GENIUS FORUMS

Hello everybody, I am quite fascinated by this forum. I've not seen a community of people of such high mental- and spiritual development all one one place, ever. Might it be possible that I've stumbled upon the secret hiding place of the Illuminati? Heh.

My first question here is, do you think it would be possible or desirable to construct the first ever monastery based not on the rules and dogmas of a theistic church, but on a ground integrating modern and post-modern cognition with a trans-personal type spirituality?

Modern in the sense that we recognize the value of reason, logic, evidence and the existence of a single Truth independent of human subjectivity.

Post-modern in the sense that we recognize all dualistic knowledge and formulations not as pre-given and static, but always as fabricated and interpreted through a lens of biological, social and cultural conditioning.

Trans-personal in the sense that we recognize that no person (any: I, you, we) or phenomena (any: it) has any analytically findable essence or self capable of sustaining itself; but instead always defined and existing in relation and dependence. In this way, God is revealed as the Ineffable Infinite - and because you are not, there is only that. This, could be the ground of spirituality in the monastery. And God could be approached in three ways. In the 1-p: the Infinite Suchness as experienced as awareness or I AM. In the 2-p: The Infinite Suchness experienced as the great Other, to which we surrender our separate sense of self and praise God for the gifts he/she/it has given. Or in the 3-p: The Infinite Suchness experienced as nature; that mystery of dynamically unfolding matter/energy and the profound interconnected systems operating through the one Law of Nature not yet discovered. Or Highest Expression: Meditation not through any activity or perspective. Akin to the practice of Shikantaza in Zen - a direct, non-conceptual and non-dual expression and union in God.

The day would be, just like in any monastery, always permeated by silence. The main activity would be a type of meditation/prayer, where we would seek God in any of the three perspectives. Other activities could be (manual) labour, personal education (science, morals, wisdom), intellectual debate in common, art, recreation, ceremonies, inter-religious discussion, sharing the accumulated wisdom with the public through the internet or in meetings - in preparation for the coming techno post-human era, etc.

Do you believe such a monastery where men or women could come together to celebrate life - and contribute to all self-conscious beings the highest expression of timeless wisdom free from dogma and superstition - would be possible in this modern age?

(Anyone who don't know about the idea of a monastic life could watch the excellent documentary Into Great Silence. Picture: http://www.dharmaflix.com/w/images/9/9f ... py_000.jpg)

Hi Is; welcome to the forum!

Interesting and logical idea as it could be very beneficial to organize things in a monastic sense, not unlike historical truth lovers at times seem to have done all over the world with differing results and of course always a temporary success, if any. The spark of truth seems to get squashed as easily between stone walls as it is between subjective ideologies, traditions or just rules of conduct.

For such things to arise I suspect a certain rare threshold needs to be reached in amount of people and resources as to be able to take the first hurdles. Also participants need to have gone truly beyond egotism as not to get bogged down in differences and subconscious group dynamics. A tall order!

Anyway, do you think we could learn by studying ancient and modern Buddhist monasteries? Or cenobitic monasticism in general? What are the pitfalls here in your opinion?

The role of new media and communications certainly change a few aspects too. One issue is the need for healthy finances. In older times they brewed beer or got donations of 'worshipers'. A big challenge would be to create complete financial self-reliance without getting bogged down in the thorny process.

Surely it would jus be a physical manifestation of the internet ideology right?

A place where all ideas are equal in a quest for Truth and understanding of "god"...
But in a physical reality I couldn't see it working... Most congregations of those sorts are all centered around an individual ideal and a set "truth" or value to aspire and attain.

But if you want Logic as well as Inter-religious contribution, That's normally where Confliction occurs, Dogma, Taboo.. etc.

It would probably be written off as a Cult offshoot based on Christian Ideals.
But that's just my personal opinion.

I'd be for such an idea as long as I were made boss. Kidding aside, I think it's a great idea, I'd love to meet everyone here in person and live with them, not to mention every so often nail the door shut when Ryan Rudolph's in the outhouse -- on a hot summer days, of course. Kidding aside, such a community would be infinitely difficult to organize and maintain. Geniuses are highly independent, it would like trying to herd mosquitoes into a tin can. Then there's the money disagreements, housing arguments, and endless meetings about what to plant in the garden, no thanks. I prefer to sit in front of my computer and pontificate from the comfort of my air-conditioned apartment. Kidding aside, I don't have air-conditioning.

