This letter from Mr Lambie has just been posted on the London site - I think that it's a good step towards a more open approach. What do you think about this, and about the content? - K
Welcome to what is intended to be the first of a series of letters to share some thoughts and reflections about the School and its work. I hope that members of the Schools both in the UK and around the world will find it of interest.
Aims
The principal aim of the School is complete liberation – or, to put it another way, the realisation of Man’s full potential. Together with that there is the secondary purpose of seeking to live and work in such a way as to serve and enrich society and the world in which we live.
Voyage of discovery
As far as the first of these aims is concerned, it is important to make the point that this is very much a voyage of discovery. What may have been understood or experienced in the past should not be taken as final and complete. Rather, it can serve as the foundation for something greater and finer to emerge. Every day provides opportunities for this to happen.
Although the great teachers set out their wisdom fully and generously, it is up to every individual to discover the real meaning and import of that for him or herself. Working together in a School does however mean that one person’s discovery can become everyone’s discovery, and in this way the process is enhanced.
Freedom is an inner state of being and as such it is difficult if not impossible for it to be quantified. Advaita philosophy does however give certain indicators. Where a person has greater energy, steadfastness, reason, love and happiness, and where there is a coherence between thoughts and actions, these do demonstrate a growth of freedom. Advaita philosophy also speaks of universal freedom and the complete elimination of misery. It provides the knowledge which, taken together with meditation, makes this possible. This remains the goal.
Spiritual and cultural heritage
As far as the second of these aims is concerned, the School, in addition to studying and teaching Philosophy, also aims to explore such subjects as art, music, law, economics, science, language, dance, renaissance studies, medicine and education in the light of Philosophy.
Recently, for example in Ireland, we spent a week considering the practical application of Platonic dialectic. London has just seen the book launch of a new translation by a School member of the Asclepius by Hermes Trismegistus. The teachings of such figures as Plato and Hermes Trismegistus may seem arcane but, when really connected with, they can provide invaluable and inspiring insights into present day life. A series of lectures entitled “The Philosophical Garden” on some of these subjects can be downloaded from this web-site.
The full list of all the School’s activities is long. In forthcoming letters I will say something more about these.
Liberation and service
The aims of liberation and seeking to serve society are not unrelated. Where there is a real sense of freedom, any service will carry something of that quality. It will be open, intelligent, creative and full of love. Likewise, in facing the challenges of the world, people often have to transcend their own, self imposed, limits. In rising to the occasion in this way, something of the true nature of the Self is experienced.
I believe the work of the School is of utmost importance. The philosophic teaching that has come from Shri Shantananda Sarasvati is capable of meeting the needs both of individuals and the world in a marvellous way. We do however need to continue with the process of discovery and give great care and attention to all that takes place. In this way we can best seek to fulfil our aims.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Letter from the leader
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
59 comments:
A very good start. More on Advaita next time?
The School seeks to serve two masters - liberation (which is about awakening to the dream), and society (which is about fixing the dream).
This overlooks that the former already and wholly includes the latter, that society is truly served only by the former, and that 'society' is part of the 'dream'.
In the words of C S Lewis: "Aim at Heaven and you will get Earth thrown in. Aim at Earth and you get neither".
He didn't say what the consequences of pursuing both at once would be - probably some kind of half-way house, displaying a lack of trust in the teaching and resulting in divided loyalty, confusion, dissipation of spiritual goodwill and energy, and half-heartedness. Leaving one with a vague sense of being part of something large, whilst remaining firmly grounded in the small.
Either you want to wake up to the ultimate reality that "all is forever perfect", "there is nothing to do, nowhere to go, nothing to achieve" and "I am not the doer". In which, if this is fully and unequivocally lived, everything takes care of itself - this is the realisation that "I do not live my life, I am lived by Life".
Or you are ambivalent about all this and continue with the pretence that human beings have free will, are doers and have the capacity to "seek to live and work in such a way as to serve and enrich society and the world".
The statement "the full list of all the School’s activities is long" betrays a strong sense of doership; the equivalent statement from a 'school of liberation' may have been "look at all this seeming activity - and yet we do nothing at all; this has nothing to do with the School; and none of this even matters".
Aiming at both Heaven and Earth divides the heart's loyalty, and, as always when your loyalty is divided, it cannot be given whole-heartedly to either:-
"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon".
(Matthew 6:24)
"For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also".
(Luke 12:34)
I am not saying, of course, that the School should or shouldn't be this or that. It is what it is, and it has as little free will and choice in the matter of what it 'does' in this dream as any of the other dream characters.
But there is always the possibility of waking up to the dream, of course.
Rudi,
I think it would be a stretch to say that in attempting to serve society, the School is serving Mammon. That contradiction suggests to me that there may be a flaw in your logic, or that you are putting the case too strongly. Maybe liberation and service are not opposed after all?
I went to a talk by a Tibetan Buddhist master last night. He seemed to believe that it was very important for people to seek to do good to others, through charitable works, taking time to talk, supporting each other, and so on.
Shantananda says that there are people who know all of the Advaita philosophy, but when it comes to a small matter of charity, they turn away. He says that this is a sign that the philosophy hasn't worked.
I believe him, and I believe the Tibetan guy. Maybe your objection comes down to a literary criticism of the way this letter is worded? It seems to me the strongest point you make is that the letter could have said "none of this really matters". But by their fruits shall ye know them ...
I'd be interested to hear more.
Kevin said...
"Maybe liberation and service are not opposed after all?"
Of course they are not. On the contrary - in freedom service arises most naturally. My point was that notions such as we are individuals, with free will, 'society needs to be served', and this constant 'seeking (of) ways' to do it, always get in the way of true service.
"... Tibetan Buddhist master ... seemed to believe that it was very important for people to seek to do good to others ..."
"Shantananda says that there are people who know all of the Advaita philosophy, but when it comes to a small matter of charity, they turn away. He says that this is a sign that the philosophy hasn't worked".
Millions of people perform significant acts of charity every day, without even having come into contact with the philosophy. This is obviously infinitely better than not serving at all (which is presumably the point the Tibetan Buddhist and HH were making).
But you need to distinguish between service arising naturally in and from complete inner freedom, without 'doing', and service provided by 'individuals' who believe they have free will and are the doers of all these charitable deeds.
My simple observation was that the two are diametrically opposed, and yet the School was encouraging both. A case of having your cake and eat it.
Maybe your objection comes down to a literary criticism of the way this letter is worded?
'Objection' and 'criticism' don't come into it - I explicitly said "I am not saying, of course, that the School should or shouldn't be this or that ...".
If "all is forever perfect", the School can't be an exception. It plays its part exactly as it must, at this point in its history.
Rudi,
I think the real opposition is between the impulse to do good to others and the impulse to serve oneself. If one serves others while "doing" then that can always be surrendered. To paraphrase a book title, "Feel the Claim and Do It Anyway".
I'm not 100% with you on the idea that we are not "individuals" (after all it just means not divisible?), that society is nothing but a dream, and that we have no free choice.
Gurus like Ramesh Balsekar say this kind of thing, and the next we hear they are hopping into bed with their disciples. Quelle surprise.
In the original letter I don't see where you suppose there is individualism. The School is not capable of liberation itself, because it is not a person but part of society. Therefore it can have aims that apply to people (liberation), and to society (serve and enrich).
Moral life in society is not a distraction from liberation (as worshipping Mammon would be) but the foundation for liberation. Krishna makes this point to Arjuna in the Gita when he wants to renounce his responsibilities.
There are always 'spiritual' reasons to avoid our responsibilities, if we look for them. That is why every genuine tradition insists that we live according to the law.
By your argument, when Jesus said "render unto Caesar", he was also serving two masters?
Rudi,
Do you think your comments might be applied to the objectives of the School (see the later post), which are entirely concerned with economics and government?
Kevin said...
I think the real opposition is between the impulse to do good to others and the impulse to serve oneself.
This is most people's idea of service, and is - as I said before - commendable and better than nothing. But this is nothing to do with liberation. Liberation is about discovering the deepest Truth, which is that there is no separation (i.e. no oneself vs other); just as there is no good vs bad, right vs wrong etc.
So the real opposition is between serving whilst insisting on separation - a major restriction on service; and serving whilst knowing that all separation is illusory - at which point service becomes limitless.
You are talking about unselfishness, I am talking about selflessness. The former affirms the sense of separate identity (whilst allowing the claimant to feel good about him/herself), the latter does away with it.
If one serves others while "doing" then that can always be surrendered.
To paraphrase a book title, "Feel the Claim and Do It Anyway".
You sound just like a childhood friend of mine who kept stealing from friends, arguing that as he was going to confession and was always forgiven his sins he didn't need to feel bad about his deeds. He went through countless cycles of stealing - confession - feeling good. He never got that his confessions can't have been sincere if he continued returning to stealing.
'Never mind the claim, I can always surrender it later', and 'Do it anyway' subscribe to the same logic. Makes me wonder what's really going on inside you when you're surrendering ... :-)
I'm not 100% with you on the idea that we are not "individuals" (after all it just means not divisible?), that society is nothing but a dream, and that we have no free choice. Gurus like Ramesh Balsekar say this kind of thing ...
Ramesh Balsekar? I thought that was the teaching, in a nutshell.
Moral life in society is not a distraction from liberation (as worshipping Mammon would be) but the foundation for liberation.
The only requirement for liberation is an all-consuming love of Truth. True morality then arises naturally. Leading a righteous / virtuous / moral life (by adopting an external code of behaviour, such as the ten commandments) is the default option for those whose love of Truth is insufficient for natural morality to arise.
There are always 'spiritual' reasons to avoid our responsibilities, if we look for them. That is why every genuine tradition insists that we live according to the law. Krishna makes this point to Arjuna in the Gita when he wants to renounce his responsibilities.
In absolute freedom all actions are known to arise spontaneously. There is no doer who could perform them, nor is there a doer who could resist them. Krishna only told Arjuna not to resist - in no way did he tell him to go to the other extreme and claim doership.
By your argument, when Jesus said "render unto Caesar", he was also serving two masters?
If 'rendering unto Cesar' arises spontaneously in absolute freedom, and is known not to be the action of a separate individual believing in free will and doership, then the action would be in service to Freedom alone.
Hello Rudi,
You're not the first person on this blog who has advanced this version of
the teaching, in a nutshell
but I beg to differ. I believe that your version of the teaching (like Balsekar's) differs radically from Shantananda's.
