cyee@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au (Chut Ngeow YEE) (06/03/91)
Here is piece by Da Avabhasa, about the nature and function of a guru. It is
an except from a rather humorous talk called "The Gorilla Sermon"(1972).
"When you are dreaming, you take the dream very seriously. You assume your role
within it, your drama within it. You respond to the condition that seems to be
so, whatever the particular circumstances of the dream. If the gorilla is
chasing you up the beach, you feel all the threat. All the emotions become
involved, all of your strategies of survival, or non-survival, become
involved. If it is a sweet, enhoyable, astral sort of dream, with all kinds of
friends and voices and colors and movements, you assume that to be so. You
float around in it. You take it seriously. You ASSUME it to be so. You assume
it because you have no other point of view from which to enjoy or suffer the
dream except that of the dreamer. But when you wake up in the morning, the
gorilla that was just about to bite off your head losses all significance. All
of the implications of that are already undone in one who is awake. It no
longer has any real significance, it no longer has any implication for life.
It no longer is a genuine threat to life. it no longer is anything except that
appearance. And the only difference is that you are awake. Nothing has been
done to the dream itself. You have only awakened, and therefore the dream is
obviously not your condition.
Understanding is very much this same kind of thing. Understanding is to the
waking state what the waking state is to the dream. In the ordinary waking
state you assume all conditions to be so: my life, my symptoms, my knot in my
stomach, my headaches, my fear, my everything else, my circumstance, my
poverty, my need to do this and that, my death, the news, the war, and all
that appears in life, we all take it very seriously. Here we are, in this
spiritual place, this Ashram. We are very seriously here to get out of all of
this. Everyone has come here very seriously for this very serious purpose, if
I were to tell you to go home and recite "harry-umpty-ump", concentrate on the
inner green light, or believe in Master Gumbo, what would I be doing? I would
be offering you an alternative within the dream itself. I would be asking you
to remain within the condition of dreams. I would only be telling you to dream
another kind of dream. "Don't worry about your headaches". "Recite the mantra
all the time". I would simply be exploiting the dream itself, which in this
case is the ordinary waking state. I would be recommending experience to you
as the path of Truth. But all of that is more of the same thing. It is only
another condition for you to take seriously and assume to be your own.
Understanding is not a form of philosophy. it is not a method. it is not
something within the "dream" itself. it is like the waking state as opposed to
the dream. The man of understanding, the true Guru, the Heart is radically
conscious, real, alive, free by his very nature from the implications of the
ordinary waking state, of all states. But the ordinary yogi, the usual
teacher, the philosopher, is a role within the "dream" of waking. He operates
from its point of view. He is identified with it, suffering or happy within
it. His dilemma is there. His realization, however extraordinary it may
appear, is an artifice whose roots are in the condition or point of view of
the "dream". he is only recommending some distraction to you, some occupation,
some solution within the "dream" itself. But the Heart, understanding, is
simply awake. Understanding is the true waking state, the Self, Reality. It
has no philosophy, no subtle vision, no peculiar state associated with it.
Like one in a dream, one who understands is not presently affected by the
waking state. But, unlike one who dreams or appears within a dream, he is
always, already, consciously free.
The waking state is simply a radically different condition from the dream.
That is why you feel free of the dream upon waking. The Guru appears in the
midst of the dreams of ordinary waking life like sunlight in the morning. When
you are still dreaming, still asleep, the sun comes up. it gets brighter and
brighter, and the light comes into the room. At last, the light, the day
itself becomes sufficient to wake you, and then, all of a sudden, you are not
dreaming, and everything is all right. The Guru is simply that sunlight
process, that intensification, rising on you always, without any other special
activity. His relationship to you, your condition of relationship to him, just
that relationship is sufficient. There is only sunlight on the pillow until
that intensity is sufficient to wake you up. It is the kiss of the Prince and
Sleeping Beauty. Such is understanding.
