|
August 2006
The TAT Forum
Essays, poems, opinions and humor on seeking
and finding answers to your deepest life-questions
The Essence of Christian Mysticism
Reflections on a weekend retreat with Bernadette Roberts - part 1
by Dan Garmat and Heidi Munn
From the May 2006 retreat brochure: Bernadette Roberts is one of the most
extraordinary contemplatives of our time. She began having contemplative
experiences as a child, and by grace she has lived on this path longer than any
known Christian mystic. Living in the unitive state for 30 years in the
"marketplace," she came finally to the experience of "no-self," and her accounts
of the infused understanding of Christian truths that followed are stunning. In
Bernadette, now 74, we have a living woman, writing and speaking in the American
idiom, who exemplifies in flesh and blood, not New Age sentiment, what actually
lies beyond self. This is our journey too.
Born into a devout Catholic family in California, at 15, Bernadette's
experiences began to fit into a Christian frame of reference. Ten years of
seclusion in a Carmelite monastery followed, during which she realized an
abiding state of oneness with God. According to the Christian mystical
tradition, this egoless, unitive state is as far as one can progress in this
life.
Upon leaving the monastic life, she returned to the "marketplace" and became a
wife and mother. Describing the importance of the unitive state for the
spiritual life, she illuminates with precision and detail what lies beyond the
egoless state. Here lies the real significance of her work, for what so many
have taken as the end of the road turns out to be more or less the midpoint of
the total spiritual life.
Excerpts from Heidi's Notes and Reflections:
I received Dan's E-mail notifying me of Bernadette's retreat while I was at
work. I had heard her name before but knew nothing about her. Never read her
books. But something inside me said, "I must go." No idea why -- just simply
must go. I immediately E-mailed Rhonda, the coordinator, and asked if slots were
available. "Yes," she replied, "but they are going fast." I wrote a check right
there on the spot and had my sister dash to my office, pick up the check, and
FedEx it to Rhonda. Done. I was in.
I won't keep you in suspense … I still have no idea why I had to be
there. I probably should not have gone, because I have absolutely no formal
religious background and very little interest in it. I suppose I should have
believed the disclaimer on her website:
"Please look over the schedule of talks before you decide to come. While I am
prepared to discuss all aspect s of orthodox Christianity, I am not familiar
with other religions, philosophies, or psychologies, and thus cannot discuss
them. This means that unless you are sincerely interested in the mysteries of
Christianity, you are not likely to benefit from the retreat — such is my
finding, at least."
Given this, I wonder which ego possessed me to go? No clue. If you ever decide
to go see her, be prepared for exactly what she states. Her view is very much
based on Christian beliefs. I won't be talking about the religious angle at all,
because it is completely out of my realm of knowledge.
|
My first impression of her was that she looked like a professional
businesswoman. Well-groomed, elderly, but not at all "old." She was witty and
spirited, and came across as a no-nonsense character with a sharp sense of
humor. For example, she told us about a priest who was in her words, "... awful.
He is dead now, thank God!" She also told a few of us during a side conversation
that she does not believe in hell, but knows some folks that she wished would go
there.
I'll state right away that I do believe she "made the trip" to no-self. This is
based on my own gut reaction, not on anything specific that she said or did. In
fact, I was very surprised at how much "ego" she appeared to have -- my
impression was that she was verbally aggressive toward those in the audience
that raised challenging questions or that did not agree with her point of view.
I personally did not think her style was appropriate for the audience since we
were guests, not long-term students. I thought enlightened folks would be more
tolerant and kind, somehow? Perhaps this was the biggest lesson for me; maybe
enlightened folks are still human after all.
If Self-realization involves detachment from hard-core beliefs, it is a wonder
that Bernadette made it at all. She seemed to be 100% convinced about who or
what Christ is, the supremacy of Christianity over all other religions, the
Truth of the Trinity, and the power of the Eucharist. Her biases made me ponder
these questions more deeply:
- Do we wake up, simply because we have a deep and strong
heart-felt desire to wake up? Is that really the bottom line?