We start from where we are, and we find ourselves playing roles that have duties. In fulfilling these duties, we get a taste for liberation, which prepares us for more refined work and eventually for liberation.
Krishna did not 'only tell Arjuna not to resist', as you claim. He said "Arise, great warrior, and fight". He said that while renunciation is greater than action, even so for Arjuna his duty in the present was renunciation through action. The whole thrust of the Gita is to counter the view advanced by Arjuna (and by you) that because the spiritual is greater than one's personal duty in the world, it therefore excuses one from that duty.
Furthermore, I believe it is a misconception that we can be free first, and then act naturally and justly later. Liberation is the pinnacle, not (as the Neo-Advaitins say) the first step. THEY say "you are free, so stop striving", which is a shallow and irresponsible doctrine. Shantananda says, you are free, therefore follow the path of discipline and you will come to know that you are.
On another occasion he says that the impulses of heart that do not contradict law will lead to liberation. That is a humane and kindly approach to our predicament.
Rudi, while I'm enjoying this in a way, I must say it's hard to see the real you behind what you are saying. If you are not going to be moved, perhaps we should agree to differ on this point and go on from there?
Rudi - A minor point, but don't you mean awakening FROM the dream?
Diogenes said...
"A minor point, but don't you mean awakening FROM the dream?"
Waking up 'from' a dream means waking up into a higher reality, and the end of the dream.
Spiritual awakening is different in that one awakens 'to' the fact that all is dream, whilst the ‘dream’ continues.
Kevin said...
”I believe that your version of the teaching (like Balsekar's) differs radically from Shantananda's.”
What I said is based on my own conceptual and experiential understanding of the teaching of Advaita, including – and especially - Shantananda’s. So this is not a question of version but of interpretation. I don’t know Balsekar’s teaching, so I can’t comment.
"We start from where we are, and we find ourselves playing roles that have duties. In fulfilling these duties, we get a taste for liberation, which prepares us for more refined work and eventually for liberation."
I wish. From the fact that 'self-realised people', or those on the path of liberation, seem to fulfill 'their duties' extremely willingly and effectively does NOT follow the reverse, namely that if you perform 'your duties' willingly you get nearer to liberation. Every single personal account of self-realisation I have read, or heard of, confirms this.
I personally know quite a few ‘Mother Theresa’ type characters who fulfill their duties extremely willingly and are amazingly unselfish - their whole life is dedicated to serving ‘others’ (sic!). And yet, most of these do not have this all-consuming passion for liberation – which is to rise above ‘me’ / ‘other’. And vice versa.
Krishna did not 'only tell Arjuna not to resist', as you claim. He said "Arise, great warrior, and fight". He said that while renunciation is greater than action, even so for Arjuna his duty in the present was renunciation through action. The whole thrust of the Gita is to counter the view advanced by Arjuna (and by you) that because the spiritual is greater than one's personal duty in the world, it therefore excuses one from that duty.
But unlike Arjuna, I am NOT saying that – I am saying that the falling away of the artificial distinction between ‘spiritual’ and ‘world’ ITSELF takes care of everything, as it were – ALL things spiritual AND worldly. "Aim at Heaven and you will get Earth thrown in”, in C S Lewis’ words.
And you are quoting selectively - the Gita, Shantananda and Advaita teachers throughout the ages have also said:
"the wise who knows the truth knows 'I do nothing at all' ”
“all you are is Consciousness / the Observer”
“prakriti acts, whilst you are the awareness of all action” etc.
In other words, ‘renunciation through action’ means allowing action to take place (i.e. not resisting action) whilst knowing that you are not ’doing’ / ‘performing’ it. It seems you wholeheartedly embrace 'action' (the 'lesser'), whilst relegating 'renunciation', i.e. 'non-action', to second place (although 'greater'). An upside-down view of how it really is.
Once more: in NO WAY does this mean that worldly matters will NOT be taken care of. The paradox is that as long as we try to take care of them, we mess up; the moment we realise that they take care of themselves, things work out perfectly. But this needs to be realized, not merely understood conceptually.
”Furthermore, I believe it is a misconception that we can be free first, and then act naturally and justly later. Liberation is the pinnacle, not (as the Neo-Advaitins say) the first step. THEY say "you are free, so stop striving", which is a shallow and irresponsible doctrine. Shantananda says, you are free, therefore follow the path of discipline and you will come to know that you are”.
Yes, but not like that - Shankara himself said that this is all about realising that there is no path.
Accordingly, Shantananda’s so-called 'path of discipline' IS the path of stopping – what is the practice of meditation, so central to his teaching, if not that? He effectively says “stop striving completely, only once, just for a split-second – and you will come to know who you are”. His teaching of pure presence, stillness and inner peace, and his endless reminders that there is “nothing to do, nothing achieve and nowhere to go” ALL point to the same realisation.
Somehow, you manage to turn all these wonderful “stopping” techniques into subtle path activities, “strivings”.
There is nothing 'shallow' about Shantananda's teaching of 'stopping'. And it completely confounds the mind that equates 'responsibility' with 'doing' and 'acting'.
Rudi, while I'm enjoying this in a way, I must say it's hard to see the real you behind what you are saying …
Well, the ‘real’ has always been a bit elusive, whilst that which is obvious and ‘easy to see’ often turns out to be ‘unreal’ … :-)
(just as the Gita says: “What is night to all beings, therein the self-controlled is awake. Where all beings are awake, that is the night of the sage who sees”)
”If you are not going to be moved …”
Oh, I see :-)
”… perhaps we should agree to differ on this point and go on from there?”
I am happy to leave it at that – no problem.
Rudi
The main point that I disagree with is the idea that (in your original post) serving liberation and society is "serving two masters". I need to look it up, but I think Shantananda's view is that the spiritual and the worldly are the two wheels of the cart, or the two wings of the bird.
Shantananda is an advocate of a traditional "progressive" path. In the end it is all seen to be a simple matter of realization of truth, but from the perspective of any one of us, there is work to do, discipline to follow, duties to undertake. This path is different to the "instant" realization you insist is his teaching.
I don't like to quote him here, but this is what he says on duties:
The only criterion for duty is that having done it, one feels light and bright for all time. It never brings worries or troubles later on and life goes on freely towards the development of being to realise itself.
The opposite is true, if one does not go by one's duty. One would be possessed and never free. (1976)
Rudi, there you have it: we all have duties that are individual to us. If we fulfill those duties, life proceeds naturally towards realization. If we do not, we become possessed.
I think that if you re-read the Conversations you will see that it is not me who is changing Shantananda and inventing a path. He speaks about this frequently and at length.
Kevin said...
"The main point that I disagree with is the idea that (in your original post) serving liberation and society is "serving two masters". I need to look it up, but I think Shantananda's view is that the spiritual and the worldly are the two wheels of the cart, or the two wings of the bird".
Shantananda constantly reminds us that in Reality, in Truth, there is no such duality. If this is his description he must have been describing the 'illusory world', the 'world of appearances'.
Accordingly, a statement such as C S Lewis' ("Aim at Heaven and you will get Earth thrown in. Aim at Earth and you get neither"), which is NOT in denial of 'society', seems much closer to Shantananda's teaching than the School's dualistic mission statement.
My simple observation was that if a school describes its mission in terms of how things 'appear' to be (i.e. in dualistic terms), instead of in terms of how they 'actually' are (in terms of ultimate Truth), the question naturally arises whether it is a school of liberation.
"Shantananda is an advocate of a traditional "progressive" path. In the end it is all seen to be a simple matter of realization of truth, but from the perspective of any one of us, there is work to do, discipline to follow, duties to undertake".
More likely, this is the 'traditional interpretation' of his teaching - exactly as you (very revealingly) say: "from the perspective of any one of us". What about HIS perspective, the true perspective?
"This path is different to the "instant" realization you insist is his teaching".
The ONLY reason there is no 'instant' realisation is that we insist on projecting it into the future. Any sense of there being a path is 100% a projection of one's inner conviction that there's got to be one. Shankara clearly said: "there is no path" - the realisation of this is self-realisation.
Every single personal account of self-realisation I have ever read, or heard of, confirms this. One well-known one is Nisargadatta Maharaj's, who said that only after he had the inner courage to accept his Guru's assurances that there was no path, that no work needed to be done, that nothing needed to change and that there was no discipline to follow in order to become self-realised did self-realisation happen.
Similarly, people who have been on a spiritual path for a long time often say, post-self-realisation, i.e. with the benefit of hindsight, that they attained self-realisation not because of but despite of having been on a spiritual path.
Let alone all the people who attain self-realisation without EVER having been under ANY kind of spiritual discipline.
Of course, Shantananda was also always willing to help those who insist on endlessly walking around the block, so to speak, before entering the realm of Truth - but this is quite different from saying that he advocated delaying the moment of Truth.
"I don't like to quote him here, but this is what he says on duties:
The only criterion for duty is that having done it, one feels light and bright for all time. It never brings worries or troubles later on and life goes on freely towards the development of being to realise itself.
The opposite is true, if one does not go by one's duty. One would be possessed and never free."
I am fully aware of his many statements of this nature - my point is that nowhere does he say that 'You' are doing this, 'You' should do this, i.e. 'You' are the doer. He always uses the impersonal 'It' or 'One'. And he is never prescriptive, always descriptive.
You have a very strong tendencey to turn all his impersonal, descriptive statements into personal, prescriptive ones, thereby feeding your belief in 'personal doership'. This turns the teaching which is about the realisation of "I do nothing at all", "I am the observer", "there is nothing to do, nowhere to go" etc into its precise opposite - a spiritual path.
"Rudi, there you have it: we all have duties that are individual to us. If we fulfill those duties, life proceeds naturally towards realization. If we do not, we become possessed."
No. The teaching is not that we may become possessed, but that mankind is already possessed - namely with the notion that WE are supposed to fulfill OUR duties, and that WE are 'doers'. That IS the possession.
When duties 'are simply allowed to be fullfilled' without the claim of doership, when ONE (as opposed to 'me') is known to perform all duties and actions, then there is Freedom. Freedom is the realisation that "we do nothing at all", that we are merely "the observer".
You quote Shantananda selectively, emphasising the passages you are comfortable with whilst de-emphasising the ones that don't make sense to you and projecting them into the future. That way you end up with a home-spun interpretation of his teachings which you couldn't possibly arrive at if you accepted his teaching IN FULL, and AS STATED.
