There's a place for intelligent thinking. But we should be aware of its limitations.

I feel bad that my previous post caused some people to get the wrong impression of one of my favorite authors. In "Everything is spiritual" says Joan Tollifson. I heartily agree I shared quotations from one of Tollifson's books that were unbalanced in a certain sense.

While I understood that Tollifson is a big fan of reason and science, taken by itself this paragraph could be taken to be a putdown of reason and science.

Our brain sees patterns where none actually exist. It turns chaos into order. But the order is imaginary. We are always clueless. Life is an unresolvable, incomprehensible, indeterminate mystery. And that's not a horrible or depressing thought, but rather, a liberating and beautiful realization.

From a neuroscientific perspective, Tollifson is absolutely correct. The human brain is incapable of perceiving reality directly, being encased in the dark confine of our skull. So the brain makes best guesses as to what is happening in the world (and also within the mind) from inferences based on current perceptions and past experiences.

The brain is a prediction machine. It fashions order out of the raw material of life, in somewhat the same fashion as several American election models that I follow use mathematics and statistics based on political polls, economic data, prior election results, and such to come up with predictions (updated daily) as to the chance Kamala Harris or Donald Trump will be elected president next month. 

The actual reality obviously is much different from what those models are able to capture. I know that. But when I see that Harris is leading Trump by 57% to 43% in Nate Silver's prediction model, I'm pleased because I want Harris to win. It's easy for me to forget that Silver's model is a crude reflection of political reality, and could be far off the mark -- as his model was in 2016, when it predicted that Hillary Clinton had a much greater chance of winning and Trump won.

So Tollifson is simply reminding us that models aren't reality. Whatever conceptual models we have in our mind about the way things are, the one thing that's certain about those models is that they're flawed. While correct in certain ways, they're incorrect in other ways. Problem is, it can be devilishly difficult for us to know the difference, in part because no one, absolutely no one, has a perfect grasp of reality.

(Assuming such is even possible, when I suspect it isn't.)

Here's some additional Tollifson quotations that give a fuller picture of her attitude toward thinking and reason. As I said in my previous post, I don't agree 100% with what Tollifson says in her writings, but in general I believe she is right on in her viewpoint. This quotation is from Death: The End of Self-Improvement, the book I quoted in that previous post.

Self-improvement is rigid and perfectionistic, driven by beliefs, expectations and old answers, while genuine transformation is flexible, open to new discoveries and rooted in not-knowing. Genuine transformation listens for what life itself wants, while self-improvement imagines that "I" know how everything "should" be. 

Self-improvement is judgmental, self-righteous and narrow-minded, while happiness and real change are the release of all that. Self-improvement is primarily thought-based, while genuine transformation emerges from aware presence. Thought divides; awareness joins. Thought is dualistic; awareness is nondual.

Of course, there is a place for intelligent thinking -- reason, intellect and analysis are marvelous tools. I'm not in any way disparaging thinking. I have great appreciation for the scientific method and for human reason. But awareness is upstream from thought. And in many situations, thought is the wrong instrument.

These quotations are from Nothing to Grasp.

When we try to figure out "the meaning of life" or "the nature of reality," or when we try to come up with a conceptual understanding of Consciousness, Totality, God, or the Ground of Being, we inevitably end up frustrated and confused. Any conceptual picture of reality is always subject to doubt, and no metaphysical formulation ever satisfies our deep longing for Truth.

What satisfies that deep longing of the heart is the falling away of the attempt to make sense of everything. Of course, that doesn't mean we don't still make relative sense of things in a functional way in daily life. But we stop trying to take hold of Totality, or grasp the Ground of Being, or figure out the meaning of life.

Instead, we relax into simply being life. We learn to recognize (to see, to sense) when we're beginning to grasp or fixate, and in that recognition, quite naturally there is an ability to relax and let go. When we stop trying to figure it all out, we discover that it doesn't need to be figured out, and in fact, can't be figured out. 

When we stop desperately trying to get a grip, we find nothing is lacking and there is nothing to grasp.

...Thought and language are wonderful tools. But words are inherently abstract and representational. Even when they are trying not to, they inevitably tend to freeze and divide the seamless fluidity of life, creating the mirage-like conceptual appearance of separate, independent forms that persist through time. So whenever we try to think about life, we tend to get easily confused. 

We get confused because we are thinking about and trying to reconcile "things" that don't actually exist. Whatever verbal formulation we use to describe reality is never quite right. Thought can never get hold of the actuality of this-here-now. Reality itself is too fluid, too immediate, too dynamic to be divided up and caught in the conceptual net of words.

If we say, "This is it," the words create the very split they attempt to point beyond. If we say "All is One," it is one too many. If we call it "nothing," it seems to deny the undeniable presence of everything. If we assert that "there is nothing to do," it seems to overlook the necessity of doing whatever we are moved by life to do. If we assert "there is something to do," it makes it sound as if something else is required in order to be what we already are.

