Open Enlightenment

Being Ordinary Interview: Life, the Universe and Everything

I recently had the pleasure of chatting with Being Ordinary‘s Tom Buckley-Houston. Tom has done a wonderful job in editing down our very long discussion into a listenable interview. Although I talk about some of things I already touch on in this video, we end up discussing a diverse range of topics including astronauts, direct vs developmental paths and even the future of the human species. Check it out here!

Bookmark this article

The Myth of Lineage

There is a common misperception in the West regarding tradition, especially as it relates to lineage within a school that facilitates enlightenment. The two main elements of this misperception are:

In the East, there are unbroken lineages of enlightened teachers/students that transfer the dharma successfully from generation to generation, evident in many of the schools of Buddhism.

In the West, there is and never have been any awakened lineages to speak of. As a result, no Western ‘tradition’ really has anything to offer comparable to the Eastern schools.

But what exactly is meant by ‘dharma’?

Is the dharma the teachings of Siddartha Gautama (563-483 BCE)?

If this is the case, then dharma transmission is nothing but the teaching of concepts, method and culture that have accumulated over the last 2,500 years since the historical Buddha lived. This is completely divorced from the actual experience of awakening, and transmission of the dharma would not require direct, personal experience of enlightenment in order to become a ‘dharma heir’.

Indeed, we can see such a culture evident in Japanese Buddhism, where certain Zen schools are owned by families who pass down the ‘possession of the dharma’ from father to son. This is dharma transmission as family business.

Furthermore, it is common scholarly knowledge that there exists no authentic record of any lineage dating back to the historical Buddha, none whatsoever. Any lineage claiming such a thing is a result of an attempt at some point in the past to raise the profile of the school in question.

Is the dharma the order or law of the universe?

Again, this is not the experience of enlightenment, but a conceptual model or framework of reality. Does the ‘transmission’ of such a model equate with the direct personal experience of awakening?

Is the dharma the transmission of awakening itself?

The Record of the Transmission of the Light reports:

Once, the World-honoured One (Buddha) held up a flower and blinked his eyes. Kashyapa broke out in a smile. The World-honoured One said, ‘I have the Treasury of the Eye of the True Dharma, the ineffable mind of nirvana. I entrust it to Mahakashyapa.’

The moment that Kashyapa smiled is the moment he became awakened in the presence of the Buddha. Regardless of the historical accuracy of this record, the phenomenon of the transmission of enlightenment from one person to another is not just reported by Buddhism; for many Advaita Vedantist’s, it is the only way to achieve enlightenment.

However, although it may appear as if ‘something’ is transmitted from a teacher to a student, the truth of the matter is that what is recognised during enlightenment is not a ‘thing’ locatable in space/time, nor is it something that is ‘missing’, ‘lost’ or ‘lacking’ that the newly awakened student ‘receives’ from outside of him or herself. Similarly, it is not that the Buddha or any awakened individual has ‘gained’ that which is recognised at enlightenment, and so it is not possible for that person to ‘give’ it to anyone either.

This does not mean that awakening cannot and does not occur in the presence of someone already awakened, as my own experience is testament to. But a more fitting understanding of the phenomenon might be the idea of resonance, as if something about the behaviour of the awakened individual can cause another to resonate in a similar fashion to foster a recognition of his or her own, much like a vibration at a particular frequency can cause objects to vibrate in a similar fashion (note that this is just a metaphor; I am not positing ‘enlightenment vibrations’).

It follows then that the dharma as direct, personal awakening is not something that can be possessed, owned or given by any lineage; but a lineage that teaches an understanding of enlightenment – dharma as the teaching of the Buddha and as a model of reality – and helps to facilitate enlightenment in students – which includes the presence of awakened individuals – is certainly something of value.

However, exactly how many lineages match such a description?

Genesis of a tradition

What are the possible origins of a tradition, school or lineage? Here are a number of elements that may play a part in their creation:

• An individual’s experience of awakening
• An individual’s particular understanding and model of reality
• Politics
• Greed for power/money/sex
• Business
• The kudos of being a holy teacher

No doubt there are many more, but this is enough to understand that there is a staggering number of possible combinations of the above that may go in to the creation – and revision – of a tradition.

For instance, someone who has a good model of reality after years of sitting and study might start teaching for the kudos and the access to easy sexual conquests.

Or a genuinely awakened person might decide to make a lot of money out of the fact they are the real deal.

