During the Zoom seminars, MIG members introduced each of the 7 Points (available as a PDF here) with a little commentary, expanding on and (hopefully) clarifying the ideas.
Here we have reproduced each of the seven points, with the commentary from the Seminar included after each point.
1. No Higher Teaching, only deeper understanding.
The intention behind this teaching
It is easy to take apparently simple teachings for granted, and to think that we need more advanced
teachings to make progress (“ultraism”). However, as our practice deepens, we tend to find ever
greater significance in teachings that we might have known about for years
How this presents difficulties for insight
However, this doesn’t mean that a single perspective on spiritual life is sufficient to approach all
aspects of practice. The attitudes, worldviews, motivations and teachings that best support sila and
samadhi are not the best for approaching prajna. When taken at face value, some teachings helpful
for insight practice may contradict teachings oriented to ethics and concentration. This can be a
barrier to insight practice.
A more useful approach for insight is
We are familiar with the idea that literalism is a problem, and that the Dharma is a raft. Building on
these ideas, we can say that there is no single worldview that applies equally well to all aspects of the
path, and that it is necessary to work with different, even contradictory, worldviews at different times,without ultimately “believing” in any of them. Subhuti’s exploration of the “myths” of practice is an exploration of the way that different worldviews may be needed to explore different aspects of the
path
Commentary
Last week we covered point 1 of the seven, which is particularly important, because it lays out the principle that we are applying in the other points.
The essence of point 1 is this: some views and teachings that are useful for approaching sila and samadhi are unhelpful when approaching insight practice, and vice versa.
If we approach insight practice in exactly the same way as we have approached sila and samadhi, we will probably not get very far.
Sometimes people are very suspicious of insight teachings because they appear to contradict teachings that they know to be beneficial. They might feel that every step should reinforce what they have already learned, because “there are no higher teachings, only deeper understandings”.
However, we shouldn’t be afraid of teachings that appear to contradict each other, when they apply to different areas of practice.
We are going to look at some specific examples in the other six points, but I will add some general examples now as well…
The developmental model is a good framework for sila and samadhi. You can develop good ethical habits, for example, and you can develop metta in meditation. Your starting point is something that you already know and experience, that you are seeking to develop through attention and repetition. It works.
However, when it comes to insight practice, and in particular breaking the first fetter, the developmental approach isn’t very useful, because you don’t already have the insight to develop through repetition. If you want to be given a practice that you can just sit down and do regularly, secure in the knowledge that insight will inevitability follow, you will be disappointed.
Another example: when working on sila and samadhi, we get very used to distinguishing positive from negative mental states, in the spirit of the Four Right Efforts. However, when approaching insight practice, the emphasis shifts to impartially noticing whatever is going on, without trying to change anything. After years of practice of Right Effort, this can seem at best pointless, and at worst heretical, because we think that we are allowing negativity to run unchecked.
One last example: our ethical practice is often bound up with our self-view. I feel that I freely choose to act ethically because of the kind of person I want to be, and that I will suffer the consequences of my behaviour, ethical or unethical. There is nothing wrong with this. However, when confronted with insight practices that call into question our self view, our sense of free will, and the idea that there is any kind of self at all, some people feel that they are being led down a path that contradicts their ethical practice, and so can’t possibly be the Dharma.
The solution in all such cases is to apply the logic of sila and samadhi to the area of sila and samadhi, while allowing a quite different approach to prajna, without the expectation that any one approach can cover every area of practice.
So this week we are going to look at points 2 & 3 from our document, which are two specific examples of where our teaching needs to be tailored to the kind of practice we are undertaking.
2. Anatta as philosophical doctrine (challenging Hindu soul theory)
The intention behind this teaching
In the absence of insight, most people will initially approach and understand anatta intellectually or as a philosophical view. Some newcomers may have heard about this view, and may need to approach and understand it in this way at first.
How this presents difficulties for insight
The Buddha discouraged philosophical speculation, and did not teach anatta as a philosophical view, but an observation or discovery that challenges an everyday assumption.
A more useful approach for insight is
For insight practice to work, people need to be directed away from views and towards experience. Discuss anatta and the other laksanas in purely experiential terms – nothing can be found in experience that is ‘self’, unchanging or completely satisfying.
