|
Richard’s Selected Correspondence On Zen
RICHARD: (...) a flesh and blood body sans the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto hosts no identity at all/has no feelings whatsoever – thereby living a life free of both the duality and non-duality such a faculty/ entity automatically creates by its very presence – and is thus already always directly experiencing the ultimate experience ... whether doing something (such as writing) or doing nothing. RESPONDENT: The typical Zen saying that mountains are mountains again, only a little more so? RICHARD: What you are referring to is a Koan – from a discourse attributed to Mr. Ch’ing yuan Wei-hsin – and not descriptive prose. Viz.:
It is obviously not descriptive prose because he then asks:
Here is a clue: the second understanding is per favour the comprehension of (buddhistic) emptiness. RESPONDENT: You certainly don’t depend upon hearing your ideas in their exact phrasing to recognize them. RICHARD: I will draw your attention to the following:
And just so that there is no misunderstanding: actualism is not about ideals either ... or beliefs, concepts, opinions, conjectures, speculations, assumptions, presumptions, suppositions, surmises, inferences, judgements, intellectualisations, imaginations, posits, postulations, images, analyses, viewpoints, views, stances, perspectives, standpoints, positions, world-views, mind-sets, states-of-mind, frames-of-mind, or any other of the 101 ways, of overlooking direct reports of what it is to be actually free from the human condition and living the utter peace of the perfection of the purity welling endlessly as the infinitude this eternal, infinite and perpetual universe actually is. RESPONDENT: What distinguishes Actual Freedom from the Zen teachings of Hui-neng or Huang-po? RICHARD: For just one example here is an edited-for-brevity version of Mr. Hui-neng’s final instructions (from Chapter X of the ‘The Treasure Of The Law’ sutra):
Whereas (for example):
And, by way of another example, here is an edited-for-brevity version of what Mr. Huang-po had to say (from a translation found in Mr. Stephen Mitchell’s ‘The Enlightened Mind – An Anthology of Sacred Prose’, Harper Perennial, 1991):
Whereas (for example):
In other words, when this flesh and blood body dies this mind also ceases to operate. RESPONDENT: (They are both sources of Alan Watts, as you know, but I found the originals, at least Hui-neng, more exhilarating). RICHARD: I did not know that Mr. Hui-neng and Mr. Huang-po were sources for Mr. Alan Watts ... and neither did I find either of them at all interesting, just now, whilst copy-pasting the above quotes (let alone exhilarating). RESPONDENT: At first sight, there appear to me to be some similarities, so I would be delighted to learn precisely what it is that you do/experience differently from them. RICHARD: Just for starters: there is this on-going experience of a world beyond their ken ... to wit:
this actual world (the sensate world) which is the world of this body and that body and every body; the world of the mountains and
the streams; the world of the trees and the flowers; the world of the clouds in the sky by day and the stars in the firmament by
night and so on and so on ad infinitum. RESPONDENT: I am definitely trying to practice actualism, but I have not received one answer to any of my questions I have posed to you. You know I don’t expect you to be some sort of guru or anything, just would like some info. Earlier you asked ‘where have I ever been evasive in answering direct questions to me?’ and it seems to me that my direct questions have been evaded. RICHARD: I have just now gone back through all twelve of the e-mails you have written to this mailing list and found the following three addressed specifically to me:
And:
And:
If all it takes is to not respond to each and every e-mail each and any person addresses to me in order to qualify as being evasive (synonyms: elusive, slippery, shifty, cagey, hard to pin down, equivocal, ambiguous, vague) in answering a direct question then all I can do is tug my forelock and say ‘guilty as charged, milord’ as there are an untold number of e-mails I have not responded to. You asked what I thought of you still doing Vipassana Bhavana – aka ‘Insight Meditation’ – in the way Mr. Satya Goenka. made popular in the west (as in your ‘I still sit now’ phrasing), and whether I saw any conflict with that and actualism, plus what I thought of your proposal that it is accelerating the process of you trying your damnedest to be the body and every sensation that is a part of it. First of all, in regards to your query, here is what Mr. Ba Khin (Mr. Satya Goenka’s accredited Master) had to say:
Thus where you say you can ‘really experience the sensations’ whilst still sitting now (doing insight meditation the way Mr. Satya Goenka made popular in the west) then what you are experiencing – a stream of energy known as kalāpas – is impermanence or decay, and its corollary, suffering itself ... neither of which has anything to do with who you really are as you who are trying your damnedest to be the body, and every sensation that is a part of it (aka the kalāpas), are an illusion. And I say this, not only out of my own experience, but also because of what the very goal of Vipassana Bhavana makes crystal clear:
Hence where you ask what is wrong with sitting by yourself, and thoroughly enjoying the changing sensations that show up in the body, you are not only committing the cardinal error of trying to identify with that which is impermanence or decay (which, according to Mr. Gotama the Sakyan, is ‘dukkha’) but you who are trying to so identify are not who you really are anyway (the perfected saint who, at the termination of your life, will pass into an after-death peace). As to how all this conflicts with actualism: both who you currently are (an illusion) and who you really are (a delusion) can never be the flesh and blood body ... both the thinker (the ego) and the feeler (being itself) are forever locked-out of actuality. In regards to your professor defining beauty as complexity harmonised and, if harmony is not a fact or is subjective, then how peace is not the same: all I can say is that I have never said that harmony is not actual/is subjective ... it is beauty itself – the very feeling of beauty – which has no existence in actuality. When I speak of living in peace and harmony I am referring to living in accord, amity, fellowship, and so on
(and not as in blending, balance, symmetry, and so forth). RESPONDENT: ... I am unsatisfied with your claims of being historically unique in being actually free from the human condition. RICHARD: First and foremost: somebody has to be the first to discover something new in any field of human endeavour ... is there any particular reason you prefer it to be somebody other than the person you are currently conversing with (and, perhaps, of some other gender, race, age, or era) that was the first to enable the already always existing peace-on-earth and thus make apparent the actual meaning of life? RESPONDENT: I have nothing against to you being the discoverer. I just believe that it’s unlikely. It’s rare but not totally unique. RICHARD: I read through your response three times ... this is what stands out as the main stumbling block:
‘Tis no wonder this is such an issue for you ... you were under the impression that Mr. Gotama the Sakyan
was the first to enable the already always existing peace-on-earth RESPONDENT: Here are some quotes from a book ‘Living Zen’ by Robert Linssen published in 1958 Grove Press. (snip quotes). RICHARD: This is what Mr. Robert Linssen has to say about the essence of Zen thought:
Altogether the search engine found 37 instances of the word ‘Divine’ ... here is but one other example:
As to what their ‘true nature’ is (also referred to as ‘profound being’ and ‘profound nature’) he has this to say:
And what is ‘the Reality’ (‘the Real’) that is the profound nature of his being? Viz.:
So, just what is ‘Love-Intelligence’? The phrase ‘Love-Intelligence’ returned 21 hits. For an example:
And the word ‘Love’ returned 48 hits ... for example:
Here is how to become this Love (a state of being no longer distinct from Intelligence):
And this ‘presence’ goes by many names:
The phrase ‘Cosmic Mind’ returned 43 hits ... for example:
And the phrase ‘Body of Buddha’ returned 22 hits ... for example:
The phrase ‘Zen Unconscious’ returned 20 hits ... for example:
And this ‘Totality-that-is-One’, outside of which absolutely nothing is, is none other than the ‘Divine’:
Another phrase for the Divine, outside of which nothing else exists, is the phrase ‘Universal Mind’. It returned 28 hits:
Lastly, and just as a matter of interest, Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti returned 38 hits:
RESPONDENT: It makes for interesting reading in conjunction with the Actual Freedom website. There seems to be a remarkable similarity in concepts. RICHARD: You have to be joking, surely. * RESPONDENT: Thanks for your reply, Richard. It’s what I expected – it confirms that you’re trapped in your own language construct. RICHARD: Oh? But that is not what you said you expected ... this is:
Be that as it may ... I have snipped-out all of Mr. Robert Linssen’s words (further above) leaving only my words: if you can show me where this ‘language construct’ is amongst them which you say I am trapped in it will be most appreciated. Further to this point, here is the first of the two quotes, from Mr. Robert Linssen, you claim ‘makes for interesting reading in conjunction with the Actual Freedom website’ as ‘there seems to be a remarkable similarity in concepts’ ... Viz.:
I invite you to provide a passage, or passages, of mine – which means from any page on The Actual Freedom Trust web site that has my name in the URL – which has/have a [quote] ‘remarkable similarity’ [endquote] to that passage of Mr. Robert Linssen’s which you chose as an example. Specifically the passage, or passages, of mine will have to refer to:
When, or rather if, you can satisfactorily provide the passage, or passages, of mine which has/have a [quote] ‘remarkable similarity’ [endquote] to those 9 points we can then address the second quote of Mr. Robert Linssen which you chose as another example to demonstrate that what I have discovered is not entirely new to human experience. Over to you. * RESPONDENT No. 53: Richard, I was sleeping last night and having some dream and I got the sense that something was gonna happen and something was happening and I got this tightening feeling in the back of my head and at the top of my neck. Its still there almost 5 hours later. Right about where the back of the head curves down to the neck. This happened at about 3:20am. I woke up instantly and it was like my friend, who I was, was gone. But I am still very much here but perhaps in a different way. So far it feels like something has changed but nothing has changed. Make sense? Maybe not. I could elaborate but I will let some time pass. Anyways, since you are an expert in these affairs, perhaps you could tell me what you make of it, if anything. RICHARD: What I would suggest, at this stage, is to ask the American Indian, Mayan, Incan, Aboriginal, or any other from such an uprooted, extinct or rubbed-out indigenous culture and peoples you referred to in another e-mail, as that person, having already become actually free from the human condition long before I did will have far more expertise than I do as I have only been apparent for a little over a decade now. It is your call. RESPONDENT: Nice answer, Richard. Is that the Actualist equivalent of a crack of the cane from the Zen master? RICHARD: Ha, the equivalence betwixt actualism and the form of spiritualism known as Zen Buddhism
exists only in your mind ... as is evidenced by your inability to successfully provide a passage, or passages, of mine – which
means from any page on The Actual Freedom Trust web site that has my name in the URL – that has/have a [quote] ‘remarkable
similarity’ [endquote] to that passage of Mr. Robert Linssen’s which you chose Specifically the passage, or passages, of mine would have to refer to:
‘Tis far easier to make an allegation than substantiate it, eh? RESPONDENT: I’d like to propose the following: All questions are asking for an answer within a given context. Every question we can think of uses out of it’s context a language/ meaning and has a logical base. Could we agree that asking an impossible question is without meaning/language and logic? For if the question could be asked it is not an ‘impossible’ question! But if the question ‘is’ impossible we cannot think of a language/meaning or logic to reflect it upon, so we cannot ask it. Hence: If it is impossible it is true that it is possible AND if it is possible it is true that it is impossible. At the risk of contradicting myself: I see truth in determining the above. RICHARD: You are applying logic to what is essentially a metaphysical theme; it is not a logical question to be solved, but a spiritual paradox to be meditated upon. It is like the Koan that is used to train Zen Buddhist monks to supposedly abandon ultimate dependence on reason and to force them into gaining sudden intuitive enlightenment. An ‘Impossible Question’ is this: Who am ‘I’? The reason that it is called an impossible question is that one will never get a ‘thought-out’ answer ... which is what the proponents of logic’s supposed ability to detect truth are in need of. ‘I’, who wishes to know who ‘I’ am, can never know ‘myself’. This is because the would-be ‘knower’ is the very subject that it is desired to know. Hence the appellation: ‘The Impossible Question’. So why does one ask it? Simply stated, if it is asked in such a way as to not get a thought-out answer – a way called keeping the question open – something happens. Logical thought – not thought itself – blows its fuses and ‘I’ cease to exist as an ego, for ‘I’ as ego am nothing but a cognitive entity. Then one is living the answer in an apotheosised field of consciousness and has the power of attaining to direct metaphysical knowledge without evident rational thought and inference. In other words, one now intuitively knows who ‘I’ am. ‘I’ am the Self ... the second ‘I’ of Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer (aka Ramana) fame. With Koans, one can always get an answer, of course.
