-Melanie Oates, Ph.D
. . . Find the answers, ask the questions . . .
| ...with enlightenment, one eliminates suffering, which is the reaction
to pain - the psychological component of pain (and the anticipation of pain). There is a
difference between pain/discomfort, which is simply sensation, and suffering, which is a
reaction. -Melanie Oates, Ph.D |
|
| 11/12/01 The pain in the world arises from unconsciousness - ignorance - our best response is to become as conscious as possible - to create, perhaps, a consciousness "field effect" 12/8/2000 The consciousness of the cosmos is not exactly arbitrary - there is pattern in the chaos. But this does not necessarily imply that there is some cosmic battle between a force of good and a force of evil. This idea of dualistic forces is part of Zoroastrianism. However, other sophisticated spiritual traditions point out that at the level of the Absolute, there is no split between "good" and "bad" - whatever is, just is. This is the view from Zen and other Buddhist traditions. Of course, evil is real on the level of our everyday existence - but this does not necessitate a cosmic war to explain stellar phenomena. Yes, it is possible that you may be activating awareness of a past-life pattern - but this does not mean that you must act this out in this life. When one enters certain states of consciousness, the past is experienced as if it were happening now. Consider the importance of the mind-body link. If one begins to give oneself messages that death is imminent, the cells might cooperate with the plan. So, your best course to avoid this fate is to re-frame the intuitive "knowing" as a wake-up call. Examine in what ways you might be either damaging your body unecessarily, or in what ways you may sometimes be "unconscious" and thereby more accident prone. Give your cells the message that you are pro-active for your health, and that you will listen to the warning and treat your body consciously in this incarnation. Meanwhile, it is useful, spiritually, to be mindful that any of us could die at any moment. With this awareness, death becomes your "advisor", as Castaneda said. One does not waste any opportunities for consciousness, because they may not come again. 12/31/2000 Although it is likely that there were beings who reached some sort of enlightenment or illumination prior to the Buddha, the basic human pattern before that time was first triad. The Buddha, Christ, Mohammed (and perhaps Zoroaster) were avatars who collectively brought mankind to the possibility of a new level of awareness. Religious scholars call the period between the birth of Buddha and the death of Mohammed "the Axial Age" - that is, it was an axis about which the spiritual destiny of mankind turned. I recommend "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong for further reading. Also, Ken Wilber's "The Atman Project" addresses some of these issues. 1/3/2001 One's view on Jesus depends upon one's belief system. Some say that Jesus was not an avatar (that is, a conscious human incarnation of Divinity), whereas some believe that Jesus was "true God and true man". Certainly John the Baptist was not an avatar, nor did he claim to be, although he was a teacher and prophet (perhaps Jesus' teacher, in fact). Some Gnostic sects do view Mary as an avatar of Sophia, the Feminine aspect of God: Wisdom. I must note that Mohammed did not claim to be an avatar, but simply a Prophet. Buddha, of course, could be considered an avatar (or not, since in some ways, a fully realized Buddha might be beyond an avatar). Some people now believe that Sai Baba is an avatar. Krishna was an avatar of Vishnu. 1/3/2001 How can someone be beyond an avatar? An avatar is a personal incarnation of Diety. There is a level beyond anything that is personal - this is the Absolute - the Ground of Being. Is truth simply whatever you make of it? Yes and no. All "truth" is relative to the level of one's understanding and Gnosis. What is true at one level would be so misinterpreted as to be a lie at another level (and, in fact, this is what has occurred with some exoteric distortions of esoteric truths). There is Absolute Truth at the level of the Absolute, and relative truth(s) below that. 1/5/2001 It is fine if you ask questions. That is how one learns. Regarding the body, sensation, healing, etc.: When one becomes more conscious, the body, of course, does become more able to serve as a channel for healing. This does not mean that one loses sensation. In fact, awareness of sensation (without labeling it good or bad) is a part of Vipassana, one of the more effective routes to greater consciousness. As long as we are in physical bodies, we will be subject to pain, which is a natural part of the organism's self-preservation mechanism. However, with enlightenment, one eliminates suffering, which is the reaction to pain - the psychological component of pain (and the anticipation of pain). There is a difference between pain/discomfort, which is simply sensation, and suffering, which is a reaction. Of course, for most of us, perfect enlightenment and the elimination of all suffering are not yet realized - so we keep working. It is important not to discount the body, which serves as a vehicle for our enlightenment and conscious development (this sounds suspiciously like "a temple of the Holy Spirit", doesn't it?). 