Short Essays

• Introduction

Life is complex and confusing. We are constantly assessing and re-assessing everything, looking for solutions. The Path of the Dhamma as a journey to a goal can look like it is a simple answer to that need. In our longing for simplicity we can be tempted to think that we in some sense are going to travel that Path in some sense, and arrive relatively unscathed. We can also instinctively believe that we ought to understand both the Goal and the Path in terms of what we are now.

The Buddha only promised that he could bring an end to dukkha – not that anything we currently hold dear might survive that process. Vipassana involves a transformation of both the ‘we’ and the ‘what we must do’; a thorough re-configuration of our relationship to karmic activity in order to arrive at the goal. A simplistic approach to the Dhamma as a Path might leave us scratching our heads as the next day dawns.

 

• Multi-dimensional practice

I have looked at the fundamental wrong view of Religious Universalism, and the ‘Everything is Practice=Nothing is Practice’ view that commonly arises in dependence upon it. As a rejection of a ritualistic or mechanical approach to practice it is quite extreme and mistaken, going as it does from a literalism about effects to a blinded holding to emptiness. I have argued previously how this view frequently lives alongside a common but mistaken re-casting of Pratitya Samuttpada [PS] in terms of twentieth-century scientific notions of causality, when PS is in fact fundamentally different. I have offered instead a model of consequentiality that might be familiar from the statistical (and not causal) approach to the half-lives of radioactive substances, which restores the value and particularity of Buddhist practices.

The Buddha often approaches the challenges of transformation on many fronts at once. These fronts will often cut across body, speech and mind – either explicitly as in the Eight-fold Path, or implicitly, as in the Five Spiritual Faculties. It is not neat and tidy, and there are not any magic keys to be turned just once. You may have realised that WE are not neat and tidy beings either.

Not only this – but practice is often layered, with the layers not being equal in their scope or significance. The elements of the three-fold Path of ethics, meditation and wisdom are broadly sequential, as are those in Listening, Reflecting and Meditating. Ethics is not enough by itself, and has a different scope to meditation, for which it provides a stable basis. If you do not act skilfully, the ensuing angst makes it difficult to have a steady enough mind to investigate the actor. The attempt to turn the Path into ethics-only, or even mindfulness-only, confuses scope with use. For example, we can in principle be mindful of many things – but the use of wisdom is to pinpoint, for the purposes of awakening, what it is most useful to be mindful OF. We can apply ethics to almost anything, but that will not awaken us, nor does our use of ethics need to be that grand. Meditation shows us when our ethical practice is adequate for the purposes of awakening. Interestingly, the correct use is not shown from within the layer, but from the one beyond it.

So we have this picture of useful consequentiality, in which we proceed on a number of fronts at once, and within which we shift gears between layers of practice which do not necessarily correspond or overlap i.e. they have different scopes and uses. Add in the granular notion of lifestyle as explored in a previous post, and we have a useful and organic picture of how we can practice as Buddhists.

 

• Why is this multi-practice required?

Untidy as it is, we had best proceed thus because it is based in the reality of the human personality in ignorance. As an approach it protects against certain risks, but it is also necessary of itself. I shall explore these two aspects in tandem.

Human beings tend to be impatient and lazy, which makes them also rubbish at transitions, during which they become twitchy and unmindful. The quick fix and the short cut, and all that. If we can simplify things down to one view or approach, and make that a relatively effortless one, most people will likely be all over it. We tend to be one-legged and to simplify, to a fault. It then becomes very hard to see the limitations of what we are doing, as we don’t know what we don’t know (or even THAT we don’t know), because we have given ourselves a very limited schema for assessing what our deficit(s) might be.

 

• The consequences of anatta

Even if we are only managing it as a working view, anatta implies that we are not a single unitary entity, and therefore our feeling that we are unitary needs to be questioned. The Buddha says that we can be more accurately described as a dynamic bundle of six sense-bases, or more statically as five grasping skandhas of grasping. All of these are inter-dependent elements which come and go, and none of them is fundamental. Our emotional lives, our thought-constructs, our mortal physicality, and so on, are bundled together – so many different modalities in one. The multi-modal practice of the Dharma not only addresses this, but encourages us to unify these different limbs or expressions of the personality. Clinging, for example, has fairly obvious emotional aspects, but deep roots too in the somatic, and connects too with our mortality. It is much conditioned by our history, and is generally protective of the view of continuous self in its nature. So it needs addressing in all these dimensions, and not just in one of them.

