Doubt and the Awakening of Faith

(This was written about twleve years ago. It is now useless. I was still in the end-throws of doubt about the whole spiritual process. This is included for a friend who I know will look at this. Some others who still doubt may find their own mental space mirrored and perhaps see a way out.)

First-hand accounts of mystical and spiritual experiences have always intrigued me. Before I found Zen, I consumed biographies and autobiographies of saints and sages, first to learn what kind of experiences they had, and then what understanding they gained from those experiences. I was amazed by Yogananda’s autobiography and by stories of RAM Krishna’s experiences. These personal accounts seemed closer to my heart than abstract discourses about the nature of the awakened mind, the world, or of Consciousness. I was driven to understand these ideas through firsthand accounts of those who purportedly attained God or enlightenment.

In the Zen tradition, there are hundreds of stories about how monks related to their teachers, or about their travels, or the incidents that led to a great awakening, but nothing about what that experience was like, or whether you or I would consider that experience an awakening. These narratives skip the subjective experiences, preferring detailed accounts of the interactions between master and student. Self-expressions of what the awakening experience was like are totally lacking, as are articulations of how spiritual knowledge flowed from subjectivity.

Therefore, there is no body of writings nor criteria to judge claims of awakening. There are only stories or koans of Zen masters through the centuries and their awakening experiences or more advanced commentaries. Of course, there is so much cultural stuff thrown in that a Westerner has no idea of what these interactions mean.

Basically, in first rank koans, one day, these ordinary monks are wandering hither and yon without a clue; the next day, after being hit in the head by a Zen master or having a finger cut off, they eloquently and authoritatively dialogue about the nature of Reality, the Man of No Rank, still without a clue about what he is saying, nor giving us a clue as to how they got there. Those who study koans and read discourses of various Zen masters, usually are mystified. I certainly was. No one would tread such a path unless there was some level of faith. Someone, somewhere must have what I seek and understand the meanings of these koans.

The situations that generated the koans 800 or 1,000 years ago, were original, spontaneous and intuitive, and were associated with a monk learning one aspect of Zen knowledge, which was not a written philosophy. It was a way of meditation and attaining enlightenment without words.

These became codified into a system of koans, a body of knowledge of the Zen way, the understanding of which entitled one to receive “Inka” from master in a lineage, which meant he was a successor. Learning the answers to koans in the rote way they generally are taught, only begets a scholar of shouting, not enlightenment. However, it can prepare the way for it to happen by providing an systematic understanding of the Self, consciousness, etc., which will fill in the enlightenment experience. It is like preparing a bed, and when the time is ripe, the bed provides a perfect rest.

The Advaita tradition is the same. In some ways it is easier, and in some ways, more difficult than Zen. Advaita has lots of book learning, so there is the appearance that there is a way that the mind can grasp and a concrete way of practice or knowledge to follow, which is comforting. However, something has to happen between the intake of philosophic learning and the awakening experience, which destroys all learning.

Ramana Maharshi’s awakening is described in a few hundred words. What was different? How was his subjectivity different? The description of his experience does not seem transcendental at all, it reads as perception mixed with conceptualization. I.e., he imagined his body was dead yet still percieved the body, therefore, he was the immortal perceiver of his body. This, of course is something anybody can do in one's imagination, but by no measure are they considered enlightened. So what did he have that you do not? This was U.G. Krishnamurti's koan. Was it not only the conviction he was not the body combined with the speculation that the perceiver of the body through imagination, was not in the existence of the world? With this knowledge, he came to complete rest. He accepted that the body was unreal and the real was his one consciousness within which everything happened, and about which Advaita gave a map to this consciousness as set forth in the Ashtavakra, Ribhu and other Gitas.

In fact, coming to a complete rest was complete silence wherein everything just is, but is articulated later as Oneness. Even Oneness arises or has its source in silence.