Sangharakshita Quotes
“The Buddha maintained that there was no such entity [as atman] – and he did so by appealing to experience. He said that if you look within, at yourself, at your own mental life, you can account for everything you observe under just five headings [….] Nothing discovered in these categories can be observed to be permanent. There is nothing sovereign or ultimately blissful amongst them. [They] are anatman.”
Commentary
So it’s a drawback to insight practice (and any arising of insight) when people try to ‘get it’ intellectually and don’t get beyond approaching it as a ‘philosophical view’.
Equally, it’s unhelpful to view anatta as just refuting a view in Hindu Upanishadic philosophy.
The Buddha refused to answer the wanderer Vacchagotta as to whether atta existed or not, on the basis that as Vacchagotta was just approaching it conceptually, he would become confused whatever answer he was given..
Anatta is an example of the Buddha using a concept from contemporary religious thought for his own ends. ‘Atta’ doesn’t point to a Hindu ‘soul theory’, but to a belief that what we are is a substantially and independently existing ‘me-thing’.
This ‘me thing’ doesn’t and never did exist. In other words, it’s a delusion about our actual nature.
If it’s approached it in a purely intellectual or philosophical way, we’re liable to miss the practical point that underlying self-view is delusion (avidyā) and that clinging to self-view gives rise to “I want’, “I don’t want” etc, which in turn gives rise to dukkha.
So, anatta points to a wrong belief about experience – that there is a self/me/person who ‘experiences’ sense arisings – including mental ones. The Buddha points out that, on the contrary, all sense experiences arise of themselves and the ‘self-as-experiencer’ is a mental imputation.
In the Cha-chakka Sutta [MN148] the Buddha says:
“If anyone were to say, ‘[Seeing] is the self,’ that wouldn’t be tenable. The arising & falling away of [seeing] are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that ‘my self arises & falls away.’ That’s why it wouldn’t be tenable if anyone were to say, ‘The eye is the self.’” [& same for other senses]
This point is made even more simply and experientially to Bahiya: “in the seeing there will just be the seeing”, etc.
So in the first place, anatta needs to be understood with right view in order to become a basis for insight practice. And the insight practice itself needs to be based in our direct sense experience, not just on conceptual thought about it.
3. No “fixed” self (first fetter is “fixed” self-view – but there is an “empirical self”)
The intention behind this teaching
Comprehensible to beginners, and inspiring to learn that “you can change”. The view of self as fixed is indeed a delusion that needs to be overcome. This approach avoids the risk of anatta appealing to self-hating people who like the idea of destroying their “self”.
How this presents difficulties for insight
This view is not deep enough to help breaking 1st fetter, because it supports the delusion that there is a self that can be developed. To break the first fetter, we need to challenge the idea that there is any self either within or outside of the skandhas, regardless of whether this self is fixed or changeable.
A more useful approach for insight is
Use the traditional definitions of 1st fetter. Point out that path involves elimination of all conceit “I am”. Tackle nihilism on its own level, as an emotional issue, or by pointing out that there is no question of getting rid of a self, because there has never been one there to begin with.
Sangharakshita Quotes
“The ego […] is not a thing, but a faulty interpretation. One is seeing something that just isn’t there […]it never was, and it never will be. […] And because it isn’t there, one can’t do anything with it – get rid of it, go beyond it, or whatever.” “If the ego is shown to be an illusion, one’s fears on its behalf are extinguished. You see that there is no one to lose anything, and so you have nothing to lose”
Commentary
This brings out the and clarifies the connection between anicca, ‘non-permanence’, and anatta.
The anicca-lakkhana encourages us to explore all of our experience and to come to ‘see and know’ directly, that there is no ‘fixed anything’ – that nothing permanent can be found in any kind of experience.
This does mean that there’s ‘no fixed me’ – so positive change and development is indeed possible. This is encouraging, it counters nihilistic views, and it can be quite revelatory when it’s first really taken on board.
However, anicca and anatta are two sides of the coin – I’ve known people to see-through the self-view on the basis of inquiry into anicca alone.
Drawbacks arise when people get ideas like “but anatta is just saying that there is no fixed self. There might be no fixed self, but there is an ‘unfixed’, ‘empirical’ self which is practising the precepts and developing samadhi and insight”.
