|
Almost everyone
who realizes their true nature agrees that a certain period of integrating
the realisation is necessary, as a so-called 'ripening' stage. But not
everyone shares the necessity of exchanging information about that particular
stage. Many people indicate, or show, that speaking about it simply
is impossible, since consciousness is all there is and anything that
looks slightly 'different' does not need further attention. The integration,
which is happening by itself because any form of 'doership' is gone,
does not require any comment at all. For me that is not only a pity
but incorrect as well.
Why? Because
this way all kinds of elementary things, that will no doubt present
themselves on the level of ordinary human interrelating, can be stashed
away. Andrew Cohen created an expression for this, he calls it the 'Advaita
Shuffle', the Advaita fast-change trick. Although Andrew is holding
on too strongly to this issue (based upon the fundamental mistake that
'one is what one does'), I still like the expression 'Advaita Shuffle'
for what I mean here. It points to secretly (or unconsciously) removing
a subject that is experienced as threatening or uneasy to a level where
that uneasy matter has 'dissolved'; in other words dissolved into the
very substance it consists of indeed: Consciousness itself, pure Knowing.
A smuggletrick is used in order not to be accountable as an individual
(because 'the individual' is seen as unreal). And that accountability
is precisely what this is all about.
What actually
is accountability?
It
means being open to the reality of all levels, no matter how temporal
and relative, and being ready to resonate with those levels. It also
means a readiness to listen to comments or observations that may refer
to a specific attitude which could be a blind spot for us. Even though
one has seen and 'experienced' deeply that one is nothing else but undifferentiated,
homogeneous Consciousness, one still is, when relating to people, a
visual and behaving figure who could be mistaken sometimes. And nothing
or no one is getting any benefit from hiding behind 'Consciousness'
when one is mistaken.
Padmasambhava,
who was one of the masters that introduced in the 8th century with Dzogchen
the most essential element into Tibetan Buddhism, had no doubts whatsoever
about this subject. In a text (in which the expression 'view' - ltaba
in Tibetan - refers to seeing from the recognition of one's true nature)
he says:
'Do not lose the view in the conduct;
If
you lose the view in the conduct, you will never have the chance to
be liberated.
Do not lose the conduct in the view;
If you lose the conduct in the view, you stray into black diffusion.'
He
shows us the two poles of error. The first pole is the unending polishing
of the person, the attitudes or conduct, leading to the fact that the
'view' of one's true nature stays hidden behind the horizon.
The second pole - which the great 20th century Dzogchen teacher Tulku
Urgyen calls even worse than the first pole - points to the fact that,
because the view shows that good and bad do not exist, one thinks that
in his conduct there is no good and bad either. That is the reason why
Tulku Urgyen emphasizes that view and conduct should be clearly distinguished.
The way one behaves should be in harmony with ordinary human 'worldly'
values and distinctions.
Padmasambhava
also said: "Though the view should be as vast as the sky, keep your
conduct as fine as barley flour." In other words, even someone like
Padmasambhava, who is considered in Tibet a 'second Buddha',
with his complete realisation of nonduality, kept emphasizing that every
inch of our behavior is worth our attention. And until today that is
being taught in this form of Tibetan Buddhism. (Maybe it is good to
mention here that the Tibetan Buddhism we talk about - Dzogchen - is
totally based upon immediate recognition. So nobody will get the impression
that the attention for earthly things stands for an unending preparatory
period as is the case in so many other schools of Buddhism).
Why do I give
this so much attention here, in the context of Advaita, and why do I
refer to it as a 'hot potato'? Because I myself have experienced directly
how unaccountable (and undisputable) certain conduct still is in Advaita
circles. Especially when a teacher's conduct is concerned, everything
becomes very vague. Because it is always a matter of power. And I don't
mean power in the sense of open tyranny. No, that would be too easy,
since it is so obvious. Rather we talk here about power that is seductive,
that operates through seduction, through charisma, through the use of
invisible attraction. By the attraction the students find themselves
in the position of wanting very badly to receive something - spiritual
'food' - and through that hunger their own integrity is sacrificed.
That
is caused by what in psychology is called 'transference'. Transference
means that those who raised us as a kid - father, mother, caretakers
- are existing in us as psychic 'slides'. We are projecting those slides
on anyone from whom we, in the present, hope to get food (in this case
spiritual food). This projecting happens spontaneously, completely unconsciously.
Fearing that we won't get any more food if we honestly say that a certain
kind of behavior is hurting, we'll keep our mouth shut. This is the
only way a powergame can keep on going: thanks to the fear of being
cut off from the food source.
Alexander Smit,
who was my teacher in the eighty's, told us that a teacher is confronted
with three pitfalls: power, sex and money. Later, when I said that according
to me he had stepped into all three pitfalls, he wasn't willing to go
into this. In spite of his emphasis on the importance that 'nothing
should be denied' he did not seem to be open for the invitation to investigate
whether he might have been mistaken about certain things.
It is
not my intention to discredit Alexander. I will always be grateful
for
what he has given me concerning the 'view'. Also our friendship is
still alive in my heart.
