Emergent Bodhicitta

(The previous post on Buddhist Evolution concluded that "Giving birth to bodhicitta becomes nondual with giving birth to a new level of authenticity, the latter a natural continuation of the former." Let's move on.)

I guess you know about bodhicitta, the awakening mind. It's often presented as absolute and relative, so there you have the very subject (i.e. citta) as the locus of the greatest tension: the tension between that which is only and self-evidently real yet hidden from most, namely the absolute, and that which appears to be for some and appears to not be for others while all remain excited about it, namely the relative. Absolute bodhicitta is born from wisdom beyond all elaboration, the truth of emptiness, and is in short the non-relative position to everything - all phenomena, all experiences, all situations, all conditions, all states. The relative bodhicitta is usually explained as intention and application, or aspiring and engaging, to realize the absolute bodhicitta. According to the traditional understanding of the path, as in the five stages on the path of a bodhisattva, training in relative bodhicitta to realize absolute bodhicitta takes a very, very, very long time. In short, it most probably ain't in this life, so....

(*If we go into details of that model, we'll quickly have to conclude that it does not fit our reality. I'm not aiming at that, not here. If you're interested in a no non-sense perspective on un/realistic models, see Dan Ingram's discussion by reading chapter 31, parts I-XI, from his book "Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha".)

Absolute bodhicitta is, therefore, as yet unrealized for the regular aspirant to awakening. But the View must be in place if we are to practice properly, right? And absolute is crucial in the View, yes? We need correct intellectual intimations and strong direct intuitions of this fundamental fact to aspire and be moved to translate that aspiration into a discipline of purification and transformation. So, the absolute must be established by experience, through a spontaneous recognition, or through association with a teacher, or through pointing out, or through diligent study and analysis, or all of the above or whatever - it must be established for the View to be in place, for without the absolute the View cannot be. Admittedly, the absolute has not as yet arisen as a realization for the seeker, as an unassailable fact from which there is no lapse, but a non-relative recognition must be there for practice to make any real sense. This paradox involves and/or introduces the notion of buddha-nature, which is synonymous with absolute bodhicitta. Some schools see the relative bodhicitta as an aspect of buddha-nature, while some would go one step further and make the two bodhicittas essentially one. The situation gets very interesting very quickly, because what you're seeking for is who you in fact already are, and who you in fact are is not passive but unceasingly active in relation to your myopic predicament, and your seeking is in turn - at least ideally - a response to that. So there are these two levels of knowing and will in mutual resonance. Enter evolution.

Evolution is the becoming itself - samsara plus directionality - and at this point when evolution is becoming aware of itself in us, and as us, the one awakening to consciousness is beginning to recognize the purpose behind the very potential of freedom. Embracing evolution is embracing the world of causes and conditions in a very special way, from the position of what I would call emergent bodhicitta. This is an opportunity not simply for awakening - because Wakefulness in any of its modalities (ground, path, or fruition) is already at the heart of this emergence, hence bodhi citta - but for giving an ever-fresh meaning, purpose and expression to what has already begun awakening to itself in both ultimate and relative terms. While such emergent bodhicitta has several important ramifications in Buddhism for the 21st century, the crucial one is making sure that the mysterious motive inherent in the continuity of Ground, Path, and Fruition gets reaffirmed as a fathomless drive to novelty. In short, this entails creating a new culture of radical awareness, beyond sectarian loyalties with their crippling effect on individuals' critical faculties, and beyond the patent unwillingness to face awakening in real time while indefinitely postponing transformation and creating buddhistish nestworks (I'm not sure this translates well... whatever).

Of course we'll always have a downtranslated, horizontal Buddhist culture at various levels of sophistication, but such culture of what is essentially spiritual embellishment is dependent on and owes its very existence to the culture of depth, that is, to authenticity and vitality at the core of liberation. Authenticity is preserved by maintaining constant access to absolute realization, and vitality by maintaining full relevance in terms of understanding and presenting the purpose and meaning of that realization. The former equals utmost depth, the latter equals highest perspective.

R/Evolution Be Upon Us

"A revolution is upon us", says Alan Wallace, stemming from the exploration of consciousness and the mind, using direct, immediate, first-hand observation -- meditation. "A new axial age", says Karen Armstrong, so that "once again, a radical change has become necessary." Andrew Cohen and Ken Wilber take a strong position on this issue and say we must be willing to break the rules. An excerpt:

AC: To dare to even speak about radical transformation, let alone call other people to a higher level, is against the unstated rules. And of course, one's definitely going to be put in one's place for doing something like that. But unless the possibility of genuine transformation is actually declared, unless one is willing to demonstrate it publicly and to call other people to the same, no one is even going to know that it's possible. And then unknowingly, everybody's going to be participating in the conspiracy of mediocrity.

KW: Yes, the conspiracy of mediocrity, which is basically the conspiracy to express your ego instead of transcending it or letting go of it. The idea is "If I can really emote and express my self-contraction with sincerity, I'm somehow spiritual." So then we have a convention of the self-contractions, and that's basically boomeritis spirituality. It's a problem, to put it mildly. And it's a concern to me that a lot of teachers actually embrace that kind of postmodern flatland pluralism.

AC: Well, I think that part of the reason for that is that many people are teaching now who actually have had little if any enlightenment experience or satori themselves. And if one is a teacher and yet has little authentic experience on which to base one's teaching, one is going to end up being in the kind of position you described.

