Just spotted this! Thanks for the long and detailed post! Here are a few thoughts in response. The first is related to the question of ideas. To be sure our perceptions, thoughts etc. are only ever our perceptions, thoughts etc. We cannot see things as they are apart from our seeing of them. And not only do we see imcompletely, but we are mistaken about what it is that we see, as numerous cunning experiements into perception have shown. My suspicion is that the best we can hope for - and this alone is a high ideal - is not seeing things as they are in the sense of some kind of ultimate grasp of things in themselves, but recognising how deeply conditioned what we see actually is. Seeing things under the sign of conditionality, if you like: this, perhaps, is one way of reading the idea of "seeing things as they are". To recognise the limitations of our seeing is not to be rid of the limitations - but it may be to be free of them, which is a very different matter.
The second thought is to do with this business of the imagination. I suspect that we're talking at cross purposes here to some extent, as I simply don't know what this idea of "seeing the Buddhas face to face" through the power of the imagination actually refers to. It simply makes no sense to me. How am I to understand this? There are a few options, it seems to me.
a) Pure fabrication. But this can't be what you are driving at - you talk about imagination as "pure fancy" and distinguish this from the point at which the imagination takes on a life of its own. So we can ignore this one. b) Metaphysically - that there is somehow a "plane" upon which I can commune with these beings and to which the imagination gives me access. This seems to be implied by the claim that "If only we can open our hearts to them, they are there", and it seems suggested by some of Sangharakshita's writings: but I don't see the justification for what seems to me to be a kind of metaphysical extravagance. c) Pragmatically or existentially - the imagination as a kind of tool for the cultivation of a particular orientation towards existence and towards those others with whom we share this world.
I'd favour c) personally, but that may of course be a question of taste. But in this view, to come back to the Arya Sangha, perhaps finding the arya in the sangha can be related to my comments on seeing things as conditioned: with a clear-eyed and appreciative response to the highly conditioned sangha of which we are a part - the more or less ordinary people - recognising that which is arya, that which in our relationship to one another is noble, and cherishing these acts, these moments, so that we might better cherish each other.
I think we are less at cross purposes that you seem to think. I find your option regard to imagination - "as a kind of tool for the cultivation of a particular orientation towards existence and towards those others with whom we share this world" - is more or less how I see it.
Your option which is titled Metaphysically only really works for me if you titled it Metaphorically. There are times when imagination is total fantasy, but other times when it clearly is not - but how to communicate that latter experience.
What I am exploring in using this kind of language is my connection to the Refuges. I have an experience which is very difficult to put into words. I suspect that the experience itself is not unfamiliar to you - you're an experienced practitioner. In the FWBO we tend to use the terminology of Going for Refuge, but I'm starting to find that a bit abstract so I'm mining this other more mystical sounding language to see if that fits the experience better.
I find that speaking of Going for Refuge in terms of a personal relationship fits the experience a little better, especially now that I've started meditating on White Tara. Which is not to say that I have lost site of other perspectives - it's about holding different perspectives at once, and not taking any of them to literally. So I may say that White Tara is a 'real' being who is looking out for my interests, and that I 'meet' her in meditation, but it's all poetry. Something is happening, but I could not insist on one set of words to describe it - I'm painting word pictures and having fun with it :)
Saturday, July 29, 2006
[Image]I've been meaning to write something about the Sangha refuge for some time. The topic arose in the comments of a post on politics by Will Buckingham of thinkBuddha.org. I was arguing that one could not Go for Refuge to the Sangha of ordinary people, but only to the Arya or Noble Sangha. In response Will said: "the problem is that, here and now, I have no idea who is arya in this doctrinal sense and who is not. Try as I might, I can only see more or less ordinary people. So where do I go for refuge? To go to refuge to an idea of the aryasangha seems to be rather limiting."There are many possible rejoiners to this and I want to offer a couple of them. I think it is worth re-emphasising at this point that I believe, following my root teacher Sangharakshita, that Going for Refuge to the Three Jewels is the definitive Buddhist act, it is central to what Buddhism is, and it the unifying factor in all Buddhist practices. Going for Refuge is a hermeneutic device through which all of Buddhism may be understood. So this is not a trivial subject.