Rudi,
Pardon me, but you have no right to speculate about my belief (or otherwise) in "personal doership". Pathologising one's opponent is an old-skool tradition, one more honoured in the breach than the observance.
I don't think that we are really meeting here. It worries me that over the past year of running this blog it has been difficult to establish a real conversation, and this has been a good example. So far you have shown no interest in anything that anyone else has said, whether it be Mr Lambie, or me, or Diogenes.
It doesn't do the School much credit that we are collectively so poor at communicating.
But it seems there is another barrier here. Presumably since there is no path, no work to do, etc, you see no reason for the existence of any School whatsoever? I'm not sure whether that is a starting point for any dialogue. If you don't believe there should be a School, why bother spending time with those who are deluded enough to believe it is worth a great deal?
Perhaps I am misinterpreting your position, but if so I'm sure you'll be the first to tell me!
Kevin said...
"Pardon me, but you have no right to speculate about my belief (or otherwise) in "personal doership".
Nor is there a need, since you have expressed it very clearly yourself, for everyone to read ... :-)
"Pathologising one's opponent is an old-skool tradition, one more honoured in the breach than the observance.
Huh ... aren't we a touch melodramatic here? :-)
"I don't think that we are really meeting here. It worries me that over the past year of running this blog it has been difficult to establish a real conversation, and this has been a good example. So far you have shown no interest in anything that anyone else has said, whether it be Mr Lambie, or me, or Diogenes."
There is a big difference between 'not being interested' and 'not being persuaded'. I am very interested, just not persuaded. Nor does the fact that we have not been able to persuade each other necessarily mean that we aren't having a 'real conversation'.
And I don't get your point regarding Diogenes: he made a 'minor point', and I gave a short but to-the-point answer. Not sure what else I could have said.
"But it seems there is another barrier here. Presumably since there is no path, no work to do, etc, you see no reason for the existence of any School whatsoever? I'm not sure whether that is a starting point for any dialogue."
Nisargadatta Maharaj, whose message was uncompromisingly "no path, no work", became extremely popular; and there have been many other such teachers. It seems there is a great hunger for the teaching being presented in uncompromised form.
But then, as stated before, I don't see necessarily a need for the School to change, since it seems to fulfill a real need, and seems to do a lot of good work, despite of its dualistic message. Who is to say that it 'should be' a school of liberation?
Well, Rudi, it appears that your philosophy prevents you from entertaining any questions or doubts. Is that so? If it is, then I feel sorry for you.
"For questioning is the piety of thought" (Heidegger)
According to your theory there is nothing to learn, except for a couple of sentences of "uncompromising" Advaita. What a barren universe it must appear.
But I wonder what anyone else thinks of the foregoing conversation? Is there anyone reading this who believes that Rudi has got it right, and offers a philosophy superior to that spoken of in the letter? Or alternatively, is there anyone who would like to support the view advanced in the letter? It would be good to hear from someone else.
I think I should withdraw from this particular exchange, however, as I'm not finding it either fruitful or enjoyable.
Kevin said...
"Well, Rudi, it appears that your philosophy prevents you from entertaining any questions or doubts. Is that so? If it is, then I feel sorry for you."
Quite on the contrary. I accepted the 'traditional interpretation' of the teaching for quite a long time - UNTIL I found the courage to entertain questions and doubts, and radically so. It was THEN that the REAL investigation began, resulting in a much fuller appreciation of Shantananda's teaching.
"For questioning is the piety of thought" (Heidegger)"
Absolutely - but why then this resistance to thinking OUTSIDE THE BOX? Why this defensiveness, this insistence on some 'traditional interpretation' of the teaching? Why not once in while think truly radically and independently? Why not dare think the impossible, the outrageously counter-intuitive, ruthlessly breaking all cherished taboos and challenging all these sacred cows of your 'understanding'?
It goes without saying that this deep questioning needs to be matched by an equal willingness to EXPERIENCE IT, ALL OF IT, or it will be a waste of time.
If this radical investigation turns out to be unproductive, so be it - but why not give it a chance? In service to Truth? You could be in for a HUGE surprise.
"According to your theory there is nothing to learn, except for a couple of sentences of "uncompromising" Advaita. What a barren universe it must appear."
This work is not about coming up with the 'right sentences' but the direct experience of that which they point to. And there is nothing 'barren' whatsoever in the experience of Unity and the fullness, richness, boundless freedom and overflowing love which is its nature. It only appears 'barren' to the fearful mind once it starts speculating about that which it knows nothing about, and can know nothing about.
"I think I should withdraw from this particular exchange, however, as I'm not finding it either fruitful or enjoyable".
It may not have been 'fruitful' or 'enjoyable', but certainly 'revealing' ... :-)
Thanks for the exchange.
“Believe nothing merely
because you have been told it ...
Do not believe what your teacher tells you
merely out of respect for the teacher".
- Buddha
Dear Kevin and Rudi,
Your conversation has been interesting, although not too successful. I felt the same with my own extensive conversations with Kevin, although this is in no way to say that I in at all blame him, but can only praise him for setting up the blog in the first place.
I have recommended in the past, and still think, that we happy few who like to discuss real issues should meet in person.
Perhaps we could experiment with group techniques. I have been reading about T-groups, and the Dialogue approach of William Isaacs. Could we not think of our communications so far as but a prologue to real face to face discussions about these vital issues, surely too vital to us to just leave in mid air as tends to happen online.
Any takers?
Yes, this debate has been revealing and thought-provoking and challenging, all at the same time.
I wouldn't dare venture in to this particular ring, but I've become interested in Rudi's single-minded thesis.
This is a yardstick of value.
I too have followed this debate with great interest – and sympathy for both sides. I am inclined to agree somewhat with Rudi – BUT, it seems to me that this whole debate has something to do with the crossroads situation in which the School finds itself. A remark that Will Rasmussen once made seems relevant. He said that the School had never found a way to allow its students to graduate. I feel this is true – that until now, at least, the School has operated a ‘one size fits all’ system. But given that the School takes the gradualist, ‘progressive path’ approach, perhaps this system is no longer entirely fit for purpose (to use a rather worn-out phrase). I can see that for many students, the School’s diverse activities are very attractive. I myself owe a great deal of my own cultural education to them, and I used to enjoy them enormously. But they don’t actually have anything to do with the realisation of the truth – I mean the truth of who one really is – i.e. Self-realisation. And there does come a time, it seems, for some students when nothing else but the truth matters. Mr MacLaren called it ‘putting Truth first’. I thought I knew at the time what he meant. Now I see I didn’t get it at all.
It isn’t that there is anything wrong with studies and arts and activities. They are excellent in themselves, and they keep everybody busy and entertained. But they can also be a huge distraction. And they can mean that one never actually confronts the nakedness, if you like the RISK of truth – the total surrender to it, the jump off the cliff with no knowing what to expect. From what I can observe, it seems many people in the School may be ready, and have been ready for some time, for what has been called ‘the end of the search’. Perhaps for them, a different approach is now needed.
There are, I know, teachers who advocate a completely uncompromising, ruthless (good word, ‘ruthless’) immediate plunge method from Day 1. The truth – nothing less, no gradual approach. But the School has never worked like that. It has nursery slopes. (sorry about the wildly changing metaphors…) But maybe it needs to recognise that some of its students (and not always the ones it may think) are ready to go off-piste.
This matter of Self-Realisation is so important, so urgent, not just for humankind but for the planet as a whole (and perhaps even the universe, who knows?) – that we can’t, as a species, afford to drag our feet. Realisation of truth is for NOW, today – not for some hazy future. People are waking up all over the planet, and the School is part of this great movement. If we want to ‘lift the level of consciousness’ – then we have to wake up ourselves, now. Nothing else is going to work.
Son of Moses said...
"Your conversation has been interesting, although not too successful".
I am not too concerned about whether it was 'successful' or not, I must admit - originally I only intended to make a brief observation, for its own sake. And I am not sure how success could or should be measured - words and ideas can have very subtle, non-measurable effects.
"I have recommended in the past, and still think, that we happy few who like to discuss real issues should meet in person".
Assuming that by 'real issues' you mean the question of 'what is truth, and how can it be realised' - I feel the weekly group meetings, study days and residential events are probably the best opportunity to raise these issues with fellow students. Isn't that what they are there for, their whole point? I am sceptical whether us meeting separately would be more productive.
Laura said...
Yes, this debate has been revealing and thought-provoking and challenging, all at the same time. I wouldn't dare venture into this particular ring ...
Oh, come on in ... :-)
Katharine said...
Great post. Just one point:
"Will Rasmussen once ... said that the School had never found a way to allow its students to graduate ... And there does come a time, it seems, for some students when nothing else but the truth matters. Mr MacLaren called it ‘putting Truth first’.
I would make a distinction between the unambiguous "when nothing but the Truth matters", and Mr McLaren's ambiguous "putting truth first". The latter implies a 'second', something 'other' than Truth, some residual doubt as to what will happen to us / the world when we give ALL OF US, EVERYTHING to Truth.
The egoic mind cannot comprehend, and therefore simply refuses to contemplate the possibility, that Life takes care of itself, has always done so, and always will - despite of assurances by the wise that "I do nothing at all"; "there is nothing to do, nowhere to go"; "I am purely the observer" etc.
In other words, the School may "never have found a way to allow its students to graduate" because it itself has never progressed beyond the "putting truth first" stage - has never graduated itself, so to speak. The School's current mission statement ('liberation' first, 'society' second) still reflects the dualism implied by "putting truth first".
I suspect that only once LITERALLY NOTHING BUT the Truth matters, even when every cell in our body screams with terror in anticipation of the 'loss' of the world, will we find the courage to face (in your words) "the nakedness ... the risk of truth ... the total surrender to it ... the jump off the cliff with no knowing what to expect".
Kevin's presentation of the "progressive" approach was clear and...well even endearing! And yet, I have to admit that after twenty years in groups, it had become repetitive and certainly uninspiring. Wonderfull statements like"there is nowhere to go" somehow became cliched excuses for boring meetings. I did the-for me-obvious thing and stopped attending group.
In spite of that apparent criticism,I do have a great appreciation of the School and it does have its place of course. The viewpoint put forward by Rudi, addresses the real issues facing the School right now. In bringing them to light, this blog too is serving a very useful and enlightening purpose.
