Removing the exotic: English alternatives
I
am not a great fan of using foreign terms, even if they have gained coinage in
English, as however you come at them, they cannot help but carry added flavour
and nuances that get in the way of a cleaner reading. Asian terms in particular
seem to hold an exotic allure. The two workable western terms that could be
used to replace nirvana and bodhi, which emerge really without great
effort, are liberation and freedom and are most likely useful in this context
when the preposition from is added to both. To gain freedom from or liberation
from provides a compelling basis for defining more effectively what the thing
is and perhaps remains faithful to an alternative translation for nirvana
suggested by Thanissaro Bhikku and once championed by Glenn Wallis: unbinding.
The tendency to define nirvana as an absence allies it nicely with these two
English phrases. If we gain freedom from identification with a separate phantom
I and come to know that it is a socially constructed self, formulated within
the lyrical forms of our place and time and entrenched in narratives that
emerge primarily from our family, then we are released from the needs and
concerns and obsessions that go with those levels of identity. We are left with
the foibles and limitations of our particular physical structure and
continence, our particular flavour of character and the genetic predispositions
that make up our body, but we become free from the confinements of a network of
historical ties that are part of the claustrophobic isolation that constitutes
the phantom I.
What
we ought to be able to make tangible eventually is an understanding of what is
left once this form of freedom and liberation have been achieved. The human
that is left with the aftermath of having obtained Buddhism’s goal will still
be human, still be embodied, still be a psychological, emotional, social
creature that partakes of all the same bodily functions as any other human. So
what determines the usefulness of this attainment of actualised freedom from
emotional and psychological suffering and is that a fair way to describe what
has been achieved? Isn’t that it? Isn’t that the thing? What are you left with
at a human level and how does that translate into a form of communication that
may be useful in the ongoing struggle for greater justice, opportunity and
freedom for the many and not just the few? I for one refuse to believe that it
has to be a happy, shiny, smiley, geeky idiot that professes their great
freedom to the world and looks out wisely and compassionately onto an inferior
class of citizen. I met enough of those deluded individuals during the height
of the New-Age craze in the 90s to know that they are full of something dark
and pungent.
Buddhism
of course has answers to these questions, but the figures within Buddhism that
have become highly noble beings and revered in their traditions have almost
always remained in their traditions with their social status confirmed and
maintained in a way that normalised their behaviours. The exceptions to this
rule are the minority, or established a new orthodoxy of their own in new
Buddhist traditions, becoming idealised in the process. Their compassionate
acts then emerge from a socially agreed upon context that allows them to fulfil
that role, supported by the community. If you are not in such a tradition, how
does such ennobled behaviour express itself without the support of a
traditional Buddhist structure? This of course reminds us of one of the great
benefits of tradition; it provides a social and cultural means for engaging in
certain social acts, which may be either unavailable, or difficult to realise
otherwise. Normalising the thing into very human terms might actually provide a
means for the emergence in wider society of valid expressions of freedom from
the suffering-self. If the emerging sciences of consciousness are able to
validate eventually what occurs when a person breaks through the phantom-I and
emerges as still thoroughly human, but radically free from the bundles of
confusion and embedded distortions that constitute the suffering self, then
creating a reasonable model of such an individual that is freed from abstract
religious and spiritual claims in theory should be possible. What we might end
up with is a means for first validating and then understanding and then finally
providing a socially recognised basis for creating secular forms of practices
and guidance for awakening and freedom in the manner described above. It does
not seem so farfetched to consider it a possibility.
All
the rage in the meet-up between science and Buddhism is the use of brain
scanning to uncover the neurological interplay and characteristics of seasoned
practitioners of meditative techniques. Understanding in real terms the results
of such studies and tests is unreliable at present although much speculation
has been made to the significance of initial data. To understand though only
through the mechanical functioning of the brain the shifts that might be
occurring as individuals make progress in long-term meditation practice is
insufficient in providing a real evaluation of the experiential reality of
awakened or awakening individuals and the potential value of such. In depth
questioning and observation as well as testing by psychologists and clinical
psychiatrists with an open mind would be equally important in order to produce
a more complete picture of not just the physical changes and differentiation in
brain wave patterns, but also in obtaining insight into the emotional and
inter-psychological processes established within the day-to-day experience as a
constant within these individuals’ lives and relationships.