I can see the merit in a philosophical "retreat" where people can spend some time thinking in simple accommodation and surrounds, largely free from the everyday distractions, but an organised philosophical community strikes me as close to a contradiction in terms. I also think it's fairly redundant. What would such a community do that isn't being done here?

I have to agree with Dan Rowden that it is close to a contradiction in terms.
A retreat is good, and helpfull.
But what we could consider and talk about is a philosophical pilgrimage. Having been on the Hajj where about 4,000,000 pious (all be it non-philosophical) souls come together to celibrate the non-material spiritual side of life, I can only say it is mind-expanding. Obviously any philosophical pigrimage would not attract such numbers, but as we know, quality makes up for quantity. I dare not even begin to suggest a format for any such event, I am just shouting out an idea here.

Light and Peace
Little Idiot

Thank you all for your excellent comments!

Diebert van Rhijn: "What are the pitfalls here in your opinion?"

The pitfalls of cenobitic monasticism as I see it is that in order to keep the community tight and organized there needs to be a very clear cut "rule", "ideology", "goal" which all memebers of the community follow. And, it is very easy that this rule or ideology becomes dogmatic and against challange and change, as we have seen with Catholic monastaries. (Indeed, this is the reason I have started this thread.) If there is no rule whatsoever - (1) the community spins out of control and individual autonomy will create disorder within the community. If the rule is too strong and dogmatic - (2) the community becomes like a herd of mindless sheep, which will create a pathological community forced into decay due to the pressure of external change and development. So there needs to be a balance, a middle way between communion and autonomy. The question becomes how to instill this balance, especially, as Carl G says: "Geniuses are highly independent, it would like trying to herd mosquitoes into a tin can."

My answer to issue nr (1) is to learn from the traditional monastic community. If there was one thing the mythic (theist) membership religions were successful in creating, then it was law and order. So there needs to be laws within the community so as to keep people from rioting and creating chaos in the monastery. For example, if a monk does not turn up at prayer, or refuses to do what the Abbot wishes, he will risk being asked to leave the monastery, and so forth. Since the first and foremost goal of the Infinity Monastery is to create a setting where the monks can surrender their separate self sense in order to achieve divine union, then having philosophical ego's run completely amok in whatever ways they please will not prove fruitful to the monastery's general spiritual purpose.

Concerning issue nr (2): the "rule", "direction", "common ground" we set up must be one which celebrates change, uncertainty, truthindependent of human wish-thinking, and fresh and challanging ideas. I think here we can learn from science. My view is that the "rule" would be designed with the cornerstone of consequences as a device or tool for ascertaining relative or dualistic truth. For example, if you believe that it is possible to walk on water - then you would have an uncomfortable consequence on your hands, because you can't prove it. Therefore, in the monastery, if you can't prove your assertion - if the uncomfortable consequences for holding a perticular view are too many or too great - then it will be decided that this view can't be endorsed by the rule of the monastery.

With this basic rule, dogma can not take root. Because the idea of a questioning mentality is built into the very fabric of the monastic rule. This basic rule also conforms with the underlying spiritual wisdom - all clinging = suffering and rejection of God. When we follow a consequence-based rule, clinging on to positions is rendered impossible. Because if you can't prove your claim through reason, logic or empirical evidence - the uncomfortable consequences will cause suffering and force you to open your mind to a deeper seeing of what Reality is.

Dan Rowden: "...but an organised philosophical community strikes me as close to a contradiction in terms. I also think it's fairly redundant. What would such a community do that isn't being done here?"

Good question. This monastic community is not first and foremost a place for philosophical confabulation, but rather it is a place where human beings come to focus all their attention on God. That is, monks give up the dream life ("I need to get a job, a partner, kids, and do this, and this, and this...") in order to awaken to the reality of existence. Of course, this is not to say that one can not awaken within the context of a secular life, so, this is simply another way of approaching the gift of life which we have recieved. A way in which all our energy is devoted less to mental stories and more into life itself; that non-dual infinite mystery that is God.

