Seeing Sameness

One way to recognize intrinsic awareness–the original wisdom we were born with–is to see if there is something that is always the same. The sameness that is being pointed to does not exclude difference or change. It is a nonconceptual awareness that transcends the opposites of permanence and impermanence, of difference and sameness. It is a sameness that is seen in difference, a permanence seen right within this world of impermanence, a stable presence that pervades all states of consciousness whether peaceful or disturbed, happy or sad.

Seeing this sameness is a doorway to the simple recognition of one’s own awareness as primordial wisdom.

In this short meditative talk (about 20 minutes long), Hal points to the possibility of recognizing innate nonconceptual sameness. This talk was given at Real Dharma Sangha on May 1, 2012. To listen, use the flashplayer, below:

or download or listen by clicking here.

Is there really a problem?

Most relgions seem to propose that there is some fundamental problem that needs a solution. Indian religions such as Buddhism and Vedanta see the problem as repeated death and rebirth on the wheel of samsara. Western religions frame the problem as sin and reconciliation with God. Then these traditions propose a solution–whether it is nirvana, self-knowledge or faith and union with an absolute reality. But in these times, we are becoming aware that each religion’s statement of the basic problem and its solution is historically conditioned. When we are exposed to so many vying formulations of the problem and its solution, can we be sure what the problem and solution really are, or that there really is in fact a problem at all? In the following short talk (about 14 minutes long), Hal Blacker proposes questioning the idea that there is a problem that needs a solution altogether.

This talk was given on April 17, 2012 at Real Dharma.

or download or listen by clicking here.

Exploring Nondual Awareness

Nondual awareness is our natural state, always present and underlying all experience. But how can we see it and feel it vividly for ourselves?

In general, there can be said to be two approaches. One is to just rest, not altering anything. The other is to use inquiry, first to distinguish consciousness from its contents, and then, through further inquiry, to see that consciousness and its contents are not ultimately separate–consciousness’ contents are the appearance of consciousness, like waves are the appearance of water.

In this talk, our weekly Real Dharma group experimented with bringing nondual awareness to consciousness through group dialogue and inquiry. This was an experiment in open-eyed dialogic meditation. I think that most of us felt the experiment worked.

To listen to our session, conducted at the Real Dharma group on November 1, 2011, use the flash driver below.

If you are unable to use the flash player, listen or download here.

Nonduality and Teacher-Student Ethics

Nondual teachings, such as Mahayana Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, proclaim the ultimate unity of all experience, in the end deconstructing all oppositions—self-other, good-bad, even the distinctions between samsara and nirvana, liberation and bondage, and teacher and student. What role then can there be, in a domain where all borders and distinctions dissolve, for clear ethical boundaries in the student-teacher relationship? In particular, how in the face of the awareness of limitless unity and freedom, can there be clear prohibitions against teacher-student sexual relations, financial exploitation, authoritarianism, physical abuse or any other form of potentially harmful conduct between teacher and student?

Ethical boundaries create a necessary safe vessel—an environment that is free (as much as possible) from fear of exploitation—in which teacher and student can deeply explore the realization of nondual openness and freedom. Without a sense of safety, at least from gross harm and exploitation, the deep examination and questioning of the reality of all distinctions, leading to the dissolving of all borders in nondual realization, will almost certainly not occur. For this reason, it is precisely the teacher’s commitment to communicating and facilitating nondual understanding that demands the discipline to refrain from transgressing ethical boundaries in the teacher-student relationship. Ethical boundaries, such as Buddhism’s five precepts—not to kill, lie, steal, slander, or engage in inappropriate sexuality—provide the necessary safe structure in which nondual inquiry and realization can effectively occur.

Any teacher who is genuinely concerned with fostering nondual understanding will find ethical limits in the teacher-student relationship useful and liberating, rather than a limiting burden. And any student who genuinely hopes to realize nonduality will find the safe vessel of ethical boundaries an environment in which nondual inquiry and liberation can most readily occur.

For some, these basic principles may seem obvious. They are clearly set forth in all genuine nondual (not to mention dualistic) spiritual traditions. Yet, perhaps, due to the subtlety of nondual understanding, the novelty of widespread nondual spirituality in the West, and the often unconscious power of greed, anger and delusion—even in those who appear to be realized—they need to be stated, clarified and affirmed, it seems, again and again.

May all students and teachers fearlessly enter and enjoy the safe vessel of nondual inquiry, free from harm and exploitation.

Transcending Claustrophobia and Seeing Things As They Are

Hal Blacker gives a talk on transcending claustrophobia by letting go of the need to impose one’s likes and dislikes on oneself and the world. This allows one to experience spaciousness and to see things as they are. The talk begins with a story about Chogyam Trungpa, Rinpoche, Hal’s first teacher, surrendering and literally transcending claustrophobia.

This talk was given on October 12, 2010 at Real Dharma Sangha, Fairfax.

If the audio player does not appear or work in your browser, download or listen here.

No self, no other

When there is self, one believes there is other,
From these images of self and other come attachment and aversion,
As a result of getting wrapped up in these,
All possible faults arise.

—Dharmakirti (ca. 7th century) (trans. Ari Goldberg, from Contemplating Reality, by Andy Carr)

2nd Real Dharma Meeting: Emptiness, Fullness, Buddha Nature —& questions, questions, questions

Our second meeting of Real Dharma Meditation & Inquiry was full and empty at the same time—filled with sincere and profound inquiry, empty of clinging and false conceptions. What could be better than that?

There were more folks than last time—some new faces and some familiar ones.  The meditation was, again, very deep and still. After meditation, and before I could even begin speaking, there was a question about emptiness versus fullness, as taught in Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta. This sync’ed nicely with the Milarepa quote I recently posted here and that I had been contemplating, and it led to a discussion of the Buddhist teaching of emptiness as not being a mere absence. Emptiness reveals one’s true nature to be Buddha Nature. What are absent are false concepts and elaborations that obscure Buddha Nature. This freedom from false concepts is indicated by the Sanskrit term nisprapanca (free from concept or conceptual elaboration), a term that appears in the Pali canon, as well as in Mahayana teachings. Although free from concepts, one’s true nature can be described in positive terms, as well as in terms of emptiness or non-self. For example, Buddha Nature has been called wisdom (jnana [Skt.]or yeshe [Tib.]) and Clear Light Awareness. And it has the qualities of natural love and compassion. This Buddha Nature is our true nature, already fully present, even if obscured by temporary afflictions.

For most of the evening we discussed Buddha nature and meditation, as well as other topics. The questions continued spontaneously and without ceasing, leading to interesting, challenging and meaningful discussion and inquiry. This was a lot of fun—much more lively and interesting than hearing me give a boring old lecture! Everyone seemed very engaged. And throughout the inquiry, there was a tangible sense of stillness, seriousness, care and even, dare I say, love, coming from all participants. This made the inquiry very real, and not merely intellectual.

One thing that struck me was how our investigation and discovery were not bound by any particular dogma or belief system. Ancient rivalries such as that between Buddhism and Vedanta are not really relevant here in the West, particularly if one’s intention is to find liberation, rather than to cling to or promulgate a belief system. That doesn’t mean one should be haphazard or dilettantish in pursuing one’s path. Lineage still holds an important place. And so does depth and clarity. But in the end, the realization of one’s true nature takes one beyond all words, sects and dogmas.

I am once again struck by our new group’s sincerity and depth and intelligence. And I’m grateful to be part of it. I think these are the blessings of the wisdom and practice lineage in action.

Look at your mind

It is called wisdom (jnana) but it cannot be touched by the contriving mind. It is beyond words and ideas such as existing or not existing, permanence or annihilation. Whatever one says about it is refutable. And since wisdom is like this, even if one were to ask Buddha himself, do not think he would take one side or another. The Dharmakaya is beyond thinking. It is non-born and free from conceptual elaboration. Do not ask me–look at your mind. It is not something about which one can say, “It is like this.”     —Milarepa

Sticking to what I don’t know

As an experiment, I thought I’d see if  I really knew anything with absolute certainty. This might help unmuddy the waters and trim away the fat.

When I look deeply at what I know absolutely, I find precious little. I can’t say for sure if my own ideas about myself are true. In fact, I suspect that they probably aren’t. I also don’t know for sure if what I think about others has any accuracy. Again, I’d put my money on pretty much everything that I think about other people as being biased, untrue and based on my own subjective interests, likes and dislikes.

I don’t really know if others like me or not. And my likes and dislikes for others are so subject to alteration depending on how they treat me, that I can’t really draw an absolute conviction as to how I stand with respect to my affections or disaffections for them.

I’m not sure if anyone really understands anything I say. And I certainly can’t be sure I understand others, even though I often act like I do.

When I really look, I can’t actually find an opinion I have about anything that I know to be true with absolute certainty. I suppose that’s why they are just opinions.

Even on this issue of what I really know, I lack complete certainty. Maybe there are some things I do know with absolute conviction, but I just can’t think of them right now. Then again, maybe not.

If I were forced to put my money on one thing I was certain about, I guess the only thing it would be is that I am a conscious, aware being. But on further examining this proposition, I find that I’m not completely sure what I mean by “I.” Nor am I completely certain exactly what “am” means either.

All right, then. I guess the only thing I can be sure of is awareness itself. Its depth, breath, borders or boundaries, its origin, duration or exact nature escape me. But at least I know that awareness is. If it weren’t, I could not even discuss it. Even if I don’t know what awareness is, it’s the one thing I’ve got for certain, and I’m sticking with it.