1/11/2001 "Remembering" is indeed the key. We get distracted by the events in our lives, and forget our true nature. The way to practice remembering is to learn to maintain some part of your attention on the totality of your own being - body, emotions, and intellect. That is, do not become completely "taken" by any event or circumstance. Consider "attention" as an arrow that points in two directions - toward the person to whom you are relating (or the task at hand) while simultaneously also "pointing" toward you. Ask me more about this when I see you in person. 1/13/2001 Yes, the multi-armed gods of Eastern pantheons are symbolic of divine "multi-tasking" arising from the compassionate desire to relieve the suffering of all sentient beings. I am not aware of any recorded higher species with many arms; primates are the highest order on this planet, and they have two legs/two arms. Porpoises and whales are also highly intelligent, and perhaps conscious, but they are also without multiple arms. Certainly, science fiction has depicted multi-armed alien species, but this is in popular sci-fi, not in the ancient myths of Earth colonization. My guess is that your experience of extra arms while doing Reiki was a paranormal event in which the spiritual symbolism of Divine compassion manifested in your consciousness while you were in a highly receptive state. You thereby became a vehicle for Divine "multi-tasking". After all, we are the hands and eyes of God, in the sense that God's will manifests through us. 1/16/2001 "The Logos is the dream" - a koan resembling "What is the difference between Buddha and a piece of shit?" (answer - "I don't know") - also - samsara is nirvana, nirvana is samsara Re: banishing ritual - why don't you try a simple cleansing first? One way - a ritual bath - put 1 handfull of seasalt, 1 handfull of baking soda, and either frankincense or rosemary oil into a very hot tub. Turn off lights, light a candle, and soak for 20-30 minutes, while you let whatever "stuff" is blocking you or bothering you come up in your awareness. The negativities will dissolve away, as if you were cleansing a crystal. When you are finished, meditate for about 15 minutes before you shower the salt off your skin. 7/23/2001 Many of the conclusions in GenIsis must be considered myth, and some are conjecture. However, "myth" is close to reality even if not historically literal. The gnosis from a "true" myth must derive from holographic, not linear, thinking - with an element of right brain awareness. Oddly, I might rate Genisis as a "3" for history and a "9" for Truth. In other words, there is surely a hidden, perhaps pagan element in the history of Jesus - Mary Magdalene was indeed more than a simple whore - and there is certainly some influence beyond simple natural selection that drives human evolution. Conscious intervention in the course of humanities' development is the Truth - but exactly Who did this is the Mystery. 3/2002 One of the most useful aspects of group Work is the necessity to deal with others. When I encounter someone whose views are different, it is interesting for me to observe my automatic reactions (which are, indeed, "real", in that these reactions are actually occurring). I endeavor to remember my intentions for personal clarity, and I avoid simply acting on the automatic reaction (while still observing it). This tactic, of course, builds a certain amount of tension (that is, energy) within me. If I do not justify the reaction or indulge it, and if I am self-aware, there is a potential to convert that tension/energy to something useful - perhaps an increase in consciousness. It is most important to be honest about these reactions, particularly to oneself, so that the impulse to justify is not engaged. 4/1/02 "Renunciation" is primarily a re- setting of personal priorities. One realizes the unsatisfactory, impermanent nature of material objects, relationships, physical appearance, and so forth, and therefore places more value on the search for Enlightenment. Material/physical goals are renounced as the main focus of one's life, and spiritual practice becomes the first priority. All of one's actions and proposed actions are evaluated according to whether or not they are obstacles to spiritual attainment. The steps persons must take to work toward their aim vary from individual to individual. For some, the distractions and pressures of ordinary life become insurmountable obstacles to progress on the path. In these cases, the person may need to "leave home" (the Buddhist term for entering monastic life) in order to find a suitable environment for practice. However, this step is not necessary or even desirable for all. For practitioners of greater capacity, the manifestations of daily life can themselves become the objects of spiritual practice. The issues of life can offer a "fulcrum" against which the practitioner can apply the "leverage" of volitional attention ("mindfulness"). This approach is followed by some