nerodha's blog

specialness and the ego

noreply@blogger.com (nerodha) — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 05:10:00 +0000

i remember watching a collection of videos of UG krishnamurti some time ago and being both shocked and delighted by his unconventional--to put it mildly--delivery.

for whatever reason, one of UG's messages that really struck home was that we humans are capable of taking just about anything and weaving it into a means for distracting us from the truth. of course by that point in my spiritual journey i thought i already understood this kind of thing, but the lesson i learned was that the drive for enlightenment can--and very often does--serve this purpose as well (and perhaps even more insidiously than more conventional distractions).

this shocked me, and i think it marked the beginning of a bout of self-reckoning that eventually forced me to acknowledge that i had been playing out the role of a spiritual person in order to feel special, unique, valuable, and above the "common herd."

the last thing i wanted, i realized, was to be common. i'd given up TV, meat, even music and socializing... pretty much everything except meditation, school, and work. in my mind, i was doing something those around me couldn't fathom, crafting myself into the rarest of human beings, putting lightyears between myself and average joe.

years later, i realized that the closer you are to truth, the closer you are to those around you. the larger the sense of separation, the deeper the delusion. when one is perfectly content with things as they are, one is not only quite happy but extraordinarily grateful to be "common." it was easy at this point to look back and see a certain stage in my "spiritual development" where i was actually quite stuck because i was using my newfound "wisdom" to set me apart in my imagination from others.

UG said something like: "i became enlightened in spite of my sadhana [spiritual practice]." when i first heard this, it was hard to imagine how things like meditation and abstinence could actually be an obstacle to truth-realization. to me, it was a simple equation: sadhana + time = enlightenment.

in reality, there is nothing we can "do" to realize truth. any action or accomplishment designed to "bring about" enlightenment is merely illusory, since the truth is already real and doesn't need to be "brought about."

as beginning spiritual seekers, it's natural that we should approach truth-realization the same way we've been taught to approach everything else: by planning and executing a set of actions. but the truth isn't the effect of anything; nothing can cause it. it doesn't even need to be caused--our only job is to realize it as it is. in order for this to happen, we have to "stop doing" rather than "do more."

stop doing what? that which distracts us from the truth: selfing, identifying, constantly investing in an illusory image of self. this is something that we literally devote 99% of our waking (and even much of our non-waking) energy to. it has taken on a life and momentum of its own, but with the practice of awareness we can stop investing in it and let the inertial drive run itself out. the question is, are we truly prepared to dismantle that which we think we are?

please feel free to post any thoughts/reactions/questions related to this post.

the causal loop

noreply@blogger.com (nerodha) — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 18:07:00 +0000

a feedback loop occurs when a system's output feeds back into its own input source, creating a self-sustaining and ever-potentiating circuit. one example is the screeching noise heard at rock concerts when too much sound from the speakers filters back into the microphones; if the phenomenon isn't checked, it can destroy the sound system.

the ego-identified mind can operate much in the same way. disconnected from its true source, it projects outward in search of a lost sense of connection and completion. it references inner value externally (where it can never be found), each failure exacerbating the sense of alienation and inadequacy.

the causal loop of egoic suffering is particularly insidious because its apparent solution--seeking external means of healing--is its very fuel. under this faulty paradigm, the harder we try, the more entrapped we become. and to complicate things further, the only real solution seems completely counterintuitive, even nonsensical.

despite all this, the way out of existential chaos is startlingly simple. ultimately we're all only looking for ourselves. this means there's nowhere to go, nothing to learn or attain, because we already are what we are. the only thing separating us from this realization is the disturbed, outward-reaching state of egoic consciousness. when we turn around to meet ourselves, we know beyond all possible doubt that we already are everything we need. we never were, and could never possibly be, separated from what we are.

fear of nothingness

noreply@blogger.com (nerodha) — Sat, 29 May 2010 19:18:00 +0000

when you look inside, what do you see? is there anything you can point to and say, "this is what i am"? the fact that there isn't a single tangible thing we can grasp onto as the essence of what we are creates a deeply unconscious fear within us, the fear of nothingness. this leads us to project outward and struggle to create an identity where we believe one is lacking. hence, the ego and all of the suffering and insecurity that comes with trying our damnedest to believe we're something we know is not real.

fortunately, none of this is necessary, because nothingness (no-thing-ness) is not the same as nonexistence. it's true that we're not a "thing," but realizing and accepting this unconditionally is not life-negating, but profoundly liberating and life-affirming. we're not a thing, but we still are. and since we're not a thing, we're not subject to all of the perils of objecthood. it's up to us to discover what it means to be, but not to be as an object, as a thing.

no such thing as meditation

noreply@blogger.com (nerodha) — Sun, 18 Apr 2010 17:19:00 +0000

meditation is extremely fruitful to the unfoldment of consciousness, especially when it becomes a bridge towards the transformation of our daily, "mundane" experience. if, however, we rely on meditational practice as a kind of crutch, believing that simply by virtue of "putting in the hours" we're getting closer to truth-realization, the practice can actually become an obstacle to genuine spiritual development.

in fact, the whole "spiritual game" can become just another trap, and a particularly insidious one at that -- even if we unrealistically took for granted the integrity and efficacy of every spiritual teacher out there. but then again, genuine spiritual teachings, teachers, and practices are absolutely essential to those of us who would never have figured things out without a little help.

so what's needed, then, is a balance that allows us to take productively from the existing spiritual arena and apply its lessons to the subject matter of our daily lives. we need to be able both to learn from the exterior and to trust the interior. this means not creating a rift that separates our practice and spiritual ideals from our actual approach to life at the most fundamental level.

one way to test whether we're actually maturing spiritually is to assess our precognitive response to life. what is our basic response to potentially fearful situations? how pervasively do thorny emotional states like anger and depression -- certainly not problematic in and of themselves -- take hold of us? when we see something good happening to someone else, is our instant response that of jealousy or of sympathetic joy? when we become exposed to the intense suffering of another, do we close down in self-protection and rational justification or compassionately open ourselves to the heart-piercing pain of undeniable tragedy?