So, firstly if one is concerned not to Go For Refuge to an idea of something, then one must perforce Go for Refuge to something which is more than an idea, something which exists beyond the confines of our minds. This is much trickier than it seems at first. Of course one doesn't want to Go for Refuge to an idea, but when one starts to analyse one's experience, then what else is there? We interface with the world via our senses, and we perform mental gymnastics to make some sort of sense of the overwhelming jumble of impressions that flood in on us. In fact we do not ever simply relate to things as they are unless we see things as they are, and I don't know about you, but I don't think I'm quite there yet. So in Going for Refuge to something, we are constrained somewhat by the fact that we only have our mental pictures of things, coloured by our biases and conditioning. We only have ideas about things, we don't have things in themselves. This is a paraphrase of Yogacara idealism, which I would temper with a dose of Madhyamika logic: just because things are not real, doesn't mean that they are unreal. So we are left with a dilemma here. The solution, for me, is to Go for Refuge to my highest idea, my Ideal: the best and most wonderful idea that I can conceive of. I suppose that Will might say that this is hardly a satisfactory solution, and the practical help that a group of people offer is invaluable. But I think this is to mix two different arguments: ie the necessity of Going for Refuge, and the necessity of having Spiritual friends. I would say that both are important.
Personally I have already discovered the fallibility of the people in my Sangha - it never takes long does it? We might believe that our local Buddhist group can provide a refuge from Samsara, but I know of no one for whom this is a reality. We inevitably find our group wanting, and perhaps we go to another group seeking a refuge. And not finding it there, we move on again. For a refuge to be a true refuge, it must actually offer refuge. And what is a refuge? The Oxford Dictionary definition is quite simple: shelter from pursuit or danger or trouble. In the Buddhist sense we need shelter from craving, hatred, and delusion. So for a person, or group of people, to offer shelter from craving, hatred and delusion, they must have substantially overcome these evil influences in themselves. And this is as good a definition of the Arya Sangha as any I can think of. The Arya Sangha are those beings who have substantially overcome craving, hatred and delusion.
However this still leaves Will with a dilemma which he states thus: try as I might, I can only see more or less ordinary people. I sympathise with this to some extent. When I look at people I see... people. So where does one look in order to find beings who are a little more than ordinary? I look in two places. Firstly I look in the Buddhist scriptures, and especially in the Pali Canon. The Majjhima Nikaya is a good place to start since the people in them are quite recognisable in human terms, and against this backdrop the Buddha and the Arahants stand out, and shine. For some people the Mahayana Sutras are a great source of inspiration, but personally I find them a bit over the top, and less than respectful to some of my Pali Canon heros like Sariputta.
The other place I look is to my own imagination. I see the imagination as a threshold. Sometimes it's just 'fancy' and I'm just making stuff up. But other times my imaginings can begin to take on a life of there own, and I find myself in another realm. I thought the movie of C. S. Lewis's Narnia story a lot of sentimental bullshit with no great moral or logic, but I am struck just now by the metaphor of the wardrobe as a doorway into another realm where different rules apply and mythical creatures live. Funnily enough Will has just had a novel accepted for publication (Sadhu!) and is not a good novel a doorway into another realm, which through the application of imagination, we may inhabit for a little while? I find this quality of being transported will draw me back again and again to certain books: The Lord of the Rings, the Dune Trilogies, A Wizard of Earthsea, The Glass Bead Game, The Name of the Rose &c. The imagination, one might say, is the threshold of the Sambhoghakaya, and with some work one can begin to visit that realm and meet the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas "face to face" - many of the great Buddhist seers, such as Nagarjuna and Asangha, received teachings in this way, and the contents of these visions virtually define the Mahayana!