Which is probably why Zen Masters are two bob a dozen. RESPONDENT: Ha, ha, ha. That’s funny. Another solution is to just clap with one hand. The fingers clapping the thumb-base. What I wanted to make clear has been abundantly stated and pointed out by you in your reply. To meditate on an impossible question is not a logical thing to do. Therefore meditation as such and enlightenment if it exists as a process cannot be methodical in nature. The ‘who am I question’ has me stuck quite often lately. And it isn’t easy to bear. Does this ring a bell? RICHARD: Yes it does. Here is a suggestion: Try asking ‘what am I’ instead. RICHARD: Buddhism does not profess to totally eliminate suffering, only personal sorrow. Their ultimate condition exists after physical death ... it is called Parinirvana. Buddhism maintains that because of the intrinsic duality of being manifested in a body, then universal sorrow continues to exist after Nirvana is attained ... for as long as the physical body is still alive. And, secondly, the bliss of Nirvana is not because of the ending of what you call a negative (suffering) it is because of the ending of the ego that causes the suffering (personal sorrow). KONRAD: Again, I talk from the Zen perspective. The aim is ending all suffering. The method is the ending of ‘I’ in the sense that you UNDERSTAND that the ‘I’ not really exists. RICHARD: Well, you do not understand Zen Buddhism, then. They do not rattle on about the supremacy of logic ... Zen Koans are designed to break the hold that dualistic thinking has on a person. Also, you say that the ‘I’ cannot end; you say that an ‘I’ is essential for controlling the body; you say that peace is not possible; you deny any ultimate solution to the human condition; you say ... gosh, let me quote you:
Just what ‘Zen perspective’ do you have? And to top it all off, you have the cheek to end with: ‘the
ending of ‘I’ in the sense that you UNDERSTAND that the ‘I’ not really exists’. What do you mean? Which one of your
many statements is true? RESPONDENT: [Re: The Goose In The Bottle]. For freedom is in the intelligence of discovery of how to break that bottle. RICHARD: What bottle? RESPONDENT: I’m using it here for ‘conditioning’, for another poster the bottle stands for something else, which he says is from a Zen parable. RICHARD: The metaphor ‘bottle’ does not refer to conditioning but to a contracted or crystallised ‘self’. Yet even if it did, that particular piece of conditioning is endlessly replaced by more subtle variations as fast as it is seen through and dissolved – or whatever you do with it – for as long ‘I’ persist. So it has nothing to do with ‘the intelligence of discovery of how to break that bottle’ whichever way you look at it. RESPONDENT: My point is that ‘doing absolutely nothing’ is not breaking the bottle. RICHARD: But there is no bottle ... that is the whole point of this metaphor (and breaking the bottle is expressly forbidden anyway ... you cannot do an Alexander the Great on this Gordian Knot). ‘I’ create the illusion of a bottle. Who is the ‘I’ that you say is not going to break the bottle by ‘doing absolutely nothing’? Or, conversely, who is the ‘I’ that is ‘doing something’ in order to break the bottle ... which you seem to be insisting is the way out? So that is why I asked: What bottle? RESPONDENT: And the bottle does not simply vanish when nothing is done. RICHARD: The bottle does not vanish whether one does something or whether one does not do something. This is contrary to the normal notion of cause and effect ... which is why it is used by the metaphysically inclined people. They wish to break the hold that thought has on one ... they posit that ‘I’ am a product of thought and ‘I’ create a non-existent bottle to be trapped in ... because an ‘I’ is trapped by its very nature. When faced with an intellectually impossible paradox, they say that thought (their ‘I’ as ego) gives up the ghost and – hey presto! – the goose is out of the bottle by virtue of the fact that the bottle did not exist in the first place. It is a matter of seeing that one is already free and one had to but realise this. Mr. H. W. L. Poonja of India was of the same opinion ... which is why he has been able to churn out several ‘spiritually awakened beings’ who fondly imagine that they have ‘got it’. They now know that there never was a bottle to break or vanish or get out of all along. (I wonder where Respondent No. 22 is in all this ... this stuff should be grist for his mill.) It is all rather pathetic ... but there they go with their much-revered wisdom of the ages, eh? Perhaps it is more a conundrum than a paradox ... I would ask: Who is the gullible goose that precipitously feels they are now out? That is because this question gets one closer to the root cause of all human suffering ... Zen’s
much-prized ‘Original Face’. * RICHARD: The metaphor ‘bottle’ does not refer to conditioning but to a contracted or crystallised ‘self’. RESPONDENT: You are then using it the way No. 22 does. RICHARD: I was staying with the original metaphor ... there is more to being a self than conditioning * RICHARD: Yet even if it did, that particular piece of conditioning is endlessly replaced by more subtle variations as fast as it is seen through and dissolved – or whatever you do with it – for as long ‘I’ persist. So it has nothing to do with ‘the intelligence of discovery of how to break that bottle’ whichever way you look at it. RESPONDENT: Are you saying that there is only the conditioned state, and not the possibility of seeing or understanding that conditioning? Or are you merely saying that this possibility necessitates moving outside the confines of the self-perspective? RICHARD: One needs to go to the root of what it is that conditioning sticks to so that conditioning falls away like water off a duck’s back. Is it not possible to be never conditioned? * RESPONDENT: My point is that ‘doing absolutely nothing’ is not breaking the bottle. RICHARD: But there is no ‘bottle’ ... that is the whole point of this metaphor (and breaking the bottle is expressly forbidden anyway ... you cannot do an Alexander the Great on this Gordian Knot). RESPONDENT: If there is a bottle that is not there, then the rule of not breaking it does seem irrelevant. But this is merely a game: to first assume there is a bottle only to deny its existence. I prefer Alexander. RICHARD: Alexander took a sword and cut the knot ... one must ask: What knot? * RICHARD: ‘I’ create the illusion of a bottle. Who is the ‘I’ that you say is not going to break the bottle by ‘doing absolutely nothing’? Or, conversely, who is the ‘I’ that is ‘doing something’ in order to break the bottle ... which you seem to be insisting is the way out? RESPONDENT: Are you asking now for a definition of the ‘I’ or a defence of the existence of the ‘I’? This word ‘I’ is so theory laden. Which sort of an ‘I’ are we speaking about? RICHARD: The ‘I’ in this metaphor is the ego ‘I’ that arises from the soul ‘me’ that is born of the rudimentary self that all sentient beings are born with when blind nature equips one with the basic survival instincts of fear and aggression and nurture and desire. * RESPONDENT: And the bottle does not simply vanish when nothing is done. RICHARD: The bottle does not vanish whether one does something or whether one does not do something. This is contrary to the normal notion of cause and effect ... which is why it is used by the metaphysically inclined people. They wish to break the hold that thought has on one ... they posit that ‘I’ am a product of thought and ‘I’ create a non-existent bottle to be trapped in ... because an ‘I’ is trapped by its very nature. When faced with an intellectually impossible paradox, they say that thought (their ‘I’ as ego) gives up the ghost and – hey presto! – the goose is out of the bottle by virtue of the fact that the bottle did not exist in the first place. It is a matter of seeing that one is already free and one had to but realise this. Mr. H. W. L. Poonja of India was of the same opinion ... which is why he has been able to churn out several ‘spiritually awakened beings’ who fondly imagine that they have ‘got it’. They now know that there never was a bottle to break or vanish or get out of all along. (I wonder where another poster is in all this ... this stuff should be grist for his mill.) It is all rather pathetic ... but there they go with their much-revered wisdom of the ages, eh? RESPONDENT: It is just a game that they are giving spiritual significance to. Denying the original assumption is a rather cheap solution. RICHARD: It is not a game to them ... they take it all to be very, very real. They do not just deny the original assumption ... they work very hard for many years to dissolve the ego ‘I’. Only a rare few succeed. When they do, only then can they say that the ‘I’ never existed in the first place. A person with their ‘I’ intact is not well-served to say that their ‘I’ is not real, for their suffering remains extant. * RICHARD: Perhaps it is more a conundrum than a paradox ... I would ask: Who is the gullible goose that precipitously feels they are now out? That is because this question gets one closer to the root cause of all human suffering ... Zen’s much-prized ‘Original Face’. RESPONDENT: Are you speaking about existing without self? RICHARD: Yes, but not only without a self ... without a capital ‘S’ Self as well. One is well-advised to pay attention to those basic instincts that give rise to what the Christians coyly call ‘Original Sin’. ‘I’ and ‘me’, in any way, shape or form, am rotten to the core ... this is the source of all guilt and its band-aid solutions like love and compassion. Zen’s ‘Original Face’ has its genesis in the rudimentary self of the instincts. Eliminate those survival instincts and not only does ‘Original Sin’ vanish ... even the ‘Original Face’ disappears. Then – and only then – is there peace-on-earth guaranteed. This is because it is already always here. * RICHARD: There is more to being a self than conditioning. RESPONDENT: Are you saying that a not-self can also be conditioned? RICHARD: When I wrote that there was more to a self than conditioning, I was merely staying with the start of this thread for consistency. For under Eastern Mysticism’s diagnosis the ‘self’ is a contraction or crystallisation of the eternal ‘Self’ ... and in Zen terminology ‘Eternal Self’ would – very loosely – translate as ‘Original Face’ or ‘Buddha Nature’. I say ‘loosely’ because Buddhists modestly disallow any enduring personal self at all. The basic premise being that the contracted or crystallised self can expand until it regains its original size and position: ‘I am Everything and Everything is Me’. Thus – and as far as I know – they did not make as big a thing out of conditioning as Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti did, but if asked I am sure they would say that the ‘not-self’ cannot be conditioned. (Of course Buddhists get into a logical dilemma with ‘self’ and ‘no-self’ and end up disallowing ‘no-self’ also). Speaking personally, I do not subscribe to the Zen position – or any Eastern metaphysical position at all – for I have my own understanding born out of my own experience ... and the spiritual ‘not-self’ – by any name – is very conditioned indeed. An enlightened man and woman could raise a child on an isolated island – a tropical paradise of course – with all the love and compassion in existence and that child would still have an identity – no doubt a grandiose identity – born out of its rudimentary self. * RICHARD: ‘I’ create the illusion of a ‘bottle’. Who is the ‘I’ that you say is not going to break the bottle by ‘doing absolutely nothing’? Or, conversely, who is the ‘I’ that is ‘doing something’ in order to break the bottle ... which you seem to be insisting is the way out? RESPONDENT: Are you asking now for a definition of the ‘I’ or a defence of the existence of the ‘I’? This word ‘I’ is so theory laden. Which sort of an ‘I’ are we speaking about? RICHARD: The ‘I’ in this metaphor is the ego ‘I’ that arises from the soul ‘me’ that is born of the rudimentary self that all sentient beings are born with when blind nature equips one with the basic survival instincts of fear and aggression and nurture and desire. RESPONDENT: If all sentient beings are born with it, is that ‘I’ an illusion? RICHARD: But sentient beings are not born with an ‘I’ ... they are born with a rudimentary self. (Which is a non-verbal awareness of bodily self as distinct from other bodies and the environment at large ... this can be observed in animals). Blind nature equips sentient beings with instinctual passions like fear and aggression and nurture and desire ... as basic survival instincts. These passions can be observed in animal infants ... and in human babies before they can think and talk. Thus malice and sorrow are intrinsic and not dependent upon conditioning. (These kind of things can be seen in the comfort of your own living-room via those fascinating National Geographic videos of the apes. These animals display passions and behaviour that is almost uncanny in their – albeit very basic – similarity to the human species.) Because humans can both feel and think and communicate their feeling-fed thoughts to other humans via language they can ruminate – as distinct from animals – upon the results of letting the instincts run free. Whereupon the infant’s rudimentary and passionate non-verbal self is persuaded, through reward and punishment and precept and example, to take on a socially-responsible identity known as a conscience ... in order to control the socially-wayward rudimentary self the baby was born with. By and large this is usually fairly well established by somewhere around the age of seven years ... according to those who study these things. One has been inculcated with the values of the particular culture one was born into and has both a feeling apprehension and a mental knowledge of what is decreed to be ‘Right and Wrong’. (This is somewhat analogous to Mr. Sigmund Freud’s ‘Id’, ‘ego’ and ‘Superego’ ... but the analogy definitely ends with his solution: A well-balanced personality is one that can juggle these conflicting demands in a compromise between social responsibility and personal gratification. His result: A troubled personality could, with analysis, be returned to normal. His definition of normal: ‘Common human unhappiness’.) Concomitant with this socialising process, a sense of identity as a personal ‘I’ percolates through feeling-backed thoughts as the rudimentary self asserts itself as a passionate ego by about age two years ... according to those who study these things. This is a naturally-occurring process in response to the demands of the environment ... natural insofar as the instincts are natural. This ego ‘I’ arises, out of the contradictory savagery and tenderness of the soul ‘me’ – the core of ‘being’ – which is born of the rudimentary self of the instinctual passions, in a vain attempt to steer the ship forcefully by infiltrating and arrogating the very necessary will. (Will is the operative thought function of the bodily consciousness). This makes the will’s otherwise smooth functioning problematic ... according to Richard who studied these things experientially. It is this ego ‘I’ that is the illusion. (Of course, when the ‘I’ is seen to be an illusion by the average spiritual aspirant, the gullible seeker searches for someone or something more fundamental ... and hey presto! ... one discovers one’s ‘Original Face’. This is where the illusion becomes a delusion because the ‘Original Face’ is the soul ‘me’ born of the rudimentary self formed by the instinctual survival passions. But that has a lot to do with the human animal’s ability to know one’s impending death ... and that is another story entirely). Zen’s ‘Original Face’ has its genesis in the rudimentary self of the instincts. Eliminate those
survival instincts and not only does ‘Original Sin’ vanish ... even the ‘Original Face’ disappears. Then – and only then
– is there peace-on-earth guaranteed. This is because it is already always here. RESPONDENT No. 20: And the bottle does not simply vanish when nothing is done. RICHARD: The bottle does not vanish whether one does something or whether one does not do something. This is contrary to the normal notion of cause and effect ... which is why it is used by the metaphysically inclined people. They wish to break the hold that thought has on one ... they posit that ‘I’ am a product of thought and ‘I’ create a non-existent bottle to be trapped in ... because an ‘I’ is trapped by its very nature. When faced with an intellectually impossible paradox, they say that thought (their ‘I’ as ego) gives up the ghost and – hey presto! – the goose is out of the bottle by virtue of the fact that the bottle did not exist in the first place. It is a matter of seeing that one is already free and one had to but realise this. Mr. H. W. L. Poonja of India was of the same opinion ... which is why he has been able to churn out several ‘spiritually awakened beings’ who fondly imagine that they have ‘got it’. They now know that there never was a bottle to break or vanish or get out of all along. It is all rather pathetic ... but there they go with their much-revered wisdom of the ages, eh? Perhaps it is more a conundrum than a paradox ... I would ask: Who is the gullible goose that precipitously feels they are now out? That is because this question gets one closer to the root cause of all human suffering ... Zen’s much-prized ‘Original Face’. RESPONDENT: ‘No bottle to break’ is seeing the lack of any inherent existence of the bottle, conditioning or an ‘I’. Yet, we cannot say there is no bottle at all since the ten thousand things (suffering, me’s and you’s, doers, birth/death) appear to come and go. Not doing is not something an ‘I’ can do, it is just seeing there is no truly existent ‘I’ that could ever do anything. RICHARD: Quite so ... an ‘I’ can never be ‘not doing’ no matter how inactive or detached it may try to be. An ‘I’ is ‘doing something’ by its very presence. Now, what about ‘me’ as soul ... Zen’s ‘Original Face’ (the second ‘I’ of Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer aka Ramana fame). Can that be ‘dissolved’ in a like manner? That is, by just seeing there is no truly existent ‘Me’ that could ever do anything? Or is another approach called for? RESPONDENT: First we start with our experience of what we think is true, before it can be negated from exposure. RICHARD: If this was all that ever happened then what gets negated through exposure is the concept – what one thinks to be true – and not necessarily the underlying reality. RESPONDENT: ‘Underlying reality’ seems like a concept just like the notion of some ongoing ‘I’. RICHARD: It does not ‘seem like a concept’ to the Zen people. The underlying reality – called ‘Original Face’ – is highly prized by them and they spend many, many years attaining to it. The rare few who do are recognised as being worthy of the highest approval, esteem, admiration and emulation. * RICHARD: But as you have already negated your ‘I’, by seeing the lack of any inherent existence of this ‘I’, you must be experiencing your ‘Original Face’ – or whatever you call it – as a result of having done so. So surely you are experiencing more than what you ‘think is true’? RESPONDENT: Since there is no experience of an ‘I’ experiencing a ‘your Original Face’, those ideas just come and go as they do. RICHARD: But an ‘I’ can never experience ‘Original Face’ ... what on earth are you talking about? What ideas ‘just come and go as they do’? I am referring to the ‘I’-less experience of living life ... which is known in Zen as ‘Original face’. Surely you know what we are talking about? This direct experiencing can only happen when the goose is out of the bottle ... you started writing in this thread as if you knew what was going on. If you are not experiencing this ‘Original Face’ yourself, can you not at least comprehend this simple point? * RESPONDENT: It must be observed as it occurs. RICHARD: Indeed so. Where something exists, with all the mayhem and misery its presence causes, it has an inherent existence ... whether one has a concept of it or not. Not knowing of its existence – or denying it – is simply ignorance. And so the suffering continues unabated ... as it has down through the centuries. RESPONDENT: Ignorance seems to be the beliefs in true existence, not a lack of knowing of the existence of something. What is it that seems to inherently exist? RICHARD: What the Zen people call ‘Original Face’. * RESPONDENT: If there is an experience of a ‘me’, or a soul or whatever, that is what gets attention. RICHARD: Unfortunately is has not ... so far. The Zen people have had the experience of the reality of their concept of the ‘Original Face’ for centuries now and give it the wrong sort of attention ... reverence and respect. The same applies to other cultures that worship the ‘Revealed Teachings’ of one who has realised themselves to be ‘The Self’ ... be they go under the name Avatar or Messiah or Redeemer or Saviour or Master or World Teacher or Whatever. Such adulation and adoration seems to prevent them from being able to see the obvious: they have been unable to see the connection between a rare few people being that and all the religious wars that inevitably follow the recognition of such people as being worthy of the highest approval, esteem, admiration and emulation. RESPONDENT: If there is no concept of a soul, there is no need to dissolve anything. RICHARD: Whoa up there now! First of all there is already a concept of a soul ... every culture has some word for it. Secondly, just because there is not yet a concept for something does not mean that it does not exist. Humans did not have a concept that the earth was a globe until relatively recently in human history ... even after Mr. Christopher Columbus’ epic voyage there was still disputation about the veracity of the earth’s globular nature. Yet satellite photographs demonstrate that this is so despite the lack of the concept. (Assuming, of course, that the once-flat earth did not suddenly decide to become round coincidental to Mr. Yuri Gagarin being shot into orbit). Are you not saying that all the suffering of 5.8 billion people is only because each and every one of them has not yet developed a concept that the soul is the root cause of human suffering ... even though it can be observed as an actual happening in daily life? Yet to go on and say that if such a concept is never made then there is no need to dissolve it is to bury one’s head in the sand. There is indeed a need to dissolve something ... what we are discussing is just what the nature of this something is. I am promoting the point that ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being – in fact ‘being’ itself – is the root cause of all anguish and animosity. As the ego ‘I’ can be dissolved by understanding the ‘Goose in the Bottle’ parable, my question was whether this applies to one’s ‘Original Face’ ... what I was asking is whether this ‘Ground Of Being’, as it is also known, can be dissolved in a like manner ... or whether another approach was called for. So to clarify: are you saying that the ‘Original Face’ does not exist? Or are you saying that it does ... but it is not the root cause of all human suffering? RESPONDENT: Basically clinging to concepts or ideas, whether of an ongoing ‘I’ or some transcendent Self, fosters suffering. RICHARD: I beg to differ ... it is the on-going ‘I’ which fosters suffering and not ‘clinging to concepts or ideas’. For it is ‘I’ who clings, when all is said and done. You are talking about detachment ... who is the ‘I’ that is doing the ‘not clinging’? RESPONDENT: Without clinging to or depending on or acting as if there is some truly existing ‘I’ or soul, there is nothing to negate. RICHARD: But there is this ‘I’ that is doing this ‘not clinging’ and this ‘not depending’ and this ‘not acting’. Therein lies the problem. We have already discussed this back at the beginning of this thread (at the top of the page) where you said: ‘Not doing is not something an ‘I’ can do’ and I said: ‘Quite so ... an ‘I’ can never be ‘not doing’ no matter how inactive or detached it may try to be. An ‘I’ is ‘doing something’ by its very presence’. RESPONDENT: Keeping in mind that terms are only labels or pointers, ‘Original Face’ points to a state of mind where clinging to an ongoing anything is impossible. RICHARD: This is because the would-be ‘clinger’ has vanished ... and not because of an act of ‘not clinging’. Then there is this ‘Original Face’ in all its glory. RESPONDENT: If that pointer functions as an idea to cling to or depend on, then what is pointed to is obscured by that clinging. RICHARD: What is pointed to is not obscured by clinging ... but by the ‘clinger’. RESPONDENT: So I would say that soul or ‘I’ or Original Face or Self have an apparent existence, due to thought, but lack any inherently real existence. The apparent goose and bottle lack any inherently real existence. RICHARD: So the Zen people spend years and years to get to where they can truly say ‘the goose is out of the bottle’ and this state – which they use the designation ‘Original face’ for – you say lacks any inherently real existence just like the goose and the bottle that was causing all the trouble in the first place? Wow! RICHARD: The underlying reality – called ‘Original Face’ – is highly prized by the Zen people and they spend many, many years attaining to it. The rare few who do are recognised as being worthy of the highest approval, esteem, admiration and emulation. RESPONDENT: I have not heard it mentioned that Original Face is an underlying reality, something prized or something that can be attained. Where did you hear that? RICHARD: Oh, it is something that I have known for years ... it is well known to practitioners of Zen. As I have no books on Zen to hand – and I last read Zen in 1983 or thereabouts – I am unable to be precise about where and when and from who I read it. So I wandered out onto the Internet just now and copied and pasted the first reference that I came across (it even has the Japanese character for ‘Original face’).