Comments

[manjit]

I don't know know who Joan is and I have never read anything of her's except the above quote. But I instantly recognise in her words somebody who actually understands something and then subsequently attempts to frame it, quite wonderfully imo, in words. This is opposed imo to the overwhelming majority of "mystics" both on blogs like these or even well known pseudo-mystics like Sam Harris, who imo have no real significant "mystical" experience or insight but rather instead put the cart before the horse by putting concepts and words before experiential and ontological understanding. All talk no walk in other words.

When folks have no genuine or ontological mystical insight and wisdom, IE. remain entrenched in duality and individuality, they fetishize "spiritual pursuits" by divorcing spirituality from the "mundane" world and it's concerns and then obsessing over spiritual concepts, gurus, books, history, rules and regulations etc whilst simultaneously rejecting the body, world and relationships as "negative". This is, imo, just another dualistic illusion, dream or maya. Another "cool story bro" we tell ourselves to give our individual ego some semblance of purpose or meaning. Real spiritual insight transcends this psychological dynamic which is entirely centred around the ego. It expands the very boundaries of "self" beyond such petty egotistical concerns as personal liberation... the "person" no longer "exists" as they had previously limited themselves to be, so why would they be so selfish as to worry about personal liberation?

Anyway, point being, I believe there are certain common indicators amongst those with genuine mystical experience and insight, an ability to transcend to a greater degree than the average person perhaps cultural conditioning, greater and genuine compassion, empathy, tolerance, courage, integrity etc. They are not perfect by any means and not by a long shot, but they appear to be headed in the right evolutionary direction imo.

So, reading Joan's quotes I immediately wondered what her perspective was on the truly barbaric US-Israel genocide, and I really wasn't surprised she was very quick to comment, and very wisely and tactfully so given the 1984, Brave New World of America where everyone must believe up is down in order not to upset their Zionist overlords:

Sacred Action
Nov 7, 2023
Reflection on Current Events
Article by Joan Tollifson
From Joan’s Substack Newsletter, Right Now Just As It Is

I’m going to stick my neck out here and probably upset a number of my readers. But I am moved to express my thoughts about several things, primarily the on-going situation in Palestine-Israel.

I feel profound sorrow over what is happening there, including both what Hamas did to Israeli civilians in their recent attack on Israel, and now the horrific bombing by Israel of Gaza, killing and maiming hundreds of children as well as adults, and also the Israeli attacks on the West Bank, along with the escalating ground invasion in Gaza.

This conflict has been going on all my life—Israel and I were born in the same year. Many well-meaning and intelligent people view the situation in widely different ways, often with great emotional charge and strong identification with one side or the other. I’ve been through many different phases in my own understanding of it. It’s a long and complicated conflict with many differing narratives.

The Israelian separation or security wall.
Both Israelis and Palestinians are deeply traumatized people. The Jewish people have long faced persecution, including one of the worst genocides in history, and anti-Semitism continues to exist. It’s not hard to understand why they wanted a Jewish state or what brought many of those early Jewish settlers to Palestine.

It’s true that Palestine was not a state at the time, but it wasn’t “a land without a people” either, and the Palestinian people who lived there were pushed out of their homes and farms, off their lands, and into exile, many into what is now Gaza and the West Bank. Jewish people from anywhere in the world could come and live in Israel, while the Palestinians who had lived there for generations were not allowed to return.

No “two state solution” on offer was ever a remotely fair deal for them, as far as I can tell, and those Palestinians who do still live in Israel are treated under Israeli law as second class citizens in a Jewish state. So while I do not support armed attacks on civilians, it’s not hard to understand what ignites so-called terrorism against Israel.

I can’t begin to imagine what it must be like to see your children or your parents or your neighbors and friends killed or maimed or buried alive under rubble, your house destroyed and your neighborhood flattened. It’s not hard to understand the rage and despair that many on both sides feel. I’m sure most of the people on both sides want to live in peace, and many on both sides have worked tirelessly for peace, and some have given their lives for it. As tempting as it is to fall into blame and judgement, seeing that no one on either side is operating out of free will can be profoundly helpful.

My heart goes out to all these people. I honestly don’t know what can realistically be done to resolve this situation, but these cycles of endless violence clearly only give rise to more traumatized people, more hate, more fear and more terrorism (on all sides).

I oppose anti-Semitism, and I certainly do not support terrorism, but the word terrorism surely applies equally, if not even more so, to what Israel is doing and has done over these many decades. (It also applies to much of what the US has done and is doing in the world as well. After all, what country has invaded, bombed and ravaged more countries in my lifetime than the US?) So-called terrorists see themselves as freedom fighters, fighting against injustice, as do those who fight against them. Maybe it’s time to look at the roots of all this warfare in our own human minds, instead of always “out there” at some designated “other” who is supposedly “evil.” (And that’s not to say that we shouldn’t also deal with things out there in the world, nor is it to imply that all actors or actions are equally justified or morally equivalent).