A substantial risk if we only address an issue in one way is that our ignorance hides out safely in all the others. I would say that the likelihood of this is 100%. You have to appreciate the parallels and equivalences across the different modes of the personality to know whether something has really changed. The self of ignorance is a shape-shifter, and will make a home of any basis offered or left unexamined, and even manage to trumpet it as progress. You have to do lots of ‘contrast & compare’ to become skilled at assessing progress, and meanwhile a mentor is essential in this. They can see for example that you are over-dependent on cognition, as they no longer take this as a basis for realisation, and know that it is not fundamental.

 

• Portrait & Landscape

The skill and necessity of triangulation is very helpful and enables surer progress, whilst those who want a simple fence to jump will struggle to do so on their one leg. The former approach bears in mind the reality of anatta in the personality, and aims at relinquishing clinging everywhere. The latter becomes increasingly artificial and constricting, even if it is initially more attractive and communicable.

A way of describing this process of triangulation is by means of the simile of shifting between Portrait and Landscape modes on your camera. In portrait mode you are close up, with much excluded by your particular focus. In landscape mode, you have your most hands-off and panoramic view of the whole of the personality process (or at least, what you can manage to this point).

If you have portrait view only of anxious self-clinging, you may well become wrapped up and unmindful, lost in signs. If alternatively landscape view is well-established, you may naturally focus in on particular aspects of experience as-and-when, BUT the sampajañña context is NOT lost, and wisdom is obtained thereby. Landscape view doesn’t offer the everyday benefits and attractions of portrait view, though it can be far more healing and blissful and stable than anything worldly.

When mindfulness loses Landscape, it tends to decay into karmically-driven purposive attention. However when Landscape is the constant background, there are periods of looking closely which do not decay in this way. Focus (i.e. Portrait) risks a decay into unmindful clinging, though it can initially give some continuity to dispersed or lost mindfulness. Awareness is, you might say, panoramic by nature, and profoundly beneficial for the cultivation of non-clinging.

As an example in practice, imagine meeting an unpleasant emotion in meditation. It might be unacceptable to your self-view and be turned away from, or not even really acknowledged in the first place. But if you have Landscape view, you won’t be able to hide out somewhere else for long, and will turn towards. Out of this sensation might be arising a feeling of worthlessness. In landscape you ask ‘Is that really true, or is this feeling of worthlessness just an active defence against an unwanted sensation?’ and then turn towards, WITHOUT LOSING PERSPECTIVE. You can see the mechanism, the view ‘I am worthless’ protecting you from feeling the unpleasant sensations ‘beneath’ it. Shifting your ground in this way enables you the relief of feeling through and releasing the energy held in those long-ignored sensations, which were functioning as a felt but ignored kernel of self-hood. More energy and less clinging are the resultant of this practice.

 

• multi-modal softness

If you took a unipolar approach to a feeling of worthlessness, you might try to find reasons why you weren’t really worthless, or alternatively try to pretend that the feeling wasn’t relevant or didn’t matter. These strategies may have some limited success – but the fact that we can recognise that these strategies often don’t work tends to prove my point about the necessity of operating on multiple fronts. It is in fact quite difficult to assess what you know, or what you believe, or what you feel, at any time. It is a portrait activity, on the whole, to try to do so, and subject to the limitations of that. These things arise conditionally for a long time, and their momentary expressions as views and feelings are often no more than the tips of icebergs. They are much more likely to be accurate when assessed with hindsight.

Rather than just having correct cognitions about everything, for example, we should take into account factors from many modalities – how we behave, what we are pre-occupied with, how we are in a crisis, how we are changing broadly, what our life is felt to be for, how we are about death, who or what we cling to, and what we really have faith in.

