Alan's blog: acceptance dharma overground ethics interest love maps meditation morality openness post enlightenment practice technical morality
by Alan
8 comments
Technical Morality
It’s common amongst Gen-Yers to have an inherent intolerance for authority or moralising of any kind; we want clear, honest information fast, and how we use it is no one’s business but our own. I think this is admirable to a degree, and I sympathise with the anti-guru approach that results from applying this view to spirituality.
This attitude is prevalent in the emerging ‘practical dharma’ movement, exemplified in forums/wikis such as the Dharma Overground, Kenneth Folk Dharma and our very own Baptist’s Head Discussion Forum (for those coming at enlightenment from a magical perspective). Methods and technicalities are distributed, discussed and implemented, and the users enjoy the empowerment that comes with ultimately relying on their own dedication and judgement.
But is it possible we might be making a fundamental error in reducing spirituality and enlightenment to simply a matter of technique and a model of possible territory?
Should ethics have a more central role in ‘practical dharma’ beyond its usual sidelining as something that is solely a matter of personal choice?
For a couple of years I was only concerned with methods and maps because I believed they referred to something discoverable and verifiable; morality could not offer such objectivity, being primarily concerned with value judgements.
Time and again I see this approach demonstrated on the forums mentioned above. Technical discussions are generally fruitful, but if someone’s behaviour is called in to question, the discussion quickly degenerates in to a tedious name-calling impasse. At this point, morality might skulk out of its dark hiding place and suggest we all just try to get along; deep down, no one involved in the discussion really respects such a suggestion.
And time and again I see arrogance, egotism, envy and a lack of respect displayed in these forums. Lord knows, I’ve contributed enough of that myself over the years.
Hang on
But what if morality does have the same gold standard as methods and maps?
What if, rather than being a mechanism as is usually assumed, the method is actually a moral act?
What if meditation isn’t just something that happens once a day on a cushion for half an hour, but is in fact a specific morality – based on an experientially verifiable practice, not supposition – that informs how we treat ourselves and each other?
The overwhelming evidence, both personal and scientific, shows that meditation mitigates anger, hate, greed, and self-interest, and gives rise to a conscious expression of our original nature (whether we call that nirvana, God or the Tao), whose characteristics are acceptance, interest, openness and love.
It might come as a surprise, but THESE CHARACTERISTICS ARE THE METHOD.
When we apply these characteristics to our experience, we engage with authentic spirituality. This is meditation. There is not one single bone fide approach to enlightenment that doesn’t work in this way. Whether actual recognition of our original nature has occurred – known as enlightenment – makes no difference to the validity of the practice, beyond increasing the depth and potential of the expression; furthermore, enlightenment does not guarantee its conscious expression in our behaviour: practice is an end in itself, not just a means, and if practice is abandoned after enlightenment, then of what value is enlightenment to anyone, including ourselves?
With all of the above in mind, how ethical is it to ‘evaluate’ someone’s progress without addressing the potential (and the all too common) conceit and arrogance that arises as a result of having verification from an ‘expert’ – who only deals in the ‘real world’ technicalities of enlightenment – that yes, you really are an accomplished meditator, you’ve mastered the formless realms and you very well maybe enlightened.
Where is the integrity and mindfulness here? Should this advice always be given to anyone who asks, regardless of their mental state or psychological predisposition? And what if the ‘expert’ is wrong?
The student in this example is not even in the position to accurately judge at what stage he or she may be at, let alone have the forethought and insight to be mindful of any possible unique but unhealthy reactions to this information, or the probable egotistical and conceited emotions and beliefs that may result from being informed of such a position.
In an online environment where autonomy is promoted, and when dealing with conceit so close to the heart that we cannot recognise it ourselves, it is virtually impossible to highlight these shortcomings and prescribe a particular approach without causing offense.
But if everything I have written has a solid basis in reality, then the degree to which we indulge anger, hate, egotism, greed and ignorance is the degree to which we are TECHNICALLY failing. Hate isn’t bad simply because we don’t like it; hate is an indication of a lack of awareness, openness, interest, love and acceptance. Hate is an indication of a lack of application of our method, and a lack of how much we understand our original nature.
To dish out judgements on other people’s progress and attainments without also addressing their morality shows a practical shortcoming on the ‘expert’s’ part; to ask for a judgement of our progress without being willing to accept a similar evaluation of our morality is a practical failure on ours.
I’ve recently been asking myself how often do I bring the ‘practical dharma’ to my daily life, and I can tell you, it’s very rarely as much as I would like.
How about you?
Tozan’s Five Ranks come to mind here, particularly being stuck in the first rank. It is described as “an evil spirit who keeps watch over the corpse in the coffin.”
Actualizing realization in everyday life is not easy, but what else is it for? I believe that it’s in trying to bring this forth into the world that we really begin to see how to undo past karma, on both the personal and the social levels.