- Is there any other common denominator at all? Desire is the only
one I've ever seen!
Some of Bernadette's beliefs seemed to be 180 degrees in the opposite direction
of some I have come to value. Examples include:
- Watching your thoughts is of no use.
- You must experience the self fully -- accept it, live it,
exercise it -- you must live it fully and completely before you can go beyond it
to no-self. (To me, this equated to not only "polishing the turd," but
gold-plating it for good measure!)
- Look outside yourself for God. Looking inside draws more
attention to the self, and there is not need to look inside the self. Looking
outside is beyond self.
- The ego has the ability to choose good over evil. We are born
with free will to make choices. We are human beings with a free will. (By the
way - she was ADAMANT about this! She said, "We have no choice that we came
here, and no choice but to return to the Father." I asked her how it is then
possible that we have true free will in-between, in our life span. She would not
answer my question, and would not give me the opportunity to speak about it
again.)
- When you receive the Eucharist, you have tangible proof that you
are One with God -- thus there is no need for self-analysis.
- Christ is the way -- it is the means and the end. You must focus
your entire life on God and service to others. (I thought the
service-to-others-ego was just another mask.)
Perhaps all of her views are good food for thought? If no belief is true anyway,
what difference does it make, what we believe? And conflict is always good fuel
for the fire, right? Here are other observations:
- Things she said that sounded very much like opinions of many TAT members.
- Things she said that were quite cool -- an interesting spin on things.
Here I'll paraphrase some of her TAT-like musings:
- God will wake you up on God's terms. You cannot make it happen. God will
reveal himself when he wants.... No effort of your own will, will do
it.... God can change everything in a mere heartbeat.
BUT !!!
- Your practice should be a part of your life, like sleeping or eating. You
will find the time, and you would give up your life to know the love of God.
You must keep going and you cannot stop. It is not "we" who go on this path …
the Hound of Heaven taps us on the shoulder. We don't choose Christ -- he
chooses us. But pursue God with all you have. Wear your mind out to the point of
no-thought. Put all you have to the service of the Lord.
- At one point in her life, she said to herself, "I will push my mind until it
gives out on me." And at another stage in her life, she decided to look
at the Void, at the Darkness, and "keep looking." She stared at this Void. (This
reminded me of Bob Cergol's admonishment, "If you want to see ... LOOK!")
- Self-discipline is imperative.
Some more of her TAT-like observations were about the ego, and about the role of
the self when encountering "spiritual experiences":
- The flame is in you, and it is not yours -- it belongs to God.
Just go about your business … do the dishes, watch the kids. Thinking it is
'yours' is just the self. Even feeling it in another is just the self again.
Experience is not the thing in itself -- which is unknown. Do not want
for 'experiences' because they are of the ego, thus experience is self-serving.
It is the SELF that wants experiences. Focus your ego on God, for God is waiting
for us to turn to him. Keeping the ego in check is the only way to the unitive
state. We have to know the archetypes and see through, then past them. In actual
experience, God just takes away the ego -- it is never transformed from
ego into something else.
- The most mystical experience is that of NO experience, because
the self cannot get its hands on it. If you have perfect faith, you would have
no need of [spiritual] experiences.
- Mantra-chanting is bad, regardless of religion. (Mr. Rose
frequently stated that mantra-chanting will bring temporary peace and sleep.)
- How do you find THAT? By removal of all things -- God is
not this, and not that. This is the negative way of darkness. (She also said
that the path is affirmative and that "it is impossible to do it without both
positive and negative." I did not quite get that connection.)
- It took her 10 years to find a way to live with no-self, but she
said, "I was rid of the horrible, horrible burden of self."
- The truth is very simple, and it is also UNBELIEVABLE!
- When someone confronts you, don't go out in reaction. Just be
with it. It will burn the ego out eventually if you keep doing that.
And finally, I thought her observations here were quite interesting:
- There is no such thing as nothing, because even nothing is
relative to something.
