The Zennist

Where fictions end

Metaphysics and mathematics are not unlike each other.  Both are dealing with abstractions that have no relationship with reality.  In the case of mathematics, a laboratory is not needed (the reality).  Mathematicians can daydream using their abstractions until their hearts are content creating imaginary realities in the example of string theory.  Maybe this is why there is no Nobel Prize for mathematics.  Maybe Alfred Nobel was under the impression that mathematics for all its elegance is a fiction—but a useful one.

Turning to metaphysics, it is forever weaving a tissue of ideas or concepts by which to interpret reality hoping to unearth its system or at least to shed some light on a possible system by analogy.  As such, our thinking turns to what can be described as categorical thinking which is a kind of affirmation process designed to organize our ideas or concepts, universally, about reality.  It is with the italicized ‘about’ of reality that metaphysics faces a problem.  It cannot enter into direct communion (samadhi) with reality.  There is no laboratory, so to speak, for metaphysicians or mathematicians.  This is to say, there is no way for them to test whether or not their fictions line up with reality.

Now enters Buddhism.  It is about awakening (sambodhi) to reality, that is, ultimate reality.  Buddhism is a laboratory with many experiments going on finally culminating with our discovery of true reality.  When Siddhartha the Bodhisattva became awakened or a Buddha, he saw ultimate reality—his enlightenment was not framed or built up by metaphysics.

“The Dharma obtained by me is profound, of deep splendor, difficult to see, difficult to understand, incomprehensible, having the incomprehensible as its scope, fine, subtle, the sense of which can only be understood by the wise” (Catusparisat Sûtra).

For those who place a great deal of importance on metaphysics it is difficult for them to conceive just how they can get beyond it to enter true reality (dharmadhatu); to see it firsthand.  It is not simply a matter of not thinking or ignoring metaphysics.  To go into the Buddhist laboratory is much more than this.  For one who decides to do this the path is one of discovery; of looking for something within them that is absolutely real but which at the moment they can’t see.  It is like a pure field that if you chance to meet it all the bells and whistles go off in a manner of speaking.  Suddenly you know exactly why the Buddha was reluctant to teach it; why he said it was empty, or thatness, the reality limit (bhutakoti), the signless, absolute reality, and fundamental reality.

 

 

Awareness and enlightenment

The great modern enlightenment under the Bodhi-tree from what I can tell is ‘awareness’, at least so it seems if you listen to modern teachers.  It is a twist on the old Cartesian, “I think therefore I am” only this time “I am aware therefore I am enlightened.”  The problem with this is that the awareness spoken of here is sensory awareness which depends on what the senses bring in.  Fundamentally, there is no awareness of the non-sensory domains.  Even in the case of extrasensory experience we are aware that our senses are detecting something although not in a normal setting.

What is more primordial than awareness is Mind (citta).  In this respect, awareness is a kind of middleman.  Through it Mind knows its illusory creations.  This is why the Buddha likened vijñâna, the fifth and most subtle aggregate (skandha), which can be translate as consciousness or awareness, to a magician.

More practically explained, when I sit in zazen or seated meditation I am generally aware of what is mostly going on inside of me.  I am aware of a leg cramp or sleepiness, or thoughts racing around in my head.  I might be aware of myself imagining I am winning the lottery and what I will do with all the money.  These things I am unable to realize are all configurations of Mind which means they are empty. As I sit, I am not aware of pure Mind or Buddha Mind or Buddha-nature, or Tathata, or the Dharmakaya.

But what is it like when a Bodhisattva sits in zazen?  Having realized the pure substance or nature of Mind, he is aware of a leg cramp and getting sleepy.  He is aware of his thoughts going on as usual.  But as Mind he energizes his corporeal body when he enters samadhi (Mind fixed on itself which is a pure, vital field).  His awareness is still aware of illusory things but from the standpoint of Mind, awareness and the body are like reflections on surface of a pond.  The Bodhisattva through Mind, is less bound to the body—his body is like a dream entity.

 

 

Getting off the wheel

More than anything, ignorance fixes and imprisons us to the wheel of samsara in which we are doomed to repeat, almost without end, more acts of ignorance that insure our inability to escape.