And of course the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas are reaching out to us all the time, waiting for us to to make contact with them. They are there in the tiniest mote of dust, and in the great oceans; in the sun and moon and stars; they are there in the rising and passing away of all things; the Buddha's voice is present in all sounds, and it is constantly singing the song of impermanence. If only we can open our hearts to them they are there. One doesn't see them with the eyes, one 'sees' them with the heart.
2 Comments
Close this window Jump to comment formHi, Jayarava,
Just spotted this! Thanks for the long and detailed post! Here are a few thoughts in response. The first is related to the question of ideas. To be sure our perceptions, thoughts etc. are only ever our perceptions, thoughts etc. We cannot see things as they are apart from our seeing of them. And not only do we see imcompletely, but we are mistaken about what it is that we see, as numerous cunning experiements into perception have shown. My suspicion is that the best we can hope for - and this alone is a high ideal - is not seeing things as they are in the sense of some kind of ultimate grasp of things in themselves, but recognising how deeply conditioned what we see actually is. Seeing things under the sign of conditionality, if you like: this, perhaps, is one way of reading the idea of "seeing things as they are". To recognise the limitations of our seeing is not to be rid of the limitations - but it may be to be free of them, which is a very different matter.
The second thought is to do with this business of the imagination. I suspect that we're talking at cross purposes here to some extent, as I simply don't know what this idea of "seeing the Buddhas face to face" through the power of the imagination actually refers to. It simply makes no sense to me. How am I to understand this? There are a few options, it seems to me.
a) Pure fabrication. But this can't be what you are driving at - you talk about imagination as "pure fancy" and distinguish this from the point at which the imagination takes on a life of its own. So we can ignore this one.
b) Metaphysically - that there is somehow a "plane" upon which I can commune with these beings and to which the imagination gives me access. This seems to be implied by the claim that "If only we can open our hearts to them, they are there", and it seems suggested by some of Sangharakshita's writings: but I don't see the justification for what seems to me to be a kind of metaphysical extravagance.
c) Pragmatically or existentially - the imagination as a kind of tool for the cultivation of a particular orientation towards existence and towards those others with whom we share this world.
I'd favour c) personally, but that may of course be a question of taste. But in this view, to come back to the Arya Sangha, perhaps finding the arya in the sangha can be related to my comments on seeing things as conditioned: with a clear-eyed and appreciative response to the highly conditioned sangha of which we are a part - the more or less ordinary people - recognising that which is arya, that which in our relationship to one another is noble, and cherishing these acts, these moments, so that we might better cherish each other.
Right! Enough! I'm off to make myself some lunch!
W :-)
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Hi Will,
I think we are less at cross purposes that you seem to think. I find your option regard to imagination - "as a kind of tool for the cultivation of a particular orientation towards existence and towards those others with whom we share this world" - is more or less how I see it.
Your option which is titled Metaphysically only really works for me if you titled it Metaphorically. There are times when imagination is total fantasy, but other times when it clearly is not - but how to communicate that latter experience.
What I am exploring in using this kind of language is my connection to the Refuges. I have an experience which is very difficult to put into words. I suspect that the experience itself is not unfamiliar to you - you're an experienced practitioner. In the FWBO we tend to use the terminology of Going for Refuge, but I'm starting to find that a bit abstract so I'm mining this other more mystical sounding language to see if that fits the experience better.
I find that speaking of Going for Refuge in terms of a personal relationship fits the experience a little better, especially now that I've started meditating on White Tara. Which is not to say that I have lost site of other perspectives - it's about holding different perspectives at once, and not taking any of them to literally. So I may say that White Tara is a 'real' being who is looking out for my interests, and that I 'meet' her in meditation, but it's all poetry. Something is happening, but I could not insist on one set of words to describe it - I'm painting word pictures and having fun with it :)
Saturday, July 29, 2006