- Thou art That is incorrect, because this assumes two!
- It is not WHO am I, but WHAT am I. WHO can only be answered with
a pronoun and postulates an answer of 'I' or 'me,' or some sort of self -- thus
the question assumes the answer.
- Prayer is a spontaneous relationship with God.
- Buddhists say all is impermanent. But that means that even
impermanence is impermanent!
- The word non-duality is dual itself.
- The nature of Grace is a 'push' and our response should be
gratefulness.
So, that is my take on the retreat. Am I glad I went? Yes. Would I go again? No.
I left large segments of her retreat out, because a lot of what she talked about
had to do with formal religion and traditions. She used a lot of visual aids and
hand-outs to explain the relationships in and between Christ, Logos, Trinity,
the Father, monotheism, religions, Eucharist, Communion, the Sacraments, Spirit,
the Unnameable, etc.
And, I personally don't believe that the Truth is that complicated. If it is, I
may just prefer to stay sound asleep.
Excerpts from Dan's Notes and Reflections:
Coming back from the retreat, my notes were pretty unorganized, so I thought I'd
organize them by the four questions I'd be wondering if someone else were
reporting about their experience to me.
Question 1: What was Bernadette like?
Going there, my expectations of her were similar to my expectations of Shawn
Nevins three years ago when going to a retreat where I would be meeting him for
the first time -- an ultra-egotistical, hair slicked back stereotypical New
Yorker, who'll complain he's unappreciated because he didn't get Starbucks
coffee. Don't know why I'd go to a spiritual retreat by someone like that ...
What I knew about her was that she had the highest rating on Shawn's site SpiritualTeachers.org
(and is one of only two teachers with that rating who are still alive), was a
Christian contemplative, thinks she's gone farther on the spiritual path than
anyone else before, and believes Christianity is the only path there.
As for what I think of her now, I don't know for sure she's not had a superior
realization. I didn't get the intuition she had, but this doesn't mean she
hasn't. As for her personality, she is super confrontational, has lots of
energy, and struck me as having no ego in the sense that things that would
normally cause an affliction or an ego-boost didn't have this reaction on her,
or at least she didn't physically manifest any reaction. She seemed all
business, so to speak. Also, I wish I could remember exactly why, but I remember
feeling at one point during the weekend she reminded me of Jim Burns.
I liked her but was very intimidated because she was so confrontational to
people with even just slight deviations from a solely Christian path. I don't
feel like I'm on a Christian path at all, so I was just imagining what was going
to be in store for me. I wanted to ask her a few questions, eventually worked up
the courage at lunch, and as I began talking with her, she became very
un-confrontational, which was nice since I was so nervous. So she was trying to
work with people, not just act like a teacher.
Question 2: What was the retreat like?
It was held in Ohio in early May, and its structure was similar to a TAT meeting
-- it started Friday night and ended Sunday afternoon, and consisted of six
2-hour sessions with break periods in between. The break sessions would either
be a meal or an optional prayer session (or church service on Sunday). I never
attended any of the breaks except the meals, so I don't really know what these
prayer sessions were like.
In each 2-hour session, Bernadette would start out by handing out a sheet on the
topic for discussion and then spend the rest of the time reading off the sheet
without commentary, and people would interject with questions which she'd then
respond to. You do get more out of her reading off the sheets than you would if
you tried to read them on your own, because if you were by yourself, you might
think "I don't believe she really believes this." But when she read it, she had
conviction in her voice, and that also helped give signals for what she thought
were the most important points.
Unfortunately, though, the questions the participants were asking were generally
not helpful, and I found myself constantly hoping nobody would speak up. They
were usually of an "are you sure it's that way?" nature rather than a more
helpful "can you further clarify?" nature. I wrote during the retreat: "Main
misunderstanding (so many questions seem off) seems to be about lack of thought
in the same direction. It'd be interesting to see her with people who get her
framework." I also wrote: "Reminds me of Rose lectures where people ask wrong
questions." Doug White asked her at lunch what she thought of all the
questions/arguing and she said it was great, as if that's what she hoped for,
and she seemed sincere, though I couldn't believe it.