But the teachings that are generated in the great search are all exploitations
of your dream-state. They take it seriously, they assume it to be the present
condition, even if it is regarded to be only temporary. And that is the
fundamental error of all traditional and remedial paths. They are all
generated from the point of view of your suffering. They serve your suffering,
and they reinforce it in spite of themselves. Therefore, to the seeker, to the
man suffering in dreams, the teachings of the ordinary yogis and philosopher
seem very hopeful. They seem to represent something very desirable."
DA AVABHASA
the method of the siddhas
As you see this view of Reality is radically from the point of views proposed
by varous people in recent postings. I remember reading something similar
in Mahayana Buddhist Sutras. For example the Diamond Sutra talks about
'...a realizer sees that there is no multiple beings to be delivered [from
unenlightenment] ...'. Also the sixth patriah Hui-Neng changed the four
great vows or Mahayana Buddhism from 1) I vow to deliever all the infinite
beings ... to 1) I vow to deliever all the infinite beings of Self-nature ...
He humorously added the term Self-nature to negagte the 'sickness' that an
approaching disciple vow to get rid of. Indeed if Nirvana is no different
from Samsara and if a blade of grass, a stone a river etc is nothing but
Buddha-nature then all the notions of suffering and sickness and
non-enlightenment is nothing but dreams and illusions.
About John Chq view that an enlightened being is a pointer to the 'truth'...
I think this is also one of the core teaching of Khrisnamurti. But in order to
point to something then the pointer has to be separated to the object pointed
to. So do you meant to say that an enlightened being is forever separated from
truth or Buddha-nature? Or what are you trying to convey? I suggest that a
Realiser, an Enlightened One is no different from the Truth. (S)He lives the
Truth in human-bodily form and his(her) 'function' in the world is simply that
of being the sunshine that awakens us from our dream.
Yee.jamess@decwrl.dec.com (Jim Schoonover) (06/07/91)
In article <1991Jun3.160417.8006@nas.nasa.gov> cyee@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au (Chut Ngeow YEE) writes: > >[...] Indeed if Nirvana is no different >from Samsara and if a blade of grass, a stone a river etc is nothing but >Buddha-nature then all the notions of suffering and sickness and >non-enlightenment is nothing but dreams and illusions. This may well be, but only when phenomenality is viewed from the Enlightened perspective. So long as there is identification with the dream, or with the dreamed character that seems to be us, then samsara is decidedly NOT the same as Nirvana. In that case, samsara is bondage. There is a marvelous essay in the book "Nirvanasara," titled "Nirvana and Samsara Are Not the Same," wherein Master Da makes the point that in the un-Enlightened condition Nirvana and samsara are the ultimate opposites. The statement that they are the same is a radical expression (or confession) of the Realized, or seventh stage, point of view. And he rails mightily against the tendency to popularize the equation of Nirvana and samsara, or the equation of atman and Brahman, into mere ideas which are believed but never Realized. [Note, I don't mean to suggest that you are doing that.] So, it would appear that even the statements of a true Guru can, in a way, serve to reinforce our suffering. The analogy of the Guru being the "sunlight on the pillow" is nice, but still this carries the implication that we are asleep (might as well say sick) and that we must wake up. We then imagine that being Awake is something very desirable and so go to the Guru hoping that His mere Presence will somehow make IT happen. It's probably true that the most effective "method" is Satsang, communion with (and when possible in the physical presence of) a Spiritual Master, but this alone just doesn't seem to be sufficient for most individuals. There is usually also need for study, discipline and practice. And, of course, Master Da calls us all to self-transcending practice. I find it interesting that many who Awaken at first seem to have a notion that others will be awakened just by spending time in their company. If I correctly remember what I read in one of his biographies, this was the case with Krishnamurti. (Let's not quibble over the stature of, or the exact nature of, his realization.) I also know of a couple of living Masters for whom this was the case. Now, when Franklin Jones wrote "The Knee of Listening," I don't think he ever imagined that he would end up producing all those books and all the detailed elaboration of his teaching. The Realization was so obvious to him. Pointing out to people