Sufi schools and Fourth Way traditions; the practitioner is "in the world, but not of the world". Even in some Eastern traditions (such as Hinduism), the role of the householder is valued. For example, persons may not be admitted as a "sanyasin" (disciple) of certain teachers unless they are childless or their children are grown. The Buddha's abandonment of his family must be seen in the context of Gautama Buddha's times, social class, and greater mission. His family was supported after he left. The spouse and children of a prince would be privileged members of the royal household. Furthermore, the profound realizations that the Buddha was to accomplish in a very short time suggest to me that he had a powerful karmic force behind him. May 3, 2002 Someone in another venue posed a question: "If there is no personal self, and we are nothing but a karmic continuum, then why bother with meditation or spiritual practice?" This seemed to me to be a question worth exploring. I sent the answer printed below. What are your thoughts on this? *************************************************************** Dear , A thought on your question about "personal self" and "why bother": for someone to take as dogma that there is "no personal self" without achieving direct insight into what that really implies is to short-change the process itself. No one can know whether or not that statement is true without engaging the Work (whether that "work" is a "practice in the world", Dzog Chen, or some form of insight meditation). I asked a similar question to one of my Dzog Chen teachers, Ngakpa Chogyam, many years ago. He had been discussing the "Togal" practice, which is not engaged until the practitioner has fully realized both emptiness and compassion, and has attained the fruits of the practice of "Trekcho" ("cutting through") which dispels the illusion that there is a difference between wisdom/compassion, emptiness/form, and so forth. I asked Ngakpa, "but if one has realized the emptiness of both self and phenomena, why practice?" Ngakpa pointed to a space between the loose weave of the sweater that I was wearing, and said "because sometimes, there is something else." Perhaps there is "something else" that is revealed when the illusion of personal self is seen through, directly, rather than simply dismissed on "faith".... May 6, 2002 More notes on realizing the nature of "self": Spontaneous awakening is certainly possible, but for most people, directed Work is necessary if the spontaneous awakening is to translate into stable Realization. Usually, one gradually returns to some degree of the illusion of "self" after this type of "enlightenment experience" (Zen: "kensho"). One may then question whether that experience was real or fantasized (and I have met a number of people who fantasize that they are "enlightened"). Consequently one cannot really *Know* that the "no personal self" view is true (or even what that statement really means)unless one has persisted in the Work sufficiently to develop stable understanding. Although it is likely that a few people will be *convinced* by their experience, it is also true that the human mind is quite plastic and may simply invent an "experience" of whatever it was told to expect. We do well to question any experience as long as some trace of "personal self" remains to *have* that experience. It is always possible, as Ngakpa Chogyam points out, to attain full enlightenment right here, right now, in this moment: "enlightenment is always sparkling through". But we must be careful not to confuse an *experience* of a state with stable enlightenment. Some of the Sufi teachings distinguish between a "hal" and a "makkam"; that is, between a "state" and a "station". A hal is like a tourist visa. One visits, gains experience, and is changed in some way by that experience. A makkam is a permanent, stable realization that changes one's level of Being. May 13, 2002 The painful events of human life are still difficult, even for initiates. The difference, I think, is that an initiate begins to understand that it is the reaction to the pain that determines the extent of suffering. Unless one is a fully liberated Buddha, it is inevitable that there will be some reaction, and hence, suffering. But if, while I am suffering, I can remember (even for a moment) to relax - to accept reality just as it is, without struggling to control things (grasping for the "good stuff" and pushing away unpleasant things) - then the suffering will be less intense (even for a moment). Some of the meditation techniques that teach us to simply be "present" in the moment, without analysis or labeling phenomena, can be very useful tools in difficult circumstances. When loved ones leave our lives, such as children growing up and leaving home, we come face-to-face with one of the deeply held beliefs/illusions that lead to suffering. The ego really does believe that it can control things - if I can just "do it right" or "be good" or "be nicer" (or whatever), then things will work out the way that "I" (ego) desire. When change occurs (as it must - nothing in this life is permanent - everything is constantly "arising and passing