The Joy of Impermanence
by Peter Morrell

According to the great Zen masters of old the secret essence, the most fundamental truth is knowable only through direct insight and cannot be expressed in words. Thus the adage: 'Those who know remain silent; those who speak do not know'. But we can say some things about the world and the nature of life which can be expressed in words and which do still have profound meaning. Such as the illusory nature of the world and the ultimately transient and flimsy nature of that which seems to us to be so solid and real. That external reality is much more like a mirage than something concrete.
Today I had a very strong and persistent feeling of the illusory nature of the world and a sense of impermanence so strong and which never left me all day. I truly had the feeling that the world is illusory, that our time here is so short and a very elongated sensation of the nature of time. A sense of not being embedded or anchored in this world but only in the mind. That mind is supreme and eternal and everything else is just fleeting change and transience of little consequence. We come with mind, we leave with mind, it is our only constant. Essentially that is all we are, a bundle of simple things: consciousness, desires, aversions and good and bad karmic seeds.
This strong feeling seemed to be sustained even further by thinking and dwelling upon it. In two ways I seemed able to sustain it. Firstly, by looking at each object and asking if it was ultimately real and indestructible. Nothing fits that definition and so each component or substance can be scrutinised and shown not to be a permanent indestructible entity, but to exist solely as a product of other phenomena or component parts. Secondly, I sustained my sense of impermanence by recalling that moment by moment things die and disintegrate of their own accord. Every second is new and different from the one it follows. And every second that is the case. In this way we can come to regard the solid and permanent appearance of the perceived world is an illusion.
Thus the world and all its component parts do not persist for very long. Even mountains crumble into the sea. Even our parents and most dearly loved friends die and disappear and we never see them again. Only mind, consciousness, persists and goes forward. Thus by hewing to impermanence, and a close inspection of the flow of events and our reactions to them we gain glimpses of deep truth.
The reason that Buddhism in general and impermanence in particular, might be regarded by some people as a frighteningly nihilistic philosophy, is probably that it somehow implies that mind, consciousness, is also equally as transient and impermanent a thing as substance. Maybe we extrapolate from the external physical world to the internal world of mind and transfer the qualities from one sphere to the other. Maybe we project onto mind the characteristically fragile features and properties of matter. But as soon as we posit that mind is NOT a transient entity, but that it stands supreme, goes forwards and is eternal, then immediately we have in our hands a far more joyous and uplifting, affirmative philosophy and one we can use as a tool to transform our life, even on a daily basis. Knowing this and taking it as our beacon we can delight in the joy of life.
We suffer the feeling of sadness and loss when we realise that things are transient. We feel attached to them and their external loss offends us internally. The loss of anything causes us to experience a subtle form of pain, a sadness, and the sadness increases in proportion to one's attachment. Loss of what we hold the dearest causes deep and often lasting grief. But things change and fall apart; nothing endures and we experience pain and loss as part of the natural order of things. Knowing the impermanent nature of phenomena helps us to gain a more profound grasp, eases back our attachment to things and enables us to prepare for loss that is inevitable. We can then ease back our clinging to anything. It becomes a life path.
The lesson of impermanence is chiefly that being composed of desires and aversions, we so easily and unwittingly become attached to those things we love. Their inevitable loss causes pain and sorrow. We have no power to control such events. All we can learn to control is our own internal responses and our general response to the world itself. The more deeply we cling to things the greater will be our sorrow when they take their inevitable leave of us. Thus to live a sweeter life we can be mindful of this and strive to reduce our attachment and to cultivate non-attachment. That is the meaning of Tsong Khapa's powerful but elusive phrase: 'without cultivating the definite thought to leave cyclic existence how can one begin to negate enjoying the sensations of embodied existence?'
Finally, we can say that the moral basis of Buddhism is always in accord with karma. Doing good and avoiding evil has no point except to avoid causing future suffering. Arguably there is no other sound basis for morals or ethics. To avoid causing suffering to self and others is the fundamental basis of a Buddhist life. Thus to live mindful of impermanence and in tune with not causing suffering is to live a truly Buddhist life. To then add joy and delighting in the joy of others and some compassion and pity for the myriad suffering beings, and this then comprises a very enjoyable and meaningful way to live. Then perhaps we can begin to regard not just a ten year stretch of our life as a gift we should be grateful for, but that each hour, each minute, nay each second, as a blessing we sometime earned and for which we can be truly grateful.

*************************************************************************************************************

A Path between East and West?
Astrid Schillings, Focusing Certifying Coordinator,

A few waves plucked from the ocean of synchronicities, given that icebergs drift endlessly in the sea of the implicit.
Over fourteen years ago now, I put these waves into an article on 'Zen and Symbolising, Zen and Focusing', and fell between all the stools. For Buddhists it was too much based in therapy, for therapists it was too radical.
Coming fresh from Japanese Zen, I felt deeply in me an existential need to resolve this "falling between the stools" in a pragmatic way: to rearrange my life, to resume practising as a psychotherapist, while at the same time not smothering my burning question about life, which I experienced at the time as a painful but fertile rent in the fabric of existence. The path of western philosophy and religion was closed to me - I could not bear to hear philosophising or preaching about this rent. What I needed was a way that was lived and experienced - which I found in the East in meditation and in the West in the person-centered approach of the psychologist Carl Rogers and the philosopher Eugene Gendlin. I insist on the term "person-centred". "Gesprächstherapie" (talking-therapy) is an unfortunate and superficialising way of putting it in German. The point is to free the person as existential process.
In the mean time, discussing meditation, focusing, spirituality and therapy together has become acceptable, even normal. And yet - for me the important thing is the "in-between", Gendlin's "....", when there is something which will not come and there is only a living and pulsating bareness between what is already known. This "in-between" is the subject of this essay at various different levels. Focusing as the finger pointing to the moon? - A moon beyond a particular tradition or culture?
Let me approach these different levels circumspectly with a brief sketch or two, in the knowledge that the few pages available to me will not be enough. Please bear with my highly compressed language.
Many people brought up in a Christian culture see pictures and symbols from the Christian tradition when they meditate. This also happened to me. It was "Lord, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Since my Japanese Zen teacher did not want to talk to me about it, I turned to the Jesuit and Zen master Father Enomiya Lassalle, whom I met in Tokyo and who gave me the following to think about on my journey: many Christians consider Buddhists to be immature because they have not yet arrived at a personal God; many Buddhists would say the same of Christians because they still stick to a personal God. "What is it really about here?" asked Lassalle with his own inimitable and youthful wisdom. It dawned on me that he meant presence. Absolute presence. With or without names, personal, transpersonal, beyond the transpersonal. All this is not the point. Absolute presence is undivided ... not fragmented, to speak with Krishnamurti.
I will come back later to this pearl of absolute presence because it is critical to an examination of what focusing is saying or not saying.
The Buddha himself, after attaining enlightenment, spoke of the non-self (anatman) as one of the characteristics of all beings. He meant that nothing is imperishable, completely of and for itself, existing in its own right as something fixed. He contrasted this with the doctrine of atman, which Hindus understand as the highest self. Buddha used the negative form of the word to convey the inexpressible truth - in the Judeo-Christian tradition "thou shalt make to thyself no image ..." - not allowing concepts to interpose themselves.
Now it is interesting that Buddhism talks of the Middle Way, that is to say neither belief in a substantial self (form) nor belief in a non-self (emptiness) is the right way. To cling to either is regarded as ignorance. Even staying attached to the "neither-nor" is ignorance. Adhering to projections (concepts) is seen as an illusion about true reality. That old word "way" or "path" is what we mean by "process" in today's language. No substantial self, as a fixed entity, but not simply nihilistic nothingness either. In other words, a complete interpenetration of simultaneous emerging and disappearing in a "total interaction" as we would put it today, or in Gendlin's language: an order carried forward without beginning or end, in which everything is continually being crossed with everything else. In the "Shobogenzo" of Zen master Dogen (Japan, 1200-1253) we read: Therefore, knowing, practising, and enlightening the essence of continuous development is to go beyond the ordinary. 'Complete interpenetration' does not mean that everything is all mixed up together. Each thing is contained in every other and at the same time is separate in and for itself. A person as process is no exception to this.
In essence it is a radical form of disidentification. Again, I would like to keep this point for later, to see how it can apply in focusing.
What I would like to concentrate on here is Professor Gendlin's discovery that we can in fact translate between philosophical systems that are logically self-consistent by appealing to the felt sense, going with what the body feels to be the meaning and switching to the language of another system. We do not have to take on board all the concepts in the other self-consistent system in order to make our felt meaning understood. Exactly what we are not saying is that one theory or philosophy is being blindly translated into the other.
The same goes for the understanding of the self or the non-self in eastern philosophies, which are psycho-philosophies in the form of a path that is lived. Thus if a realised Hindu says "I am that", he is everything, boundless. And this for him is God. If a realised Buddhist says her ego, her 'I' has died, she means just that. A Tibetan Buddhist master, Kalu Rinpoche, has put it this way: "If you are no-thing, you are everything, if you are everything, you are no-thing."
The Christian mystics of the West talk about the emptiness of God. Here once again - the reference systems, the roadmaps are different and equating them over-quickly with each other can bring confusion, and yet when it comes to the ultimate truth ... unity? The really enlightened ones probably argue among themselves less often, that is more the business of the institutionalised officials of the faith, who of course exist in most traditions in East and West. The former seek the "experience" of revelation, the latter seek the power to lay down definitions, which can also lead to holy war. In other words, identification with the symbols removed from the "felt" meaning.
In the West, direct revealing of the ultimate ground and the way to get there have either not been cultivated or been punished at the stake, because experiencing, direct insight into the nature of the divine, does not fit the church's idea of God and the world.
Wondering how people capable of creating and upholding ethical and cultural values could also legitimise destruction, violence and discrimination caused Gendlin the philosopher - an Austrian Jew who as a boy escaped the Holocaust - to investigate the links between experiencing and thinking, experiencing and symbolising. He became interested in Rogerian psychotherapy because that was where this connection was being worked on. Gendlin's philosophical work "Experiencing and the Creation of Meaning" was turned for the first time into a research project.
The valuing of the individual as a person has not always been so self-evident to us in the West and looks back on only a short history of 300 years. The bloody combats fought to establish human rights have their origins in this fragile source. His Holiness the Dalai Lama is indefatigable in stressing the importance of these rights. As I have said already at a conference on psychotherapy and Buddhism, a person cannot be quickly written off as a neurotic ego-trip. A person should be seen for what they are - a process state of being - valuable, sentient, gifted with the potential for illumination, love, creativity and suffering.
As our western rootedness in a tradition of community and shared security has faded in both secular and spiritual terms, we have gradually discovered the "individual" as intrinsically valuable. In step with this evolution, we have come to see the other face of that tradition: violence, oppression, corruption and abuse of power. This other face is present in both East and West, with one difference. The East kept open, within its feudal and fossilised-seeming traditions, an entryway for directly accessing the ultimate ground.
For example, it is impressive how paradoxical language or actions in Zen, as instanced in the koan question, provide a highly specific means of pointing to the implicit behind the implicit (David Bohm), that which is not nameable or even, in the end, experienceable in the customary sense. By this constant "breaking" of concepts, our experiencing - our direct insight - is carried forward (to use Gendlin's language) in the direction of the unnameable. Of course we must first understand the words that are being broken in their conventional meanings because only then will the breaking process raise/remove (Hegel's 'aufheben') the meaning to a "higher" or "deeper" level. The purpose of the exercise is to break through the confines of logic by paradoxical, non-logical use of (say) language by forcing the disciple into experiencing. The mind which was trapped in logical thinking and natural, organismic expectations is then ideally released into a state of unconditional openness and awakeness. This state should take one beyond experiencing, it is absolute presence, described as dynamic, brilliant and empty.
Here is a Zen koan, from an unknown source.
When the Many
are reduced to One,
to what is the One
reduced?
In Tibetan Buddhism this is called "crazy wisdom". Here again it is paradoxical, illogical, crazy language or action which carries experiencing forward towards attainment of the ultimate ground. In Buddhism, this ultimate ground or emptiness is seen as pure potentiality, the fullness before manifestation. The fullness that comes before the concepts of life and death.
So where does this felt-sense come from which drives some of us more, some of us less, to ask about the meaning of life: "Where do we come from, where are we going?" Where does that fertile rent come from, the rent in the self-evident quality of felt existence as well as in the logic of thought? This felt-sense must surely also have given birth to philosophy in the West. The dictionaries define philosophy as love of wisdom and the search for knowledge about nature and the meaning of existence. Gendlin stresses ('Thinking at the Edge' seminar in 1998) that he is not teaching in the field of the spiritual or the absolute, that he is only a "customer" there himself, and yet the language and practice of his approach to experiential process implies that also ... opens a door ...
Since I only have a few pages available to me, I would like now - perhaps a little prematurely - to draw some of these threads together.
Gendlin gave the following short definition of focusing during a seminar (in 1992): "Focusing is what I call the time we spend being with something which is there in the body but not yet known inside us." The steps of change which follow, the opening up of many new possibilities, are no longer part of the focusing, Gendlin said at the same seminar. But the change steps come through the focusing, according to him. In essence it is all about friendly attention, staying with what is unclear. Giving space for the unfolding by being present in a non-intrusive way.
The six classic focusing steps and the various manuals, as we know them from using their support in psychotherapy, creativity, and many other areas, are like extra help for when things get stuck and the process is frozen. All the many methods of meditation fulfil much the same purpose. They too are an aid so that awareness can simply stay with what is and let unfolding happen ...
Both meditation and focusing work by pushing us up against the limits imposed by our identification ... using friendly presence as a tool. If our awareness is directed toward the stream of direct experiencing ('focusing on the ongoing experiencing'), Gendlin speaks of focusing. The meaning lies in the experiencing, not in the concepts, and the concepts and symbolisations help to carry experiencing forward. Here precisely is the meditative/contemplative quality of the person-centred approach. The key is to accompany what is, to be present, without judging. This intentionless but friendly presence opens up space, space for change, whether it be in focusing, meditation or elsewhere ...
You are more than your states of annoyance, rage, more than your thinking, your problems. In focusing we say that you have them, you are not them. Via what is felt in the body, we can come closer to these places of meaning, where we can take up an inner relationship with them. This means listening, being with them, attending to them. In our focusing we let them become personal, let them speak, move, paint, whatever. A repeating "angry-cramped" will perhaps let out a small, abandoned girl. Gendlin explains: there is no negative energy, because what is negative, what is blocked, always bears the solution implicitly in itself. As long as I identify unconsciously with the small girl, I will keep falling into a state of anger. Once the identification becomes conscious, I can work with it. To express it in a Buddhist way: evil as such does not exist, only ignorance, by which is meant obstruction through identification.
It is important to realise that this also applies at a transpersonal level. "Transpersonal" means "going beyond the person". If we identify with a group, a nation, a tradition or a symbol, this is still identification. This is why the Nazi propagandists used transpersonal symbols like the barred cross (crux gammata), a sun wheel or swastika turned the wrong way round, in order to concentrate power. The "small self" is left behind so that we can serve the transpersonal - it is the identified ego which conquers, murders, moralises or prays and meditates. That is seductive because identifying with a larger cause is strongly energising. But this is "borrowed" energy, not energy we have worked for. I am trying to make clear the narrow line we walk, not indulging in polemics. We can even identify ourselves with focusing.
What we need, therefore, is a personal process of unfolding through all the levels. The person understood as unfolding process, who identifies less and less with the contents of consciousness, less and less with a solid self.
Gendlin points out that we usually think of situations as outside us, split off from us inside. But the felt-sense, the physical feeling of the whole situation or the whole problem, is "inside". By bringing this internal feeling of the whole in all its complexity (its intricacy) into consciousness, by forming a relationship with it, we experience it as "not me"; I have a sense of the situation, it changes, it opens, and I am not that sense. Yet at the same time the situation is not simply "out there". And it is presence, being with this experiencing, which brings us closer to the self which is no contents.
We can use focusing, as well as certain forms of meditation, to solve our problems, to work on our traumas or to reduce stress. That too is important and valuable. But we can also shift the axis and use these tools to work every day on the felt edge of the question "Who is this presence from moment to moment?"
I still need some of that extra help. To be continued.
(Translation: Bill Fraser - 1999)