I feel we are closer now than we have ever been in my lifetime to WWIII and to either a deliberate or accidental nuclear war. Some people profit from war, and many political agendas can be served by having an external enemy. We would be wise to reflect on this. As Dwight D. Eisenhower warned in his 1961 farewell address: “We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

And let us not forget that the CIA apparently played a role in creating Al-Qaeda by covertly financing and arming Islamic fundamentalist Afghan factions, and possibly Bin Laden as well, as part of our attempt to weaken Russia during their war in Afghanistan in the 1980s. And some in the Israeli government apparently helped to promote the rise of Hamas decades ago by backing Palestinian Islamists against Palestinian secularists in order to hopefully divide and rule. So who exactly are the terrorists?

My prayers are for peace and not an expanded war in the Middle East, and for negotiations and a peaceful settlement in Ukraine and not billions more dollars and deadly weapons being poured into both of these wars—killing, maiming, orphaning, and displacing ever-more humans and other animals and living organisms as well. But it seems that the forces in power in this country and Israel are moving full steam ahead in precisely the opposite direction.

I also want to say that the all too frequent censorship, serious harassment and/or condemnation of expressions of support for the Palestinians here and in Europe are deeply concerning to me. Yes, some of these expressions have lacked compassion for Israeli civilians and a few have been overtly anti-Semitic and hateful toward Jewish people, and those I certainly condemn.

But when support for the Palestinians is automatically conflated with anti-Semitism, or when anti-Zionism is conflated with anti-Semitism, this is as erroneous as conflating Jewish people with the state of Israel or all Palestinians with either the government of Hamas or Islamic Jihad. Also, there are some people (including some Jews and Israelis) who question Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, but who would welcome a one-state solution that would create a secular democracy in all of Palestine-Israel in which Jews and Arabs would live together with equal rights for all. Of course, in such a state, Jews would be the minority, and they arguably have some credible reasons to fear what might happen to them as such, and speaking as a gender non-conforming lesbian woman, I can understand other reasons why an Arab-majority might not be something most Jewish Israelis would readily embrace. Still, it might be the only plausible road to peace. But, in any case, there are nuances here in many of these views that too often get lost in the storms of fear and anger. Hopefully, reasonable, good-hearted, well-intended people can learn to disagree without having to demonize, mis-characterize, censor or dox one another.

For most of my life, I’ve taken free speech for granted, but that has been changing dramatically in the US, not just around this issue, but around other issues as well—and this censorship is coming from both the left and the right. I was born in the McCarthy Era. As a small child, I had a recurring nightmare in which my parents were jailed and burned in the electric chair—obviously it must have come from hearing the radio or the adults talking about the Rosenbergs (and if you don’t know who that is, google “Julius and Ethel Rosenberg”). Many people were black-listed and lost their jobs during this time, and the Rosenbergs were executed.

In this country in recent years, people have lost their jobs or been canceled, defunded, doxxed and attacked in various ways for criticizing Israel, expressing support for the Palestinians, questioning on-going financial and military support to Ukraine, or having different opinions about how best to address racial injustice, women’s and transgender rights, and other hot button issues. If you question funding the war in Ukraine, you get called pro-Putin. If you question Israel, you’re labeled anti-Semitic. If you express any sympathy or understanding at all for Hamas, you’re a terrorist. If you question any aspect of the transgender agenda, you’re a transphobic bigot. If you’re critical of the BLM approach to racism, you’re a racist. And in each case, you may be subject to losing your job, having your events canceled or your funding cut off, getting doxxed, having your books censored or burned, or even being met with physical violence or even deportation.

Regardless of your political views on any of these issues, this kind of growing censorship as well as government influence on media should concern us all. As a lifelong progressive, I now feel politically homeless—appalled by much of what both the right and the left are advocating and doing in this country.

I am trying not to fall too deeply into the well of apocalyptic Doom and Gloom thinking. After all, who knows what might happen next—as they say, the darkest hour is right before the dawn, and what seems like a catastrophe might be the grit that creates the pearl—we never know. But then again, optimism based on ignorance and denial is simply illusion, and we can’t solve problems by looking the other way and pretending they don’t exist. And in the end, no matter what we do, nothing lasts forever, including planet earth, the sun, the human species, and each one of us.

If there was one small hopeful moment in the last few weeks, it was when eighty-five year old Yocheved Lifshitz, one of the Israeli hostages abducted and then freed by Hamas, was being released, and she turned to one of her captors and shook the person’s hand, saying to them, “shalom,” the Hebrew salutation meaning “peace.” You can see the video here. Undoubtedly, many found this abhorrent and there are probably some cynical interpretations of it, but to me, it was a moment of tremendous heart-opening. These moments have been recorded in many wars, when the soldiers on opposite sides, or the guards and their prisoners, broke out of their roles and for a brief moment played or danced together before resuming the battle.

One thinks of the story in the Bhagavad Gita in which Arjuna has to fight against his own friends and family in a battle, and he is overcome with despair and doesn’t want to do it. Krishna tells Arjuna that he must fight, that everybody has already lived and died countless times, that forms break down but life itself is eternal, that it is Arjuna’s karma to fight and the karma of his family members to die—karma, as I see it, simply meaning the inevitable outcome of infinite causes and conditions.