So do you, for example, in your heart experience that it would not be a strange thing to just sit outside in the rain for two hours as the morning sun dawns, as an impersonal expression of life itself? Then becoming an Infinity Monk might be something for you; it is about giving yourself to completely God, in every area of life. If you instead find yourself wanting to spend those hours doing something else, something more personally engaging and constructive, then a monastic way probably isn't suitable for your perticular lifestyle. (And that is not at all saying that you are more or less spiritual than anybody else.) It is just about where our priorities lie, I think.

Carl G: "I'd be for such an idea as long as I were made boss."

Heh, well, that attitude is exactly what a potential monk is considering giving up, reflecting on joining a monastic community. Are you willing to give up even the idea of possessing a genius-mind; to enter into the blinding light of selflessness? To realize conventional reality as conventional reality? Not many of us are willing to face the naked freefall that is the actuality of life.

Is. wrote: Are you willing to give up even the idea of possessing a genius-mind; to enter into the blinding light of selflessness? To realize conventional reality as conventional reality? Not many of us are willing to face the naked freefall that is the actuality of life.

I like the term "naked freefall" but no, I'm not willing to 'face' that, nor to give up the idea of possessing a genius-mind, not to enter the blinding light of selflessness. I like my coffee and muffins too much, and a nice cigar in the evening.

Carl G wrote:I like my coffee and muffins too much, and a nice cigar in the evening.

And there's nothing "unspiritual" about that. Coffee, muffins and cigars are all enjoyed in freefall anyway; a perfect expression of the Not one, Not two.

Is. wrote:So there needs to be a balance, a middle way between communion and autonomy. The question becomes how to instill this balance, especially, as Carl G says: "Geniuses are highly independent, it would like trying to herd mosquitoes into a tin can."

Perhaps that balance is called life? That is, there will be an exchange between order and chaos but never in perfect equilibrium. That means over time the lethal numbing stranglehold of order cannot be avoided just as the rebellious destructive uprooting, unpredictable counter-forces of chaos cannot for ever be tamed. The balance would be a temporary fluke.

Since the first and foremost goal of the Infinity Monastery is to create a setting where the monks can surrender their separate self sense in order to achieve divine union...

This implies creation of such setting required effort and means. But if the budget is tight and maintenance high, one ends up with exactly the same amount of bother as outside this monastery or retreat. Of course assuming for the sake of this discussion that it's the bother of life outside the retreat that somehow would prevent the average monk to surrender selves and achieve union.

the "rule", "direction", "common ground" we set up must be one which celebrates change, uncertainty, truthindependent of human wish-thinking, and fresh and challanging ideas.

Underneath these elements a whole set of unsettling processes could be hiding. Or in an other word trouble. Or conflict, suffering, mistakes, trial, errors... you know, like in science and technology.

Therefore, in the monastery, if you can't prove your assertion - if the uncomfortable consequences for holding a perticular view are too many or too great - then it will be decided that this view can't be endorsed by the rule of the monastery.

Lots of things cannot be proven scientifically but still can determine our choices as individual or a group. For example in this supposed retreat one could assert that silence is the most beneficial environment and therefore all talk and sounds will be discouraged. One monk would challenge this asking the proof of silence being effective in this regard. Perhaps a noisy and thriving environment would be more stimulating for the purpose.

Same story could go for other preferences which seem to vary wildly between individuals. Where it boils down to seems often a matter of principles, not just the facts. Principles which will have an indirect, intuitive cause, not a deductive one.

With this basic rule, dogma can not take root.

What we seem to be dealing with here is the idea of truth as a living, changing reality. This is why it never fits into a book, set of ideas or rules. Our environment is so complex and changing that what seems like true and fair one day could be delusional some time later. Meaning shifts, reality perceptions shift with it, slightly, subtly.

Only people with a "living connection" to truth could ever manage a place in a wise manner. Which will be an imperfect manner as the situation will be imperfect. The best way to start a place is by putting an expiry date on it in advance. After a maximum perhaps of five to ten years, destroy and abandon it to prevent any unhealthy attachment or other hidden diseases to grow. Burn it down, don't continue it, don't try to upgrade it or restart it back-handed in another shape or form. Just end it with the same dedication used when starting it. That would be my advice to community builders everywhere as it comes to spirituality.

Wholesale Citizens of Humanity

Hehe... how true.

The spammer is a perceptive social critic.

Unidian wrote:The spammer is a perceptive social critic.

Hahaha... :P