*************************************************************************************************************

A View from the Buddhist Middle Way
by Ian Clark

The History of the Middle Way
Shakyamuni Buddha lived in India around 500 BC. He realized beings were in a state of suffering and that the origin of these sufferings was delusion. Buddha believed that if a being really desired permanent happiness, he or she could meditate on ways to end that suffering and thus find happiness, just as he had.
He realized suffering could be quite subtle and is related to happiness. Happiness occurs and is grasped by those who experience it because they want repetition. Yet the repetition (of the happy experience) can itself fall short of the original experience or, just the opposite, be too much to the satiated. That's why in the Sanskrit "Dukkha" means "unsatisfactory" or "suffering" and that term came to represent the human condition.
At the time of Buddha, there were many people in India who were proto-materialists because they believed that things had absolute existence. Buddha preached a great sermon (or sutra) known as the "Heart of the Perfection of Wisdom" in which he spoke of the "inherent non-existence" of all things, which means that although things exist in a conventional way, they do not exist "from their own side." We perceive the world with the senses, interpret it with the mind, and then create objects in the world which we then impute with "goodness." We give the objects names and treat them as if they were permanent and of great value so much so that for some we are quite prepared to give up our lives. The desire to possess these things not only motivates us to take action (karma), but it mostly prompts us to take non-virtuous action.
In the 2nd century, a Buddhist saint, Nagarjuna, addressed the philosophy of "inherent non-existence" and created a series of philosophic works which was carried in a very pure form to Tibet by Atisha and Je Tsongkhapa. This work became known as "Madhyamika Prasangika" or "The Middle Way." It was a way of viewing the world which, for a student, could be first understood conceptually; then, as a non-conceptual realization, it could provide the basis of liberation from rebirth for anyone who so chose. Liberation consists of a visceral realization after much meditation that everything exits only conventionally and that nothing exists "from it's own side." Everything is a factor of mind.
This realization was more than a nihilistic repudiation of the existence of things. It was a realization of their "inherent non- existence" and, at the same time, a recognition of their "conventional" existence. This awareness applied not just to objects in the world, but also to the self. The essence was that nothing has inherent existence and that all depends on the co-arising of other events in order to achieve what seems to be an ephemeral, impermanent state of being.
If this philosophy is true, it is a pity that we devote so much of our lives wanting to possess these things. Our full prisons and wartime cemeteries are a testament to this. There has not been such a significant statement of existence in Western Philosophy until just recently when Ludwig Wittgenstein left his native Austria and tilted philosophic lances with Bertrand Russell at Cambridge. Perhaps spurred by the intellectual ferment of early quantum physics, Wittgenstein expressed his philosophy in the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus Note: I would like to draw your attention particularly to what Wittgenstein has to say about Science in the Tractatus, 6.371 and 6.372.
But it was not Wittgenstein who first thought along the lines of the Buddhist Middle Way in the West. It was the Greeks, who just about thought of everything and, true to form, Parmenides of Elea Heraclitus of Ephesus tried to define whether the world was comprised of things or events. Heraclitus believed the world existed because of the play of events (panta rhei), but it was Parmenides whose ideas of immutable things and of creation seemed easier to understand to Plato.
The rest, they say, was history. It seems the philosophy of the Buddhist "Middle Way" had a parallel in Western thought which died an untimely death until the "Alice in Wonderland" world of Quantum Physics overcame the simplistic, confident materialism of the late Victorian era.
Cyberspace and the Mind
Buddhists regard mind as the route to liberation. It is a way to both erase desire and non-virtuous action traces from the mind. The mind is, in its natural state, clear, an empty slate on which our consciousness constructs reality. "The world in which we live seems to be solid and real and shared with others, but what we experience is our individual construction," says Dorothy Rowe, a British clinical psychologist and author of "Living Together." The clear mind is the "tabla rasa" on which our consciousness constructs reality. Its nature reflects a Buddhist interpretation. There is a chain of causation and of events co-arising--a displayed Web page meeting eye-consciousness, a subject selected by desire and motivated by intent, the display illusory and impermanent, a reflection of mind and ultimately unsatisfactory.
As Joanna Macy comments in her "Mutual Causality in Buddhism and General Systems Theory," "self and being are both unique and inseparable from its natural and social matrix--a fleeting meeting ground of intricately woven relations, its nature being profoundly participatory." Here we have the idea that the self is merely an event!
The Internet is an ideal medium for reflecting and searching for the "self." Some projections of the mind occur when, for example, we react in abhorrence to views with which we are uncomfortable or possibly become attracted to a person with whom we have established some intimacy on the Net. The Net is useful because it allows us to begin isolating the "self" that is an always-present projection. The Web gives so many opportunities for reaction! With this clear observation of the "self" as pre-requisite, we can then meditate on its inherent emptiness. This is a way of liberation.
CyberSangha, The Electronic Support System
The Internet, used intelligently, provides a Buddhist with practice on the path of wisdom and compassion. His Holiness, The Dalai Lama and other Buddhist leaders have already commented on their delight in the Web and the opportunity it gives of spreading the Dharma (teachings). It can meet many of the requirements of talking about Buddhism such as:
" providing a "CyberSangha" by which people can gain support in their practice either from books, journals, indexes, Buddhist center home pages, Sutras, commentaries, debates, and advice;
" providing emanations of the Buddha in the form of thankas and mandalas for contemplation;
" using hypertext as an ideal structure for the expression of the logic of the Path to Liberation Lam Rim or studying the nature of mind (Lorig);
" teaching only when asked, implied by a user downloading a page;
" practicing the four virtues of speech when engaging in debate in a newsgroup--not to slander, lie, use hurtful speech or gossip;
" being aware of the nature of suffering Dukkha and developing compassion for others now connected globally on the Web and
" turning difficulties into the path when working with others on the Web and if anger arises, transforming the energy to patient versatility, sorrow to empathy with others, jealousy to admiration and so on.
Ian Clark (tourist@aimnet.com) is a practicing Buddhist and has traveled in South Asia and the Middle East for ten years during 1973-83. His trade is computing and he is presently a systems engineer with an oil-company. He has spent much time studying and learning about Zen and Tibetan Buddhism, the I-Ching, Sufism, Vedanta and Modern Philosophy.
Copyright © 1997 by Ian Clark. All Rights Reserved.

