Buddha: Why do spiritual people fight with each other?

buddha side.jpg

“Why is it that, Master Kaccana, that ascetics fight with ascetics?”
“It is, brahmins, because of attachment to views, adherence to views , fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.”
Anguttara Nikaya

Today’s spiritual scene is in many ways the same as it has always been: while some people wake up to things as they are and go beyond words and scripture, others stay fixed in their views, cling to their scriptures and concepts, and in doing so remain stuck in suffering and samsara.

So, why are so many spiritual people arguing with each other? Master Kaccana was one of the Buddha’s main disciples and was said to be the most skilled in espousing the dhamma (the teaching). He says it simply: people are wedded to their concepts, their views, their scriptures and their ideas, and that is why they fight with each other.

The true dhamma cannot be spoken. The true teacher knows their words are ultimately untrue and that words are merely conceptual pointers, indicators, and not descriptions of what is. The true teacher is not wedded to a particular teaching method, or a particular form of words, and naturally adapts the teaching to the situation at hand. A single word, a prescription for practice, a gesture, a glance, a lecture: the teaching comes to us in many forms.

If we truly listen, the living teacher constantly teaches the living teaching. The teaching is inseparable from our hearts and the life we find ourselves living: it is none other than daily life.

The teaching is here, already. Are we open to it?

 

 

Poetry: the all knowing ego

Punch and judy.JPG

The ego thinks it has all the ‘answers’,
Thinks it knows exactly how the enlightenment game works,
Thinks it knows which practice is best,
All its concepts lined up.

Of course it has no clue.

Pride means it pretends to know what it doesn’t,
Clinging to what it hopes will work,
According to its limited understanding.

Who can blame it?

My advice: realise first, talk later.

Spiritual Relationships & Gurus

swan heart

In my life I’ve encountered lots of different spiritual practices and philosophies, from New Age and Self-Help to Theravada Buddhism and Kashmir Shaivism. I’ve gained from almost every teaching I’ve read, some more so than others of course. But spiritual teachings have not been the things that I have found most healing in my life – it was my relationships that really helped me grow and feel whole. Specifically it was a long-term, loving and supportive relationship that helped me grow the most.

Sure, the spiritual teachings gave me insights, transcendental experiences and made me feel happier in many ways, but it was through a caring and trusting relationship that I allowed myself to open up, love and forgive myself. I was accepted in the eyes of another, and that allowed me to accept myself, to love and be kind to myself.

I was accepted in the eyes of another, and that allowed me to accept myself, to love and be kind to myself.

Much of our self-image is created through our relationships. Children learn about what is good and bad behaviour from what other people say to them and how other people react to them. They learn if they are beautiful or ugly, too fat or too skinny, clever or stupid, naughty or polite, ‘good’ or ‘bad’ – all these are learnt through what other people have fed back to them. Relationships create self-esteem – both high and low.

It seems fitting therefore, that if relationships and interactions with people can destroy a sense of self-worth, that relationship can also be beneficial in repairing a negative self-image which in turn can repair all sorts of resultant negative self-isolating coping strategies.

…if relationships and interactions with people can destroy a sense of self-worth…relationship can also be beneficial in repairing a negative self-image

In a spiritual context, I think this is where the Guru-disciple relationship traditionally has been so powerful. For those who don’t know, a Guru is simply the Sanskrit word for a spiritual teacher. Literally the word means ‘heavy’ (heavy with spiritual teaching), but a more creative etymology states that guru means ‘dispeller of darkness’ or ‘bringer of light’.

Whilst I have never had a guru (I consider life to be my guru – how new-age!), I can see how the dissemination of a spiritual teaching tradition in the context of a caring supportive relationship with a Guru could work wonders. I was always reading books in order to understand the spiritual stuff and never had that opportunity to learn at the feet of a guru – and when I did I never really trusted them anyway. In fact being near a guru, especially their feet, was the last thing on my mind in my journey. And the ones who demanded unconditional faith – that set my alarm bells ringing straight away. There have been so many gurus, both East and West, that have used, abused, manipulated and extorted their followers that it’s difficult to keep count of them.

There have been so many gurus, both East and West, that have used, abused, manipulated and extorted their followers that it’s difficult to keep count of them.

But there have been countless examples through the ages of how spiritual seekers, through simply trusting their guru, went on to attain liberation. The example of Nisargadatta Maharaj springs to mind – he trusted his guru’s advice to remain in the ‘I AM’ and after 2 years or so he was apparently self-realised or enlightened.

Traditionally in the Indian subcontinent, a guru may be someone who the family knows quite well. They would usually be male, but not always. In more ancient times the spiritual seeker would often live with the guru, perhaps even for several years before the actual spiritual teaching was taught. Up until that point they would be simply living in the forest with each other: talking, cooking, eating, working the land. They would know each other as brothers would, and in that context there was time for respect, trust and mutual affection to develop. The spiritual aspirant would be able to scrutinise the Guru and see if he truly lived his teaching, or if he only spoke of the Holy but did not embody it.