Dear Rudi,
Kevin will put us right if I am too far out, but I believe that you have just trodden on the corn that, as far as I can make out, got this whole blog rolling in the first place (Howsat for mixed metaphors?). It was precisely because it was NOT found possible to discuss freely and profitably in our groups that a number of us began to wonder why this was so, and whether anything could be done about it.
Yes, all the wonderful people that attend the school seem to share the same ultimate aims, but is the train going to Calcutta or to the other place which I can’t remember: was it Varanasi? Well, In my view, the train is not going anywhere. It has stopped. The whole situation seems to have got itself into a rut.
Even though your exchange was a bit like two ships meeting in the night, it was at least a meeting of minds and real issues were being discussed.
It is very rare in my experience for such a real exchange of views to happen in a group setting. Too much is at stake. There’s the Tutor to cap the whole thing and to whom we have to defer. There’s the rest of the group who are growing old gracefully and would like to feel that as long as they keep turning up, etc., etc., the School will do the work and realisation will just ‘happen’, so don’t rock the boat. And anyway, the conversation in groups is so random, with so little real guidance from the chair, that no proper exploration of anything is ever followed through.
To put my two-pennyworth into the original discussion, and to balance Katherine’s Neo-Advaitin stance, I am rather with Kevin on the interpretation of the correct understanding of His Holiness, but I have my own take on the question. I believe that the real work is to find the inner doubts and dissolve them. These are the real obstructions. Until this starts happening, most talk about the Truth and realization is just hot air, and even counter-productive.
These doubts are not on the surface of the mind, but deep down in the subconscious. They therefore take some digging out and they then have to be dissolved through reason. This is the true meaning of the practice called Mananam (read the traditional literature if you don’t believe me), but in fact this is very rarely carried out in groups and thus the situation does not radically change from year to year.
Apologies,
I had no right to say what I did about the other group members.
I have no right to assume that I know how they are thinking.
Arrogance has always been one of my faults. There are many others!
Christopher said...
"... it had become repetitive and certainly uninspiring ... statements like "there is nowhere to go" somehow became cliched ..."
This is a sentiment I encounter more and more often in the School. Few seem to doubt the teaching and guidance given by Shantananda, but there is a growing unease that there may be a fault line running through the understanding we have of the teaching - not only on the level of the individual student, but also on the level of the School, i.e. our 'collective' understanding.
My own sense is that 40 years of effort to penetrate the teaching have created much light, but also subtle distortions in the understanding, perhaps too deep-seated and intractable now to be apparent to anyone but a self-realised person.
Like Son of Moses said, issues can be raised here which seem incapable of discussion within group. This is the best part of the blog. I'd call it more a toothache than a corn - but who's quibbling?
I can't speak for him, but it sometimes seems that questions come tumbling out of Kevin from beind a twenty-year dam. I don't know if it's almost inevitable that organisations build up a structure, an ethos, what you will, that actively discourages certain kinds of questions. Have you noticed it in almost every kind of organisation? It's not particular to the School but neither is the School free of it.
There's also a timescale with School membership - fifteen to twenty years often being the point where people settle for a quiet life. From which follows ...
'It is very rare in my experience (says Son of Moses)for ... a real exchange of views to happen in a group setting. Too much is at stake. There’s the Tutor to cap the whole thing and to whom we have to defer. There’s the rest of the group who are growing old gracefully and would like to feel that as long as they keep turning up, etc., etc., the School will do the work and realisation will just ‘happen’, so don’t rock the boat.'
Far from feeling apologetic about this, Son of Moses, your observation points the way towards the nub of the matter. Haven't we all been there? And isn't that the reason why people leave? Your observation, far from being an assumption, says no more than what is everyday in School. But not always acknowledged.
It would be really helpful if it was recognised more fully that all organisations grow, mature and die unless they are frequently reinvigorated from the centre and continue to meet a need.
If this process was recognised some of our analysis would be better known as no more than a critique of a natural process rather than perhaps being seen as as criticism.
Son of Moses said...
"... but I have my own take on the question. I believe that the real work is to find the inner doubts and dissolve them. These are the real obstructions. Until this starts happening, most talk about the Truth and realization is just hot air, and even counter-productive. These doubts ... take some digging out and they then have to be dissolved through reason. This is the true meaning of the practice called Mananam (read the traditional literature if you don’t believe me) ..."
Hmm ... I have read the 'traditional literature' on shravanam / mananam / nididhyasanam etc and seem to have reached a somehwhat different understanding from you as regards the "true meaning of the practice". Just shows how different people's interpretations of one and the same teaching can be!
This will not give you a full sense of how I experience it, but let's just say:
- to me the practice is NOT ESPECIALLY about doubts (it includes all feelings; in the spirit of "everything that arises is your teacher")
- I do NOT treat doubts as 'obstructions' (to me they are simply 'Truth', my teacher, and yet no different from 'I'; like everything else that arises)
- there is NO intention to 'dissolve' doubts (or to achieve any other result or outcome) (if there is an intention at all, it is the intention to see doubts etc exactly for what they, and to allow them to be precisely what they are - nothing else; in the spirit of "pure intention", "nowhere to go" and "nothing to do")
- there is NO 'digging out' of doubts (they are allowed to arise freely; i.e. no resistance is offered when they appear; in the spirit of "I do nothing at all")
- to me 'reason' is NOT something I 'use' to 'do' something with, e.g. 'dissolve doubts' - it is the power of pure awareness, pure observation and pure discrimination in which doubts etc are seen exactly for what they are (in the spirit of "I am the observer")
The transformative power of accepting life as it is is amazing.
"Until this starts happening, most talk about the Truth and realization is just hot air, and even counter-productive".
I would say that as long as "pure intention", "nowhere to go", "nothing to do" and "I am the observer" are treated as something remote, something to be realised at some point in the future rather than Here and Now, 'talk about the Truth and realisation are just hot air and counter-productive'.
Rudi,
You say, ‘I do not treat doubts as obstructions’.
Interesting. Let me try to rehearse the theory here.
a) Using School terminology, there is, in truth, only the Supreme Self (Brahman, or whatever).
b) Somehow an imaginary entity with which we somehow have become identified has come to believe otherwise. We don’t really know how this has come about, but this is where we find ourselves, imprisoned in egos – Duh! Hence all pain, suffering, war, poverty, etc.
d) We are held in this false identity by untrue ideas about ourselves and these are clung to with some sticking power. In fact, we believe that our whole existence depends on this.
e) When the truth is offered to us, as in a typical reflection statement, such as ‘Thou art That’, these doubts assert themselves and, unless ‘defeated’ by reason, they continue to convince us of the untruth (It may even be that the ego takes over the practice as a way of ‘doing the right thing’, a typical ego preoccupation).
Ergo, the doubts have to be challenged and dissolved. This process of dissolving the doubts involves an intention, a sankalpa, that they should go, and for this the buddhi is ‘used’ to activate the process.
There is much more that can be said as to the roots of the doubts and the technique of dissolving them, but this is the outline of the process as I see it. Of course, I am myself struggling to understand all this, so I may have got it wrong. Even so, I do not think that the School has hardly begun to explore or utilize this process in any systematic manner.
Furthermore, I have reason to believe that one can spout the Teaching, study the scriptures, meditate, resolve that ‘I do nothing at all’, or ‘I am the mere witness’, or whatever else, without having any real effect on these deep doubts. They are the ego’s support system, and the ego, in order to survive, can do all these holy things. Indeed, I have very clearly watched it so doing. As I understand the matter, the ego is mainly a defence system against a mistaken threat of non-existence, and until that underlying mortal threat is defused and shown to be erroneous, the ego will cling on to life using every subterfuge and device it can muster.
You further speak of ‘the power of pure awareness’.
Let me get this right. Are you saying that at any moment, you have this power fully available to you, (perhaps that you are already realized) and that there is no problem? In that case why do you attend the school, post blogs to explain your case, etc., etc.?
If you are not already ‘realised’, does it matter? If it does matter, what are you proposing as a remedy? Are you, perhaps, expecting to become realised through a gradual process of intensification of the memory that ‘there is nothing to do’, or what? Please explain.
I have to say that it is disconcerting, to say the least, trying to discuss anything with a person who keeps dragging in mantras like, ‘I do nothing at all’ to quell all argument. I would just like you to honestly answer: what is the nature of your everyday moment by moment mental life? Are you truly always remembering that you are the witness, etc.? Are there no other convictions? Are you permanently living in the Here and Now? If not, what stops you from doing so, and what do you see as a remedy for this? Or is there no need for one? How, in other words, is ignorance eliminated? Or are you simply unaffected by it?
Laura said...
"... organisations build up ... an ethos ... that actively discourages ... unless reinvigorated from the centre ... and continue to meet a need ... etc"
I think your analysis of the dynamics of organisations, of individuals within organisations, and the interplay between the two, is spot-on.
Son of Moses said...
"It was precisely because it was NOT found possible to discuss freely and profitably in our groups ...".
and Laura said...
"... issues can be raised here which seem incapable of discussion within group".
When I said "weekly group meetings, study days and residential events are probably the best opportunity to raise these issues with fellow students" I did not only have formal meetings in mind. I was also - and perhaps especially - thinking of informal talks before / after group, during breaks etc. I have had many fruitful exchanges of this kind, quite a few including tutors!
Obviously, you can't use formal group meetings to start a debate about 'where the School is going' etc; but you can communicate your understanding of the teaching, even if it contradicts everybody else's, as part of the observations you are making. If your insights are:
a) substantially different from others'
b) valid and
c) effectively communicated
then they will resonate and, over time, make an impact (if your observations are not substantially different, then there isn't a problem to begin with).
Son of Moses said...
"Yes, all the wonderful people that attend the school seem to share the same ultimate aims, but is the train going to Calcutta or to the other place which I can’t remember: was it Varanasi? Well, In my view, the train is not going anywhere. It has stopped. The whole situation seems to have got itself into a rut".
That the train is 'not going anywhere' may be a blessing in disguise, since it wasn't supposed to go anywhere in the first place ("nowhere to go", "nothing to achieve"). But if you believe that there is a spiritual path to be trodden, then this will be a source of frustration, of course.
If Shankara is right when he says "there is no path", then this may be an opportunity to inquire a little bit deeper than so far and discover what the teaching really points to. If the only response is to 'get the train moving again', the opportunity will have been wasted.