KW: I think that's certainly part of the picture. Another part of the picture, which concerns me even more, is that I know some teachers who have had a very strong satori, but they still interpret it through the mental apparatus that they have in place. And so they interpret it through boomeritis, the mean green meme, pluralistic flatland. And that, frankly, is extremely unsettling.

This subject of an emerging spirituality at the beginning of the 21st century, and the obvious obstacles to its unfolding, is definitely an extremely important one. Not just for those of us in the postmodern West, but equally for those who are backstroking everywhere in an attempt to preserve some semblance of value and purpose. In Western Buddhist circles little is done to stir this awareness and discussion of an emerging, radically sane spiritual culture, as if we are less-then-confident in the potential of teachings if we acknowledge that something unprecedented and unpredicted is taking place, something not to be found in sutras and tantras of old, except as a hint that nothing ever stays the same, including both the teachings and our purpose for realizing and manifesting enlightenment. As we know all too well, the world does not wait. Something new is being born, right now.

Now, this newborn has a human face. As Rumi invoked for all of us, this newborn is "not Christian or Jew or Muslim, not Hindu, Buddhist, Sufi or Zen". This makes the Newborn somewhat uninteresting for those of us who believe that preserving the legacy is of utmost importance, as well as for those who believe that doing away with the essence of that legacy - namely, the ever-fresh discovery of freedom - is even possible. However, this Newborn is in all probability our only chance of seeing this century bloom in terms of a global civilization. This new expression of our common Ground, informed by a sharp evolutionary awareness and demanding clear action and a rational way of being beyond any vestige of self-righteousness, is the only true fountain of inspiration for not just a sustainable but also creative future. Ethically, philosophically, and spiritually, this impersonal Newborn needs mature human beings as agents in every conceivable form and then some.

As Robert Godwin says, in an interview to WIE,

there is not just one but four unaccountable singularities in existence—Matter, Life, Mind, and Spirit—that mark the unfolding of new dimensions in the cosmos. At each of these levels of evolution, there’s a deepening interiority. That’s the vertical dimension. It’s the deepening interior of the cosmos. Each is in its own way a bang, a unique one-of-a-time warp between what was before and what came after. The first bang goes from nothing to a very exquisitely ordered something. With the second bang, we go from a dead universe to a living universe. That’s pretty bizarre. With the third singularity, we go from a living universe to a thinking and creating universe that mirrors the creator. That’s very bizarre. And then the most bizarre is the fourth singularity when we human beings have the spiritual revelation, “Aha! I am That,” which is very unexpected.

And then points further,

How do ironists find something that they revere and don’t just mock and look down upon? How do you make them look up? That’s the trick. [...] In some form or fashion, you have to find something that you spontaneously bow to, that you revere. And it can’t be something lower. It can’t just be Gaia. It’s got to be something higher that you recognize as such that makes you fall to your knees spontaneously. [...] Look at the external movement of human evolution, going out of Africa and into Europe, then crossing the Atlantic, then coming to the East Coast of the United States, and then slowly migrating into the frontier—to the West Coast. Then the frontier closes. By the 1890s, there is nothing left. That’s when the interior journey really starts on a cultural level. You start seeing postmodern people like James Joyce, Einstein, Picasso. All of a sudden, you see much more focus on the interior as the new frontier. We are now just beginning to explore that interior frontier. That’s what’s so exciting about it. People long for that old frontier: “Oh, gosh, I wish I could go live on the frontier again.” But the frontier is here and now. The interior frontier is here, ready to be conquered and explored and inhabited. It’s so exciting. We’re on this incredible interior journey now, and we’re finding out that this is the only journey that is or has ever been. Because for us, the exterior frontier was actually an interior frontier all along. It was a longing for new horizons, for new experiences. All along it was that. But now we don’t have the inconvenience of the material world to worry about. We don’t have to “Go west, young man.” Now it’s “Go in and go up. Become inwardly mobile.” That’s the real journey and the next evolution.

How do you resonate with that?

A Call to Arms for the Postmodern Male

By Andrew Cohen, from the current issue of WIE.

. .

Until I was in my early twenties, I never even thought about what it meant to be a man. I grew up in an upper-middle-class secular Jewish family in Manhattan and went to liberal, progressive schools throughout my childhood. I never had a bar mitzvah, the Jewish boy’s traditional rite of passage into manhood. My brother, who is five years older, used to beat me up on a regular basis from before I can remember, which turned me into a bit of a wuss. I was always one of the last picked when we engaged in competitive sports, and it goes without saying that I lacked confidence. Endeavoring to relieve my insecurities, my mother sent me to a therapist at the ripe old age of five.

My father, who was not an introspective man, loved me deeply. When I was eleven my parents separated, and shortly after my fifteenth birthday, my father died a slow and painful death. During those years and afterward, I spent a lot of time with my mother, who was at the time a passionate advocate of feminist values. My teachers in the three different high schools I attended in the United States and in Europe were generally decent, sophisticated, and well-meaning people. But when I think back on those days from the wisdom of my current fifty-two years, I’m stunned by the realization that no adult, including even my counselors at summer camp, ever counseled me about what it means to be a man. I now understand that I wasn’t the only one in this strange predicament—in fact, it seems to be a cultural phenomenon. I don’t think this subject was brought up in any situation I was ever in until I began to think about it myself in my early twenties.

