The saying, “All roads lead to Rome” does not
apply in the spiritual world at all. The paths are different, the techniques
are different, the so-called awakenings are different, and the ideas of what
constitute a good teacher versus a totally “enlightened being” who may or may
not be a teacher, are also different.
The Mind, Consciousness, spiritual experience,
emptiness, the Void, devotion, love, grace, ALL VARY FROM TRADITION TO
TRADITION.
You will find no mention of the place of love in
Zen. You will find no philosophy in
Zen. You will find no “final truth” in
Zen. There is no discussion of the Absolute, and relative versus absolute.
However, you will find a lot said about form and
emptiness, and the empty nature of feeling, thought, the sense data, and of
Consciousness itself. You will chant
about form and emptiness twice a day in a monastery, and practice many hours
either of silent sitting doing nothing (Shikantaza of Soto Zen), or the same
number of hours working on up to 25,000 Koans, each “testing” whether you
understood elements of the awakenings of fifty generations of Rinzai monks.
Hidden and pervading all of Zen is the Chinese
culture and ideas common a thousand years ago, all of which shape your
training, your insights, your meditation discoveries and experiences.
There are a lot of hidden rules of behavior
controlling your every action, and every action is judged by these hidden
cultural artifacts. In fact, along with
enlightenment, you have become a replicate of a Zen man of 900 AD China.
How do I know this? How can I make this judgment?
I spent nearly 25 years studying with six Zen
masters from Rinzai and Soto schools from three different national
traditions: China, Japan, and
Korea. I was named America’s first
International or World-teacher of Chogye Zen Buddhism in 1999. And, one of my
teachers, Kozan Roshi was very explicit about this, saying, “You cannot
understand Zen without understanding ancient Chinese culture.” Once you have spent 30 years mastering the insights of 50 generations of previous
masters you will have received a total makeover, escaping from your culture of
being a 21st Century American or European, the being an integration
of that and also of a 10th Century Chinese monk.
I am trying to make myself clear. You have obtained the wisdom but also the
limitations of a foreign culture preserved only in monasteries. You will have learned one way of
understanding concepts, words, the nature of Consciousness, the manifest world
and the unmanifest. You will have
learned a great deal about emptiness, AKA the Void, and one’s manifest experiences.
Tibetan Buddhism is exactly as culture-bound and
tradition-driven as Zen, but with a lot more reading of scriptures from the
various schools of Buddhism dating back 2,500 years. Each school has different interpretations of
what “reality,” time, space, emptiness, and phenomena “are” or mean. Tibetans also embrace Tantra, which is
utilizing one’s desires to foster awakening.
Then there are the Advaita schools with the
current best known historical examples of Ramana Maharshi/Robert Adams and
Siddharameshwar/Nisargadatta.
It is by means of the teachings and practices of
these two schools that I had my first two awakening experiences many years ago:
first of “No-self,” then of the recognition that I was even beyond the
emptiness and fullness of Consciousness itself. I was the witness of all that
happened in Consciousness, including the comings and goings of the various
states of Consciousness, such as the sleep, dream, and awakened states of
Consciousness, as well as te knowing ness of the Subtle Body, the unknowing of
the Causal Body, and also the bliss/love of Turiya.
Siddharameshwar presents a coherent model allowing
the student to examine the various levels of his or her Consciousness in order
to find the “location” of the sense of “I,” or “I Am.” That is, one meditates on one’s own inner
experience “looking” and “feeling” for the Self, not the imaginary self that
most people believe they are which consists of the idea of an inner, “objective”
self, which actually has no referent, and the “seeing-through” of which results
in the experience of yourself as having no objective existence, and that what
one is, is a unitary oneness state with no inner or outer boundaries; one
becomes limitless emptiness shining by its own light of awareness.
This is indeed a deep and profound progressive
understanding of yourself, first as a person, then as various levels of
Consciousness experience, then as the witness, or Absolute, not touched by
Consciousness.
BUT, IT IS STILL A SCHOOL, A PARTIAL LOOK AT THE
TOTALITY OF YOU. It is a system, a
method of investigation, and a set of conclusions.
It posits that there is no objective self as in Zen, but also there are “levels
of Consciousness” which need to be explored in order to discover who and what I
am.
The levels are one’s sensual experience of a
supposed external world as a body/mind, the knowingness of the mind, energies,
emptiness of the Subtle Body, the non-knowing, or non-existence of the Causal
Body, and finally, the bliss and energies of Turiya, which is the basic nature
of the most subtle aspect of Consciousness. Turiya is the source of the sense
of I Am.
In Turiya we find the sense of me or I Am that
pervades all other levels of Consciousness.