There were about 30 other workshop participants the first day, and 20 the
second. (A lot decided not to return for day two.) The participants struck me as
pretty similar to TAT members. They seemed relatively sincere about the search
and were unusually honest generally. Most were not Christian-only seekers in the
way Bernadette would have preferred. During the introduction and later talking
with people, my impression was maybe as many as half the participants were into
Buddhism or Hinduism to some degree or another. It sounded like most of them,
though, didn't have a group or a primary system they were working with, and most
were 40+ in age.
I thought I'd give a brief overview of the things she said during the retreat,
organized according to the six sessions we had and what is on the sheets she
handed out in each respective session. My impression is, if you wanted to do her
system, there is enough in those six papers to get you started. Maybe even
enough to meditate on for two years. Each of the six sheets has info on both
sides, and since she basically just read off the sheets, you can get a good
sense of what the retreat was about by just what's on these handouts.
The first sheet, the front side had the title "Define Terms" -- she wanted to
make sure everyone was starting out on the same page. The front's basic take
home was that mysticism/revelation can't be separated from religion (i.e. both a
religion without mysticism and trying to seek outside the framework of one of
the established religions, are wrong), that different religions have different
genuine revelations at their core, and that Christianity includes all the
possible revelations because of the Trinity. The back of this sheet is titled
"Characteristics of Revelation," containing an interesting list of 8
characteristics and giving more reasons you can't separate religion and
mysticism. I didn't believe this message, that mysticism can't go without
religion, even during the session as she read off the sheet. She never has an
argument for why she believes they are inseparable, only examples of what has
happened when people try to do them separately, so it seems she figures the
audience will pick it up.
I wanted to highlight something she has on this sheet, not that it epitomizes
it, but that I thought was an interesting perspective. Under "Religion Defined"
on the first side, she writes: "Man includes everything that is lower than
himself, but not what is higher than himself. Because man cannot go beyond
himself, what is beyond must reveal itself to him. Because God is beyond man,
man cannot touch God, he can only be touched by God."
The second sheet is called "Unique Characteristics of Christian Mysticism -- How
it is different than others." This sheet struck me as the core of her system. I
tried to look over it to see what the most important points were, and I thought
they were the unique characteristics number 4 and 5 (out of 12). Number 4 says:
LOVE OF GOD -- Hallmark and SOLE technique. Defines our relationship to God.
Love resides in the will, not in the emotions, sentiments or feelings. Love
is the means and the end.
One thing I wrote down she said in response to a question was: "if you want to
see your center of will, try to lift a piano ... anything with determination."
Number 5 says:
ABSENCE OF TECHNIQUES -- Love cannot be made into a technique.
She goes on further in number 5 to say you have two teachers, a personal teacher
and a universal teacher. Your personal teacher is the Holy Spirit, and your
universal teacher is the Church. She also says that, while Christian Mysticism
is supposed to have no techniques, practice is a part of it. So practice is
supposed to be different than technique, although I don't recall her ever
explaining how.
Sheet three is called "Faith." It's very good, maybe even for someone working in
the framework of the Albigen System. There's an abridged version of the sheet
she handed out in the
September 2002 TAT Forum. In this sheet, she contrasts "belief," which
is subject to being broken (i.e., "unbelief or disbelief") and "faith," which is
an obscure certitude, pre-conscious, deals with the unknown, comes from God, and
is what is behind our "truth sensor." The two things about faith I thought were
the most important were number 14 and 15. They say:
14. Faith is LIKE A MUSTARD SEED THAT MUST GROW -- but how can God grow?
There cannot be more or less of God, only more or less of self. Thus as self
decreases (and belief decreases), God (Faith) increases. (As faith
increases, belief decreases).
15. Faith is CENTRAL TO CHRISTIANITY, but not to other religions. Others
have it, but it is not central.