if we're honest in our assessment (and that can be a big "if," since we're often so heavily invested in our self-conception as spiritually aware people), these are good ways to test for real spiritual progress as opposed to simply inquiring into our surface beliefs and attitudes. searching the mind for spiritual progress can be tricky because it's so easy to simply change the very surface arrangement of our mental furniture to take on a remodeled spiritual theme. after all, switching our life-theme in this way is nothing new: teenagers craft a rebellious identity that asserts their independence from family and become drawn towards one cultural movement or another; later in life, young adults often become obsessed with reconfiguring their identity to align with career interests. "becoming spiritual" can be just another one of these superficial realignments undertaken for entertainment's sake and, ultimately, to keep ourselves distracted from a truth too threatening to face.

to take it back to the topic addressed at the beginning of this post, meditation -- like all things "spiritual" -- can be tremendously transformative. or, it can bring about spiritual stagnation. it all depends on how we relate to it. if we can learn to both take it seriously ("this is the very purpose of my life") and approach it lightly ("what's the big deal/hurry?"), to both practice meditation and realize that there is no such thing as meditation (or, perhaps more accurately, that there is no such thing as non-meditation), then we're probably well-poised for some natural insight to leak through and actually transform our lives from the inside out.

are you you?

noreply@blogger.com (nerodha) — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:45:00 +0000

the hardest belief in the world to shake is the belief that "i am me." yet this "me" we so unquestionably believe in is a fiction, as real as a character in a book or a movie. it's a character we've been taught to identify with to such a degree that we lose the capacity to remember it's just a creation of the mind.

if the entire contents of your mind were utterly wiped out as you slept tonight, who would you be upon awakening tomorrow? who would it be, sitting upright in that bed, eyes open, breathing? the you you think you are would be gone - but what aspect of your current experience would remain even then?

lies are loud, truth is humble

noreply@blogger.com (nerodha) — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:16:00 +0000

not speaking runs counter to ego because the illusory self feels a constant need to assert itself.

if the belief in ego as the ultimate source of identity is to be perpetuated, a constant level of noisemaking must be maintained; otherwise, what existence would our fabricated identities have? it is thoughts, whether externally voiced or internally recorded, that are used to construct the highly complex and ultimately false body of evidence that, as long as we continue offering worship to, keeps us alienated from the simple experience of truth.

truth is that which doesn't require theatricity but is already (and immutably) real. as opposed to illusion, we don't have to do absolutely anything in order for truth to be real. nothing we do or fail to do, nothing that happens or fails to happen, can make reality any more or less real. in silence, then - the backdrop of which is always present - truth emerges of its own.

truth is not some philosophical concept or unattainable goal. it is very personal and very relevant. it is what we are.

losing all and getting everything in return

noreply@blogger.com (nerodha) — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 04:12:00 +0000

the spiritual quest is not one of striving to bring about or attain truth, but of allowing truth to reveal itself as it already is.

one fundamental misperception we suffer under in the quest for spiritual realization is that enlightenment must be gotten, as if it were some kind of accessory that can be added on to pre-existing identity structures. in this fantasy we'd become supercharged versions of our same basic selves; new and improved in certain respects, but maintaining the same old foundational belief in our intrinsic being as existing separately from everything else.

in other words, we'd like to have our cake (holding on to our belief in separate selfhood) and eat it too (experiencing the clarity and peace of enlightenment). these conflicting drives can keep us in a potentially endless loop where seemingly sincere spiritual striving is sabotaged by the underlying fear of letting go of erroneous yet intensely familiar interpretations of reality.

often as spiritual seekers, rather than being willing to give something up, what we really want is to get more. this is simply an extension of the same impulse that tells us we need a newer car, bigger house, better hairstyle. the impulse to get more, to have new things - material or spiritual - is based upon a fundamental resistance to things as they are. this resistance is exactly what keeps us separated from the actual experience of enlightenment, which is nothing more than the realization of what we really are and the accompanying understanding that what we previously thought ourselves to be was a misperception - an illusion.

in a certain sense, realization comes at a price. we must sacrifice our illusory beliefs before the blinding veil can be dispensed with and things revealed as they truly are. in feeding our fantasies we remain blinded to the truth, but they have become so familiar to us that giving them up can be extremely difficult. the problem is that we have become so identified with the illusion that we believe it is what we are, and letting it go seems tantamount to losing ourselves - in a sense, dying.

gaining real spiritual insight involves a radical process of letting go, not necessarily of material possessions (that would make it easy) but of our very foundational beliefs about who and what we are. our mind-made identity is what's nearest and dearest to us. it's the hardest thing to give up, but it must be surrendered in order to break free from the trap of egoic consciousness. the very thing we'd most like to hold on to (or to be more accurate, what we most fear letting go of) is the very thing that's holding us back from enlightened awareness.

paradoxically, when we become motivated by enough faith and courage to let even our most foundational beliefs about self evaporate (in other words, to release absolutely everything by dying to our moment-to-moment conception of self as we know it), at the very moment when it seems we will indeed evaporate, die, and forever disappear into oblivion, our limited egoic consciousness dissolves into a larger awareness that acknowledges itself as inseparable from everything - as one with all that is.

peace is not a product

noreply@blogger.com (nerodha) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 01:25:00 +0000

real peace (the experiential aspect of self-aware awareness) is not the product of anything. it need not be sought through achievements. it has no prerequisites attached to it. true peace is a natural state accessible to one and all regardless of circumstances. it is the unconditional, ever-present quality of consciousness resting within itself.

the perceived lack of peace, on the other hand, does come as a result of conditions. although peace is always present and accessible, it becomes obscured by mind-noise. when the mind and its stories loudly take over, the undercurrent of peace is overlooked and forgotten. all attention becomes diverted away from the infinitely fulfilling and nurturing experience of pure consciousness. distracting and often meaningless thought structures take center stage, are invested with overdue importance, and with the reference point of self-aware awareness receding from experiential memory, the experience of existential confusion and suffering sets in.

