Platonic Zen exercises

Not many people find a connection between Zen and Platonism. I do, though these themes are more implicit than explicit in my book about the Neoplatonist philosopher, Plotinus.

So it was a pleasure to hear from someone who resonates with a Greek'ish blend of rationality and mysticism. That would be Nicholas Coleman, head of religious education at Wesley College in Melbourne, who wrote to me recently.

He had kind things to say about "Return to the One," which attracted me to him right off the bat.

Thank you very much for writing Return to the One. The margins of my copy are filling rapidly with affirmations of points well made. Admittedly I'm only up to p.249, but I can no longer resist jotting of this e-mail.

Nicholas went on to talk about his own spiritual approach.

I teach a philosophy of life called "Platonic Zen" which draws together what I've learnt of Perennial Philosophy from combing through the traditions of the West (Plato, Philo, Plotinus (!), Ps-Dionysius, Eckhart, Cudworth, Jung, Schumacher, Schuon, etc) and the East (Gautama, Lao-Tzu, Nagajuna, Shankara, Padmasambhava, Ramana, Chogyam Trungpa, etc) in order to find ideas that help make sense of my own spiritual experience.

The goal of Platonic Zen is for practitioners to attain God-realisation themselves. To that end I've devised five spiritual exercises, the second of which I see clearly echoed in your notion from Sara Rappe (p.30) that a distinction can be realised between the transient contents of consciousness and the consistent container of consciousness (again, that's my adaption of what you actually write).

I asked him to tell me more about Platonic Zen. In a second message Nicholas said:

If I may speak on behalf of the whole of humanity, I think we've generally got the wrong idea about ourselves. Instead of realising what we are, we think we're something that we're not. The ordinary empirical ego convinces us that it's real and in charge of what's happening in the material world. We let it get away with that pretense, although it isn't real and isn't in charge.

Why do we believe its false claims? Because it's easy and attractive to believe them. For they're accompanied by the (equally false) promise of enduring life. We can feel that something unborn in us will live forever and the empirical ego claims to be that unborn something. By believing ourselves to be the ego we think we might live on, not physically but in some kind of essentially ego-centric after-life.

Interesting. And pretty close to how I see things. I asked Nicholas if he'd be willing to share his Platonic Zen exercises. He kindly sent me the first three.

Here they are, in a Word file. Download 123_platonic_zen_exercises.doc

Nicholas asked for feedback on them, so comment away if you feel the spirit. Usually I'm not big on exercises – always skip them when I come across them in a spiritual book – but these are more intriguing than most.

Comments

[Roger]

"These graduated exercises facilitate the change in consciousness required for recognising or remembering the presence of God in all things and lives and minds, including the soul of our true selves"

---Has someone graduated through all the exercises? Hopefully, this person has a Diploma, as proof. Could this person, with his/her degree, describe the, "presence of God?" In addition, please supply a description of a 'soul' of our true selves.

I'm comforted to know that this isn't another gimick. Get 3 free exercises, buy the book, then get the remaining two.

[Nick]

The exercises are written on paper, like “recipes” for God-realisation. The proof of the recipes isn’t in another piece of paper, like a Diploma for example. If there’s a proof, then it’s in the pudding. And the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Yes, people have graduated through the exercises. The proof they have is the experience they gained by going on the journey.

I’m sure these people can describe their experience of the presence of God, just like they can describe their experience of the taste of an orange.

Would you be satisfied with someone else’s description of the soul, or of an orange for that matter? In my opinion, the taste of it is better than any talk about it.

Three exercises for free sounds like a pretty generous gift to me. But it’s up to you to decide.

[Brian]

Nick, a description of the experience of God also has to include a description of how someone else can have that experience.

If someone eats an orange, and describes the taste, he needs to be able to point to another orange and tell what you do to taste it: "take the peel off, put a section into your mouth."

With God, where's the "orange"? And where's the method to experience God? This is why descriptions of such experiences are akin to someone saying "I saw a pink elephant!"

Sure, that's possible. But only in their subjective (and alcohol soaked) mind.

[Adam]

I don't think God is so elusive--only if we are looking for a certain particular (probably peak) experience we imagine and then demand.
problem is, being embodied is not always comfortable, and there's not a whole lot to hold on to.

[Nick]

Without squirrels in my country, I was excited to visit an English forest full of them. At first I saw nothing. Then from the corner of my eye/I glimpsed fleeting movements round the edges of trees. Each movement occurred a spontaneous moment before my intentional effort to see what caused it. The squirrels were always one step ahead of my deliberate thinking.