This ignorance, it should be pointed out, is the One Mind's (eka-citta) ignorance or non-knowledge of itself (avidya) which, ironically, is conditioned by its perfect identity with itself such that it lacks or is totally empty of any distinguishing characteristics  (this is a very important concept to grasp: a substance in absolute identity cannot see itself).  This implies, paradoxically, that the One Mind is as much Mind-as-samsara (i.e., Mind not knowing itself) and Mind-as-Thatness (thatness = tathata) which is Mind in perfect identity with itself which can be awakened to by a Bodhisattva who thus becomes Buddha, i.e., Mind fully awakened to itself.

It is a given in Buddhism that sentient beings are first in samsara, although they believe otherwise.  So diabolical is life in samsara, because it ultimately rests and depends on Mind-as-Thatness, that the denizens of samsara are convinced that what they are immersed in is in some way or manner absolute (Mind-as-Thatness).  What they don't understand is that the things (dharma) they behold and naturally desire or want reinforce their ignorance which keeps them ever fixed to the wheel of samsara.  Not missing this fact, the Buddha said:  "This is that want which ensnares, ... by which this world is smothered, ... so that it does not transcend samsara" (SA, 984, 256a).

A message somewhat lost in the canon of Buddhism or understated is that the world of samsara is the antithesis of Mind-as-Thatness, or the same its dependent origination (S., pratityasamutpada). A close analogy would be to say a pot is the antithesis of the clay.  What all this means from a higher vantage point is that the One Mind, in order to know itself, moves or projects itself such that it creates something in the way of a disturbance from its intrinsic no-thingness or the same, its perfect identity.  This, it is easy to guess, is the world of samsara—a cosmic ocean of disturbances, macro and micro.  Yet, surprisingly even though the One Mind seems trapped in its own disturbances, it has advanced.  In samsara it stands always on the edge of realizing itself as Mind-as-Thatness by beholding the limit of samsara which in Sanskrit is bhutakoti.  Bhutakoti is normally described as the boundary between samsara and nirvana.  In other words, bhutakoti is samsara's limit; a point at which Mind re-identifies with itself which is a cessation of disturbances; a cooling; a flow into no-thingness or signlessness.

The path traveled to full awakening or Buddhahood as been one from primordial ignorance of Mind-as-Thatness, to its disturbance becoming Mind-as-samsara, then reaching the limit of Mind-as-samara thus awakeningly returning to Mind-as-Thatness which is an illuminating return-to-self.  In this last state, Mind-as-Thatness knows samsaric things or dharmas to be only Mind (cittamatra) just like a golden lion is only gold which is to say, the lion shape-ness is an illusion of difference.

 

 

 

 

 

Beyond clumps of words

In Chinese Zen and Tibetan Buddhism the teaching of the nature of Mind is the alpha and the omega.  The real focus of these traditions is upon Mind—everything else is like frosting on the cake.  Although the frosting may seem attractive there is no real substance to it.  Those who are attracted to the frosting naturally have a karmic affinity with it, but they need to practice on setting this aside.  Mind is all that counts.

To know Mind directly, meeting it face to face, will require of us a thorough understanding of the difference between the finger pointing to the moon and the moon itself which, I hasten to add, is more analogous to a finger pointing to something we cannot yet see being, at the same time, yelled at by a crazy Zen master!

We should begin my saying that by the finger we mean words.  The Buddha taught with words—many words in fact—which pointed to that which transcended words.  But even his well spoken words were inadequate to show us what he actually awakened to under the Bodhi-tree.  On this same track, Zhang Rinpoche the Mahamudra teacher said:

Uttering clumps of words such as these cannot touch it.

Clumps of words, however acute and profound,

Have been pronounced in many accounts,

But are incapable of touching the real nature of Mind.

Zen, more than most schools, understood the problem of mistaking the finger for the moon or the same mistaking words, as concepts, for Mind.  They used koans to break the students habit of using clumps of words as a means of grasping the pure Mind which is beyond words.  Consider this story.

One day the old master called in this two best students to test out their progress.  When they had entered his small room he told them to sit down.  After he was silent for a few minutes the old master raised his right arm and pointed in the direction of his small shrine and said, “What is this?”

The first student said, “That is the Buddha!”