*************************************************************************************************************

Anatta in its theoretical aspect

Presentation

Here is the most abstruse, perfect and at the same time subtlest doctrine that has ever been expounded throughout mankind's history. Its special feature is rooted in the fact that it can only be taught, explored, taught, revealed and expounded by an omniscient Buddha, a "tathagata", that is to say a perfect being.

It all happened twenty five centuries ago, when, by renouncing the world, sensuous pleasures, any ambition or project, the prince Siddhattha had been engrossed in various practices and spiritual exercises. Being always dissatisfied about the results they produced, he had an experience, reached a complete realisation, and in the wake of this attainment, taught that new doctrine, unheard of before and which is taught nowhere else save by his disciples who succeeded him.

It is essential to well understand that the doctrine of anatta, as it is taught and expounded in what we call theravæda, is totally unknown in any other system of thought or exegesis whatsoever, including the modern and so called speculative Buddhism also called mahayæna Buddhism.

From the very beginning, the monk Gotama, the awakened one, whom we call Buddha, has discovered this principle. He has discovered something entirely new in the course of evolution of all the spiritual traditions of humanity. He will display this discovery under the name anatta.

It is essential that, each of us, according to his or her own skills, at least succeeds in achieving a basic and accessible understanding of anatta.

Only the ones who achieved complete realisation, who reached arahanthood, that is to say complete awakening, master a very wide, complete and subtle capacity of reflection and investigation into this doctrine. The ones who have not reached this stage yet, can but have an incomplete and truncated understanding, their investigations' skills being more limited. As to the ones who never saw nibbæna during their living, they won't be able to correctly and effectively understand this doctrine... However, someone well versed into the scriptures, who is a very learned scholar, whom intellectual faculties have sufficiently developed, will be able to overview a fairly good idea about this thing, or we could say not too bad.

anatta is a Pali word, and not a Sanskrit word, which has absolutely nothing in common with its Sanskrit equivalent "anatman". If Buddha refused to make use of the Sanskrit language, if he chose to use his native dialect called "Magadha", there was a reason backing it.

Buddha is someone who claimed having reached omniscience, that is to say the capacity to know all in all. Being particularly strengthened by this omniscience (as claimed by him, but at the depth how can we be sure that it is true?), he made some choices, concerning as much what he endeavoured to avoid as what he wished to cultivate.

The Pali dialect

One of the 5 required conditions for a "tathagata" ( a Buddha) to appear in this world is that he appears in a specific area of what, in present day India, we call "majjhimadesa", which means the central land, the land of the middle, as it is geographically located at a medium distance between the coastal areas, the mountains and the forests. It more less constitutes the heart of the Indian peninsula. Also, in this specific area, the Magadha dialect is being utilised. Later on, owing to the simple fact that Buddha's words have been put into written script that became canonised, we will use the word Pali, conveniently rendered into English by the word "canon". To refer to this dialect, we have therefore replaced the word "magadha" by the word "pæli".

In Pali, the literal meaning of the word anatta is divided into two parts described as follows:

"a", which is the privative particle, whose counterpart can be found into French language and "atta", which is the reflexive particle, translated into English by "self" and that doesn't really have any accurate equivalent into French. We usually say "en soi" ("in itself"). It is worth knowing that forms such as "m', t', s'" that we use in French will be genuinely expressed in Pali by the word "atta".

Buddha didn't use technical words. He refused to use Sanskrit words that refer to spiritual techniques, religious or mystic beliefs. He instead used words of everyday life, specifically used by the Magadha people. In Pali language, we indeed cannot find any specific vocabulary related to philosophical or religious teachings, ideas or concepts. As soon as one wished to teach such things, one had to use Sanskrit language. It is worthy of quotation that Sanskrit and Pali are very close to each other, but not necessarily identical.

The translation of the word anatta

"anatta" is therefore the conjunction of two particles: the privative particle and the particle designating the idea of "reflexivity", of reciprocity. If we wished to find an appropriate French word in order to synthesize anatta, we could say: "absence d'un soi" ("absence of a self"), "absence d'une nature propre" ("absence of a self-inherent nature").

Very often, the word anatta, in literature, is translated by "le non-soi" ("non-self") or "le non-égo" ("non-ego"). This translation is quite inconvenient. Even if, in its wider or deducted meaning, the idea of anatta suggests the absence of an ego, a self or soul, the word anatta in itself doesn't mean "absence of an ego", "absence of a self" or "absence of a soul". There are other words designating this in Pali language. In English, we are compelled to use a word like "not self" or "none self" because British, have, in their vocabulary, a word designating the reflexive particle that is "self". For instance, "myself" means "moi-même", "himself" means "lui-même".

We can therefore likewise trace back, in Pali language, the adding of the particle "self" for designating "soi-même" ("oneself"). That's why British have legitimately translated the word anatta by "not self" or "none self".

The problem lies in the fact that, when we started to translate into French, we mostly translated from English sources. Therefore, naturally, French academic circles, who, for most of them, didn't understand well the teachings of the Enlightened one , have translated "not self" by "non soi". This is a mistake that unfortunately leads to a misunderstanding on the behalf of the majority of French readers.

Our views being already expressed, we can however claim that in Sanskrit language, the word "anatman" can indeed convey the idea of "absence of a self", "absence of a soul", "absence of an ego". But we deal with a Sanskrit word and not with a Pali one. Indeed, backing up with this Sanskrit word, translators took the abusive liberty to render into French the word "anatta" by "non soi", "non égo" or "non âme".

The absence of "in itself"

anatta, that is the absence of "in itself", applicable to everything, every idea, every characteristic and virtually all mental or material phenomena. From this starting point, we can, naturally, give details and explanations so as to understand that in such and such cases, such and such field, in this manner, should the anatta doctrine be expressed or perceived. The standard description that you probably already heard of lies, for instance, in saying: Let's take a cart. This cart undergoes the law of anatta. We cannot claim that a cart exists in a true sense. Indeed, if we take it to pieces and we spread it out on the ground, we can no longer claim that this is a cart. However, all its pieces are spread before us.

Here is outlined a quite superficial and easy way to try to make you understand the concept of anatta. But it yields the disadvantage to stand firm on this idea of absence of substance, seed or soul. And still, it is interesting to ascertain that when we ask this question to Buddha himself, and it is essential to find out what he himself expounded as being anatta, this latter didn't mention the cart's example. He was not the one who took this example. One of his disciples took this example in order to make himself understood by someone. We also sometimes take the example of a cow butchered into pieces on the butcher's block.

When Buddha explains anatta

When Buddha expounds what he conceives to be endowed with this character of absence of "in itself" (absence of self inherent reality), he chooses a different and, we could have guessed so, remarkably effective option. He tells: "There is no "atta" in this body. Because if, in this body, there was a "atta", at this very moment, "atta" may have this power to decide or to choose that this body should assume this shape or shouldn't."

We can trace back this demonstration in numerous suttas. Throughout his life span, he very often used this method in order to make his talks understood. Here is the way he carries out...

Someone is convinced that in this body is seated a substance, a seed, an entity, or that in all cases this body and this mind are the emanation of an immutable, unconditioned and eternal principle.

Buddha tells this fellow:

" - Is that body motionless, immutable or does it undergo changes?

- It undergoes changes (old age, illness, decay, etc...), Lord.

- That which undergoes changes, is it a source of pleasure or a source of dissatisfaction?

- That which undergoes changes is a source of dissatisfaction, Lord.

- How can a source of dissatisfaction be considered as our property? "

One must be crazy to keep held in hands a burning coal, which is a source of intense pain. One would be silly to keep this body, source of transformations and dissatisfactions. Here is the specific point that Buddha, in his demonstration about anatta, focused on. That is the idea of total absence of control. That is not only the idea that there is neither a "owner", nor an "entity". That is also the idea of absence of control as anatta suggests the total absence of control or mastery.

For example, we would like to put an end to the ageing process. We would like to keep a young, dynamic, flexible and, in every possible way, beautiful and attractive body. However, there is an uncontrollable and natural ageing process taking place. There is no means at all to control that, not only because there is no one, no individual, no ego, but also because it's impossible to control that. It is explained by the simple fact that in this material body, there is no inner regent that controls its material constitution. Neither is there any "self control", nor is found a "self controlling" agent. Matter cannot control itself. The same process is applicable to mental phenomena, as these latter cannot control matter and matter cannot control these former either.

Here is fathomed out the somehow theoretical aspect of it. Let's try to figure it out in a more practical way, which befits daily life's realities...

anatta in its practical aspect

"I" clothe myself, "I" eat

Usually, we enjoy to wear clothes that are as beautiful and handsome as possible, convenient in all respects, noticeably to reach our professional aim. We will therefore make efforts to look handsome, especially when we go to work. We think, we conceive: "I clothe myself.", "I have chosen these clothes because I like this colour, that shape, I prefer trousers rather than skirts."

But in reality, but what is this all about? In reality, as a matter of fact, it is inconceivable to go to work naked, even in a hot country. Because, being naked, we fall prey to the aggressions of the insects, and moreover, in particular in our western civilisation, of other people's opinion. Indeed, no other choice is ever left to us. This is ineluctable, necessary and compulsory to wear clothes. Here is the starting point. This idea of the ineluctable character of things is what anatta implies.

From this point onward, we can dream up, we can extrapolate. We can try to make handsome, pleasant clothes and devout ourselves to a style by wearing them. We can work out some philosophical discourses about the social and sociological finality of clothes. At the beginning, it all starts with a basic need to cover up the body with some material.

The same law is applied to food, even in a more true fashion. It would still be possible, from a biological viewpoint, to live naked, some of us are doing it. But is it biologically possible to abstain from taking food? To eat nothing, beyond two days, two weeks or even two months? That's a low prospect! In one way or the other, we must feed up our bodily machine because no other choice is left to us. It is ineluctable, uncontrollable. The digestive function is totally uncontrollable. One can refrain from going to toilets for one hour, one can abstain from eating for a whole day, but soon or later on, whether one wants it or not, one will have to purge his intestines, beyond his/her own volition, one will have to feed the "machine" from above. This is ineluctable, and this ineluctable character, that is anatta.