away") then the ego/self feels that it has failed, or has been betrayed, or has been victimized, and so forth. If I can see through my illusion of control, then I may be able to relax. Then there is the possibility of authentic, appropriate response in the present moment, unobscured by clinging to the past or fearing the future. The spiritual community can be a great help in times such as this. All of us suffer; we all share the same basic desire for happiness and fear of pain. It is courageous to be vulnerable enough to ask for help (both spiritual and physical). You will be sent light and healing energy. But perhaps, if you can allow it, there are physical ways that some of us can also help out. July 11, 2002 How to explain "sacred" to a five year old? Before the age of reason, a child may not really comprehend an abstraction. So, I might stick with a very concrete explanation - instead of "sacred", I might refer to something as "special", perhaps in the way that a favorite pet or toy is special to the child. Children understand "mine", and their stuff is "special" to them. In the same way, "sacred" things are "special" to God. August 19, 2002 I would like to respond to a question posed by *** on 7/25: "If in the future I am able to quiet my thoughts, emotions, etc., it seems like all that will be left is a void, even though I am aware of 'I am'. When I consider this, I feel that empty space is all there will be after my physical death. This thought is not comforting." I agree that it is not comforting to imagine oneself becoming little more than an empty "blob of consciousness". Unless one has had an experience of pure consciousness, it is difficult to imagine what that state might be like. To address this, we might consider what "emptiness" implies. The English language is a notoriously poor vehicle for expressing subtle metaphysical concepts. The Sanskrit term "shunyata," usually translated as "emptiness" in English, does not mean "voidness". Instead, this term refers to whether or not something is a permanent, inherently self- existing entity. If a phenomenon is impermanent and/or comes into being as a result of causes and conditions, then that phenomenon is said to be "empty." Insight meditation leads one to a direct realization of the "emptiness" of one's thoughts, emotions, sensations and so forth. This eventually leads to a realization of the "emptiness" of the self and of all perceived phenomena. The meditator disidentifies with the empty self and empty phenomena, and is liberated from desire/aversion to phenomena and from the necessity of reacting to threats to the "self". This is the realization of Wisdom, and is the clearing work that results in Enlightenment in the Theravedan Buddhist tradition. Even so, this still sounds as if the true nature of reality (and therefore, all that might be left after death) is void of perception and phenomena. The Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhist teachings suggest otherwise. The sutras state: "Form is no other than Emptiness, Emptiness no other than Form". In other words, Emptiness is only one side of the equation; the other side is Form. In Dzog Chen, the tradition of "the Great Perfection" in Tibetan Buddhism, Form and Emptiness are said to be "ornaments" on Rigpa (the Primordial Awareness that is full Realization). The fully realized Buddha, therefore, is as much Form as Emptiness; the difference is in identification. The Realized meditator is not identified with any impermanent phenomena or self. What then, is left when one dies? Particularly if one is not yet realized as a Buddha? This is a matter of theology, of course, since none of us have died and returned. (Even "near-death" is just that - "NEAR-death" - not the real thing.) It seems likely that if a person's identity is caught up in body, emotion or thinking, then as these impermanent, nervous-system dependent functions dissolve at death, the "self" that the person knows will also eventually dissolve. Perhaps the Karmic momentum of the person will continue, and another person will be incarnated from this. However, if a consciousness that is not identified with these impermanent phenomena has been crystallized, then there may be some sense of self or "I am" that survives. What will it perceive? Well, it will perceive whatever is there, as Form; but without attachment to a limited identity (thought, emotion, body) it may also be able to "see through the illusion" and perceive the Emptiness that is Form. The "Tibetan Book of the Dead" outlines a symbolic jouney of the deceased person, and the possibility of full Liberation by realizing that whatever arises is nothing more, or less, than Mind. Finally, the "void" state that seems to appear when one quiets the thoughts and emotions is not the final state of realization, nor is it the ultimate Nature of Mind or Primordial Awareness (which is the true and unborn Self). There is "something else", as Ngakpa Chogyam said. As one's practice deepens, the Presence of this "something else", that we might term "the Presence of Awareness," becomes more accessible. This is the Unborn and Undying that was, is, and will be, beyond death. |