Much is written about his radically altered behavior thereafter, the incidents in his life subsequently, and his teachings about the nature of the world and of consciousness. However, his subjective experience and the connection between that experience and the metaphysics of consciousness and reality that he taught later, is a closed book. A thousand times more is written by devotees in various books about him, who elevate every flutter of an eyelash as a sign of deep Samadhi or communion with the infinite. Therefore we can realistically ask, “How do we know that he knows something of value, that unknown experience of knowledge that we seek? How do we know that he knows what he claims to know?” There still must be an iota of faith in a seeker to even think this way.

The same holds true for most of Ramana’s students, including my own teacher, Robert Adams, Laksmanan, Sunyata, and Poonjaji. Their self-described awakening experiences are vague or non-existent, and the logic that connects their current experiences with their teachings is never expressed. How do we know they know the Absolute, as claimed, unless they express their experiences and how those experiences led to their understanding? If there is no first hand experience that they can relate, are their teachings merely book learning? How do we know a “real” teacher when we find him or her? Many times, the worth of a guru is measured in hearsay and the amount of bustle found in an ashram. Sometime it is a personality characteristic that attracts such as the extraordinary self-confidence of Seung Sahn, or Muktananda joyous exuberance, or Thich Tien-An’s serenity, or Rajneesh’s charisma and elegance. But do they have the right stuff to help us get anywhere spiritually? Do we have the right stuff to follow their leads? Do they have a subjectivity that we would want ourselves? What would that subjectivity be like?

There are also many accounts that purport to be about awakening experiences, which if read by a clinical psychologist or a seasoned student of the Way, would be understood immediately as pathological, or as nothing special at all, and certainly not an awakening. There are no established criteria to separate pathological experiences from spiritual experiences; as Robert half-jokingly stated, “They go hand-in-hand.” Then again, who would we give the role to judge the authenticity of another’s enlightenment?

Both Buddhism and Advaita are also plagued by confusion between intellectual understanding and awakening experiences. In many instances, just correctly understanding the scriptures or koans is mistakenly considered enlightenment. One never knows whether that knowledge is absolute or just another philosophy that will give no rest and permanent satisfaction. Scholars are rarely serene and happy.

In the Buddhist tradition, there are hundreds of schools of philosophy with differing beliefs about the nature of reality, consciousness, the Void or types of void, just as there are hundreds of schools of Western philosophy with differing views on everything. Given so many opinions, held by so many different brilliant scholars, how can we hold any as truth? Our minds grow confused trying to synthesize all the different concepts and traditions. Therefore, most seekers abandon the strictly philosophical approach and try different sorts of spiritual practices or seek a guru for guidance.

However, the problems of choice and faith just move to a different arena, that of choosing a guru.

Nisargadatta and Robert both talk about the nature of the world and phenomenal reality without explaining how they came to that understanding. The reader has to take what they say on faith, or else, the as a result of progressive glimpses of the truth that they were voicing. There is no verifiable logic, no reference to personal experience as corroboration, no articulated path to that understanding. This places a great burden on the seeker who seeks spiritual knowledge, but who has no initial faith in any teachings or guru.

The rare accounts we do find about spiritual journeys, especially the endgame, are to be treasured. They define the range of spiritual experiences, and some persons are able to explain the understanding they have gained from those experiences, as well as how the conclusions were derived.

In this respect, the books written by Bernadette Roberts of her journey and her various awakenings, would be critical to understanding the Absolute and some aspects of the spiritual processes. The autobiographical accounts of Hakuin, Bassui and of the Zen Abbot presented by Trevor Leggett in The Tiger’s Cave are also valuable. So too the autobiographical descriptions of Suzanne Segal, U.G. Krishnamurti and others. Without self-testimonials, we, as readers, don’t know whether they so-called enlightened being are just expressing an understanding they learned from others, or direct insight flowing out of their awakening experiences, if indeed, such experiences exist as depicted in the mythology of enlightenment.

It is not difficult to generate abnormal experiences by concentration, meditation, mantra, chanting, or self-inquiry, but what do those experiences mean? Do they point to a different and more primary reality? Are they just temporary mental aberrations; that is, are they pathological? Do they yield divine understanding? How important is permanence of the awakening experience itself versus the understanding derived from that experience, and is there a difference between understanding of the ordinary sort, and Jnana, knowledge of the Absolute? Questions enough to provoke even more frustrations in the seeker.

