The delusion of believing in gurus and other gems from Joan Tollifson

In my daily morning reading, I bounce back and forth between books about science and books about spirituality/philosophy, because consuming too much of either is less pleasant for me than a balanced diet.

I've been enjoying several of Joan Tollifson's books for my spiritual/philosophical reading. She's become my favorite contemporary writer on Zen, Buddhism, nonduality, meditation, and such. I don't agree with everything she says. Which isn't surprising, since I don't agree with everything I say. 

For example, Tollifson considers awareness to be the Key Thing. (The quotes in this post are from Painting the Sidewalk with Water: Talks and Dialogues About Non-Duality.)

Awareness has no goals, no strategies. It seeks nothing and goes nowhere. It simply illuminates what is. Awareness is our True Nature -- the groundless ground that is always Here/Now.

I don't really disagree with this sentiment, but I wouldn't say awareness is our true nature. To me it is simply how we perceive reality. Without consciousness, reality doesn't exist for us. (I consider awareness and consciousness to be the same thing.)

I doubt that awareness is a thing, though, notwithstanding that last sentence. It's how we know things, without being a thing itself. So in that sense, I guess you could say it is indeed our true nature, since absent awareness, we'd have no nature at all. At least, to ourselves.

When she talks about dogmatic religiosity and gurus, on the other hand, I'm essentially 100% on board with what Tollifson says. Today I read this right-on passage about gurus.

There is a great deal of spiritual mythology about enlightened people who are imagined to be totally beyond ego.

I am not saying that there are not some remarkably clear, very awake people, but they all have poop chutes, as a friend of mind once astutely pointed out, and all too often these gurus who are supposedly so fully enlightened are also molesting young girls or embezzling money or drinking themselves to death or sending out hit men to kill or terrorize ex-devotees, and of course, the faithful devotees manage to convince themselves that all such behavior is either untrue or else it's some form of "crazy wisdom" that the guru is doing deliberately as some kind of teaching.

But really, what difference does it make who has more egoic moments or fewer egoic moments -- who cares about this? It's the phantom me again. All we can work with is what is actually arising right now. What good does it do to worry about how enlightened or deluded someone else is?

Given the title of my previous blog post, "Science says we are all vibrations in the same invisible oceans," a quote from a noted particle physicist, I was struck by this response Tollifson gave to someone who asked her if there really was a difference "between all of us and Ramana Maharshi, that we are all as deeply realized as he was."

I'm pointing out that this question is a form of suffering, rooted in delusion. It assumes that Ramana and you are separate, bounded entities, rather than different waves in a single fluid ocean. Both waves are equally water, equally ocean. It was to this wholeness, this emptiness, this nondual reality that Ramana was always pointing. No one owns wholeness. Wholeness appears as everything, including me and you and Ramana.

Lastly, I like Tollifson's expansive view of meditation. I used to narrowly define meditation as concentration upon a single object. But that's just one form of meditation. There are countless, according to Tollifsion, since awareness and meditation are synonymous to her.

True meditation as I mean it is simply awareness... Instead of our habitual attempt to get what we want or to get rid of what we don't like, meditation is an invitation to not move toward anything or away from anything, but simply to discover what actually is -- even if it's something we find unpleasant or painful or something we think is "not very spiritual."

Instead of trying to get away from it and get to something better, what if instead there is complete openness to what is? Openness is the heart of true meditation. This isn't some grueling task I'm talking about. It's the opposite of a task. It's not doing anything at all. It's not seeking a result. It's what Here/Now is -- the open space of awareness beholding everything just as it is.

So I would recommend sitting quietly if this invites you, if it interests you. You don't have to be sitting, you can be lying down -- sitting is not the essence of it. And you certainly don't need to in any special posture. You can be in a recliner or on a park bench or on an airplane or anywhere at all. You can move when you feel like it -- you don't need to be motionless, rigid, or bolt upright.

There is a natural stillness that occurs by itself, and a naturally open, relaxed and grounded posture that the body finds. There are no special hand positions. You don't have to close your eyes or open them or keep them half closed or anything in particular.

This isn't about forcing your mind to stop thinking and focus instead on your breathing. It isn't about visualizing deities or repeating a mantra. It's nothing more or less than being silently present, doing nothing other than being here.

And if this attracts you, as it does me, then I encourage you to take time and make space to be still, to do nothing, to simply be aware, to explore and enjoy the present moment, exactly as it is.

Comments

[Ron E.]

