![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
On seeking the Divine Double
Feb. 8th, 2025 08:45 amTwo posts today! Amazing! I wanted to be sure to do my "homework"/daily practice, but perhaps because I had a decent CPAP mask I had a very good night of sleep, and instead of waking up irritable as I have for the past few days, I woke up full of ideas.
Yesterday for reading group we were "reading" John Vervaeke on the meaning crisis. (He has a youtube channel; everyone else watched 3 episodes but I read the transcripts). Frankly I found him very irritating, inventing a lot of new jargon and drawing on a lot of philosophical investigations of cognition I don't really care about, but the discussion was illuminating and brought out a lot of his good ideas. One of the things he talked about in the episodes we covered was the "Divine Double" or capital S self, depending on whether you're using Neoplatonic language or more Hindu language--basically the eternal form of the self that we're working towards (or should be working towards), or our true Atman which is beyond our temporary self. The common theme, though, was transformation, and working toward a greater goal outside one's self.
And that of course completely contradicted the ideas in Pema Chodron's message yesterday about "abandoning any hope of fruition" and learning to accept the buddha within--angry buddha, jealous buddha, irritated buddha, loving buddha, etc. I spoke already of how hard I find that teaching, whereas in certain ways the concept of the divine double is more attractive to me.
I'm already drawn to self-transformation. That makes sense. Vervaeke, in his discussion of the nature of symbols and the way they work, apparently emphasizes the need to avoid narrative, but in our reading group yesterday most of us agreed that was basically impossible, given the way culture works and the way individuals work. We are embedded in narratives which are really the only way we make meaning in the world. And the narrative of America is very much about self-transformation--and some folks yesterday pointed out that does go all the way back to Plato and his concept of forms, so it's not surprising that a concept of the divine double would be easier for me to grasp than inherent buddha nature (at least so far as inherent buddha nature means accept the self as it is, not as I want it to be).
Of course, then there's the question of what the divine double would look like. DV in our conversation yesterday pointed out that in Hinduism, attaining Atman was more about removing yourself from the things that characterize you as an individual (personality, emotions, desires), rather than realizing them or fulfilling them. I wish I knew more about Neoplatonism/Gnosticism to know how they conceptualize the Divine Double. I assume that it's more than your "best self," whatever that would be.
While I respect the Hindu (and in some cases Buddhist) quest to overcome the small s self to attain the capital S Self, I think in this case I am more influenced by the Western Romantic tradition (and perhaps some version of the Tibetan Buddhist tradition), where the individual is important. Divine Self Micki, for me, must have some of my qualities, rather than formless Brahman. [Perhaps in Neoplatonism this would be the archons rather than the Ein Sof?] I don't know what those qualities would be, precisely--perhaps figuring that out is part of the spiritual path. I do think that one lesson I got from Tibetan Buddhism (though of course it can be found in other places), that our flaws and strengths are ultimately the same--e.g. stubbornness can be a virtue in some cases and a flaw in others--is probably true. I guess here Chodron would be correct in suggesting the radical self-acceptance that says focus on the present, don't always be concerned with the future (and change is inherently of the future) would apply.
Our conversation yesterday also had me thinking about different spiritual paths/different spiritual vocabularies, and the cultural narratives we are born into. All of my years teaching religion, and even our conversations yesterday, definitely show that we are drawn to different spiritual styles (or technologies, as Vervaeke says) in part because of our upbringing/early experiences. And I see a certain wisdom in the idea that you should learn and follow the truths of your own tradition (or maybe just a tradition, if you convert to something else). As I read through Chodron, it is helpful to get a lot of perspectives from the Tibetan Buddhist teachers she is drawing on, even when I disagree with them, just for a sense of continuity. "These are the practices that have worked for generations in the past."