the activity of self-contraction, giving them the practice of self-enquiry in the form "Avoiding relationship?" and simply revealing the Enlightened Condition to those who came into his presence would be all that was needed. (Oops! I think I may be beginning to digress.) Let me just say that it seems to me that the excerpt from "The Gorilla Sermon" that you quoted may reflect a bit of that "optimism" of the early days of Master Da's teaching career. Nevertheless, it is a wonderful piece, describing as it does the real value of the Guru for the spiritual seeker, and (I would say) effectively pointing to that which can only be Realized. The statements about Understanding made me think of what Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj often said to those who came to him: "Understanding is All. Just be." >About John Chq view that an enlightened being is a pointer to the 'truth'... >I think this is also one of the core teaching of Khrisnamurti. But in order to >point to something then the pointer has to be separated to the object pointed >to. So do you meant to say that an enlightened being is forever separated from >truth or Buddha-nature? This sounds to be a case of becoming entangled by words. Of course Enlightenment is not some object to be grasped. Nor is the Truth. Nor is the Guru. Forget the pointing finger; forget even the "moon" at which it points. The words and concepts of any teaching are never the Truth. When even the greatest of Realizers opens their mouth to teach, or to merely express the Realization, they're going to end up telling lies. And, if some teacher stresses that he is only a pointer, possibly in the attempt (usually futile) to prevent his listeners from turning him into a cultic figure, who can blame him? >[...] I suggest that a >Realiser, an Enlightened One is no different from the Truth. (S)He lives the >Truth in human-bodily form and his(her) 'function' in the world is simply that >of being the sunshine that awakens us from our dream. Again, this is a nice idea, and perhaps true--or at least useful to the seeker who thereby rightly understands the value of Satsang. Though I would ask: what makes you think you are the dreamer? -Jim
jamess@decwrl.dec.com (Jim Schoonover) (06/10/91)
I received email from someone expressing their upset concerning the suggestion I made that Krishnamurti may have for a brief time had the notion that others could be awakened by simply spending time in his company, calling it a "monstrous idea." I got this idea from something that I remembered reading in the Mary Lutyens book, "Krishnamurti: The Years of Awakening". I honestly don't have the time to dig through that book to find exactly what it was I read that gave me that idea; nor do I think that it's really that important a matter. However, I did reflect on it some and realized that, whatever it was, it must have been something from when Krishnamurti was still relatively young and still connected with the Theosophists, probably something from even before his experience in Ojai in 1922, which Leadbeater called his "third Initiation." Indeed, my wild idea may likely have been generated from nothing more than some mention that perhaps the youthful Krishnamurti felt that his close associates might benefit somehow from his personal attention and encouragement, that they might possibly catch a bit of his intensity and devotion to truth. I offer my sincere apologies to any Krishnamurti admirers out there who may have been offended by the suggestion which I previously made. -Jim
cyee@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au (Chut Ngeow YEE) (06/11/91)
Jim Schoonover (jamess@decwrl.dec.com) writes: >In article <1991Jun3.160417.8006@nas.nasa.gov> cyee@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au (Chut Ngeow YEE) writes: >> >>[...] > [...] So long as there is identification with the >dream, or with the dreamed character that seems to be us, then samsara >is decidedly NOT the same as Nirvana. In that case, samsara is bondage. > >There is a marvelous essay in the book "Nirvanasara," titled "Nirvana >and Samsara Are Not the Same," wherein Master Da makes the point that >in the un-Enlightened condition Nirvana and samsara are the ultimate >opposites. The statement that they are the same is a radical expression >(or confession) of the Realized, or seventh stage, point of view. And >he rails mightily against the tendency to popularize the equation of >Nirvana and samsara, or the equation of atman and Brahman, into mere >ideas which are believed but never Realized. [Note, I don't mean to >suggest that you are doing that.] > >So, it would appear that even the statements of a true Guru can, in a >way, serve to reinforce our suffering. The analogy of the Guru being >the "sunlight on the pillow" is nice, but