J. Krishnamurti spoke consciousness is its contents and awareness as purely being a moment of observing without evaluating. According to J. K., our fears, anxieties, thoughts, pleasures and constant efforts of bettering etc. etc., comprise the content of human consciousness. Thus, our seeing or listening, or any action primarily comes from the contents of consciousness and awareness can come only when we vacate the consciousness with its content.

Primarily, it's necessary to recognise what he means by the 'contents of consciousness'. Where we often see consciousness as something external to us, 'contents' is simply the information that is the mind. The mind being full of knowledge effectively ensuring we experience only via its 'store' of information. Neuroscience tells us that such memory (retrieving information) is constructed in the brain from billions of neurons.

I also have some sympathy with Sri Nisargadatta’s take on awareness and consciousness: - “Awareness is primordial; it is the original state, beginning-less, endless, uncaused, unsupported, without parts, without change. Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a state of duality. There can be no consciousness without awareness, but there can be awareness without consciousness, as in deep sleep. Awareness is absolute, consciousness is relative to its content; consciousness is always of something”.

Is there then a distinction between consciousness and awareness? Could it be that what we call awareness is a quality inherent in every living cell which is felt by the whole organism and 'recognised by a brain? I wouldn't go as far as to embrace panpsychism but could non-sentient life forms (plants etc.) and even inorganic matter have something akin to awareness?

Perhaps awareness is the same as the Buddhist emptiness. The buddha taught that your true nature is emptiness and when this true nature is realized, the divine states of loving-kindness, compassion, em-pathetic joy, and equanimity emerge.

Does the Buddhas message above point to a mind that is empty of conscious content, revealing the true nature of being just awareness? I can see that the contents (our conditioning) of consciousness can prevent loving-kindness, compassion, empathetic joy and equanimity – such contents being the building blocks of the separative self structure.

[sant64]

Ever watched the TV series "The Good Doctor"? I think Dr. Shaun Murphy is what a modern-day Ramana Maharshi would be like. He even sort of looks like Ramana.

Kindly in an obligatory way, but completely detached from emotion and empathy, and also apparently bereft of sensuality.

Leading me to wonder, what is the difference between Advaita and autism.

[None name]

, without a teacher you cannot learn
People, without a perfect master
enlightenment no, master perfect is he who is perfect and needs no inspection , it's easy just as easy as seeing sun in morning,

Meeting him trails behind our luck ,which on all it depends,

[Tim Rimmer]

Hey Ron
Cool post. I enjoy reading what you write. I find your words generally practical, pragmatic and informed without shutting the ‘door’ so to speak, evidenced by your reference to two of my all time favourites when it comes to this discussion of consciousness and awareness: Jiddu Krishnamurti and Sri Nisargadatta. These days I see it as they describe it. Add in Tollifson (who cites both of them in her list) and one could argue they’re all more or less on the same page. I even recall (hopefully accurately), Rupert Spira saying that whilst he was under anaesthetic, there was loss of consciousness but no loss of awareness….
What remains interesting is where Sant Mat fits with all this. Is the shabd the sound of ‘consciousness’? I also recall in ‘I am That’ Nisargadatta talks of the ‘soundless sound’, though I can’t remember the context. Further, and as far as I can tell none of these dudes rarely, if not at all, mention the Third Eye and its importance, please correct me if they do/have. What I’m getting at here is to ask the question again - is Sant Mat some sort of spiritual outlier, that takes folks on a different trip?
Back to consciousness - I was thinking about Descartes famous dictum the other day - ‘I think therefor I am’, maybe he’s not telling the whole story. It could be reworded to say ‘I am, therefor I think’ which puts existence/being (the essence of awareness?) as primary, and consciousness after the fact, aligned with activity of the body/mind. This is one way to look at it.

[Jim]

"God/Jesus= imagination which is implanted(crucified) in the skull(Golgotha) of every human."
-Neville Goddard

[Ron E.]

Hi Tim. You must be as old as I am to remember J.K. and Nissrgadata. I'm not familiar with Sant Mat, more familiar with the Chan/Zen way of approaching consciousness, self etc. and throw in a bit of the Sufi way. More or less anything along the lines of the non-duallity brigade.

[s*]

Yes my sort of meditation too..in this period of time.
Sometimes one can use some mantra in fact to come to this ´still place´ Awareness..
(only when the mind is not quiet..)
Just being still..is <3
Sometimes I tell myself ´Everything is exactely how it IS´
´Isness¨

[William J]

Hi Brian

How bout a phrase from Alan Watts, “Gurus pick your pocket and then sell you your wallet”.

Regards