Jhananda's Blog

[Jhanananda]

It has been a while since my last blog entry.  I have been pondering human social systems, and why they are so bent against mystics; and how mystics survive at all.  Here are a few thoughts that I wish to share with my fellow mystics:

We are known by the company we keep.
The wise associate with the wise.
Fools associate with the fools.

Since we know a tree by its fruit,
then the wise are known for discipline
whereas, the fool is known for foolish behavior.

Which one are you?

[Alexander]

We are deeply impoverished in the United States. We have no concept of "yogi," "saint," or "mystic." But, who knows Jhanananda, maybe you will be the first of something new for America?

[Jhanananda]

Thank-you, Alexander, I like to think that the entire community of the GWV, which includes this forum, will set the standard for American mystics.

[Jhanananda]

The mystics, prophets, buddhas and avatars of the word come from the wise, not necessarily the: learned, priests or devout.
Since we know a tree by its fruit,
then the mystics, prophets, buddhas and avatars of the word will be known by their superior fruit (maha-phala).

The fools of the world will be known by their rotten fruit.
Fools behave foolishly.
Whereas, the wise behave wisely.

The devout are known for their blind faith,
not for their critical thinking.
Whereas, the wise are known for their cogent and logically true philosophy.

[Jhanananda]

Genius is expressed in critical thinking.  Stupidity is expressed in blindly following others.  Just because billions believe something does not make it true.

[Jhanon]

Warm Greetings to you, my friend, Jhananda.

I have not been around much, as the effort and time needed to survive and provide for my family has grown. However, I still meditate in the truly rare moments I can find quiet. I wish you to know I have been teaching samadhi to those willing and interested, but so far I've not taught any who've established themselves.

With the brief update out of the way, i wanted to share something I wrote today for my philosophy class which your posts have brought to mind. I have found the class to be helpful in improving my ability to bridge the gap between samadhi and the general public. However, I have much to learn. I do my best to avoid speaking to openly too quickly about my samadhi experiences, but rather entice the reader to wonder. It is my hope that this will help at least one of my classmates to seek more information. This is a consolation, as I would much rather be meditating.

"The average human cannot say they know the "world around them". They can more accurately say they know the human concept of the world around them. Math, for example, is a human concept in which any human can rightly say they know 2+2=4. A human concept, like math, is bound to the common agreement of humans to be considered true within the realm of human experience. Human concepts include absolutely everything humans experience during ordinary human states of consciousness. A tree, plane, field, and cloudless sky are all human concepts. In this way, we can say we know the the human concept of "the world around us."

The primary problem with actually knowing "the world around us" is lack of non-human perspectives which would verify or invalidate our human concepts of it. Within the world of human concepts, If I'm looking down the barrel of a gun, it will be difficult from this perspective to gauge the dimensions of the gun. But if I also have access to the perspective of an onlooker standing at the side, I can more readily know the dimensions of the gun. Likewise, in regards to true knowledge, it would require a human to have access to non-human states of consciousness, such as what the Buddha tried to teach his disciples to access.

In the rare exceptions of humans who develop access to non-human states of consciousness, we could reasonably infer they actally "know"--just as the human who sees the barrel of the gun from both perspectives can know the dimensions of it. But, then how would they explain their knowledge to a human who hasn't developed access to non-human statse of consciousness? Through the use of human concepts? Human concepts, as stated, are limited to that which is generally experienced and accepted by the human population, and so this is not possible. Not unless the human has had at least some experience of non-human states of consciousness. Therein lies the circular problem regarding true knowledge which keeps philosophers from coming to definite conclusions, and the ones who do from convincingly explaining them to their philosophical peers."

Please do let me know your thoughts, or otherwise I hope you at least found it worth the time to read it.

[Jhanananda]

Warm Greetings to you, my friend, Jhananda.

It is good to read you on here again,Jhanon.  I hope you are well and at ease.

I have not been around much, as the effort and time needed to survive and provide for my family has grown.

The struggle for life certainly poses a great obstacle for the future mystic.  It is the mystic who figures out how to become one.

However, I still meditate in the truly rare moments I can find quiet. I wish you to know I have been teaching samadhi to those willing and interested, but so far I've not taught any who've established themselves.

Teaching others what one has learned through direct experience is the best way to teach.  If more people who meditate deeply were willing to share their experiences, then there might be a new major religious movement.

With the brief update out of the way, i wanted to share something I wrote today for my philosophy class which your posts have brought to mind. I have found the class to be helpful in improving my ability to bridge the gap between samadhi and the general public. However, I have much to learn. I do my best to avoid speaking to openly too quickly about my samadhi experiences, but rather entice the reader to wonder. It is my hope that this will help at least one of my classmates to seek more information. This is a consolation, as I would much rather be meditating.

"The average human cannot say they know the "world around them". They can more accurately say they know the human concept of the world around them. Math, for example, is a human concept in which any human can rightly say they know 2+2=4. A human concept, like math, is bound to the common agreement of humans to be considered true within the realm of human experience. Human concepts include absolutely everything humans experience during ordinary human states of consciousness. A tree, plane, field, and cloudless sky are all human concepts. In this way, we can say we know the the human concept of "the world around us."