Robert Adams’s awakening experience occurred when he was 14 years old. It lasted about an hour before he returned to ‘normal’ consciousness. Afterwards, and his descriptions of his new subjectivity indicate no change in his perception of the world, but rather a complex upsetting of his inner conceptual reality in some unnamed way. Robert said that finally, with Ramana, he came to an understanding of what his experience meant. It took several years of searching before he found a satisfactory explanation of his enlightenment experience. That is, in Robert’s case, he became a seeker after his awakening experience. We can conclude that his experience was not self-explanatory, and that the conceptual understanding, which is what he imparted in his weekly lectures, came later.

For most seekers, this path is tread by faith, faith in the teachings or teacher; what specific teachings or teacher is irrelevant. It is the idea of faith, of following, of believing there is a salvation, and end to seeking and that can be found through pursuing a way. However, those without faith, what then for them?

At least a man who seeks wealth knows what he is seeking and has some idea of how to get it. A man who seeks spiritual goals that cannot be articulated except as another man’s concept, such as a Christian God, divine love, enlightenment, is lost. He seeks another man’s ghost—a ghost without shape or shadow. He is doomed to failure.

Is seeking just a pathology, a kind of mood disorder or obsessive compulsive illness treatable medically or through appropriate self-psychology psychotherapy? Personally, I think most seekers would benefit from a long course of insight psychotherapy so that they better understand who they think they are and what they think they want. I concur with Ken Wilbur that there may be a maturation process that is emotional, intellectual and spiritual which must precede awakening, except for the rare ones like Ramana. Nevertheless, therapy with whom? It is as difficult to take a baby step as a giant step; where to start and where to take each successive step?

I have always enjoyed writing about teachers, teaching, experiences, my understanding, etc. It is a process of validation. Faith in the teachings came to me as my understanding deepened. After a point, when I was able to understand that which I could not before, and I had found I was not being misled, I acquired faith in the remainder of what Robert and Maharaj said, but which I still did not understand. Faith begets clarity and clarity deepened faith.

The teacher: My observation of the unwavering steadiness of Robert. He was always the same, completely above the tumult of everyday life, untouched. His verbal teaching never varied off a central theme. His physical presence was strange. He was constantly staring off into space. He hardly ever blinked. He always had a little smile on his face, because he found the whole world and people's concerns to be funny, like, why are they getting so upset about that which does not exist? He was very different from any man I had ever known before.

The teaching: When I read my first words of Nisargadatta as channeled through Ramesh Balsekar in his "Pointers from Nisargadatta," I was thunderstruck. I felt as if I had been bashed in my head. I was stunned. Needless to say, this caused me to take notice.

The new experiences I had: The emergence of a constant inner illumination, that was so much brighter than before, so that when looking into the face of God, so to speak, the light was so bright and profound that I could be lost in it for hours at a time. With this presence, ambition and anxiety gradually disappeared, and I felt suspended, waiting for I knew not what.

(Comment: These steps have to be transcended by going beyond experience and conceptualization.)

That growing faith, for me, had a very tangible and powerful presence. I do not know how to characterize it except as being in a state of complete awe and wonderment, thunderstruck. Before that, I was a seeker without faith. After that, it was mostly downhill; things just unfolded.

In the end, it does not matter what the spiritual experiences are, but rather, what they do to you. Looking for certain kinds of experience for validation or for a marker to measure where one is, is to be trapped in someone else’s conceptualization. In spirituality, one will usually experience the experiences that guru or group consider important or sacred, if one stays long enough. But, that does not mean the seeking will end, because the experience may be borrowed.

The real change comes when the understanding comes that there is no I, no center. Without a center as a reference point, there is no other either, the world disappears. We are left adrift in a formless consciousness while still living in a world of perceived forms. The attention shifts from the perceived to consciousness. That is step one.