With those first three sheets, I was able to follow along relatively well. But
going over the second three sheets, I found myself in over my head. The fourth
sheet I called her "Trinity concept structure." On one side, titled "The
Absolute, Prior to Creation -- as God is in Itself," there is a triangular
diagram of the three dimensions of Godhead. The other side, titled "Relative to
Creation, Us -- as the Godhead is in ourselves," has a matching triangle
describing the Trinity in other terms. I didn't get anything out of this
session, but I have no Catholic background and maybe if you'd been raised
hearing words like "Logos," "activity within the Unity" and "God as solely
Emanant," the particular organization of these concepts might spark some insight
for you.
The fifth sheet is titled "The Mystery of Christ." The idea is, I think, since
the Trinity is the key to the Christian system, and she had mentioned in the
previous session Christ is the key to the Trinity, the big mystery is therefore
Christ. I wrote: "She really believes Christ was God incarnate in a way no
enlightened person has been. This seems to be the essential reason Christianity
allows the only ultimate realization, apparently." There is a section on the
back of this sheet titled "How Christ was Different From Other Sagas, Seers,
Prophets." It reads:
1. Christ IS the revelation, He is not the "medium" of revelation.
2. He gave no indication of searching for anything -- of looking or suddenly
discovering something new or old. (Wasn't seeking enlightenment or Oneness
with God).
3. He offered no techniques, laws or paths; rather, He said, "I am the Way".
(Love of God being the sole path).
4. Never proclaimed Himself God (no self or "I" in the Trinity). He said His
identity could only be revealed by the Father.
5. His closest associates never chose to follow Him, rather He chose them
(us) -- a particular Christian phenomena.
The last sheet is titled "Christ Still With Us." She says there are three ways
Christ is still with us: 1) In the Trinity; 2) In "the Cosmic Body of Christ,"
which the phrase "God is everywhere" refers to; and -- the thing which irritated
me almost as much as the questions people were asking -- 3) in "his Eucharistic
Body." It felt like all retreat she kept bringing up the Eucharist and how
important and amazing it is, but it seemed so inconsistent: she challenges so
much the church says and does but seems to believe blindly not only Christ was
God incarnate, but also that the Eucharist is real, that "appearance is not
reality." It crossed my mind maybe she doesn't really believe these things, but
believes that for a seeker, believing them would be helpful to arrive at
realization. She did say at one point, "Christ is as real as you are, no more,
no less" (and the title of her second book is "The Experience of No Self") so
maybe this was hinting at this suspicion, but it could also have meant something
else in the context. I wrote at the end of the first night: "I can't relate to a
lot, a lot of things she takes for granted like Mystery of Christ, Eucharist,
Trinity -- she talks like these are self-evident huge mysteries."
Question 3: Should I go on a Bernadette Roberts retreat?
The way I'd answer that is: Having now gone, am I glad I went?
I think definitely. What better way to spend a weekend than to check out an
enlightened person. Also, I'll probably get a lot more out of her books now
because I know her framework much better so will know what she's trying to say
better. But, with the exception of the "Faith" handout, my impression was her
system is almost totally incompatible with the Albigen System. But even if I'm
right, I still come away with something that worked for someone to contrast the
Albigen System against.
There were a lot of things she said that sounded similar, but I didn't know if
they only sounded similar on the surface: She talked about a necessary burning
out; she said once, "We're always looking at God but we don't see him"; she
talked about a truth sensor and as faith increases, it improves; she said
something that sounded like you have to puff up the head before you chop it off;
and "Christ is too close, closer to you than you are to yourself."
Another strike against it is it's expensive: $300 after the lodging costs at the
retreat center. But I figured I wanted to see her in the near future and didn't
want to fly out to California and get a hotel. So this is a little cheaper since
I could drive five hours from Pittsburgh.
But mainly, I went because I wanted to get a sense of another enlightened
person, especially one outside the Albigen System and one who'd get Shawn's
"most helpful" rating -- and I definitely got that. That, in turn, helps me
understand what Rose would have been like, having done it without a teacher
(seeing Douglas Harding briefly also gave me this a little, as do hearing and
watching recordings of Rose, and hearing stories) and this is helpful for
understanding the Albigen System. But even if you knew Mr. Rose, there might
still be some value just in meeting another enlightened person.