Rudi,
I would like to know where Shankara says ‘there is no path’, a quote you keep bringing up. It sounds as though it might be a line falsely attributed. There are books full of later over-enthusiastic verses by ‘Shankara would-be’s. Neo-advaitinism has been with us in various forms for a long time. His Holiness, for example, tells several stories about previous masters who had to cure their pupils of it.
Nevertheless, if the saying comes from one of Shankara’s accepted commentaies or treatises, I would have to accept it.
Son of Moses said (3 comments above)...
"You say, ‘I do not treat doubts as obstructions’ ... " etc etc
I agree with a) to d), and also with e) up to and including ...
"e) When the truth is offered to us, as in a typical reflection statement, such as ‘Thou art That’, these doubts assert themselves ..."
... but I disagree with your logic that from this follows:
"... unless ‘defeated’ by reason, they continue to convince us of the untruth ... Ergo, the doubts have to be challenged and dissolved. This process of dissolving the doubts involves an intention, a sankalpa, that they should go, and for this the buddhi is ‘used’ to activate the process".
My sankalpa, unlike your result and outcome-oriented one, is not based on an "intention that doubts should go". It is based on "pure intention", i.e. the willingness to see doubts etc for what they are, through witnessing / meeting / experiencing them deeply, fully and intimately, whenever they arise; with no intention, hope or expectation that they will 'dissolve' (nor any resistance to them 'dissolving' should they choose to do so on their own accord).
'Buddhi / reason' is that which discriminates between 'pure' and 'result-oriented' intention. Your process as described under a) to d) has a certain logic to it, but to me this is the logic of the mind, not 'reason'.
I am NOT saying that I find my practice straighforward, NOR that it is a continuous experience, only that this is my current understanding of the practice.
"Furthermore, I have reason to believe that one can spout the Teaching, study the scriptures, meditate, resolve that ‘I do nothing at all’, or ‘I am the mere witness’, or whatever else, without having any real effect on these deep doubts".
Agreed - all this misses the point without the willingness to witness / meet / experience ALL doubts and fears ALL the way.
"... a mistaken threat of non-existence, and until that underlying mortal threat is defused and shown to be erroneous, the ego will cling on to life using every subterfuge and device it can muster".
But this underlying mortal threat is not defused by trying to 'dissolve' it, but by meeting / experiencing it. As far as 'subterfuges and devices' are concerned, one of these is ego convincing itself that it has the power to 'dissolve' doubts, and that this is what this is all about. That it can somehow avoid 'meeting' - i.e. 'fully experiencing' - its worst enemy, the most terrible doubt of all, i.e. that concerning its own existence, the full experience of which is tantamount to experiencing its own death.
"You further speak of ‘the power of pure awareness’. Let me get this right. Are you saying that at any moment, you have this power fully available to you (perhaps that you are already realized) and that there is no problem?"
No, this pure awareness is not always availed of, despite of being always and fully available.
"If you are not already ‘realised’, does it matter? If it does matter, what are you proposing as a remedy? Are you, perhaps, expecting to become realised through a gradual process of intensification of the memory that ‘there is nothing to do’, or what?"
As far as I can tell, self-realisation is meeting and fully experiencing your deepest doubt, and the resulting 'ego death', as described above - nothing else. My guess is that everything else one does in the name of self-realisation, especially the acceptance of the reality of a 'spiritual path', is in fact an elaborate sub-conscious game aimed at postponing the moment of truth, of avoiding the very thing one is convinced one is seeking.
"I have to say that it is disconcerting, to say the least, trying to discuss anything with a person who keeps dragging in mantras like ‘I do nothing at all’ to quell all argument".
'Quell'? I think 'advance' is the word you were looking for ... :-)
"I would just like you to honestly answer: what is the nature of your everyday moment by moment mental life?"
Not too different from yours and most people's, I guess ...
"Are you truly always remembering that you are the witness etc.? Are there no other convictions?"
No, this is not always remembered; and yes, there are lots of convictions.
"If not, what stops you from doing so"
hmm ... human nature?
"... and what do you see as a remedy for this? Or is there no need for one? How, in other words, is ignorance eliminated?"
As I said before, I am not really in the business of 'eliminating' and 'dissolving' stuff - to me this is about 'allowing', 'accepting' and 'seeing through'. If stuff dissolves, this is incidental and none of my business - after all, I am just the observer :-)
"Or are you simply unaffected by it? Are you permanently living in the Here and Now?"
Depends what you mean by 'you'. I (Rudi) am affected by it. I (the Here and Now) is not.
Dear Rudi,
Thank you for your remarks. This is getting quite interesting.
I don’t altogether disagree with a lot of what you say, although I keep feeling that there is some missing element in what you say, something that doesn’t quite make sense or add up.
In the interest of furthering the argument (in the best sense of that word, of course) I am willing to take back the language of ‘defeating’, ‘challenging’, ‘dissolving’, etc. OK, take it that these words were being used metaphorically.
Instead, I would be very happy to describe the process as simply allowing these identity-forming doubts and limiting ideas to be seen clearly under the light of whatever unobscured consciousness is available at the time.
[I suspect, by the way, that one aspect of the Path, an entity, I know, that you do not admit the validity of (and by the way, what about that reference? I still do not think Shankara said that!), is the clearing of the mind and heart and the cultivation of Sattva so that the witness is able to witness freely without impediments, i.e. dust on the mirror, as it were.]
This witnessing is probably half the job. But the other half would be to discover the basic erroneous ideas that lie at the root of the doubts, and then to reason them out of existence. According to my own understanding, bolstered by what I have read from sources I consider authoritative (alright, probably looks like a get out, but I do not specify for the sake of brevity) the lower self is only ready to relinquish its hold once its irrational fears are unraveled through a kind of reasoning process.
Here I expect we meet at loggerheads. I suspect the bit that is missing from your account is a place for the individual to exercise intelligence, ingenuity and even cunning. In this respect I am perhaps a free-marketeer. I think we are given an intellect for a reason. It is not intended that we just sit around waiting for the nanny state to do the job for us. It is up to us to find a way to bring about what the Upanishads call ‘the cutting through of the knots of the heart’. After all, when I say ‘us’, I am referring to nothing less than the Supreme Self itself, which, in the vyavahara world of duality acts through agents – you and me, lad.
I have to admit that I have been rather feeling my way over the last few paragraphs, but I do not feel that I should let you get away scott free with your ‘Advaita Shuffle’ (See: i. Kevin’s blog, December 07, ’06, ‘My Name is Tony and I am an Advaitin’; ii. the WIE articles he links to &; iii. ‘Neo-Advaita or Pseudo-Advaita and Real Advaita-Nonduality’ at http://www.enlightened-spirituality.org/neo-advaita.html).
Any help from amused outsiders (the water is getting rather deep!)?
Son of Moses said...
"I would like to know where Shankara says ‘there is no path’, a quote you keep bringing up. It sounds as though it might be a line falsely attributed."
If you want detailed bibliographic evidence of where he stands regarding this question, i.e. when he said what, and in what context (i.e. evidence that the context is indeed 'liberation'), you have to do the work yourself, I'm afraid - I don't have the time (nor the inclination) to do it for you. But I promise it will be worth your while if this is truly important to you.
Shankara is both very radical and unambiguous about this. To him the notion of finding enlightenment through a spiritual path amounts to someone trying to find his spectacles by searching for them forever and everywhere, not realising that they are sitting on his nose and that he has been conducting his entire search looking through them. All this attaching of meaning and purpose to his search, this chasing after clues for reassurance that he is getting closer, his hopes and expectations forever growing, dashed and resurrected, finding solace in the company of other spectacle seekers - all this Shankara considers a drama that contributes nothing to the realisation of the truth of this man's spectacles, so to speak.
I don't remember whether it was Shankara who said "spiritual practices can only lead to a better realm of samsara, but never to salvation", but it easily could have been.
"There are books full of later over-enthusiastic verses by ‘Shankara would-be’s. Neo-advaitinism has been with us in various forms for a long time. His Holiness, for example, tells several stories about previous masters who had to cure their pupils of it."
This is sometimes referred to as 'naive non-duality' ("I do nothing at all", "nowhere to go" misinterpreted as an invitation to lose interest in the world).
But Shankara seemed an awful lot more concerned about its opposite, namely people's tendency, due to their "mental preoccupation with causality", to subtly turn the descriptive "I do nothing at all", "nowhere to go" teaching into a prescriptive one, i.e. into a spiritual path.
Which is exactly what happened, of course.
Which is why we are having this discussion.
Anyway, good luck with your investigation. Here a few references to start you off (all refer to Shankara's commentaries):
Mandukya Upanishad IV.56
"As long as there is mental preoccupation with causality, so long does the worldy state continue. When the engrossment with causality is exhausted, one does not attain the worldly state".
Mandukya Upanishad II.32
"There is no dissolution, no origination, none in bondage, none striving or aspiring for salvation, and none liberated. This is the highest Truth".
Mandukya Karika III.1
"The aspirant, betaking himself to the devotional exercises, subsists in the conditioned Brahman. All this was but the birthless Brahman before creation. Hence such a man is considered pitiable (or narrow in his outlook)".
Brahmasutra IV.iii.14
Here Shankara talks about 'seeking' with liberation as the goal, which is not possible since Brahman cannot logically be a goal to be attained: the supreme Brahman can never become a goal which pervades everything, which is inside everything, which is the Self of all .... For one cannot reach where one already is ... The well-known fact in the world is that one thing is reached by something else ...
Brahmasutra I.i.2
Here Shankara talks about striving for liberation being delusive since the notion that one thing or event can cause another is itself delusive (despite appearances in the world to the contrary). The Self, which may be considered the cause of everything, can never be the effect of anything, and "therefore no pramana (mode of knowledge) can ever present It to me". This implies that there can be no means to realise Brahma, for any means would constitute a cause and make Brahma into an effect. The realisation of Brahma, therefore, could be dependent only upon itself, and "the validity of the knowledge of an existing thing is determined by the thing itself ... the knowledge of Brahma must also be determined by the thing itself, since it is concerned with an existing entity ..."
Brhadaranyaka Upanishad I.iv.7
Objector:
"The highest form of spiritual endeavour of those on a spiritual path is attaining intuitive knowledge ... the aspirant after Brahma knowing about these alone, should attain intuitive knowledge. (The Self) is to be realised - to be heard of, reflected on and meditated upon. That is to be sought, and That one should desire to realise".
Shankara:
"Both views are wrong ...