I feel nostalgic for that kind of ancient exotic guru, someone versed in the highest spiritual and meditative teachings, someone who deeply cared for me and I also cared for, someone I could give myself to and in whose love and spiritual presence I could heal myself.

But that was not, and is not my life. Instead I am thankful for my soulmate and wife, and the healing she has brought me through both the ups and downs of our relationship. Yes, I said earlier that life is my guru, but so is my wife.

Do you have a ‘guru’? Or have you had many ‘gurus’ in your life? Remember, a guru doesn’t have to be a person.

Ramana Maharshi: just ‘lose’ the ego

Ramana smiling

Be what you are…All that is needful is to lose the ego, That what is, is always there. Even now you are That…
…The thought ‘I have not seen’, the expectation to see and the desire of getting something, are all the working of the ego.
You have fallen into the snares of the ego. The ego says all these and not you. Be yourself and nothing more!

Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi
Talk 183

See also:
Ramana Maharshi on non-doership and self-realisation
Ramana Maharshi: Self-inquiry (atma vichara) and doership

Absolute vs Relative Truth

mountain valley light.jpg

One way of talking about spirituality is that it is that which is concerned with the ultimate truth or absolute truth. The concept is that absolute truth is universal, never changes and can be directly perceived/experienced at all times and places. It cannot be learnt or accumulated as it is always already present and known. I use various capitalised words synonymously to describe it, eg. God, Truth, Love, Wholeness, Love, the Universe. The teaching is that its perception does not require special equipment (such as a microscope or telescope) and it does not depend even on the body, mind or senses. It cannot be described and defies and transcends all concepts. Absolute truth cannot even be divided into the absolute and relative, the division being merely a conceptual one.

It cannot be learnt or accumulated as it is always already present and known.

In contrast to this, worldly knowledge can be called relative knowledge or relative truth. This includes scientific knowledge, knowledge of skills such as a sports game or knowing facts such as how tall Mount Everest is. This knowledge is relative because it does not stand alone and is only true in relation to something else. For example the height of Mount Everest depends on various factors such as defining the point from which height is measured and the unit of measurement. The height will also change over time as the mountain topography changes. In fact one of the cardinal features of relative knowledge is that it changes over time depending on specifics relating to time and place. Relative knowledge can also be accumulated and developed over time. Lastly it requires the body-mind-senses to reveal/discover it.

So to summarise we have two concepts, the relative and the absolute. The relative is concerned with those things which change. We can lump all things that change together and call it the world. This world includes the world outside us, as well as our inner world of thoughts, feelings, emotions and psychic perceptions. The absolute is that which, in theory at least, remains the same no matter what. You could call this Spirit. It is always and already known by everyone whether they know it or not.

So to summarise we have two concepts, the relative and the absolute. The relative is concerned with those things which change…The absolute is that which, in theory at least, remains the same no matter what…It is always and already known by everyone whether they know it or not.

Strictly speaking, this division into relative and absolute itself is arbitrary, but because we take ourself to be a doer, this division is provisionally made so our mistake can be corrected. Once corrected, concepts of relative and absolute disappear (we see they are also false concepts), and all that remains is this, the unnameable. But until that point, the concepts are useful teaching aids pointing one in the right direction like the proverbial finger that points at the moon: don’t worship the finger otherwise you will miss the moon in all its heavenly glory. The flip side is that once you have seen the moon, you don’t need the finger any more. Teachings are always conceptual and are to be thrown away eventually.

Strictly speaking, this division in relative and absolute itself is arbitrary, but because we take ourself to be a doer, this division is provisionally made so our mistake can be corrected.

This means, according to my definitions above, talking about and working with emotions, feelings and thought processes is still in the domain of the relative world and so is not spiritual. I would even go as far as to say as that someone who is only interested in these things remains a materialist caught in the clutches of the ego. In this teaching we place our attention beyond the body, senses and mind (including any psychic powers and mystical experiences) and discover what appears to transcend and permeate everything.

Teachings are always conceptual and are to be thrown away eventually.

Now, before I get accused of being a nihilist let me make it clear that I am not saying that we shouldn’t do worldly things. Politics, medicine, health, social work, psychotherapy, psychic work, art, music, etc, all have their place and worth. But there is something more. I sometimes call this Spirit, but you can use any word that resonates with you. Or you can use no word at all.

Through discovering that which already (apparently) transcends the world (which is the same as discovering your ‘true nature’, that which you already are) you can ‘realise’ your Natural State. It’s just noticing something that is already here, but that noticing is powerfully transformative and enables us to realise that we are already, and have always been, free.

Once [the root mistake has been] corrected, concepts of relative and absolute disappear (we see they are also false), and all that remains is this, the unnameable.

Turiya – the fourth state, or is it?

om star.png

In my recent interview on Buddha at the Gas Pump, Rick asked me about Turiya, the 4th state of consciousness.