Question 4: What else might the person want to say about the retreat?
Just three comments on her system:
I tried to define her system, and this is what it seemed to me to be, in a
nutshell: I think she'd say Jesus comes to you somehow (e.g. a vision) and makes
you a Catholic. You can't separate the search from religion, and since
Christianity is the only one with the Trinity, it's the only religion with a
valid core. The essential work is all done by God, and the individual's main job
is just to love God, and love for God comes from the will, not emotions. High
moral standards are also necessary individual work and require self discipline.
Also, take the Eucharist, go to church, read about saints and do what they did.
You are taught by the Holy Spirit and the Church, and you become transformed by
suffering. As belief decreases and faith increases, God may one day reveal
himself in one of the four types of revelations, hopefully for you the Trinity,
but if not, keep going.
The second thing about her system is that I liked how there is a sense of higher
purpose to it: that you're not doing work for the self, but in Christianity, you
are working out of Love of God.
And finally, I would not suggest this system due to the fact she's not easily
accessible (no e-mail address or web-site, and she requests you don't correspond
by mail because she is "not a teacher" and wants to focus on her family) and
there doesn't seem to be a group (if there is, no one mentioned it, and there's
no website, and no one made the trip out from CA with her). If those two things
were there, however, and there wasn't TAT, I'd probably consider it, despite the
poor success ratio of Love of God leading to a final realization, since it could
work, maybe.
See
Bernadette's Friends Blog for information on the next
retreat or for information on ordering Bernadette's
published books.
Thinking and Receiving
by Bob Fergeson
"Businessmen and merchants will not enter the places of my father." - Jesus,
Gospel of Thomas
When we come upon a system such as the I Ching, our western oriented
minds may have a hard time understanding it. We are used to making our decisions
with a form of thinking commonly called deduction, where we logically form our
opinions and beliefs through a chain of experienced events and thoughts. One
thing leads to another. We may be relatively unconscious of this, but it
predominates none the less. We may even take the opposite tack, and upon seeing
an intuitive system like the Book of Changes, put it into use solely because it
works in a different way than what we have been taught, thus believing in it
through an unconscious form of rebellion. Neither of these reactions is other
than mechanical. But if we have done enough deductive thinking, and a bit of
thinking about this thinking, we may know its limits. If our intuition has grown
enough for us to trust it, and we can see its value when coupled with reasoning,
then when we are faced with systems such as the I Ching or dream study,
we can appraise them without prejudice or infatuation.
|
After much deductive thinking, we come to a dead end. This running head first
into our mind's mechanical nature is usually necessary before we will come to
trust intuition and information coming directly to us from any other source than
logic. Here, the realization that direct reception is possible, and that this
direct reception of information comes from within, may be our last hope in
finding a true direction back to our source. We are usually so tied up in
survival thinking in order to get through our busy day that we do not leave room
for our attention to focus within. Even if we are "spiritual" and have a
practice, it may have turned into just another habit, and only serve to bolster
our daily life with some relaxation and rest to compensate for our otherwise
sensual lifestyle.
Now, if we do find that intuition and direct reception have a value, then how do
we use them, and how do we know what's what? Intuition can be unreliable and
interfered with just as our reasoning. Desire and fear have an open door to most
of our minds, so a little common sense is a good thing. What we like to call
thinking can often be seen to be little more than rationalization. Through a
system of using reason to check intuition, and vice versa, we avoid opening the
door for desire and fear, through either rationalizing their plots and plans, or
through a blind believe in hunches and naive spontaneity. With experience gained
through honest self-observation, we can see how our mind works and where the
weak spots are.