the human experience can become extremely complex and fraught with stress, yet even at its most challenging and chaotic moments the simplicity of peace has not gone anywhere. it is where it always is and always will be: here, now. the experienced absence of peace is only an illusion created by the inability - or often the unwillingness - to perceive it as the basic underlying quality of existence.

although the undercurrent of peace is profoundly simple and subtle (and therefore easy to miss), it is nevertheless extremely powerful. it is much more powerful than any product of mind since it endures absolutely everything and remains unchanged and perfectly unblemished throughout it all. it cannot be touched or altered in any way; it always, perfectly, indestructibly, is.

it is precisely this quality of permanent presence and accessibility that simultaneously allows us to take the experience of peace for granted and makes it the most powerful force in our lives. it is sadly ironic that our greatest asset is the one we most readily devalue, forget, and lose touch with.

one step forward, two steps back

noreply@blogger.com (nerodha) — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:00:00 +0000

finding a life stance that genuinely brings us into increased alignment with the unperturbed, desire-free state of our truest nature (beyond mind) is incredibly liberating. by contrast, the mind-content-dominated life experience always ends up leading us into varying degrees of claustrophobia, confusion, stress.

if there's any one thing we have real control over, it's the approach we take to life. life is handed to us with all of its complexity and challenges, and our way of handling that raw material determines our experience of it. a life stance that allows our inherent freedom to emerge can take many forms, from a formal spiritual practice like daily meditation to a more subtle inner alertness to consciousness throughout all ranges of experience.

real and lasting change usually comes as a result of having integrated lessons learned in formal practice into our basic approach to life, so that it becomes our natural modus operandi. but often with new lessons, and even sometimes with lessons we thought we'd long since learned, it's possible to get sidetracked and stop living in accord to that lesson.

many times this happens when we reap the positive benefit of a lesson: suddenly we're much more comfortable and happy than we were (the very pain that propelled us to learn the lesson now being absent), and we no longer feel compelled to do anything in particular to improve our experience. while certainly understandable, enough of this complacent attitude can have us backsliding into the very difficulties we were plagued with initially that acted as catalyst to bring us to higher ground in the first place.

we humans have a natural tendency to gravitate towards pleasant experiences and avoid pain and discomfort. this explains why during challenging phases of our life we can become so committed to improving our experience, and in times of ease and comfort we can so easily lose focus. if transcending pain is our only incentive to grow, where does that leave us when pain is absent? taking two steps backward.

since the temporary abscence of suffering doesn't signify the attainment of any goal, the trick is to be motivated by more than merely seeking comfort; to be inspired instead, for example, by the passion for discovery of self. the difference between the former and the latter is like the difference between running away from something (directionless) and moving steadily toward something (intentionality), or like the difference between being propelled by the bloody whip and finding heavenly guidance in the north star.

beneath all good and bad

noreply@blogger.com (nerodha) — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 23:58:00 +0000

it feels good to feel good, and it feels bad to feel bad. but what remains constant in both pleasure and pain? there is one thing that is unchangeable in this life, and that - and only that - is what we are. this essential nature or ground of being is so simple and silent, our content-geared minds simply skip over it. but when awareness is centered on it, the impact on our consciousness is immeasurable. it's like coming home after a long hard night in the freezing, alienating cold, but then indescribably more settling.

not knowing

noreply@blogger.com (nerodha) — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:11:00 +0000

freedom from what we think we know is an essential step to profound self-understanding. thoughts can shape our entire perception of reality, and in deciding we "already know" we forego the possibility of coming into contact with ever-deeper aspects of our essential nature.

maintaining a posture of open-ended unknowingness and curiosity, on the other hand, is like having the scuba diving equipment that allows us to plumb the ocean's depths. without it, there's little hope for discovery.

non-resistance

noreply@blogger.com (nerodha) — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:41:00 +0000

peace lies in non-resistance to what is. ask not what can be different, but what already is.

opening eyes

noreply@blogger.com (nerodha) — Sat, 16 May 2009 01:10:00 +0000

opening eyes for the first time is like getting your head above water and breathing in air for the first time. after having been gone for an indeterminate amount of time, we are suddenly purely and intensely here.

in reality, we have periods of intense awareness sporadically throughout our lives, whether or not we practice to achieve them. but the nearly unbroken chain of mental identification that appears to take place within most of us most of the time can cast a surprisingly alluring spell on our attention, making us believe thoughts are indeed real and who we are is absolutely contingent upon a mental position.

accepting the presence of mental activity and being simultaneously aware of one's nature as the object-perceiving awareness rather than the object itself, life is approached from a different perspective, one that is not as strongly rooted to a limited sense of self but perceives its very essential nature as inextricably linked to everything it perceives.

when we suddenly realize that we are an aware presence encapsulated in a body with no true knowledge of why we find ourselves immersed in this human experience, we touch a true source of humility. we are ignorant to how exactly we've gotten here. it's as if we suddenly awoke within a dream and acknowledged to ourselves the fact that we don't know what this is or why we're here. we look and see with lucid unknowing. enlightened ignorance: the first step in any direction to finding out, since no answer can be provided without a question having been asked in some form or another.

while none of us will probably ever have all the answers, it is possible to arrive at a realization of one's existential, experiential nature that contrasts pretty vastly with what we may have been conditioned - or conditioned ourselves - to believe we were. being aware of one's ultimate nature as consciousness itself does not necessarily answer all questions, but with regard to one's sense of what one is it removes the need for a question to be formed in the first place. one is what one is as one feels oneself - not even that, since for one thing to feel another there has to be a perception of distinction; one firstly and primordially is, and all else comes after and falls within that.

