What I found, after several years of dedicated searching and practice, was that my orientation had gradually shifted away from transcending life, to a more inclusive relationship with it. I began to feel that the purpose of my life was to be more whole, to include what had been left out or what had seemed undesirable.

It was fun to write on this topic, because it’s such an important aspect of spiritual maturation, and now that I’m leaning in this direction, I’m seeing so many amazing people & teachers who have this orientation. One of my teachers, Jack Kornfield, has really influenced me in this regard. His books A Path with Heart and After the Ecstasy, the Laundry are brilliant contributions to a spiritual path that focuses on wholeness.

I’ve also been really drawn to a teacher named Diane Musho Hamilton, who teaches in the Zen tradition. She really exhibits a kind of openness and embrace of life that is something I feel represents a real type of freedom in the world, rather than freedom from it. Emily and I are going on a Zen Sesshin with her next week, and we’re thrilled to be practicing with her. This will be my first longer retreat outside of the Theravada tradition, since I started practicing in 2002. I finally feel that I’ve gone deep enough in that tradition to begin exploring what other traditions have to offer. Here’s to exploration and to being a whole human being!

Take for instance the jhana attainments of concentration meditation. These jhana states have been entered by countless people throughout time and their descriptions of what comes before, what the state itself is like, and then the leaving of that state are fairly clear. A yogi who has a good amount of practice in entering these states can easily recognize those experiences in another. Of course there’s always some degree of disagreement–even among the ‘community of the adequate’—about the fine level details of experience, but there’s enough of a common understanding that we can safely talk about experiences being verifiable.

Awakening however is not an experience, is not a thing. Therefore it stands completely on its own, both as something that can’t be fully explained, and as something that needs no explanation. For one who is awake, awakeness is sufficient in and of itself. Still though, there is a process of integrating that understanding more deeply into one’s life. I may forget that awakeness is completely self-sufficient and begin wanting someone to tell me I’m awake, but then remember (again and again) that awakening is. The mind can’t comprehend it, but it’s the most fundamental thing, what one of my teachers calls “the simplest thing.”

Furthermore, it’s not just that awakening stands on its own for me alone. It also stands on its own for everyone. We all share the same fundamental awakeness. And though we may forget this, on the deepest level, it’s what connects us in a connection beyond connection. There being no others to connect with, we are that.

“Being what you cannot not be is being what is.” – Karl Renz

Something I’ve come to understand deeply is that awakening is no-thing. It is not a state that one achieves, a place one can go, or a position one can take. It’s not even a perspective, as it is prior to the arising of perspective, prior even to the arising of time. Awakening just is what it is. And while this may sound like a standard description of awakening, perhaps even a bit cliché, one of the ramifications of this recognition—because although awakening is no-thing and occupies no place, it can still be known—is that the laws that generally govern things do not apply to awakening.

Typically, when it comes to things, or objects, they are subject to various patterns and forces. One of those forces, as described in basic economic theory, is supply and demand. To be very broad, one can think of a certain amount of an object being available as supply, and the amount of desire or interest in acquiring that object as demand. The relationship between these two, with price being part of a trinary aspect of the model, is one way of describing how and why things are acquired, and what their value is.

Now, when we become seekers and enter onto the spiritual path, we can’t help but conceive of awakening as a thing. It’s just how the mind operates, how we’re conditioned. And the assumption seems to make perfect sense. After all, everything that we’ve ever gone after before, and achieved, was in the realm of things. Even the subtlest states of consciousness or emotional highs are types of experience, meaning that we experienced them, not the other way around. Thus, even the most subtle experiences are objects of consciousness, are things.

But as I said earlier, awakening is the recognition of no-thingness, what the American mystic Franklin Merrell-Wolff spoke of as, “Consciousness without-an-object.” And as a result it is not subject to the same patterns that operate in thing-ville. In particular there is no supply of awakening, and so there is absolutely no lack of it. There is also no abundance of awakening. If it were abundant then it could also become scarce. Being completely beyond both scarcity and abundance, awakening is.