still this carries the >implication that we are asleep (might as well say sick) and that we must >wake up. We then imagine that being Awake is something very desirable >and so go to the Guru hoping that His mere Presence will somehow make >IT happen. > >It's probably true that the most effective "method" is Satsang, communion >with (and when possible in the physical presence of) a Spiritual Master, >but this alone just doesn't seem to be sufficient for most individuals. >There is usually also need for study, discipline and practice. And, of >course, Master Da calls us all to self-transcending practice. Well said James. I have almost forgotten that you are still there listening to the news groups. I have been very careful in not adding any interpretations in my posting of Master Da's writings. You see, the moment I did so... I have considered postings "Nirvana and Samsara Are Not the Same" but decided that it may be too technical for the community. > >I find it interesting that many who Awaken at first seem to have a notion >that others will be awakened just by spending time in their company. >If I correctly remember what I read in one of his biographies, this was >the case with Krishnamurti. (Let's not quibble over the stature of, or >the exact nature of, his realization.) I also know of a couple of living >Masters for whom this was the case. > >Now, when Franklin Jones wrote "The Knee of Listening," I don't think >he ever imagined that he would end up producing all those books and all >the detailed elaboration of his teaching. The Realization was so obvious >to him. Pointing out to people the activity of self-contraction, giving >them the practice of self-enquiry in the form "Avoiding relationship?" >and simply revealing the Enlightened Condition to those who came into >his presence would be all that was needed. (Oops! I think I may be >beginning to digress.) > >Let me just say that it seems to me that the excerpt from "The Gorilla >Sermon" that you quoted may reflect a bit of that "optimism" of the >early days of Master Da's teaching career. Nevertheless, it is a >wonderful piece, describing as it does the real value of the Guru for >the spiritual seeker, and (I would say) effectively pointing to that >which can only be Realized. The statements about Understanding made me >think of what Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj often said to those who came to >him: "Understanding is All. Just be." > I think we are not in any position to judge a Realizer. Master Da is a master of words and he usually paints both sides of the picture in one breadth. On the one hand he says that "Nirvana is not the same as Samsara," but the moment we begin to put attension on our "problems" he would turn around and bang on our head and says "Drop it all, stop meditating on your problems, look, there is only Enlightenment, there is only God, and you inhere in that Bright and Stary one". About his apparent "optimism", it doesn't take me long to find the following writings that paint the opposite picture: Sri Da Avabhasa: "...The lifetime of the Spiritual Master is only sacrifice, and therefore more a torment than the lifetime of the ordinary soul. Read the biographies of the great Spiritual Masters. They all tell the same story of a life that is terrible in some ways, a life in which frequently they are exploited and rejected, and in which they are under the constant threat of domination by worldly and negative forces.... No un-Enlightened soul wants to be in the position of the Spiritual Maseter!" (197?) Sri Da Avabhasa: "...But the true Guru doesn't have such an option. He has to get up and arm-wrestly that idiotic disciple. He must curse at him again and again and be difficult with him, and also continue to maintain himself with humour... If there is anything that can you loss your humour, it is a disciple!" (1975) Sri Da Avabhasa: "Spiritual life is a demand, it is a confrontation, it is a relationship. It is not a method you apply to yourself... Truth itself must become the process of life, and communicate itself, create conditions in life, and make demands, restoring the conscious participation of the individual. Dead Gurus can't kick ass!" (1972) >This sounds to be a case of becoming entangled by words. Of course >Enlightenment is not some object to be grasped. Nor is the Truth. Nor >is the Guru. Forget the pointing finger; forget even the "moon" at >which it points. The words and concepts of any teaching are never the >Truth. When even the greatest of Realizers opens their mouth to teach, >or to merely express the Realization, they're going to end up telling >lies. And, if some teacher stresses that he is only a pointer, possibly >in the attempt (usually futile) to prevent his listeners from turning >him into a cultic figure, who