to have a glimpse of awakeness as you're strolling from your car to work or school is like suddenly inhabiting an unsolved mystery, looking behind eyes that are as much an enigma as what they see. insects, trees, sky... what is it all? becoming passionate about finding the answer to this riddle we feel tugging on our very heartstings is the spark that will lead to a fire that will lead to a sudden flash of recognition: the recognition of something so obvious and intimate it is like we finally realized a truth that has been completely self-evident throghout every moment of our lives but has somehow managed to stay out of conscious awareness. since knowing what we are (by virtue of being it consciously) is the most relevant thing that could possibliy be, residing in a state of prevailing existential unconsciousness creates a deep-rooted and highly invested-in source of dysfunction, of unnecessary suffering.

life is not always easy but it can be an awe-filled, beautiful experience for which one feels an overwhelming sense of gratitude. it can be an adventure filled with adversity but on fire with passionate discovery and flooded by joy, contentment, and love. the alternative (the fear-driven life of ego-identification) is like hell compared to heaven.

the shift in human consciousness from "it's me against the world" to "i am a part of everything i see and everything i see is a part of me" is drastic and radical. it marks the beginning of the end of one thing, and the beginning of quite another. making unmistakable contact with our true nature may not solve all of the issues we think need solving, but it will resolve the one drive that, with or without our awareness, has provided the basis for every experience in our life.

static enlightenment vs. evolutionary enlightenment

noreply@blogger.com (nerodha) — Sat, 02 May 2009 18:25:00 +0000

i've been interested these days in the concept of "evolutionary enlightenment" brought forth by Andrew Cohen. Cohen is best known as the founder of EnlightenNext magazine (formerly known as What Is Enlightenment?), and he seems to get somewhat of a bad rap in certain spiritual circles, i think because he's often seen as something of an egotist.

watching some of his videos on youtube, i can certainly understand why people would feel this way. he displays a certain intolerance towards ego-based perspectives and seems to think quite highly of himself and the work he's performing. simply put, he comes across at times as kind of arrogant.

does this mean he's full of shit? maybe, but i don't think it's necessarily that simple.

writing Cohen off as pompous may be easy to do because we've been conditioned to believe enlightened spiritual teachers should look and act a certain way. but the reality of it is that individuals who have realized their absolute nature wake up, experience what they are utterly beyond any conditioned thing, and then keep on being individuals. they know that what they are is not limited to whatever body they happen to be inhabiting, but they keep inhabiting a body. they understand mental identifications and preferences represent what they are as much as any random shoebox at the nearest Foot Locker does, and yet they go on exhibiting relatively unique personal characteristics.

what i'm trying to get at is that no direct relationship exists between enlightenment and the idiosyncratic expressions of a personality. realizing truth entails acknowledging one's freedom from conditioned existence, but it doesn't erase that conditioning. you're no longer a prisoner to it because you realize it's not what you are, but it goes on operating all the same in some fashion or another. and while it's true that an experience of awakening will have a profound effect on how consciousness manifests through the conditioned expression of a human being (often resulting in the expected increases in peace and compassion), i suppose this doesn't always have to be the case.

or, more likely, qualities such as peace and compassion don't always take on the form we expect them to. someone like U. G. Krishnamurti, for example, whose behavior is nothing close to what most people would expect from an enlightened individual, expresses compassion through a confrontational, even scandalous style that - if it works - shocks the listener into coming to a more realistic reconning of what the ego is and how it functions. a thickly padded ego will look at an unconventional spiritual teacher like U. G. and think, "what a dick." but for someone who's just ripe enough, his approach has the potential to push consciousness towards a direct encounter with itself. and what could be more compassionate than aiding in the process of spiritual awakening?

criticizing the validity of spiritual teachings from people like U. G. and Cohen based on the emotional responses they elicit is probably not too great of an idea, because it is the ego that gets offended and makes value judgments. of course, this doesn't mean we should look up to anybody that displays offensive characteristics as a spiritual master. but neither should we look to how comfortable the ego feels in response to a spiritual teaching as our sole criterion for judging its effectiveness, because powerfully transformative teachings and enlightened perspectives are necessarily expressed through imperfect personalities.

why is this? because the relative and the absolute coexist. the perennial spiritual statement that "all is one" is true, but that doesn't stop the relative universe from expressing itself in all of the glorious diversity that every day presents itself before our eyes. reality is inherently and perfectly complete, and at a less fundamental level it's also taking form as an expression of diversity and process. both things are true; they don't cancel eachother out. one who realizes this is said to be enlightened, but when they draw from this unconditioned source to express their understanding, they do so through inherently conditioned channels. this seems to be an inevitable aspect of formlessness translating into form.

so while Cohen's personality may at times be off-putting, i'm not convinced this means he fails to bring a valid perspective to the table. what i find interesting about his teaching is that it emphasizes how to contextualize enlightenment in the world we currently live in. he acknowledges the importance of coming into contact with one's absolute nature (what he and others call the ground of being), but he also addresses how this realization can be applied to our current existence in the relative universe.

basically, i think Cohen is saying: "so you get enlightened. great - now what?" that "now what?" constitutes the "evolutinary" aspect of his "evolutionary enlightenment" teaching. he calls it the "new enlightenment," which i think is kind of gimmicky. neverhteless, the concept behind it is interesting because it suggests that rather than merely focusing on becoming free from conditioned existence, we should be asking ourselves how to completely engage in the process of consciousness evolution that constitutes the very hearbteat of the universe.

Cohen calls this drive to participate in the universal evolution of consciousness the "ecstatic compulsion of the authentic self." he contrasts it to what he refers to as "premodern" enlightenment teachings that only emphasize realizing the ground of being and becoming free from conditioning, but fail to contextualize this enlightenment within one's continued participation in the phenomenal world. with his "moral imperative" to the evolution of consciousness, Cohen asks us to become absolutely committed to our life experience not for the individualistic ends that are so common in contemporary society, but to establish higher structures of consciousness that will allow for the flourishing of new and higher cultures on Earth.

here's an interesting video on the subject:

hardcore zenning it at the SAZ

noreply@blogger.com (nerodha) — Fri, 01 May 2009 00:56:00 +0000

recently i had the pleasure of meeting Brad Warner (former punk rocker, current zen monk, and author of several books on zen buddhism, including Zen Wrapped in Karma Dipped in Chocolate: A Trip Through Death, Sex, Divorce, and Spiritual Celebrity in Search of the True Dharma) at the san antonio zen center (SAZ).

i'd read an earlier book of his (Hardcore Zen) a few months back and appreciated the fun and informal style Brad uses to convey truth. his book is both playful and lighthearted (such as when he asks us "[w]ho the hell are you really?" and assures us he's "not talking about your name, your place of birth, or the number of hairs on your butt") and, for me at least, powerfully resonant:

"Truth has to be bigger than theories, bigger than explanations, bigger than symbols. Truth can't just explain everything. It has to include everything. It has to be everything."