In this way, people cling to the self-view as ‘the ME that is growing and developing’, and this obstructs them from really seeing through the notion that ‘what I essentially am’ is a substantial, independent self-entity.
If we insist on a changing but somehow really-existing self, we’re skewing getting insight into the more subtle delusions that support the conceit “I Am”.
As Sangharakshita says, again, “there is no question of getting rid of a self, because there has never been one there to begin with”.
4. The Dharma is about seeing Reality
The intention behind this teaching
This is a very intuitive approach to the goal, which readily makes sense to beginners.
How this presents difficulties for insight
It is easy for teachings about “reality” to create the idea that the common sense world is “an illusion”,
and therefore to develop the expectation that insight will reveal a “hidden reality” that will augment or
replace ordinary experience. This sets up misleading expectations for insight practice, and can lead to the pursuit of altered states that are believed to be “more real”. Key to many insight practice is dropping the various delusions one adds on to experience. Practitioners who presuppose they must seek “a hidden reality” will find it impossible to engage with insight practices in the right spirit.
A more useful approach for insight is
Treat the notion of discovering reality as a provisional teaching/framework. Shift attention to uprooting delusions, wrong views and mistaken understandings. Point out that delusion creates additions to experience, it is not a veil behind which an undiscovered reality can be found. Make it clear that “consensus reality”, as well as all altered and “higher” states, are equally just conditioned states. As the teaching of the Two Truths makes clear, such conditioned states are not “unreal” – they have a consistent reality that checks out well enough in experience, while absolute truth is not ‘experienced’ in any conventional sense, since the construction seer/seen has dissolved.
Sangharakshita Quotes
“The only way you can get to reality is by destroying your ideas about reality, however subtle, however
sophisticated, however convincing they may be.”
Commentary
“The Dharma is about seeing Reality” – we all know this one. In Triratna we are steeped in phrases like “Seeing Things As They Really Are” this can sometimes be given as a definition of bodhi, awakening. It can give us the idea that we are going to have a particular kind of experience. We are going to see Reality with a capital R. A bit like in a video game where if we get to level seven, a completely new world will open up. Or maybe like drug experiences – we are going to get a rush or a high or a trip. Also of course shamatha meditation experiences, where a deep harmony and happiness can arise, might tend to compound this kind of expectation.
What do we mean by insight? In our society you hear the term used in all kinds of contexts. People talk about business insight, and insight into what’s driving the stock market. In English, the word indicates a special, deeper understanding. And it’s that in Buddhism too, except the insight is always into the nature of reality, the truth, and also that, in its full manifestation, the insight is something more than intellectual knowing. The clarity of insight is something deeply embodied, a powerful transformation, almost a bit like a conversion experience. The word is usually prajna. But there are other terms: the Buddha uses prajna, jnana, vidya, aloka and other terms, and there is also the term vipassana. They all mean the ability to penetrate the true nature of phenomena. That everything is impermanent, unsatisfactory and not self.
And there are levels of prajna. First the prajna you get from reading, say: knowing the theory. Then second there’s when we think deeply about that and it turns into a deeper understanding. Then third, the insight that comes from direct experience of that truth, which means there has been some actual transformation. Some ignorance has dropped away, and you know it’s gone for good. So that is what Buddhism means, and what Bhante meant, and for our document and discussion, it’s what we mean by insight. Insight as a principle of transformation, and also insight practices that can bring about ignorance dropping away.
It is not a particular experience. It is not a heightened consciousness. There is much more that could be said about what insight is not, and I’d like that, but that’s going to have to be for another day. We need to get back to our text on this.
So “The Dharma is about seeing Reality” – as our document says, ‘this idea gives an… approach to the goal, which readily makes sense to beginners.’ But looking at the goal like this ‘presents difficulties for insight!’ Because the expectation is too rigid. It’s not that the concept of seeing reality is completely wrong, but it can be unhelpful. As the text says, ‘It is easy for [such] teachings .. to create the idea that the common sense world is “an illusion”, and so .. you tend to develop an expectation that insight will reveal a “hidden reality” that will augment or replace ordinary experience. This sets up misleading expectations for insight practice. It can get you pursuing altered states of consciousness that you believe are “more real”.