The second student wasn’t so quick to respond.  When he did finally respond he got up turned around then bowed three times in the direction of the door both students had entered. 

The old master laughed out loud and said to the second student, “Well, that takes a good eye.  So to whom does this eye belong?

The second student then pointed in the direction of the old master’s small shrine.

This story is meant to illustrate that we can use words in a very clever and instructive way to point to what transcends words, namely, Mind.  We may not yet have a glimpse into the nature of Mind itself like the second student, but we can say that we have a pretty good idea where to look.

Maybe after twenty years of trying to comprehend Mind we will finally see why the second student bowed and what his pointing was really meant to disclose which was exactly the same as what the old master was trying to show.

Personality disorders and Buddhism

Personality, its meaning, can be based on a legal consideration, in the sense of a person who has certain rights, and/or is rational.  Generally speaking, the personal consciousness or ego that relates outwardly to a particular social order and inward, reflectively, is one's personal identity, i.e., the individual.  

When we turn to the subject of personality disorders, which often begin in childhood and continue throughout most of adult life, our interest is not concerned with minor problems such as nervousness or the changes in sensibility and emotional disposition but, instead, with a cognitive distortion which affects, regularly, both the outward side of personality and the inward, reflective side.  This can produce a personality in which suspiciousness, oversensitivity, mistrust, and over preoccupation with hidden motives, are enlarged beyond bounds.  Given such an enlargement, personalities can suffer from feelings of inadequacy, a lack of humor, an inability to relax, a susceptibility to anger, to name just a few problems.

When going through the door of Buddhism, those who are encumbered with a personality disorder will see much in Buddhism that is not there and too little of real Buddhism.  More than often it is those who have a personality disorder that are, paradoxically, Buddhism's most engaged devotees—but not because they wish to follow the Buddha's teaching and his path, but because they want to reform Buddhism to fit within the milieu of their personality.  This, I hasten to add, is not uncommon.  It is all-too-human when we look at society in general.

In the business world, in which the personality disorder of psychopathy can sometimes be present (see Dr. Robert Hare's book, Snakes in Suits) great companies go belly-up because a psychopath was the CEO.  Nor are certain types of personality disorders uncommon in the medical profession—in fact they may play a major role.  Dr. John Banja in his book, Medical Errors and Medical Narcissism has certainly turned a bright light on the problem of the narcissistic personality disorder in medicine which can lead to a surprising number of iatrogenic deaths.

Just looking over the history of religious charlatanism which goes as far back as ancient Rome if not much further, religion seems to be the best refuge for someone with a histrionic personality disorder.  It is also a suitable refuge for someone with a dependent personality disorder, who is extremely passive wanting others to make decisions for them; who, in addition, suffers from an extreme lack of confidence. 

It should at least be clear to a normal beginner that when they enter the sacred precincts of Buddhism, they'd better be on guard for all that glitters is not gold.  Indeed, there are many wolves in Zen robes.  But also, of those who are common practitioners—and even beginners—many suffer from different kinds of personality disorders. 

Buddhism can't cure personality disorders; neither can psychologists nor psychiatrists. Buddhism is and should be for normal, ordinary people who struggle with life having come to the conclusion that deep within them lies the path to truth.  These same normal people, since they know in which direction the true lies are not so disposed to mismanage and overreact to arising impressions that eventually turn into suspicion and mistrust.  They don't lack empathy either nor are they over-preoccupied with themselves, that part of themselves which is temporal.  They can also adapt to change being able to shed what is superfluous for that which is truly real.

Dung like happiness or modern hell

Ordinary sentient beings have the Buddha-nature but don't recognize it.  When the word "Buddha-nature" is mentioned, it doesn't interest them.  If they were to hear a great teacher or Lama tell them that they have the Buddha-nature except that it remains obscured by defilements, they would not be interested in purifying their minds to see this pure nature which is pure Mind.

We can say of these beings that they cling to the unreal taking delight in its phenomena even though such a life will not take them beyond old age, decay, disease, and death.  They also cling to a way of life that keeps obscuring their Buddha-nature—defiling their mind more and more.  The Buddha calls such a life "dung like happiness" (M. i. 454) since it depends on the sense-pleasures.  This kind of clinging dooms them.  