 

• mountains, molehills and desert islands

The Fetters, the ties which bind one to samsara, give an impression of one’s changing concerns along the Path. This Path is again not flat or linear, and again does not consist of one universal modality (least of all views and cognition). Its end cannot be seen at the beginning, because of what is untransformed in the realm of the ‘not yet seen’, which is literally blocking your view, though you cannot appreciate that just yet.

What this means is that the molehill in front of you looks like the total journey, but is merely all you can see next. Only once it is climbed can you see the nature of the landscape beyond it. You then need a different vehicle and equipment to move forward over the new terrain. This is not going to be cognitive, and will increasingly require meditation. Later fetters require a thorough exploration of your mind’s possibilities, and so obviously cannot be done ‘in the abstract’.

Vipassana unlike cognition cannot be done ‘in advance’ or ‘in one go’ because you simply don’t have the equipment to know what it is you do not know, and so cannot appreciate the significance of the many other layers of the personality. To say that the personality is all susceptible to cognition is to block your own exit. A lot of it isn’t susceptible (most of it), and does not speak in or respond to that language. The risk in so proceeding is of major rationalisation and compartmentalisation, meanwhile making of one’s practice a nice neat desert-island for the photo-album.

I : Two confusions

• The Ecumenical Approach

An important and defining characteristic of Triratna is that we do not adhere to a single historical tradition of Buddhist practice (though it could be argued we are nevertheless heavily weighted towards the Tibetan – but never mind that right now). This characteristic arose out of Sangharakshita’s formative insight into the Historical Perspective as it applied to Buddhist praxis through the Ages. Traditions in the more distant past have been so keen to define themselves uniquely for what were often contemporary reasons, that they could lose sight of what was common between them and their forbears, or their contemporaneous colleagues in other parts of the globe. If you read Hakuin, for example, you can see this all at play – cultural and political concerns mixed in with a somewhat venomous approach to those who dared to pollute the Dharma with other views and practices. Sangharakshita thought that it was important, as much as possible, to see these common elements across traditions – even between those that might have originally been dismissive of each other, or across traditions that were using what were on the face of it incompatible notions. This is a unique aspect of Triratna – but, it seems to me, also something of an Achilles’ heel.

Seeing what is important and common to the traditions is going to be undertaken by an individual who, if they are not fully Enlightened, is liable to introduce their own limitations and bias, by virtue of still being susceptible to ignorance. For example, Sangharakshita’s weakness in the area of meditation is generally apparent; his blind-spot with regard to nirōdha is even more particular and crucial (and this is not to speak of the sexual misbehaviour disaster, and its confusions). So, we have an Order that is weak on meditation’s nature and significance, and tries to do too much with the developmental approach alone (i.e. with bhāvana). Shenpen Hookham and her disciples see ‘us’ in this way, as far as the comments I have pieced together over the years seem to indicate.

All these concerns aside – this approach in principle is NOT the same as your average Order-member taking the views and practices of non-Buddhist and non-mainstream practitioners, and feeling justified in treating them as parallel paths to the same awakening. THAT approach comes out of Religious Universalism, and is not the same as an historically informed comparison between living and effective Buddhist traditions by someone truly qualified. It would be a soft-headed ecumenicalism that was open to non-Buddhist ideas on the grounds of this principle, though it seems to me this is what has in fact happened in Triratna.