Or someone who really wants to help others experience enlightenment might also enjoy wielding political power.

Even if we leave the question of motivation out of the equation for the moment, and just focus on the authenticity or quality of a teaching or school, we should be aware that:

• Just because an individual has had a genuine awakening, it doesn’t mean he or she can produce an accurate understanding of the experience or a useful model of reality, nor does it mean he or she will or has helped anyone else experience enlightenment, even if a lineage is produced in his or her name, and even if to this day it remains ‘unbroken’.
• Just because an individual has spent many years with awakened teachers, and has a firm understanding of an accurate model of reality and enlightenment, it doesn’t mean he or she has had a genuine awakening, even if he or she decides to set up a school or lineage.
• Just because a lineage teaches a model of enlightenment, it doesn’t mean it is accurate or helpful, that any of the teachers have any direct experience of what they are talking about, or even that the lineage began with an awakened individual.

Given everything considered above, the idea that we should simply look to the East to find ‘unbroken’ lineages of enlightened, ethical and wise individuals is naive at best. A failure to consider the many possible variables involved in a school that promises dharma transmission is no doubt a large enabling factor to the countless abuses perpetrated by guru after guru in the late 20^th century (and which no doubt still occur today).

Next time you come across an ‘unbroken’ lineage, you should ask yourself exactly what is ‘unbroken’: a certain view of the world? A business model? An empty, irrelevant and unaccessible culture? Superstition? Abuse?

Or that rare thing: a group of genuinely awakened individuals, with a good understanding of the phenomenon, whose main concern is helping others to wake up too?

Right on our doorstep

We can now offer a slightly revised definition of the dharma:

The signifier: a model that describes reality based on awakening/enlightenment

And the signified: That which is recognised at awakening/enlightenment, including our relationship to ‘that’, the resulting view of the world, the way we live according to ‘that’ and the beliefs we hold about ourselves, each other and reality.

Although there is much historical evidence to suggest the ‘unbroken’ lineage of a number of occult or secret traditions of enlightenment in the West, we have no way of knowing just how many authentically awakened individuals were a part of these lineages, what was transmitted, what the motivations were behind many of them and their members, or even who the traditions started with. Sound familiar?

However, we do have many surviving Western teachings or models of reality – examples of the signifier – in the works produced by the Greek philosophers, such as Plato, Plotinus and Proclus; the Christian mystics, such as Pseudo-Dionysius and St. Theresa of Avila; the Medieval alchemists, such as Paracelsus and Agrippa; the Renaissance Hermeticists and Christian Cabalists, such as Ficino, Pico della Mirandola and Giordano Bruno; the Elizabethan magicians and alchemists, Dr. John Dee and Edward Kelley; the Rosicrucians and the countless mystery schools; the Freemasons, such as Elias Ashmole; the Traditionalists, such as Julius Evola and Rene Guenon; the Fourth Way and G.I. Gurdjieff; and the traditions of Thelema and the A.’.A.’., founded by Aleister Crowley and continued by Robert Anton Wilson.

(Of course, there have been many ‘pseudo-traditions’ in the West, such as Theosophy and the Typhonian O.T.O., but again, this is just as prevalent in the East.)

I have to agree with Pierre Grimes when he claims that there is not any metaphysic – produced by anyone, anywhere – as profound as the one offered by the Greeks; and I have personally found the models offered by all of the above Western schools helpful, accurate, challenging, insightful and rewarding. And many of them speak in a very profound sense to my experience of enlightenment.

What this means is that there have always been people in the West experiencing enlightenment – albeit underground for a good millennia and a half – creating a spiritual culture as colourful and as rich as any found in the East. If you are interested in awakening, might there be something of value to be found here?

Ultimately, I don’t believe in tradition; unless there is another type of human being on this planet, with a different brain or mind or heart, the answer to the questions ‘Who are we?’ and ‘What is the truth?’ is the same for all of us. It doesn’t matter whether we are born in Burma or Birmingham, whether we are Hindu or Atheist, whether we are a part of a tradition or not, whether we know someone awakened or not; enlightenment is a human phenomenon, it’s everyone’s birthright, it’s possible for anyone to experience it and there are no definite limitations to who might provide a useful, accurate and helpful view of awakening and reality itself, regardless of lineage, culture or geographical location.