So, ‘Key to many insight practice is dropping the various delusions one adds on to experience. So for example using the six elements practice to see assumptions that are there about our embodiment and engaging with those. I mean assumptions like ‘this is me’, ‘that’s my leg’ that’s my mind’ etc. As we say in the document, ‘Practitioners who presuppose they must seek “a hidden reality” will find it impossible to engage with insight practices in the right spirit.’
Because the way I’d imagine that, I’d imagine how I – how I as I am right now – would break through Into that reality. No the real flavour of insight is that our expectations have to completely dissolve. So as we say in the text, ‘A more useful approach for insight is [to] …see discovering reality as something provisional – [we need to] uproot..delusions, wrong views and mistaken understandings. …
As Bhante says, in our quote at the end there, “The only way you can get to reality is by destroying your ideas about reality, however subtle, however sophisticated, however convincing they may be.” So in the groups later on the question could be, Have we been seeing insight in this way? Have we understood the meaning of prajna and its place in the Buddhist path? And how could we better express what insight is to other Order members, mitras and friends? I’ll put that in the chat at the end.
5. Insight arises through changes in behaviour
The intention behind this teaching
A foundation in ethics is indispensable, as is the accumulation of punya. Changes in behaviour are
therefore crucial to the path as a whole, and as preparation for the path of insight.
How this presents difficulties for insight
Ethics and punya are necessary but not sufficient. Sila needs work on the level of sila; insight needs a
different kind of work, on the basis of sila. If people believe that ethical purification is sufficient, they
are likely to become discouraged over time, since years of practice may not yield any insight.
A more useful approach for insight is
Make it clear that sila, samadhi and prajna all need to be worked with in their own way. They are three
interrelated strands of practice, rather than each arising inevitably from the “preceding” one. Insight
and enlightenment do not follow inevitably from self development – prajna requires its own particular
kind of views and work.
Sangharakshita Quotes
“one cannot refine oneself out of the mundane world altogether; there always has to be something
that is being refined […] One has to make an existential leap” “on its own, without transcendental
insight, samadhi cannot produce Enlightenment”
Commentary
‘Insight arises through changes in behaviour’ – we know this one as well. The idea is that insight must always be expressed in greater goodness. The insightful person is expected to come across as a better person in every way. There is some truth in this. The Buddha himself sometimes expresses insight changes in terms of perfect behaviour. The problem is that this is very idealised and does not take account of the processes different individuals may go through, or different stages of attainment.
In our document we acknowledge that ‘A foundation in ethics is indispensable, as is the accumulation of punya (which means merit or goodness). Changes in behaviour are therefore crucial to the path as a whole, and as preparation for the path of insight.’ There is a goodness that deepens in someone when they practice. We have all seen people becoming more relaxed and more kind, and more confident and more aware of others, etc., more generous, more mature, openhearted, better sense of humour maybe. And many other wonderful qualities come out of ethical practice, when people start giving themselves and stop being so sly and devious.
As we say in the document, ‘ Ethics and punya are necessary’. We can include meditation in this as well, and that also as we know can really open a person up in beautiful ways. But in our document we also say they are ‘not sufficient’. In other words according to his teachings shila does not, on its own, fulfil the goal of spiritual development taught by the Buddha. There is that famous micchaditthi, I think someone mentioned it last week as well, that whatever ethical practice you do – friendship, work, responsibility, community living etc. – can be a “path to insight”. Friendship and goodwill are a fine basis for practice and a beautiful thing, but on their own, they do not lead to insight, they lead to a deepening of goodness and moral awareness. This is not the same thing as insight at all.
What is often said at this point is that in making you less selfish, less self referencing, and more concerned with others, breaks down the illusion of self. This is the kind of teaching we get in the Bodhicaryavatara and it is associated with the Bodhicitta and I think there is surely some truth in it. But I think that for most people this is just not enough to be transformative. We learn to give and to be less selfish and it becomes a positive habit. But on another day, someone doesn’t bother to listen to what we say, or someone mentions Brexit, and suddenly it is clear that we still have very strong clinging, aversion and a sense of a self that can be got at.
