Transcription
Tomorrow we will resume this elaboration of the aspects of the imaginal, what we're calling the aspects of the imaginal, these aspects or elements of what makes an experience imaginal, the constituents of that constellation. We'll resume that tomorrow. We just really got going, but we'll pick it up tomorrow. I just want to, for now, just a very short sort of interruption to that, also for the purposes of kind of clarifying or fleshing something out, hopefully, in a helpful way. Just briefly.
This word, 'imaginal,' several people told me they just don't like the word. They don't relate to it, or it's a funny word. It also can tend, because of the word 'imagination' in English, and how we think of that, really how we conceive of imagination in our culture and its place in our whole sort of implicit philosophy, the word 'imaginal' tends to suggest something that's happening inside me or inside you, so-called intrapsychic. That's a word I really don't like, 'intrapsychic.' It implies that the psyche is somewhere in here. But the word 'imaginal' can suggest to people something inside: "I'm sitting with my eyes shut, and a pink dragon comes." And that pink dragon, that imagination figure or imaginal figure, has very little to do -- it's not something anyone else can perceive; it has very little to do with the world of the senses. Or perhaps there's some kind of relationship, but it's not of the world of the senses.
So the word 'imaginal' can suggest that to people, but that's not what we mean. Or rather, it includes that kind of thing, the so-called intrapsychic images that come up. It includes that, but it also includes (another word I don't like) extrapsychic. In other words, we can say I perceive an imaginal pink dragon. I perceive you guys imaginally. I perceive these roses imaginally. These are things of the world, objects or beings of the world, sensed with the senses, that everyone would agree on their form. They're white roses, whitish roses; they agree on the shape, etc. I can perceive them in a conventional way that everyone in our culture would agree on. We all see the same thing. The conventional perception is just to see, yeah, they're pleasant-looking, they're very nice, they smell nice, etc., they're a biological organism; that's about it. Conventional perception.
I want to introduce another term for the sake of kind of having done with this misunderstanding that's sometimes happened for some people of assuming that 'imaginal' refers to something purely interior. So the phrase I want to introduce is sensing with soul. I'm not introducing anything different; I'm just introducing a new vocabulary, or a possible new vocabulary. We don't want to replace, just add. And I want to use them almost interchangeably. We say imaginal or imaginally perceiving, or sensing with soul -- pretty much same thing.
For some people, as I said, the word 'imaginal' will imply this more interior arising of an image. Sensing with soul, to me, the words, because we tend to think of senses as meeting the world, opens up in or suggests a different direction. But really they're interchangeable pretty much, okay? So the things, the objects, the beings, the world itself, the things, the objects, the beings of the world, and the world itself, in any moment, when they, to my perception, to my senses, to my knowing them through the senses, when they start to come alive with those aspects of the imaginal that we're going through, when I sense a person or a group of people, or my body, or the tree, or the sky, or my friend, and I see my friend, I see her/him/them as angel -- same form. She/he/they look the same. Everyone would agree it looks the same. But there are the added imaginal dimensions. It's filled out.
Or this tree. Everyone would agree on the shape of the tree. Somehow I feel, I sense this tree's love for me. Most people think that's bonkers: "Trees can't do that." But the sensing with soul preserves the form, and adds the dimensionality and the richness and the multi-aspectedness, and all the beauty, and the duty, and the love, and all these nodes that we're talking about. Yeah? So it's a transubstantiation of the world in the alchemy of perception, sensing with soul. So that implies sensing. We say -- it depends on your system -- [we] have at least five senses: sight, smell ... what are they now? [laughter] Sight, smell, taste, touch, and hearing. Plus the mind. In Buddhadharma, the mind is a sixth sense. So the mind that thinks, the thinking as a sense, or the perceiving of thought, the sensing of thought as another sense, and the sensing of image, an intrapsychic image. So it spans all that: imagining, thinking, smelling, seeing, tasting, touching, and hearing. I'm missing one. [laughter] But you get the picture.
So generally speaking, there are the same shapes or colours or forms, but it has that filled-outness. It's same shapes, colours, or forms as conventional, socially agreed perception, but it has that filling out. So sensing with soul. Catherine actually -- you may not have caught it; it slipped out a couple of times, I think, in the opening talk. We wanted to introduce that as an idea. Some people, it will be more helpful. It's like, "Oh yeah, it's that that we're doing. It's not just this."
So we actually don't mind what words you use. All this is for the sake of understanding. When you say 'imaginal,' people say, "What do you mean, imaginal?" Of course, if you say 'sensing with soul,' that would also beg the question, "What do you mean, soul?" So we could be here a long time, but I don't want to be. [laughter] So sensing with soul means all that. It means sensing in a way that soulfulness is happening. In other words, all those nodes, or some of those nodes, to some degree, that movement into that activation of those nodes is happening.
What is soul? You could say soul is just a shorthand for soulfulness, for that constellation of experience. Then soul, in that way of conceiving it, is not a thing. It's just a kind of experience, soulful experience, which means all that that we're elaborating. In the English language, mostly the word 'soul' has the idea of an entity -- my soul, your soul, the soul does this or does that or whatever. In Buddhadharma, we're a little bit shy of some entities. Typically soul would be one kind of entity in Buddhadharma that we're really shy of -- really, really shy of. Self is bad enough! [laughter] But people still use the language of self. We need to. I would say it's more than a conventional shorthand. You know, I say, "I feel sad ..." Actually, let's not go into it. It's more than a conventional [shorthand]. We need to care for the self, okay? It's an experience we have that's a valid, important, deep dimension of our experience or direction of our experience, the self.
Same with soul. Same with divinity or deity or God. We can entertain the sense of these things as entities -- self, soul, divinity, deity -- and know it's empty. But I can relate to it as an entity because I know it's empty. I don't have to be afraid of these words. Actually, show me something that isn't empty. We use words and concepts all the time: it's a pen, it's a rose, it's a candle, it's a chair. Buddhadharma, with the teachings of emptiness, it's all empty. There's none of that stuff really. So why all this allergy towards soul and divine?
So we can use soul as just shorthand for soulfulness, which is just a kind of texture, flavour, richness of experience, and we can use soul, I think, with the implication of entity, if you like, knowing it's empty. And what kind of entity is soul? Soul is the, we could say, organ, the instrument, that senses soulfully. So the whole definition goes round. [laughter] That's fine. Deep definitions do that; they go round in circles. So where is this organ? I can't find it, and it's empty. It has no inherent existence. But I can talk about an instrument or an organ that can sense with soul, that does sense with soul. When we talk about soulmaking, we say I'm making soulfulness. I'm fabricating, in technical Dharma language, I'm fabricating a sense of soulfulness. Or there is the fabrication of soulfulness. Soul-making -- what am I making? I'm making soulfulness. I'm also making or building that organ, that instrument. I'm building my capacity, through practice, to sense soulfully.
So soulmaking -- the more I sense soulfully, the more accessible it becomes to me. I'm actually making something. I'm making my instrument, or it's being made. I'm participating in the making, in the fashioning, in the forging of this organ, this instrument of perception. Wonderful thing. So the main point I just want to say is this: we'll start using these words freely, freely and interchangeably, sensing with soul, imaginally perceiving, imaginal. It's all pretty much the same. Ça va? Okay.