Brad's sincere, humorous, and accessible approach to spirituality really spoke to me. so when i heard he'd be paying a visit to the small house in san antonio's humble woodlawn lake neighborhood the SAZ calls home, i figured the pressures of grad school could be put on hold for a morning with the world's leading exponent of hardcore-punk-zen-buddhism.

about twenty of us gather to do a little sitting and walking meditation and hear Brad speak. (if you're interested in listening to the talk, by the way, it was recorded and can be accessed via iTunes here.) all in all, my personal opinion - not that it means anything beyond the fact that it's my opinion - is that Brad speaks from a depth of sincerity that can only emerge from a direct encounter with truth.

i say this based on what he speaks and writes about, but what really convinced me upon meeting him is his perfectly ordinary demeanor. he's just a guy traveling around to discuss what truly moves him with people interested in listening, but he's no superguru, no energy-blasting presence. he doesn't impose his amazingness on you, wear funny clothes to remind you of how special he is, or gut your soul of impurities with his penetrating spiritual gaze.

i think this is an important point, because you see plenty of people trying to use spirituality to make themselves anything but ordinary. if there's one distinguishing characteristic of the ego, it's that it will use any means available to make itself extraordinary and exceptional in some way - to see itself as separate, whether in a good or a bad light. this goes for the average gal or guy off the street, and it also goes for spiritually-identified people.

in spite of the labels the world pins on him ("spiritual teacher," "zen master," "successful author") Brad seems to be a legitimate embodiment of one who's perfectly content to be nothing more than an ordinary human roaming the planet; no better and no worse than the six billion-odd others who are pretty much up to the same thing, give or take a few specifics. and the way i see it, when you meet someone involved in talking about something like ultimate truth and they're truly making no effort to differentiate themselves from you or make you think they're special in any way, you can be pretty sure you're dealing with a high level of sincerity.

here's a quick summary of a few topics discussed during Brad's visit to the SAZ:

why do zazen? (i.e. why meditate?)
it's interesting to hear Brad assert that after decades of meditation, it's more difficult than ever for him to answer this question! i'm not sure exactly what he means by this, but i'm fairly sure he's not suggesting zazen (zen-style meditation) is worthless. i think he's trying to work against the idea of meditating as an action to achieve enlightenment, to suggest that the point of meditating is to meditate and we would do well to drop expectations.

instead of seeing it as an enlightment-generating exercise, Brad offers a more simple and practical reason to meditate. he compares it to brushing our teeth, something we normally do every day, although not for the reasons our dentist says we should (to keep our teeth clean, gums in shape, gingivitis at bay...). we do it because when we don't brush, our mouth tastes like crap. similarly, Brad offers, when we don't meditate we just don't feel right - something's off. meditation helps keep the mind less stinky.

is zen about enlightenment, or not?!
in my brief encounters with zen buddhism i've been interested by the play between the notions of "it's all about enlightenment" and "forget about enlightenment" (zen masters are famous for jamming up your mind-cogs by relentlessly throwing contradictions such as these at you). i ask Brad if he can speak about this.

his response is that many zen masters have been reluctant to speak about enlightenment, but that even the most reluctant ones, such as his own master Gudo Nishijima, do speak of it on occasion. the tricky thing with enlightenment is that most people inevitably dream up what they'd love for it to be and end up striving for something that doesn't even exist. given the propensity of spiritual seekers to form a distracting "enlightenment fantasy," the benefits of deconstructing this process or stopping it in its tracks are obvious.

in Brad's words: "if enlightenment is this state of perfection that you achieve where everything is cool forever, then i don't believe in that."

but there is such a thing as enlightenment, right?
this is my next question. while there are few things i could be more convinced of than the fact that a real shift in perspective from egocentricity to trans-egoic awareness can and does occur, i'm interested in hearing how the zen master will navigate his way out of this one - and besides, i could always be wrong!

"maybe..." he begins slowly, feeling uncomfortable, i imagine, with feeding unproductive desires. "there can be a shift... but it's not like anything ever changes. this is enlightenment, whether you notice it or not."

taking spiritual practice too seriously
Brad points out that by investing something with undue seriousness, we separate ourselves from it, make it into a "thing," divest it of its real power to transform our lives. (hopefully i'm not getting too carried away with my paraphrasing here.)

he brings up an interesting quote, from some zen master or another i believe, that i think is both funny and utterly true at the same time: "spiritual practice is too important to be taken seriously."

at the same time, he points out, having a sense of humor about spirituality is exactly what makes us sincerely serious about it, in the sense that we're truly devoted to it and not merely holding it up as sacred to use as material for self-aggrandizement. i agree completely; the highest respect we can pay to reality is to live our lives by it. if we do this, we have the right to joke about it because the playfulness emerges from a profound sense of love and appreciation, not disrespect.

using death to bring focus

noreply@blogger.com (nerodha) — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 00:26:00 +0000

here's a useful practice: picture yourself on your deathbed. the unthinkable is happening. life is coming to an end. a sudden clarity descends, and as you look back upon your days on earth you realize what truly mattered and what didn't. you remember what it was your soul yearned for, and - the mind's propensity to bullshit itself having finally run dry - you level an uncompromisingly honest assessment on your life.

did you have the courage to live as your heart directed? did you remember what truly mattered in the midst of daily life? were you able to sacrifice immediate pleasure for the greater good of yourself and others? or did you turn a deaf ear to your inner voice and lose yourself in meaningless distractions, petty squabbles, and selfish obsessions?

