I just had the opportunity to have a dhamma inquiry with a very wise and compassionate Australian teacher named Radha. One of the things I have come to love about India is all the wonderful things that foreigners are doing here, especially in category of western dhamma teachers. There seem to be many retreats that incorporate ecology, permaculture, sustainability, living with nature, etc, and it really seems to be on the leading edge of the western Buddhist movement, if there is one.
One thing that is special about Radha, and she is special, is that she incorporates Advaita, or non-duality, into her teachings. Advaita comes from the Hindu tradition, and so I went to see her specifically to ask the question that has been on my mind lately. I wasn't sure I'd have the opportunity to ask it, but I did, and I'm glad I made the 45 minute walk to the far side of Rishikesh to see her.
So what was my question?
First of all, let me just say that this blog isn't meant to be a way for me to express truth, it should be considered as more of a journey. The only things expressible are views, and a view can never be a truth. Whether or not my views point to truth, I don't know, I can only offer you my view based on my own experience and understanding, based on my journey. Since a journey isn't a fixed reality, neither are my views, they are constantly changing, constantly growing and adapting. In that respect, if you read one of my blog entries and you form some sort of judgment about me, then you've missed the point. The point, if there is one, is to share my views with the hopes that you will be inspired, on your own journey, to have your own views. Whether or not they are the same as mine, is of little importance.
What is important, is that you are asking the questions, you are looking for answers, and hopefully, that you are looking in the right places (within). It's really quite a beautiful journey to be on, and I think it's important to not hold on to anything I say here, neither by taking it as true or false, just see it for what it is (a view), use it if it helps, and disregard it if it doesn't. If you don't like it, maybe you can better understand your own view in opposition to mine, and it will still be for your benefit. Either way, try to keep an open mind, and please forgive me for any lack of continuity or confusing contradictions. Ideally, we can explore these realms together, learning as we go, and helping each other along the way. We don't have to come to the same place of understanding. As long as we are doing our best to connect with our hearts and make positive changes in the world, the rest are just details.
The tendency, for me anyway, while walking the path, is that every time I get to a new level of understanding, or start to see things differently, I say to myself, "Ah, now I get it, I didn't get it before." This is "me" identifying with my views, and failing to see the point of having a view in the first place. It seems ridiculous that every week, month, or year, I look back at the previous understanding from an elevated seat, always thinking how foolish I was then and how wise I am now. This is a game of the ego. All I am doing in this example is solidifying this sense of "me" that is the one with an understanding. Can a view just be a view? Do I have to own it, to put it into my little box and write my name on it?" "Look at me, everyone, I have the best view." This is just like bragging about having the best car, or the biggest house (keep in mind I have neither, so maybe I'm just jealous).
But really, does a fancy car or a big house really indicate anything about the owner, besides maybe some amount of wealth, or potentially greed, or insecurity? Does it indicate anything as to the value or worth of the person, and tell us how much we should respect them? Absolutely not. In the same way, having a polished view about spirituality doesn't either. In the Buddha's teaching, there is no self here to claim any such things, anyway. Think about it, there is a body, is that what owns a car, a house, or a view? There is this ego, the one certainly taking credit for all of such things, but is the ego who and what we really are? What about our minds? Are we our minds? The Buddha said all of these things are lacking an inherent self. None of them, taken individually, can represent who or what we really are. They are constantly changing, and certainly we can't be what is always changing.
So what are we? Try this on for size.
"We are that which is boundless."
Well, it certainly sounds....romantic. It gives me goosebumps and a warm, fuzzy feeling inside, but the fact remains, it's just a view. Even still, let's explore this idea by going back to the question I asked Radha.
The question went a little something like this:
"If I am not to be found in this body, in this mind, and in these processes, if I can't identify with them, can I identify with that which is boundless?"
Now, I won't try to remember exactly what she said, and it was quite a long conversation, so I'm going to attempt to offer a summary of the understanding she helped me come to.