• The significance of Lifestyle
Another way in which Religious Universalism has infected our discourse is in the discussion of the Primacy of Going for Refuge. Out of his long-running disagreement with monastic formalism, Sangharakshita coined the phrase ‘commitment is primary, lifestyle secondary’. This was initially meant to accommodate those who had families or care-giver responsibilities and couldn’t go on long ordination retreats, for example. ‘Lifestyle’ was identified with the three C’s of Centre, Community and Co-op, which were the kernel of the New Society, and it was promoted as something of an ideal way to live. Even now, when I mention the word, Order-members can still think that that is what the term ‘lifestyle’ refers to, so it has clearly become quite formalised. When you read Sangharakshita about this principle, he talks in terms of a persistent effort to bring your life’s activities more and more in accord with your commitment, as an ongoing and organic process. Perhaps because we got wrapped up in a divisive debate around the 3 C’s, we never really explored the wider issue of lifestyle in a useful way, and so didn’t develop a granular and progressive notion of how this accord that Sangharakshita recommends might have been brought about. We could, for example, have looked at issues of solitude in our lives; our relationship to Carer’s Disease (the habit of assessing the worth and meaning of your life in terms of your fulfilment of the usually very ordinary self-oriented needs of others); the necessity of daily reflections on mortality and the faults of samsara; issues of guilt-induced and group-driven busy-ness; the centrality of establishing an actual relationship with a mentor; and so on. Many of these things are independent of one’s relationship to the Three C’s, or to family. In the end, lifestyle is no more than practice itself, and without practice there is no effective or even apparent commitment. The nominal separation of lifestyle and commitment in Sangharakshita’s idea is only there to make a point – they are not literally separable.

Here too over time, Religious Universalism has substantially affected how we look at this guiding principle. We have perhaps separated out in our minds a notion of a meaningful Pure Commitment, of Going for Refuge, from what we are doing in and with our lives. Not only is it then difficult to discuss Going for Refuge meaningfully, but it is somewhat taboo to discuss the relative values of lifestyles either. I would generally now feel about as comfortable discussing peoples’ lifestyles as I would their sex-lives (=completely not comfortable and not interested, by the way! ). Perhaps too because of the clumsiness of past attempts, lifestyle issues are now pretty much ignored, and we have returned to a very respectful and democratic distance from each other. This makes it difficult to usefully discuss Going for Refuge, as there is no longer an established practical commonality, leaving discussion of one’s commitment largely neutered in the realm of verbal assertions alone. We used to say that Triratna was Neither Monastic nor Lay. Ironically, we have turned out to be far more Lay and unreconstructed than most other Buddhist organisations.

II : The main issues

• A better relationship with lifestyle
Clearly you cannot draw a straight causative line between someone’s lifestyle and their degree of spiritual development or their speed of progress. We would have almost nothing to talk about if spiritual development was this simple and this linear. The misapplication of simple quasi-scientific notions of causality in relation to the Spiral Path has in fact (I’m rather embarrassed to say) been part of why some Direct Pointing [DP] people are trying to discount Pratitya Samutpada [PS].  Conditionality is obviously more complex than that (as the Buddha said to Ananda). Another reason why PS is being undermined by same is because Sunyata is being treated as a Reality (because it is equated with Pure or Direct Experience) and PS is downgraded relative to it to the status of a merely conceptual fabrication. This is both directly mistaken, and leads to massively mistaken conclusions. It is directly mistaken because they are both conceptual fabrications. Just some of the mistaken conclusions are what are occupying us this in this short series on Religious Universalism.

So – to return to our thread – conditionality is not so complex that essential forms of practice are not however discriminable, clear and recommendable. We had better hope so, if we don’t want to be stuck in Religious Universalism. It is just that in the realm of vipassana, exceptions prove the rules. Those who love and are long-term committed to meditation are some of the genuine leading lights of the Order. Some DP people disown it or minimise its significance. The consequences of one’s choice are major…

Certain lifestyle choices have huge statistical significance for awakening when considered generally, though other less mainstream ones are applicable individually or temporarily. Having a mentor to guide you in making such assessments would to my mind be exactly one of the lifestyle choices that makes a major difference… We need to treat, as the Buddha did, our lifestyle choices as a primary weapon against Mara in our spiritual armoury if we genuinely aspire to awakening in this life.