now rewind to this moment: here's your chance to live in a way that will enable you to die in peace, with no regrets. right now, and tomorrow, and the next day. these are the moments of your life; these seemingly disposable minutes are what make up your whole experience. every second matters; every breath you take is one breath subtracted from your lifelong quota.

this life is a chance given to you. immersed in it as we are, it's hard to see it that way. we get lost in the specifics of daily life. we forget why we came. but learn to take an elevated perspective, and the scattered pieces of daily experience will begin to converge into one meaningful movement; a movement towards the things you know truly matter: knowing yourself, leaving a legacy of peace and love in your wake.

perhaps you've never actually faced the fact that you're going to die. thinking about death is no morbid obsession; it's a valuable practice that can help you contextualize your life experience and center it on what is truly important. death in western culture is given an unfair rap, painted as the ultimate evil. but this is just another one of the misperceptions of a culture that views the natural as unnatural, and the unnatural as natural. death is not the end of anything; it's a transitional event - a step that can be taken in joy and gratitude.

if you're interested in facing the fact of mortality, sit down and close your eyes. breathe deeply, and for each long breath, imagine yourself aging one year. how long can you live? eighty, ninety, a hundred years? surely not more than a hundred and twenty! it's gonna have to come to an end sometime, isn't it? but now, while you're still here, why not use the time wisely? there's so much to learn - and not all of it will be discarded when you leave your body behind. this limited lifetime represents the opportunity to take steps that will reverberate throughout eternity.

just be

noreply@blogger.com (nerodha) — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 00:17:00 +0000

let's cut the crap, shall we? there's something right there on the edge of your awareness. something you can't quite pin down. you can feel it tickling the back of your brain, tugging at the corners of your memory. you've been very close to realizing what it is time and again, and every time you approach it, every time your entire life converges on a single point and your whole consciousness expresses itself as one unutterable question, you feel you're just millimeters from some monumental, yet incredibly familiar realization - something you know will make you scream out in recognition, as if you've finally solved life's riddle: "THAT'S it!"

that's right! and it's always been there. nothing you have ever done has made it any more or less real. it will always be there, seen or unseen. and it will always be known, acknowledged or not. it is inescapable. it will be there as you brush your teeth. it'll be there while you take a shit. it won't go away when you scream in traffic, and it won't be any "closer" when you're sitting in silent meditation.

it's not a question of what actions you choose to engage in or renounce. it's a question of what decision you choose to make: will you lose yourself in specifics and increase the force of forgetfulness, or will you accept that this trip ain't gonna last forever and behave accordingly? will you inhabit what you are even if it doesn't look like what you've been taught to be, or will you keep ignoring what is so tremendously obvious (what may be too simple and self-evident, in fact, to be regarded as important)? life goes on either way.

discerning the value of spiritual practices

noreply@blogger.com (nerodha) — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 14:21:00 +0000

the "new age circus," as spiritual teacher david hawkins refers to it, offers an endless parade of so-called spiritual practices that seem to appeal more to our sense of adventure and need for entertainment than to address the reality of spiritual development. today's spiritual marketplace resembles in large part the secular commercial environment that so pervades our society: both seem to promise the attainment of perfection, the banishment of all problems and challenges - an experience of unbroken pleasure and satisfaction.

we're familiar enough with how products are idealized through the media to turn a profit; how a simple object can be presented - and perceived - as the answer to all our troubles. when it comes to spiritual products, however, we're still quite naïve. this is understandable really, since spiritually speaking western culture has long remained unsophisticated as a whole. our sudden interest in eastern wisdom traditions throghout the twentieth century (particularly strong in the latter half) brought the concept of spirituality as separate from religion to the surface of common awareness and sparked the beginnings of a spiritual marketplace that has only recently taken on the proportions of a veritable wildfire. today we see innumerable spiritual teachers, products and methods peddled over the internet; once exotic spiritual concepts seeping into popular and even corporate culture; super-celebrities such as oprah winfrey touting the teachings of profound spiritual masters like eckhart tolle.

this popularization of spirituality is almost certainly a positive trend in human development, but with increased spiritual currency comes increased need for discernment; the need for something akin to the product reviews and consumer reports that form such an integral part of more traditional consumer markets. if our goal is that of genuine spiritual development and not merely to entertain ourselves by chasing the latest fantasy, we have to understand that everything labelled "spiritual" is not necessarily going to take us closer to truth-realization.

we have to learn to separate the crap from the good stuff. because - within the context of actual spiritual awakening - many (and probably most) of the products hyped on the spiritual marketplace represent either a potential distraction from, or a more serious detriment to genuine growth. so how do we discern, and whose promises should we trust? while ultimately this must obviously be a personal call, it is said the buddha himself - normally considered a pretty nice and genuine guy - offered a simple yardstick with which to judge not only the value of any spiritual teaching but the effectiveness of any mode of living with relation to spiritual development.

the buddha is attributed as having said something along these lines: "do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. do not believe in traditions merely because they have been handed down for many generations."

so what the hell should we believe in, and on what basis? basically, the buddha espoused a very practical approach: to rely on our own experience and logic, to critically analyze things for ourselves, arrive at our own conclusions, and live in accordance with what we have found to be conducive to qualities such as happinness, peace, balance, compassion, love, understanding. it goes without saying that in order to practice this effectively a high level of self-honesty is required - not exactly the commonest of traits among humans, but certainly something that can be developed and refined with practice.

using this simple method of analysis, we can learn to keep away from the things that bring out the worst in us (greed, envy, anger, discontent) and develop an affinity for that which brings out the best in us and makes our experience of living more joyful and fulfilling. but, again, self-honesty is essential here - the kind of honesty required, for example, to acknowledge that while degrading others in the name of self-inflation may provide a certain perverse sense of satisfaction, it ultimately brings us suffering by alienating us from ourselves and others. the kind of honesty necessary to understand the pursuit of selfish pleasure and self-glorification as an imbalanced effort to repair a dysfunctional self-relationship, or the manifestation of any form of aggression as a desperate act of self-violence.