Personally, I can understand why such a dung life has the attention of ordinary sentient beings.  It is like being in a kind of up to date techno hell:  not a hell of torture, mind you, but a hell of amazing seductions where even our saints fall victim.  Add to this the fact that our human body for a time is seething with sexual hormones so that we are always distracted by the opposite sex.  

Taken altogether, it becomes apparent that this is one heck of a hell!  All of this modern hell life is meant to be seductive; we even design it that way.  It even uses science and technology to great advantage in order to make the seductions more effective.  

Given the seductive power of modernity (the modern hell) it is a rare individual who, like a modern day Ulysses, can pass through all the seductions of modernity and still manage to come out on top, seeing the Buddha-nature, or the same, realizing pure Mind.  But then the question arises, can such an individual teach what he has realized to the denizens of this modern hell?  The answer is no.  He can only teach it to the escapees who are those who don't find the seductions of modernity all that seductive.

What do those who cling to this hell fear most are the escapees.  These escapees live at the margins of society.  They could be scientists who don’t agree with the current trends in physics or cosmology such as string theory.  They could be visionaries like Buckminster Fuller or before him Nikola Tesla who found a way to provide virtually free energy to the world thereby reliving it of its poverty.  These escapees are not content with the status quo, e.g., poverty, pollution, totalitarianism, predatory capitalism, and theology. 

From the frying pan into the fire

To be aware is to observe what our senses are continually handing us from the outside, but also to observe what is going on inside of our heads (which for most is a madhouse).  I am aware of trees or a butterfly fluttering by some flowers next to the house.  Then my awareness turns inwards.  I am now thinking about getting the car gassed up and going shopping.  Not any of this discloses the Buddha Mind.  This Mind is absolutely empty of sensory determination.  It is like space.  For one who is engaged with Mind it is a pure field which is profoundly empty yet vital and absolutely real.  

To first realize the thoroughly empty field of Mind together with its vitality is an amazing feat.  But we can't realize it if we are immersed in being aware of our psycho-physical being (the Five Aggregates or skandhas) with its respective sensory fields; believing what we perceive is all there is.  Making such ignorance more difficult to jettison is our insistence that Mind somehow be presented to us via our senses.  This stubborn demand only reveals our level of attachment to the world of samsara in which the cycles of birth and death are endless.

Most people will never see the nature or substance of Mind.  They firmly believe this present world is all there is.  They are so deeply tuned into it that a Buddha might as well be from an another planet.  In such a condition, no bridge of communication yet exists between a Buddha and an ordinary being.  It is only when ordinary beings become disgusted with their futile lives and turn to religion or spirituality for answers that it becomes possible to realize Mind.  But not always.  In fact, a new set of problems will arise.  

What the vast majority of people turn to as religion or spirituality is more than often so superficial so as to be deemed spiritual materialism, spiritual materialism being loosely defined as a deep attachment to emotional states of mind which are felt to be ecstatic.  Such states are described in Buddhism.  They are the fifty false enlightenments, ten for each of the Five Aggregates, which are found in the Surangama Sutra.  Here is an example from this Sutra. (You can find the entire Sutra at ZEN STUFF on this blog.)

"Ananda, you should know that as a cultivator sits in the Bodhimanda, he is doing away with all thoughts. When his thoughts come to an end, there will be nothing on his mind. This state of pure clarity will stay the same whether in movement or stillness, in remembrance or forgetfulness. When he dwells in this place and enters Samadhi, he is like a person with clear vision who finds himself in total darkness. Although his nature is wonderfully pure, his mind is not yet illuminated. This is the region of the form skandha. If his eyes become clear, he will then experience the ten directions as an open expanse, and the darkness will be gone. This is the end of the form skandha. He will then be able to transcend the turbidity of time. Contemplating the cause of the form skandha, one sees that false thoughts of solidity are its source." 

Ananda, at this point, as the person intently investigates that wondrous brightness, the four elements will no longer function together, and soon the body will be able to transcend obstructions. This state is called 'the pure brightness merging into the environment'. It is a temporary state in the course of cultivation and does not indicate sagehood. If he does not think he has become a sage, then this will be a good state. But if he considers himself a sage, then he will be vulnerable to [Mara] the demon's influence." 

