Cannabis Meditation and Genpo Roshi's "Big Mind" Process

[jg84208]

Simon,

Are you familiar with Genpo Roshi's Big Mind Process?

A few years ago, I started using cannabis seriously. Once I realized the plant had an amplifying effect on my emotions as well as my thought process, I started paying attention to the mind. I was instantly fascinated and hooked. My life has never been quite the same.

Initially it became evident that there were many voices and perspectives the mind would take depending on the situation. Some were culturally induced. Some were rooted in some truths of the human condition. Some reflected psychological bruises I'd suppressed. Paying attention to these facts made the egoic self, higher self, and pure consciousness much easier to identify and play with.

However, since I knew nothing about meditation at the time, nor did I have interest in development psychology, the effect was just a mish-mash of chaos that could range from bliss to despair. There appeared to be value in paying attention to these voices, but they were so interwoven it seemed a life-time or more would be needed to sort them out.

Fast forward a few years... Realizing that SURELY someone else had made similar observations about the nature of the human condition, I began reading. I eventually grew particularly fond of Ken Wilber's approach to Integral Theory and Genpo Roshi's Big Mind process. They provide the most rational and comprehensive approach to dissecting the self and reintegrating it that I've found for me.

These process seem particularly well suited for cannabis exploration.

I am curious to hear your thoughts....
Are you familiar with Genpo Roshi and Big Mind?
Ken Wilber and Integral Spirituality/Psychology/Theory?

Best wishes...
~Garrett

[Hashassin]

Hi Garret welcome:) Nice, interesting post to open with. I have little experience of Genpo Roshi, but I know Ken Wilbur's work well and I've got to say that I'm not that big on him. He's a bit like Alan Watts in some respects, toying with the edges of meditation and psychoanalysis from almost an external POV. Watts liked to portray himself as being steeped in Zen, but in fact he knew very little about it. Ken Wilbur too talks about aspects of both Hinduism and Buddhism and gets them wrong on many occasions. Mind you, that doesn't make him entirely useless, I know a lot of people who swear by him, so it's all personal choice, but his idea seems to be that psychoanalysis and meditation done with the aim of reaching enlightenment are similar, if not the same. His emphasis is loosely based on the meditator understanding and healing the mind. This is great, but it doesn't have a lot to do with reaching enlightenment, unless your personal mind-set is so off kilter (through say, grief) that it actually needs healing before you begin. Mediatation done solely with the aim of reaching calm states may need his kind of approach, but not for reaching enlightenment.

Although from the mahayana stance it may seem as though sila and correct mind are imperative, in fact that isn't the case. Enlightenment can be reached by the most screwed up, angry people - and I remember too that at one time in India, the 'yoga of hate' was a viable choice of paths. Wilbur talks about advanced Tibetan forms, but is firmly stuck in tryingto fulfill and imagined goal that is based in mahayana.

I'll have a look around at Genpo Roshi today and let you kow, it's all grist to the mill:)

Anyone reading this, don't take my word for anything. Wilbur is a good read if you take his knowledge with a pinch of salt. Just read his work for what it is.

Hashassin

[jg84208]

Hashassin...

I appreciate your perspectives on Ken Wilber. Thank you for sharing them and starting the discussion.

Your understanding of Buddhism and Hinduism is no doubt greater than mine. For now, I'll take your word for it that Ken Wilber inaccurately talks about these traditions. If you can cite some examples, I would find that helpful. Perhaps others here (and Ken) would too. I've found him to be highly accessible personally and generally open to critism.

I would like to clarify at least one point though. Ken Wilber and Integral Theory in general build on the idea that to evolve as a human there are several core areas of focus: Spirit, Mind, Body, and Shadow. Additional areas include ethics, sexuality, work, relationship, communication, etc.

You mentioned that Ken Wilber's idea is that "psychoanalysis and meditation done with the aim of reaching enlightenment are similar, if not the same". This statement is inaccurate. Instead, the Integral approach assumes they COMPLEMENT each other and are both necessary. For instance Shadow Work addresses any part of ourselves we repress or deny psychologically. And while meditation lets a person watch fear bubbling into awareness, there is no guarantee the source of that fear will be addressed. Focusing on one area and not the others is incomplete.