If we believe to have chosen "Mac Donald's" because it is tastier than "Burger King", we are allowed to. If we believe that we have concocted some pizzas because we like pizzas, fair enough. Whatever the dye, the aesthetic quality or the embellishments that we can put into our life might be, the hard fact is that we eat for only one reason, not to die, not to be diseased, not to decay. However, through our attachment, erroneous views and desires, we will try to make that food enjoyable. This is inevitable. One must be mad to eat loathsome food. It is perfectly natural to go after tasty and pleasant foods.

When we really enjoy a delicious dish that we like, which we have prepared and we do believe that it is so because we have chosen it, in fact, we are only subject to quite a natural law: the need to feed ourselves, and the fact that we can't refrain from experiencing pleasure while cooking. Cooking tasty dishes is a natural tendency inherent to all of us. Admittedly, some people are less fond of food than others and more interested by clothes, everyone has got his own likes.

The "walking" posture

When we walk, some of us do some sport or train themselves in cultivating an athletic pace, but in all cases, we walk because there is no other option left to us except walking. We must walk to go to toilets, to the kitchen, to work too, to pick up mails in the mail's box as well, even if it is done on a short distance. Afterwards, we can put up all the embellishments we want: dressing in more comfortable shoes, doing gymnastic exercises, wearing clothes more befitting the discipline, no matter what it is!

We walk because walking is needed and this is the reason why, besides, Buddha includes walking among what he calls the four bodily postures. This is a bit unusual when we consider that Buddha includes walking, or a trip, as a bodily posture. We could think: "posture = motionless". Buddha tells that going on a trip is also a bodily posture. The proof for it lies in the fact that it is impossible to maintain a bodily posture for long. If we walk a long time, there will always occur a moment when we will have to stop or rather change the posture. We will then have to adopt a lying posture. If we remain laid down for long, there will always occur a moment when unbearable pains will manifest. Therefore, we will have to change the posture by sitting for example. If we remain seated for a long time, there will occur a moment when will be experienced a significant number of feelings of dissatisfactions, painful things within the bodily complex that are difficult to endure, we will have to change our posture, by standing for instance. What to say about standing for long while doing nothing, when, for instance, we queue up in an administrative office... At the worst, better to edge forward a hundred steps than to remain standing motionless.

In all this, no one took a decision. In all this, nobody has exerted any control on anything, contrarily, admittedly, to what we usually imagine.

The uncontrollable character

Nothing is ruled in advance

anatta is specifically this ineluctable and uncontrollable character of all happenings of our lives and everything that we do. In fact, we cannot really say: "we do". It just happens, this is mechanics set in motion, that unfolds in elapsing time. But this is a cautious warning, one should abstain from claiming: "As it is an automatic machine, therefore, at last, man's life comes down to a robot piloted by an automatic pilot. Therefore nothing remains to be done whatsoever. I just have to let myself go as in all cases, everything is ruled in advance". This is false, nothing is ruled in advance! It just happens, it unfolds, admittedly, but it is not however defined, established or ruled in advance.

We will never find any laws, in mathematics, which can predict with perfect accuracy everything that or which will occur. Is there a proof backing such claim? Let's just try to remain doing nothing... We won't be able to!

The example of the boat

Let's take the example of a boat: if we back up with the purely mechanistic and deterministic viewpoint, which asserts that everything is automatically ruled by some laws, the boat will therefore proceed where it has to. Indeed, there is a navigator. There is somebody holding the boat's helm. The boat has no power to decide, to choose. Obviously, there is somebody operating the helm. And however... Whilst accepting that the boat navigates on a straight line, it would still go somewhere and end its trip by beaching or by even colliding against a reef. As a matter of fact, it changed its direction and it proceeded to a different destination; it reached the deserved harbour. In fact, neither the boat itself nor its navigator, have exercised any control on anything.

In fact, it occurred in this way and not otherwise. That's why we should refrain from sticking to this erroneous belief in a kind of pre-established determinism. We could almost say that, here, a paradox is involved.

It is well understood that we are not the ones who keep a control over this "machine". If someone attends university and works hard, he will finally pass on his diploma. There is no control, there is no entity, but if he chose not to register on a university course, he wouldn't have passed and got his diploma.

Therefore, we should avoid the extremes of a pure determinism, on one hand, and also shun, on the other, the entire opposite view, which is a kind of absolutism, of perfection of behaviour. In this latter, there would be someone who decides, controls and chooses.

The problem related to spirituality

Here we face a sensitive issue. The problem related to spirituality. In today's world, whether in the East or the West, we can find what is called progress, technologies. We summarise this by the word "materialism".

And so, some of them come, with their robe, their traditional dresses, their turban, their bells, their trumpet, their crucifix, their candelabra, their candle, their incense sticks, their shaven head, their hat, etc. And they will tell you: "material welfare is good, but there is something better, which is spiritual development". How many times didn't we hear: "external wealth, that is good, but inner wealth is better". Who is telling us this? Pursuant to what spiritual growth is better than material growth? By virtue of what could spiritual development constitute the only alternative to all sufferings and pains endured in a given material existence?

It is interesting to see how the monk Gotama, the awakened one, Buddha, has dealt with this point. He did it in a quite unique manner, which is totally alien to everything that has been taught elsewhere. Buddha tells that, all beings, whoever and whatever they are, without exception, conceive "atta". It is therefore essential to back up with this assertion.

He tells: " All beings, whatever they are, from the moment that, of course, they are conscious, do conceive, comprehend, experience, live and imagine "atta". There are two ways to deal with this topic. There is the way of nihilists called "uccheda", and the way of eternalists called "sassata". Even if there are these two ways to deal with "atta", as a matter of fact, all deal with "atta".

The three ways to deal with atta

And so, when we talk about transcending the ego, about non-ego or spirituality, whose aim and vocation lies in transcending materialism and egotism, we are still, whether we like it or not, indulging in the erroneous conception of "atta", in the wrong experience of "atta". To worldly beings, two ways to deal with "atta" do prevail.

The first one lies in dealing with "atta" by means of mental speculations. These latter are expressed in a twofold way, the so called nihilist conception and the eternalist one. The second one deals with "atta" by means of desire and fixation. There is a third way to deal with "atta", being far the most difficult and sensitive to be expounded, as it can be perceived only while experiencing satipa¥¥hæna vipassanæ. Here is involved a way to deal with "atta" through identification. The ultimate and supreme identification.

"We live only once "

And so, some of them believe that we live only once and tell us: "As in all cases, it is so, why not living to the sake of pleasure". These ones will usually dedicate this existence to the search for material pleasures. That is to say, pleasures that gratify the sphere of the five material senses: -pleasures of the eyes, the ears, the palate, the nose, the tactile sense and the skin. These latter think within themselves. "In all cases, at the end of this life, everything will be over, nothing will remain whatsoever". Those ones can also, of course, elaborate some concepts, some philosophies.

We can therefore globally comprehend all these concepts and philosophies under the generic rendering "political philosophies". That is to say a peculiar form of ideation, a certain form of ideology, which asserts that it is possible to experience in today's world, through a socio-political organisation, a specific form of happiness and welfare. We do believe that in this world of the living there is something, truly speaking, a spirit, a soul... We believe that things that we experience truly exist, that they are infused with life, that they bear a monolithic character, that they are fixed, immutable, solid, even if we are aware of their limited life-span.

These latter think this way: "All our experiences are ultimately true. Our social, professional, family successes or failures are all self-existing things. Our car, television etc. are all existing things upon which we retain a right of ownership. The Law, the Law system, are existing things. We must therefore reach happiness, sensuous happiness, through a structured and intelligent organisation of our pleasures, laws and rules". Those fellows therefore elaborate a compound of thoughts, concepts and philosophies ascribable, in a broad sense, to political philosophies. They will develop and conceive what we call a " materialistic society".

"Something survives death"

Some of them believe and imagine something surviving physical death. They believe in after life experiences. When the body will be reduced to dust and will be totally pulverised, a stream of consciousness will keep on experiencing things.

One of the most blatant (glaring) beliefs in these regards, is the one in what we can call "intermediate stages". Namely some stages into which, skinned from our physical body, there would remain some conscious aggregates that keep on experiencing things. In a sutta, it is interesting to notice that Buddha tells: "There is this belief in the intermediate stages". This belief, did he claim, is a wrong belief, which entangles the one who adheres to it into the net of false views, suffering and the cycle of becoming and rebirths.

In short, there is a belief that after death, something else and new is going to happen. The ones who believe in or imagine this, think that in reality there is no intrinsic truth to be found within phenomena. They think that the things that we perceive do not really exist the way we do perceive them, that they are illusory and empty of self-inherent reality. But whether beyond, within or outside of them or likened to an ultimate nature inherent to them, they imagine the existence of "atta". It is believed to be a thing, a principle, and a transcendent, immutable and pure truth that is never touched and affected by the relative truth in contingency with phenomena.

These ones distinguish two worlds:

The world of experiences, of phenomena, the material world, the world of thoughts (about which, generally, they tend to say that it does generate suffering, impurity and that the ones who are bogged down into it are subject to veils, obstructions).

The distinct world, supposed to be "something else", an absolute, ultimate and transcendent world, a truth, a consciousness, a conscious state, a stage of being, totally unaffected, immutable, unconditioned, non-created and eternal. They therefore create a duality.

These latter, as taught by Buddha, the ones believing in the dualistic doctrine, in this idea, are also blinded by the veil of false views and will be subject to many sufferings and to the rebirths cycle. They elaborate what we can call "spirituality" in a broad sense, or a "religious philosophy". Usually, those are people who will endeavour not to let themselves be spoiled by sensuous pleasures, so as to be committed to something that is allegedly superior, a specific form of discipline, ascetic training or yoga. All this is done to the sake of reaching spiritual experiences, which lie beyond the five sensuous spheres.

Buddha tells that in reality, they are not really aware of what they are doing. Obviously, what they do simply lies in transferring their consciousness to a more abstract state of pleasure and desire. Instead of revelling in the nice pleasures and sensations given by the bodily and material organs, these former pertaining to a strongly emotional and profound casual nature, they will choose another option. As their mind is inclined towards this eternalist conception, they will instead only cling to mental experiences. That is the intuitive sense, which is not a material sense but a mental one.

The same mistake

Buddha tells, that both of them commit the same mistake and that someone very "material" has the same chances to go around in circles in the rebirths' cycle as someone who is very "spiritual".

Buddha does establish no hierarchy. He doesn't say that the ones are baser than the others, he doesn't say that the ones are more intelligent and higher than the others. He simply says that both are mistaken. Whether we follow a political philosophy, steps through which we try to convey a meaning to this world, a sociological, political and economical truth, or else a step of self-purification, penance, yoga, spiritual uplifting or transcendence, he tells: "This is the same mistake".