And since there is no supply of awakening, then our demand for it is unfounded. Our sense that we can “get” it is mistaken. I’ve often had a subtle sense, in my own practice, of jealously or competitiveness with other practitioners. In some ways I secretly wanted to be the one who was more awake, or who could awaken more quickly. What has happened though, more and more, is that I see that awakening is the birthright of all human beings, is essentially what we are. Back on the personal side of the street, it’s totally acceptable to speak of deepening that recognition, but that deepening isn’t something gained, rather it’s the dropping of the mistaken idea that our Original Nature is a thing that we can acquire at all.

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.¹

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.²

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.

1. 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.
2. That, or it will piss you off to no end.

If you’ve been following my lifestream lately, you’ll see that I’ve become pretty obsessed with tea. A good friend of mine, earlier this year, invited me over to try “real tea.” At the time, I asked how real tea was different from the loose leaf tea I’d have at a coffeeshop or the tea bags I got from the store? He kind of scoffed, as any tea snob would, and said, “You mean McTea?”

Well, it turns out he was right. After having tea with him a few times, I was hooked. I bought several tea items–including the cups, gaiwan, and bamboo tea table you see in the picture above. I then began drinking Chinese tea, Gung Fu style. And honestly, it’s an amazing experience!

With Chinese tea, prepared in this particular way, you use a large amount of tea leaves, compared to a smaller amount of water and do very fast steeps. A green tea, for instance, would only be steeped for 5-10 seconds before pouring. An Oolong maybe a bit longer. But in both cases you’d be amazed at how good tea can be, with such short steep times. Not only that, but the tea itself changes with each steep. An Oolong can be steeped several times using this method, and each steep will change somewhat, showing another dimension of the tea. That is all to say, goodbye McTea!

Now, my tea obsession got so bad, that I recently decided to do an interview on Buddhist Geeks on the history and significance of tea. And this morning, my interview with Kenneth Cohen (qi-gong master and huge tea geek) went live on Buddhist Geeks. It is entitled, Buddha in a Cup of Tea.

Here’s a little info on the episode:

This week, we’re joined by Kenneth Cohen, a well-known qi-gong master. Along with his training in the Taoist qi-gong and tai chi chuan, Kenneth has a strong connection to the Zen tradition and to the Japanese tea ceremony.

In this episode, he shares with us some of the history of tea (the camellia sinensis plant), its long-standing relationship to the Buddhist tradition, his own training with Japanese tea master Millie Johnstone, and the wonderful profundity of drinking a simple cup of tea.

Finally, if you’re interested in taking your tea drinking to a whole new level, here are some small tips:

1. Order your tea and teaware directly from China. There are some really high-quality tea shops that ship directly from China. They tend to be 2-3 times cheaper than US competitors, and are usually selling the exact some stuff. Two of my favorite are: a) Dragon Tea House & b) Yunnan Sourcing.
2. If you do order from the stores above, try to contact the seller directly, and ask for “off E Bay pricing”. They’ll be even cheaper, as the seller can sell to you directly, and cross off their extra E-Bay fees. Don’t worry, both are reliable.
3. Read a good book on the history of tea. The one I’m reading now is fantastic. It’s entitled, The Story of Tea.
4. Try different kinds of tea. White, Green, Oolong, and Pu’erh are all classics. My personal favorites now are Tie Guan Yin (Iron Bodhisattva of Compassion) and Da Hong Pao (Big Red Robe). Both are Oolongs.
5. Listen to the podcast episode I did with Kenneth Cohen: Buddha in a Cup of Tea.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got some tea to brew!

Last week I officially launched the first Micropatronage Drive for Buddhist Geeks. A micropatron is someone who supports Buddhist Geeks financially, in a small way, but with enough micropatrons we can really garner the financial support we need to take Buddhist Geeks to another level. The other level we’re planning has to do with launching two new projects, both of which have been percolating for a while. The first is a full-fledged digital magazine and the other is an in-person conference entitled BuddhaDharma 2.0. And the cool thing is, if we’re able to get the support we need, we’ll then make all of the digital content from both of these events completely free to everyone who wants it.