• The ‘Everything is Practice’ delusion
A common outcome of Religious Universalism is the Advaita-type position, an example or sketch of which follows: one proclaims that one is in a state of continuous Pure Awareness or Direct Experience, and is as it were looking down from one’s lofty height upon everything, ne’er falling off one’s perch. From this giddy height one sees everything as the same (as sunya or ‘empty’, of course), and there is no distinction to be made in the ‘effectiveness’ of one’s practice whatever one is doing. The practice seems to be simply maintaining one’s grip on one’s perch, as far as I can see. You notice that even when people do fall off their perches, they speak as though in principle they haven’t, or cannot or will cease to do so at some time in the hazy future – and as though getting back on one’s perch is relatively mechanical, like getting back on your bike after meeting a hole in the road that someone else put there. There are attempts made to describe this state-of-perchment (which is therefore not nibbana – and this alone should give the game away), but very little discussion of lifestyle issues, other than in a very respectful and subjective way, as in ‘this is what works for me (to get me back on the perch)’. Up on the perch, everything is Practice again, and it doesn’t actually matter what you are doing with your life, as nothing needs to change, and you are going nowhere, and there is no meaning, and meditation is irrelevant (‘though of course it’s perfectly alright if sitting-meditation’s what you choose to do…’).

But this ‘Everything is Practice’ nonsense is quite pervasive in Triratna even when the person isn’t making such lofty claims. I think that a lower-level but correspondent mistake is made when we treat mindfulness as a state from which ‘all is practice, because I am mindful’, when mindfulness is in fact progressive and has a huge range of depth. Mindfulness is going to be weaker and have minimal value when you are preoccupied and busy, or swirling with emotion, or anxious about outcomes, or rubbish at transitions, or dispersed by talking to people, and is likely to go altogether when you are caught up in signs. Knowing you are ‘caught up in signs’ is not much to write home about, and doesn’t count as mindfulness or practice in my book. Treating mindfulness at work as of similar value to meditative development is an example of this confusion which will keep people pretty much at the level they started with, and it would seem to me quite unethical to keep teaching the two as equivalent.

In the same vein of denying that Everything is Practice – states of unmindfulness and states of negative emotion, let alone of unskilful activities like ingesting alcohol, gambling or taking recreational drugs don’t count as practice, and in pretty much all circumstances would never do so. Simply having enough directed attention to be aware that these things are happening is not mindfulness, as there is no effective sampajañña. Notice also how you are feeling about me straying into the taboo area of questioning somebody’s practice and commitment by making reference to their lifestyle issues. May God protect me and my shrivelled unshriven little soul!

• The making of Claims (about mindfulness)
As I have already implied, this flat mono-value often given to mindfulness implicitly assumes much more wisdom than is in fact often possessed. We can think and speak as though there is a single reality of which we can be mindful, and use language like ‘I am mindful of X’. However, it takes a muchness of many things to appreciate the clingings and confusions of the human heart, or the roiling resistances of defensive and self-protective ignorance. To state that you know what is going on definitively in your experience is generally an exorbitant claim, especially in the immediate present. It’s not as though the correct knowledge is even to be had, sitting there waiting for you ‘externally’, if you were just clever enough, or squinted harder. The number of propositions with which I could describe what I see visually just right now are infinite, and I could express many layered points of view about what I see (‘I’? ‘see’? ‘it’?), some of which are wiser than others. Similarly, mindfulness is a growth-process and a depth-process, not a light-switch one; being mindful does not mean arriving at a single and ultimate flat Direct Experience. And then, the amazing corollary to all this is, that not being willing or able to be conclusive about what your experience is is not necessarily failing to be mindful. Hoorah!

• Using your mindfulness skilfully
Deep mindfulness gives you the wherewithal to explore experience non-karmically i.e. with less identification and interference, in an intimate and useful way. Someone who is or who grasps at being definitive about even deep meditation experience needs to become more provisional, because they will not know how they are limited by their ignorance ‘beyond’ the fuzz of their leading edge yet. They will therefore limit their own growth quite unnecessarily by deciding how things ‘finally’ are. Mindfulness brings a level of relaxation around the apparent content of experience, so that you have a better chance of seeing what is going on there. The Dharma guides you in seeing better. Meditation particularly is an opportunity to drop many layers of entanglement, which for almost everyone is going to be impossible to do during everyday functioning, as they will be volitionally active and environmentally triggered into self-hood in a multiplicity of ways. The general rule is that you aren’t going to awaken by being mindful of everyday functioning alone, as experience is going to be too compromised and too superficial – you need to meditate to awaken.

