Note: Throughout this essay, & in Ven. Nigel's writings generally,
words such as "Existence" "Karma" "Desire" "Ignorance" & so on, are
more often than not capitalised. The reason for this is that these
words indicate signal concepts in Buddhist psychology, & are not simply
employed as adjectives per se. Additionally, all spellings are in
UK English.
Put briefly, the cause of suffering is Ignorance. The word isn't
being used here simply in the context of not being in factual knowledge
of a given subject, as in the statement: "I don't know anything about
mountain climbing". The word Ignorance in this context denotes a fundamental
unawareness of the way things actually exist, as opposed to
the way we habitually suppose they exist. We might tend to
regard Ignorance in a way similar to that of a child's balloon; one
day a pin appears, the balloon gets popped, & forever afterwards,
we live in a state of blissful enlightenment. Since the end of the
Second World War countless thousands of people, particularly from
the West, have flocked to the feet of various individuals who have
been identified as "Balloon-Poppers". People whom it is believed carry
a set of these magic pins around in a special briefcase. In any event,
there are a number of these high-profile personalities walking the
Earth who are considered 'pure', 'holy', above sin or reproach, &
who harbour the will & the ability to perform these balloon-popping
miracles - superhumans, in fact. There is, in my view, something gravely
erroneous in regarding so-called teachers in such a light. If spiritual
teachings are essentially 'teachings of transformation' then these
teachings themselves arise, moment by moment, in those who are in
the process of the same transformation. A famous quotation from Santarakshita,
the 8th century Abbot of Nalanda University runs: "The essence of
reality is movement".
If we are waiting for the arrival of someone who is 'pure' by virtue
of always having been so then we will wait forever, & will probably
miss out on meeting a few useful teachers in the process. In traditional
terms, the choice the Bodhisattva makes at the point where Nirvana
is attained is to turn back - to continue to dwell in Samsara for
the sake of all beings, to assist them in freeing themselves from
their own enslaving Ignorance. It is this choice that defines
the Bodhisattva. It means that the Bodhisattva has also been the way
of Ignorance, has also had to deal with the same limiting factors
that we all have to deal with. If they hadn't, how would anything
they have to say or demonstrate to us have any use, any relevance?
Any process through which we are passing is the same process through
which the Bodhisattva has passed, & is continuing to pass. The Bodhisattva
is grounded in the comprehension of things as they truly appear;
in this respect there is something 'profound' in their understanding,
& yet something perfectly natural at the same time. For the Bodhisattva
things are as they are; there are no separations, no divisions, no
distinctions between that which is profound & that which is mundane.
Bodhisattvas, despite the rather grand title, are therefore essentially
ordinary beings, part of everything just as it is; they haven't
floated down from heaven, or been hatched from the Cosmic Egg.
I remember talking to a friend years ago, an elderly man who was
a member of the British Buddhist Society, at that time still chaired
by Christmas Humphreys. Every year this organisation used to hold
their Summer School in a large country house called "High Leigh" in
Hoddesdon, England. One particular year, they were to be visited by
a Tibetan Lama who was considered a very high being; some even claimed
that he was in fact enlightened, that he had made that great leap
to the "other shore". Towards the end of the year, I saw my friend
again, & asked him about the High Lama. My friend replied: "Well,
I don't know, this chap was supposed to be enlightened, but frankly
I found him to be a very nasty, bad-tempered little man!" My friend's
reaction begs a question: Should 'enlightened' people necessarily
fulfill the expectations we have of them? What do we think the word
means anyway? Surely, if we were in a position to be able to
absolutely define the term, then we would also be enlightened, & such
evaluations would be meaningless anyway. Is it possible for a "bad
tempered, nasty little man" to be enlightened? Does it really matter?
Why do we waste so much time trying to fit other people into the convenient
perceptual moulds we've made for them? Is it so that we will sleep
better at night?
All the tension & anxiety that we generate around the presence of
others is simply the endless manufacturing of our own Ignorance, our
own constant confusion. It's very difficult to realise that the irritation
we feel about others is in fact the irritation that we suffer for
ourselves. We suffer in our own Ignorance - it's Suffering's cause
& perpetuator - the Second Noble Truth. Failing to directly perceive
Suffering's cause, we continue through life 'awarding' this distinction
to innumerous people & situations: "SHE'S the one to blame!" - "If
I hadn't come on this damned trip, THIS wouldn't have happened!" -
"If I hadn't got this wretched cat, my furniture wouldn't be all scratched
now!" Ignorance being actively present means that perception is quickly
followed by judgement, & so rapidly do these activities combine that
they are perceived as one event, the 'view' itself. The distorted
view isn't understood, & it follows that no matter what we do, whoever
we meet or whatever situation we find ourselves in, the view is always
distorted. Through Ignorance, Suffering is a constant feature of our
living experience.