From an overall Integral approach, meditation (and other expressions of Spirit) should be part of one's practice. So should Mind work, which covers our ability to take various perspectives, ranging from egocentric to Kosmocentric. Shadow work and psychotherapy address any part of ourselves that we are committed to overlooking - due to the painful bruising of psyche everyone experiences in their formative years and on. Body work discusses practices for the causal, the subtle, and the gross body (waking, dreaming and deep sleep, respectively).

I guess my point in posting to this forum was to suggest cannabis can be a legitimate facilitator/accelerant for meditation, self psycho-analysis, taking broader perspectives, and witnessing dream-like states. "Cannabis & Meditation" is the most detailed and accessible approach to integrating cannabis into various meditative states I have read to date. Genpo Roshi's Big Mind Process, in short, is a combination of western psychological technique with a Zen Buddhist understanding of reality. Since Simon Jackson and Genpo Roshi both come from Zen traditions, this leap didn't seem terribly far-fetched.

I've had initial success mixing cannabis with self-introspection, recognizing and addressing fears, meditation, systems thinking, states of consciousness, etc. This has given me hope that others had found similar value. This forum seemed like a place to find out.

I hope you and others will continue to offer thoughts/comments/opinions/ramblings freely.

Best wishes...
~ Garrett

[winkybob]

Hi Garrett. I'm not really for or against Wilber (Hash' - it's WilbEr!), I've read some of his books and found them a bit tedious and full of supposition and pretty dire psychological theories from elsewhere that he uses to try to back up his views on psycoanalysis. Not all of it is bad tho, but he can't get past trying to prove his own theories. He was supposed to have gotten taught by a whole bunch of people, but it sounds in what I've read in his books that all he did was take what he wanted to believe and rubbished the rest, just so he could claim a place for himself and his ideas. I just can't get on with the guy's attitude. He's bound to say IT is necessary for enlightenment,it's his baby. If he were selling Ford Caminos he'd say thtey were necessary too.

Linking him to serious meditation is like using Homer Simpson - funny at first, but ultimately pointless.

Winybob

[SimonJ]

Hi Garret, good to meet you. Great subject matter. I'm well aware of both Wilber and Merzel. One point though, I'm not a Zen Buddhist, I practise mostly Dzogchen, the two are quite different.

I realise that you don't understand the basics regarding what realisation is and what Buddhism and Hinduism do and how, so this is not an attack on you.

I would like to clarify at least one point though. Ken Wilber and Integral Theory in general build on the idea that to evolve as a human there are several core areas of focus: Spirit, Mind, Body, and Shadow. Additional areas include ethics, sexuality, work, relationship, communication, etc.

This is where my and others disagreement with the DM's version of the Big Mind process begins. It is an idea, a theory, and not even a very good one. Secondly, IT and Shadow saying of themselves, 'you need us as much as mind, body and spirit' isn't any kind of validation. It's a rather unfounded, egotistical stance that, considering IT's age and what it offers is a bit of a stretch.

What DM says about meditation is one thing, IT carving itself a place in the process and claiming that it's a necessary part of human spiritual evolution is another. IT is mostly Wilber's invention, a mess of pretty dire opinion, pseudo-intellectual posing and actual understanding. Complicating the uncomplicated is possibly the kindest way I could put it.

This is from Wiki, it's a good summation of IT's BM and one that I'm sure they themselves will have entered there, so we can assume it's accurate:

"One key idea in Big Mind is that for 2500 years Buddhism has been trying to achieve enlightenment by sitting and meditating on various mental states."

A good illustration that IT, Mr Wilber and et al do not have the understanding they claim. It couldn't be further from the truth. If they do have knowledge of Buddhism, then why are they neglecting to tell the full story about it?

"Merzel's teaching is based on ideas from Gestalt psychology and Hal and Sidra Stone, that simply talking to a given mental state or voice may help a person achieve the state immediately, although dedicated practice is generally needed in order to arrive at deep levels of that state."

In respect of enlightenment, the Stone's work carries about as much authority as the advertising for chocolate bars. Apart from the statement being incredibly silly, there are no 'deep levels' to attain. Meditation isn't just about states of mind and creating focus, those things are introductory tools that a meditator learns, then moves on to where particular states aren't necessary. Again, as GR and KW both claim broad knowledge of Buddhism you have to wonder why they either don't know this or are neglecting to say as much?

