2009.10.05 - Noble, in Contrast to Idealist vs. Realist

Here is the text of a dialogue held by Piet Hut (in SL: Pema Pera) and Steven Tainer (in SL: Stim Morane), in Second Life on October 5, 2009.

P: Good morning Steven!
S: Hi Piet!
P: Is there any particular topic that you would like us to talk about?
S: one thing from the previous meetings was the issue of idealism ...
S: re idealism, for instance, the sorts of things I had in mind were
   not just the general class of abstractions, but the "noble" ones ...
S: things like truth, justice, equality, liberty, etc
S: these are not merely abstractions, but realities that catch the
   ordinary mind very powerfully, but in a way that causes problems.
S: They are quite important things in their own right for meditation
   traditions, but there the issue is to get past the ordinary mind's
   way of getting "motivated" by them.
S: the same point then applies to the seductive power of "higher"
   teachings ...
P: perhaps we should start from scratch, by considering what kind of
   "meditation traditions" we are talking about, to see whether they
   all qualify as being in some way "idealistic"
S: the traditions try to avoid idealism while being noble ...
S: i.e., they try to emphasize noble things, but in ways that don't
   catch the ordinary mind too much.
S: They spend a lot of time dealing with the latter sort of mind.
S: So they don't necessarily fall prey to the danger ...
S: but "religions" are different from meditation traditions in this
   regard.
P: That is a very interesting starting point: "noble" as opposed to
   both idealist (but perhaps ungrounded) and realist (pragmatic but
   perhaps short sighted)
S: well, yes, there are those two pitfalls
S: that is the challenge ...
P: and "noble" includes other approaches, beyond meditation traditions
   in the strict sense, I take it; for example martial arts, and
   perhaps other forms of art
S: yes, it could ... although those would not _necessarily_ be concerned
   with the higher aspects
S: or they might value them and promote them in modest ways, not
   really comparable to the scope of meditation traditions
S: there are a lot of choices here
S: a very high-level teaching with the least amount of disciplining
   of the ordinary mind might be expected to be the most at risk ...
S: but there are doubtless ways of avoiding this danger
P: can you give some examples of such teachings?
S: Zen is often an example
S: It's really very different from what it seems to be nowadays and
   has confused people about the view and its applications in life
S: But people often comment about Vajrayana etc as being examples
S: Then there are things that are simply "off peoples' maps" in terms
   of exposition ... too high = "abstract"
S: not so much danger in the latter case, but not much to grab people
   either ...
P: when you mentioned "nobility" I had to think of the approach
   introduced by Trungpa, he called it the Shambala tradition of the
   sacred warrior, I believe; an attempt to introduce some of the
   essence of his own background without packaging it in terms of
   Buddhism
S: this was not meant to be a restatement of Buddhism
S: it was an alternative, possibly in some ways a bridge, and a way
   that fits modern peoples' lives better than a monastic tradition
   might
S: He had all of those in mind ... drawing from the "basic sanity" of
   his culture and its Bon roots
P: would that be another example of what you mentioned as "high-level
   teaching with the least amount of disciplining of the ordinary
   mind"?
S: no, it would be a modest-level teaching with definite grounding
   mechanisms
P: in that way as a bridge?
S: yes
P: and how about the Time Space Knowledge approach?
S: it tried to be all levels ... but that is very difficult to pull
   off
S: traditionally, it has been seen to be easier to separate things
   than to come up with a "one size fits all"
P: just curious, don't you think that Trungpa's Shambala tradition
   also tried to be all levels?  Or did he specifically present it as
   an introduction to something further?
S: The latter
S: it was meant to be a self-contained path for many people in modern
   life, and also, for some, as a bridge
P: and that is then the reason that the Shambala teachings do not
   speak much about Being or the equivalent thereof?
S: it's just not the point of that teaching to emphasize such matters
P: Thank you, Steven, let us continue tomorrow!