We are told the kingdom of heaven is within, but do we know where this "within"
lies? Can we hear it? Is there a possible connection with it, through which we
can receive direct knowledge, such as clues as to our true nature? The above
quote from the Gospel of Thomas illustrates how practical thinking only
cannot lead us within. For this, we need a working understanding of direct
reception and intuition. While dream study and the I Ching offer indirect
paths to connect with our inner self, their main use may lie in showing us that
such a place exists, and to give us an inkling of its direction.
See Bob's web sites, The Mystic Missal, a href="http://www.nostalgiawest.com/">NostalgiaWest, and The Listening Attention.
|
|
Musings by Gary Harmon
Emptiness filled with clanging,
And dogs that bark in the distance.
Winds that gently blow,
Trees that sway to and fro,
Are all connected.
As am I joined to them.
Nothing causing anything;
All in agreement with all.
*
Turning earth for a new planting;
Last fall's leaves become fuel.
The season's past growth tilling over,
Roles are traded;
Old becomes new as it repeats yet again.
The undercurrent of the changeless,
Watches and sees -- nothing happening.
*
Empty are the thoughts that are forced.
Wisdom is not from there.
Lack of effort opens the gate for a flood of insights.
*
That which is changeless knows nothing.
Knowing is for trapped opinions.
Seemingly comfortable yet bound by belief.
Anchored to something called duration,
Waiting for change which can not be necessary
A slide-rule replaced by unknowing.
Just a hunch yet more vast than can be known.
Boundaries have no reality for that intuitive state
Which exists outside the identified.
*
See Gary's web sites
Spiritual Books Worth Reading
and Gates of the Mind.
|
Useless Effort Well Spent
by Bart Marshall
A topic that often comes up among seekers is the question of effort versus
non-effort on the spiritual path (or no-path). Great teachers are divided on
this. Some prescribe maximum effort in spiritual matters. Others say there is
nothing to be done, that you are already That which you seek. Those who advocate
effort admit their own realizations did not come as a result of their efforts.
Those who say there is nothing to be done have usually realized this truth after
diligent inquiry and meditation. What's a seeker to do (or not-do)?
In thinking about this we might first inquire if effort and action are the same.
Experience tells us no. Enjoyable activity often feels effortless, and doing
nothing is sometimes difficult. Effort appears to be more a state of mind, a
description of the way we do or not-do, not the what -- more to do with thoughts
about an action than the thing itself. Experience also tells us that when these
thoughts of effort are absent -- whether from activities or meditation -- things
generally go better.
Which leaves the question of action versus non-action in spiritual matters.
Should I practice meditation, read books, attend meetings, find teachers... or
not? To do, or not to do?
Something to consider here is, "What will I be doing instead?" Unless I propose
to cease all pursuits, I'm not choosing between spiritual action and non-action,
but between spiritual action and other action.
Looking out on the world, it appears that success, if it is to be, arrives in
the area of one's greatest interest and activity -- and usually in proportion to
the time spent pursuing it. (How do you get to Carnegie Hall…?) Life teaches us
to practice what we want to become. Are the rules different for spiritual
aspirants? Can I become Self-realized by practicing law, say, instead of
self-inquiry? The evidence does not seem to support that strategy.
But observation also reveals that practice alone won't do it. Most
well-practiced musicians never play Carnegie Hall. Vague factors of talent and
predilection, of earnestness and motivation, of physical, mental and
psychological capacity for a given pursuit appear to count. Then there's the
question of free will versus determinism. Do I really have a choice whether to
do or not-do? Do my actions cause my success or failure -- in anything -- or is
life merely unfolding with rigid inevitability?
Some may say that everything they have in life is the result of their own hard
work and determination, but this has not been my experience. My little
activities are pitifully inadequate to cause the great gifts and disappointments
of this life. All of it, the bitter and the sweet, miraculous. I may tend my
garden a bit, but I am not the cause of flowers. On the micro level, I do appear
to have control, for instance, over whether I mow the grass today or tomorrow,
but I wonder about even that. Do I decide to mow, or do I see my body starting
the mower and claim I decided?