Nisargadatta says much the same thing in several dialogs in I AM THAT when responding to questions about the war in what was then East Pakistan. He says, “In pure consciousness nothing ever happens.” The questioner is quite upset by this response and questions how Nisargadatta can remain aloof, to which Nisargadatta replies: “I never talked of remaining aloof. You could as well see me jumping into the fray to save somebody and getting killed. Yet to me nothing happened. Imagine a big building collapsing… Nothing happened to the space itself… nothing happens to life when forms break down and names are wiped out.”

I can go easily to this bigger picture—as I’ve offered in several recent posts—in which all of this is an unfathomable energetic movement or a dream-like appearance dissolving as soon as it appears. But that perspective can be used as a kind of false comfort or escape from being fully awake to the fact that life at the level of ordinary human reality includes tremendous suffering, much of which has no obvious resolution. Human beings like you and me are living through unimaginable horrors at this very moment, and turning away can’t be the answer. On the other hand, tuning in can lead to heartbreak, grief, anger, rage and very often words or actions that simply pour more fuel on the fire. What to do?

As the previous section on free will suggests, we will find out what life moves Israel and Hamas and Joe Biden and each one of us to do, and in every moment, it will be the only possible—and in some sense, it truly will be no more substantial than last night’s dream (or nightmare). But tell that to the Palestinian child undergoing surgery without anesthesia in a hospital that is being bombed after both her parents have been blown up in front of her. Can we face the raw actuality of what is happening without reaching for any spiritual opium? And can we find our way to love and not succumb to hate?

And what about that child? If she lives and survives the war, what will become of her? She may live with chronic pain and disability, not to mention psychic pain and trauma. Surely, it should surprise no one if a decade later she straps on a suicide belt and blows herself up in a crowd of Israelis. But the odds are, she won’t do this—she will probably live a quiet life, and miraculously might even find her way to love and forgiveness and be a voice for peace. It never ceases to amaze me what humans can survive.

I know that no matter how much we evolve and improve, utopian ideas are a fantasy. No two of us will agree about everything, and this manifestation by its very nature will always contain the polar opposites, which only exist relative to one another, in a never-ending dance without a dancer—and we each contain it all, the light and the dark.

And so, my friends, the eight billion multiplex movies of waking life continue to play, full of incomprehensible horrors and astonishing miracles, love affairs and horrific wars, hurricanes and erupting volcanoes, dramas and comedies, suspenseful thrills and chills, heartbreak and delight, with a cast of eight billion humans each playing our particular part perfectly. And ultimately, we don’t know what this is or where it’s all going."

[um]

@ Manjit

To one of the female members of the family who's emotions and thoughts were in the past easily aroused by events I once said:

"look, IF they would know what you know, THAN they too would act as you do"

Ever since here emotions and thoughts are not that easy disturbed and is she able to react spontaneously as she deems fit.

People are not free to react.
They are all bound by their conditioning
Even sages and saints.

Being not free, one reaction to the same event is not "better"or "more preferable" than the other.

[um]

much of what is attributed here to Mrs. Tollifson, could be directed copied from an essay by an chinese Sinologist by the name of Dr. Woei-Lien Chong in her boek on Zhuangzi by the title in English something like ... philosophy with a butterfly stroke, Zhuangzi's Daoist art of living.

[Appreciative Reader]

“While I understood that Tollifson is a big fan of reason and science, taken by itself this paragraph could be taken to be a putdown of reason and science. (…) From a neuroscientific perspective, Tollifson is absolutely correct.”

Quote Tollifson: “Our brain sees patterns where none actually exist. It turns chaos into order. But the order is imaginary. We are always clueless. Life is an unresolvable, incomprehensible, indeterminate mystery.”

Quote Tollifson further, from the previous thread: ““In discovering our complete and absolute powerlessness, our utter lack of control, there is immediately great peace, true freedom and unconditional love.”

----------

Sorry, going to disagree again! No, that doesn’t make sense from a neuroscientific perspective either.

That first premise, comprising those three sentences: “Our brain sees patterns where none actually exist. It turns chaos into order. But the order is imaginary.”

Sure, it makes sense if we interpret “imaginary” to mean, essentially, the brain doing its model-building thing. But I submit that isn’t what she’s saying at all. She’s here using “imaginary” in the everyday sense of being false, being fictitious.

For instance: We see planets and constellations in the firmament, and detect patterns linking their movements to our life events. Astrology, that is to say. And that’s “imaginary” in the neuroscientific sense, in the sense that it’s the brain doing its model-building thing. But that’s also “imaginary” in the everyday sense, in the sense that it’s all fictitious, a non-existent pattern, a pattern without true predictive power. …On the other hand, we also see planets and constellations in the firmament, and detect patterns linking their movements, as well as how bodies tend to move here on earth; and we codify those patterns in astronomy and gravity and the laws of motion. And those latter patterns also are “imaginary” in the neuroscientific sense, in the sense that it is the brain that has modelled it all; but they most certainly are NOT “imaginary” in the everyday sense, in the sense of being fictitious, in the sense of lacking predictive strength.