This is not about blaming someone. Everyone makes mistakes - perfect
behavior is not possible. That's not what this is all about. This is
about being ready to communicate, being open to investigate one's own
inclinations if they bother others, including the drive for power, dishonesty,
disloyalty, greed, etc.: anything that causes pain in someone else.
If this readiness is lacking, one is passing on untruth. If one escapes
to the level of undefined Consciousness, something that is definitely
experienced by someone is changed into something that is doubted. And
that will surely happen if someone else is considered 'further' or 'higher'.
It means undermining the trust in one's own intuition, the deepest knowing
of the 'individual', which at the same time carries the seed of the
timeless that one is. Hence the importance of especially not undermining
this.
This phenomenon
is even more prevalent when 'enlightenment' is the issue. "He is enlightened
and I am not" is about the deepest base for the above mentioned balance
of power, hand in hand with the giving up of truth. For that reason
I do object against easy claiming things like 'enlightenment' and 'Self-realisation'.
They have become status expressions. I would for instance only use the
term 'enlightenment' for some rare cases, such as Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta
Maharaj, Dilgo Khyentse, Tulku Urgyen, etcetera, since all classic scriptures
concerning the 'Direct Path' (be it Dzogchen, Zen or Advaita) agree
about one thing: 'enlightenment' (that is 'complete 'Self-realisation',
or 'complete liberation', or 'complete buddhahood') means that all karmic
traces have burned up. And that is exactly what the expression 'liberation'
means: liberation from the karmic traces which make us move on and on
in the form of 'inclinations' (vasana's). For an enlightened one all
potential inclinations have simply ended, leaving no traces behind.
Who of
us can claim that? Yes, we can say that we do not any longer identify
with the inclinations. That is certainly one step. Hence I prefer the
expression 'realisation' for a certain stabilisation (in Dzogchen one
speaks in terms of different realisations, as in stages. In modern Advaita
such things are considered nonsense, due to Ramana who said that in
realisation or mukti there are no stages. However, he also said that
realisation is the state in which presence and absence of the body is
no longer noticed).
This
'being stabilised' is the acknowledgment that seeking has came to an
end. By using a different expression for 'enlightenment', I do not mean
that after 'realisation' there is still a seeking for 'enlightenment'.
No, absolutely not. Seeking is no more possible, since there is a deep
seeing that one exists of nothing else but that what's being sought.
The functioning figure however, is still reacting on impulses from a
(possibly contaminated) past, and any denial of that is not useful and
often very painful.
Seen in that
light it may be interesting to know (as I was told by a very reliable
source) that Papaji, who is one of the teachers that can be considered
responsible for the outburst of enlightened people at this time and
age, when asked to name the people that he considered enlightened, wrote
down some names but none of his enlightened students was mentioned!
Fortunately
there are signals showing a certain acknowledgment of the difference
between the state of realisation and the state of complete enlightenment,
even though other expressions are used. For instance, Papaji's student
Isaac Shapiro is becoming more and more open about acknowledging that
difference. There is a video available where Isaac and Francis Lucille
are talking with one another (in 1999 Amsterdam). At the end there is
a very interesting fragment which could be used to communicate in follow
up conversations. Isaac and Francis talk about the miracle of consciousness
offering everything as a kind of awesome disclosure or revelation that
has no end to it. At a certain point Isaac remarks: "Ramana says that
there is an end to it", and the way he says it makes it clear to me
that he is confronted with the difference between Ramana and himself.
Francis does not agree with any of this and says that there would be
no life left if there would be an end to it. Isaac however keeps pointing
to the special fact that Ramana ("as one of the utterly rare ones, one
in a billion") has possibly pointed to the stage in which "ripples are
no more appearing". Then Isaac says that it feels to him that something
like that is also meant by Buddhists.
I agree with
what Isaac is saying here (and may have said before, but I don't know
about that). Here he is actually breaking the 'code' that seems to go
with the idea that 'having seen it' would be sufficient and that results
in the fact that possible mistakes and confusion stay hidden behind
the scenes. In the phase between what I call 'actual realisation' and
'complete enlightenment' pitfalls are still possible. According to me
acknowledgment of that creates the necessity to exchange thoughts. Without
that acknowledgment exchange is indeed out of the question.
"A jnani
is no saint," Alexander used to say. Indeed, that is a very useful statement
when talking to a seeker. A seeker is not helped with a roundabout of
judging behavior - he knows that road too well. Only the invitation
to recognize one's true nature now, is useful for the seeker. I call
that 'the first level'. For those who are sufficiently rooted in their
true nature though, the 'saint'-concept is not something that means
forcing yourself. Any movement of aspiration has disappeared, so why
emphasis on the aspect of 'not being a saint'? On what I call 'the second
level' (the level where inclinations can be witnessed from one's true
nature, or from love) such a statement can only work as a defense.
This is what
I call the 'hot potato'. According to me there is no need to fear the
heat. Let's simply touch it and communicate.
[Philip
Renard]
|