Sangharakshita once said that ‘It takes all the wisdom of the wise to undo the mistakes made by those who are merely good.’ We all know people who are very good, very kind and helpful, appreciative and openhearted, who are yet extremely ignorant and opinionated, who do not know themselves, who do not realise the partiality and one-sidedness or over rationality of their judgements. They just don’t see it. But they are really nice people. This is where wisdom begins to show.
So in our document we say that ‘shila needs work on the level of shila; insight needs a different kind of work’ — though that work needs to be done ‘on the basis of shila’. That is, for insight work the practitioner will benefit from having had their heart and mind opened through ethical imagination, self love, compassion and personal goodness. It’s then that insight practice can bear the best fruits. It may be that the path of insight will indirectly have some of these effects as well, but by whatever route, that basis is needed.
And insight isn’t the be all and end all of spiritual life. I think that is another unhelpful view about it. Someone who realises non self or has some other kind of insight opening is not immediately a perfect being. No, it’s likely there is still going to be room for ethical improvement after some insight has arisen. I think it’s not hard to find examples to back that up.
But returning to the main theme of no. 5, It can be a real problem if people think that ethical practice alone can fulfil the entire path. The document says ‘If people believe that ethical purification is sufficient, they are likely to become discouraged over time, since years of practice may not yield any insight.’ I know this from my own experience. So we say ‘A more useful approach for insight is to make…clear that sila, samadhi and prajna all need to be worked with in their own way.’ What we mean is that all three of these shiksas, these trainings, open up somewhat different fields of development. There is a bit of an idea that they flow from one another — so that if you practice shila for a long time, samadhi will naturally open up for you, and then, once that is established, the gates of wisdom, prajna will open up for you. There is some potential for that, but we mustn’t be too literal about it, life is never ideal and also this formulation takes little account of different personality and neurological types. People just work very differently. There are people who almost as soon as they hear the word ‘dharma’ have an immense insight opening. They haven’t done anything deliberately about their ethics, maybe never even heard the word.
Anyway that’s why we say in our document, that ‘… Insight and enlightenment do not follow inevitably from self development – prajna requires its own particular kind of views and work. As Sangharakshita once said, as we quote: “one cannot refine oneself out of the mundane world altogether; there always has to be something that is being refined […] One has to make an existential leap” “on its own, without transcendental insight, samadhi cannot produce Enlightenment”
So here, for the group discussion of question 5: Can you talk about your experience of this idea, that insight arises through behavioural changes, that if you practice shila for a long time, that insight will inevitably arise? Do you believe this is true? Does the idea of working to become less selfish lead to the insight of anatta in your experience? If it has had some effect, do you think it can go the whole way? And also question 4 to remind you: Have we understood the meaning of Prajna and its place in the Buddhist path? Have we seen insight as Seeing Reality and do we agree there can be drawbacks in that way of seeing? And how could we better express what insight is to other Order members, mitras and friends?
6. Tathagatagarbha is just a potential
The intention behind this teaching
There is a risk of confusion (at a fairly preliminary level) between “having Buddha nature” and “being
enlightened already”, which could short-circuit the entire path.
How this presents difficulties for insight
For insight practice to deepen, it becomes essential to drop the duality between ‘where I am’ and
‘where I am trying to get to’. Experientially, one recognises that ‘the unconditioned’ has always been
present and cannot be ‘attained’. It is impossible to fully recognise this so long as the goal is always
presented as distant/potential rather than immanent.
A more useful approach for insight is
Emphasise that unconditioned is already present: if the kleshas were inherent, enlightenment would
be impossible. Explore Vajrasattva symbolism in this light. Clarify that recognising this is not the end
of the path, but the start of a deeper kind of practice.
Sangharakshita Quotes
“behind the five skandhas is Nirvana, which you can realise” 6 “If you really do see the
conditioned-ness of the mind, the mind that sees that is a non-conditioned mind” 7 “According to the
Mahayana – even according to at least a few verses in the Pali canon – there is a level – again, in
metaphorical language – in the human being, of which we are not normally conscious, and with which
we are not normally in contact. The Pali canon even speaks of the pure jnana, which is obscured by
adventitious defilements. Some Mahayana sutras speak of the Buddha-nature which is within and is
covered over.” 8 See also Subhuti’s Three Myths (now elaborated to four) which explores the value
and limitations of different world-views.
Commentary
Tathagatagarbha is understood through relating to the world in a particular way. It is seeing that there is more to this world and the beings in it, than what is measurable by science, and more than our 6 senses and left brain can experience and comprehend. It is the essence of the Buddhas, naturally pure and all pervading.
This way of being, is the union of awareness and emptiness, it’s know by many names, the ground of being, awakened heart, primordial wisdom, dharmadhatu, dharmakaya and out of this dimension, because it is beyond birth and death and not separate from our essence of mind, here and now we can uncover our Buddha nature.
When we talk about Buddha nature we are talking about all the qualities of a Buddha, of limitless love, clarity, wisdom compassion, spaciousness, and so forth. Qualities that we uncover when we remove the veils of ignorance and defilements. Maybe hard to believe, our ordinary left brain way of working always wants to understand intellectually, needs to be convinced in a way that can never be satisfied. This is about another form of knowledge.
We are not generating anything, rather we are seeing through the layers of self building and like the sun covered by clouds, the light of our Buddha nature shines through like the sun shines through when the clouds move away. We are dancing in mind as the Dakini dances, realizing something that is in essence freedom and cannot be caught by the words we use to describe it.
It’s why formless practice works and what makes enlightenment possible.
So what do we think of Buddha nature in Triratna?
This first point might seem to indicate that Buddha nature is part of Triratna’s teaching, but actually it’s not an official part of our teaching at all.
we say Tathagatagarbha is just potential, and this often leads to people thinking it’s not a very important part of the Dharma, or not something to worry or bother about. Or we have picked up the idea that it might even be dangerous in some way. We may think we are already a Buddha and we might slacken in our effort to make progress on the path.
As we say in our paper, the reason for this being described as just potential is there is a risk of confusion (at a fairly preliminary level) between having Buddha nature and being enlightened already, which could short circuit the entire path. I must say I think we over state this as a danger
Though we can already see from what I’ve said before, the teaching on Buddha nature does say that we do not need to make an effort to generate or change ourselves. But uncovering our Buddha nature is not usually a simple thing to do. Our minds usually being so clouded with delusions.
As a lot of us have learned, we can hardly generate metta in that forced way for the length of a practice let alone for a lifetime. So something else is being pointed to in these teachings. Something beyond the limited ideas of self and constructing anything.
When we come to Insight practice, the teachings on Buddha nature become important. We say in our paper that for insight practice to deepen it becomes essential to drop the duality between where I am and where I’m trying to get to. Experientially one recognises that ‘the unconditioned ‘ has always been present and cannot be ‘attained’. It is impossible to fully recognise this so long as the goal has been presented as distant/potential rather than immanent.
Buddha nature challenges us by saying that enlightenment is not about following a path to an inevitable end or following rules, it is experiencing the unconditioned right now, trusting in the Buddha, that enlightenment and all the qualities that flow from an enlightened being are here and now and not separate from us.
So that when we are profoundly letting go, not interfering in our experience or perception or awareness, when our construction of self at deeper and deeper levels is falling apart, we have the confidence, the intuitive or faith based experience that it is not a black hole we are falling into, but a whole new enlightened way of being.
Back to our paper we add , emphasize that if the kleshas were inherent enlightenment would be impossible. Explore Vajrasattva symbolism in this light. Clarify that recognising that is not the end of the path but the start of a deeper kind of practice.
I’m not looking at Vajrasattva here, but will say clearing the veils of delusion in order to discover our Buddha nature is not usually an easy thing to do. Our ignorance and delusions can be remarkably persistent.
The symbolism of the path may or may not be useful at this point, the language of unfolding may become more appropriate. And knowing there is nothing inherently bad, negative, destructive in our being, that we are not born out of or in sin, but inseparable from the Buddha qualities, is a much healthier way of practicing I believe.
There is so much more to be said, but time is limited here and I’ll finish with the quote from Sangharakshita
“behind the five skandhas is Nirvana, which you can realise” “If you really do see the conditioned-ness of the mind, the mind that sees that is a non-conditioned mind” “According to the Mahayana – even according to at least a few verses in the Pali canon – there is a level – again, in metaphorical language – in the human being, of which we are not normally conscious, and with which we are not normally in contact. The Pali canon even speaks of the pure jnana, which is obscured by adventitious defilements. Some Mahayana sutras speak of the Buddha-nature which is within and is covered over.” See also Subhuti’s Three Myths (now elaborated to four) which explores the value and limitations of different world-views.
7. Progress always requires working on yourself
The intention behind this teaching
This is a useful framework in the early stages of the path, particularly when addressing sila and
samadhi, and particularly to counter any tendency to assume that mere belief is sufficient.
How this presents difficulties for insight
More advanced practitioners need to discover how nonjudgmental, mindful, discerning awareness is a
powerful liberative practice in its own right, not just to “identify issues to work on”.
A more useful approach for insight is
“Awareness is revolutionary” in its own right. Insight is not different from being aware of what is going
on right now without bias. In the field of insight practice, simply bringing awareness to some area of
experience can be enough to effect an avalanche of successive realisation and physical and energetic
transfiguration.
Sangharakshita Quotes
“If you really see yourself reacting, you cease to react. There has to be a real seeing, not just a
theoretical, mental knowing. You can stop in any instant, as it were, stop your reactivity by seeing it,
and you see how ridiculous and how absurd it is, and how unnecessary, and how you just go round
and round in the same old circle. […] the transcendental element comes in, as it were, automatically
[…] It’s instantaneous, in a sense, it’s simultaneous, so ‘he awakens to the non-phenomenal (that is to
say ‘the unconditioned’) clinging to nothing within and seeking for nothing from without’”
Commentary
The intention behind this teaching
This is a useful framework in the early stages of the path, particularly when addressing sila and samadhi, and particularly to counter any tendency to assume that mere belief is sufficient[1] .
As we have said in other seminars, ethics are indispensable, we do not abandon our ethical practice on the way. And it’s important to know for ourselves that we can change our hearts and minds.
We get tastes of unconditioned love, kindness, clarity and wisdom and these are not different to the Buddha qualities. We can make an effort with our ethical practice and that is worth something. We need, until our Buddha qualities manifest, a way of practising that takes account of our way of being, our behaviour in the sangha and wider world.
But if we spend all our time trying to work on something that doesn’t exist, this our constructed self, we will never reach enlightenment.
We say in our paper How this presents difficulties for insight
More advanced practitioners need to discover how non judgmental, mindful, discerning awareness is a powerful liberative practice in its own right, not just to “identify issues to work on”.
We can become very skilled, mindful at noticing our thoughts for instance and putting our strategies in to change them. We might believe that leaving more negative states of mind un challenged is a slippery slope to loosing any benefits from our practice or isn’t even practising at all.
I think in Triratna we have over emphasized the need for positive emotions and the seeing of them being a result of personal effort. This can lead to our feeling depressed or inadequate the opposite of positive states But as I have been saying about Buddha nature, we can trust in another way of practice, we need to be able to let go of interfering in our mind at all, trusting this non effort bears fruit.
We use faith and devotion to connect us to the Buddha qualities through our sadhana maybe, all the while remembering these qualities are not separate from the essential nature of our mind.
I’m not the exception, Buddha nature is a radical teaching on equality.
We say A more useful approach for insight is
“Awareness is revolutionary” in its own right. Insight is not different from being aware of what is going on right now without bias. In the field of insight practice, simply bringing awareness to some area of experience can be enough to effect an avalanche of successive realisation and physical and energetic transfiguration.
We are describing a way of meditating, of practice that can simply be about awareness, a formless practice that allows clarity to manifest, seeing, understanding the whole nature of this self and mind made constructions. We begin to see the nature of phenomena, watch our thoughts and mental activities arise and dissolve into the limitless expanse of space. Energetic flows of mind and body may change or be felt very strongly.
Once seen very deeply these patterns of mind dissolve and we may experience a moment of cessation, when all activity ceases and we know that nothing can be the same again.
Of course old samskaras can keep playing out, but you have seen that they are not integral to your being, they have no essence, the power, the charge behind them has gone. And qualities like kindness, happiness, love emerge without reference to anything. We are well established in our practice and experiencing the fruits of our practice.
May we all experience these fruits of our practice.