A way of summarising many of these points about the nature of mindfulness quite simply, is to ask someone who says they are mindful, ‘Mindful of what?’ Don’t put up with the assertion of mindfulness as a state, and question yourself in the same way whilst meditating. This inquiry can show the nature of what is going on quite quickly. As there is never a fixed or limited number of propositions describing what is happening, ever, you are then challenged about what and how you are experiencing – you can’t go fuzzy and passive. Anything that can be described is coloured by and expressive of your views about ordinary things and about Reality. If directed by the Dharma, if explored with a mentor, this appreciation, this mindfulness, can be progressive and useful for awakening.

• Practice Hard and Soft
The ‘Everything is Practice’ mantra may not be so distinctly DP or Advaita inspired, but instead be one or other variety of the soft intuitive sorts that thrive in Triratna like mould in a warm climate. Someone might say ‘if it tastes of freedom, it’s the Dharma’. This for example refers to Sangharakshita’s lecture ‘The Taste of Freedom’, which itself refers to the Uposatha Sutta in the Udana in which the Buddha compares the Dharma in eight ways to the Great Ocean. The sixth way is that the Buddha’s teaching tastes of freedom in the same way that the ocean tastes of salt, wherever it is met. As Sangharakshita says at some length, ‘freedom’ is a translation of vimutti, which is well beyond stream-entry on the Spiral Path. So it is not meant to be equivalent to any blithe or joyful optimism that a puthujjana might feel.

Similarly, the Kalama Sutta is often mis-used in such contexts. Setting aside whether one is really willing to consider one’s behaviour in terms of the three poisons, which is anyways a progressive appreciation within mindfulness – do we also take seriously that we are to bear in mind the advice of the wise? Do we even have in Triratna a clear sense of who is wise, or someone in our lives to whom we are relating in that way? We have something of a democratic clamour in Triratna that comes about from Ecumenicalism without Verticality, and I am not sure that we are doing too well with it. To my mind, Pure Experience and ‘Everything is Practice’ views have obscured a correct valuation of and relationship to the vital core of the Buddha’s guidance; which is quite concerning given how pervasive these views are. ‘Everything is Practice’ amounts in the end to ‘Nothing is Practice’, because the vital link to effective and individualised lifestyle changes is lost in the golden haze of trusting that one is practising all of the time already.

Even quite senior Order members can be heard to talk as though the teaching of the Buddha is largely an antiquated and superseded form of religiosity which is quite inessential to what the Dharma is about. What follows is that they can then, on that basis, feel free or even entitled to re-invent the Dharma in their own image. To some extent, they might feel encouraged in this by the ecumenical approach Sangharakshita took originally, even though that he was making relatively careful comparison between established Buddhist traditions specifically, and doing so on the basis of some actual Insight. We seem remarkably ready to decide for ourselves what is relevant and what can be discarded in the Buddha-dharma, perhaps on the basis of no Insight at all. We can go for some form of de-natured mindfulness or spirituality, or perhaps prefer instead the science of neurophysiology as a description of what the Buddha’s teaching is ‘really’ about… Anything! as long as it’s more up-to-date than that dusty old Indian stuff, that only seems to be relevant to a distant and primitive age.

I’m perhaps over-doing it, in this rather generalised portrayal of a common kind of discourse in many Buddhist circles. This kind of discourse that seems so uncontroversial to many, does though contain serious unexamined assumptions. At best, our intentions may be to present something in a contemporary way which does no harm to the teaching – this would be standard Triratna practice in principle. But we can easily import some degree of what I am calling religious universalism during such a process, and give free reign to our limited insight in so doing. This is a problem that is aggravated in Triratna by mere wet-behind-the-ears ordination being also taken as a licence to teach. Someone who teaches can feel empowered or entitled to re-present the Dharma. Assumptions imported during this activity can so de-nature the Buddha’s teaching that it becomes ineffective, or is even lost altogether whilst being quietly and gruesomely transmogrified, especially as the originator may well be unaware of the inappropriateness of what they are mating with the Dharma. And of course, there are many who, inspired by the full hybrid vigour of post-modern righteousness, are quite happy to play, as they do, at being Frankenstein.