We’re simply conflating the two senses of “imaginary” here, I’m afraid!

-----

It is only when “imaginary” is used not in the neuroscientific sense but in the everyday sense, can Tollifson then go on to argue from that premise that, “We are always clueless” ; and, further, that “life is an unresolvable, incomprehensible, indeterminate mystery” ; and, further, that we are “complete(ly) and absolute(ly) powerless”, and “utterly lacking in control”.

Whether in respect of outer reality, or in respect of our personal lives, the whole point of our having evolved this faculty of recognizing patterns is to actually get a clue about what’s going on, and to be able to resolve and comprehend and determine the world and our lives.

That faculty may misfire, sometimes, often; and we may detect patterns where there are none. Even when we correctly apprehend patterns, our apprehension is far from perfect. And the control and power we thereby exercise over our lives and our environment is never perfect. Nevertheless, it is a false dichotomy to imagine that either we must always apprehend all patterns perfectly, and thereby always exercise perfect control and wield complete power; else the only other alternative is that all of our pattern-recognition and comprehension is entirely fictitious, and that we never ever have any control, and that we are utterly powerless.

-----

Do you see what I’m saying here, Brian? That defense that you present here, that she’d meant it all in the neuroscientific sense, it doesn’t hold, at all.

-------------------------------------------------------

The rest of what she says makes sense. Certainly what she’d said about meditation makes sense, like I said in the other thread. Also, the rest of what you quote from here makes sense, as well. But none of that follows from her premises, none of that follows how she’s argued it.

Sure, meditation is simply relaxing into non-judgmental observation, completely acquiescent and accepting of what is. But no, it does not make sense to pretend that follows from her premises, or that those premises are even true.

---------------------------------------------------------

None of what I’m saying is a criticism of Tollifson’s overall message about meditation. Let me make that very clear here. Nor is what I’m saying a criticism of her broader philosophy. Or indeed of her as a person.

What I’ve now tried to show, both in the other thread, and now here as well, is that she is factually wrong about what she’d laid out as the premise from which springs her larger message.

And that’s fine. She’s human. Everyone makes mistakes about small things. Why on earth must be keep going through these contortions in order to square the circle, and to force-fit her clearly erroneous words into what can somehow end up passing as factually correct? What she’s said there is wrong as far as the outer world. What she’s said is wrong as far as the inner, personal world. And no, what she’s said is not a correct rendering of neuroscience either. What she’s said is simply wrong. (Albeit, like you’d suggested in the other thread, it may well be a valid rhetorical device, laid out with perfectly beneficient motives. That, like I’d said, I’m happy to accept, given that you yourself vouch that that is so. …But that, again, is very different than saying that this is factually true from a neuroscience perspective, like you’ve now argued.)

-----

Reminds me, Brian, of what you’d said one time about Charan Singh. That when he has a bout of food poisoning, then the whole gaggle of devotees fall all over themselves to concoct all kinds of justifications of this frailty vis-à-vis his alleged all-powerful godliness, by saying he’s taken on the karmas of the disciples, or averting off some major global catastrophe by taking on the karmic load of it onto himself, and so forth; instead of just accepting the plain fact that he’s a human being who’s fallen ill.

Likewise, when it’s very clear that Tollifson’s done made a boo-boo, as any normal human being can; then, instead of just accepting that she’s made a mistake --- or, alternatively, that’s she’s engaging in rhetoric, albeit with the best of motives --- we’re instead trying furiously to show that she’s factually right after all, first by saying she’s referring to the inner world not the outer world, and when that doesn’t work then by saying that she’s referring to neuroscience ---- except, as I’ve tried to show just now, that last doesn’t work either.

Recognizing that she’s made a mistake here ( or that she’s engaged in rhetoric here [with the best of motives] ) does not take away from her larger observations about meditation, that are bang on target; and nor does it take away from her larger philosophy, which is good and wise.

And absolutely, Brian, I take your point, that you’d made in the other thread, that she’s not some obscurantist woo-peddler, and that she’s completely supportive of science; and I agree with you and fully take your word that that’s so. I also fully appreciate what you’d said, about taking things out of context; and I fully trust you on that, and agree that in light of that larger context her overall message makes sense. Indeed, and as you say, she may well have been emphasizing our lack of full control to those who are hidebound in their idea of coming from a place of full control, as a rhetorical device essentially.

I trust you on all that, Brian, and, like I’d said in the other thread, I completely agree with you that none of that reflects badly on her, or on her larger message.