'The Self alone is to be meditated upon' is not an original injunction. Why? Because except the knowledge that arises from the dictum setting forth the nature of the Self and refuting the non-Self, there is nothing to be done, either mentally or outwardly. An injunction is appropriate only where, over and above the knowledge that arises immediately from hearing a sentence of the nature of an injunction, an activity on the knowledge arising from a sentence ...
But apart from the knowledge arising from such passages delineating the Self as 'Not this, not this', there is no scope for human activity ... because that knowledge puts a stop to all activity. For a neutral knowledge cannot initiate any activity, since such passages as 'One only without a second' and 'Thou art that' merely remove the consciousness of any other entity but the Self or Brahma".
Brahmasutra I.i.4
All 'spiritual endeavour' implies overt or subtle 'action' towards 'attainment', and since action implies that something is either produced, acquired, modified or purified, none of these can lead to Brahma which "has no origin, cannot be attained, is immutable and transcends any possible defect". Those on the spiritual path may argue that since Brahma is experienced as separate (without being separate), this justifies the 'pursuit of Brahma', but Shankara refutes this, too: "even if Brahma were different from oneself, there can be no acquisition of Brahma, since being all-pervasive like space, It remains ever attained by everybody."
Seekers sometimes argue that a certain amount of purification is needed to attain Brahma "like a mirror whose inherent brilliance needs to be cleaned by rubbing", and that this is a gradual process (even if enlightenment itself is not). Shankara refutes this with "no action can take place without bringing about some change in its locus".
Brhadaranyaka Upanisad I.iv.7
Here Shankara speaks about the 'prescriptive' / 'descriptive' fallacy: "there is need to regulate the train of remembrance of the knowledge of the Self by having recourse to means such as renunciation and dispassion; but it is not something that is to be enjoined, being a possible alternative".
These are from other traditions:
"There is no suffering, no cause of suffering, no end of suffering, and no path; there is no wisdom, no attainment and no non-attainment".
Heart Sutra
"If anyone imagines he will get more by inner thoughts and sweet yearnings and a special grace of God than he could get beside the fire or with his flocks or in the stable, he is doing no more than trying to take God and wrap His head in a cloak and shove Him under the bench. For whoever seeks God in some special Way, will gain the Way and lose God who is hidden in the Way. But whoever seeks God without any special Way, finds Him as He really is... and He is life itself".
Meister Eckhart
"The Way is beyond language,
for in it there is no yesterday
no tomorrow
no today".
Third Patriarch of Zen in China
Rudi,
I fear that you are rather cavalierly putting words into Shankara’s mouth when you speak about ‘spectacles’ etc, but once again, if you can give me the exact reference… You certainly don’t seem to have been able to give the reference I asked you for in respect to the previous quote that you made.
I thank you for all the other references you offer, but I am not about to comb the scriptures since I know as well as you do that, as Krishna says, ‘As a man can drink water from any side of a full tank, so the skilled theologian can wrest from any scripture that which will serve his purpose.’ (Bhag. G. 2/46, trans. Purohit Swami).
I suggest that should you, in the face of Kevin’s and my own objections, have the least doubt as to the correctness of your views (which, I admit, does not seem to be your style), then, in order to satisfy yourself as to whether there is any validity in the opposition that you are meeting, you might visit the rather wonderful website of a disciple of Nisargadatta Maharaj called Timothy Conway.
I only discovered this site yesterday and, as well as being a brilliant site, RECOMMENDED TO ALL OUR READERS, it deals with the issues we are discussing brilliantly. The address is www.enlightened-spirituality.org.
I think the misunderstanding that in my view you are labouring under lies in a conflation of the three orders of reality. The quotes which you kindly looked up for me are in the main dealing with the paramartha viewpoint, which does not even recognize the separate existence of a blogger and a bloggee, let alone anything or anyone else. When you have genuinely attained to this level then it would be possible to speak about it with authority.
One place in which Timothy deals with this issue is in his interview for the Sun (not, you will readily appreciate, the British newspaper of that name). Please read this and tell us what you think. There is much else in this site on these and similar issues, as well as several letters about the disastrous transgressions of so-called teachers he has known (including Ramesh Balsekar) who have claimed that there is no dharma, no tradition, etc. etc.
I don't want to cavil about this Timothy, but someone who thinks that G.K. Chesterton was a theologian raises a question mark.
REPOST DUE TO FORMATTING PROBLEMS
Son of Moses said...
"I don’t altogether disagree with a lot of what you say, although I keep feeling that there is some missing element in what you say, something that doesn’t quite make sense or add up ..."
What is missing is the direct experience of what I am talking about. Working these things out in your mind takes you only so far.
First you say "I am willing to take back the language of ... ‘dissolving’ ... take it that these words were being used metaphorically".
A little later you are back to saying:
"... the other half would be to discover the basic erroneous ideas that lie at the root of the doubts, and then to reason them out of existence".
In other words, you have 'taken back' only the language of 'dissolving' etc, but not the underlying beliefs and attitude. Cosmetic changes of this nature won't do.
If you give consciousness a chance (as opposed to giving it "half the job", as you put it) you will find that it knows best how to deal with those 'erroneous ideas and doubts'. And you would also find that it is full of "intelligence, ingenuity and even cunning", something you seem to think it is lacking.
Consciousness lacking intelligence? Consciousness is intelligence.
"I have to admit that I have been rather feeling my way over the last few paragraphs, but I do not feel that I should let you get away scott free with your ‘Advaita Shuffle’"
You seem to think that just because I am pointing out the 'spiritual path' trap I must have fallen into its corollary, the 'naive non-duality' trap. But it is perfectly possible to avoid the former without falling into the latter.
"I fear that you are rather cavalierly putting words into Shankara’s mouth when you speak about ‘spectacles’ etc ... if you can give me the exact reference ..."
If you re-read my words you will find that it is quite clear that the 'spectacles' metaphor is mine; and that it was chosen because it reflects Shankara's views on the illusory nature of the spiritual path so perfectly, and not because he used it himself. You may not agree that it reflects his views, of course, but that is an entirely different argument.
"I thank you for all the other references you offer, but I am not about to comb the scriptures since I know as well as you do that, as Krishna says, ‘As a man can drink water from any side of a full tank, so the skilled theologian can wrest from any scripture that which will serve his purpose.’"
Good point - this is precisely why, in my last post, I stressed the importance of looking at Shankara's words in their proper context.
But why does the fact that people with no integrity have misrepresented scripture prevent you from approaching it with integrity? Are you doubting your own integrity, or what?
"I suggest that should you, in the face of Kevin’s and my own objections, have the least doubt as to the correctness of your views (which, I admit, does not seem to be your style ..."
Well observed :-)
" ... in order to satisfy yourself as to whether there is any validity in the opposition that you are meeting, you might visit the rather wonderful website ... a brilliant site, RECOMMENDED TO ALL OUR READERS, it deals with the issues we are discussing brilliantly. The address is www.enlightened-spirituality.org."
Yes, good stuff! He beautifully exposes both the 'spiritual path' trap and the 'naive non-duality' trap mentioned in my last post.
As to the 'spiritual path' trap, he says there is no path and there are no gradual stages / landmarks, and awakening is simply a 'snapping out' of the hypnotic trance that there is one (the discovery of the spectacles on one's nose, to use my metaphor), and that it leads somewhere:
"... spiritual awakening is simply ceasing to believe that one is a “me-soul-person-anything,” and remaining free as Boundless Awareness transcending / permeating all phenomena. This is, essentially, “de-hypnosis”—snapping out of a longstanding trance of limited identification, separation, reifying, clinging, worrying, strategizing. Nothing is being “done” by an ego-sense within the dream-trance, for ego—a series of contracted mind-states—has no power to do anything, being fundamentally jada (“inert”), as India’s ancient sages knew ... there’s no actual going anywhere in Awakening - no path, landmarks, stages of initiation, destination or goal “out there” in psychological space-time ... Krishnamurti declared “Truth is a pathless Land” ... "the journey is from here to HERE.”
This is what he says about the 'naive non-duality' trap:
"... it is fashionable in the neo-Advaita movement ... to dramatically emphasize the “finality” of Enlightenment and “calling off the search". The crux of this message is to cease looking for the Divine outside yourself and know that the Self is your true Self. Peace / freedom / bliss is your true nature. And that’s that!"
(quotes taken from www.enlightened-spirituality.org/Varieties_of_Nondual_Realization.html)
"I think the misunderstanding that in my view you are labouring under lies in a conflation of the three orders of reality. The quotes which you kindly looked up for me are in the main dealing with the paramartha viewpoint, which does not even recognize the separate existence of a blogger and a bloggee ..."
Yes, this is the viewpoint, and no, this is no misunderstanding. Shankara simply tells us the truth about spiritual seeking, with the full benefit of paramartha hindsight (or should that be foresight?). Which is that the whole point of the teaching is missed if it is interpreted as a prescription (rather than a description) and turned into a path with goals, intentions, strategies to 'dissolve' stuff, spiritual exercises and practices ...
Why not share this simple insight with others if there is a small chance that someone might truly hear this message, stop his frantic search for a brief moment, truly appreciate that there is "nowhere to go", touch his face and find the 'spectacles' he's been looking for all his life? Or would you rather have him labour under the illusion that there is a spiritual path that leads somewhere, when there isn't? Where is the compassion in that?
"One place in which Timothy deals with this issue is in his interview for the Sun ... Please read this and tell us what you think"
His key point apparently is that we need two kinds of spirituality:
"One is mystical spirituality or the full, inner awakening from egoism to transpersonal Awareness. The other is engaged spirituality, working for the public good or collective welfare, out of a deep sense of solidarity with all sentient beings."
I don't agree with the implication that full awakening is a bar to 'working for the public good' and having compassion for 'all sentient beings'. Full awakening EQUALS Love, Care and Compassion - or have you ever felt that HH lacked compassion for the world? The only difference is that one engages with the world out of a sense of Unity, instead of 'out of a sense of solidarity' as is the case with 'engaged spirituality'.
Having been away from this for a few days, it seems you've all been getting on perfectly well without me! Christopher, it's nice to hear from a new voice.
Son of Moses, I find myself in almost total agreement with what you've said. I would have carried on in this vein, but I felt that it wasn't getting through. And I do like the corn-treading analogy (although toothache is good as well).
A couple of things you've said, Rudi, have really taken my breath away. I laughed out loud on more than one occasion. Maybe the best example is in the most recent post where in response to SOM's query about "something missing" in what you are saying, you say
What is missing is the direct experience of what I am talking about. Working these things out in your mind takes you only so far.