I also like the fourfold dharmadhatu of Chinese Huayan (out of which Tozan developed his 5 ranks, I believe), where the third level is “mutual, nonobstructing interpenetration of the universal and particular” and the fourth level is “mutual, nonobstructing interpenetration of the particular with other particulars”. More on that here
So glad you wrote this. Yes to everything you said. Yes, the characteristics of acceptance, interest, openness, and love are themselves the method by which we awaken. Yes, the arrogance and posturing rudeness at the Dharma Overground is the inevitable result of treating morality as a training separate from concentration and insight. Yes, we are making a mistake if we reduce the spiritual path to maps and models.
Much as I’ve learned from the goal-directed practice advice of Daniel Ingram and others (and I have learned a lot, and am grateful), there are basic problems with a goal-directed approach. One is this the way enlightenment ends up being almost the only reason to practice in the first place. A lot of DhO’ers insist that practice makes no real difference to your daily life, and that if you think you’re more kind, patient, grateful (etc.) as a result of your practice, you’re just kidding yourself. (Or buying into the “limited emotional range model,” in the clinical and dehumanizing language that everybody at DhO ends up using.) So it’s enlightenment or nothing, and every moment you spend on the cushion is simply something you do in aid of some far-off goal. So how then is this version of the spiritual path any different from the usual futile samsaric grasping thing we do, chasing after this or that thing that’s supposed to finally give our worthless lives meaning? Isn’t the meaning in what we do the doing of it?
I’m not *against* enlightenment or anything — it’s not like I deny that it exists — but it’s not what motivates my practice. I practice in order to cultivate these supposedly elective qualities of love, openness, etc., which make my life, and the lives of everyone I love, better, right here and now.
This site is wonderful. Thank you.
Very insightful article Alan, thank you. I think you hit something special when you concluded that “THESE CHARACTERISTICS ARE THE METHOD”.
For the benefit of purely technical methods though I must say that they have an important and relevant place also in my opinion. One can spend many years (like I have) trying to be morally “good” and doing all the “right things” (be good to others, live a moderate life, even being vegetarian) and still see little to no progress in spiritual life or even simple well-being. Then suddenly someone comes and tells you to repeat a mantra for 20 minutes twice a day and suddenly the peace and stability you tried so hard to cultivate appears almost overnight (and accumulated physical/emotional tensions disapear) as if per magic.
That is not to say technicalities are everything but it is still amazing how certain methods, when well applied and at the relevant time, can have overwhelming results. Definitely there is something almost mechanical in at least steps of the process that has to be considered here as well. But as always, must be balanced with the other side – morality. Maybe moralitty is the going out after the mechanics did it’s thing I don’t know. Anyway, this is a theme worth pursuing in my opinion.
And thank you for the magnificent site!
Speaking about the Five Ranks’s is it true that In the Zen tradition for instance, the so-called sudden enlightenment is followed by gradual cultivation to eliminate all remaining traces of defilements of the mind preventing one from fully integrating one’s intrinsic Buddha-nature into actual behaviour.
There is virtually no end to it, but traditionally Zen masters would spend about 15 years working on behaviour and morality issues after great enlightenment before teaching students. Good examples are Huineng and Zhaozhou (J. Joshu). This has always been the toughest part. I remember that by my first Japanese Zen teacher cared more about this than anything else. He was very gentle and easy going, but very sharp at observing people’s behavior, as well his own shortcomings. Unlike most tiger style Zen masters that I have met, he would never hesitate to confess his shortcomings and apologize if he felt that he might have hurt someone. These issues are of course difficult to deal with on a Web forum when people haven’t met even once in most cases, but you are right to insist on this important point. Thanks.
-Alex
Morality is putting down I/my/me, and helping other beings.
To hold ideas about progress and attainment etc is to feed the “I.” So all these ideas of progress and attainment, all this I-thinking, can be questioned and discarded. They’re nothing but hindrances to the simple job of morality: just now, how can I help other beings?
@Alex: I see! Maybe that’s what I’m going through now? Thanks for the insightful info as always.
@Stuart: I believe the Buddha asked himself that, hence his teaching of how to attain enlightenment. He even left a map of the stages one can expect to go through. Genuine compassion – with no thought of self or other – leads to the recognition of original nature, and original nature is the expression of compassion. This is morality; not the discarding of ideas of progress and attainment.
I was about to post a comment that simply said: INTEGRATION! – but Alex essentially beat me to it. Eventually you have to come down from the mountain, and then all of your old habitual social trappings will re-appear.
EGADS!
I think I’ll move towards simultaneous integration. Seems more wholesome, like oatmeal with raisins and a little bit of cocoa.
Yes, from my experience, one of the benefits of really working a twelve step program is that it covers morality as well as spirituality. Really using the tools of the program helps one to “stay current” and integrate the insights that come with spiritual practice. It is ongoing…thanks.