The primary problem with actually knowing "the world around us" is lack of non-human perspectives which would verify or invalidate our human concepts of it. Within the world of human concepts, If I'm looking down the barrel of a gun, it will be difficult from this perspective to gauge the dimensions of the gun. But if I also have access to the perspective of an onlooker standing at the side, I can more readily know the dimensions of the gun. Likewise, in regards to true knowledge, it would require a human to have access to non-human states of consciousness, such as what the Buddha tried to teach his disciples to access.

In the rare exceptions of humans who develop access to non-human states of consciousness, we could reasonably infer they actally "know"--just as the human who sees the barrel of the gun from both perspectives can know the dimensions of it. But, then how would they explain their knowledge to a human who hasn't developed access to non-human statse of consciousness? Through the use of human concepts? Human concepts, as stated, are limited to that which is generally experienced and accepted by the human population, and so this is not possible. Not unless the human has had at least some experience of non-human states of consciousness. Therein lies the circular problem regarding true knowledge which keeps philosophers from coming to definite conclusions, and the ones who do from convincingly explaining them to their philosophical peers."

Please do let me know your thoughts, or otherwise I hope you at least found it worth the time to read it.

This all seems good, except the "non-human states of consciousness." As you know humans can have these states.  Others in the past have called them "super-human."

[Jhanon]

But we're not a human when we've traveled past 5th samadhi, are we? The body is still there, yes, but our consciousness is not in it. And 5-8 samadhi , so far, have been what gifted me the most knowledge.

Is this inaccurate?

Thank you, Jhananda. I am generally at ease, considering my circumstances.

[Jhanananda]

OK, that is one way to describe it, that samadhi 5-8 we are angles, not humans anymore.

[Jhanon]

Well, I didn't necessarily mean angels at the time. I suppose I didn't think enough about it.

Also, I read a translated (somewhat poorly by Ajahn Geoff) text by Ajahn Lee Dhammadaro or something like that, and realized he actually described meditative absorption accurately. The primary issue is that they call it "watching the breath", but I noticed they mean two different things by that. It's under the assumption that the reader thinks breath is both air going into your lungs, and "spiritual" manifestations (charisms.)

Anyway, my point is that in this little book he wrote, he talks about directing ones mind to direct knowledge while in the 4th jhana. Or anything one wants to know, for that matter. And it coincided with my recent experiences of 4th (and to a lesser extent 3rd) jhana.

So, what I wrote could be confusing, just like this "Ajahn" calling charisms "breath." But either way, one is absorbing into an immaterial body that most humans completely neglect.

[Jhanon]

Anyway, I think I'm gonna go through my rather large collection of translated works of Thai Ajahns, and see if anymore of the teachers actually knew what they were talking about--it's just the students and translators that fouled it up. A lot seems to have been lost in translation. And I can see how an English student just barely learned in Thai could not fully understand the teachings of an Ajahn.

I required some pretty exact and yet broad language of gnosis in order to finally understand and actualize, thanks to a certain anthropologist. So this makes sense to me.

[Alexander]

Anyway, I think I'm gonna go through my rather large collection of translated works of Thai Ajahns, and see if anymore of the teachers actually knew what they were talking about--it's just the students and translators that fouled it up. A lot seems to have been lost in translation. And I can see how an English student just barely learned in Thai could not fully understand the teachings of an Ajahn.

I required some pretty exact and yet broad language of gnosis in order to finally understand and actualize, thanks to a certain anthropologist. So this makes sense to me.

I have had good experiences with Southeast Asian meditators. I wonder why that is. It could be the translations of the Buddha's discourses into Thai are done in a high quality way. At the same time, I have not found someone from that region who has the complete picture. But there are many there who seem to understand samadhi correctly.

[Jhanananda]

So, what I wrote could be confusing, just like this "Ajahn" calling charisms "breath." But either way, one is absorbing into an immaterial body that most humans completely neglect.

I agree here.

I have had good experiences with Southeast Asian meditators. I wonder why that is. It could be the translations of the Buddha's discourses into Thai are done in a high quality way. At the same time, I have not found someone from that region who has the complete picture. But there are many there who seem to understand samadhi correctly.

I do agree that I have more agreement with Theravadan Buddhism, than any other form, because at least they have the Pali Canon, even if they have no idea what it says.

[Jhanananda]

Last night we had a big storm break.  It began with high winds that buffeted the van that I slept in.  The winds kept pulling me out of the immaterial domains where I was ferrying people to the Krishna Loca (domain of Krishna). 

There is no separate domain for Krishna, and another for Jesus, and still another for Siddhartha Gautama.  It is just one high, high domain, where the distinction of religion was left far, far behind.

Since one who is out-of-body, and thus has no body, and therefore has no mental processes, then there is no identity, just awareness.  So, I am not sure what those whom I ferried thought of me, as they too would not have had a body, nor mental processes; however, if they returned to a body they might have thought I was their Krishna.  Who knows?

This is the work of a mystic.  Most of our work is not even on the material plane.  So, those who want to experience the greater aspect of this work, then they must develop a meditation practice that leads to deep meditation, and lucid dreaming.

[jay.validus]

Interesting. One day but not right now.