A broad assumption common in such discourse is that the Buddha is directing us toward a state of awakening that does not have to be arrived at or understood in terms of the Buddha-dharma. Large parts of his teaching therefore would be inessential and can be detached from ‘what he was on about’ without any harm (it is believed) to the essential ‘message’. Ever since William James’ Varieties of Religious Experience, and Aldous Huxley’s Perennial Philosophy, we have been engaged in this sort of project, it seems. Such a broad assumption is often more or less explicitly under-pinned by the view that there is a Pure Reality, in relation to which any form of view, teaching and practice becomes quite secondary or even almost irrelevant – not much more in the end than a personal choice, a kind of spiritualised fashion-statement; one amongst many means to the same end. This then is what I mean by Religious Universalism.

This broad view assumes then that Pure Reality on the one hand, and the Buddha-dharma or some ‘equivalent’ on the other are in fact detachable, and this more than just conceptually. The way we often meet this in and out of Triratna at the moment is in the notion of Pure or Direct Experience (in a few years’ time we’ll get excited by something else instead – probably to do with Identity). This Pure or Direct experience is, it is assumed, Dharma-free – that is, ‘it’ can be ‘attained’ and ‘experienced’ quite apart from the Buddha-dharma. These notions of pure or direct experience are at the sharp experiential end of this broad assumption of religious universalism. If such a view were to be true, then the trappings of form and practice would indeed be quite secondary. We could pretty much ditch the Buddha and his teaching, and replace it all with something we liked more (I wonder, would it be something less challenging, perchance?). This is broadly how most post-modern Buddhists think and function. This kind of view can even be back-ported to underpin the ‘Going for Refuge is Primary, Lifestyle is Secondary’ notion, though this was not the original rationale for that idea (more of that another time).

So what does the Buddha say about such things, if he says anything? I have seen no explicit reference to pure or direct experience, though he does talk much about mindfulness and unmindfulness, prapanca and nisprapanca. He sees this mindfulness as progressive and augmentative, as is shown within the teaching-practice of the Satipatthanas. Mindfulness is a practice and not a state, and so cannot be equated with any sort of “pure experience” (as it sometimes is in universalist discourse) – the practice of mindfulness shelves to the final goal like the sea-floor deepens at the edge of the ocean.

“Just as the great ocean gradually shelves, slopes, and inclines, and there is no sudden precipice, so also in this Dhamma and Discipline there is a gradual training, a gradual course, a gradual progression, and there is no sudden penetration to final knowledge.” [Uposatha Sutta, Udana 5.5]

New experiences flower from the fading petals of the old, and deeper realisations become available on the basis of such transitions in our conditional processes. But views are pervasive, and in this saha-world of experience never cease to give way to any sort of pure experience. That is to say: if you are talking or thinking or knowing what you are doing or have a belief or an understanding or a plan, or a sketch of a plan, you are not having a pure or direct experience. Believing in pure or direct experience, or believing that you are actually having same, is just another variety of dualistic clinging to a view, another form of world-laden recognition. Pure or direct experience is thus no more than oxymoronic for a proper Buddhist. To continue to believe in and chase same is fraught with the danger of progress-blocking assumptions that get mistaken for realities.

Then, as now, Buddhists in a teaching role were no strangers to dealing with people’s lust to keep talking when they should really shut up. Sariputra calls it ‘proliferating the unproliferated’ (confer AN 4:173, the Kotthita Sutta) – allowing the language of Samsara to reify and pollute that which transcends the Samsara, thereby confusing the efforts you engage in and holding yourself back by blocking your own exit. We, like they, can be told even by Sangharakshita that the Transcendental cannot be spoken of, only realised, and that through actual bottom-numbing practice – we can pay lip-service to this, but then immediately go on to talk about it even harder. Whatever our apparent views, our speech-behaviour shows that we don’t get this, or that we regard ourselves as a special snowflake with regard to this issue, or something such. If you believe you can usefully talk about the Transcendental, you are betraying that you don’t have a clue – whether you are speaking of Your Transcendental, somebody else’s, or simply The Transcendental.