People
do claim to be awakened both within and outside Buddhism and I have a
suspicion, due to my own encounter with a wide range of spiritual teachers,
that most are able to replicate certain behavioural and experiential freedoms,
but only within controlled spaces where their actions and claims are part of a
normalised environment in which the way they act is socially recognised,
confirmed and rewarded. For example, gurus are often surrounded by disciples
and adoring followers, but what happens in those unseen spaces, or what would
happen if their garments, symbolic adornments and followers were to be removed
and the individual found himself in a location in which his actions, behaviour
and beliefs were not at all recognised? That is when things start to get
interesting. To speak of the human, is to speak of the shared and if the types
of freedom and liberation that we are getting at in this essay is worthwhile,
real, tangible and sustained, then it should function in any circumstance and
without any special support.
A workable model: experimental update
If
awakening can be considered as the process of advancing through the applied
practice of appropriate techniques and a personal search within this process
that is fundamentally open and critical and based on gaining direct and
personal understanding that is tested in the inhabited environment rather than
simply a safe space of practice, then perhaps there is an initial model of
awakening that can prove a workable means for measuring progress on the way. It
of course will require some adaption, and this is what I will attempt in the
second part of this act of reconfiguring. The model that I have chosen to
explore here is the Nikaya scheme of the Four Stages of Enlightenment. This
model has been explored and laid out in the Visudhimaga, but the four stages,
or paths, that it refers to appear in the Sutta Pitaka, one of the main
teaching groups, or baskets of the earliest Buddhist teachings that we know of,
so it has a clear doctrinal foundation and thus has that all important kudos!
But
why bother dragging out this traditional Buddhist system for categorising a
phenomenon that many believe to be the lofty heights of spiritual stardom for
the elite few? Well, firstly because the model continues to be used by
Theravada Buddhists worldwide today and secondly because it has actually gained
some usage amongst figures in the alternative dharma scene and by the godfather
of secular Buddhism himself, Stephen Batchelor. It therefore represents a
connection between traditional and contemporary expressions of Buddhism. What’s
more the model has four clear stages that consist of clear tasks to achieve, so
lends itself to pragmatic application. The four stages are accumulative and the
tasks can be read as not referring explicitly to superhuman powers,
accomplishment or achievements. Finally there is the factor of simplicity which
is often missing from Buddhist lists and maps.
The
immediate obstacle is some of the wording. As per the decision laid out in an
earlier section of this text, I refuse to discuss reincarnation and this
simplifies further the fourfold classification provided by this model. Please
note, I am calling this a model for good reason. There is no imperative to
consider it as a final and authoritative system for categorising the
transformative results of a dedication to gaining insight into the human
condition. As a model it is a representation of shifts and changes that may
likely occur in the project of dismantling the phantom-I. I am going to tweak
and mould anew this model in a sympathetic manner.
Before
venturing further though, a little background. In my exploits with Buddhism a
few years back I came across an assorted crew of characters gathered together
under the banner of the Dharma Overground. They were brought together through
the inspiration and work of Daniel Ingram, an AR doctor and self-claimed
obtainer of freedom and liberation. He defines himself as an Arahat (an
awakened person). Ingram is a wonderfully eccentric chap and a real candidate
for the sort of study I suggested above. He spread Mahasi style noting practice
among his fans and managed, it seems, to assist quite a few folk in reaching
all of the four stages within the model we will look at. Now, whether his
claims are true or not would be impossible for me to confirm, but the spirit of
the group and its democratization of the awakening process was inspirational
and even if my curiosity would really be connected to a social study of the
nature of the group dynamics within their small collective and the subsequent
results of their self-claimed achievements, I applaud the spirit of their
initiative and the willingness to break with traditional Buddhist taboos of
breaking open the awakening project. Vince Horn (of Buddhist Geeks) and Kenneth
Folk were both involved with Ingram with Mr Folk claiming the same attainment
and Vince writing about stream entry on his site as a doable achievement.
Shinzen Young is the other noteworthy addition to those who claim to have
awakened and uses the four stage model himself. This model then has coinage in
alternative contemporary dharma movements, which represent a rupture of sorts
from traditional Buddhism.
Batchelor
also speaks of Stream Entry and awakening in a way that imply each is possible.