So I think it is time we dropped our naive infatuation with the East as somehow more ‘spiritual’ than the West, as well as our naive disregard for the Western pioneers of enlightenment who more often than not taught awakening at great risk of torture and murder. Rather than investing in the silly notion that the Buddha magically appeared in the East as the very first awakened individual and produced a number of unbroken lineages of realised humans right down to the present day (only coming to the West very recently), we should instead consider enlightenment as a human phenomenon that has occurred to many people all across the globe – as it did during the Axial Age, in three other places besides India: Greece (Philosophy), Israel (Monotheism – but not as we know it today!) and China (Daoism) – that is not dependent on adopting any single culture or religion.

Enlightenment is a human phenomenon, not the product of any lineage or school; isn’t it time we approached it as one? What might we be missing if we pigeon hole ourselves as ‘belonging’ to a ‘tradition’?

Bookmark this article

529AD And All That…

Antiquity ended in 529AD when the Byzantine Emperor Justinian suppressed the Platonic Academy in Athens. This event betokened the triumph of Christianity over the philosophy of the Romans and Ancient Greeks.

At least, that’s the common view, but it’s questionable whether it’s that straightforward. There’s no doubt that Justinian was on a mission to impose Christianity upon Byzantium, but the pagan traditions of the empire never died out. The Byzantines continued to regard themselves as the descendants of the Roman and Greek traditions, and the ancient philosophers remained a part of their education system throughout the Empire’s astonishingly long life, well into the thirteenth century.

And what of the Platonic Academy at Athens? For starters, the notion that it represents an unbroken lineage of teaching back to Plato is a myth. It started in 410AD. True, there were earlier versions of the Academy, but all of them flourished and fizzled long before the birth of Christ. The Neoplatonic Academy of Athens had reached its apex by 485AD, the year that Proclus died.

The notion that its final demise in 529AD was entirely due to Justinian is open to question. What is known is that Justinian wanted to suppress Hellenic beliefs within Byzantium and that – around the same time – seven key Hellenic philosophers, among then Damascius, who was Head of the Neoplatonic Academy, departed from Greece and journeyed to Persia.

The Hellenes weren’t fans of the Christian philosophy and could see the situation at home wasn’t developing in their favour. Persia (at the time in question, The Sassanid Empire) seemed a far more attractive option. Here, philosophy, science and magick were flourishing; there was greater religious toleration and a more orderly society; and Persia was also a gateway to India, providing access to Hindu and Buddhist ideas. Indeed, there was already a tradition of intellectual exchange with Persia: notably, Plotinus had paid a visit in 242BC.

Quite possibly the Hellenes had an idealised view of Persia, but also quite possibly the end of the Neoplatonic Academy wasn’t due to Justinian. It’s debatable that Justinian cared as much about what people in Athens believed as he did about those closer to home in Constantinople. Maybe the main reason for the closure of the Academy was simply that its leading lights shut up shop and moved somewhere more interesting. It’s possible the Hellenes simply crapped out on Christianity and opted for Persian Zoroastrianism instead.

I’ve recently been re-examining with Alan the prophecies that we received from an astral representative of the A∴A∴, which led to the setting-up of Open Enlightenment. These included a vision of a ‘cathedral’ that bore the architectural hallmarks of all the world’s great religious traditions. Our aim is to build that cathedral, but it’s also becoming clearer to me that in an important sense we’re already living inside it.

History is nothing like the tidy narrative that gets written up and handed down after the fact. It’s a mess. The vision of the cathedral is as much about a union of traditions that is already the case as about something supposed to happen in the future.

In my reading about Byzantium, I was delighted to stumble across hesychasm. The Byzantine Emperor Justinian in the sixth century may seem to us an enemy of genuine tradition, but in the thirteenth century, within that same Empire, a practice was beginning to be adopted that definitely seems to have swung the pendulum again in its favour. Hesychasm is a set of techniques evolved within Christianity for ‘turning inwards’ and experiencing directly ‘the uncreated energies of God’. It includes postures and breathing exercises, which are not generally considered essential, but also techniques of constant prayer and vigilance over the mind, which definitely are.

In the fourteenth century hesychasm gave rise to a major theological tussle between the abbot Barlaam and St. Gregory Palamas. Barlaam was scandalised by hesychasm which, in his view, arose from polytheistic tendencies. He argued that because no part of God could be perceived by humans, the so-called ‘uncreated energies’ encountered during hesychasm were in fact created and therefore undeserving of any special significance. Gregory Palamas, in reply, drew a distinction between God in His essence (or ousia, which cannot be known) and God in His energies – i.e. the way in which God reveals Himself to humanity. Palamas argued that the uncreated Light of God seen in hesychasm is the energy of God, and is perceivable with the help of certain spiritual disciplines.