Finally I stopped being distracted by my own thought processes and noticed with my peripheral vision instead. Thereafter, the elusive little creatures emerged from behind tress all over the forest right in front of my eyes.

Searching for wild squirrels in the forest is a great symbol for seeking the spiritual presence of God in the world. What we’re looking for (soul, spirit, God) is always everywhere all the time. It’s evident in the spontaneous activity of our mind, yet obscured by our efforts to think thoughts deliberately.

[Peter K]

Probably out of my depth here but here goes.

Brian, you ask “With God, where’s the orange?” Isn’t it the mind? To achieve a god experience requires a particular state of mind, and Nick’s exercises offer some ways of achieving that, to at least give us a glimpse of something transcendental, ways of seeing things in a different light which may encourage us to further explorations in our own way.

Given the intangibility of God, it is going to be the subjective mind that has the greater scope to achieve God realization. Objective considerations can show us the way but once achieved, are inadequate to fully describe the actual experience or provide a guaranteed way of being able to repeat it.

Methods can help in achieving that state of mind and one can take his pick of them. That state can also be achieved by having an unexpected insightful revelation. It has been said there are many paths to God, and Nick has described some exercises which may work for some people and not for others.

If God is “one”, then to finally achieve that oneness must mean that objectivity whilst in that state is redundant. After the event we can analyse it as best we can. But even with precise instructions from an experienced person, it can be most difficult to attain that state. I guess it depends on our preconceptions and if we are on the same wavelength as the instructor.

No doubt a subjective mind should be reasonably well grounded with some understanding of such matters, otherwise a subjective mind may be delusional, but then again who is to say a psychotic can’t have a meaningful spiritual experience that can do him some good.

Brian, I hereby reserve the right to retract anything nonsensical I have said above. I’m tired and aching from a viral infection. I know, excuses, excuses.

Peter K

[Nick]

Peter K,
Your comment sounds good. May I get some clarification on a couple of things in it?

You say: "Given the intangibility of God, it is going to be the subjective mind that has the greater scope to achieve God-realisation.” I agree that God is intangible, if what you mean is that God cannot be detected by the physical senses.

Some people believe that reality is tangible and that what can’t be physically detected isn’t real. I gather you’re not such a person. So: if physical senses detect tangible things, do you think our mind has some additional non-physical sense that can detect intangible things like God?

You say: “Objective considerations can show us the way but once achieved, are inadequate to fully describe the actual experience". Are objective considerations finally inadequate because they deal only with physical objects, while the actual experience extends into an intangible domain that can only be accessed by the non-physical senses of the subjective mind?

You say: “If God is “one”, then to finally achieve that oneness must mean that objectivity whilst in that state is redundant.” If objectivity in that state is redundant, then wouldn’t subjectivity also be redundant? Are you suggesting that the state of oneness with God transcends the duality of subjectivity and objectivity?

[Peter K]

Nick,
Yes I do mean that God cannot be detected by our physical senses. I would say that our minds are just as intangible as God is. I guess that’s what it takes, an intangible to consider another intangible. It will be only an aware and thoughtful mind can concieve a concept such as God.

I would think that objective considerations can deal with both physical and non-physical things, but only to a certain extent. While experience can be tangible to the extent that it may be able to be measured and defined in some way, there is no way which can adequately describe an experience or feeling. Words go only so far.

To achieve that state of oneness with everthing if I can put it that way, requires a subjective mind, by which I mean there are no other considerations whilst in that state. Otherwise you are not there, you would be considering ifs, buts, comparisons, objectives etc. Duality would arise. Objectivity would have to come later. That ultimate state of oneness with everything would be without thought and awareness, no need for them is there? You’re it and that’s all there is, whilst in that state.

Never having read anything about subjectivity and objectivity, I googled “Plotinus subjectivity” and found references to Plotinus, Hindu mystics and others, who at brief glance seem also to see it my way. Would that be correct, Nick? If you think differently, please let me know how so.

Needless to say, I am not talking of a creative God in the Christian sense, but of a state of being within ourselves, enlightened, with what some would call god-like qualities.

Ah well, maybe it is all just conjecture, but it’s what our minds do isn’t it. That’s not to say we should’nt try to better ourselves, to see things in a new and better light with hopefully an open mind, so that we may better understand ourselves and the things around us, tangible and intangible.