Even if these steps apparently exclude one another, they both fit in the same type of reality, the same concept. It is here about an erroneous concept that it does exist in a way or the other an entity, whether found in this world or beyond, in this body or being this body itself, whatever it is. Whether it is a transcendent stage, a state of being, a state of consciousness, or simply the truth of cosmic matter, which, one day or the other, will have to totally disappear, in all cases, we find this concept of atta.

Whether it is a sensual experience, a thought or an idea, we imagine this latter to be, in a way or the other, an intrinsic reality, a self-inherent nature. As apart from "atta", there is not, in Pali language, any word to express this, it is here convenient to rather use the Sanskrit word "buddhatathata", which means: the intrinsic nature of what rests upon itself. This may not be a perfect grammatical translation, but it is however the idea that is conveyed by this word. You will also hear some "spiritual masters" giving a talk about something by telling you: "This is ineffable, this is transcendental, it is THIS and that's the way it is, when you have totally transcended the world of phenomena, the world of duality, of egotism, the material world, you have permeated the "SUCHNESS", the "SELF"".

The conception of the divinity

Everyone has got his own

Afterwards, everyone according to his religion; some of them will claim: "That, this is Brahma, the supreme being". Some others will say: "This is God" or: "This is Allah". Here, we will find a school that imagines that this being, "beinghood" and reality, indeed is a being. We find the ones who are telling you: "No, this is not a being who created the world, this is simply an impersonal reality, a fact, a state of being that is ..."HERE"... that simply IS!".

Thus, Buddha, owing to his omniscient knowledge, and mostly backed up with his own experience, has noticed that among eternalists, there are two ways to conceive the deity or "buddhahood": We find the ones who believe in a being, supreme, an eternal, immutable, omniscient, unconditioned and supreme God who has, in a way or the other, created the world. The world may be constituted of a compound of phenomena which follow one another, superimpose one another and among which, each of them is the fruit of the previous one. If by the way, we go back to immemorial times, there would be a primal moment, a primal cause that is the divine being.

This explanation given by Buddha is almost, in the same words, also well explained in the theological summa of Saint Thomas d'Aquin into which this latter almost paraphrases the monk Gotama.

Buddha tells that it's one of the two ways, obviously erroneous by nature, to conceive or explain "atta", the deity. In this case, Buddha will prefer to use a specific word. He will talk about "brahma". Indeed, "atta" and "brahma" are one and the same thing, but, when we back up with the viewpoint of a creative being, Buddha uses the word "brahma" instead.

There is the other way to conceive the "beingness", the "suchness", "buddhahood", the "such isness". In this case, Buddha will rather use the word "atta". It lies in asserting that the world is a compound of phenomena, which follow one another, superimpose one another, since immemorial times, these latter being devoid of primal cause and end. But we can also find in this world, whether within or outside of phenomena, or as a nature inhabiting (inherent to) them, an eternal, transcendent, perfect, ineluctable and immutable principle.

The brahmajala sutta

You will find the above mentioned description in the "brahmajala sutta" into which Buddha, in an extraordinary manner, gives a clear account of all the conceptions and views being expressed throughout all the political and religious philosophical systems found world wide.

He tells: "There are altogether thirteen conceptions, which are the foundations of all teachings"; whether one of these latter is philosophy, politics, economics, sociology, religion, spirituality or else nihilism or eternalism. Buddha, who most certainly was not a god and obviously, despite of the claim of some, not the emanation of an eternal and immutable principle, perfectly understood that.

I beg you, study this sutta and do it under the guiding light of a direct and living experience of vipassanæ and you will see how, twenty five centuries ago, this man, the monk Gotama, has, in a few sentences, summarised and integrated all that is taught and known today as Nazism, Communism, fascism, capitalism etc... In short, he has "classified" all the forms of beliefs that we can find, on one hand, among all the socio-political systems, all that has been taught in religious systems such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, including a part of Hindu teachings and, on the other, what is taught into what we call "mahayæna" Buddhism, also known as speculative or modern Buddhism.

There is no truth

Through his own life's experience, the monk Gotama has discovered that there is nothing like this as such. The world is desperately void. It is void of substance and truth. Anyway, Buddha doesn't use this word, save in a quite specific context. He doesn't speak about THE truth. We are longing for a kind of solidity, of steadiness. We have thus imagined to find it in material and social achievements or else, according to our sensitivity, in a spiritual realisation, a unitary experience of transcendence.

Unfortunately, according to Buddha, this unity, this "buddhahood", is still a transitory experience. Exactly in the same range of skills and the same manner (as the one which has been expounded above) as someone who has reached a certain level of social or professional achievement. From a certain viewpoint, there is no difference between the fact of having achieved a spiritual realization, on one hand, and having acquired a property on the other. Because in both cases, a minimum of efforts will then be needed to maintain them both. All this tends to prove that they are not eternal, as if those spiritual masters genuinely reached unity, then why do they need to do any further practices whatsoever? Any recitations whatsoever? Any prayers whatsoever? Why praying any longer? No need for any yogic practices whatsoever! If they still do perform it, it is pursuant to the need to reach this unitary experience (in the best of cases) again and again. The main goal is to maintain something.

There is nothing to maintain

When Buddha reached awakening, he did nothing then for maintaining anything whatsoever. Since he discovered that, indeed, there is NOTHING to maintain. There is one thing that men, gods, beings of the universe daily cultivate, at any moment, in any of their activities... It is their ignorance! They do cultivate their ignorance because they are sure that there does exist an ultimate, immutable, unconditioned, eternal essence, an eternal rest, a substance, an immortal and unconditioned essence, which remains undefiled by mental defilement, by pollution. Moreover, they get entangled in and attached to their experiences, whatever the nature these latter pertain to; musical, related to taste, spiritual or mystical.

Beware, please, don't read between the lines the books written by these "masters"', by these so-called self-realised beings, who have, you understood it at least I hope, at the most, reached something. You will find out that they are totally attached to their experiences, completely immersed into, identified to their "truth".

The underlying unity of all spiritual paths

Even if it is good form to claim that there is a unity transcending all spiritual paths, we have seen not yet a rabbi shaving his head and reciting mantras; we haven't seen yet a Buddhist monk prostrating or bowing before a mosque while praying "Allah" either. And obviously tomorrow will still not be the day when we will see a Moslem putting up his hair in pigtails (bunches), wearing a hat and toppling over his chest before the wailing wall of Jerusalem...

Charming spiritual traditions

Asians, with their spiritual traditions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. have a know-how, and beyond contest a very touching and appealing way to go on that pleases westerners strongly bogged down into materialism (the same thing applies to some South American spiritual traditions). The fact remains that it is the same thing; whoever they are, they all exactly behave the same way.

Buddha, in a sutta, brings to our acknowledgement the fact that a "spiritual master" is someone who talks only about two things: himself and his own experiences.

Please read your books again

I beg you, read again your books about all these great Buddhist masters, Hindu masters, mystics of Christianity who are meditative persons inclined towards mysticism...

I don't refer here to these books that merely give a dry and terse account of a philosophical doctrine or belief, I am talking about books into which we try to touch readers' hearts. You will obviously notice that these masters only talk about two things: About transcendental and spiritual experiences that they have the skill and the style to make us believe that they reached them without really mentioning it and ultimately, what do they talk about except themselves?

There are several ways to talk about oneself and we could fill up a whole book if further details were given in these regards. One of the ways to talk about oneself is to talk about "buddhahood".

A world devoid of substance

What the monk Gotama did discover

Here is disclosed what the monk Gotama did discover: This world is totally empty of substance. There is no Buddha seated within our heart or mind, nor is found Brahmæ or a God. There is no duality, no soul, no ego. There is neither a non-ego nor a transcendence of the ego, no impure veils of karma, which we ought to purify again and again until a continuum of consciousness is reached, this immutable and primeval consciousness. None of these things is found, did he claim.

But then, what is to be found? There is a hard fact, which is tangible, visible and experienced by all of us. We are "HERE". In fact, this is not really God or "buddhahood", which would be a kind of essence, which would be...here. Quite simply, we are the ones who are "here", experiencing our daily lives. And all the problem revolves around this simple fact; whether we want it or not, whichever the way we do reflect upon the world is, the hard fact is that we are immersed and completely bogged down into it!

Is there any exit gate?

But then, what can the exit gate be, what can liberation (freedom from rebirths) be? Does this world have an exit gate? No. The world is likened to a jail. There are bars fixed on the windows. Even if by chances, we could, on short occasions, observe some glimmers of light, meanwhile, there are still bars fixed on the windows. We can't escape from the world, there is no exit gate, it revolves in an enclosed chamber. It turns around because we are the ones who make it turn. If we make it turn around, it is due to the false conceptions that we do imagine. We make it turn around because we waste our time in running after culminations, realisations, fulfilments, experiences that, admittedly, are always described as sublime, wonderful, blissful, happy and joyful (whether through material or spiritual experiences).

At the worst, what can happen to us is precisely achieving one of these experiences of unity, of merging into the Divine or "Buddhahood". Because unless is imparted to us a fair knowledge of that which "tathægata" Buddha taught, it is definitely very difficult to realise that it is precisely THAT, the final trap, the mother of illusions.

Of course, the world is not illusory by nature as, if it was so, then how could it be here before us? Of course, our sorrows, pains, difficulties are not illusions. The hard fact is that they are here, something happens, we are aware of it and owing to it, we are dissatisfied to some extent. We are more less aware of their constant setting in motion. Of course, beyond what we do perceive, NOTHING does exist.

There is nothing

And so, what Buddha has discovered, this is not an essence or a substance hidden behind the world. What he himself discovered, specifically, and that is the main point where theravadæ teachings stand strongly opposed to all other spiritual traditions of mankind, is precisely that there is NOTHING!

This is the reason why when we ask him: "Within this cohort of spiritual masters, among this crowd of awakened beings, of fully enlightened Buddhas who teach all sorts of things, what do you teach, yourself, at the depth? Buddha replies: " I teach suffering and the cessation of suffering." By telling that, he still gives us a glimpse of the end of this dissatisfaction, as a possible prospect. It is therefore possible to achieve the end of suffering, but not by crossing the door, neither by climbing the window or the loft, nor by removing the tiles from the roof. It is not by crossing something or by trying to escape from the gravitational pull, which always bogs us down into this world, ineluctably, that we will put an end to our suffering.

So, what to do? What happens when a being reaches cessation, the end of this dissatisfaction and sorrow? It precisely occurs when the world CEASES, when phenomena that constitute the world CEASE to appear, to be produced. It's as simple as this. It is so stupid, but no one had thought about and experienced it.

The experience of the monk Gotama

It is precisely this experience, which the monk Gotama had made, and no one else (before him). He has actually seen and experienced something totally new, which peculiarly is CESSATION. The cessation of these transcendental states of consciousness. Because while being still ignorant and in search of the "truth", being looking for "something", as all of us do, he naturally started to perform all these yogic practices, all these mystical exercises. And he reached their ultimate stage of realisation (This is well mentioned in the canonical scriptures), with his spiritual master, he reached "buddhahood", the deity, let's call it the way we want.