lost in the wilderness of mind

noreply@blogger.com (nerodha) — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:28:00 +0000

to be consumed by mind-identification is like being lost in a vast and alien wilderness. there is a constant urgency to "go somewhere," to "find something"... to arrive finally at a comfortable, non-threatening place. nearly every landscape we encounter, however, has a feeling of unfamiliarity (or "not-right-ness") attached to it, and much of the time we suffer from an underlying sense that - despite being surrounded by the people and places we're familiar with - we ourselves are caught in a strange and unsettling inner space.

in devoting the main thrust of our energy or awareness to the mind, our experience naturally becomes defined by the attributes of mental functioning. we lose ourselves in the infinitely complex labyrinth of thought in all of its forms: memories, speculations, fears, desires, regrets, obsessions... we become desperately entangled in the mental "story of me."

just as we can sit and concentrate heavily upon the physical sensation of inhabiting our body and thus temporarily experience ourselves as primarily a physical entity, by concentrating our awareness upon the mind we experience ourselves as primarily a mental entity. the difference between the two is that focusing awareness on the physical sensations associated with inhabiting a body brings us into the present, real moment (raising our consciousness out of the thorny entanglement of mind-identification), while devoting our energy to the mind only furthers our entrenchment in a delusional perception of reality.

the "answer" to our mental search for truth lies beyond the mind; it is wordless, thoughtless. it is revealed in the midst of utter silence because it is the felt experience of what we are. no concept, belief or theory is needed to "bridge the gap" between the state of existential ignorance and innate knowingness, because no such gap exists. when a person is said to experience awakening or realization, change only occurs at the level of awareness, not at the level of being (i.e. one realizes what one always was, as opposed to one becoming something one wasn't).

so to return to the first idea addressed in this post, a return from the unsettling wilderness of mind-identification is possible - but not by taking the right turns or seeking out the correct mental landscape. further engagement in the mind's labyrinth - regardless of the intention behind it - can only solidify the attachment of consciousness to mind. what's called for instead is a disengagement from the mental perspective; a "pulling back" from the world of thought and an abidance in the context of silent awareness.

this is often difficult to do because it feels like "quitting" on one's problems. the temptation to resolve all of the knots - which in actuality don't need resolving in terms of self-realization since the mind is not who we are - holds one back. it is a gravitational force that's difficult to overcome. once achieved, however, a powerful rupture in the consciousness-mind entanglement takes place, and with practice it becomes easier to recede from the highly specified context of mind-identification to the more encompassing context of silent awareness.

stopping and listening

noreply@blogger.com (nerodha) — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 02:07:00 +0000

the process of awakening is actually quite simple: instead of dedicating all of your energy towards (creating, maintaining, evaluating, improving...) a mental conception of who you think you are or want to become, start paying attention to what you actually are. that's about all there is to be said about waking up: stop making noise and start listening.

the ego is what stands in the way of truth-realization, and thoughts pertaining to a mental image of self are what the ego is made of. as long as this mental idolatry is kept front and center stage, no room is left for real discovery.

one can read hundreds of books about enlightenment; meditate for decades; dip into innumerable practices, disciplines and philosophies; discuss spirituality constantly... but none of this guarantees anything at all. none of this produces enlightenment, because waking up is not merely a matter of "putting in time" or "acting spiritual." (to be fair, however, engaging in a spiritual lifestyle does have the potential to create a favorable context for realization).

waking up involves separating awareness from ego: observing it from a detached perspective; realizing gradually its nature as an impersonal, mechanical process that doesn't represent an individual will or entity; disentangling, knot by knot, the sense of self from it.

but in reality nothing has to be done to wake up. something has to be stopped. the awareness of truth can only be postponed through concealing action - continual effort that obscures the otherwise self-evident truth. unceasing investment in ego is what keeps one separated from moment to moment from the awareness of what one truly is.

this is what needs to be stopped, and this stopping is the only work that can be done to wake up. truth cannot be "gotten" or brought about; its light dawns of its own accord when we cease to create the conditions that obscure it from awareness.

many forms of so-called spirituality involve brushing the ego up, smoothing it over - creating a prettier mental image of self. this may provide certain benefits, but ultimately, it's a step in the wrong direction. the truth can only be approached when the mental self-image is laid down, when awareness frees itself from the object of its fascination - the ego - and comes back to rest upon itself as untouched and unconditioned consciousness.

learning hurts

noreply@blogger.com (nerodha) — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 15:14:00 +0000

there seems to be a big tendency not only in spiritual circles but in all areas of life to strive for "optimal" states of experience. in spiritual life this takes the form of desiring blissful states of meditation, wanting to project a peaceful vibe, being continually tempted to introduce one's "uncommon" and presumably superior spiritual beliefs into the everyday marketplace of "common" ideas, and so on.

when something is elevated as superior above anything else you can be sure delusion is at work. if you sense a strong preference within you to avoid certain states and gravitate towards others (to cling stubbornly to one side of life, to a limited slice of experience), this probably means the things you're trying to avoid are exactly the things that need to be faced in order to come to a more realistic reckoning of yourself.

truth is all-encompassing, and what that means in relation to this discussion is that it can't be realized by turning a blind eye to the things you find most problematic in life. truth certainly isn't revealed if you dwell long enough on the things you find easiest; these are the things you don't need to work on, the things you've already figured out. it feels good to rest in these areas, but when we're ready for real growth to occur once again we have to set out on roads we haven't yet become familiar and comfortable with.

this is harder; it often hurts, and something within us (the inertial force of belief in personal selfhood) rails against it. idleness is the name of the game for ego: "let everything remain as it is. just keep doing the things you're doing now... and guess what? i'll even compromise: as long as you do the things i need you to, i'll let you believe anything at all you want to believe."