But please, let’s not try to pretend that what’s factually wrong is actually factually right. She’s factually wrong about what she said in those specific portions. She’s wrong about that from the outer-world perspective, and she’s wrong about that from the inner-personal-world perspective --- and, as I’ve tried to show at the start of this comment, she’s wrong about that from a neuroscience perspective as well. Let’s not try to semantically conflate different senses of words like “imaginary” in order to square the circle, and force-fit her factually incorrect words into an appearance of kind-of-sort-of correctness. (And if we’re sure it’s just rhetoric on her part, albeit engaged in with the best of motives, like you said in the other thread, then fair enough: let’s accept it on those terms in that case, that’s perfectly fine too.)

[Brian Hines]

Appreciative Reader, I've read lots of neuroscience books and I've read lots of Joan Tollifson writings. I have a pretty refined ability to detect spiritual B.S. I don't feel that from Tollifson. Something in me resonates with her message. Something in you rejects that message.

This is the way our subjectivity operates. People can look at the same facts, in this case quotations from her writings, and come to different conclusions about them. Here we're not in the realm of science; we're in the realm of philosophy and meaning. I feel like I get meaning from her writings, you feel like you get irritation at some or much of what she says.

I don't like some foods that my wife heartily enjoys. Same food, different reactions. I'm not going to try to talk you out of your attitude toward Tollifson. I think it's misguided, but that's much as when my wife says, "Why don't you like black beans?" The only true answer I can give, "I just don't like them."

I can explain why I enjoy Tollifson's message, but that would be me trying to get you to like something you simply don't like. I don't agree with your reasons for not liking Tollifson, which seem quite nit-picky to me, but naturally I support your dislike of her, since we can't control our likes.

[Appreciative Reader]

Uhhh, no, you're reading me wrong there, Brian. Including my comments in the other thread as well.

It's not about liking Tollifson, or about not liking her! It's not like that at all. Those aren't the terms on which I said any of that.

In fact, if I must shift gears now, and think in terms of whether I like her or not, then I'd say yes, I do like her. I do like her message. I think she's right about meditation. And I loved some of the perspectives you'd shared of her earlier on, and some of which I read on her website, under a section there called Perspectives, or Outpourings, or something like that, that collection of essays.

----------

No, where I was coming from is just her specific message, that specific premise she starts from, and how she develops it. Just what she's actually saying there, is all. Just that, is all I disagreed with.

I disagreed with what she said, as you quoted her in the previous thread. But over there I ended up giving her the benefit of the doubt on that specific, when you suggested that she might be engaging in rhetoric to snap people out of hidebound ways of thinking, and doing the best of motives.

And now when I saw you again try to justify her on factual terms using neuroscience, then I'm afraid I found that line of argument suspect, and so I pointed out the flaws in it as I saw it. I'm still perfectly happy to treat it as rhetoric, like you'd suggested earlier, and on those terms give her the benefit of the doubt.

------------

It's not about her at all, my disagreement. I don't dislike her, at all. It isn't about her wider teachings either, I don't disagree with those either. It isn't about her focused thoughts of meditation either, as I've seen you talk of them, I found them wise.

Just this specific. That I found suspect, on factual terms. And that I'm perfectly willing to accept as rhetoric, like you'd suggested earlier; but not as fact, not when it's plain to me that it isn't factually correct. (Although obviously, I'm happy to be shown otherwise if I'm wrong about that.)

[Appreciative Reader]

sorry, typo:

'doing that from the best of motives' is how it should read; instead of "doing the best of motives".

(the sense of it is probably clear enough, but just in case not)

[Brian Hines]

Appreciative Reader, I guess what's confusing me is that I feel like you agree with Tollifson's worldview. You just disagree with how she expresses that worldview in the quotations I've shared from her writings. To me, context is important.

It's easy to pick apart someone's individual statements without paying attention to the context of their entire perspective on life and the world. So here's my simple attempt to summarize what I see as her worldview, which is based on her Buddhist training, experience with Advaita/nonduality, and modern neuroscience. I'm interested if you disagree with any of these statements about her broad worldview.

(1) Life is difficult. Not suffering, exactly, but difficult much or most of the time.
(2) We lack free will, being part of a determined world where things happen via countless causes and conditions.
(3) We lack a separate independent self, being part of a interconnected world where sharp divisions between individual entities are illusory.
(4) In trying to improve our condition under (1), (2), and (3) we frequently add to our difficulties by the "two arrows" notion of Buddhism: after being shot with an arrow of difficulty, which is bad enough, we make up stories in our mind about that arrow that don't help our being shot, but confuses the situation through needless anxiety, worry, self-centeredness, self-pity, anger, and such.
(5) While reason and intellect and thinking often serve us well, they often add to our difficulties by our mind's habit of making false assumptions that put us at the center of reality, much as the ancients erred in believing that the sun circled Earth rather than the other way around.
(6) Using our awareness to be centered in this-here-now, a basic mindfulness practice, is a valuable aid to separating out what is real about our difficulties and what is a story conjured by our brain/mind. And speaking more positively, we can find pleasure and peace in the immediate world of our sense perceptions.