!!! How can you claim that SOM has no direct experience of what you are talking about, based on an internet conversation? How can you be so arrogant - not to mention abusive? Perhaps he has far more direct experience than you.
You put me in mind of Woody Allen's crack about how he flunked philosophy at college: "I was caught looking into the soul of the boy next to me". But unless you can demonstrate that like Woody you have unknown yogic powers I think you should do your best to remain humble, and restrict your comments to disputing what people say, rather than high-handedly implying that when they reach your level they will understand ... if someone is expressing an ignorant view, that can be addressed; but if you make the mistake of regarding them as an ignorant person, there can be no meeting.
What I observe about the truly wise is that they give one a sense of equality with them, despite their boundless wisdom. Then there are those that try to make others feel small and weak. Shantananda said something about those who "clash and crush", and in my view this is an unfortunate aspect of your approach.
Although you claim to have leapt free with one bound from the School and its customs, I can recognise many of what I call old-skool games here. EG subtly undermining someone else; implying that one is the wisest person in the "room"; speaking as if one is already realised; provoking others, and then using their annoyance as proof that you are more "still" than them; and so on. I am sure you have seen all this before.
Having said all of that, your quotations from Shankara are, I think, the best contribution you've made. You clearly have done a great deal of reading and study, much more than I had previously credited, and I will read through all of those carefully.
All I would ask (he says, more in hope than expectation) is that you drop the hard-line assumption that you and nobody else "gets it". I for one am quite happy to entertain the ideas you are proposing (they are after all quite traditional in their way) but the (apparently) snooty attitude does you no favours.
I apologise if I've misread the situation, but I would hate for Son of Moses - who in all probability is as tough as old boots and merely amused by these jibes - to suffer any discomfort at the thought that others might believe what you have implied about him.
Kevin said...
"I laughed out loud on more than one occasion. Maybe the best example is in the most recent post where in response to SOM's query about "something missing" in what you are saying, you say: What is missing is the direct experience of what I am talking about. Working these things out in your mind takes you only so far".
"How can you claim that SOM has no direct experience of what you are talking about, based on an internet conversation? How can you be so arrogant - not to mention abusive? Perhaps he has far more direct experience than you."
Kevin - for goodness sake, come down from your high horse!
You got the wrong end of the stick, completely. The context of this remark is my ongoing discussion with SoM about his 'mananam' practice vs my understanding of it, which are almost diametrically opposed. We exchanged notes, and he asked for general details, specifics of experiences and clarification on a number of points regarding my understanding. I think he has a pretty good conceptual understanding by now of how I experience 'mananam', but not yet an experiential one, i.e. not yet a "direct experience of what I am talking about".
You quoted me completely out of context, and grotesquely so. In no way was I talking about his experiences per se. I appreciate that you have been away, and that you may have only glanced at, rather than read, what has been posted in the meantime. Even so, this takes the biscuit. Get a grip.
All the other stuff you said has been massively fuelled by this misunderstanding, it seems, and so I am not going to respond to it.
"I apologise if I've misread the situation ..."
You have. Apology accepted.
Er... anybody for releasing a grip???
Nice drink of Alka Seltzer anyone?
Well done, Laura, always the voice of sanity, watching over us with a motherly eye, only stepping in when the squabling children threaten to overdo it, adding her calm, measured and graceful voice to balance the situation when it gets slightly out of hand.
So you see, you do have a function here.
Nah, Son of Moses, I just don't have the testosterone for the power play.
So I check the first-aid kit from time to time....
Love you allxxx
OK, Laura. Fair enough.
Maybe if I can have a go at putting simply what I've been trying to say ...
I don't disagree with what Rudi is saying, except that it is apparently proposed as the one answer for all people, now.
Most of the 1965 conversations are taken up with Shantananda's exposition of "the Way of Devotion", "the Way of Love". Elsewhere he speaks of a "Way of Action" and a "Way of the Householder". One of the conversations has a long, detailed description of nine steps on the Way of Devotion.
In the Gita we have the ways of action, renunciation, etc etc.
The Indian tradition generally acknowledges a progression through life, with the four stages of student, householder, forest-dweller and renunciate - each more free and detached than the previous.
All progressions, alternatives ... paths and ways. OK, ultimately "truth is a trackless land", but these preliminary structures are there to help, and have been found to help, over millennia.
I didn't really give a full response to the original letter.
I personally find that the language of the letter is moderate, gentle and open. It allows all of us the space to explore things for ourselves, and it invites us to do so.
However, I think there is a lot of work needed by the leading figures in the School to help members of the School to take up this invitation, because there are strong (and unacknowledged) tendencies within our collective sanskara towards obedience to command rather than, shall we say, curiosity.
Damian F wrote an excellent letter which he shared with me about the obstacles to speech - I will ask him whether he would object to its publication here.
I think like Katherine that the 'activities' of the School are valid, because they arise from the enthusiasms of its individual members. I also believe that there is (and has always been) too much focus on us, rather than on the needs of the universe. The whole "duty" system needs to be re-examined, because it tends to create a situation where people are sucked in to working for the School alone, and have nothing left to give elsewhere. As a parent of the day school a few years back I was involved in fund raising and it was noticeable that the parents who were members of the School were (with some exceptions) usually less willing to help than others. So we need to stop empire-building, and instead build the School to serve.
I think it is there to serve liberation and, en route, to serve the needs of the world for philosophical enquiry. I don't agree, as I've said, that there is any problem or contradiction in this.
Katherine's point about the nakedness of truth is of course taken as well. There is a kind of obsession with administration in the School that is linked to the control of thoughts and behaviour and this IS a distraction from the real point, but I would distinguish that from people exploring their own enthusiasms - IE following their hearts. I don't think, for example, that translating Hermes is a distraction from the work. My view is that since all of us have to work, then if it is creative and challenging work then all the better. I'm sure others will disagree and they are entitled to their opinion.
Far from disagreeing, K - the 'obstacles to speech' are a major obstacle.
Speech is so powerful that it can free or enslave in seconds.
Please, would Damian post his letter here?
Kevin said...
"I don't disagree with what Rudi is saying, except that it is apparently proposed as the one answer for all people, now"
This discussion is mainly about the School's understanding of liberation, and whether there is a progressive path. If there is no progressive path to liberation, as a matter of fact, then this necessarily applies to ALL people, NOW. But this does NOT mean that I have a view what individuals should or shouldn't do, what action is appropriate for them etc.
"Most of the 1965 conversations are taken up with Shantananda's exposition of "the Way of Devotion", "the Way of Love". Elsewhere he speaks of a "Way of Action" and a "Way of the Householder". One of the conversations has a long, detailed description of nine steps on the Way of Devotion."
Exactly - 'most'.
But there comes a point (on p. 76/77, softcover version) where he seems to become concerned that his 76 pages worth of wonderful descriptions could be taken as 'actual' and be interpreted as 'real', and he says:
"But these [descriptions] are only to explain what the creation is. In fact, it is, as we all know, only illusion, for it is all the imagination of the Absolute".
He then uses the example of a child who is unable to calculate '4 pounds plus 4 pounds' because it thinks 'as I have not got four pounds how can I calculate'? He says:
"The only possible way would be to give him artifical coins or balls so that he can get going with his arithmetic. When the subtle course of imagination fails so that one cannot understand a problem, then the physical is substituted so that the knowledge may be imparted ... All these manifestations are immaterial, and what matters is knowledge. This knowledge is again wrapped up in such a way that children may understand. All these pictures of creation are not real ... more like a dream. Whatever we see in a dream is seen to be an illusion when one wakes up ... All our search for knowledge is only to get a direction in order to see that all this is illusion; and the way is not get attached to it. Where is the sequence in illusion?"
These 'pictures of creation' are NOT REAL. There is NO SEQUENCE. There is NO PATH. Do NOT get attached to them. In other words, DO NOT FALL INTO THE 'SPIRITUAL PATH TRAP'.
He goes on to tell the story of the potter and the '500 clay coins', and how they casually begin to be referred to as '500 coins', and are eventually taken to be real coins. The story illustrates how mere descriptions and pointers can suddenly come to be perceived as the real thing.
"The cleverness is the stupidity with which most people live in the world."
It seems in the 40 years since these words were spoken we have somehow managed to turn the clay coins, his descriptions, into hard currency, actuality. His descriptions, intended only as triggers for our 'subtle imagination', have started to assume a life of their own. The finger is once again being mistaken for the moon, as so many times before in the history of spirituality.
"All progressions, alternatives ... paths and ways. OK, ultimately "truth is a trackless land", but these preliminary structures are there to help, and have been found to help, over millennia".
No, not 'ultimately', but now and always. This little trick of the mind, suspending Truth temporarily and promising to return to it at some undefined moment in the future, CREATES the path. And now, being safe, the mind happily goes on its long, long search for Truth ... searching everywhere, reading and studying extensively (but always stopping at page 76, so to speak) ... 'dissolving' any doubts that may arise ... seeking re-assurance by mixing with like-minded people ...
"They have been found to help, over millenia"
Yes, the 'path' interpretation of the teaching can be very helpful in giving people's lives meaning and a sense of purpose - and I wouldn't dream of discounting this in any way. But self-realisation is not about 'improving' the dream, but its opposite - waking up to it. And I am not aware of a single personal account of self-realisation where the seeker did not radically break with the path interpretation after realising that this was, and always had been, a subtle way of avoiding the moment of Truth.
Previous Quotes
"Spiritual practices can only lead to a better realm of samsara, but never to salvation"
"For whoever seeks God in some special Way, will gain the Way and lose God who is hidden in the Way. But whoever seeks God without any special Way, finds Him as He really is... and He is life itself".
Meister Eckhart
OK, but if it's so clear to you (who have only partial sight of the truth) then why does Shantananda (with a constant view of it) spend 75 pages saying what in your view is false? He evidently believes that there is some point to it, don't you think? And if he speaks like that sometimes, cannot others do the same?
What he recognises is that most people have to go along an apparent path before the illusion can be seen. That is exactly what he says, especially with regard to those following knowledge and action - "there is a certain time element". Only devotees can go straight to the end, he says.
Since you've conceded that you're just an ordinary mortal like me or (say) Laura, and therefore still subject to the dream, then your beliefs are pretty much on a level with ours, just beliefs. Maybe better, maybe worse. The 1965 Conversation (say) is a relatively simple text but we have demonstrated here that it is possible by reading selectively to draw opposite conclusions.