I'm very much on the side of Brad Warner and others regarding IT and what they claim to offer.

http://suicidegirls.com/news/culture/20504/

http://hardcorezen.blogspot.com/2008/09 ... -mind.html

You mentioned that Ken Wilber's idea is that "psychoanalysis and meditation done with the aim of reaching enlightenment are similar, if not the same". This statement is inaccurate. Instead, the Integral approach assumes they COMPLEMENT each other and are both necessary.

Sorry, with all due respect, this is a claiming that IT is necessary, and therefore an integral part of the process of enlightenment as Hashassin has said. Your two statements are mutually exclusive. We can say that a good diet is complementary to the path, but nobody says it is necessary.

The Integral approach (Wilber) 'assuming' things doesn't really mean anything. On who's authority does he say that IT is necessary to reach enlightenment? Does that mean that all the many people who have become enlightened in the past without IT just happened on it by chance? Necessary is a very powerful word. I hardly believe IT is helpful, let alone necessary.

Talking to your inner voice, as IT says, as a means to directly reach enlightenment, is perhaps the biggest display of not knowing anything at all about enlightenment as I've ever heard.

For instance Shadow Work addresses any part of ourselves we repress or deny psychologically. And while meditation lets a person watch fear bubbling into awareness, there is no guarantee the source of that fear will be addressed. Focusing on one area and not the others is incomplete.

TBH, I've never known anyone 'watch fear bubble into awareness' during meditation, or think that if it did that meditation was able to address it. Meditation isn't done to heal us, or remove our idiosyncracies, it's more misunderstanding of what meditation and enlightenment are. Why do two adults with supposed understanding of the Path pretend that this is a valid part of it?

I don't like the Gestalt-style theory of self-obsession. Jungian thought is counter-productive and makes people focus obsessively on their failings.

From an overall Integral approach, meditation (and other expressions of Spirit) should be part of one's practice. So should Mind work, which covers our ability to take various perspectives, ranging from egocentric to Kosmocentric. Shadow work and psychotherapy address any part of ourselves that we are committed to overlooking - due to the painful bruising of psyche everyone experiences in their formative years and on. Body work discusses practices for the causal, the subtle, and the gross body (waking, dreaming and deep sleep, respectively).

'Should be', according to IT and Shadow work. Self-validation is no validation.

I guess my point in posting to this forum was to suggest cannabis can be a legitimate facilitator/accelerant for meditation, self psycho-analysis, taking broader perspectives, and witnessing dream-like states.

I agree, it is an exceptionally useful drug.

I hope you and others will continue to offer thoughts/comments/opinions/ramblings freely.

You'll find nothing but honesty here, very glad you could post:)

I think that Merzel would have better luck and gain more credibility if he dumped Wilber asap, but even that may be too late a fix. What KW knows about Buddhism is simply what he wanted to learn to prove his own theories. A man can have a thousand teachers, but if he listens to none of them then he still knows nothing and he's wasted his and their time. If Wilber knew anything of the sunyata he speaks he would never have written 99% of his texts. You might also want to read the next post - how anyone in this day and age can misunderstand evolution to such an extent and then create an entire theory on it is beyond me. I find myself unable to trust the word of someone who doesn't do research and is so full of his own opinion that he misses the whole pont of what he tries to talk about. Very, very worrying.

Simon

[SimonJ]

An excerpt of a review of Wilber's 'A Brief History Of Everything'.

http://www.skepdic.com/news/newsletter38.html

"...The book is Ken Wilber asking himself questions, giving himself answers, and commenting on his own questions and answers. This is not dialogue as Plato, Galileo, Berkeley, or Hume used dialogue: to put forth opposing viewpoints and criticize them. Wilber is only interested in putting forth his own viewpoint..."

"...It's interesting and not New Agey at all until near the end. On page 11, Wilber gives us his definition of flatland: "the idea that the sensory and empirical and material world is the only world there is. There are no higher or deeper potentials available to us--no higher stages of consciousness evolution, for example. There is merely what we can see with our senses or grasp with our hands. It is a world bereft of any Ascending energy at all, completely hollow of any transcendence."

