own commitment. Because a different perspective will involve a different commitment (the total state of one's volition, conscious and unconscious regions thereof), they observe something almost entirely unique.

So when I see a chair, I am looking at a consequence of my own commitment rather than some external object. Therefore when someone else observes a chair what actually happens is that I observe both the chair and the someone else, and I myself grant that the someone else has a valid narrative input on the chair. But all this is 100% internal to my point of view. If I were to grant true being to external observers, I would no longer have the authority to take their narratives as informative, because I would then not be able to tie up all the loose ends myself. Ironic.

Now what about perspectives themselves? Can these be said to have substance? Again, how can one's perspective be observed externally? If you realize that you're always observing consequences of your own commitment, then you know you're not observing something called "Nefandi's perspective." My perspective is my way of relating all things, but that's only knowable to me. To see something called "Nefandi" from the outside you have to have your own way of relating things where Nefandi is but one tiny element of a bigger network, so the Nefandi you know is not whatsoever the Nefandi that I know. The Nefandi I know is my way of relating all things. It is my subjectivity itself in its generality and specificity. But the Nefandi you know is just some sensory phenomenon, and nothing more. Those are two very different "things."

That's the background. It's the plate.

Now the fried potatoes that go on that plate.

Your own enlightenment is partway realization and partway practical perfection of that same realization as it occurs inside your own perspective. This by its very nature will make things better for you. You will become less dependent on society and on circumstances as a result. You will become less influenced by praise and blame. You will become less controllable, which is good for you. And how this feels on the inside you can only know once you get "there." In fact no one can even know if you got "there" or not, it's something only you know (or decide).

But looooong before you reach a decent level of enlightenment you are guaranteed to fantasize about enlightenment as a remote possibility. When you fantasize about enlightenment as a remote possibility you imagine other people "out there" are enlightened. That's the sensory symbolic representation of your own future enlightenment. But this imagination by necessity is based on a gross misunderstanding of enlightenment! You're imagining all this while in the throws of gross ignorance. Thus all the so-called "enlightened people" are nothing but hopes of a feverishly ignorant mind. And those hopes are just wrong in so many ways, but you won't know how or why until you're a long way into the process yourself, and then you'll start to realize how stupid you were for thinking Buddha or Zhuangzi or anyone else (I do mean anyone) were even remotely enlightened. Such suggestive sensory phenomena accompanied by narratives are nothing but the products of your own pre-enlightened (read: largely ignorant) perspective. These fragments can never be enlightened (nor can they be ignorant or unenlightened, lol, they're just not anything specific at all, but they're helpless victims of whatever dark pre-weird dream you're having).

Put another way, your own enlightenment is your own idealization of the best way of being. Whereas other people's enlightenment is your own idealization of the best possible way you can be treated by an (believed to be) external being. These can almost never be the same thing.

So for example, if I am always insecure, the best thing I can imagine from an ordinary point of view is to be surrounded by people who constantly boost my confidence and put winds in my sails. So I then might imagine how people who do this flawlessly are enlightened. Why? Because that's what a perfect servant would be. An externally enlightened person is a perfect servant of myself. They boost my confidence when I am insecure. They chastise me when I get reckless thus saving me from accidents. They feed me when I am hungry, even selflessly sacrificing their bodies to feed me. They present their wisdom in the form of entertaining and easily digestible tales. They teach me how I can become stronger in a step by step manner tailored to my needs. These folks take the time to familiarize themselves with the peculiarities of my unique ignorance so that they can speak to me in a way that will connect with me. So that's the ideal of an external enlightenment.

External enlightenment is a servant of all your flaws. You're insecure, so external enlightenment is there to dote on you. You're becoming reckless and mindless and external enlightenment is there to put the breaks on you so you don't have to do so yourself. You're bored, and external enlightenment is there to entertain you all the while also giving you spiritual calories that are good for you. Basically the idea of external enlightenment is someone who is totally your bitch. They exist totally for you. They have no self interest because it's a full time job to serve your interest.

But what about internal enlightenment? Does anyone really dream of becoming a slave? Think about it. Do you want to become more free or more bound? Do you want to have more obligations or fewer? Do you want more options in your life or fewer options? Do you want a greater scope for your volition or a narrower scope?

Also consider this. If everyone reached perfection in terms of an external enlightenment ideal, who would be the beneficiary? The whole point of external enlightenment is that you serve those who are less enlightened than you. But if everyone is equally 'external-ideal' enlightened, whom do they serve? They're like slaves without a master. They fall by the wayside. The ideal of external enlightenment is basically a dead end. The ideal of external enlightenment requires ignorant and spiritually inadequate people to be valid. A bottle cap requires some bottle to be a cap of. Without the bottles bottle caps are just piss poor tiny tea cups or something. Probably just landfill.

Internal enlightenment has no such flaws. Once you become internally enlightened you become liberated in every sense of the word. You no longer depend on any specific scenario to be useful. You can create and abolish any scenarios. You can be useful to yourself and to others and even to other internally enlightened people (enlightened according to an internal ideal), and if there are no people at all, you can still be useful to yourself. You know how to keep yourself happy. It's an endlessly resourceful and endlessly rich state of being. It leads toward infinity. You're nobody's and nothing's slave. This is something very scary to normal people. Think about it...

Originally posted by u/mindseal on 2016-05-02 01:12:09