Looking back on the debate, it was at root a contest between the Platonic view of nature (Palamas) and the Aristotelian (Barlaam) although, at the time, Palamas was drawing primarily upon the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius for his arguments, and Barlaam was leaning on Aquinas. At Church Councils in 1341 and 1351, the views of Palamas were upheld as the orthodox view. In response Barlaam recanted and moved West, becoming a Bishop in the Roman Church. Hesychasm was adopted as a formal practice within the Greek Orthodox Church and remains so to this day, but it never gained the same acceptance within Catholicism.

A religious controversy that arose within the same Empire traditionally associated with the closure of the Neoplatonic Academy actually strengthened the Platonic tradition in Europe – at least, in the East. But what is ‘the Platonic tradition’ anyway? Understandably, practitioners of hesychasm to this day deny that it bears any similarity with the techniques for illumination practised in Buddhism and other eastern traditions. This seems to me a very fragile position to attempt to defend. You could tell yourself that story if you wanted to, but the truth seems to have a habit of escaping from the stories we try to impose upon it and getting itself mixed up everywhere in everything.

Sources

Herrin, Judith (2008). Byzantium: The Surprising Life of a Medieval Empire. London: Peguin.

Erhart, Victoria (1998). The context and contents of Priscianus of Lydia’s Solutionum ad Chosroem. Catholic University of America.

Bookmark this article

The Diamond

Enlightenment is not an idea.

Do you believe Taoism is about Taoism, even when Laozi wrote ‘The Tao-Path is not the All-Tao. The Name is not the Thing named.’?

Do you believe Buddhism is about Buddhism, even when the Buddha taught the emptiness of all things?

Do you believe Philosophy is about Philosophy, even when Proclus reasoned the One that cannot be hypothesized?

Do you believe Sufism is about Sufism, even when Mohammed said ‘Allah, the One, independent and besought of all, He begets not nor is He begotten, and there is none like unto Him.’?

Do you believe Advaita is about Advaita, even when Shankara argued ‘Brahman is the only truth’?

Do you believe Magick is about Magick, even when Crowley proclaimed ‘Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law!’?

To those who cannot see past ideas, all of these teachers and teachings appear contradictory and exclusive, each promoting their own absolute dogma at the expense of the others.

Yet how many teachers of enlightenment have taught that their teaching alone is true?

For those who cannot see past ideas, one facet amongst an infinite number is taken to be the whole diamond; and the discovery of the truth of another facet is taken to mean the existence of two diamonds, not One.

Yet how many teachers of enlightenment have taught the existence of many enlightenments, or that enlightenment can mean many things?

Unable to see past ideas, and conditioned to find the One Correct Answer, the beginner – seeing many facets of the diamond – cannot help but doubt if he has found the right teaching, to the extent he will either endlessly flirt with one tradition after another, or combat his uncertainty by convincing himself of the shortcomings of any method but the one chosen. The reflection of one facet is held superior to the reflections of the others because not only does conditioning demand it, but the practitioner has not yet seen the diamond personally.

But even the enlightened human may be guilty of persisting in the ignorance of trying to find the One Correct Answer, despite possessing the knowledge that the absolute truth is not an idea. When this happens, the enlightened human forgets the diamond all together when concerning himself with but one facet, and yet having knowledge of the diamond, will struggle in vein to raise up an amalgamation of various reflections to the status of the diamond itself. When this happens, the enlightened human may even deny the existence of the diamond by claiming only reflection exists. For such a confused human, enlightenment is not understood as knowledge of the Tao, Emptiness, the One, Allah, ‘not-two’; the illusion that the absolute is differentiated persists, almost as if enlightenment had never occurred. Of what use is enlightenment to such an individual if it is not or cannot be lived?

Can you admire the reflection of one facet without taking it for the whole diamond?

Can you appreciate the existence of many facets without denying the existence of the diamond itself?

Can you appreciate that no facet is the diamond itself, no matter how glorious, comprehensive or reasonably sound its reflection?

Can you hold within your gaze each and every facet, in all their relatively diverse, contradictory and paradoxical beauty, without trying to resolve them in to a single reflection?

Can you see past all reflections to the diamond itself?

Bookmark this article