It is worth reflecting on this impulse to talk about what is beyond words, and about that which cannot be experienced. Why is it so strong, and why do we believe we can usefully do it? There are a number of cultural factors. Cognition punches above its weight in our culture, and is a way in which we can assert some control in an increasingly fragmented and unpredictable way of life. It has in many ways become our replacement for the previous culture of Faith. People are more rootless than ever before, and have a great anxiety about their place within the social fabric, and the wider scheme of things. Needing to know what is going on in order to feel safe and confident is part of managing this, since we are no longer usefully held within the wider social fabric, or (as of old) by a liberating and over-arching mythic narrative. Alongside this cognitive over-emphasis, we also seem to have a dark fascination with emotional autism – with those who seem untouched by the ordinary tormented emotionality of existence that we would so like to find a short-cut through.

So, what follows from ditching the notion that there is some Dharma-free pure experience of Reality? We should firstly take guardians of the Dharma more seriously than those who give themselves authority to draw out what they regard as fundamental to all religious traditions, or to the Dharma. This is to say, we should determine the Dharma according to the Dharma, as Sangharakshita says in his preamble to discussion of the Four Great Reliances:-

” ‘Determining the Dharma according to the Dharma’ implies not determining the Dharma in terms of that which is not the Dharma. For us in the West this means not trying to understand the Dharma – whether consciously, unconsciously or semi-consciously – in accordance with Christian beliefs, or modern secularist, humanist, rationalist, or scientific modes of thought, or ‘new age’ philosophies.  The Dharma is to be determined and understood in accordance with the Dharma.  To determine it or understand it in accordance with anything else is to falsify it, distort it, and betray it.

In the same way, Dharma worship consists of applying the Dharma according to the Dharma.  If you try to break off a bit of the Dharma, to take some Buddhist teaching and apply it according to, say, Christian ideas, it just won’t work – that is, it won’t work as the Dharma.  There is no such thing as ‘Christian Zen’, for example. The Dharma is to be applied according to the Dharma.” [Inconceivable Emancipation, p.140]

We should also be wary of these post-modern meta-Buddhists, who proclaim they do not identify themselves as Buddhists in the same way as they do not identify as women or men or historical entities, but then proceed to define what the Dharma is for us. We can be more influenced by someone’s post-modern style, by their seeming to know more or better or deeper, and thereby seeming to have what currently counts as esoteric knowledge. We need to depend instead on realisation, not on charisma – even when it is this charisma of fashionable ideas. What you open yourself to with these lesser views is a wild goose chase after a mirage, or the idolising of what is merely a particular state of consciousness which is being mistaken for ‘awakening’. Neither of these things are the nibbāna we both worship and seek; neither of these things are Dharma-worship proper.

For many, giving up an addiction to ideas and more talking is difficult, as it is a dominant realm of craving and clinging these days. Because we tend to separate the goal of practice from the means in this way, we are made uncertain of our practice, because it is now effectively a subjective choice. We can become novelty-seekers as we cast about for greener grass, and slide away from useful difficulty. The value of killing the Chimera though, is a falling away of interest in contentious discussions (whether on facebook or elsewhere) and doubts about our practice, and concomitantly realising that realisation simply has to be realised in the way the Buddha-dharma describes. Mindfulness is a skill – the skill of turning towards and seeing more deeply – and is not a state or an end-point. We can learn in full consciousness the art of letting go and not clinging, and articulate and assimilate that skill progressively in all elements of our experience and lifestyle. All talk about that skill, or merely trying to imagine its outcomes and stopping there, is like reading recipe-books and drooling over the pictures and calling that activity nourishment. When we are skilled in letting go of experience altogether, never mind whether that experience is pure or dirty or otherwise, we can verify for ourselves whether we have established the practice-skill of relinquishing craving for and clinging to this life that the Dharma uniquely proposes as the end of suffering.