I could add on some additional points, but these come to mind. If you agree with these, then you're firmly in Tollfison's camp, and just disagree with her on how she communicates her worldview, not the worldview itself.

[Appreciative Reader]

Fair, Brian.

But on the other hand, I've never suggested I'm not in her camp. It's only ever always been about how she's communicated her worldview, as far as that specific instance ----- and that rejection is specifically because that communication is factually wrong.

The only way to give her a pass on that specific is via one of these two ways:

(1) We recognize she's made an error there, but it's just a incidental small slip that does not in the least detract from the rest of what she says. (And I'm suggesting we do that.)

or
(2) We take what she'd said as deliberate rhetoric, engaged with from a pedagogic perspective, in order to ram home this idea of no-control to an audience that is so firmly rooted in the idea of control that letting go during meditation might otherwise be difficult/impossible for them. (This is what you'd suggested at the end in the last thread. And I'm fine with doing that, recognizing the essentially beneficent motive that that deliberately-factually-wrong rhetoric springs from, and fully trusting you that you'd suggest this only if that were actually the case.)

What we CANNOT do is to pretend that what is factually untrue is actually true, by trying on different interpretations: first the outer-physical world thing, next the inner-personal-world thing, and finally the neuroscientific thing: because none of those actually passes the test of factuality.

----------

Heh, sorry, that was kind of beating the thing to death, and well beyond.

But it's, just, I'm not okay with either arguing that what's wrong is right, or with accepting an argument that what's wrong is right. Not just from Tollifson, I would reject something like that even if it came from someone I greatly respect, like Dawkins. In fact, I'd reject something like that even if it came from you, whom I've personally gained from even more than I have from my impersonal familiarity with Dawkins, and whom therefore I respect and trust more. Hell, I'd reject something like that even if it came from myself! For instance, if I came across a past comment of mine, that I may have forgotten about, where I see I've been putting up a nonsensical argument: then I'd immediately reject it, even while appreciating that that does not negate the rest of what I'm about. Likewise with Tollifson.

[Ron E.]

I ‘cut my spiritual teeth’ so to speak on the likes of J Krishnamurti, Alan Watts. Richard Dawkins, Sufism, Buddhism, the natural sciences, Taoism, ecology and biology – science and the spiritual in my world are not separate. My last sojourn was a few years in Western Chan Buddhism.

Within this context it is no surprise that much of what goes for spirituality and the spiritual search with its’ confusing hordes of GIHF, teachers, gurus, masters and the like with their doctrines of other worlds, heavens, heavenly lights and sounds, enlightenment offers etc., fall very short of being credible to me; not that they are all necessarily charlatans more to do with them being carried away with their various experiences, religious backgrounds and, their followers – much like celebrities get carried away with the hype and believe their own propaganda.

One of our main biological/mental drives is to protect and propagate my ‘self’. Biologically this simply means survival of the body, but mentally it has become to protect and maintain a sense of self, the sense of their being a special entity called me. The one thing I see that draws us to charismatic teachers and suchlike, is that (aware of it or not) we have a desperate need to have someone, some teaching to validate, even enhance our sense of self. Paradoxically, some teachings that teach the dropping of the self actually strengthen the illusion.

I would say that a more relevant teacher/teaching is one that helps point this out. Zen is fun in this respect in that it has numerous ways of helping to reveal the fact that most of the time we superimpose thoughts and concepts onto our everyday reality. It seems to me that Zen/Chan point this ingrained habit out as do spiritual writers like Joan Toliffson.

But it is so difficult because the thing we are afraid of loosing the most (apart from dying) is the apparent loss of the ‘me’, the mentally created self-structure.

P.S. The above is also Somewhat relevant to Brian's following RSSB post.

[um]

@ Ron E.

To get rid of ego ..I do not like that expression of myself ...one first has to be aware of having and ego and what it is all about.

The ego has to beseperate, standout so to say from something else. Not vaguely but cristal clear.

Only when that relation between the two is understood it become possible to deal with the ego in another way than before.

The ego can not be destroyed and should not as it is part of its natural make-up.
Reason why I do not like myself to use that initial phrase.

[Ron E.]

Somewhat true um, true that to dissolve the self you need to be aware of the self (ego). But saying that, the ego is an invention of Freud, a term he coined to explain aspects of the personality which in reality are processes and not a thing.

And I don’t see the self as being a separate entity, it is a construct, a construct that is comprised of all the information accrued in one’s life and from that conglomeration of info, a self is assumed.

And yes, I agree, the ego/self cannot be destroyed (after all, as there actually is no such thing as a self, a ‘me’ who’s doing the destroying?) Perhaps more pertinent is to recognise that the self is a construct and is not ‘me’, just another aspect of the brain’s neural networking.

It is obviously necessary for the brain to have information which enables one to function, perhaps to create the illusion of an identity so we can function in our particular environments, with other people, in dealing with practical issues and so on. But is the concept of being a discarnate self needed for that – or does the brain prescribe what is needed without the ‘us’ intervening?

[um]

@ Ron E.