Contrarily to his master, he didn't believe that it was the ultimate goal. He had an intuition, quite natural for a being like him, that it was still "something", that he had reached something and that the main problem revolved precisely around this simple fact. That was therefore still something, that was still a worldly phenomenon, even if we claim that this type of experience lies beyond samsæra.

And so, by himself, by means of his own intuition, intelligence, patience, did he succeed in seeing what occurs in it so that it ceases to appear. To do so, he took for object, of his observation and attention, those very stages of the divine, divinity or "buddhahood". When he realised that these states only rise and pass away, as soon as he developed a direct insight into this reality, which is REALITY, but which is NOT the "truth", he experienced by himself something entirely new whose existence he had never imagined or guessed before. He experienced the complete cessation of this stage and the consciousness that experiences it. At this moment, he did experience nibbæna.

This is not an annihilation, neither a total destruction, nor a disappearance. When the cycle of phenomena comes to an end, as a matter of fact, this is nibbæna. That's the way it is, according to nature. That's the way the world functions. The world appears, and it inherently bears the property of no longer appearing. When the world does no longer appear, this is nibbæna.

This is what the monk Gotama taught. No matter how much paradoxical and unbelievable it may seem to us, we can say that the teaching of theravæda, the teaching of these monks, the monk Gotama's disciples, starts from the point where all other teachings end.

For some of them, the goal precisely is complete "buddhahood", supreme godhead, fullness of being. To us, sons of the Sækhya, disciples of the monk Gotama, this is precisely HERE that the problem starts.

Conclusion

I have tried to explain this doctrine in a concise form (perhaps not with the skilfulness required by this subject), this fact being recognized, tasted, experienced and heartfelt by the monk Gotama, which we can all perceive and experience as well. We can all deeply reflect upon it, so as to clearly acknowledge that it is effectively the way it is. That is to say the fact that there is absolutely NOTHING, do I claim indeed: absolutely NOTHING, in the material or spiritual world, which could, in an eternal and immutable manner, exist in or by itself.

Having read this, sincerely wishing that it will make you enthusiastic in doing this experience and verifying by yourself the genuineness of so incredible an assertion, which strongly contradicts all that which we usually hear, I sincerely hope that you will reach nibbæna as shortly as possible and under the best conditions.

Questions and answers about anatta

Can we experience "atta"?

All the previous teachings only endeavoured to explain that there is NO "atta". Therefore, we cannot discover "atta", whatever the method we utilise might be. We can figure it out, conceive it, get attached to it, achieve identification with it, but in REALITY, there is nothing as such. This is what theravæda teaching is all about. Not only to say it, but mostly, to lead anyone to experience it.

Whatever you do, there is no chance left to you to reach "atta", nor to permeate "atta" as there is no "atta".

This is where the dilemma lies: Very often, people are facing problems related to the ego, or the self, while believing to be victims of the ego, whereas in fact, there is no ego. In fact, whatever you do, you do not take any risks.

Religions, religious systems, religious philosophies induce in us the idea that we are today ordinary beings who live in a conditioned world. A world plunged in ignorance, into which whatever we do, we do it under the influence of sin from which we must be purified. Or else we do it under the influence of the veils of karma (You probably already heard such expressions) whose we should purify and transcend.

Buddha, from the beginning, tells: " No. It is FALSE". This problem DOESN'T exist. The only thing we are the victims of, at the most, that is our desires and erroneous conceptions. All these problems related to the ego and its transcendence are absent from the teachings of theravæda. Owing to the simple fact of hearing this, we already have the feeling to have reached a certain level of liberation.

Can beings dwelling in the celestial worlds (deva) experience nibbæna or can only humans seize this opportunity?

It is more difficult for them than it is to us. In the human world, we live in a world that is split apart between pains, sufferings, desires and satisfaction. Still, more opportunities are left to us than to them so as to become aware of the emergency to follow this step and this path. There are a few advantages inherent to the fact of dwelling in the celestial worlds, precisely the fact of experiencing less pains and sorrow. As a general rule, it is quite difficult to them to reach nibbæna.

Save when there is an omniscient Buddha who, on his behalf, knows how to find the appropriate words, is gifted enough to succeed in drawing their attention and teaching them. As to the ones dwelling in the highest abodes, who are the brahmas, to them, it is by definition impossible as precisely dwell in those abodes the ones who are depicted to have reached the state named "buddhahood ", the deity.

These religious men are not totally wrong in what they do teach us. In this sense that it is true that after death, it is possible to remain, in a certain state of being, of a purely blissful and delightful nature, without being subject to hassles and encumbrances inherent to a physical body. Among what is depicted to us as being the panacea, Buddha tells us that it is not the case at all. He is the one who saw, precisely out of his science, his omniscience, that even if those are states of extreme jubilation, extreme purity, and mostly states that last an incommensurably long period, the fact remains that dwelling in divine spheres still involves to be entangled into the deaths and rebirths' cycle.

According to nature, we all have a certain memory, certain skill to recollect upon our mind all the events of our present life from its beginning. However, as each of us will notice, in the human world, we can't remember our life's first moments, which occur at the time of our impregnation. We can't, besides, even remember the first months or years, which come in the wake of our birth (after the child's delivery).

Likewise, those beings do not remember when they came into embodied existence, when they took birth into this world or realm of existence. They are deeply convinced that they dwell in it since times without beginning, that they are eternal beings. But, it is not the case at all. To succeed in making Gotama's teaching understood by those beings is definitely a very difficult task.

We should also be reminded that it is possible to reach nibbæna while being in the human world at a first stage, and to then be reborn into those "divine" spheres. Besides, in those spheres, are found many beings who already reached nibbæna in the human world and who can experience nibbæna again and again as many times as they wish. With even more opportunities to do it as they do not undergo any constraints whatsoever. Let us keep in mind that we here refer to beings who reached nibbæna in the human world.

However, to the one who hasn't experience nibbæna yet, once he has attained this " upper" mansion, the simple fact to listen to the teaching, to practice it and to reach nibbæna thereafter is impossible.

Once we have reached nibbæna, is it possible to travel from one world to another?

It is possible even if we haven't reach nibbæna.yet. Many beings do have the potency to see all the worlds, to perform a journey through these latter without having ever reached nibbæna. This is what Buddha explains, he tells that some of them have acquired these powers and utilise them. Unfortunately, they reach out through them some erroneous conceptions about the world.

We can succeed in doing so even if we have not reached nibbæna yet and the fact to have reached it, doesn't constitute in itself a propitious help for doing these types of things. It is independent, these are simply faculties that we sometimes call psychical powers.

We could easily believe that by freely moving from one world to another, which is the ineluctable fact to get rid of various barriers, we reach a certain mastery, that is already a stage of progress on the path.

That is the problem. The more we progress on any path whatsoever, the more we reach an advanced stage, this is precisely where the problem lies. The more we progress, the more we jump to the conclusion that we have reached something, we have led to something, or even we have achieved complete realisation.

Someone can believe that he is someone important in this world, higher ranked than others in the social scale because he can proceed from one continent to others aboard his private jet. It doesn't really make him a liberated being, because, even if he looks smart while travelling by jet, he always keeps on turning around the earth.

In the same way, those beings who developed this supernatural power to travel from worlds to other worlds, don't do anything else than going on a trip, in THE world.

I began to see the possibility of a mission, the one of a "bodhisattva", who completes a journey for granting help to others who are afflicted by sorrow.

A kind of charitable spiritual mission? A "bodhisattva" (bodhisatta) is not, by definition, in a very good position to lead others to the state of liberation. Because if he is a " bodhisattva", it forcibly means that he didn't reach himself yet. A Buddha proves to be much more effective to that sake.

Indeed, once he had reached full awakening, Buddha travelled a lot. He performed numerous journeys from world to world (except, admittedly, among the lower worlds, animal worlds, where there is not much that can be done) in order to make his teaching known by the many. Prior to having himself experienced this cessation, he couldn't forcibly be very helpful to sentient beings.

An action whose intentions are not rooted in a state of being, is it essential that much? Can we call this nibbæna?

No intention can have a state of being as its root cause. nibbæna, that is when there is no more intention nor action. That is the complete cessation of all the process and all the "machine". As long as there is an action and an intention, whatever the philosophical speculations that we can elaborate about those may be, that is not nibbæna. This is what we call samsæra.

We can't remain performing no action!

Absolutely. We can't stay doing nothing, that is inconceivable. There is no other option left to us than to do, or let do, undergo or act. That is the nature of the world, this is the way it functions. A video cassette player can't do anything else than reading or recording videocassettes, never will a video cassette player be able to grind some coffee or warm up some milk. In the same way, the world will never be able to do anything else than perpetuating itself. Living beings will never be able to do anything else than, as you say, performing actions, having intentions.

Why do a monk hide his face upon giving dhamma talks?

There are several reasons for it. The main reason lies in that it is better for the audience not to watch the one who is giving his talk in order not to discard away personal judgements about his physical beauty, ugliness or about expressions that could eventually appear on his face.

The main idea is that everyone may receive the teaching, Buddha's word, in its crude form. As it is. A bit as if it came out of a video cassette player. That's why Buddha emphasised on the point that monks shouldn't express at all on their faces any inner emotions or feelings while giving dhamma talks. They should also speak in a perfectly monotonous manner because only what is spoken is essential. The surrounding has no importance whatsoever. One of the ways to behave to that sake lies in hiding the speaker's face.

The best way to listen to a teaching lies in closing one's eyes so as to better concentrate on what one hears. Or eventually directing one's gaze to the ground, avoiding to look around oneself, so that one doesn't reflect upon the aesthetic quality of what one looks at.

Where do we find a smile in its human nature?

First of all, there is no nature as such so it would therefore be vain to search for one, that is in all case what is taught in theravæda, and a smile, what do you mean by a "smile" in its human nature?

The joy for existence.

We tend to mistake certain moments of intense pleasure with that joy for existence precisely. We find it difficult to realise that it is only a moment of intense pleasure. Indeed, even if it is abstract, very spiritual or purely mental by nature, it still remains a moment of intense pleasure. And we are, admittedly, after those types of experiences.

All this is difficult to accept!

Absolutely! It actually caused several attempts of murder against the first monk who expounded something like that. Because you can easily understand that the (would be) great incarnate Buddhas who lived during his time, while seeing so great a number of their disciples abandoning their teachings to go to listen to the sermons of the monk Gotama, didn't like it at all.

The problem that monks of this epoch had owed to the fact that many followers gathered around them. The problem that monks in today's world have is that we rather tend to make all the people RUN AWAY from us! (Laughter)

The teaching of a "tathægata", in some of its aspects, is unbearable. If you minutely look at it, search for it, there is no other teaching whatsoever, which makes us feel ill at ease. All other teachings immediately try to bring a kind of solace to its followers, let's say a certain form of intellectual comfort, at first. The teaching of a "tathægata", bears this specific property to be very uncomfortable by nature. It is so precisely because it directs us, makes us trip over scales, pebbles found in this world, whenever we tend to try to forget them, to ignore them.