He tends to define Stream Entry in subdued terms however. He and Ingram stand
at opposite ends of the spectrum even as they are in a way both representatives
of the democratisation of Buddhism. Batchelor is the face of a new movement
seeking to validate itself even as it breaks from traditions by returning to
scripture as the source of authority.
In
various talks, Batchelor defines stream entry as simply entering the eightfold
path, that is becoming a Buddhist. But this is problematic for two reasons;
firstly it implies that being a self-identified Buddhist is required to enact
or realise the first stage (which has to be part of a model of human
experience) and therefore is really implying that it is a mere social
convention, secondly it ignores the associated shifts that are assigned to the
stages within traditional sources, to which he is very much enamoured, as ever
more radical steps of dismantling the me-making structures of self. I should
probably point out that I lean more towards Ingram’s interpretation of the
model than Batchelor. The stages of the four path model delineate a process of
unbinding from fetters, or psycho-emotional layers of fabricated being. This
sounds quite distinct from simply entering onto a metaphorical pathway and
signing on to Buddhism as Batchelor appears to indicate in many of his talks on
stream entry.
The Four Stages of Awakening
This
model features four stages with each qualified in two distinct ways. The name
for each stage either directly indicates a shift with regards to reincarnation,
or defines the beginning and end of the path, so that we have the traditional
four stages of:
1. Stream Entry: start of
the path
2. Once-returner: will be
reborn once more
3. Non-returner: will no
longer be reborn
4. Arahat, awakened one:
completion of the path
On
one hand, we have a model that ties itself to the notion of rebirth and on the
other we have categories of something called fetters that are discarded, or
broken through as we progress through the four stages. Setting aside the
reincarnation principle, we have a map for the sequencing of the fetters that
are broken through in stages as we gain ground on dismantling the relationship
we have with the phantom I.
This
model has great weight in the Theravada school, where it is still prominent to
this day. Although this model emerges from that tradition, which has a keen eye
to moral restraint, I will be exploring it from a slightly different
perspective. Namely that of non-dual-ness. Again, as a post-traditional
perspective, this view will not be beholden to Buddhism, or Neo-Advaita for
that matter. Non-dual-ness in this context is merely the recognition that the
basis for suffering is the phantom-self’s assumption that it is separate from
the world around it, separate from experience, separate from what is emerging,
or taking place, so in the sense used here, it simply means we are not isolated,
atomistic individuals, and that we need to recognise the truth of this shift
and dismantle our embeddedness in this false mode of being.
When
we take death to be an impending end and its arrival as potentially imminent
and wholly unpredictable, then we really are forced to recognise the fact that
life is always imminent and that we need to be dedicated to dealing with what
is actually taking place right here, rather than project onto desired futures,
or be obsessed with sustaining a dead past presented through a seemingly
consistent narrative. The idea of the long path to awakening is abandoned in
this perspective and a sober acceptance of the immediacy and necessary
participation in the moving present is the only real choice left open to us.
The question that then emerges is how capable am I of engaging with what is
taking place? How much do I manipulate what occurs in the sense fields? How
much do I avoid certain uncomfortable or painful aspects of life? Where do I
intentionally choose to look away, close my eyes or ignore? These questions
acknowledge that participation in experience is always limited by what is
expected, or feared. Another way to say it is that we are generally incapable
of and are habitually lazy in accepting immediate events as an invitation to
really engage and see what is taking place.
The
four stage model is a means for coming to understand the key obstacles that
prevent us from being full participants in this life. Awakening is concerned in
part with how much distance we allow to remain between what is experienced, and
how fully we participate. We co-arise with the phenomena that are in our
immediate experience and a substantial, visible self is missing from that
equation. In a way what we exist as afterwards is a symbolic self, a mirror of
the time we live in, expressed through our own genetic makeup, proclivities and
character leanings and as a reflection of a wider social discourse that we are
conditioned by and dependent on. How liberating it is to realise that we
actually are all in this together and that the atomised distortion of being
that we drag around is really not needed. How important it is also to realise
that attempting to fabricate an alternative self or a re-enactment of an
historical awakening is futile and is really a refusal to honour the time we
currently inhabit. If awakening is to have value, it must be an awakening in
this time and place, within this symbolic reality and through its symbolic
forms of which language is primary.
No comments:
Post a Comment