I am not quite sure whether I grasp what you wrote or not, certainly as far as the last sentence.is concerned

Personally I discriminate between the social ego, and a natural, biological ego, the awareness of being separated. The last is part, as far as I understand, of the processes needed for survival. It is relate to awareness of time and space; time in terms of past, the here and now and future.

Whether that awareness dies with the death of the brain, I would not know but I do realize that the meaning and the value attributed to it determines to a high degree the way of life of a human being.

When there is some stillness, rest or whatever in a persons life, he might become aware of the changes around him and the changes in him. Changes that are not brought about by him. Becoming aware of this phenomena one starts to realize that for example writing these words is something that arises and is not a matter of choice.

So there is no mover inside nor outside, I am aware of, yet things are moved. At the same time there is something that has to make choices ..this makes the difference between AI and human intelligence.

The awareness of these two aspects has IMHO in huge impact upon attributing value and meaning, the level of emotional involvement in activities of myself and others..

Waking up in the cenema, was the starting point of this ongoing realization

With a different level of emotional involvement in what is going on it is not always easy to participate in everyday life ..not for me nor for those that have to deal.

As it is not polite in a cinema to wake up others telling them that what they are lost in is just imagery so it is not always possible, kind or whatever to speak up to those that are fully engaged in what is happening

That all said ..these are all very dificult things to put into words.

[Brian Hines]

Appreciative Reader, I asked you to say whether you disagree with any of the statements I shared that, in my view, encapsulate the gist of Tollifson's worldview. Since you didn't express any disagreement, I take it that you agree with the factual basis of her worldview. You just don't like how she communicates it, which can be sort of flowery and poetic at times, which I consider to be a plus, since I like those qualities in writing.

Here's the statements again. Wanted to give you another chance to disagree with any of them and explain why. I'm doing this because you implied that I agree Tollifson was wrong about some things she said in the quotations I shared. Actually, the only thing I felt bad about was that you and maybe others failed to understand her worldview because i didn't include reflections of the entirety in the quotations.

(1) Life is difficult. Not suffering, exactly, but difficult much or most of the time.
(2) We lack free will, being part of a determined world where things happen via countless causes and conditions.
(3) We lack a separate independent self, being part of a interconnected world where sharp divisions between individual entities are illusory.
(4) In trying to improve our condition under (1), (2), and (3) we frequently add to our difficulties by the "two arrows" notion of Buddhism: after being shot with an arrow of difficulty, which is bad enough, we make up stories in our mind about that arrow that don't help our being shot, but confuses the situation through needless anxiety, worry, self-centeredness, self-pity, anger, and such.
(5) While reason and intellect and thinking often serve us well, they often add to our difficulties by our mind's habit of making false assumptions that put us at the center of reality, much as the ancients erred in believing that the sun circled Earth rather than the other way around.
(6) Using our awareness to be centered in this-here-now, a basic mindfulness practice, is a valuable aid to separating out what is real about our difficulties and what is a story conjured by our brain/mind. And speaking more positively, we can find pleasure and peace in the immediate world of our sense perceptions.

[Appreciative Reader]

Pardon me, Brian, I thought I'd made that clear, if by implication. Of course I agree with all of that. And indeed, I agree with a great deal of the other things Tollifson's said as well, that you'd either directly quoted in your earlier posts, or else pointed to within her website (particularly her beautifully rendered essays, "Outpourings" I think she labels them as).

Like I said, I am indeed Camp Tollifson, if we must look at it in those terms.

And no, I don't necessarily dislike flowery expression per se. In this instance, it wasn't flowery expression that put me off. In fact, I don't think those specific bits were particularly flowery at all.

----------

What I found myself disagreeing with was very specific.

I found that the premise she starts out from was factually incorrect. Which indicated to me that her argument couldn't possibly be sound.

And that was borne out in the next stage of her thesis, that she proceeds to from her initial premise, and that also was factually incorrect.

However, she ends the argument by concluding that in meditation we let go of control, and in that spontaneous awareness and freedom from effort find peace and calm. Although she arrives at that conclusion via factually incorrect premises and therefore invalid reasoning, nevertheless, in as much as her conclusion happens to be perfectly sound, then I agree fully with it, if taken not as part of that invalid argument but as a stand-alone statement/position/instruction/observation.

And even as far as that factually incorrect premise of hers, while I insist on plainly recognizing that departure from fact for what it is and without mincing words, without glossing over it; but I'm happy to either overlook it as a small human error that does not detract from the rest of her overall message; or to recognize it as rhetoric engaged in as a pedagogic tool, like you've indicated it probably is.

And that sums up my position on this fully, I think.

Camp Tollifson, absolutely, why not ---- even though normally I don't think of myself as belonging in some camp or the other.

[Brian Hines]

Appreciative Reader, thanks for your clarification. It just took me a while to realize "where you're coming from," as the saying goes. I had a feeling that we were on the same page as regards Tollifson, but it wasn't clear to me why I couldn't recognize that. You've made things clearer for me.