Full Enlightenment vs. Delusions of Secular Buddhism

 

Full Enlightenment vs.

Delusions of Secular Buddhism

My comment to Guru VikingPodcast episode 119.

I didn't have the patience to listen all of it but it did catch my ear Shinzen Young saying that he doesn't think doneness, i.e. buddhahood is possible. Sigh... another secular buddhist who lots of people look up to who is so unripe in his realisations that he directly contradicts himself with mahayana and vajrayana masters, while claiming to be a proponent of both. Stephen Batchelor, Culadasa Yates, Young... all singing the same tune. Two-three years before his passing Culadasa even admitted that sutrayana "doesn't go far enough", after 50 years of practicing it.

It is (much) better than nothing that there are teachers out there who have had one or few awakenings but compared to any nonphysical (or physical) mahasiddha, all these people are incredibly unripe. Then they in their "wisdom" of "many decades" of meditation with all the "top" teachers who themselves were unripe draw these genious conclusions... I remember Batchelor state, after his 8 years of being a gelugpa scholar monk, that guru yoga is bogus! See Why I Didn't Quit Guru Yoga.

It gets mindbogglingly stoopid when folks who didn't learn to practice well throw away the baby with the bath water, just like that. And that's another reason why tantric guru yoga is so precious because these silly conclusions end right there in the presence of someone who *is* done, a mahasiddha.

People of the world should really learn about the correct practice of tantric guru yoga and call masters - mahasiddhas - to them. Buddha, Jesus, Guru Rinpoche, Milarepa etc, any will do. It is easiest and simplest practice with no need for empowerment or any type of preparation other than being open to receive. It is easier than shamatha, quicker to learn than jhanas, no need to learn long prayers or mantras in foreign languages, and most importantly presence of a guru reveals our basic state or buddhanature, everytime without exception which is what jhanas or shamatha meditation can never accomplish. This is the gift of tantra that anyone anywhere anytime can make use of and receive. And importantly, this is also a way to get beyond unripe stages, where people who don't hang around with mahasiddhas get stuck. This is a way to raise the bar of dharma in the world.

People need to know that it is indeed possible to get "done", fully purified, entirely sinless, fully enlightened, to become a living buddha, just like generations of mahayana and vajrayana masters have said!

-Kim, 30.10.2021

Why Do Buddhists Turn to Shamanism?

Why Do Buddhists

Turn to Shamanism?

Last year, I found out that noted American buddhist teachers, Shinzen Young and Jack Kornfield are also practitioners of shamanism. Today I found out that another secular buddhist, Mr. Stephen Batchelor, also uses shamanic substances, together with buddhist meditation practices.

Stephen Batchelor, once a Tibetan buddhist monk and a tantric practitioner, has for about 20 years now written about his (apparently mostly) negative experiences with tantric buddhism and has been one of the torchbearers of the so called "secular buddhist movement". I commented on his interview a couple of years ago with the title Why I Didn't Quit Guru Yoga?, see here:

http://openheartopenheart.blogspot.com/2017/12/why-i-didnt-quit-guru-yoga.html

Today I learned from the insightla.org-website,

"When Stephen turned sixty, he took a sabbatical from his teaching and turned his attention to solitude, a practice integral to the meditative traditions he has long studied and taught. He aimed to venture more deeply into solitude, discovering its full extent and depth.

The Art of Solitude documents Stephen’s experiences appreciating and making art, drinking peyote and ayahuasca, practicing meditation and participating in retreats, and training himself to keep an open, questioning mind have all contributed to Batchelor’s ability to be simultaneously alone and at ease."

Like Brad's, my attention was caught by Batchelor's use of peyote and ayahuasca. I have no problem with shamanism as tantric buddhism pretty much is a mixture of shamanism and buddhist philosophy (without psychedelics though), and I neither have a problem with shamanic substances such as peyote and ayahuasca. In fact, I took peyote myself last August in Finland, in the presence of Native American medicine man called Rupert Encinas, though it had no effect on me whatsoever. Long story short, I thought the whole event was really light weight compared to buddhist tantric practice. Anyway.

