johnw@farside.eng.ready.com (John Wheeler) (05/21/91)
Hi, this johnw. I have posted a couple of articles recently on what I feel to be the import of Buddhist teaching, etc. I thought I would take an opportunity to clarify a few mistaken impressions that may have arisen in connection with my postings. First, I do not claim to be a scholar or an expert on Buddhist theoretical philosophy (but neither was Buddha, so at least I am in good company!). Also, one poster made the assumption I was a member of a Tibetan Buddhist school. This is not so. (Sorry for creating the wrong impression.) I did mention that I was studying under a realized sage. This is true. Although some reacted with a bit of skepticism, and thought my "claims" were a "tad" exaggerated, I would feel fairly confident in maintaing quite the reverse: if anything, I think they were understated. If I was to say what kind of path it is that I follow, perhaps it is best to call it the path of non-duality. The term non-duality has several implications. One is that is refers to a state or realization of that which lies beyond all conceptual opposites. In this sense, it is (I believe) in accord with the philosophy of Nargarjuna. Another aspect of non-duality has to do with awakening to the fundamental unity of all that exists. In this respect, it accords with the philosophies of non-dual Advaita Vedanta and Taoism. Non-duality holds that the essence of all beings is identical to the Supreme reality whether that reality be called Brahman, God, the Tao, the Void, Consciousness, the One Mind, the Buddha Nature, etc. Non-duality views the various traditions of higher philosophy as various modes of expressing the same fundamental truth. Since the realization of the truth of non-duality is not theoretical or intellectual (and thus cannot be gained by reasoning alone), non-duality stresses the importance of receiving this teaching in a living context, directly from a realized sage. This is not to say that it is impossible to realize "on one's own," but that for practical purposes, it is simply much faster to easier gain the immediate experience in a living context. This is just my opinion, but I feel it is more than substant- iated in history. All of the great lineages of Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta, etc., flourished in the context of direct Master and disciple relationships. At any rate, the import of my postings was simply to make the opportunity known to those who are interested in pursuing it. Some people were critical of my position on Buddhism, and felt that my understanding was inaccurate. Be that as it may, I thought I would add a few words in an attempt to clarify what I believe to be the important points. In the discussion in previous postings we were talking about the nature of consciousness and the relation of subject and object. The question arose: Is there a subject that remains independent and unaffected by objects? And is consciousness itself a transcendent, self-existent reality? One member of the Buddhist contingency maintained that to believe so is a fundamental contradiction of the basic tenants of that philosophy. First let us look a the objects of perception, including thoughts. It is clear that all schools agree that the objects of perception are transient, impermanent, and do not contain any abiding or continuing entity or self. This is the position of Vedanta and Buddhism. The question arises when we look at the nature of the subject. Two possiblities arise: either the subject is relative and ulitmately as transient as objects (Buddhism), or it is permanent (Vedanta). I would venture to say that both are accurate, as contradictory as it may appear. Why? Because if either approach is rigorously pursued it leads to the same experience. Thus is the end the issue is more semantic than real. I believe the intent of the Buddhist philosophy is to lead one beyond conceptual dualism not simply to show that "nothing is real," which would be nihilism, but to prepare the way for the direct, non-conceptual realization of reality, sometimes called "Suchness," or the "Void." This experience is indescribable in terms of dualisitic language, yet is certainly not non-existent. In fact, it is the heart of Buddhism. If you say that Buddha repudiated the existence of such a reality, that would not accord with recorded teachings of his. I am sure you remember Buddha's repsonse to being questioned about the existence of a higher reality. He remained "silent." In this silence, was contained the direct, non- conceptual transmission of his realization. So, although Nagarjuna's philo- sophy negates all forms of dualism, it is only a preparation for direct awakening to Suchness (non-duality). Vedanta takes a different tack, yet arives in the same place. By a rigorous and relentless inquiry into the nature of the 'I,' the seeker plunges into