According to Vedanta, Turiya is that state of consciousness which lies beyond the 3 states of consciousness that we all ordinarily experience, namely the waking state, the dream state and the deep sleep state. In experiencing Turiya directly there is the possibility of liberation.

You can listen to our exchange on the video below. After the interview I decided to see what Ramana Maharshi had said about Turiya and was relieved to find that he agreed with me 🙂 😛 (at least on this occasion – he probably agrees with Rick on other occasions!)

Here is what Ramana had to say about Turiya:

From Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Talk 353:

Questioner: What is turiya?

Ramana Maharshi: There are three states only, the waking, dream and sleep. Turiya is not a fourth one; it is what underlies these three. But people do not readily understand it. Therefore it is said that this is the fourth state and the only Reality. In fact it is not apart from anything, for it forms the substratum of all happenings; it is the only Truth; it is your very Being. The three states appear as fleeting phenomena on it and then sink into it alone. Therefore they are unreal.

This view is also the traditional view of Turiya in vendanta as expounded by Gaupada in his Mandukya Karika.

So does this mean that Rick’s view is wrong? I don’t think so. His view is also a useful view, but in a slightly different way. Thinking of Turiya as a 4th state distinct from the others can also be a beneficial teaching when used in the teachings of a skilled teacher with a genuine realisation. Rick’s notion of entering a (nirvikalpa) samadhi and this having a purifying effect on the waking state is also a valid way of approaching this realisation/freedom.

It’s important to note that these teachings are ways of describing our experience. They are concepts, and form conceptual ways of carving up our experience with the intended effect of leading the seeker to liberation. They are not intended to be based in physiology or  ‘science’ in my view.

The point of these specific teachings/concepts is to point out the awareness-consciousness that does not come and go, regardless of what is happening. Whether or not they are successful in achieving that end is the test of how good the teaching is, not how well it is based in human physiology or scientific observations. It is therefore impossible to say one teaching is better than the other – the teaching that works is the ‘best’ teaching for that situation (this is the notion of expedient means in Buddhism)

Eventually, when you realise that consciousness is the essence of you, and remain as that, unidentified as body or mind, the illusory sense of doership is eventually destroyed. With it, the dualistic notion of a consciousness that is in some way distinct, underlying and permanent is also destroyed. What you are left with is what is already here: this, nameless, beyond words (and inclusive of words).

For a more detailed discussion of Turiya please see here:

http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/teachers/turiya_peter.htm

Zen Master Huang Po: stuffing yourself with knowledge

zen mountains

If you now set about using your minds to seek Mind, listening to the teaching of others, and hoping to reach the goal through mere learning, when will you ever succeed? Some of the ancients had sharp minds; they no sooner heard the Doctrine proclaimed than they hastened to discard all learning. So they were called, ‘Sages who, abandoning learning, have come to rest in spontaneity’.

In these days people only seek to stuff themselves with knowledge and deductions, seeking everywhere for book-knowledge and calling this ‘Dharma-practice’ [true practice of The Way]. They do not know that so much knowledge and deduction have just the contrary effect of piling up obstacles. Merely acquiring a lot of knowledge makes you like a child who gives himself indigestion by gobbling too many curds.

Merely acquiring a lot of knowledge makes you like a child who gives himself indigestion by gobbling too many curds.

Huang Po Zen Teachings

Those who study the Way according to the Three Vehicles [the 3 main Buddhist schools of Hinayana, Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism] are all like this. All you can call them is people who suffer from indigestion. When so-called knowledge and deductions are not digested, they become poisons, for they belong only to the plane of samsara [the plane of suffering, the unenlightened state]. In the Absolute, there is nothing at all of this kind.

So it is said: ‘In the armoury of my sovereign, there is no Sword of Thusness’. All the concepts you have formed in the past must be discarded and replaced by void…The canonical teachings of the Three Vehicles are just remedies for temporary needs. They were taught to meet such needs and so are of temporary value and differ one from another. If only this could be understood, there would be no more doubts about it.

Above all it is essential not to select some particular teaching suited to a certain occasion, and, being impressed by its forming part of the written canon, regard it as an immutable concept. Why so? Because in truth there is no unalterable Dharma [Teaching, Teaching method] which the Tathagata [The Buddha; a term the Buddha often referred to himself by] could have preached. People of our sect would never argue that there could be such a thing. We just know how to put all mental activity to rest and thus achieve tranquillity. We certainly do not begin by thinking things out and end up in perplexity.

Because in truth there is no unalterable Dharma…We certainly do not begin by thinking things out and end up in perplexity. 

Taken from The Zen Teaching of Huang Po (Chun Chou record no. 30)

Live today: interview with Tom Das at Buddha at the Gas Pump

Just a reminder that I will be interviewed live today by Rick Archer from Buddha at the Gas Pump today at  11.30am US central time (5.30pm UK time, 4:30pm GMT).

If you want to watch it the interview will be streamed here: