Dear .... Bhikkhu, It is truly a pleasure to receive your email. Since Waking Down in Mutuality is a teaching that relies on an association of teachers that are autonomous while agreeing about a few core essentials, whatever I write here is simply my own perspective as a WDM (Waking Down in Mutuality) teacher. WDM and Theravada Buddhism use such radically different language that patience would be needed to clarify misunderstandings that would most likely arise in the midst of such a comparison. From my perspective the radical phenomenology of anatta and sunnata is one of the clearest (if not the clearest) Dharmic expressions of the Absolute point of view. We can say a lot about how this teaching "fits in" with it, but in the interest of being brief I will make a few observations that may clarify some of this. In most traditional paths, once the Absolute is experienced through whatever technique, the tendency is to make it the goal of further practice. What is implied is that one should continue to practice until one can abide in that realization as a continuous experience. This is also true with WDM, but only to a certain point. Pretty much for everyone, the experience of the Absolute view (when it it is not merely an intellectual idea) is rarely continuous but is often interrupted with the conventional state of the separate self. Often traditional practitioners are trying to keep the state of the Absolute in place and persisting in denying the reality of the conventional state. In WDM however, tastes of the absolute are taken as initiations into an alternative side of reality. While (as traditionally) WDM practitioners are encouraged to explore their Absolute dimension to the point of confidence in it's truth, they are not counselled to pursue it to the point of a separate self experience no longer arising. The deepest embrace of reality for these teachings is an embrace (as "true") of both perspectives simultaneously. Of course it's not as though one's experience of oneself as a separate self is not affected by ones experience of oneself as not existing in separation. It is even safe to say that for most who persist in this way the relative view gives way (over time) to the absolute, but not by any kind of strategic avoidance of the relative. When we experience ourself as a separate self, we are a separate self, and when we experience that there is no separate self then there is no separate self. This is not a statement about any Ultimate truth altogether, it is simply a statement about how to proceed. Conceptual conclusions about the Ultimate truth of reality are besides the point, because they are by definition partial and subjective, what is useful is an accounting of the actual lived experience of human beings. All Dharmic expressions (even those of the Absolute view) in these teachings are provisional skillful means, not expressions of Ultimate truth. Hence WDM is not much interested in a conceptual explanation about how it "truly is" for it's own sake, especially one that claims to to be entirely phenomenological or free of subjectivity. The absence of true and total objectivity by any single sentient being is understood to be a working principal in WDM, awakened Buddhas included. The experience of no subjectivity can equally be understood as a subjective experience. Since experience of a separate self is a possible mode of experience, it is no less "real" than the Absolute view. The closest conceptual framework that speaks to this is probably the writing of Nargajuna (second century AD). Taken as an Ultimate truth, the absolute point of view becomes a stuck position. That said, as far as the value of the Absolute view when it is not used as a "position": It is immeasurable, It is Vast and Profound, it is the Means beyond all stuckness. Without it, none of this is possible, and so (in that sense), it is at the center of everything that we do. Those, like yourself, who are pursuing (through rigorous traditional means) the exploration of our nature beyond the separate self, are truly specialists in their fields. One who spends his life exploring such territory will always have more to contribute to the "Waking" dimension of this work than the usual practitioner. When someone has the need to balance the Waking / Down / Mutuality trio in terms of "waking" I always encourage them to make use of whatever Dharma is available to them from the repository of humanity's Great Traditions of Spirituality. And certainly, from my perspective, anyone involved in any of the Great Traditions is welcome to have their own practice in those traditions enriched by the developments that have come forward through the WDM teachings. Not the least of which is Mutuality. I don't know if it's proper to view Mutuality as existing in order to pursue some other long term goal. It is a blessing in itself, and while there are things that develop as a result of Mutuality, it is still worth doing long after their attainment: Over time... Mutuality reveals a sacred mandala in which the Divine makes itself known as both oneself and others. That's just a start. Thanks so much for your letter, I've enjoyed writing... With Much love, P.S. Would you mind if I posted our letters on the web site (without your name of course)? I think that a lot of people would benefit from it. Part Two: Buddhism, Vipassana, No Self and the Ultimate Truth
----------------------- Dear ..... Bhikkhu, Thank you for your reply.
As for what came before Waking Down in Mutuality: I've always been involved with one our another form of growth, and it's not easy to see where it all began. I was raised a rather secular (even atheistic or at least agnostic) cultural Roman Catholic. For about five years in the late 1970's I was a fervent evangelical Christian, and on the other extreme I was later a disciple of the iconoclastic Indian teacher Shree Rajneesh (Osho) for five more years in the early 1980's. While it's difficult to draw stark lines, I consider this period my spiritual infancy. It wasn't until later in the 1980's while working with the American teacher Ken Lloyd Russell ("The Way of Seeing"), that I felt encouraged to explore more serious traditional approaches. Although primarily involved in Buddhist Dharma, I was also drawn to the view of Advaita Vedanta after my first reading of "I Am That" by Nisargadatta Maharaj in 1984. I've also been involved in sitting "zen style" since then, as well as Vajrayana (Tibetan) Buddhism, with an emphasis on Devotional and Dzogchen practices especially since 1990, receiving teachings and practice transmissions in the Nyingma lineage through Ngakpa Chogyam Rinpoche and later through Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche. In 1992 I attended the Satsang of the teacher Gangaji and became exposed to the radical Non dual teachings of HWL Poonja (Papaji), her Master. Poonjaji was both an enlightened disciple of Sri Ramana Maharshi (the renowned Master of Advaita Vedanta) as well as a Master of the Vaisnava Bhaktimarga tradition in which he was raised. Meeting Him in January 1993 drew me into a deeply personal and devotional Relationship, an unexpected turn of events for someone who considered himself a Buddhist. I spent most of the 1990's helping spread Sri Poonjaji's teachings in the US, supporting and assisting those teachers connected to Him. These friends and fellow disciples of Poonjaji included (in order of my meeting them) Arjuna Ardagh, Hanuman Golden and Catherine Ingram. Hanuman Golden is the friend with whom I spent the most time serving and is a sterling example of the integrity, loyalty and devotion that Poonjaji inspired. Poonjaji's life was one which was a bridge from the ancient to the modern. Being a down to earth householder He was the essential heart of the tradition making itself profoundly ordinary and incredibly available to people where they lived. He freely and entirely gave me to myself. I am forever in gratitude to Him. While His Mahasamadhi happened in 1997, I am still His disciple. I met Saniel Bonder and became involved with Waking Down in 1998, and while the emphasis in this teaching is different, I've always considered it as continuous with all that's come before in my life, especially what Poonjaji pointed to. I am a Teacher in the Waking Down in Mutuality school of teaching and also a friend and colleague of Saniel Bonder it's founder. Saniel has always made it clear that his interest was in training teachers who could bring their own unique gifts to the lineage that he has founded. This generous vision has inspired both respect and devotion in me toward him. As for Myself and Poonjaji, He is my Master in my heart and my bones, so for me He can never be "past".
Hard to talk about in a way that makes sense...but for the sake of this conversation, yes, of course that would be what I would call "the Absolute". That is also the answer to:
Of course the paradox in this is that all reports of "the existence of Nirvana as a completely separate thing than the arising and passing phenomena of Samsara" are only always conveyed by sentient beings (whether Buddhas, Arhants or any other teachers) who are themselves the arising and passing phenomena of Samsara. From my perspective this fact cannot be ignored away. To then say that it is " a completely separate thing than the arising and passing phenomena of Samsara" must always be qualified by that fact. This is why the claim of total objectivity is always problematic, it is also (from my perspective) why The Buddha was so insistent that His words not be made into a dogma. You must use all these words as the starting place for exploration, a subjective message of one human being to another, not an explanation of "objective truth". At the same time to say that it is not the experience of countless sages of numerous traditions that the Unborn is a "completely separate thing than the arising and passing phenomena of Samsara" would not be true either. In my own case there is the recognition that it is untouched by anything. Yet even to use the words "thing" (as in: "Nirvana as a completely separate thing") or "it" (as in: " it is untouched ") in relation to this recognition is not actually correct. Just to be clear... while the Absolute, the Unbecome, the Unborn is beyond all that changes it is also the context in which all the arising and passing phenomena of Samsara takes place. If we only think of nirvana as an extinguishing of all conditioned arising then of course none of this is an issue. In that case Nirvana is then simply the goal, but not the condition of existence. Both senses of the word are appropriate as far as I'm concerned. If we only stick with the second definition as legitimate, I believe we are entering into the age old Theravada/Mahayana quandary... no need for this. It is enough to know that while Nirvana is completely beyond passing phenomena it is also always available to passing phenomena as it's unborn nature. If it were "absolutely, totally and completely" separate from passing phenomena then Buddhas and Arhants (who are themselves passing phenomena) could not know it in any way, even to say it is unspeakable. With much love, -----------------------------
----------------------------- Dear .......... Bhikkhu, May you also attain the same. With Sincerest Love and Respect,
|
2005 Krishna Gauci