This seems to be a rather common, if twisted and distorted, view of New Age spiritual people toward atheistic materialists. We're seen as joyless hedonists, incapable of higher order pleasures such as love or friendship. From my perspective, it is these spiritual folks who are pursuing a hollow transcendence by chasing after chimeras. The atheistic materialist is much more likely to be able to see that true transcendence is the ability to see beyond the present state of the world to a better state here on this planet in the near future.

In the first chapter Wilber tells us that he likes Arthur Koestler's concept of the holon so much that he believes it can form the basis of his metaphysics: "the world is not composed of atoms or symbols or cells or concepts. It is composed of holons" (21). According to Koestler, a holon is something that is itself a whole while simultaneously being part of some other whole. This concept of seeing reality as infinite nesting strikes Wilber as profound. It strikes me as pointless. But it's his book. He even goes so far as to claim that "Even the 'Whole' of the Kosmos is simply a part of the next moment's whole, indefinitely." Yes, I suppose so, but so what? Like other Hegelians, Wilber enjoys this vision of Spirit unfolding itself moment by moment. At least it gives the history of the universe a direction, a point. This is comforting to many people. To claim that we're evolving toward some grand spiritual goal is positively thrilling to many of these folks. Apparently, such a vision gives hope and meaning to people's lives. To me, it makes us pawns of some grand Spirit. We only have meaning as a means to an end that we have no part in creating. I find such a vision demeaning.

When Wilber attempts to describe the characteristics of holons it becomes clear that his vision is essentially vitalism all over again. Holons have drives to maintain their wholeness and their partness. In other words, everything has a built-in spirit that moves it to be what it is and to fulfill its purpose. Up to this point, Wilber is simply offering a counter-metaphysical view to atheism/materialism and it is the world view of the 19th century German romantic philosophers like Hegel. It's vitalistic and teleological. Thus far he's just talking philosophy. It happens to be a philosophy I think is outdated and uninteresting, but I can't say it's false. All I can say is that I don't find it attractive or compelling.

Then, however, he starts making claims that are not philosophical, but are empirical and most certainly false. For example, he writes: "The standard, glib, neo-Darwinian explanation of natural selection--absolutely nobody believes this anymore. Evolution clearly operates in part by Darwinian natural selection, but this process simply selects those transformations that have already occurred by mechanisms that absolutely nobody understands" (22).

This is complete rubbish. Almost everybody who knows anything about biology does still believe this! Wilber and his admirers should read Richard Dawkin's The Blind Watchmaker and Daniel Dennet's Darwin's Dangerous Idea. I'm not going to waste my time here trying to correct this nonsense. I will comment, though, on Wilber's example to prove his point.

"...Take the standard notion that wings simply evolved from forelegs. It takes perhaps a hundred mutations to produce a functional wing from a leg--a half-wing will not do. A half-wing is no good as a leg and no good as a wing--you can't run and you can't fly. It has no adaptive value whatsoever. In other words, with a half-wing you are dinner. The wing will work only if these hundred mutations happen all at once, in one animal--also these same mutations must occur simultaneously in another animal of the opposite sex, and they have to somehow find each other, have dinner, a few drinks, mate, and have offspring with real functional wings.

Talk about mind-boggling. This in infinitely, absolutely, utterly mind-boggling. Random mutations cannot even begin to explain this....But once this incredible transformation has occurred, then natural selection will indeed select the better wings from the less workable wings--but the wings themselves? Nobody has a clue.

For the moment, everybody has simply agreed to call this "quantum evolution" or "punctuated equilibrium" or "emergent evolution"--radically novel and emergent and incredibly complex holons come into existence in a huge leap, in a quantum-like fashion--with no evidence whatsoever of intermediated forms. Dozens or hundreds of simultaneous nonlethal mutations have to happen at the same time in order to survive at all--the wing, for example, or the eyeball. (22-23)..."

We've all heard these same nonsensical arguments from creation scientists and defenders of intelligent design. I suppose the reason Wilber can write such rubbish and get away with it is that his readers are just as ignorant of evolutionary theory as he is. Wilber assumes that a partial wing would mean non-survival. He assumes that the many functions of the eye could not have been useful to survival except if taken all together. These assumptions are unwarranted. It is false to claim that nobody believes natural selection any more and that everybody has agreed to the notion of punctuated equilibrium.