These fifty false enlightenments are extremely subtle and always temporary.  Not a single one discloses Mind.  Still, many under the spell of spiritual materialism fall prey to them and imagine they are godmen or godwomen, or Buddhas (my teacher once told me he was the Tathagata!).

To realize Mind one needs to become more like a scientist when looking within as if to discover a new element, only in this case Buddha Mind.  Discovering it, to use an old Zen analogy, is like thieves breaking into a mansion only to find it empty.

Kludge Zen

By the term kludge Zen I mean a cobbled together interpretation and practice of Zen that hardly matches the works of the old Zen masters going as far back as Zen master Tsung-mi—maybe further.  Foremost, kludge Zennists, including a kludge Zen master, have never realized the nature of Mind (you'll notice than in their works they hardly ever mention Mind and its importance).  

For most serious kludge Zennists, Zen is a career opportunity—a profession.  It's not about seeing Mind.  Such a Zennist probably believes their ordinary everyday awareness, itself, is the nature of Mind which also means their so-called practice of Zen consists of sitting in zazen being aware of just sitting and the physical discomforts which often attend prolonged sitting such as intestinal gas. 

If the reader by now has the impression that this is a rant they are right!  But it comes by a strange and honest way.  After I spend time reading traditional Zen literature, probably composed during the Sung Dynasty; then chance to read something that falls into the ballpark of modern Zen, well, I go into a WTF state of mind.  This causes me to wonder why most modern Zen practitioners don't grasp the fact that traditionally the Ch'an or Zen school is based upon "a transmission from Mind to Mind" this Mind being the Buddha's Mind, not the mind of an ordinary being (prithagjana). This transmission is absolutely esoteric.  This transmission is aptly described by Ch'eng-kuan (737–820) who was a representative of the Hua-yen school (S., Avatamsaka school).

"The mind-to-mind transmission of Bodhidharma corresponds precisely to this teaching.  If one does not point to this one word [the mind] and there with directly explain that mind is Buddha, then how else would [that mind] be transmitted?  Therefore, they speak (yen) while relying on the ineffable, and directly verbalize (ch'üan) that principle which is separate from verbalization.  This teaching is also clear.  Therefore, the Southern and Northern schools of Ch'an are indistinguishable from the sudden teaching" (Lopez, Buddhist Hermeneutics, p. 234).

It needs underscoring that the transmission of Mind transcends language altogether yet speech and gestures can help to transmit it to one who is open to such an esoteric transmission.  This is to say, in other words, that Mind cannot be transmitted to just anyone.  The necessary work to get to the level in which the gnosis of Mind is likely is not easy.  It is not an overstatement to say that awakening to Mind requires a thorough knowledge of the ordinary mind, perceptual awareness, etc., which has to be transcended.  

As a kludge practice, the modern exercise of sitting in meditation, i.e., zazen, is hardly a worthwhile road to laying the necessary foundation for the Mind transmission.  Zen master Sawaki Roshi is clearly wrong who taught that all we have to do is just sit.  Such a ridiculous path is regrettably pursued by modern day Zennists, especially those in the West who are addicted to outward appearances.  But the Buddha Mind is neither outward nor an appearance.  It is not revealed by sitting or lying down.  True zazen is not dependent on a posture.  It is not hatha yoga, in other words. When Zen master Shido Munan said, "Not doing zazen is no other than zazen itself" he was speaking on behalf of the Buddha Mind which is not bound to a particular posture.  

When we look at the Chinese characters for za and zen which are 坐 and 禅, the first character represents two people sitting on the earth facing each other.  The second refers to dhyâna or contemplation .  Roughly translated, zazen can mean facing our Buddha Mind (i.e., the true person), as we might face another, thus to contemplate it directly.  From this, as we might expect, a kludge Zen interpretation of zazen is just sit still for a certain period of time which, incidentally, is okay for beginners—but let’s face it, this practice only goes so far.  Such zazen misses the subtlety contained in the Chinese characters.  Likewise a kluge interpretation of Mind is “awareness” despite the fact that Mind has been given a lot of ink in both Zen literature and Tibetan Vajrayana literature that in no way remotely suggests awareness.  Mind is a substance in contrast to what we see which are its vibrational forms.  Now how subtle is that?  And that is still baby stuff.  One still has to stick thy toe into this blessed substance and take a profound dip!