Suppose we meet someone who HAS overcome this distortion, has 'seen
through the veil' - how should we react? What would it mean? Perhaps
the important thing to bear in mind is that no matter WHO this person
is, no matter what we might have heard about them beforehand, all
that anyone is capable of mastering is this basic distortion
that we all suffer from; they are not magicians, nor are they
saviours. At the least, they are interesting examples of what is possible;
at the most, very valuable teachers. This person might be called a
'master' - might be introduced to us as such, which is to say that
a number of people agree that this individual is manifesting a particular
degree of self-mastery in every aspect of their lives, seem capable
of penetrating the minds of others, someone whose energy seems singularly
focused & supportive. There is, however, more to it than that.
If Santarakshita is correct, that "The essence of reality is movement"
- then we must bear in mind that the master's 'mastery' will be a
constantly arising thing, evident in each moment. It's a mistake
to see 'mastery' as some glittering palace which someone has finally
arrived at, never having to lift another finger. It is equally mistaken
to perceive a master as a ship, who somehow sails inviolably through
life. Perfection is a practice in every moment, not a crystal
city at the end of a rainbow. I once heard an amusing story about
a famous guru, now dead, who at the height of his fame counted thousands
of disciples world-wide, & whose organisation commanded millions of
dollars. Apparently he once informed his disciples that he never slept
as others sleep, but abided at another level of consciousness for
a few hours before returning to a more mundane level. One warm Indian
mid-morning, in the quiet of the ashram, the master sat in meditation
with a large group of disciples. His head was seen to fall slowly
onto his chest, when a gentle snoring was heard. The master awoke
with a start, & resumed his meditation. At the end of the session,
the assembled company was charged NOT to mention the incident to anybody
outside the group. Of course, at least one person did, otherwise I
wouldn't know the story!
This incident during meditation upset & confused a lot of the disciples.
Why? Why should these people have been so disturbed by what they witnessed?
Were they confused because the master's behaviour contradicted something
the master had previously claimed about sleeping, or because what
they witnessed contradicted an image of the master THEY wanted, or
needed to believe in? It's another case of somebody not fitting into
a neatly-prepared box, of a crowd of people getting in a twist because
somebody dropped a bomb on their comfort-zone. But what of these bad-tempered
lamas & sleeping gurus? Aren't the disciples entitled to be upset
& confused? Haven't they the right to say whether or not the actual
behaviour of a master accords with what they have been led to expect?
Whatever we think, however we choose to react in response to such
apparent contradictions, we should remember that "The essence of reality
is movement". Nothing is solid, nothing is motionless; we must be
ready to let go - of anything, anytime. Whenever we sense suffering
arising, the focus should be upon the causes of the Suffering we perceive.
Is it about somebody or some-thing 'out there'? Seeking out the cause
within is the antidote. It's futile to award the cause of OUR
Suffering to an externalised subject that neither feels it nor is
conscious of it.
Taking notice of what pain tells us might be inconvenient, not in
accord with the 'great plan' we set up for ourselves. Acting directly
& without fuss in the light of genuine understanding might involve
abandoning cherished ideas, might cause big upheavals. If I have travelled
several thousand miles in extreme discomfort & spent a great deal
of money on getting myself into a position where I'm sitting at the
feet of the guru of my dreams, & then discover wide discrepancies
between the mode of his teaching & the pattern of his behaviour -
what am I to think? Perhaps this man's a charlatan, & it's time to
get out before I get hurt. On the other hand, perhaps it's all a subtle
teaching, designed to break down the barriers of my self-generated
expectations & projections. Or perhaps it's time to start developing
a better understanding of the nature of confusion as it arises. The
kinds of situations I have described will ALWAYS arise, & have nothing
whatever to do with knowing one thing over against another, being
in one place rather than another. It's more to do with dropping the
whole concept of 'knowing' altogether. Whether it's what we think
we know, or the knowledge we accredit to others, it makes no difference.
What can we REALLY know? Is there any way of fixing knowledge? Can
we turn it into a predictable event? Is truth eternal, or merely contextual?
If everything is forever limited to ideas, then like all other phenomena,
those ideas will change - constantly. To deny this is to express Ignorance,
which is the nature & cause of our Suffering.