I decided that a fusion of the digital free model (see Chris Anderson’s new book Free: The Future of a Radical Price or Kevin Kelly’s article, Better Than Free) with the long-standing tradition of generosity in the Buddhist tradition was the best hybrid-model to experiment with. My hope was that instead of creating and selling a premium product (like the recorded content from the BuddhaDharma 2.0 conference) we could offer it for free, with the support of a small percentage of our overall listeners.

So, how are we doing? Well, our first milestone was 100 micropatrons (each contributing the equivalent of $5 / month—though many have contributed more) and that would allow us to continue the Buddhist Geeks podcast in a sustainable way. I’m thrilled to say that we surpassed that milestone within the first week of launching our patronage drive, and as of this writing have nearly 140 micropatrons. Our next big milestone is to reach 300 micropatrons, at which point we’ll have the resources to begin working on the Digital Magazine project. I’m very hopeful that we’ll be able to reach this goal also, and continue to be encouraged and inspired by the support from Buddhist Geeks listeners and community members.

If you haven’t yet, please go check out the details of the micropatronage drive over at www.BuddhistGeeks.com

Here’s a little snippet from the article:

The problem with not seeing how Buddhism has evolved, and in not seeing ourselves as a part of Buddhism’s evolution, is that we can believe we are somehow the holders of the “essence” of Buddhism. But what is the essence stripped from the practices, realizations, models, and people who have contributed to this living tradition? Is there really such a thing? Could it be that the whole idea of there being an essence to Buddhism that is distinct from it’s extraneous forms–those forms that are so irrelevant that we can simply ignore them or dump them–is coming from a set of cultural assumptions that exist here in this place and time? We need to recognize that possibility, and see that there is a kind of violence in trying to strip something from its historical roots, and also a kind of arrogance in thinking that we can even do that successfully.

Please go check it out, and drop a comment there if you feel so moved.

I appreciate Vince Horn’s comments regarding the need to demystify enlightenment. I’d like to make a minor point here. While I think it is true that we often project ‘weird shit’ onto those we regard as enlightened teachers–a longtime Buddhist practitioner once said to me, with a straight face, ‘Tibetans aren’t like us. They can fly’–I do believe the saying, ‘Ye shall know them by their fruits’ carries some validity.

Among The Three Trainings taught by the Buddha, morality is just as important as wisdom and concentration. I’ve grown tired of people saying that supposedly enlightened teachers who commit unspeakable acts–who harm others in ways that might shock an average person plucked off the street–have mere ’shadow issues.’ This has started to seem like a somewhat dangerous euphemism to me, valuable and true as the shadow concept is.

In other words, when looking for signs of an enlightened being, we should not demand an Unerring Goody Two Shoes who never gets angry, always wears a kindly smile, etc. But when it becomes clear that the individual in question routinely indulges in behavior that causes harm to others, I do believe that this should give us pause about that person’s level of realization.

Enlightened beings actually should have enough self-mastery that people associate them largely with wholesome states and behaviors, basic goodness and sanity. The strength and goodness of HH The Dalai Lama comes to mind here.

Dear Joel,

I really appreciate your comment and the points you bring up. I thought it would be helpful to respond, so that I could clarify some of my thinking around this topic…

Firstly, I totally agree that morality is an important part of the traditional Buddhist path also. Really, it’s an important part of living a good and healthy life. That said, when I use the word “enlightenment,” I specifically mean the realization that comes through training in insight. And so one can train in insight, attain realization, and then still be a jackass if they haven’t done much in the trainings in morality. And likewise, one can train in morality all day long, everyday, become a saint of sorts, and still not be awake in terms of insight. I tend to think there was both a reason that the Buddha separated these trainings (as becomes obvious when we see the huge disparity between the different trainings in certain people’s practices) and also a good reason he saw them as inter-connecting and mutually supportive. Mastery, or even small gains, in any of the trainings can be used as a support for mastery in the other trainings, but that doesn’t mean they are the same thing.

