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
While your approach to the dharma is creative, we believe that a creative, secular approach to the dharma is one that could help people to flourish in an increasingly fraught and difficult world, rather than attain some mythical ‘enlightenment’.
The practice of a creative dharma starts by replacing the Buddhist doctrine of the ‘Four Noble Truths’ with an invitation to practice four tasks. This approach then seeks to set out, step by step, a comprehensive philosophical, contemplative and ethical way of life that dispenses with the Indian metaphysical framework that are commonly found in the various schools of Buddhism.
In Creative Dharma, a newsletter we intend to examine ways of working with the mind in meditation that are creative, and at the same time we’re interested in hearing from creative artists, whether with an established meditation practice or not, who are looking to incorporate a meditative sensibility into their practice of art.
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?
You raise a number of interesting questions, Stephen. What you describe as creative dharma sounds to me like the state of flow absorption people experience when they are fully engaged in a process such as dance, a sport, music, an art or a craft. Coincidentally, a friend just sent me a 2014 paper from the journal ‘Social, Psychological and Personality and Science’ titled ‘The experiential incompatibility of Mindfulness and Flow Absorption’, which I’d be happy to share with you.
Thinking about your question as to whether classical meditation entails working with our verbal intelligence, our consciousness, my experience of meditation, which was something I struggled with for years, suggested that the last thing we should do was work with the contents of the mind. Following the instructions, I allowed thoughts, feelings, memories to pass and didn't engage with them. Daydreaming was a no-no. It was only when I started working with Linda Modaro of Sati Sangha that I began to actually observe the contents of the mind, and feel comfortable with what was arising. I would suggest that the process of meditation, reflection, journaling and conversation about one’s practice enables us to work with both our consciousness and what arises from the sub-conscious during (and after) our meditation sessions.
Most importantly, though, the concept of a ‘creative dharma’ is a new one that will be worked on by people the world over, and personally I don’t expect to see a single definition come out of this, but many notions of what a creative dharma consists of. It will be an interesting conversation, I don’t doubt. Thank you for your contribution to this conversation.
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
While your approach to the dharma is creative, we believe that a creative, secular approach to the dharma is one that could help people to flourish in an increasingly fraught and difficult world, rather than attain some mythical ‘enlightenment’.
The practice of a creative dharma starts by replacing the Buddhist doctrine of the ‘Four Noble Truths’ with an invitation to practice four tasks. This approach then seeks to set out, step by step, a comprehensive philosophical, contemplative and ethical way of life that dispenses with the Indian metaphysical framework that are commonly found in the various schools of Buddhism.
In Creative Dharma, a newsletter we intend to examine ways of working with the mind in meditation that are creative, and at the same time we’re interested in hearing from creative artists, whether with an established meditation practice or not, who are looking to incorporate a meditative sensibility into their practice of art.
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?
You raise a number of interesting questions, Stephen. What you describe as creative dharma sounds to me like the state of flow absorption people experience when they are fully engaged in a process such as dance, a sport, music, an art or a craft. Coincidentally, a friend just sent me a 2014 paper from the journal ‘Social, Psychological and Personality and Science’ titled ‘The experiential incompatibility of Mindfulness and Flow Absorption’, which I’d be happy to share with you.
Thinking about your question as to whether classical meditation entails working with our verbal intelligence, our consciousness, my experience of meditation, which was something I struggled with for years, suggested that the last thing we should do was work with the contents of the mind. Following the instructions, I allowed thoughts, feelings, memories to pass and didn't engage with them. Daydreaming was a no-no. It was only when I started working with Linda Modaro of Sati Sangha that I began to actually observe the contents of the mind, and feel comfortable with what was arising. I would suggest that the process of meditation, reflection, journaling and conversation about one’s practice enables us to work with both our consciousness and what arises from the sub-conscious during (and after) our meditation sessions.
Most importantly, though, the concept of a ‘creative dharma’ is a new one that will be worked on by people the world over, and personally I don’t expect to see a single definition come out of this, but many notions of what a creative dharma consists of. It will be an interesting conversation, I don’t doubt. Thank you for your contribution to this conversation.
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.