can blame him? Ok, drop the words. Even Master Da himself use the term God-Pointer. When I made the above commnet I was annoyed by the "Kill the Buddha" slogan floating around. A Realizer can say that to dispel the notion that a Buddha or an Enlightened One is a someone with a special status that an ego can obtain somehow. But when it become a slogan phrase.... > >>[...] I suggest that a >>Realiser, an Enlightened One is no different from the Truth. (S)He lives the >>Truth in human-bodily form and his(her) 'function' in the world is simply that >>of being the sunshine that awakens us from our dream. > >Again, this is a nice idea, and perhaps true--or at least useful to the >seeker who thereby rightly understands the value of Satsang. Though I >would ask: what makes you think you are the dreamer? > I do admire the sharpness of your wit. I was slapping myself when I made the above comments, and I will slap myself again if I were to ansewer your question. Perhaps you can do that for me. >-Jim It is nice to hear from you again. I was having difficulties getting through to you some 9 months ago. Then before I knew it I was on my way to my Guru, an almost brand new student-beginner short-circuiting the normal procedure. Master Da is short-circuiting me in many ways. I went through massive amount of purifications in his company. For most of the time the body and mind felt like a battle ground where my Guru worked to turn the lifetimes of habit energies around. I think cold turkey couldn't feel any worse. There were also sublime and heart-breaking moments, but they happen just frequent enough to keep the maddening love alive to stay with him. I might write more about that later. Before I end, here is another beautiful writing that I found: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sir Da Avabhasa: "Merely to be in the Company of the Spiritual Master does not produce Enlightenment, or even pleasurable experience! People who are intimately associated with the person of the Spiritual Master may not be devotees at all. They may, in fact, have a great deal of difficulty, or their life may be very pleasurable but without spiritual consciousness. In the history of the spiritual and religious traditions there are countless stories of individuals who have been close to the Spiritual Master (or to an individual with a spiritual function of one or another kind or degree) who ultimately betrayed that individual or were very unhappy in his (or her) company. There is only one Law, and its demonstration in any individual's case depends on whether he or she is self-possessed or self-surrending. Those who are self-possessed will be purified, but the force of the Spiritual Master offends them or manifests as difficulties in their lives. Without any malicious intention on his part, or even any intention at all, the Force of the Spiritual Master can cause pain, difficulty, suffering, and even illusion in the case of an individual who presumes to enter into and exploit the Company of the Spiritual Master without surrendering, like a thief who has come to steal. Such individual may have difficulty or seem to be enjoying themselves, but in any case they delude themselves in the midst of enjoyment. Those who approach the Spiritual Master as devotees are likewise purified, but they are also transformed and ultimately Enlightened. Their history is benign, but not merely pleasurable in the coventional sense. Those who approach the Spiritual Master as devotees, in the mood and action of true surrender, by virtual of that relationship are given the Grace, the Force, the Power of transformation and liberation by the Spiritual Master. Nevertheless, they are responsible for the results of their actions. The Spiritual Master cannot determine the destiny of the individual beyond this choice for which the individual himself is responsible. The Master can work in all kinds of ways to instigate this choice, to awaken the individual to choose to surrender, but until he (or she) realizes surrender, the Law determines his experience. If he is not surrendered, he is deluded. His spiritual life, to whatever degree he may think he is involved in such a life, becomes difficult and offensive to him. Anything pleasurable that he realizes in the Company of the Spiritual Master serves to delude him and make him more self-possessed. Once the induvidual is awakened by the argument and Presence of the Spiritual Master, however, then the Force of that Company beigns to purify and transform him. The Company of the Spiritual Master serves the self-transcendence, the surrender, the sacrifice in God, that the individual's total life must ultimately represent. Therefore, those who surrender to the Spiritual Master are Enlightened." DA AVABHASA Vision Mount, vol 2, no 11 (1979)