When I was twenty-two, as a result of a profound spiritual experience that had occurred six years earlier, I seriously committed myself to becoming an enlightened human being. My first step was to take up a disciplined daily practice of martial arts because I wanted to become strong. I wanted to conquer my fear; I wanted to be tough—I wanted to be a man.

At the age of thirty, after much serious practice and dedicated searching, I found what I was looking for in Mother India. To my own astonishment, I ended up in the uncomfortable position of becoming a spiritual teacher virtually overnight! In this unusual profession where soft and sweet are generally considered to be the hallmarks of authenticity, I’ve been the very opposite. Almost from the start, I’ve had a reputation for being bold, strong, direct, and confident—for more than a few of my contemporaries, too confident.

Ever since my life turned upside down in this way, I’ve had the rare privilege of meeting and interacting with many different people from all over the world. I’ve gotten to know lots and lots of men. And I came to recognize that the majority seemed to share the same perplexing postmodern cultural predicament that I did: Very few seem to have ever considered the perennial question, What does it mean to be a man?

I’ll never forget my surprise when I discovered a hidden secret about some men who have seriously considered this question. I’m talking about men who are invested in being tough and who can project an air of confidence that is uniquely masculine—the kind of man that I at one time in my life had aspired to be. I’m talking about students of mine who were martial artists of high attainment. I was amazed when I discovered that whenever one of these tough guys was in a situation that required that they trust a little more and give up a bit of the control they were so invested in, they usually fell into an utter panic. Underneath their bravado, even though they weren’t afraid of a street fight, they were terrified of real intimacy, especially spiritual intimacy. Ironically, this would come to the surface especially when they came together with other men—spiritual brothers who were committed to creating a new culture together, a culture based upon higher values, the evolution of consciousness, and the commitment to be strong, transparent, and authentic at all times.

I became a man when I found the courage and conviction to trust God more than I trusted the fears and desires and conditioned thinking of my puny ego. The first expression of authentic manhood was when I boldly declared from the therapist’s couch, “I don’t want to do this anymore; I want to be free!” and noticed no hint of fear in myself when the therapist responded strongly, “But Andrew, you’re barely getting started!” The final moment of transition happened eight years later. My longing for liberation had become so all-consuming that I was ready to let go completely—to die to everything I had known and been up to that point. I was sitting in front of my last teacher, passionately telling him, with a hint of desperation, “I want to die, but I don’t know how.” I can visualize that moment as if it was yesterday, and I clearly remember that he remained silent. At first he looked shocked, and then tears welled up in his eyes.

What it means to be a man, of course, always relates directly to the cultural context within which the question is being asked. We are living in a very challenging time, when old values are crumbling and new ones are just barely beginning to emerge—including what it means to be a real man. My experience as a spiritual teacher in the midst of this upheaval has convinced me beyond any doubt that it will be impossible for the postmodern male to become a vibrant, powerful, and truly evolved expression of the masculine principle unless he pays the ultimate price by transcending his culturally conditioned, overly sensitive, highly narcissistic, and painfully arrogant self. A cultural revolution at the leading edge needs strong, liberated, and highly evolved men to be compelling examples of what is possible for us all. That’s what spiritually enlightened men do.

. .

(See original article.)

On Just Sitting

Another cross-post from Dharma Overground. The thread entitled "Fundamental Non-discrimination" was opened with the following remark:

I've been lurking on this forum for a while now. I thought I would see what you guys thought about the method of no method found in Chan (Zen), Dzogchen, MahaMudra and Taoism. Just sitting in Fundamental Non-discrimination. Just relaxed, still awareness of what is. Do you guys feel, assuming one is capable of actually achieving it, one can practice this alone and skip structured shamatha and vipassana practice? Do you guys think "just sitting" can take one all the way to enlightenment - the realisation of one's fundamental nature as it is here and now?

These are interesting and challenging questions, of course, and throughout history the dispute remains strong between proponents of gradual cultivation and direct realization, and simultaneously between those who emphasize a combination of methods vs. those who prefer the simplicity of a non-method. Some of my reflections, taken from that thread--

The method [of just sitting, or simple awareness] is practiced in conjunction with View, which is differently formulated in [various] traditions, but the method is essentially identical, even when instructions differ. In Theravada, this is practiced as "choiceless awareness". This "non-method" (a tricky term itself pointing to the innate cognizance at the root of experience, instead of something introduced through cultivation) also proceeds through stages of unfolding in practitioners' capacity to maintain natural, uncontrived attention. This process may be used to explore the conventional nature of mind (e.g. what is mind), but only rarely will it result in spontaneous recognition of mind's nature, without specific investigation being undertaken. The first is equivalent to shamatha, and the second to vipashyana. "One method" is a slippery notion. Still, it's quite impossible to reach higher stages of realization WITHOUT recourse to non-meditation. It's not a panacea, however.

Speaking of practical application, naked awareness can give one an initial taste of the nature of mind, especially through pointing out instructions of a qualified teacher. To stabilize this flash of recognition more than one technique is needed, even if it's the non-technique. Thus, the suitability of naked awareness to cover the early and middle stages is rather limited to individuals with a rare predilection. Even for them, though, it will not be sufficient for a mature, integrated wisdom. Combining structured and unstructured approaches seems the way to go.

Also, such practice is not designed to specifically address different obstacles and imbalances that will arise for most if not all. So, in all traditions mentioned, we find many other methods along with the non-method. And, again, the View is crucial for less structured (not entirely unstructured) forms of meditative cultivation, as in other cases...