Mr. Encinas also happens to be a long time teacher of Shinzen Young, another noted buddhist teacher from the secular/mindfulness/science influenced meditation scene. Mr. Encinas told me that Shinzen Young had recently done a 4-day Sun Dance ceremony with him. Those who complete Sun Dance practice can become shamans or medicine men themselves within the tradition. Apparently Young's familiarisation with the tradition is quite extensive.

Together with Batchelor and Young, also Jack Kornfield, who is one of the founders of Insight Meditation Society, has made a public testimony about shamanism, see here: http://openheartopenheart.blogspot.com/2019/08/jack-kornfield-and-shinzen-young-on.html

Seeing how one secular- or theravada-buddhist after the other turn to shamanic practices, I can't help wondering why. And in fact, there is another sutrayana buddhist, Culadasa John Yates, who in the Summer of 2019 suggested that perhaps combination of shamanism and buddhism would tap what his practices have left untapped. See full text and sources here: http://openheartopenheart.blogspot.com/2019/08/culadasa-john-yates-sutrayana-doesnt-go.html

Edit: Adding to the list...

• Vanja Palmers (soto zen buddhist) says that after decades of zen-meditation he wanted to repeat impressive experience he had as a teenager on LSD: https://youtu.be/gsJ7Z_t5H_o?t=347
• Vincent Horn, How Psychedelics Improve Your Meditation (And Much More…). "...He found that psychedelics could be used in a similar way to meditation, in order to explore the mind and existence. By setting an intention, and creating an environment similar to meditation, he found he learned some things through psychedelics that his meditative practice hadn’t.Vince says that the visual experience of psychedelics was very different to that of meditation. Psychedelics allowed him to feel connected to his human ancestry, and gave him an ego death experience that shook him more fundamentally than any ego death he’d experienced with meditation. He warns, however, about the power of psychedelics – one experience made him “go crazy” for several days. He would slap a warning label on both psychedelics and meditation, describing them both as trial by fire...: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGA7L1TH1Gc
• Brad Warner critisizes psychedelic buddhism and Vincent Horn based on buddhist precepts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZysiPbe8ErY
  

Is it just because of the lack of merit or lack of inner readiness, why these noted teachers do not turn to mahayana and vajrayana buddhism? Shamanism and buddhism were joined a long time ago so we already have tantric buddhism that has a vast array of lineages, teachings and teachers. Apparently they realise that their chosen paths of buddhism lack something to seek a boost or extra gear from outside buddhism but then, is it because they do not have fortunate karmic connections with lineages and gurus of higher vehicles of buddhism, why they turn to shamanism? Native shamanism seems like a lesser path in comparison to mahayana, not to mention varayana. Or is it simple because of the rigid aspects of Vajrayana buddhism, which is almost all Tibetan, and also mentioned in a critical light by Culadasa because of theocratic features, why these teachers don't feel interested in Tibetan vajrayana? I couldn't blame them if they felt this way because I do too on top of a bunch of other turn offs, but still this trend seems strange.

I am a practitioner and teacher of pragmatic vajrayana buddhism, with a history in zen buddhism, so I know well what kind fo extra gear tantra has to offer to even those who have trained in sutrayana extensively. However, if tantra seems like a turn off and one doesn't want to get involved with empowerments or lamas, I'd recommend looking into Pure Land Buddhism and Buddha Amitabha. In Pure Land Buddhism there are no empowerments, to my knowledge at least, but I'd actually define Amitabha practice a tantric practice and because one turns to Buddha Amitabha for spiritual liberation and knowledge, his presence has the power to tap what in the words of Culadasa, sutrayana leaves "untapped". If I was not a tantric practitioner, with the knowledge and experience I have now, I'd choose Pure Land Buddhism as my path, though with the features of pragmatic dharma.

Thanks for reading. May True Dharma flourish!