In the doctrine of the two truths, the Buddha taught that there are two aspects of reality that are both true, and in essence, are not two, but one. On the one hand, there is Ultimate Reality, and on the other, conventional reality. In the Ultimate Reality sense, we are that which is boundless. In the conventional reality sense, my name is Douglas, but I prefer to go by Dougie, it just sounds...more fun.
Okay, so somewhere in there, is this person who wants to understand. Let's call him the seeker. The seeker in me wants to know and understand and put everything into a nice view that he can put into a box and write his name on. But is that what the seeker really wants, or is that what the ego wants? Does the seeker not seek to experience oneness with the boundless, and not try to describe it?
Okay, okay, so she's got me in a bit of a corner here. Maybe I should just delete this blog, deeming it just an attempt of my ego to form a view in order to feel better about myself. Maybe, I should. But, can we not see the validity in this kind of inquiry, in this kind of exploration, and this kind of endeavor to offer a view in the first place? It's not in having a view that is a problem, it's about the identification, the holding on to. What the seeker in me is looking for is letting go, so if I am holding on to anything, a practice, a sense of perspective, a sense that I understand something, or a sense that there is a "me" to even practice, have a perspective, or understand, then I am forgetting the intended purpose of seeking and need to get back to the point.
The point, here, is to be, here. So instead of going to great lengths and efforts to develop an understanding that I can put into words and offer up to you, the reader, why am I not just spending my time connecting with that which is unbound? Wow, this is some pretty heady business here, and a beautiful reminder that when we get lost in the mentality of trying to figure it all out, we might try just letting it all go, and coming back to that which we already are.
I mentioned to her that my goal is to find a common understanding between different traditions and paths, and she asked me something like, "Who is it that wants to do this?"
As it turns out, wanting to identify with that which is boundless is counter-productive. How can I bind myself to that which is unbound? How can I make something so vast into something so tangible? Am I not just looking for a sense of security? She invited me to just be with the present moment, to see what was there for me, without having to identify myself with the boundless. Then, she asked me what I felt. I told her, "peace." I felt a sense of relief, of not having to find an answer to such a difficult question. While it's good to have this sort of inquiring mind, and to have these sort of important questions, it's not always as important to find the answers. When we do have answers, the ego steps in and claims them, and then we are no longer connecting with the essence of who and what we really are. If the point is to compete with others, to make a display of how much I know or understand, than yes, I should try to come up with the most polished answers that I can, but that's not really why I'm here.
For the meantime, I don't see anything wrong with having this blog, and I will take inspiration from Radha to not get too wrapped up in trying to form the perfect view. A view is just a view, and it, along with this body and this mind, will never represent who or what I really am. "Well, that leaves with me with a bit of an identity crises," I told her, half jokingly. But you know what, that is okay, I'm not here to create myself, I'm here to be a part of creation. If, in the meantime, I don't know what that means, I'm going to try practicing being okay with that.
Just by trying to identify with the absolute, with infinity, that which is boundless, I've created a sense of self, a place for "me" to land. If the invitation is to connect with infinity, the connection becomes impossible as soon as I decide there is a me in the first place. As soon as I have divided the whole, to create myself, I've disconnected. I have to remember, that in the Absolute truth, I'm not even here, there is just everything, or nothing, depending on how you want to look at it. If I say, "I am one with the Universe," that is just a view that is created by the mind. It's not much different than saying "I am hungry," or "I am happy." Either way, it's relating something that is conditioned, bound, and limited, with something that is limitless. Can you see how this is a problem?
Can we let go of this idea that we have to understand everything? Can we release the tension around trying to identify with the Absolute, with God, with seeing ourselves as being one with everything? Can we find ways to connect, to be present, and to feel our sense of being, without having to put a label on it?
What is more important, to define freedom, or to be free? For now, I'll keep this in mind, and continue my practice.
To learn more about Radha and her upcoming teaching schedule, visit:
No comments:
Post a Comment