this broaches a tricky subject: "doing" vs. "not doing" in the context of awakening, or the idea that "change has to occur" vs. "nothing needs to change." in a sense, both are true: truth is already the case; nothing needs to be "done" or to "change" in order for it to be true, obviously. but in the context of the realization of this truth that is already true, something does need to be done; something most certainly must change. this "doing" and this "change" occur at levels that don't affect or bring about truth itself; the only impact they have is on a person's awareness of it.

so what needs to be done and what must be changed? to arrive at the unequivocal realization of truth, one must discard, in turn, each obstacle that separates one from this realization. what changes when this is achieved is one's comprehension of the reality of one's nature, and by extension the nature of all other beings, and by extension the nature of reality itself.

when this shift occurs, one can say without a sense of paradox that everything has changed and nothing has changed. truth was always there. it's been doing its thing long before buddha or anyone else came along and recognized the fact that it was staring them right in the face. so, nothing has changed. on the other hand, the experience of being completely lost in a delusional view of reality certainly differs from the experience of shedding this delusion - and this is a gradual process, despite sudden leaps that occur from time to time - and aligning oneself with how things actually are. so, everything changes.

but this is all quite irrelevant from the perspective of one who is still fighting the uphill battle of shedding the larger part of one's delusional views. what really matters at such a point is not to wonder about how far others have gotten, or how nice it must be for them to be where they are, but to look straight down at where one is and deal with the obstacle that sits right between one's eyes. life will let you know one way or another what that obstacle is, but it's important to remember that it won't always be something you'll be overjoyed to address. it's hard to approach the muck and gore of ego structure. since we're still identified with ego, seeing these things literally hurts because we think it reflects negatively upon us. learning and growth often hurt at the moment they're taking place, but if we're not willing to sacrifice our complacency we can't expect any real progress to occur.

action is not identity

noreply@blogger.com (nerodha) — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 04:59:00 +0000

action takes on a different taste when it ceases to reflect upon an imagined identity. this is when it breaks free of the bonds of self-representation and real spontaneity emerges; not because anyone was clever enough to think of it, but because there was no longer anyone in the way.

personalizing pain

noreply@blogger.com (nerodha) — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 19:05:00 +0000

life's not always easy or comfortable. this is an unavoidable fact for every being on the planet - none excluded. the egoic mechanism, however, has a particular way of reacting to pain and discomfort that elevates these natural and passing phases of experience to chronic, obsessive issues.

there's one reason for this: ego attaches itself to everything it experiences and derives a sense of identity from it. experiences now mean much more than mere experiences; they become invested with the absolute seriousness of defining who we are. the ego takes pain and makes it personal, and in so doing takes any experience of suffering that would normally be associated with a painful event and magnifies it to an unimaginable degree.

unsatisfactory experiences take on dire significance because they reflect directly upon the sense of self, casting a dark shadow over it. pleasing experiences take on a stressful nature because more and more of them are needed to counteract the negative ones and maintain a satisfying identity. an unhealthy obsession develops on both fronts: an obsession to avoid the negative, and an obsession to retain and amass more of the positive.

the entire approach to life is thrown out of whack and becomes an imbalanced effort to let in only a particular slice of experience. pain and loss are seen as unacceptable; a sign of weakness and failure. they become much more than what they are in reality - simple, natural aspects of life in our universe - and develop into grotesque characterizations fueled by our obsessive, unrealistic need to retain strength and success indefinitely.

that which wasn't a problem, because of our unnatural response to it, becomes the source of a tremendous complication that holds the potential to destabilize our entire experience of life, further and further obscuring the natural state of being experienced during infancy and early childhood (and seemingly at all times by other animals).

this natural state is not devoid of challenging or painful experiences, but it takes them as it does any other experience and moves on, not becoming obsessively fixated upon them (a difference that expressed in words may not seem great but experience-wise is huge). it's so significant that the concept of "suffering" as traditionally employed in prosperous Western societies points almost entirely to the reactions toward perceived negativities and hardly at all to the actual source of the reactions themselves. this means that the larger share of our suffering - that which is psychologically generated - can be eradicated by a simple shift in perspective.

of course, one can't just decide to stop reacting unnaturally to life and hope that such a radical and fundamental change will somehow just come about. there is a specific cause for our difficult relationship to life that must be addressed before a restoration to natural functioning becomes possible, just as a breakdown in any mechanism can always be attributed to identifiable problems with concordant solutions.

the only way to end this problem is to locate the true source of our identity. this truth is not some concept or some far-off possibility. it's what is true right now. it's not merely an interesting thought or an entertaining philosophical distraction to engage an idle mind. making unequivocal contact with our fundamental nature is of profound importance to each and every one of us. nothing could possibly be more relevant.

this is it

noreply@blogger.com (nerodha) — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 18:15:00 +0000

no matter what it brings or fails to bring, nothing matters more than this moment. are you in a rush for enlightenment? what's the hurry?

if you can't accept this simple moment, sitting here, in this chair, without dreaming and reaching for more, what makes you think you'll be prepared to let in anything else?

instead of reaching out for what you think you need, why not try accepting what life is handing you, no questions asked? or do you know what you need better than life itself?

this is it. welcome. this moment is all you have, and now is your only chance to live it, cherish it, enjoy it.

i don't know

noreply@blogger.com (nerodha) — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 17:52:00 +0000

all this talking and thinking we do about spirituality must at some point recede into the background as the diversionary jabber that it ultimately is. it's very valuable up to a point, but no amount of it will ever add up to a direct encounter with the very intimate and immediate experience of truth - an experience which is available to one and all as a natural birthright regardless of spiritual or philosophical disposition.

mental definitions are cozy because regardless of their accuracy - and they always prove to be inaccurate sooner or later - they give us the feeling that we've got reality just where we want it. they provide us with the false sensation (at least at a very superficial level, and even then not all of the time) that we know what's going on and are in control. for this reason, we cling to definitions as if we were clinging to life itself.

but there's an immense freedom in saying "i truly do not know." while this may seem like a paralyzing statement to make, it in fact creates the space within which an alternate approach to experiencing life - one that doesn't involve pinning things down with the mind - can be forged. this recognition is the first prerequisite to true wisdom.