‘Honrai no memmoku/ pen-lai mien-mu’ I am sure that this paragraph effectively indicates a highly prized underlying reality that can be attained ... unless you wish to be ‘Zen-Clever’ and deny all this as being worth anything at all in that back-to-front way they have of disparaging what they consider the most precious. If so, you are on your own as I am not interested in playing petty Zen games.
RESPONDENT: I would say that soul or ‘I’ or Original Face or Self have an apparent existence, due to thought, but lack any inherently real existence. The apparent goose and bottle lack any inherently real existence. RICHARD: So the Zen people spend years and years to get to where they can truly say ‘the goose is out of the bottle’ and this state – which they call ‘Original face’ – you say lacks any ‘inherently real existence’ just like the goose and the bottle that was causing all the trouble in the first place? Wow! RESPONDENT: Nothing to do. No where to go. Nothing to attain. No goose or bottle from the first. RICHARD: Yea verily ... and with no ‘Original face’ to attain you sure have got the game sown up. Just one last observation: I have noticed that when you are writing about ‘fixing breakfast’ and
things like that, I never see words about how enjoyable that is; how delightful that is; what fun that is; how marvellous that is
... or any other descriptive word that might indicate that life on earth is such a magnificent and wonderful experience that it is
indeed a privilege to be here doing a mundane thing such as fixing this breakfast now. RESPONDENT: The original face neither appears nor disappears, but is the very nature of all appearances. RICHARD: This statement is somewhat at odds with what you wrote recently. Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘I have not heard it mentioned that Original Face is an underlying reality, something prized or something that can be attained. Where did you hear that?’ What is the difference between ‘underlying reality’ and ‘very nature’? Are you playing an obscure game ... or is it that you do not know what you are talking about? RESPONDENT: It is not an underlying reality in the sense of being an object to be prized or attained. As I mentioned before: ‘I am not sure why you might think this is something that is prized or attainable. It seems more like the essential nature of all things (prized or attainable) rather than being some thing’. RICHARD: Then why is ‘the very nature of all appearances’ or ‘the essential nature of all things’ exempt from being not a very nature ‘in the sense of being an object to be prized or attained’ in your mind? Why do you have one rule for yourself and a different rule for others? Surely you are quibbling over terminology ... to me ‘underlying reality’ conveys the same notion as ‘very nature’ or ‘essential nature’. I am just trying to find out how your mind works. RESPONDENT: The essential nature of an object is not an object. The nature of a self or any object is that it lacks any real substantial existence. RICHARD: Yes ... but I was very clearly saying the same thing. Try this for size: For the Zen people, the underlying reality of an object is not an object. For the Zen people, the reality of a self or any object is that it lacks any real substantial existence. Is this not saying the same thing? Why this quibble over terminology? RESPONDENT: Why do you think that this is something that is prized or attainable? RICHARD: Because the Zen people spend years and years torturing their bodies (as in sitting Zazen) in order to attain it. This indicates to me that it is something that they prize highly ... what do you think? RESPONDENT: That is not my experience of Zen practice. The notion of attainment or using practice as a means to an end is not encouraged and a lot attention is brought to exposing the dualistic nature of that kind of effort. Perhaps, what you say is true of some Zen people, as you say. RICHARD: Not just some ... all. The goal is to realise one’s ‘Original Face’ ... to pretend that one is not aware of this is to be disingenuous. However, you are not the only person to experience the adoption of this stance of make-believe ignorance ... there are others that like to think that by feigning unawareness that they will achieve something. Just how they think this sleight-of-hand (or should I say sleight-of-mind) is going to be efficacious in bringing about the undesired/desired result remains a rather moot point. Nevertheless, such dissimulation is not unknown ... the Indian Buddhists too, indulge in a similar craftiness. They pretend that they do not desire Nirvana ... in the hope that they will thus achieve it. The Christians, believing that to be alive is to remain a sinner, obediently manifest a spiritual humility in order to be worthy of God’s Grace and admission into Heaven. Some Hindus maintain that by not enjoying the fruits of their labour they will gain the ultimate fruit of such labour ... called Moksa. The same sort of sanctimony holds true for many other religions and spiritual disciplines. RESPONDENT: Why do you think that this ... [‘Original face’] ... has anything to do with the survival of a self? RICHARD: This is because their ‘Original Face’ is their very own sublimated self ... much like ‘The Self’ of Indian Mysticism. It is narcissism in yet another cultural disguise. RESPONDENT: Admittedly it is easy to see them in the same way, but it doesn’t seem that way to me. RICHARD: Why not? Zen Buddhism is not all that different to Indian Buddhism ... and Indian Buddhism grew out of Hinduism. And Hinduism – in the form of Advaita Vedanta brought aspects of Indian Buddhism back into Hinduism. Thus, whilst Buddhists maintain that there ultimately is no personal self to be ‘The Self’ like some Hinduism does (‘Atman is Brahman’) they do have re-incarnation. Thus there is something apparently enduring of a personal nature (Skandhas) until