No views is good views? March 7th, 2007 (posted by Edward Berge) Bonnie said the following in discussing Aurobindo over at the ARINA forum: “You can see in the diagrams that as the self becomes more aware, it tries to chase a ‘basis’ into the ontological depths, and at the psychic level, it has a choice — the big question mark — to forego this process.”This is how I’ve come to personally feel lately about taking a view or perspective. I’m losing the desire to “chase a basis into the ontological depths,” or find a model or theory to account for my experience. From my investigation of Nagarjuna and Derrida I’m coming to feel that indeed “no views is good views,” as the moment I take a position I immediately see my own negative projections–and the antithesis–built right into the very premise(s) of that view. Perhaps I am entering into the psychic level as Bonnie describes, perhaps I am having nondual experiences, perhaps I am tired of arguing, perhaps it is an expression of deeply-seated psyhcological resignation. Perhaps it is some, all or none of those things and more, or less. The point it I just don’t care what it is anymore. I’m tired of defending positions. And I’m not skilled like Nagarjuna or Derrida at not taking a position while I deconstruct all positions. As the bumper sticker says: I’d rather be dancing. Posted in Uncategorized 5 Comments » Anand Rangarajan Says: March 8th, 2007 at 9:13 am Beautiful, Ed just beautiful. “No views is good views indeed.”
When I was more involved in a Shambhala community, we’d discuss Nagarjuna and shunyata and for lack of a better description, we’d look at if mainly from Trungpa’s perspective. I too find that adopting a no views perspective can be very healthy from time to time. However, (and there’s always a however isn’t there?), what the Tibetan traditions say is that the via negativa approach of Nagarjuna and Madhyamika becomes too suffocating after a while. This is why tantra emerges after the shunyata realization. So the Tibetan/Trungpa practice we would do had the following progression: sutra -> shunyata -> tantra -> Ati. Or in more layman terms, you begin with the texts (sutra), you throw away all texts (shunyata), you dance (tantra) and then you realize there has only been Ati all along. Anand Rangarajan Says: March 8th, 2007 at 1:37 pm Edward Berge said “you have somehow reconciled Nargarjuna, Aurobindo, Wilber and Trungpa…..there seems many irreconcilable elements in that mix”I’m not sure what you mean by “reconcile.” I read Wilber and Trungpa for spiritual inspiration and not for their philosophies. Nagarjuna’s shunyata is very useful as far as it goes especially when linked as Garfield does (in his incomparable translation of the Mulamadhyamakakarika) to the doctrine of mutually dependent co-origination. But shunyata goes too far in its via negativa approach and needs to be balanced. Aurobindo provides one formulation for reaching a balance and I view his approach as one more reworking of the ancient doctrine that there is only Ati and that we need to discover that that has been the state of affairs all along.