A sangha beyond the monastic sangha

 

Electing to become a Buddhist monk or nun is no sure path to enlightenment.  The path always falls within the individual who must eventually transcends his mortal coil and the world of birth and death.  Still, the monastic sangha offers perhaps a better way for the individual to awaken because they don’t have to face the pressures of raising a family and/or earning a living.  

 

“Full of hindrances is the household life, a path for the dust of passion.  Free  as the air is the life of him who has renounced all worldly things....Let me then cut off my hair and beard, let me clothe myself in the orange colored robes, and let me go forth from the household life into the homeless state” (Samaññaphala Sutta)  

 

Regardless of what some Buddhists might believe about the monastic sangha (bhkkhu-sangha) it is not the same as the sangha found in the Triple Gem (P., ti-ratana) of Buddha, Dharma, Sangha.  When we take refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, the sangha we are taking refuge in is not the monastic sangha but, instead, the disciple or noble sangha (P., savaka-sangha; ariya-sangha).  The monastic sangha and the disciple sangha are, in fact, quite different.  Walpola Râhula helps to shed more light on the Triple Gem sangha:

 

"The Sangha of the Triple-Jewel which is called sâvaka-sangha ("the Community of Disciple"), consisting of those eight holy persons indiscriminately from all four categories of the Buddha's disciples, both lay and monastic, male and female, may be considered as the "Spiritual Sangha" (World Buddhism, Vol. XII, No. 11, July 1974, p. 330) (Bold added for emphasis.)

 

The fact that the distinction between the monastic sangha and the sangha of the Triple Gem is more than often a blurry distinction may owe, in part, to a monastic will-to-power, the monks having to a certain extent exaggerated the importance of their sangha's role in Buddhism.  For me, at least, it is difficult to accept the fact that a change in lifestyle, all of a sudden, makes a monk or nun holy, and a layperson second rate.

 

So what accounts for the distinctly different sanghas?  What the Pali canon tells us is that the Buddha differentiated between the ordinary person, viz., the prithagjana or in Pali, the puthujjana, and the noble disciple or arya-sravaka (P., ariya-savaka) who had entered the stream to nirvana.  Because of the sharp distinction between types of individuals, one being spiritual, namely, the arya-sravaka and the other not, there arose two kinds of sanghas (the monastic sangha had both puthujjanas and noble disciples).  This is critically important.  Peter Masefield has pointed out with a great deal of evidence that "the categories of the savaka and the puthujjana transcend the purely social division of monk and layman and whilst no doubt many, perhaps most, laymen were puthjjanas, a good many others were not" (Divine Revelation in Pali Buddhism, p. 9).

 

Here is an example of a passage from the Pali canon which may help the reader to get a better sense of the higher sangha which transcended monastic and lay lifestyles. 

 

"The Lord's savakasangha is of good conduct, the Lord's savakasangha is of upright conduct, the Lord's savakasangha is of right conduct, the Lord's savakasangha is of proper conduct, that is to say the four pairs of [noble] men, the eight [noble] individuals.  The lord's savakasangha is worthy of sacrifice, worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of anjali it is the unsurpassed merit-field for the world" (D. iii. 227; M. i. 37; S. ii. 69).

 

It needs emphasizing that the disciple sangha (savakasangha) is exclusively made up of noble persons which in pali is ariya-puggala all of whom had had profound spiritual attainments.  These persons alone are in possession of right view (which is supermundane or lokuttara)—only they are on the path to nirvana. And it is to them that offerings are to be made if we wish merit (punya which can mean also luck). 

 

Of the eight kinds of noble persons who make of the disciple sangha, the highest is the Arhat who has become freed from all fetters (samyojana).  The lowest is that of the disciple who has just entered the stream; who is disengaged from three of the ten fetters which chain one to the rounds of rebirths.  The three fetters broken are:  the view that one's own body is the self or atman (S., satkâyadristi); the fetter of doubt (S., vicikitsâ); belief in the efficacy of vows and rites (S., shîlavrataparâmarsha).