As far as awakening to the ever-present nature of our mind is concerned, that is, as far as liberating insight in itself is concerned, [the non-method] may very well be all you need (if that's the path you choose, of course, in the context of those teachings that indeed offer this option). But then, there are several additional dimensions you may want to explore both before and after such an awakening or, more precisely and more probably, series of several awakenings.

These several dimensions have everything to do with how one would interpret and integrate the realization, even when dealing with the self-confirming and unquestionable clarity of full awakening. The first that comes to mind is conceptual understanding (and I have emphasized that before as View) which not only provides a map of the path, but also the basis for a balanced interpretation of that which arises during and after meditation. Everyone has a view, whether or not they work on it, and the view they have can do real damage to an otherwise fine contemplative effort. The ridiculous taboo of intellectual sophistication present among certain practitioners of meditation is so baseless. Of course, when on cushion, shut up and practice.:-) But every single school makes good use of intellectual training, including Zen, Dzogchen and Mahamudra, about which thousands of books have been written through the centuries, most by accomplished practitioners.

The second is development of compassion. Pre-awakening as actual heart-based discipline of opening and embracing, and post-awakening as integration of the liberated awareness into everything one does and feels and thinks and says, so to thoroughly dismantle the dichotomy of sacred and mundane in action.

And the third is developing experience of fullness along with insight into emptiness, without which one may develop a very lopsided awakening. Along with traditional methods, as found in tantric practice, one may also think of complementary methods, such as qigong and other forms of physical exercise that engage subtle energies. Further on, speaking of fullness, awakening does develop through centuries, at least in the relative domain. And so one will want to have the fullest available expression of this inner awakening not just in an intellect that can coherently express the core of what has been discovered without undue gross distortion, plus broad and flexible enough to accomodate and share that expression with people of different inclinations and levels of sophistication, but also in a body that serves as a vehicle for both pre-awakening and post-awakening activity in accordance with real enlightened motives and not some medieval idea of purity and sainthood. To round up the fullness issue, one would not want to miss the shadow aspects in psychological unraveling (unmapped in traditional teachings), since these tend to become fixed forever when one uses spiritual realization to bypass psychological quirks.

However, going back to [the] original question: can one really reach awakening by choiceless awareness (by whatever name) alone? Yes, most possibly yes, but with quite unpredictable results, though some may find it preposterous to think awakening can be an unpredictable result, but there you are. The process called awakening (i.e. bodhi) is usually pursued in several steps, ordered in a dialectic fashion, so that what's good at one stage is contraindicative before or after. Also, while awakening may be reduced to bare essence as a liberation of awareness from false self-identification, in fact it's a complex process in which we do our best to emancipate the whole potential as far as that doesn't interfere with the path of awakening itself, since those additional dimensions are indeed ornaments of the awakened mind, ultimately inseparable from it. Does this help?

Thurman at NYTimes Magazine

Thanks to WH for pointing to this interview with Robert Thurman at NYTimes. It's fun, as usually, to read Thurman's observations on the Dalai Lama, China, and Buddhism in American culture -

...when I am annoyed with Dick Cheney, I meditate on how Dick Cheney was my mother in a previous life and nursed me at his breast.

Nice image there. Then we have the inevitable E-question:

Do you consider yourself enlightened? Someone who goes around saying, “I’m enlightened,” is almost categorically not.

That's exactly the kind of generalization and evasion we don't need these days. Gautama the Buddha went around and said he was awakened every single day, throughout his life. His awakened disciples, from Shariputra to Kashyapa to Maudgalyayana, even his aunt Pajapati Gotami, freely proclaimed their attainment to everyone who'd listen. Examples too numerous to list abound in the histories of every major Buddhist school from India to Japan. Robert Thurman's answer should have been (1) Yes; (2) No; (3) Sometimes; (4) Partially; (5) I'm on my way but haven't made much progress; or the tantric (6) Ask my wife!

Granted, it's become customary with institutionalization of Buddhism in most Eastern cultures - from Tibet to Japan - to consider open disclosure of accomplishment as something of a taboo. Others are supposed to do it for you, and they usually do, even when it's not the case and you've been appointed to an important position.

But it's simply not true that proclamation of awakening demonstrates the opposite. And it's unbeneficial to spread this sort of political correctness in these days when most Buddhists in the West of every tradition and ilk don't even consider enlightenment in their own lives as something really doable. That is almost categorically not beneficial.

1-click Shift

One minute shift with teacher Adyashanti. Also, some cool stuff at the Cafe Dharma section of his website. Enjoy!



Thanks to WH for heads up.

On Models of Wakefulness

Vincent Horn writes in his post "How you Approach Enlightenment and Why it Matters":

It’s often recognized by meditation teachers that the notion of enlightenment carries with it a whole host of misconceptions and unhelpful interpretations. In Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha, Theravada teacher Daniel Ingram writes about this at length in his section on the models of enlightenment. He describes and distinguishes between the many different models we have for what enlightenment bestows on the individual, including things having to do with emotional, physical, psychological, and spiritual perfection. He also points out how dangerous some of these models can be, as they do at least two things: First, they make enlightenment appear to be completely impossible as most of the models people have, and especially when you combine several of them, are largely unattainable. Secondly, they take the focus off of what enlightenment is really about, the realization of non-duality, or “those models having to do with eliminating or seeing through the sense that there is a fundamentally separate or continuous center-point, agent, watcher, doer, perceiver, subject, observer or similar entity.” These Non-Duality models, Daniel claims, are the only models that one can trust from the beginning of the path, until the very end.