Shantananda is different to us in terms of his wisdom. I think it is significant that he goes around the houses to such a degree.
PS The point Diogenes made above was good ... Shankara says that it is a matter of waking up from the dream, not to the dream. I understand he calls it "badha", or sublimation.
The point of the famous analogy is that when we see the rope, we don't continue to see the snake: we no longer see the snake at all, nor feel any of the emotions connected with a snake.
Until then, we see snakes everywhere, whether or not we admit it.
Regarding the way/no way question (no way!), I recently stumbled upon the following Nisargadatta quote which perhaps brings another angle to the discussion:
"Unless you make tremendous efforts, you will not be convinced that effort will take you nowhere. The self is so self-confident that unless it is totally discouraged it will not give up. Mere verbal conviction is not enough. Hard facts alone can show the absolute nothingness of the self-image."
Gita 6,3 is also intriguing in this question:
"For the sage who wishes to ascend to yoga, action is said to be the means. For that person, when he has ascended to yoga, inaction alone is said to be the means."
Practically, I suggest the intelligent approach is to say:
- if the mind is still, then I don't need to do anything to attain yoga. Unnecessary 'doing' is likely to be counterproductive and create more disturbance.
- if the mind is 'disturbed' then 'enlightened' action is likely to be more beneficial, bringing groundedness to the mind or replacing a binding thought with a less binding one..?
The first few verses of this chapter are also interesting in relation to the word 'sankalpa'. A word that I am not convinced we use correctly in the school..?
Dear Kapila,
Spot on, I think. This is what I was feeling for when I spoke about developing sattva.
The ‘right’ information or effort reflected in the wrong guna might turn out to be entirely counter-productive. So if some over-enthusiastic aspirant tries to put ‘higher’ understanding into practice when he or she are still prey to the grosser type of desires, defences and subconscious fears, they might find themselves using their supposedly ‘enlightened’ understanding to prove themselves better than others, or to avoid hard work, or for some other undesirable and unenlightened purpose.
As for sankalpa, there are, of course, useful ones and the opposite. The useful ones, presumably, will eventually remove the others, if tackled under the right guidance and with the correct approach.
I’m with Kevin in respect of their being different people with different needs; ultimately I believe we are all different in the path we have to take, while at the same time all the same in our true nature and final aim. I don’t think it does anyone any favours to tell them that there is no path if they are not ready for that knowledge (and I suspect that there are very few who ARE ready and CAN use that knowledge fruitfully).
I agree 'horses for courses' though I still think 'doing' defined as the 'psychological pressure' associated with action or the expectation to act (i.e, I'm not doing 'enough') is a problem for many of us.
I have appreciated Rudi's offerings btw. Particularly with regard to the definitions of 'descriptive' and 'prescriptive'. A realised man may well walk in a particular way but my imitating his walk won't make me self-realised! This helps to clarify something. Thanks.
Kevin said...
"... why does Shantananda ... spend 75 pages saying what in your view is false? He evidently believes that there is some point to it, don't you think?"
How does me quoting from page 76 imply that I believe that the first 75 pages must be wrong? I merely encouraged you to read beyond page 75, and then interpret pages 1 to 75 in the light of what he says on subsequent pages, and vice versa. Integrating the two 'viewpoints', as it were. And see what difference this makes to your understanding.
Shantananda's path descriptions on the one hand, and his warnings on how not to interpret them on the other hand (i.e. not to look at them as something 'sequential', i.e. anything akin to an actual path) are only contradictory to the mind, but not in reality. To the mind these (seemingly) irreconcilable statements are a big, big nuisance, which is why it tries to get rid of them - this is most easily done by categorising the most irritating elements as 'ultimate' truth, to be dealt with at some unspecified time in the future (which, as everyone on a spiritual path knows full well, means never).
Listening to Shantananda's DEscriptions without translating them into PREscriptions, activities and a path can be an extremely uncomfortable place to be in - but nevertheless, this is the only place where I have ever had any truly meaningful insights into the teaching.
"And if he speaks like that sometimes, cannot others do the same?"
This is not about 'speaking like him' (and even less so about 'speaking selectively like him'), but about realising the same understanding as him. And this is only possible if one considers his teaching in its entirety.
"What he recognises is that most people have to go along an apparent path before the illusion can be seen. That is exactly what he says, especially with regard to those following knowledge and action - "there is a certain time element". Only devotees can go straight to the end, he says."
A tiny shift in emphasis, and his glorious teaching of eternal presence is turned into a path teaching. The so-called time element is not one where "people have to go along an apparent path", but where "people appear to go along a path" - this is only how it appears! Time is an illusion just as the rest of creation. Just as Shantananda said: there is nothing sequential happening here.
Reason alone suggests that one can't possibly travel along an 'apparent', i.e. non-exisisting, path. But the mind, basically, doesn't care. It wants a path, and so it creates one. Then it puts up a wall around the idea, protecting its precious path, and resolves to 'dissolve' any doubts that might arise - and all this in the name of Truth.
Until, one day, the heart breaks open and all suppressed doubts bubble to the surface ...
‘Until, one day, the heart breaks open and all suppressed doubts bubble to the surface ...’
Nice scene-painting, Rudi, but the question arises as to whether you are speaking from experience or only wishful thinking. And even if you are self-realised, that does not mean the same approach will work for everybody.
There is a Nasrudin story where he sits by a lake, spooning in yoghurt. A friend comes along and asks him what he is doing. ‘Why, I am making yoghurt from this lake’, he replies. ‘But everyone knows that you can’t make yoghurt out of water, you have to use milk’, protests his friend. ‘Yes, yes, I know’, our hero says with a lump in his throat and a far away look in his eyes, ‘But what if it worked?’
Avoiding the issue can waste a lot of time. Eventually, however, one will have to go through all the steps without looking for short cuts. Have you heard of the analogy of the two thorns? Granted that the problem we have got ourselves into is of our own mental fabricating; nonetheless, we have to get ourselves out of it by the same means. Only then comes the time for both to be thrown away.
kapila said...
"Unless you make tremendous efforts, you will not be convinced that effort will take you nowhere. The self is so self-confident that unless it is totally discouraged it will not give up. Mere verbal conviction is not enough. Hard facts alone can show the absolute nothingness of the self-image" (N Maharaj)
I think that's it. Practically all personal accounts of self-realisation show that the search for the 'spectacles' (to use that metaphor), the seeking along a spiritual path in one form or another, can consume a frightening amount of time, energy and goodwill before disillusionment sets in and the entire emotional investment is finally written off. And it is only then that the real journey, from here to Here, begins.
Son of Moses said...
"I don’t think it does anyone any favours to tell them that there is no path if they are not ready for that knowledge (and I suspect that there are very few who ARE ready and CAN use that knowledge fruitfully)."
I suspect so few are ready BECAUSE they have never heard this simple message expressed clearly, succinctly and unequivocally.
Obviously, one would NEVER shove this down people's throats, or use ANY form of pressure, manipulation or other means of imparting it against their will, however subtle.
But I really can't think of a good reason for actively withholding the Truth (or any part of it) - in my experience, people who on paper look extremely unlikely candidates for coming to the realisation of 'there is no path' are no more and no less likely to do so than those who 'seem ready'. And there is no compassion in letting people struggle unnecessarily on the (garden) path.
kapila said...
"I have appreciated Rudi's offerings btw. Particularly with regard to the definitions of 'descriptive' and 'prescriptive'. A realised man may well walk in a particular way but my imitating his walk won't make me self-realised!"
Yes, imitating / acquiring knowledge / spiritual practices - all these will have the exact opposite effect.
In Robert Pirsig's words: "It is a puzzling thing. The Truth knocks on the door and you say, "Go away, I'm looking for the truth" ... and so it goes away."
Son of Moses said...
"Until, one day, the heart breaks open and all suppressed doubts bubble to the surface ..."
"Nice scene-painting, Rudi, but the question arises as to whether you are speaking from experience or only wishful thinking."
From experience.
"And even if you are self-realised, that does not mean the same approach will work for everybody."
Wait a minute ... not so fast ... the breaking open of the heart, and with it the realisation that there is no path, is not the same as self-realisation. Nor am I saying, of course, that others' experiences will be the same as mine - that would be absurd; I am only generalising in as much as I am arguing that 'if there is no path, as a matter of fact, then this would apply to everybody, always'.
"Avoiding the issue can waste a lot of time. Eventually, however, one will have to go through all the steps without looking for short cuts."
But there is a difference between 'avoiding unnecessary steps' and 'looking for shortcuts'. I would argue that heeding Shantananda's warnings about not turning his descriptions into prescriptions, i.e. into a spiritual path, falls into the category 'avoiding unnecessary steps', and not into the category 'looking for shortcuts'.
"Have you heard of the analogy of the two thorns? Granted that the problem we have got ourselves into is of our own mental fabricating; nonetheless, we have to get ourselves out of it by the same means. Only then comes the time for both to be thrown away."
Yes, but turning Shantananda's descriptions into prescriptions, into a path, has the effect of the thorn (the teaching) driving the thorn (ignorance) deeper into the flesh. Only if the thorn (the descriptions) is used properly (in accordance with what he says on p. 76/77) will it have have the intended effect, i.e. remove the thorn of ignorance.
"we have to get ourselves out of it by the same means" - maybe 'by the same means', but surely not by making the same mistake - see R Pirsig quote above - over and over!
Afternoon all ... it's a beautiful day, no?
When it comes down to the difference between people apparently going down paths and going down apparent paths, I begin to wonder whether there's much more to say on this topic.
After 15,000 words and 56 comments ... well we do like to talk in the School. Cup of tea anyone?
'To Apparently Go Down Paths or To Go Down Apparent Paths' is admittedly not quite as elegant as 'To Be or Not To Be', but points to the same fundamental understanding. It's the difference between knowing yourself as Stillness, and knowing yourself as Restless Seeking.
We can actually be quite proud of ourselves - Shakespeare wasted a lot more words before coming up with his wonderfully succinct description, words that encapsulate all there is to know.
This is obviously not about being clever with words but about the willingness to surrender fully, unconditionally and irreversibly to that which they point to.
May I, with joined palms, offer to all concerned a quotation from Ramana Maharshi's disciple, Sri Poomjaji:
"Just be quiet."
:-)
Post a Comment