Wilber doesn't put forth these false claims about evolution in order to promote creationism or intelligent design, however. He puts them forth to support his simplistic teleological vitalism, which he grandly calls the drive to self-transcendence of the Kosmos.

I have to admit that after seeing Wilber dismiss one of the greatest scientific ideas ever in a few paragraphs of half-truths and lies, I found it hard to continue reading....and I was only on page 23! I forged ahead, however, telling myself that it couldn't get much worse.

I was wrong.

Just two pages later Wilber launches into a tirade against the "reductionist frenzy that has plagued Western science virtually from its inception." Wilber is against any reductionism except the reduction of everything to dynamic Spirit. He notes that his view is shared by "religious creationists" and that there has been "a recent warming in some scientific circles" to his way of thinking. The only scientific circles warm to this idea would be the intelligent design folks and the parapsychologists (as described and defended by Dean Radin). In their view, science made a wrong turn when it became naturalistic and excluded supernatural explanations from its domain. They'd like to drag us back to the 16th century or earlier. To me, they're just sore losers. The battle over where the line between science and non-science should be drawn may still be debatable, but almost everybody agrees that the supernatural belongs on the other side of the line.

That's just chapter one. I have to admit that I have little incentive to read on, but I am curious as to how Wilber handles the issue of freedom. Are these holons we call human beings just playthings of Spirit? I'll have to read more to find out. Don't hold your breath, but I might write a part two on Wilber's Brief History of Everything..."

Wilber is just another philospher with his own theories and a lot of books to sell. He isn't a great thinker, writer, orator, or anyone who should automatically demand our respect. It sounds like the pain he tells us we all feel is a simple projection of his own own pain and dissatisfaction, and anyone who says they don't suffer such pain is in denial and just not up to speed. He writes sad and disillusioned books for sad and disillusioned people.

Writing bunk like the above appraisal of evolution and claiming it to be fact is not acceptable. Where is the intellect that people claim he has, when he doesn't even understand the things he writes about? Where has he been the last 40 years?

Simon

[Kelly222]

Great post Simon!!!!:) Isn't it funny how people can accept that a person like Wilber is wise in these things,without him needing to know verymuch at all? I think a lot of these characters are just hoping that nobody will ever catch them out. Very interesting reading. The word needs to be spread tho,we can't go on listening to people like Wilber who say they have some kind of special insight whenthey dont. Let's start a campaign!! LOL!

Kels

[jg84208]

Simon,

I appreciate the time you and others invested in responding to my question about combining cannabis and the Big Mind process. Being new to spirituality discussions and integral philosophy, your perspectives will help shape mine.

Keeping in mind that i am new to Integral Philosophy, i feel i should clarify that the word “necessary” (relating to psychotherapy being a “necessary” complement to a meditation practice) was my choice - not Ken Wilber’s or Integral Theory’s. Don't want any future readers to misinterpret my mistakes for Ken Wilber's.

Having said that, i also don’t want anyone reading to think i know what i’m talking about when it comes to Integral anything. I don’t. It’s just that as i’ve learned more about psychology and meditative paths, Wilber’s approach to mapping consciousness and psychological development appear valid. Apparently there’s room for discussion.

At any rate, I do appreciate the personalized responses. Cannabis & Meditation is a valuable contribution to both the cannabis and meditative communities. I expect it to remain significant.

Cheers!
~Garrett

[SimonJ]

Hi Garrett. I understand what you're saying, I'm glad you're here to post your views on it all, it's always useful.

I don't know if it's something that would interest you (are you hoping to head for Kensho?), but you might want to check out Dzogchen, in particular the work of Longchen Rabjam. Dzogchen is what comes after a student has grounding in shamatha/vippasssana styles, and it has a very direct approach that leads to realisation far more quickly once you get to grips with it. If I could recommend you seek out say, 'Old Man Basking In the Sun' as a good introduction, I think it mght appeal to you. I'm happy to point you to further texts on the subject, and you can find a few good documents on it at: www.keithdowman.com.

Simon

[Kelly222]

Hi Simon:) I read your response here a while ago and bought 'Old Man'. What a book! Some of it is a little beyond me (so if you can help out at any point ) but I've rarely read anything so direct. Are there any others like this you could recommend?

Kels