Yes, music for my ears. Read the whole post.

Features of the Mystic Experience

"...it is necessary to explain five principal features of the mystic experience: (1) intense realness, (2) unusual sensations, (3) unity, (4) ineffability, and (5) trans-sensate phenomena. (...) It is assumed by those who have had a mystic experience, whether induced by years of meditation or by a single dose of LSD, that the truthfulness of the experience is attested to by its sense of realness. The criticism of skeptics is often met with the statement, "You have to experience it yourself and then you will understand." This means that if one has the actual experience he will be convinced by its intense feeling of reality. "I know it was real because it was more real than my talking to you now." But "realness" is not evidence. Indeed, there are many clinical examples of variability in the intensity of the feeling of realness that is not correlated with corresponding variability in the reality. A dream may be so "real" as to carry conviction into the waking state, although its content may be bizarre beyond correspondence to this world or to any other. Psychosis is often preceded or accompanied by a sense that the world is less real than normally, sometimes that it is more real, or has a different reality. The phenomenon of depersonalization demonstrates the potential for an alteration in the sense of the realness of one's own person, although one's evidential self undergoes no change whatsoever. However, in the case of depersonalization, or of de-realization, the distinction between what is external and what is internal is still clear. What changes is the quality of realness attached to those object representations. Thus it appears that (1) the feeling of realness represents a function distinct from that of reality judgment, although they usually operate in synchrony; (2) the feeling of realness is not inherent in sensations, per se; and (3) realness can be considered a quantity function capable of displacement and, therefore, of intensification, reduction, and transfer affecting all varieties of ideational and sensorial contents..."

See the whole paper "Deautomatization and the Mystic Experience" by Arthur J. Deikman. More useful articles to be found at the website.

Zen and the West

My friend Stuart Lachs has produced a series of articles, the most recent of which is entitled "Zen Master in America: Dressing the donkey with bells and scarves". This one follows in the line of inquiry from previous papers and articles by Lachs, all of which can be found below in .pdf format for download. The focus is not on practice, or the doctrinal basis, but on institution and its pervasive influence on both practice and view. I recommend these articles as fine examples of spiritual authenticity, forged in longterm practice, combined with intellectual honesty through critical inquiry. But first, an intro to the articles by the author himself -

"I have been a Zen practitioner for roughly forty years. Many years ago I became interested in viewing Zen from a scholarly point of view as a way to explain the great disparity I witnessed between how the Zen institution claimed its leaders behaved and what I saw first hand. I was driven to understand what was happening and why, not out of a dry, academic interest, but rather, by the confusion, trouble and suffering that I and others were experiencing.

By luck, in the early 1990's, I met an academically-minded monk connected with Chinese Buddhism. From him, I was introduced to an academic view of the history of Zen that strongly contrasted with the more familiar history promulgated by the Zen institution. Needless to say, it was an eye opener that led to many exciting hours of study up to this day. Later, through a friend, I became interested in the sociology of religion and of institutions.

Looking at Zen through both the lens of academic history and the lens of the sociology of religion and institutions, I hope to show how Zen developed over time, and how it responded to historical settings and necessities. I will show how the institution that has grown up around Zen functions - as do most institutions - to promote and protect itself, and how it empowers its leaders and enables that power to function.

I am attempting to make clear for myself and other Zen practitioners what is happening at Zen centers in America. I have found some conceptual tools that helped me analyze how these Zen centers operate. These tools were especially helpful in understanding how the conceptions of Dharma transmission and unbroken lineage and their supporting structures impact Zen students' lives at their Centers.

Critical thinking is Buddhist and Buddhism is critical thinking. By demanding tough answers and not being satisfied with easy ones, I hope to improve the situation of Zen in America which, since the mid- 1960's , has suffered from repeated scandals - scandals that hurt its practitioners, caused others to leave and marred its reputation for years to come.

Buddhism has a history of adaptability to many cultures. No doubt, it will adapt to the West. We have an opportunity, by understanding the institutions and history of Zen, to claim its true spirit and inherent freedom for our lives."

Links to articles in .pdf format:
Coming Down from the Zen Clouds (1994)
Means of Authorization (1999)
The Myth of the Zen Roshi (2002)
Zen Master in America (2006)

Fast Deep Sexy

A nice interview with David Deida by Vijay Rana, concerning his book "Instant Enlightenment: Fast, Deep, and Sexy". Quote:

"Anyone who’s too uptight or rigid about their spirituality probably wouldn't even open the book because they'll likely think it's a schlock book or glib and superficial. But, you know, enlightenment is instant in a certain way, as an always accessible yet often brief state rather than as a more or less permanent stage, to use Ken Wilber's language. In general, significant spiritual stages often require decades, some might even say lifetimes, to mature into stability. But as a 'peek', as a profound relaxation in love and truth, that moment of kensho - or whatever you want to call the overwhelming insight or relaxation in love, of 'aha' - that's always instant in the ever-present moment, and then it has to be practiced to become stable. You might need a well-designed set of practices to engage year after year, as well as relationships with friends and teachers and everything else that goes with true maturity blooming throughout a lifetime. I titled this book Instant Enlightenment because, on the one hand, the state of enlightenment as opposed to the stage of enlightenment is instant, but also as a kind of tongue-in-cheek, humorous, tipping of my hat to today’s microwave, plug and play, or short-attention-span cultural style."