This brings us to another meaning of enlightenment, which is actually Buddhahood, in which we see enlightenment as the perfection of the 10 paramis (or 6 paramitas), which include qualities from all three trainings. I think when people think of “enlightenment” they are often thinking of the ideal of Buddhahood. But I’ll be honest, I don’t think the Buddha was a Buddha. Who can “perfect” a quality of being (let alone 10), and what does that even mean? “I’ve perfected patience”. Does that mean the quality of patience has an endpoint? And what can have an endpoint in the relative world? If that’s the case, I’d have to say this smells a bit of mythic dogma. If instead, the teachings on the perfections (whether there are 6 or 10) is pointing to ideals which we can cultivate, approach, and otherwise work toward, but which we acknowledge don’t have an endpoint per say, then I’m all for it. But when we recognize there isn’t an endpoint to patience, generosity, concentration, etc. then we’re also recognizing this type of enlightenment isn’t possible in the relative world. From this vantage, the 1st definition of enlightenment (certain significant milestones in the training in insight) becomes a much more useful working definition.

So, I’d say that enlightened beings realization should not be judged by their behavior, as insight training can really be done largely independent of the training in morality. That said, as Buddhist practitioners, the ideal, as you say, really is to combine the three trainings as best we can, so that we can live an awake, still, and ethical life. That though, is probably an endless process, and so I think we should give ourselves some credit where it’s due, and also be patient with ourselves as best we can.

How do we know what enlightenment is precisely if no one we know has reached it? Who is qualified to serve as judge to gauge whether someone is, in fact, enlightened when clearly those left to label someone as such are most likely not, themselves, enlightened? If it’s also true that one who claims to be enlightened is most certainly not so, how does one know when someone becomes enlightened? Stephen Bodian explores this with Adyashanti in “The Taboo of Enlightenment” in the Fall 2004 issue of Tricycle. Would love to hear what folks think about this.

Interesting questions, though I think many of them are deeply flawed. Let me take a shot at each, by being practical and down-to-earth. Please excuse the rhetorical force behind the responses, but I think Western Buddhists have gone far too long behind childish when it comes to the topic of enlightenment, and so I feel compelled as fellow practitioner and lover of wisdom to be frank…

How do we know what enlightenment is precisely if no one we know has reached it?

If you don’t know anyone who is enlightened, then you probably aren’t looking hard enough. There are many, many people in all sorts of spiritual communities who have had very deep breakthroughs and permanents shifts of identity. By almost all definitions they’ve achieved various degrees of enlightenment. Just ask around, and you will find them… But if you do find them, try not to project all sorts of weird shit onto them. They’re just normal people. Instead, a practical and helpful question is, “How did you do it?” Usually those who are enlightened, woke up for a reason.

Who is qualified to serve as judge to gauge whether someone is, in fact, enlightened when clearly those left to label someone as such are most likely not, themselves, enlightened?

Again, why do we assume that there aren’t those that are enlightened walking around right now? That’s, to me, one of the most disempowering (and frankly untrue) beliefs one could have. Of course, it depends on what you mean by enlightenment (if you think enlightenment = a super being who can’t do any wrong, then you probably won’t find any enlightened people). If instead, you use a working definition of enlightenment that has to do with radically diminishing the sense of fundamental duality, in their real-time experience, then I think you’ll find 100’s, if not 1000’s of people who have had those kind of shifts. Ask any authentic teacher if their students are getting enlightened. If they say, “no”, run the other way.

