sirknigh@uu.psi.com (gawain) (06/17/91)
I'm new to the conference and have been following the posts with great interest. The discussion of the necessity/desirability/or otherwise for a "guru" seems to be the hot topic and so, a good place to enter in. First, it seems that the source of much of the passion in these posts has to do with John Wheeler's use of the words "Enlightened being" or some such term. It seems surprising that anyone on the path to enlightenment would use these words. I thought that at the "higher" levels of spirituality, that one would have transcended the categories of dualism. So it seems to me that the very use of the adjective "Enlightened" simply indicates that the person using the term has not reached a level beyond or "through" the opposites. I don't think John meant to cast aspersions on any other spiritual leader, though this seems to be implied. Perhaps it's just a by-product of the use of dualistic language in trying to describe a quality beyond dualism. Of course, this does not reflect in any way on the person so described. My understanding is that a truly Enlightened person would be like the great master of any of the Zen-related martial arts. The belt beyond the black belt, for instance, is a white belt -- the *beginners* belt. Enlightenment is a "return" to an ever-renewed and renewing sense of wonder, one that the unenlightened might call "naive," though I think this is far from the case. That said, it leaves the issue of the necessity for a "teacher" or "leader." My first experience with an eastern religious group was hilarious. A friend spoke eloquently of this spiritual leader. His followers were so impressed by the leader, that they bought him a country estate, on which they founded an ashram. These were intelligent people, most of them professionals such as lawyers and teachers. When I arrived I discovered that the leader -- who shall remain nameless -- had been traveling around for a couple of years. In the meditation room the followers faced a small color photograph of their spiritual leader. It all seemed pretentious and somewhat silly. And was. They were looking outwards for help towards enlightenment. And if their guide was gone, they would damn well look at his picture in their search for spirituality. This was their mode. And the mire of their souls. Like Tom Simmonds, whose posts have been both enlightening and moving, I later started to read eastern texts in english translation, as well as commentaries. When I found the works of D.T. Suzuki and R.H. Blyth, I began to have intense experiences that felt like insight. Certainly not enlightenment, but interesting nonetheless. With Suzuki for instance, I would go slowly through his very erudite and dense exposition. Painfully slowly, from one idea to the next. Without my noticing, the text would begin to flow with no seeming effort. This might be called a kind of "Reading Samadhi." Joseph Campbell seems to have attained to a degree of insight and is quite clear that his attainments were exclusively achieved by reading and the contemplation of what is read, of course. At any rate, by the time the text was finished, I would look back to the world, hours of time gone by, and experience seemed very clear. When I read of the chinese and japanese adepts who would leave their master to go into retreat for years, returning only to have their "insight" tested, I began to believe that though a teacher can take you part way up the pole, you must not only take the ultimate leap all alone, but perhaps, make a good deal of the climb that way, too. I now believe that the return was not to be tested, for the enlightened need no tests. But perhaps they were part of the canon of stories that an ongoing tradition tends to build up, to maintain itself. Insight, enlightenment, call it what you will, seems to me to be something experienced alone that turns you back to not only all humanity, but the universe itself, with an oceanic, all-embracing, all-encompassing "conscious- ness." Of course, therer are many approaches to the path. I'm simply saying that once on it, one becomes one's own teacher, or rather, as in Tom's case, everyone becomes your teacher, which I think is another way of saying that you, part of the Great Whatever It Is, are your own teacher. If the Buddha nature is there from the first -- and it is -- then indeed we must kill the buddha, the little self, and all who would tell us What It's All About. Some, call them teachers, may tell us a little about How we might find the path, but if there is Truth, Buddha nature, a way without opposites, Enlightenment, what have you, it should be reachable by a blind man sitting in a dark silent cave, or any of us fumbling on our own with whatever guides our deeper intuitive nature has us reach out for. If one of those guides be a teacher, so be it; but I think ultimately, we will reach INTO our Self, and there, find the experience known as enlightenment. And I believe that any real Teacher would have us do the same.