Satsang Thursday 12th October 2017

We are back this week with satsang/meeting on Thursday 12th October at 7pm at the Druids Head, Kingston upon Thames.

All welcome, no beliefs required, radical non-duality with heart 

More details here: https://www.meetup.com/Non-duality-Kingston-London/events/243986303/

Zen story: Is that so?

hakuin zen master
A scroll caligraphy by Zen master Hakuin. It reads ‘Direct pointing at the Mind/Heart, sudden realisation, becoming Buddha’ (Jikishi ninshin, Kensho jobutsu)

Here is another beautiful zen story, taken from the book ‘Zen Flesh, Zen Bones’ (compiled by Paul Reps). It melts me with its poignant loving kindness, and also manages to stop me in my tracks with the unconventional act of letting go when the time is right.

What do you think of it?

Here is the story:

 

The Zen master Hakuin was praised by his neighbours as one living a pure life.

A beautiful Japanese girl whose parents owned a food store lived near him. Suddenly, without any warning, her parents discovered she was with child.

This made her parents angry. She would not confess who the man was, but after much harassment at last named Hakuin.

In great anger the parent went to the master. “Is that so?” was all he would say.

After the child was born it was brought to Hakuin. By this time he had lost his reputation, which did not trouble him, but he took very good care of the child. He obtained milk from his neighbours and everything else he needed.

A year later the girl-mother could stand it no longer. She told her parents the truth – the real father of the child was a young man who worked in the fishmarket.

The mother and father of the girl at once went to Hakuin to ask forgiveness, to apologize at length, and to get the child back.

Hakuin was willing. In yielding the child, all he said was: “Is that so?”

How do I deal with craving sense pleasures and neglect of spiritual practice?

unplug

 

Q: What would you say to someone (me) who persistently or often craves and desires so that remembrance of the Self seems to get neglected for spells, like it is sometimes a second priority? Presumably it is good to analyse the desire and see that the pleasure from it cannot be lasting and suffering from not always getting the desire is inevitable and see that there is a greater happiness in the absence of craving?

Tom: What does your heart say?

Q: That I neglect my heart feeling  because I look to the Self as being outside the body embedded as oneness in the appearance of the world outside. I have actually just been watching your video with Roger Castillo where you talk about the yogic practise of abiding in the I AM . I used to be a lot more devotional early on in my seeking, now I feel I neglect that aspect, thanks Tom.

Tom: Be with your heart ❤ Don’t neglect the powerful devotional instinct if it moves you. Fall flat on your front and prostrate yourself if need be. Pour out your heart and soul in prayer, if moved to. Weep and worship, if called. And let me know how you’re doing ❤🙏❤ Many thanks for your questions 🙏

God and Guru are outdated

Following my recent post: ‘Do real gurus use Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, have websites and advertise?’, I received a few comments stating that words like ‘God’ and ‘Guru’ are outdated. And in many ways I agree. Both these words conjure up images of a patriarchal authoritarian culture of religion that is based in blind faith and superstition. However, here was my response to some of those comments:

Tom: I’ve noticed that words are very individual in how one relates to them. Some people are positively allergic to words like God and Guru, others revel in them, and many are somewhere in between.

No matter what words we use or do not use, some people will resonate, some people will not. In my view, we give ourselves the best chance to awaken when we see past the superficiality of the words used and look instead to what they point to.

When I was seeking, I gobbled up all the teachings I could find: theistic, non-theist, new-age, faith-based, understanding-based, practices, no practices – you name it, I was there, looking beyond the words, attempting to discover the substance beneath it.

What do you think? How do you seek (if you seek)? What resonates with you?

Peace to you all

Clarifications on Self-Enquiry

Q. ​Hi Tom, when Ramana says in the book  ‘Who am I’ ‘cultivate the constant and deep contemplative ‘remembrance’ (smrti) of the true nature of the Self’ – would this be like repeatedly bringing the attention back to what is here now with the understanding that the Self is all that is?

Tom: Not quite, although that can be part of it. It means to know:

(1) the essence of who you are, experientially, is unchanging and is also unaffected by gross and subtle objects

(2) there is no lasting fulfillment in objects, which are all transient

(3) the essence of you does nothing (the self is not a doer)

(4) it means to lose interest in objects as sources of pleasure, happiness or fulfillment as we bathe in the bliss of simply being (ourselves).

All this is captured by the words sat-chit-ananda (being-consciousness-bliss), which indicate the nature of the Self.

Turn away from the gross and subtle world-objects.

Not allowing the concept/thought ‘I’ to rise up, wielding the weapon ‘who am I’ to strike down any such thoughts, remain as the Self.