See the whole post.

What is Buddhadharma?

Reading the July-September 2007 issue of WIE magazine (for those not subscribed, this back issue is available online), featuring "Woman: A Cultural, Philosophical, and Spiritual Exploration" or, as the intro says,

"In the nineteenth century there were the suffragists. In the 1960s there were the feminists. But what does women’s liberation mean today? Where is women’s evolutionary edge? WIE searches for the answers to these questions in a provocative engagement with the historical, social, and spiritual dimensions of transforming women’s consciousness."

Although I have my reservations on minor details, WIE is doing the desperately needed work of ushering the leading edge spiritual culture. Then, "Buddhadharma" (Practitioners Quarterly) in the current Winter 2007 issue includes "Are We Equal Yet?" or quote,

"The primary feminist criticism of Buddhism is that dharma teachers are most often men. Feminists have responded with different solutions to this problem. One obvious solution is to make structural changes to ensure that women are trained and promoted as teachers. However, some feminists have argued that giving dharma teachers any real authority is itself a patriarchal practice that cannot be redeemed by encouraging women to become teachers."

I subscribe to both magazines, and I enjoy both greatly. While the WIE feature comes out as an extraordinary exploration into the yet uncharted territory of women's authentic coming together at the evolutionary edge, strenghtened by a provocative "Guru/Pandit" exchange by A. Cohen and K. Wilber on the subjects of "Women, Enlightenment, and the Evolution of Culture", the Buddhadharma approach in the section is limited to the not-so-amazing subject of gender in/equality, thus indicating a lag in the '80s and '90s mode, strenghtened in tenor by a discussion at the "Psychology and Buddhism" forum by J. Kornfield, J. Lief, and H. Aronson, that again seems rooted in the postmodern manner of merely synthesizing what is useful in both domains and thus not really breaking through in any significantly new way (Ken Wilber's awesome contribution to this subject is not mentioned, of course, as the whole rehashing exercise would become pointless). The contrast between the two magazines in these two issues feels basically as one between green and turquoise altitudes. While WIE is pushing forward and generating a content for an emerging culture, the Buddhadharma Quarterly basically caters to a discourse that's been around for the last 30 years or so. The stark difference is clearly discernible when they consider the same topic, such as women's liberation in this case. The ads for Genpo's Big Mind can be found in Buddhadharma (no Integral Spiritual Center, though), but as far as their own content goes, the policy is at best green through and through. While Buddha and Freud on the cover seem to share the common "It's all in the mind" misquote, down below one finds the disclosure, "Many Buddhists, One Buddhadharma". To my mind, commendable but not enough.

On Ego

UPDATE: this video is no longer available on youtube, so here's a link to myspace.tv where you can watch the same discussion.

Andrew Cohen with Ken Wilber, or "The Guru & the Pandit", live in Denver. In this clip, they discuss the notion of ego as it is used in different contexts. Implicitly, they confirm one of points I was making in my post "On Being and Becoming", also starring Andrew Cohen, namely that "ego" is being used in a wrong and confusing way, creating, as Wilber himself remarks in this clip, "a semantic mess". As the participant asking the question makes clear, "egolessness" is an unfortunate way of conceptualizing the nondual, whether from a pre- or a post-realization perspective. And, "ego is becoming synonymous with the shadow"? What is that? In short, a mess.

This mess, however, doesn't stop many teachers (including Cohen) from using the notion in very conflicting ways, which creates an unclarity, and an ambiguousness, definitely not helpful for an audience and a public that, first of all, need to come to terms with their own egos, strenghten their egos, heal their fractures, and overcome their self-obsessions. Then, may I insist, only then can we approach together, in a culture of authentic insight and understanding, not ambiguity, the question of self-contraction which indeed, to quote KW again, "goes all the way up". I'm confident that this is an essential step in creating a truly post-rational spiritual discourse, wherein basic distinctions must be stated clearly and used consistently (the rational level), in order to be dissolved in some higher, wider and deeper perspective. This seems to be true in both traditional sense (uproting the self-contraction to realize radical spaciousness) and in the developmental sense. Both aspects depend on clarity in distinguishing between paradox and ambiguity. What do you think?

Integrative Spirituality

*crossposted from zaadz *to see comments, go there

Discovery of freedom is a process wherein simplicity and complexity conspire to dismantle all our preconceptions. I was invited by Julian Walker to contribute on the subject of “Integrative Spirituality: Grounded Contemporary Perspectives”. There's nothing revolutionary in this post, as it's mainly an attempt to clarify my own thoughts. Not being a native English speaker, I only aspire to provide an excuse for some fine discussion. I will deliberately avoid any lingo, or a specific religious framework. Without imposing on readers an inclusivistic platform, this is a deliberately fragmented record of what came to mind, a smorgasbord of sorts. The context for each of these subjects is provided by existing discussions here at Zaadz, which have been sometimes muffled in contesting statements. It seems true that in order to have a constructive exchange, we need to find a common ground and proceed cautiosly. Feel free to choose your favorite fragment.

. . .

“Long live chains!”
Freedom is not about safety, or conformity, or identity. Therefore, the bare possibility of freedom is in itself sufficient to engender a recoil in confused, veiled awareness. Consciousness being by it's very nature effulgent and expansive, such recoil causes a constriction in the manner we relate to self, others, life and death. In this constrictive mode, experience appears to become effusive and uncontrollable, so we project our defenses, to make the moment more manageable. Thought, exhibiting extreme plasticity, becomes our main tool in restricting reality into availability. Instead of using thought to probe and investigate the present mode of experiencing, we mindlessly hope to think our way out of trouble or, even worse, decline to use inquiry at all, immersing ourselves into further mindless experiencing or fancy wishcraft.