So it may be that in the end Self-realization is all a matter of destiny, yet it
does appear that yearning and intent might play a role. Again, observation
teaches us that it's in the area of one's greatest interest and activity that
providence is most visible -- that opportunities materialize, coincidences
occur, revelation happens. Einstein had no epiphanies about cubism. Picasso none
about math.
Which brings us back to the koan: "To do, or not to do?" The answer, I suppose,
is "Yes." Act tirelessly without effort. Do nothing without being idle. Live
life on the pinpoint of paradox and leave the rest to God. Advaita is right. You
are already That which you seek, and there is nothing you can do to cause
Self-realization. Hold this truth close as you effortlessly seek
Self-realization with everything you've got, and Grace may befall you.
*
See Bart's web site Richard
Rose: Zen Master - Poet - Philosopher - Friend.
|
Poems by Shawn Nevins
|
|
A tired warrior may find a friend
amidst a field of weeds,
honest in the face of winter,
and that is enough.
"Every Moment Shines"
A crow glides in silently:
like a suspicion of truth,
like the momentary fall of winter light
through a blind
that illuminates a familiar room
-- a life --
in mystery,
in significance.
The crow rises up,
cawing, escaping our attention,
as clouds obscure the vision.
Still….
Still there lingers
the transparency of light, sound, and self
in which every moment shines.
Behind
the most delicate, bare branch of winter.
Behind
the tender thought of care.
Behind you and before you -
what words will we choose today...?
An endless moment of coming home.
Is your next step waiting
or already done?
A cloud rests motionless
beyond the leafless silhouette
of a winter elm.
Beyond that -
light blue sky.
Beyond that -
the limitless dark of imagination.
You are a silhouette
and beyond.
"Cat Confrontation"
She thinks I'm a ghost,
this feline accuser
eyeing me warily
with a one-paw advance.
Uncanny, how she looks to each side,
then right through me.
She may be right.
I suspect I've been here before,
yet am not sure I'm here now.
Is all the world a wraith,
or am I
neither here nor there
drifting somehow
between?
|
"Every Moment Shines" was originally published in
Sacred Journey.
What Is Action?
by Art Ticknor
Richard Rose gave a talk in the 1980s titled "Zen is Action,"
and the question of what constitutes action became a koan for me over the years
of my search.
It's frustrating not knowing the answer to a simple question like that -- and
valuable. It brings us back, over and over, to the don't-know point. We admit to
ourselves that we don't know the answer, but we want to know because we intuit
that it's important.
Action is what propels us along the horizontal plane of the mind until we arrive
at the vertical wall or abyss that separates us from our true identity. Action
propels us backwards, squid-like, away from our faulty identification with
objects. Action is using the mind to understand the mind, living a life aimed at
understanding what that life is all about. Action is latching onto what's
important to us and making ourselves a determined arrow toward that objective
regardless of the cost. Action is finding like-minded people to work with in our
assault on the battlements of ignorance.
Action is facing our fears rather than running away from them. Action is what
keeps us struggling to find an answer after we've forgotten why we were looking
-- in other words, when the ego no longer sees anything in it for its own
inflation. Action is what leads to a radical transformation in self-definition,
a severing of identification with that-which-seems, and a perspective from which
right action is possible.
Inaction leads to regret. Action leads to fulfillment.
|
|
Humor....
|
Reader Commentary:
(We appreciate hearing from you.)
|
Sign up for our e-mail alert that will let you know
when new issues are published. You can contact the Forum for questions or
feedback by e-mail or by filling out an easy-to-use form.
Want to help? Your donation of $1 or more will support
the continuation of the Forums and other services that the
TAT Foundation provides. TAT is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit educational
organization and qualifies to receive tax-deductible contributions.
|
Richard Rose |
Quotes |
Books & Tapes |
Albigen System |
TAT Foundation
Best Sites on the Web |
TAT Current Events |
TAT Forum |
Spiritual Gatherings |
Retreat Centers
TAT Journal Archive |
What is Meditation? |
Forum index |
Site search |
Home page
|
