When you know it is stupid to become something, this is enlightenment. – H.W.L Poonja
I posted this quote from H.W.L Poonja, or “Papaji” as his students called him, on my twitter feed yesterday. The quote elicited an interesting comment from a dharma buddy, about whether this is a mature expression of enlightenment when compared to another Buddhist teacher, Joshu Sasaki Roshi. I would share some of the background with Joshu Sasaki Roshi, but I don’t think that it’s actually relevant to this post, insofar as what I want to say has nothing to do with the content of the argument, but rather has to do with Advaita teachings, in general, when compared to Buddhist teachings. ((I should say that there isn’t always a clear delineation between Buddhist and Advaita teachings and teachers. Certainly there’s enough difference to make these points, but there’s also a lot of overlap. Many Zen teachers, do at times, sound like Advaita teachers. But, even with Zen masters, the difference seems to be with building up views and models of enlightenment, and using those as teaching tools. Just as an example, it turns out that Zen has the largest written teaching cannon of any Buddhist school.))
My first thought, when looking at my friend’s concern is that Papaji is mainly trying to point to something here (rather than sum up his view of enlightenment), as this quote is taken from the context of a live discussion with a student. In the very next page he speaks about it differently, so I think it’s important not to take this one quote as indicative of his entire view of enlightenment, but rather as a teaching tool.
That said, the entire approach of Advaita masters, like Papaji, is really more about helping people dis-identify with their views of enlightenment, right there in the moment, so that there are no views to cling to. Even though they themselves have views (that seems inevitable), their method is a ruthless deconstruction of views, and so it’s really hard to compare the words of an Advaita teacher with a Buddhist teacher. I’m not saying it’s impossible—as I’m clearly attempting it myself—just that there’s something lost in the comparison, especially when what one’s values are on the side of complex and mature views.
That said, I personally find that seeing this difference, I go to Advaita teachers–like Papaji, Nisargadatta, Ramana Maharshi, Karl Renz, Adyashanti (to some degree)–for something different than I go to Buddhist teachers for. I go to them to have my ideas about enlightenment questioned, to pull the rug out from all definitions, views, & models about “what it is”. I think they do this better than almost anyone, and I continually find that by going back to these types of teachers, there’s a re-balancing and deepening that happens.
I think part of what happens, when I have a really compelling and complex view about enlightenment, is that I can get sort of ridged around the view, and it starts to get stale. It’s like the whole staring at the finger pointing to the moon. I get so involved in the various creases and lines on the finger that I forget what it’s there for. For those that are stuck on methods, techniques, and views, having a conversation with a good Advaita teacher, or reading some of the recorded talks from the famous dead-dudes in India, will really dislodge that in many cases. ((That, or it will piss you off to no end.))
It also dislodges the sense that enlightenment needs to be seen primarily from a gradual, or time-based, perspective. In points directly to ones experience in this moment, almost mercilessly. Take this other quote from Papaji’s discussion, with a student who asks:
Student: I have a question relating to freedom, about the use of the correct method in regard to the chakras.
Papaji: Don’t worry about methods. If you are sincere and honest, and have a true desire for freedom, even wrong methods will take you there. Therefore, give rise to the desire 100 percent, and the rest will take care of itself. What you are doing is not important, the end is important. You can do anything you like. The end must be that “I have to be free.”
In the student’s question, you can almost hear their reliance on method and technique, and in Papaji’s answer he undercuts all of that, and points directly to ones motivation, and to what is ultimately driving the search. It’s as though, he’s saying, “quit staring at my finger and generate the unquenchable desire to be free. If you do that, nothing can stop you.”
Of course, I always come back to my wise and mature Buddhist teachers, but I feel that in coming back, I strangely understand what their saying much better. I see the beauty and wisdom in their hard-earned views, but I also see their ultimate inability to point one to the truth. Their words, no matter how beautiful, need to fall on the ears of those who “have to be free,” and who are willing to question absolutely everything. If they don’t, then it just becomes a beautiful and mature view, a model finger, always pointing, but not really guiding, to direct Reality.
thanks for expounding more on Papaji’s quote. i admit that i honed in on that quote but i also thought that the context was not complete. i posted my comment originally to elicit more information as well as to make a point: a *more* enlightened teacher for me is some who has no preference between self and no self. i don’t know the details of Papaji’s teachings, but if his attitude falls within that and he expounds on it, then he’s awesome in my book
i agree with you that Advaita teachers are excellent at pointing out our true nature (whatever that is). they are good at deconstruction. heck, my anti-guru hero U.G. Krishnamurti was even good at deconstructing Advaita peeps.
however, once someone gets “deconstructed” and awakened, what’s next? how will they express the No Self (or True Self)? how can this expression be both practical as well as liberating? if pointing out works alone, then anyone who goes to these awakened teachers can get awakened (in a short time). but that is not the case. that’s why i find value in the Five Ranks of Tozan development model. (Bill Harris has a good post about this – http://www.centerpointe.com/blog/2008/06/10/so-there-you-are-enlightened )
another a good example is Eckhart Tolle. he had some meditation background before his uber-enlightenment. but he didn’t get “there” through consistent practice. however, after his awakening, he went back and hang out with Buddhist teachers and other spiritual peeps to understand what happened to him, as the story went. so in his case i think he had to train the No Self to operate again in the relative world because he had no prior training/model/concept. but that’s just my humble opinion
thanks, dawg!