But there's probably a reason I am currently reading Buddhist teachers right now rather than Christian ones. Vervaeke talks about symbols that die or lose their power. I find a lot of the Christian message true but I almost can't listen to it right now, not just because of the cooptation of the teaching by Christian nationalists, but also because I have trouble disentangling it from the culture wars.
Yesterday for reading group we were "reading" John Vervaeke on the meaning crisis. (He has a youtube channel; everyone else watched 3 episodes but I read the transcripts). Frankly I found him very irritating, inventing a lot of new jargon and drawing on a lot of philosophical investigations of cognition I don't really care about, but the discussion was illuminating and brought out a lot of his good ideas. One of the things he talked about in the episodes we covered was the "Divine Double" or capital S self, depending on whether you're using Neoplatonic language or more Hindu language--basically the eternal form of the self that we're working towards (or should be working towards), or our true Atman which is beyond our temporary self. The common theme, though, was transformation, and working toward a greater goal outside one's self.
And that of course completely contradicted the ideas in Pema Chodron's message yesterday about "abandoning any hope of fruition" and learning to accept the buddha within--angry buddha, jealous buddha, irritated buddha, loving buddha, etc. I spoke already of how hard I find that teaching, whereas in certain ways the concept of the divine double is more attractive to me.
I'm already drawn to self-transformation. That makes sense. Vervaeke, in his discussion of the nature of symbols and the way they work, apparently emphasizes the need to avoid narrative, but in our reading group yesterday most of us agreed that was basically impossible, given the way culture works and the way individuals work. We are embedded in narratives which are really the only way we make meaning in the world. And the narrative of America is very much about self-transformation--and some folks yesterday pointed out that does go all the way back to Plato and his concept of forms, so it's not surprising that a concept of the divine double would be easier for me to grasp than inherent buddha nature (at least so far as inherent buddha nature means accept the self as it is, not as I want it to be).
Of course, then there's the question of what the divine double would look like. DV in our conversation yesterday pointed out that in Hinduism, attaining Atman was more about removing yourself from the things that characterize you as an individual (personality, emotions, desires), rather than realizing them or fulfilling them. I wish I knew more about Neoplatonism/Gnosticism to know how they conceptualize the Divine Double. I assume that it's more than your "best self," whatever that would be.
While I respect the Hindu (and in some cases Buddhist) quest to overcome the small s self to attain the capital S Self, I think in this case I am more influenced by the Western Romantic tradition (and perhaps some version of the Tibetan Buddhist tradition), where the individual is important. Divine Self Micki, for me, must have some of my qualities, rather than formless Brahman. [Perhaps in Neoplatonism this would be the archons rather than the Ein Sof?] I don't know what those qualities would be, precisely--perhaps figuring that out is part of the spiritual path. I do think that one lesson I got from Tibetan Buddhism (though of course it can be found in other places), that our flaws and strengths are ultimately the same--e.g. stubbornness can be a virtue in some cases and a flaw in others--is probably true. I guess here Chodron would be correct in suggesting the radical self-acceptance that says focus on the present, don't always be concerned with the future (and change is inherently of the future) would apply.
Our conversation yesterday also had me thinking about different spiritual paths/different spiritual vocabularies, and the cultural narratives we are born into. All of my years teaching religion, and even our conversations yesterday, definitely show that we are drawn to different spiritual styles (or technologies, as Vervaeke says) in part because of our upbringing/early experiences. And I see a certain wisdom in the idea that you should learn and follow the truths of your own tradition (or maybe just a tradition, if you convert to something else). As I read through Chodron, it is helpful to get a lot of perspectives from the Tibetan Buddhist teachers she is drawing on, even when I disagree with them, just for a sense of continuity. "These are the practices that have worked for generations in the past."
But there's probably a reason I am currently reading Buddhist teachers right now rather than Christian ones. Vervaeke talks about symbols that die or lose their power. I find a lot of the Christian message true but I almost can't listen to it right now, not just because of the cooptation of the teaching by Christian nationalists, but also because I have trouble disentangling it from the culture wars.