If this all sounds too complex, don’t worry: it is intuitively ‘grasped’, so to speak, through simply allowing the mind to rest and be still and allowing ‘the truth’, so to speak, to arise within naturally.

Experiential vs Scientific truth

It’s important not to get mixed up between what is true in our experience (experiential truth) and what is true scientifically. Realising the difference between these two types of truth and how they are related will allow us to have a much clearer enquiry into suffering and how it can be ended. Let me illustrate these two ideas with a few brief examples:

Specific truths for you and scientific truths which are applicable for all cases

If you are scared of spiders, maybe every time you see a spider, a strong sensation of fear arises. This is an experiential truth, for you. For you, every time you see a spider, fear arises. This is the truth of your experience. However it does not mean that spiders are intrinsically scary. ie. it is not a scientific truth. We can conclude that at this moment in time you are scared of spiders, but we cannot extrapolate this finding that specifically related to a single individual and say it is always true for everyone.

Just because something is true for us, doesn’t mean it is true for everyone.

We can make this example even more obvious by using a more ridiculous example, such as someone being scared of ice cream. The experiential truth is that fear arises whenever ice cream is encountered, but we cannot conclude that scientifically speaking ice creams are scary.

This is contrary to something like the medication ibuprofen, which is, scientifically speaking, an analgesic or ‘pain killer’. It, broadly speaking, has the same effect on almost everyone, both scientifically, and also experientially.

The basic point here is that we must be careful when taking a specific example that is true for ourselves and then extrapolating this to make a general case that something is scientifically true.

Appearances vs reality

Here is another example. Take the sun rising and setting. Experientially it is true to say that each morning the sun rises in the East, then moves up and across the sky to be high up at midday, then gradually lowers and finally sets in the West. We can say that, experientially speaking, the sun’s path in the sky forms an arc. We can say, experientially speaking, the earth appears stationary and the sun is moving around it.

However scientifically speaking we know this is not true. A more complete scientific explanation that also accounts for this experience is that the earth moves around the sun which gives rise to the above described experience of the sun rising and setting.

Just because something appears to be true in our experience, doesn’t mean that is actually the case.

The point in this example is to illustrate that just because something appears to be true ie. is experientially true, it doesn’t mean that is actually the way it is, ie. scientifically true. However it is worth noting that understanding the scientific truth that the earth moved around the sun doesn’t actually change the experience that the sun rises and set. The raw sensory experience remains unchanged, it is just our understanding of the what gives rise to the experience that changes, and that in turn can change our perspective and our attitude and the decisions we make.

Optical illusions

Another simple example it the example of an optical illusion which appears to be one thing, but actually in reality is quite different. One of my favourite optically illusions is the checkerboard and cylinder illusions. This is an example of how the brain actually alters the way we perceive physical objects based upon is preconceptions of how things should look:

optical illusion

It’s difficult to believe if you have never seen this before, but the 2 squares marked A and B are actually exactly the same colour, but our brain change the way the colours are perceived as it ‘knows’ that in the shadow of the cylinder the squares ‘should’ appear darker. If you cover up the cylinder in the picture or look at the diagram below the illusion should become more obvious:

optical illusion cylinder board

There are many more optical illusions you can see. Here is another simple one – both these lines are actually the same length scientifically speaking, but the experience is that line B appears longer that line A:

optical illusion lines

Why is this important?

This is particularly important in non-dual teachings where we are seeing there is no evidence for a doer, even though we think that it feels like a doer is present.

Just because it appears that we are the author of our thoughts and actions, doesn’t mean this is actually the way things are.

It also has ramifications for what I call The Awareness Teachings, in which we are taught that awareness or consciousness is ever-present experientially speaking whilst we are awake (ie. in the waking state), but that does not mean that scientifically speaking it is true that the essence of who we really are is awareness. This is an experiential truth, sure, but it may or may not be true scientifically speaking. Even if it is not true scientifically, that doesn’t mean the teaching has no value. In fact The Awareness Teachings in my view has incredible value, and that is why I teach it, but I teach it in a specific way that makes sense both experientially and scientifically.

Just because awareness/consciousness seems to be an unchanging part of our experience, doesn’t necessasarily mean that this is true scientifically speaking.

The other reason it is so important is that suffering itself is an experience. Therefore, freedom from suffering is also to do with our experience: learning to examine aspects of our experience and changing both our interaction with experience, our understanding of experience and even also changing the content of experience, such as changing our reactive habitual thoughts and behaviours if they are causative of suffering into something that is based on more truth, is less destructive in our relationships and society, and generates less suffering for ourselves and those around us.

Experiential truth is very important – why? Because suffering itself is an experience, and it is this that we are trying to understand and remove.