In terms of assessing other people’s degree of awakening, that’s a little trickier. By virtue of having actually experienced the terrain of awakening, an enlightened person has a much better shot at seeing similar patterns in other people’s practices. They can use various maps to try and aid in their assessment (there are many helpful one’s that the traditions have provided), but having a map doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll be able to map the complexities of reality. People are just too varied and too complex, for one map to fit all the possible experience and descriptions out there. And humans are constantly making assessment errors, even if they do have good maps and have the experience themselves.

Of course, we musn’t forget that our own internal models of what enlightenment is, will always shade our assessment of other people’s realizations. Those internal beliefs need to be subjected to inquiry as well, and if we find that our internal beliefs lead us to think that no one could possibly be enlightened, that probably means we have poor beliefs, not that enlightenment isn’t possible.

If it’s also true that one who claims to be enlightened is most certainly not so, how does one know when someone becomes enlightened?

Why would saying, “hey, I think I’m enlightened, because of x, y, or z…” automatically disqualify me from being enlightened? Does enlightenment somehow limit the words that can come out of our mouth, or the thoughts I can have? By that very same faulty logic the Buddha himself couldn’t have possibly been enlightened (not to mention the 1000’s of respected figures throughout time who have made similar claims). Come on now folks, just because we’re talking about enlightenment, doesn’t mean we need to regress to pre-rational modes of thinking. Rationally is still very helpful…

Personally, I think Adyashanti has done much to demystify a topic which historically has been so shrouded in shoddy and magical thinking. Part of the problem has to do with the very way the traditions have talked about it, but the other part has to do with us as pretty smart Western people completely buying that bullshit hook, line, and sinker. Just because someone from the East said it, doesn’t make it so. We need to use our own discerning mind, do the practices set out by the Buddha and all the multitude of people since him, and find out for ourselves what enlightenment is or isn’t. Then, we can speak about it with authority, instead of asking silly questions. I appreciate Adyashanti for doing just that, and think more should follow in his footsteps.

I find that somehow, by shifting the focus of attention, I become the very thing I look at and experience the kind of consciousness it has; I become the inner witness of the thing. I call this capacity of entering other focal points of consciousness – love. – Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj

I heard that quote from Nisargadatta, the famous advaita sage, on a recent month-long retreat. I found it significant, because at the time I was working with the enquiry question, “What is Love?” and had started to come to the same realization. So, when I heard the very simple description of love that Nisargadatta gave, of the capacity to place one’s consciousness on something, I thought to myself, “Exactly!”

When I first started working with the question, “What is Love?” my initial experience was of feeling the connection between all things, almost like seeing the subtle, but pervasive, effect that each atom had on each other atom in the universe. But then, the answer began to change, and for some time, each time I asked the question, “What is Love?” almost immediately a huge amount of fear, anxiety, etc. would arise. At first I thought that I must be doing something wrong, but as I continued to ask the question the same exact thing kept happening. Before I asked, everything would be even, clear, etc. and then BAM all sorts of intense and difficult emotions would arise. I began to get interested in this fact, and decided that it’s arising couldn’t be an accident, but rather was exactly what should be arising. And so I shifted to just being with, and seeing clearly, all of it as it arose. Much as I would do with vipassana practice, I gently explored and relaxed into the experience. Eventually, as all experiences do, it faded, and I had the sudden and shocking realization that this was an answer to the question, “What is Love?” Love is the capacity to be present with something. When I shared that with my teacher, Trudy Goodman, she acknowledged that yes, that is what is meant by Love. And she also mentioned that it kind of trips people out to see that, because it really doesn’t carry with it all the charged emotionality that people assume it should.

Reflecting on this a little later, it occurred to me that any practice that allows one to be with experience more fully is itself a practice of Love. All of the vipassana practice that I’ve done, seeing clearly the nature of phenomenon and the mind-body-self process, was strengthening Love. And now I really don’t see a difference between the practices that more emphasize surrender and love and those that emphasize awareness and attention. For me, they converge in the simple act of “shifting the focus of attention” to include whatever it is. And what happens when we are able to do that for the whole of Reality, just as it is? For me, that’s when things start to get interesting!