 

What we should learn from this is that the Triple Gem Sangha is not an organized body governed by a certain set of rules or dress.  It is solely a spiritual order which admits both monastic and lay person if they are at least stream entered hence entering the supermundane path which goes to nirvana.  In this modern era, we need to put more of an emphasis on the disciple sangha; putting more of our own effort into trying to enter the stream—to leave the darkness.

 

For those enveloped there is darkness, blindness for those who cannot see; whilst for the wise there is an opening, like light for those with sight.  Fools unconversant with the Dhamma, though in its presence, do not discern it” (Sutta-Nipata 763) (trans. Peter Masefield)

 

 

 

 

Mind fuck games

In a foreword to Andrew Cohen's book, Living Enlightenment, Ken Wilber gives us an interesting look at the kind of spiritual teacher he thinks we will need if we really want to climb to the top of spiritual mountain.  Here is an excerpt.  

"When it comes to spiritual teachers, there are those who are safe, gentle, consoling, soothing, caring; and there are the outlaws, the living terrors, the Rude Boys and Nasty Girls of God realization, the men and women who are in your face, disturbing you, terrifying you, until you radically awaken to who and what you really are. 

And may I suggest?: choose your teachers carefully.

If you want encouragement, soft smiles, ego stroking, gentle caresses of your self-contracting ways, pats on the back and sweet words of solace, find yourself a Nice Guy or Good Girl, and hold their hand on the sweet path of stress reduction and egoic comfort. But if you want Enlightenment, if you want to wake up, if you want to get fried in the fire of passionate Infinity, then, I promise you: find yourself a Rude Boy or a Nasty Girl, the ones who make you uncomfortable in their presence, who scares you witless, who will turn on you in a second and hold you up for ridicule, who will make you wish you were never born, who will offer you not sweet comfort but abject terror, not saccharin solace but scorching angst, for then, just then, you might very well be on the path to your own Original Face."

Wilber is telling beginners that if they really want enlightenment they need a Rude Boy or a Nasty Girl guru.  In other words, we have to find a tough spiritual guru, sort of like a spiritual version of a Marine Corps Drill Instructor whose job will be to strip away our ego.  Only when our egos have been sufficiently humiliated, abused and stripped away, will we finally see the jewel of enlightenment.

However, there is a certain irony to this prescription for enlightenment.  From what I have read, neither Cohen nor Wilber ever formally submitted to Rude Boys.  It is odd, therefore, that both seem to believe that spiritual hazing is beneficial.  Cohen, himself, has a reputation for being quite a Rude Boy although is own teacher, H.W.L. Poonja, was not a Rude Boy (for what it is worth, Cohen became fully enlightened in two and a half weeks).  

What Cohen and Wilber don't understand is that Nice Guys are capable of effectively putting a beginner into a trance while Rude Boys or Nasty Girls, are effective brainwashers, their purpose being to implant a particular religious belief or state of consciousness into their student's head.  The bottom line is the path to enlightenment is not found by relying on good guys and girls or rude boys and nasty girls.  It is not ego stroking or ego stripping that matters.  Both are not essential components for traveling on the path to enlightenment, in other words.

We might also say the end determines and justifies the means.  For godmen and godwomen who have a strong desire to stay reasonably powerful and wealthy, they need slavish followers who will keep on giving!  A person who cannot be easily put into a low level trance or brainwashed is not exactly the kind of follower a godman is looking for.  But one thing the charlatan godman knows is how to attract followers all of whom are credulous.

By comparison, what the authentic spiritual teacher is comfortable with is the student who, on their own, is eager to look within; who finds the inward journey compelling and exciting.  When this happens the teacher's primary job is to keep the student's level of enthusiasm elevated because the journey is quite long and extremely subtle.  That it is easy to become discouraged is the real danger.  Such a teacher knows, first hand, the difficultly of seeing pure Mind.  Seeing it is not accomplished in a year or even twenty years.  As we might expect, an authentic spiritual teacher has nothing but sympathy for the student who is struggling to comprehend pure Mind which, by the way, is as real as the air we breathe.  Compassion, therefore, consists of offering advice on how best to see this Mind.  A real teacher doesn't have the time to play mind fuck games because he is, himself, absorbed in the contemplation of pure Mind.