we may be communicating at cross purposes at this point. I mention that
phenomenology was imperfect in the podcast and simply provides a number of
tools. For me, at least, scepticism is a given and throughout the podcast
episode, scepticism was on display regarding the narratives that run through
Buddhism and the self-referential discourse that takes place in Buddhist
circles. The same applies to much discussion regarding spiritual transformation
in general and part of the reasoning behind the incorporation of
phenomenological tools is to leave those self-referential spaces. I was also
referring to wider contemporary uses of phenomenological tools and not whatever
has been discussed at this site, which I haven’t been involved in.
As for
trusting someone’s phenomenological description, it’s an important
consideration and problematic if we assume the description is complete and
accurate. The way I see it, and describe in the episode, phenomenological
descriptions are an attempt at accurate description and are therefore always
imperfect and typically a work in progress. The point of bringing such
descriptions into a critical feedback loop is to dismantle the sorts of
linguistic tropes that pass for description of spiritual experiences and create
a culture of increasing transparency. Demanding that an individual find better
ways to describe, define and give form to experience forces a certain
intellectual discipline in which critique can refine understanding, highlight
spiritual traps and push discussion/understanding forward by not settling on
initial formulations, or the confirmation of expectations within a closed, or
self-referential practice group. This requires discipline. Phenomenology as an
intellectual, descriptive practice is a discipline in this regard. It is also a
group practice, where sharing can dismantle assumptions, force clarity and so
on. I have found in my own extra-curricular spiritual practice, that not being
able to rely on Buddhist language, or spiritual language and the accompanying ineffability
of it all, has dismantled many of my own assumptions and myths regarding
practice and its results that has been sobering to say the least as well as leading to the sorts of experimentation at my blog and, obviously, on the podcast.
Secondly, I
think that at bottom, we are social, co-emergent beings. The idea of
individualism in its atomised extreme brought about during the last century in
the West is, in my humble opinion, inaccurate. Such a conceptualisation is
manifest in our language of solipsism. I think that our emotions,
self-consciousness and most of our thinking are not in the least original. The
problem is not whether we experience the same or similar things, but to what
degree we are capable of experiencing, thinking anything that can be considered
original. The challenge is to push our current collective understanding of
phenomena forward, not reproduce the linguistic formulae that currently exist,
and therefore reproduce pre-existing thought and current ideology, Buddhist or otherwise. This means working on the
ideological systems that dominate Buddhist or spiritual discourse, which tend towards sollopsism and escapism and, specifically in western Buddhism, excessive individualism. If you see
language as participation, then it starts to make more sense why description is so important.
The
descriptions laid out by those who have achieved first path or have had a major
spiritual breakthrough or peak experience are typically solipsistic. In a
disciplined feedback dialogue, questioning can strip away all the additional
baggage, as often takes place on this forum, to reveal what actually took place
and what is actually taking place. As you probably know, spiritual experiences
can be so powerful that people weave all of their psychological baggage, needs,
and expectations into them, or go down the ineffability or spiritual poetry
paths. The idea of going further with all this would be an extension, in some
senses, of what has taken place here. The objective to remove awakening
phenomena, and the after effects, from enclosed spaces like this, to make it
more available to the wider world, to decodify it: to liberate awakening from
Buddhism and not leave it in the hands of spirituality. My view is that
philosophy would need to play a great part in this venture and not just the
sciences.