one realises one’s ‘Buddha Nature’ and comes home, as it were. Sunyata, ‘The Void’ of Nirvana, equates – more or less – with the Brahman which has no attributes. Although both Brahman and Sunyata are seen not as a negation of existence but rather as the undifferentiation out of which all apparent entities, distinctions, and dualities arise. Thus, essentially, one realises that one is god (by whatever clever name) and that god is all that exists and everything is a manifestation of god. It is much the same with Taoism. Essentially the three main religions of the East are all about realising that you are ‘That’ by whatever name ... and ‘That’ is the ‘essential nature’ of all things and appearances ... of existence itself. The same applies to Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti, who initially declaring himself to be god-realised in the twenties, merely substituted the word ‘life’ for the word ‘god’ and never changed fundamentally from his original position. RESPONDENT: Unlike having an actual body that is supposedly truly existing, this original face has no independent existence at all. RICHARD: There, you have just said it ... ‘supposedly truly existing’. Which means that nothing material truly exists ... the only reality is the ‘essential nature’. Which is a non-material nothingness. This is the standard solipsistic fare ... no wonder you and No. 14 are getting along famously. And so all the wars and rapes and murders and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse roll on unto the twenty-first century ... all because, as you maintain, none of it is ultimately real (your phrase ‘Life dreaming Life’ in another post equates with ‘Brahma dreaming Worlds’). Meanwhile, in the West, where at least lip-service is paid to things being ‘inherently real’, people revere suffering as being ‘good for the soul’, and look toward a peaceful life ... after physical death! Where in all this is humankind’s much-touted humanity? Millions upon millions weep crocodile tears ... all the while too self-centred to actually care. * RICHARD: The goal is to realise one’s ‘Original Face’ ... to pretend that one is not aware of this is to be disingenuous. However, you are not the only person to experience the adoption of this stance of make-believe ignorance ... there are others that like to think that by feigning unawareness that they will achieve something. Just how they think this sleight-of-hand (or should I say sleight-of-mind) is going to be efficacious in bringing about the undesired/desired result remains a rather moot point. Nevertheless, such dissimulation is not unknown ... the Indian Buddhists too, indulge in a similar craftiness. They pretend that they do not desire Nirvana ... in the hope that they will thus achieve it. The Christians, believing that to be alive is to remain a sinner, obediently manifest a spiritual humility in order to be worthy of God’s Grace and admission into Heaven. Some Hindus maintain that by not enjoying the fruits of their labour they will gain the ultimate fruit of such labour ... called Moksa. The same sort of sanctimony holds true for many other religions and spiritual disciplines. RESPONDENT: Why would you insist on there being a goal, when there are many teaching contrary to what you assert. RICHARD: There are no teachings to the contrary ... even Zen acknowledges this when they say:
RESPONDENT: I’d also like to learn more about your actual experience of there being no inner or outer, as compared to Zen, perhaps there is a link to it on your site. RICHARD: Zen Buddhism is grounded in the experience of Mr. Gotama the Sakyan, who based his entire teaching on the truth of ‘dukkha’ ... all physical existence is ‘dukkha’, he decided. He thus rationalised that living amid the impermanence (‘annica’) of everything, and being themselves transitory, human beings search for the way of deliverance (‘nirvana’) to realise the deathlessness (‘amata-dhamma’) which shines beyond the transitoriness of human existence; he asserted there was no essential or ultimate reality (‘paramattha dhamma’) in the world of people, things and events. He said: ‘There is an unborn, an unoriginated, an unmade, an uncompounded; were there not, there would be no escape from the world of the born, the originated, the made, and the compounded’ (Nibbana Sutta; Udana viii.3). Thus, Buddhism is 180 degrees in the other direction to an actual freedom ... a total disassociation from the world of flesh and blood bodies; the world of the trees and the flowers; the world of the mountains and the streams; the world of the clouds by day and the stars at night – this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe – insomuch as only ‘Parinirvana’ is truly real. Viz.:
In this Pali Canon Sutra (the earliest recorded scriptures) Mr. Gotama the Sakyan is totally unambiguous and unequivocally plain-speaking in his description of the ‘deathless state’ ... for he was anti-life to the core, condemning all temporal, spatial and material existence in no uncertain terms. And any Zen practitioner who tries to remonstrate otherwise is either lying through their teeth or just does not understand what their ‘Lord Buddha’ was on about ... there is even a Web Page devoted to proving that Buddhism is environmentally aware – eco-friendly – in a puerile attempt to make Buddhism palatable for the undiscerning, the desperate, the gullible. Viz.:
Presumably trees are – all of a sudden – strangely exempt when seeing the pernicious nature of birth,
disease, old age and death ... which ‘seeing’ is the only truly faithful Buddhist way of living life (the very existence of
‘birth, disease, old age, death’ being Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s profound insight into the root cause of suffering).
RETURN TO RICHARD’S SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE INDEX The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