the depths of his own being, questing for what is real, what can be truly call 'I.' He comes to realize that nothing perceivable or conceiveable can be call the 'I.' Even the notion that one is an ego, or separate self is uprooted. Yet still there is an undeniable feeling of being and consciousness. Diving into the source of being and consciousness one finds it to be real, yet formless, non-dual, without objective characteristics. This substratum is beyond the subject/object duality, although it began with an inquiry into the subject. Perhaps an illustration will make this clear. Let us say I hold up my hand. The thumb represents the "subject," the fingers represent the "objects" of perception (including thought), while the hand itself stands for the underlying, non-dual, reality. Now, Buddhism says that the thumb and fingers (subject and objects) are unreal as self-existent entities. This is true, but you cannot deny hand itself that lies beyond the duality of thumb and fingers. (If you try to do so, how can you escape the charge of nihilism?) Vedanta says the finger are unreal, yet says that the thumb (subject) contains an underlying reality. By tracing the thumb to its source (I am flogging this metaphor to death) the non-dual hand is realized. In any case, whatever approach is taken, the end result must be the direct realization of non- duality. This is all at the verbal level, however; the glory of it is known only the presence of the awakened. If anyone has inquires about this teaching, please email directly. Take care, johnw
japlady@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Rebecca Radnor) (05/21/91)
John,
Sorry for assuming your affiliation w/ the Tib. lineage. I was
wondering, who is your teacher?
As far as the attainment of wisdom is concerned I agree with you (to
some extent) that an association with an 'enlightened being' is beneficial.
But I am concerned with your assertion regarding the depth of your
teacher's insight, not so much in terms of my standards of what
enlightenment is, but the very notion of comparison. The obvious question,
as raised by other participants, is how do you know he/she is fully
enlightened? Also, by what standard do you base your judgment of who is
more enlightened than another? It seems to me that when one engages in
this type of comparison one is, at best, clouded by one's own prejudices
or, at worst, 'doing propaganda' for one's own teacher/tradition, etc.
It is a good idea to acknowledge that, as human beings, we crave
CERTAINTY, and one assurance of this is to believe in some fully awakened
teacher who will show us the correct path, do the right thing, etc. If
this teacher of yours were to be found in a compromising position (as some
gurus, zen masters, etc have), would disillusionment follow? Do you see
the games our mind plays on us? The very notion of the perfect/imperfect
idea stems from our thinking. To see the shortcomings of this outlook is
important, for even enlightened persons who are all too human can teach us
a thing or two.
There is a more important issue here regarding the dialogue with
others on the nets. By assuming-- actually you can assume, rather the
PUBLIC assertion that your teacher is fully awakened puts you in a position
of authority since we who have no access to him/her are at a disadvantage.
>From this perspective, all you have to do is keep pushing your view of
ultimate reality to us unfortunate ones, because it is you who have the
good fortune of living with the embodiment of wisdom. In actuality, you
are caught in the vicious circle most bible thumpers are (this is not a
judgment of your teacher; he may be a bodhisattva for all I know). What is
this circle? 1) we really should accept your viewpoint because 2) you are
exposed to the true teachings since 3) your master is the fully enlightened
one, the reality of this judgment being that it is your viewpoint (#1) that
he is indeed enlightened.
I apologize if my remarks seem abrasive; but let us keep in mind that
most westerners who leave their given traditions (i.e., xtianity, etc.)
usually follow a 'new' path with the same exclusivness and ferver that
drove them away from their original 'faith'. Before you tell us of your
teacher's spiritual status again, please consider my (erroneous?)
observation.
As aconcluding note, let me say that it would be safe for all of us to
assume that our words, explanations, and analyses do not accurately mirror
"reality". In other words, our discussions are for the most part
theoretical (this does not mean our ideas are 'wrong' but only partial; the
insights we discuss are derivative of learning from spiritual guides,
reading texts, personal meditation, etc.), and that our exchange of ideas
will be of mutual help to all, but that no one idea shall reign supreme.
OK, enough 'preaching'.
J. Cha c/o japlady (will
finally get my own account next week)