Then, one discovers the one who has explored all these levels and found
oneself, the I Am, and who is entirely beyond Consciousness. This witness, the Absolute, Parabrahman, watches
and experiences Consciousness, but is entirely beyond it, untouched by it, but
the Witness has mistakenly identified itself with the personhood of the sensual
physical world, as well as with the I Am of Turiya, and upon this recognition,
goes completely beyond Consciousness and has snuffed out all desires and karma
keeping one engaged with Consciousness and its apparent worlds, leading to the
same state that Hinayana Buddhists call Moksha, or liberation from attachments
to the world and Consciousness, leaving one in the most profound peace and
happiness, where there is completion and perfection everywhere one looks.
Siddharameshwar and Maharaj consider this witness, Parabrahman, to be the subject, the True Self so to speak, as opposed of the illusory objective self of concepts, roles, and the I-thought, that are initially seen through and called recognizing No-Self, or no objective self, or no separate self. But the feeling I Am of Turiya, is not part of the subject, but is still an object witness by the absolute. Even those with limited meditation experience early become aware of the difference between the witness and the sense of Self found in Turiya.
However, Siddharameshwar goes one step further than his two students
Nisargadatta and Ranjit, admonishing the transcender to continue to worship and
devote oneself to love of Turiya, for without that love, one dries up and
becomes useless.
My own teacher, and his mentor, Ramana Maharshi
missed this aspect of devotion altogether.
And Robert rarely acknowledged that there was a witness beyond
Consciousness, and usually held that one was the totality of
Consciousness. Yet, from time to time he
would say even Consciousness does not exist and you are even beyond
Consciousness. He felt the teachings of the absolute was beyond most of his
students. And, while he talked about
love, love was not at the beginning or end of either his philosophy or his
methods. Love, you might say, was almost just an add-on.
If you read Robert’s transcripts you hear much
mention of love, sometimes as an intrinsic aspect of Consciousness. But if you actually spent much time with him
as I did over 8 years, you will find him rather removed and cold. He was not a warm, smiling, happy being. He was indifferent to most every
situation. He felt “cold.”
Yet, in his everyday life Robert actually
practiced a search for love in women and a few students. He had a difficult time staying in this
apparent physical world. His dog
Dimitri, of whom Robert said kept him grounded, and when Dimitri died, he would
die, which is exactly what happened. But mostly, when not doing something, or
seeing someone, or while being at Satsang, Robert would sit quietly by himself,
hour after hour, doing nothing.
Yet Robert himself actively searched for the love
of a woman including the physical aspects, because he was human, and because
dwelling in the peace and completeness of the Absolute eventually results in
the need to worship Consciousness and the easiest way to do that is to worship—for
Robert—the embodied feminine.
His behaviors towards some of his female students
was a constant source of criticism from some critics, but I saw it as a desire
to worship Consciousness in the embodied form of women. It is exactly what Siddharameshwar
recommended: worship Consciousness, and the essence of Consciousness is found
in Turiya, the experience of which is Love and Bliss. Turiya could be called
the love/bliss body as per Jan Esmann.
And, love of a physical man or woman, in the
highest sense, is love of the I Am, Turiya, the Love/Bliss Body felt first in
another, which then allows the Love/Bliss Body then to be found in oneself as a
personal Self-Realization of having the “other,” Turiya, presenting herself or
himself to you appearing as “God,” as an experience of incredible love,
blissful energies and as the light of Consciousness as bright and pervading as
a thousand suns all exploding from within YOU, as your own intrinsic Turiya
nature.
However beautiful, consistent and complete is the
Siddharameshwar model, you have to understand it still is only one model of
Consciousness and Beyond, and does not contain the Zen model or experiences as
subsets, nor does it contain God, the divine, nor really does it talk about the
Void. It is one of many snapshots of the
totality of all that is.
Each of these traditions can take many years to
master, and to do so, you have to stay with one teacher or one method for many
years to dig a hole into Consciousness to reveal all that is to be revealed by
that teacher or method. Otherwise, one
flits between teachers and books about or by different teachers each of whom
has their own model of reality, their own methods from meditation, to Koans, to
rituals, to scripture studies, etc.
Without deviation, one needs to follow one method or teacher to dig
deeply into the nature of one’s self that has been explored and articulated by
whole lineages of teachers.
If you do not persist in one method or one
tradition, you will dig, as Osho said, many shallow holes as opposed to
reaching the depths of Consciousness.
I'm in a quandary about your statement "My own teacher, and his mentor, Ramana Maharshi missed this aspect of devotion altogether." In the books about Ramana, there are lots of examples of him talking about Bhakti, and expressing intense emotions when describing stories about Bhaktas etc. Here's just one quote in Osborne, where he quotes "Maharshi’s Gospel": ‘The eternal, unbroken, natural state of abiding in the Self is Gnana. To abide in the Self you must love the Self. Since God is in fact the Self, love of the Self is love of God, and that is Bhakti. Gnana and Bhakti are thus one and the same.’ Mmmmm. I guess what you are saying though, is that Siddharameshwar says that love is ESSENTIAL, whereas Ramana did not place that emphasis on love or bhakti.
ReplyDelete