~C
Hey C,
Yeah, I hear you bro and agree, on the whole, that after deconstruction comes reconstruction. Somehow there seems to be a dynamic tension between these two–a paradox of sorts–that I believe sincere practitioners actively walk. It’s been my experience that if one walks that line, with deep sincerity, then as Papaji says, the methods are secondary. It seems to me that there’s something more fundamental happening, beneath the methods, which is the X-factor of awakening. I guess that doesn’t mean that having good methods, teachers, and models are extremely helpful, but just that they’re not as important as the deep intuition about the possibility of awakening, and the complete alignment with that intuition.
In some ways, I think the best thing that teachers can do, is to empower students to discover and trust that deepest intuition, and then offer methods and guidance that are in alignment with what the student is discovering for themselves. And in some cases, I’ve seen that the deepest intuition of a seeker is to completely abandon their previous techniques, models, methods, etc. and that is there path. For others, as you say, it’s the opposite path. They realize their true nature, and then need to find concepts, models, methods to make sense of things.
Anyway, I’ve been swinging more toward the Advaita pole lately, I guess, and have been finding it really fruitful. Here’s to finding what works!
-Vince
yep, I dig the Advaita approach too. and it’s good to have that perspective so as not to get too stuck and attached to methods/concepts/stages U.G. Krishnamurti and Ramana had always been my paragons from the Advaita school (although U.G. would disagree with my categorization, but he’s dead so he can no longer argue with me on this
).
on a more contemporary view, I think Adyashanti is a good representative of Advaita (even if he would also disagree with my categorization).
but from a more embracing view of enlightenment I think Wilber still has one of the best riffs on his horizontal and vertical enlightenment concept/metaphor.
~C
Thanks, Vince. I appreciate the clarity of this post.
Hi Vince,
Nice post. I agree it can be most useful to shake up any view, or any practice that’s seemingly stale. Recognizing when and how is always a challenge, although we’re so blessed to have such an availability of teachings freely accessible on the net – including yours. So thanks for your words.
Those of us (I include myself here) seemingly using diverse views – leading to what is ultimately un-fixated, I find humorous, although I couldn’t say why this is so. For me the “deepest intuition” is somehow a recognition of the activity of the dharma itself revealing itself, first to itself, and then as itself, and “I” have no idea why. Go figure not.
Har-Prakash.
Thanks for the post, Vince.
I like the metaphor of concentration and insight working together as two wings. We could think of the sudden and gradual paths in precisely the same way. I’m somebody who got a little too stuck on the Krishnamurti, nothing-to-do-nowhere-to-go end of things. For me, balancing that with an understanding of concentration practices, the models and so forth has been very important to revitalizing a practice that had become stale. The key seems to be to jettison either/or thinking…
JoelG
Atlanta
Regarding the student question and Papaji’s response that you quoted above… wow! I don’t know why that had such an effect on me, but it did. I think that many of us get really fixated on the methods that work for us, or worked for the teachers we so admire, and forget the very motivation that drove us to find a method in the first place!
I enjoyed this post very much, Vince. Thanks for sharing.
For what its worth, traditional Advaita Vedanta, as taught say by Chinmaya, Dayananda Saraswati, is actually different from the ‘mystical’ Advaita, in it’s methodology, and somewhat it’s outlook.
What traditional Advaita, as taught by the people mentioned above offers, is deconstruction of one’s notion of Self, using very logical means.
The self-sense, as it is normally taken, is a mistaken habit of mind – a mistaken knowledge, they would say.
And the whole teacher methodology, is to break up that mistaken self-sense, in order to reveal the always existent Self, that’s right there, when false notions of self are dropped.
As such – if accurate and true – this methodology is actually much more promising for people, without relying on some mystical grace, but instead relying on a intelligent, inquisitive mind, capable of perceiving both parts and wholes.
There is no doubt that the methodology HAS an effect. When false notions of self are dropped, the mind resolves into a place that there is no separation, no grasping, from.
Unfortunately, since the methodology is taught as part of the knowledge of the Vedas, it’s all bound up with being taught all of the Vedas, as if the Vedas are truth. And here we begin to see some of Wilber’s notions of how the worldviews of an enlightened mind is embedded, matter. And in this case, the methodology of Advaita Vendanta, is embedded in retro worldview.
It will be interesting to see when that methodology is taught without the context of the Vedic retro worldview.
man is an idea. all verbs are nouns. there is apparent action, but no actor.
what I AM cannot be conceptualized. this true because ‘mind’ appears and
therefore I have to be prior. like witnessing an accident, but there is no witness, only witnessing. no object exists. name anything, it comes and goes – conceptualization, no existence. but, I claim existence. as nisargadatta said: i take my stand prior to all, i am the primal ground. and, does witnessing have power? no. I AM the powerless witnessing of manifistation. I do nothing and am all there is. if no thought, identify the enemy….
Advaita is monism, were as the teachings of Buddhism ie: Interdependent origination and Emptiness are not. Monism can only lead beings to a formless realm.