Am not sure if this qualifies for inclusion, but my own experiment with Creative Dharma is an 11-minute audio-visual video collaboration entitled BUTTERFLY DREAM BUFFALO THUNDER, which takes Chuang Tzu's butterfly dream as a launching pad (and recurring theme) for synthesis of Buddhism, Taoism, Pre-Socratic Greek Philosophy, and Native American spirituality. For those who might have an interest, here's the link ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMUxLol0-pc
I read with great interest the first issue of Creative Dharma. I found myself wondering if the aim was to fine tune our meditation practice, to focus our awareness on the nonverbal brain; that portion of the brain which evolved before language. This idea that our verbal intelligence and our physical intelligence are separate is examined in Scott Graftons recent book “Physical Intelligence “.
In the book he makes the point that “the very fact that so much of physical intelligence can be performed beyond consciousness is the very design feature that frees a person’s thoughts so he can spend his day thinking about social affairs, work, and the world of ideas.” Paying attention to our thoughts, bringing awareness and clarity to our mind, isn’t that classical meditation. Working with our verbal intelligence, consciousness.
Physical intelligence is developed though experience. Dr. Grafton states: “ The hidden nature of physical intelligence poses a problem for the scientist [meditator?]. How can these capacities be exposed for what they are? To a certain degree, all of us are constantly searching for them. We are drawn like moths to a flame whenever we witness physical brilliance, when brain, mind and body operate together with singular grace, as is sometimes evident in sports, dance, craft or music.” Isn’t that what we’re calling Creative Dharma?
In the Vassakara Sutta, Gotama describes the characteristics of a person who has cleared the way toward emancipation: “He thinks any thought he wants to think, and doesn't think any thought he doesn't want to think. He wills any resolve he wants to will, and doesn't will any resolve he doesn't want to will.” But imagine a person who says, “I think any thought I want to think. I do not think any thought I don’t want to think.” Is this a person whom we would think of as “creative”? Well, it might be, but there is a lot to consider first. Of course we should remember that the Diamond Sutra points out that a person who says “I am enlightened” may be known by that sign not to be so. To define oneself in a verbal formula is always contrary to real freedom. To do so means determining oneself as a form, or constructing oneself as an artifice, a fabrication. The Yavakalapi Sutta (The Sheaf of Barley) puts it in quite a radical position: “'I am' is a construing. 'I am this' is a construing. 'I shall be' is a construing. 'I shall not be'...'I shall be possessed of form'... 'I shall not be possessed of form'... 'I shall be percipient'... 'I shall not be percipient'... 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient' is a construing. Construing is a disease, construing is a cancer, construing is an arrow. Therefore, monks, you should train yourselves: 'We will dwell with an awareness free of construings.'” How does this freedom open out a life committed to creativity, to the creation of expressive work that develops form? Clearly the “I” that creates the work is not the same as the “I” that binds and clings to objects of desire on the ordinary plane. We don’t have to call the capacity to find and energize that other “I” Buddhism. It doesn’t really matter what we call it. It does matter that if we do name it, that we don’t get caught up with entrapping ourselves in the limiting, enclosing idea of who we are as we do so. To understand fully how to stand within language, we need first to know how it is to stand outside language. One name for this standpoint is Buddhism, but by no means the only one. It is important to remember not to cling to the name of Buddhism because clinging to any one name keeps one from finding that standpoint beyond names, and going beyond names permits one to enter the realm of all names, just as going beyond the realm of oneself permits one to enter the space of one’s entire self, and going beyond language permits one to find the way to all of language, and going beyond one’s region and nation permits one to enter the world of all regions and nations.
Am not sure if this qualifies for inclusion, but my own experiment with Creative Dharma is an 11-minute audio-visual video collaboration entitled BUTTERFLY DREAM BUFFALO THUNDER, which takes Chuang Tzu's butterfly dream as a launching pad (and recurring theme) for synthesis of Buddhism, Taoism, Pre-Socratic Greek Philosophy, and Native American spirituality. For those who might have an interest, here's the link ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMUxLol0-pc
Keep posting.
Thanks for your thoughts. I would like to get a copy of “The experiential incompatibility of Mindfulness and Flow Absorption“
Thanks Steve
I read with great interest the first issue of Creative Dharma. I found myself wondering if the aim was to fine tune our meditation practice, to focus our awareness on the nonverbal brain; that portion of the brain which evolved before language. This idea that our verbal intelligence and our physical intelligence are separate is examined in Scott Graftons recent book “Physical Intelligence “.
In the book he makes the point that “the very fact that so much of physical intelligence can be performed beyond consciousness is the very design feature that frees a person’s thoughts so he can spend his day thinking about social affairs, work, and the world of ideas.” Paying attention to our thoughts, bringing awareness and clarity to our mind, isn’t that classical meditation. Working with our verbal intelligence, consciousness.
Physical intelligence is developed though experience. Dr. Grafton states: “ The hidden nature of physical intelligence poses a problem for the scientist [meditator?]. How can these capacities be exposed for what they are? To a certain degree, all of us are constantly searching for them. We are drawn like moths to a flame whenever we witness physical brilliance, when brain, mind and body operate together with singular grace, as is sometimes evident in sports, dance, craft or music.” Isn’t that what we’re calling Creative Dharma?
In the Vassakara Sutta, Gotama describes the characteristics of a person who has cleared the way toward emancipation: “He thinks any thought he wants to think, and doesn't think any thought he doesn't want to think. He wills any resolve he wants to will, and doesn't will any resolve he doesn't want to will.” But imagine a person who says, “I think any thought I want to think. I do not think any thought I don’t want to think.” Is this a person whom we would think of as “creative”? Well, it might be, but there is a lot to consider first. Of course we should remember that the Diamond Sutra points out that a person who says “I am enlightened” may be known by that sign not to be so. To define oneself in a verbal formula is always contrary to real freedom. To do so means determining oneself as a form, or constructing oneself as an artifice, a fabrication. The Yavakalapi Sutta (The Sheaf of Barley) puts it in quite a radical position: “'I am' is a construing. 'I am this' is a construing. 'I shall be' is a construing. 'I shall not be'...'I shall be possessed of form'... 'I shall not be possessed of form'... 'I shall be percipient'... 'I shall not be percipient'... 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient' is a construing. Construing is a disease, construing is a cancer, construing is an arrow. Therefore, monks, you should train yourselves: 'We will dwell with an awareness free of construings.'” How does this freedom open out a life committed to creativity, to the creation of expressive work that develops form? Clearly the “I” that creates the work is not the same as the “I” that binds and clings to objects of desire on the ordinary plane. We don’t have to call the capacity to find and energize that other “I” Buddhism. It doesn’t really matter what we call it. It does matter that if we do name it, that we don’t get caught up with entrapping ourselves in the limiting, enclosing idea of who we are as we do so. To understand fully how to stand within language, we need first to know how it is to stand outside language. One name for this standpoint is Buddhism, but by no means the only one. It is important to remember not to cling to the name of Buddhism because clinging to any one name keeps one from finding that standpoint beyond names, and going beyond names permits one to enter the realm of all names, just as going beyond the realm of oneself permits one to enter the space of one’s entire self, and going beyond language permits one to find the way to all of language, and going beyond one’s region and nation permits one to enter the world of all regions and nations.