Consideration of regressive tendencies will get us only so far. We actually need to apply thoroughly what we really know through what we do, and begin the process of debunking the promises of spiritual naivete. It's a matter of responsibility and ethical sensitivity to cultivate such capacity for inquiry. Being aware of our limitations as individuals means also feeling into the pain of being separate. Lacking heart, some will seek for what they imagine has been lost, and so will tend to look back, wishing yesterday was tomorrow. Life, as observable, has no such qualms. Actually there is no returning. The only way of being in the world is onward.

Reason
While faith and doubt are genuine aspects of inquiry, beliefs generate a certain opacity, as well as a marked resistance to clarification (guess how many Buddhists have explicit definitions of rebirth, refuge, or nirvana, that really mean something to them). In a way, beliefs are to society what defenses are to psyche, and in that sense they serve a function. It's certainly telling that none of mere beliefs - i.e. whatever those are for a given society and culture - were ever considered necessary for awakening. The matured faculty of inquiry, however, is always presumed. Also, it is fundamental to this post/modern culture, and our way of being in the world. Standing on the shoulders of reason, we can face the visionary world, and accept the challenge of authenticity, dignity and fearlessness.

Being here
Being ordinary is essential, even though it's quite impossible to define what would constitute fundamental normality, since it seems to always be a matter of tension between openness and convention. Fundamental normality is not social normalcy, though the latter may appear as a sterilized expression of the former, and be of some support when we seek balance. Ultimately, however, even being weird is a luxury, generally less available as our spirituality matures (even by Aleister Crowley's standards!). One comes to appreciate normality as something exceptional, inherent in the natural way our senses work and our mind cogitates. Granted “normality” as a notion is being transformed irrecoverably through the process of spiritual inquiry and unfolding, even so much that one might think of purification. There is a sense in which normality functions as an anchor in the open field of reality-expanse, somewhat similar to nirmanakaya in the esoteric Buddhist notion of two/three/four/five bodies. There is something decent and basic and skilfull in the ability to retain and exhibit conventions, while your innermost experience stands open as infinity. This is also known as ordinary mind, unbound by convention or eccentricity. In esoteric Buddhist thought, interestingly enough, each thing is a limpid symbol of what ultimately is.

Beyond Thought
There are at least two major meanings of “beyond thought”. In the absolute sense, “beyond thought” is that which is beyond any form whatsoever, that which is already beyond any distinction and conceptualization - namely, the immediate Supreme Reality. Suchness, it would seem, is neither hidden nor revealed - rather, it is obvious. Even so, thought can express and convey some sense of that which transcends it and makes it possible, and of which it too is an expression, as evidenced by these very words here on your screen. Of course words never contain an experience, irrespective of it's status - whether smell, sadness, or samadhi - but that's beside the point. We use negations, symbols, metaphors and paradoxical language, and, as long as these are rooted in present realization and a culture of non-literalism, such intimations work just fine.

In the relative sense, “beyond thought” is that which is unfolding in further development of the present identity itself. In this sense, moving beyond one's present limitations is a worthwhile purpose. The relative realm is profoundly developmental, now we know, and that in itself is an important modern contribution, waiting to be engraved in every spiritual platform, ancient or contemporary. When these two beyonds meet in open space of pristine knowing, boundless feeling, and uninhibited expression, there is the potential for authentic integrative spirituality bursting free into the fullness of the world.

A Spiritual Gyro
Practice is perfect. For example, in the current mode of integral discourse, there are many technical terms, as well as rich elaborations. But the basic idea is actually quite straightforward: reality in its entirety is incredibly complex, but we still need a doable way to be inclusive and balanced, and yet open to unfolding novelty. A typical list suggests a minimum number of reference points, so the traditional “body-speech-mind” becomes “body-mind-spirit-shadow”, which then translates into fundamental aspects of a well-rounded practice. A very simple formula actually points to an infinite complexity. Does that help us? Sure it does. We may find these sorts of ideas so self-evident, that we tend to forget how lost one can get in any one of those basic reference points at the expense of everything else in their lives. (*a survey of practices and cycles may be found in Roger Walsh ”Essential Spirituality” and Jack Kornfield ”A Path with Heart”)

Spirituality in purely transcendent sense is an incredibly immediate and straightforward business, its exclusive task being liberation and awakening, here and now. Yet, if spirituality is seen also as that process which uncovers new degrees of depth and authenticity in this self, in our lives and relationships, beyond mere individuation, both pre-enlightenment and post-enlightenment, then we certainly can benefit from a comprehensive strategy.

Such process will necessarily depend on many developmental streams and their effective integration. To merge mind and body, to balance intellect and devotion, to fuse stillness and activity, to recognize relative and absolute - these are the stepping stones of such a strategy, and the tools used may cover a relatively wide spectrum, including ethics, study, awareness, shadow work, meditation, ritual, relationships, isolation, training in states, sexuality, bodywork etc. if you're so inclined. Because of such breadth, it's rather easy to lose focus and purpose. Therefore, I hold it's paramount to have a core practice, one that need not be sophisticated or intricate. Ideally, such core practice should resonate with one's personal inspiration, would be pursued with a teacher, and relying on the wisdom and experience of lineage. Then one can supplement and build around such core practice in accordance with culture, conditions and capacities.