That is a realistic teaching, a teaching about reality. The reality precisely lies in the fact that this world partakes of an unsatisfactory nature. As soon as we get close to reality, we inevitably feel a lot of discomfort. Otherwise, we haven't come close to it yet!

Does this "questioning" still keep on bothering you?

To me, things are going better. Because it still does occur a moment when things are going better. Indeed, on the path, there are three stages, and a conclusion, a "cherry on the cake". The first stage, this is precisely that feeling of discomfort, it can sometimes be harmful, painful, we can experience very uncomfortable things. Afterwards, when we have progressed a little, we reach the crossing point of a second obstacle, maybe worst than the first, because we precisely reach a certain stage of self-contentment, comfort and well being, a certain degree of bliss. That is still a trap. In a third stage, we are led to something even more vicious, more insidious, more effective, due to its anaesthetising effect, that is what is called experiences of equanimity and neutrality. It is treacherous and misleading because we haven't reach the final goal yet. The final goal is achieved only when cessation of all experiences is reached.

Are mad people happier than we are? Because they do not think, whereas to us, a lot of time is spent on thinking, fabricating, imagining.

This is a bit easy to point the finger at some specific categories of people by telling: "Look, they are the mad fellows". When one looks around himself, the question one may ask is not: "Where are the mad fellows ", but instead: " Where are the ones who are not mad? ". After all, is madness not mankind's natural condition? Admittedly, some degrees of madness are more advanced among some of us than others. At last, are we not all mad? Mad to endure this life. Mad to keep on wandering and going around in circles in this life, which can give us absolutely nothing.

It is true that some people, pursuant to various pathological, medical or psychological reasons, give us the feeling to be totally unconscious. Let's say that they don't express anything. Because they are, as we say, afflicted with mental disturbances. Their mind is a bit less balanced than ours. However, everyone has got his own way to be mad to endure all the sufferings he has to. Without being really aware of the stage where he is. Of course, there are always people more crazy than us. Then, we will point the fingers at that fellow by telling: "look at him , he is, beyond contest, completely insane! He spends a whole day thinking he is Napoleon, he is beyond help!" In a sense, we think of ourselves to be Peter, to be Jasmina, we think we are a man or a woman. In fact, we are exactly as crazy as he is. As Sigmund Freud very well claimed: "The whole of humanity is my patient. "

One shouldn't believe that " insane " people do not suffer. I have personally got the chance to come close to the psychiatric universe; the suffering of all those beings is quite abominable, but they do not openly express it the same way as we do, that is to say, they don't complain, they don't indulge into big metaphysical questionings, but within their own mind, do plague a lot of darkness. They sometimes go through very terrific states of suffering, mental suffering. At a physical level, we could draw a comparison with someone who suffers because he is inside of a metro, he is tied, stuffed, it is very hot, there are wooden seats, it gives him pain on the buttocks. And so sometimes, to the ones whom you call mad fellows, it is the same thing as if you literally thrust a red-hot iron into their own flesh, into their body. This is what they experience within their own mind.

We are free to some extent, we can do whatever we want, go wherever we want, when we want, as compared with criminals who are locked up in jail. If they have committed such horrible actions, it means that they definitely have mental problems. Why are monks not paying visits to jails or psychiatric hospitals to teach the cause of suffering to those people?

What you tell calls for several reflections. Everything is relative. A prisoner is locked in a jail, he does have a limited space, but we are also locked in a jail. Our space of freedom is very limited. If to you, freedom lies in choosing between New York and Hong Kong, we could say that in a sense " you are free". In all cases, beyond the surface of the earth, you don't enjoy, in today's world, the freedom to proceed WHEREVER you really want to. If you want to complete a journey to the moon or the planet Mars, you won't be able to. To a certain extent, a prisoner is someone who enjoys a certain form of freedom; he can proceed from the kitchen up to the library, the library up to showers (sometimes, he can even have access to some Internet sites!). Nevertheless, there are locations where he cannot have access due to coercive reasons: there are security doors, bars fixed on the windows, everything is very relative.

When a monk teaches the word of a tathægata, as a matter of fact, he always does it to some prisoners. Afterwards, it's a matter of degree. If the opportunity to do it into what we call, in our society, a prison environment, a place of detention, he will do it. However, the monk won't have the feeling to teach to people who are more imprisoned than others, simply because all the locations of the universe are linked with one another like in an entangling jail of inter-dependence. He will teach to other people who, on their behalf, are deeply caught up into the world's cage, the cage of the life they lead, through their obligations, social or professional needs. Life is a jail. Someone who has a job, who got married and has children...… In this existence, we undergo a lot of obligations and, in a sense, someone locked in jail is not more imprisoned and bounded by his obligations than we are.

Afterwards, we are facing the issue of the values promoted by our society, we stick to some peculiar ideals of freedom, which make us think that prisoners are more imprisoned than we are, that to live in a prison environment is something shameful and humiliating; it can be, besides, a very painful experience. On the contrary, owing to the simple fact to be free to choose, for our next vacations, between Hawaii and South of Spain, according to our social conventions, we can say that we enjoy more freedom. However, it doesn't really make a difference. As I told you, we don't really choose what we do, we don't really control the "machine".

Even if they face a lot of inconveniences, prisoners still enjoy a lot of advantages. They still have time to think a bit about the reason that brought them here, about what they do, whereas very often, in professional life, we don't even spend time on it because we are very busy in doing all sorts of things. They are quite isolated from the rest of the world, they undergo a certain form of physical solitude, which is certainly not a bad thing for following a path; please don't laugh, I am serious, they get free food and lodging, they don't really have to work, to make efforts to get their food, to maintain their place to live. To some extent, all this gives them some type of freedom that, in the world outside, we don't have. We must go for devices, do cooking, constantly worry about our food and lodging, pay the rent.

A prisoner''s problem perhaps lies in the fact that he is imprisoned, that he would like to go out. Through my own experience, I could tell you that once I had to face a problem, which was the exact opposite of the one previously mentioned, and I was precisely threatened of eviction from my lodging. Obviously, I didn't like it at all!

The monk, the bhikkhu, is the one who, from a certain viewpoint, is neither in the situation of a prisoner detained in a prison compound, nor in the situation of the other prisoner, who believes to enjoy freedom. It is still a slightly different situation. But in fact, a genuine freedom is only achieved upon reaching emancipation, that is to say succeeding in putting a definitive end to this belief we have in the "truth" , in definitely putting an end to our attachment, our fixation on sensuous pleasures and self-pride.

Once we have reached that, we have definitely achieved genuine freedom, total emancipation from this world. Afterwards, whether our body is located in a prison compound, a monastery or in a street, it no longer makes a difference.

A young child who comprehends the world with a poetic inspiration, writes a text, does a drawing, and then turns his attention away from the artistic work into which he has had a nice time. Could we say that this young child (or this adult) has entered a path conducive towards happiness. If later on, he prolongs it by some meditation sessions while observing a balanced life, is it a good start?

What do these notions of poetry and childhood have to do with your question? I find it difficult to understand.

We tend to think that children conceive the world in a simpler way than adults do. These non-attached eyes, eyes that do exercise no influence at all. Could we this consider this as a state of freedom?

I am not expert at all in child psychology but what I can remember about children whom I observed in my adult life, and mostly how far I remember the child I was, doesn't make me think at all that children are far more natural and free beings than adults are. Admittedly, adults build a certain image about childhood, but it seems to me that the life of a child is an abomination to some extent! They express themselves in a very spontaneous manner, have a better capacity to experience pleasure than we have. A child visiting a leisure park will enjoy himself to the full, he will fully take delight in the situation. We perhaps have a lesser capacity to do this type of experience once we have become adults, but in all other aspects, the life of a child is abominable, plenty of rules, when it is not literally knocks or humiliations.

In all cases, it involves a lot of totally potty principles, which are instilled in them, which they do not understand at all, a discipline that they are compelled to observe. And let us not forget that in France, and it is not the case only for France, we are led to a situation where children work more than adults. One should know that at school, a child daily works a larger number of hours than an adult does. Let's not talk about children who do not attend school but instead work in factories or elsewhere.

There are moments of explosion into laughter, of spontaneity, which, as adults, we like to ascertain in children. But aren't moments of blissful ecstasy we can experience upon listening to a cantata of Bach similar? Even if we don't openly express our sentiments of plenitude in the same way as children do. After all, is a child so different from an adult?

I just wanted to talk about living in this natural state of full awareness.

But are children really experiencing a natural state of mind that is fully aware? More than we do?

I imagine that we ascribe to children, who don't have a mind hindered with philosophical systems, perceive the world, or the noise of a river in a vivid manner, this feeling of mental peace, a pristine joy to live for the present moment, a certain degree of mental purity. Yes. At the level of recurrence of thoughts, passionate reflections that we have, we don't accept things as they are whereas children do. We can indeed say that there is a form of suffering that children never experience. But the comparison being drawn should end here itself. There are also other forms of sufferings inherent to childhood that adults usually never experience, noticeably the total privation of freedom. When they enter the adult world, many young people go through an experience of quest for what we call freedom: "Here I am, now I have grown mature, I drive my car, I can go wherever I want!"

We do enjoy liberties that children don't and these latter, among themselves, do experience specific forms of suffering, which are of a lesser range. As far as I believe to know, having never really been a gifted child, I remember having had times of passionate reflections and cogitating, which drew me to states of deep uneasiness. Nevertheless, it is true that a child can be pleased by anything, but one shouldn't be too idealistic and mainly shouldn't try to reach this state of mind.

I also wished to evoke this state of pristine communion with the whole world. Such as aboriginals do, as they harmoniously commune with nature.

We are supposed to find, as you did utter the word, a state of communion, reflected by the simple and spontaneous relationship, which takes place among a brethren of monks. However, daily realities very strongly disavow these beautiful ideals. On the contrary, to the one who succeeds in getting rid of a few of these defilement, false views, which we call kilesæs in pæ¹i language, the more he will eradicate these "pollution", the more he will connect with his environment in a quite spontaneous, neutral, adult, simple and healthy manner. We could imagine a brethren of liberated monks to be a model of perfection.

Indeed, it is true that there are communities, civilizations, primitive tribes, as we still dare to call them, who give us the feeling of a greater spontaneity, a better way to communicate. But once more, let's not be beguiled by appearances at all; someone totally naked, who wears a loincloth around his waist, with colour strokes painted on his body and who walks with naked feet in his jungle; doesn't forcibly need more communication and spontaneity than some allegedly "civilized" adults, modern as we say, equipped with a mobile phone and owning a car, do. Among those latter, we meet a few who, visibly, are quite simple folks endowed with a clear mind and who communicate with the surrounding in a way, which seems to us quite free and spontaneous.