Methods of practice are always mode-specific, requiring appropriate intentions and conditions, and recently David Deida (video here) has suggested three modes of therapy, yoga, and spiritual practice (dealing respectively with restoring functionality at any level, increasing flow and transparency, and introducing spontaneous nondual recognition). It's a crucial distinction, since a method designed for yogic purposes may not serve us very well in therapetuic efforts. These three modes, Deida warns us, have very little in common. Various methods are also stage-specific, like any other form of growth, education and cultivation. There's a dialectic at work in development. (For many additional distinctions that clarify facets of development-and-enlightenment, like translation vs. transformation, precon vs. postcon, states vs. stages, and potential for various fallacies, see Ken Wilber ”Integral Psychology” and ”Integral Spirituality”, or for beginners ”No Boundary”.)

To wrap it up: know what it is you're specifically doing, be clear about it and the rules of the game, and then do it diligently. Combine daily and intensive practice, without procrastination. Avoid obsessions and perfectionism, but aim high.

So what is spirit?
In conventional views, spirit is life-force, and spirit is faith, reason, insight, acceptance and diversity, impersonal and transpersonal, and spirit is even the nonlocal quantum field, not to say it is perhaps nonexistent! Those are all concepts, attempts to delineate that which cannot be divided. For the contemplative and mystic - spirit is source, ground, silence, true self, ineffable, impartial, bliss, end of afflictions, limpid, formless, spacious, witness, intelligent, sapient, loving, compassionate, nondual suchness… These Holy names are actually the briefest pointing-out instructions, evoking a flash of recognition in a receptive mind. They also provide a summary of teachings.

Yet, all descriptions fail to grasp what is, by definition, if any such is accepted, beyond grasp. What if spirit is all of that and more, yet utterly plain and simple, given all at once? Seen in retrospective of many thousands of years, the meanings and experiences of spirit have been unfolding in progressive subtlety and nakedness.

Reduced to a single reference that allows for all perspectives to coexist, while setting them along the gradient of depth and inclusiveness, the awakening of spirit is simply the discovery of ever fresh freedom.

Post scriptum

“The physical living situation is the only way to relate with our lives as such. I do not believe in the mystical world, the ethereal world, the world of the unseen, unknown or whatever. There is no reason to believe in it, because we don't perceive it. Belief comes from perception. If there's no perception of something, we don't believe it. Belief does not come from manufacturing ideas. There may be millions of arguments and logics set forth, saying that there is an unseen world that operates on higher levels of consciousness, a world which fulfills human concerns, punishes those who don't believe, and so forth. […] I'm afraid I'm not going to say that there is another world. The world that we live in is the only world.” Chogyam Trungpa

This quote encapsulates what I feel is the fundamental spiritual situation we all share. We need sanity, and a shared sanity. To that end, we ought to jolt ourselves into a fresh perspective on the very meaning of spirituality, and that has something to do with where we are together right now.

. . .

Hardcore Dharma

Good Daniel Ingram has made his book "Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha", available in blog form ("blook") to make it searchable and perhaps easier to read. The book is also available in several static forms here for download and printout (300 pages). If you're seriously into meditation and realization, and not just hanging around Buddhist centers and teachers 'till the holy cows come home, you should be very interested in this material. It is not intended to make you more comfortable with yourself, nor to make you believe in the myths. Instead, it is a perspective of honest clarity, based on first-hand experience as well as the teachings of the Buddha and subsequent enlightened practitioners. I praise this offering and look forward for Daniel's posts in his recently activated blog.

A beautiful quote from MCTB, that is the last 37th chapter of the book, entitled "Conclusion and Best Wishes":

"I do hope that people will not settle for becoming lost in the dogma of this work, Buddhism, or of any mystical tradition. I hope that they learn to actually do the practices that lead to freedom and to the deep integration of that freedom into their lives. I hope that they have faith that mastery can be attained. I hope that they will learn to ask good questions that will help them to accomplish this. I hope that the culture of Buddhism and the world in general will become less sectarian instead of more. I hope that students of meditation will use spiritual conceptual frameworks as tools and not worship them as sacred dogma. I hope that the huge amount of magical and fantastic thinking that accompanies spiritual traditions will immediately vanish from this planet forever.

I hope that those on the path will learn to talk with each other in ways that are conducive to clear practice. I hope that any controversial points made in this little book will promote skillful debate and real inquiry rather than contraction into fear and dogma. I hope that people will work towards actual mastery of the path so that they will no longer need writings such as this one. I hope that people will not spend their lives lost in content but will also delve deeply into the liberating truth of the Three Characteristics. I hope that the level of expectation about what is possible will be raised in a way that is helpful, and that any jealousy or frustration that results from this will be skillfully channeled into precise practice and the joy that it can be done.

May all of this be for the benefit of all beings. Should you realize that you wish to awaken, know that it is within your capabilities and do so."

Walsh on Ethics

Roger Walsh, author of "Essential Spirituality", explains the importance of ethical awareness and discipline in this video, duration 05:37, "laying the ground for an understanding of why ethics is so crucial, and why it's so powerfull, looking at it from a contemplative perspective". Enjoy!

Romance beyond ego

Andrew Cohen writes on an important topic of intimate relationship in the context of enlightenment and consciousness evolution. And makes many good points. Link