One should be cautious while dealing with these notions and stereotypical bias, and mostly shouldn't create for himself an imaginary, emancipated, "cool", "relax", "peace and love" personality; I love you, I love you, we are all brothers belonging to the same human species. There is, besides, something very unhealthy found in those attitudes. Mainly, when they spread at the community level and around a spiritual and charismatic master, allegedly radiating with light, etc.

In fact, our step doesn't lie in trying to lead to an emancipated and perfect society, a spontaneous, clear and limpid community. Our step lies in achieving the cessation of suffering. There is a great chance that the more we will find beings who have reached the ultimate goal or have crossed significant steps on the path leading to it, the more the result, even if it wasn't the goal at first, would be a quite balanced and emancipated society, indeed, where there will be, as you say, these moments of truthfulness, of plenitude.

The most difficult (at last, the most difficult among them because it is the first) of obstacles to get rid of is this erroneous conception we have about the existence of a substance on which all world religions are based.

Unfortunately, even in theravæda we can sometimes hear monks falling into this trap. Whereas it is obvious that in the scriptures (canonical) Buddha considers this conception as precisely the first among these mental defilement and the root-causes constantly leading us to experiencing worldly sorrows.

If you undertake a training into satipa¥¥hæna, vipassanæ, you will succeed, and let's not talk about awakening or anything as such, indeed, in clearly perceiving that all this is quite empty! That there is no such a substance or nature.

Even if there is no ego, as to the wish of a person who wants to improve his human nature, to search for enlightenment, what is the real nature of that wish?

It is EXACTLY the same as the one that leads you to toilets when you want to urinate. In reality, it is nevertheless the same thing. There is, admittedly, a difference: All human beings go to toilets or behind a tree to urinate but unfortunately all beings do not follow the path leading to the end of suffering. In all cases, all beings are, in a way or another, inclined towards the achievement of a certain form of well being, of happiness. Everyone according to his affinities, his degree of maturity, will rather follow a path instead of another. Animals' capacities, in these regards, are very limited obviously but, in a sense, an animal wishes the same thing, feels that need, has this desire to reach a certain state of self-contentment. To it, however, it will be limited; it will only lie in getting its food, finding a place to sleep, etc. To us humans, there are many more opportunities made available but this idea, that inspirational impulse that does incite us to take a certain step for having a better life, still remains a perfectly in born tendency.

When we reach all this, we realise that it is the same thing. That is exactly the same mechanism that takes place when we go to toilets. It is done for the sake of getting rid of an uneasy sensation. When we go to toilets, we don't do it while being aware that there is a biological cycle taking place, that the body naturally eliminates the toxins. We don't even go to toilets to urinate but also to get relieved.

In the same way, when we tread a path, in particular the one disclosed by Buddha, we have an idea in mind. Therefore, there is no ego, nature just follows its course. Even if we indeed have more time to think, because there is no urgent matter bothering us, we ask a lot of questions within ourselves, there are some highs and lows, we keep in mind: "In a sense, I am only a mean egoist, I do my little meditation while there is a lot of suffering and misery surrounding me". Upon being seated on the "throne" while answering the call of nature, we don't tell unto ourselves: "In a sense, I am only a mean egoist, I try to get relieved while all this misery is surrounding me."

But it does occur in such a short span of time that we don't have time to go through all those questionings within ourselves. When we tread a path supposedly leading us to the complete liberation from all the burden that life binds on us, it's a much longer process. We indeed have sufficient time to go through many questionings within ourselves. Indeed, it is the same process, the same thing occurs. That is to say, we feel a certain need to succeed in being relieved, being totally delivered from something that we perceive to be an hindrance, a weight, something oppressive indeed. To tread this path, from this moment onward, is a perfectly natural thing. And in all cases, hopefully, it will deliver us from this hindrance.

Venerable Sãsana - 1999
Translated from French into English by Lambrou Dharmachandra 2001

*************************************************************************************************************

Authentic Portrait of the Middle Way
By Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso

Part One
I am very happy to meet with you all again. This evening's teaching will be on a song by Milarepa, The Authentic Portrait of the Middle Way. We will start by singing it. We will begin by singing because this will allow our minds to relax. If anyone is coming into the teaching late, they can hear the song. You may have come from a long distance and be tired and this will be a way for you to rest. Because Milarepa first sang this song, for us to sing it is very good. So now we will sing
Please begin by arousing bodhicitta, thinking that you will listen to the teachings in order to be of benefit to all sentient beings. This evening we are looking at a text that explains the middle teaching of the wheel of dharma. The middle turning is well taught by Nargarjuna in his Fundamental Teaching of the Middle Way. It was explained by Chandrakirti in his Entering the Middle Way. And Milarepa's song, Teaching the Authentic Portrait of the Middle Way summarizes it. The lord of yogins, Milarepa, underwent great difficulties to get the teachings. He first practiced eleven months in a cave meditating with a butter lamp on his head. Then he further practiced meditation his entire life in six outer, six inner, and six secret fortresses (caves), two further fortresses. four famous, and four unknown fortresses. This teaching arose from his wisdom and thus is especially precious. Milarepa had an innumerable number of students, but his foremost human student was Gampopa. And among nonhumans his foremost student was Tseringma. Milarepa sang many songs to Tseringma and her sisters. They are grouped into four cycles. The first cycle is called the Pearl Garland. The main song in this cycle is called Distinguishing the Provisional from the Definitive Meaning in Mahamudra. The second cycle is called the Radiant Garland of Nectar. Its main song is Authentic Portrait of the Middle Way . The third cycle is the Golden Garland [of something]. Its main song is the Six Bardos. The fourth cycle is the Profound Bliss. Its main song is Skillful Means. Among all the songs this one comes from the Light Garland of Nectar and is called the Authentic Portrait of the Middle Way. In the present time knowing the context of the song is important so I have explained in detail where this song comes from. We live in age of research and we look into topics in great detail. So it is important to look into the profound view of Dharma and the profound meditation very well. And it is important for we, who are Milarepa's disciples to look into his key instructions very well.
His song begins by stating that from the ultimate perspective nirvana is not truly existent. Also there are no Buddhas, attainment, paths, or levels To begin with we need to distinguish between the way things seem to exist and the way they truly exist. When one has not engaged in analysis, conventional expressions are used and it is said that samsara and nirvana exist. Since conventional expressions are used it seems that it is being said that they truly exist. The best example for understanding this type of explanation is when you don't recognize you are dreaming. The next stage is when one has done a small amount of analysis. At this stage one uses reasoning's such as the one and the many to establish that things do not truly exist. The third stage is when one has done thorough analysis. At this stage one has transcended all elaborations such as thinking things are empty or not, dual or non-dual.
The song begins by saying nirvana does not truly exist. This corresponds to the stage when one has done slight analysis. There are two ways to give teachings: one is through reasoning and the other is through explanations. If one uses reasoning, one gives logical argument. If we were to look at the first verse in terms of logical reasoning, we would say nirvana does not exist because the wisdoms and fruition kayas do not truly exist. In this verse Milarepa has presented a syllogism. In a syllogism there are three parts. The first is the subject. In this verse the subject is nirvana. Then we have the consequence. What we are trying to prove is that nirvana does not truly exist. And we have the reason, which is that the wisdom and fruition kayas do not truly exist. To have a more detailed understanding of syllogism you have to study valid cognition, where it goes into this in great detail. So we will leave it at this for now. The reason given here is that nirvana does exist because the kayas do not exist. But someone may not accept the reason. The next thing you would say is that it's true because of the line above in the verse, which says there are no destination, Bhumis, paths or signs. If these do not exist the kayas and wisdoms cannot exist. But someone might not accept this use of the reason as proof, so then you have to prove the reason given to them. So you have to say there are no destinations, Bhumis, paths or signs because there is nothing meditated upon. And if they don't accept that there is no meditation, we say there is no meditator, because there is no truly existent self who is the meditator. Looking at this in a logical way, so we can start at the top of the song where it says there is no meditator. Therefore there is no object of meditation because that would be illogical. And if we accept that, we have to accept there is no truly existent path. If this is accepted, it would be illogical to accept that there is a truly existent fruition. And if this is accepted it is illogical to accept that there is a truly existent nirvana. So it all comes down to accepting that there is no truly existent meditator. So the way we can prove nirvana does not truly exist is to work through the reasons in the song in a sequential way starting with the first reason. Because there is no meditator therefore there is no object of mediation, therefore no paths and levels, therefore no fruitions, and no nirvana. So this is how one proves that nirvana does not exist. If we were t really look at this from the style of tradition or debate it would get very involved. One would have to give supporting arguments for each of these reasons. If someone does not accept the reason, you do not just leave it at that, you have to give support for the reasoning's. In the colleges there are two ways of presenting teachings. The first is debate and the second is explanation. So it is good for you to understand how debate is used. We haven't yet discussed the first two lines of the song. The first two lines say that from the ultimate standpoint there are no hindering spirits and no Buddhas. Not only do demons not exist, Buddhas also do not exist. This explanation in the verse so far is from the perspective of slight analysis. From the standpoint of thorough analysis one does not make any statements about things being empty or non-empty. From the ultimate or final perspective things are as Nargarjuna explains in The Fundamental Teaching of the Middle Way: "In the state of peace there is neither empty or non-empty, both or neither." From this perspective you cannot say things are empty or non-empty. The last line in this section says nirvana is simply imputed using names and terms. Nirvana is simply a conceptual imputation made with names and terms. If you wonder if nirvana does not truly exist, then what is it? It is just a name or a label, which we conceptually impute. Ultimately nirvana does not exist, so in what way it is existent? It only exists as an imputation., It is just a name we use. If we didn't talk of nirvana in this way we would have nothing to say. It is important to understand the way in which things exist. It is simply a name we use in a conceptual fashion. Tonight we will just explain the first section of the song. So let us sing the song again. When listening to the song in another language, you should not anticipate it being finished, but instead rest your mind in the union of sound and emptiness.
The reason why we haven't make a separate time for meditation is that we were meditating while we were singing. In Vajrayâna there is no distinction made between chanting or meditating. So we need to look at our minds if we are practicing in this way. Songs are very important in our tradition. There are melodies that are very drawn out so that you can meditate when you are singing. Also in Vajrayâna various musical instruments are used. When the instruments are being played, this is another time when you can meditate. So this is another aspect of Vajrayâna that you should understand. After I have given the explanation of the whole song, then you can ask questions. You have all heard a lot of explanation of dharma so I will only give a detailed explanation of the profound points. This a time when people study a lot, such as studying the behavior of animals in a detailed way. So therefore all of us need to look at these profound topics in a detailed way and then experience them. That's the way it is.
Part Two
Please begin by arousing the attitude of bodhicitta, thinking that you will apply yourself to the teachings so that you will attain enlightenment for all beings. Today's teaching is a continuation of the song the Authentic Portrait of the Middle Way. Last night we had a short explanation of why nirvana does not exist. This morning we will explain why samsára does not exist. In the song this is explained in the verses "All animate, inanimate - the three realms to "That's the way these are in the final picture."