Kim,

Pemako Buddhism,

www.pemakobuddhism.com

How I Had Sex with Hookers, Broke My Vows and Hurt Everyone's Feelings

How I Had Sex with Hookers,

Broke My Vows and

Hurt Everyone's Feelings

Related reading published previously in this blog:

Culadasa John Yates: Sutrayana ”doesn't go far enough”.

The following piece of dialogue is copied from DharmaOverground-forum.

*

Kim: Recently, I've been wondering how this case is developing. I have wondered how Culadasa is holding up, whether anyone is still studying with him and whether anyone is reading his book anymore. His book was like the Bible in these circles until the allegations came out but now no one mentions it anymore.

Linda: He has started to do youtube videos again, at least, and he has viewers and people asking him questions.

Kim: He makes an interesting comment, at 12:18, here about recent events, particularly, having been very disappointed to his long term students recently.

https://youtu.be/YfRp9cMPSNk?t=662

Him saying that his long term students were immature + what we know of the whole thing, have given me the impression that this case doesn't fall under the category of "misconduct". It might be the case that he is still preparing a statement, possibly with a lawyer, or that he won't make public comments beyond that. I hope he would for cleaning the air but as I said it never seemed to me that it was such a big deal and that firing him seemed hasty of the group/board. I guess Culadasa refers to the immaturity of his old students because they weren't able to accept and see the events plainly. Also, having seen almost no enthusiasm about The Mind Illuminated in the internet since the news broke out, to me, seems another sign of immaturity of the larger community. Also, he seems to have lost weight and in overall doesn't look too healthy. These must have been very stressful times for him and those closely associated, incl. Nancy Yates.

It's a lot of guesses, impressions and if's but despite of everything I wish everyone involved much peace and clarity.

Linda: Oh, that's an entirely different interpretation. Interesting.

Personally I wouldn't want to work closely to someone who is completely unwilling to be compassionate about other people's perspectives. It doesn't matter how accomplished they are and how helpful their teachings are. I mean, I can still read their work and listen to their teachings selectively, but I wouldn't want them as my personal teacher. Obviously he is not the only one who is disappointed. He didn't mention that other side of the coin with one single word, but positioned himself as the victim. I don't know the exact circumstances about what happened, and sure, some reactions from some people who weren't directly concerned were probably over the top, but if he is concerned about seeing things plainly it might be a good idea for him to just accept that actions have consequences even for advanced meditators. And maybe, just maybe, people aren't immaturely losing faith in the dharma, but are in fact realizing that they just don't like dealing closely with people who lie to their close ones and then feel sorry for themselves and go all martyr about it when shit hits the fan. 

Kim: Culadasa has apologized for the harm so he is not without compassion or unable to understand other's feelings. He barely mentioned the topic very briefly in passing. This is not a comprehensive statement in any way, so I don't find it problematic at all that he didn't mention others more than he did. You know Linda, we still don't know the specs and we may never will but from what we know, I don't see erratic, abusive behaviour anywhere. Yet, he was kicked out from his position etc etc. I don't know any of these people and even if Daniel Ingram vouched (or something like that) for the board or some key memebers of the community, maybe they interpreted the situation in black and white fashion, lost larger perspective and crushed him. Considering what he has done for them, I can understand why he would feel like a victim.

I am a teacher myself and head teacher of the sangha that I have founded. I talk openly about sex, sexuality, sexual desire, porn, addiction and related things because they are part of everyone's life. I even make erotic art (among calligraphy and abstract expressionistic painting) and display it in the internet. By doing so I hope to disperse some really stubborn and harmful taboos that exist in dharma. I also teach tantric deity-related practices to transform sexual desire and possible addicitons (of any kind). I do not know if Culadasa has spoken about sexuality related matters as openly as I have. If he hasn't, like most dharma teachers, all this sex-stuff explodes on everyone's face in uncomfortable manner. Talking about "desire" and overcoming them in overall manner is not good enough.

(Imagined prospect starts)

If I put myself in Culadasa's place, how I imagine what might have happened, I find myself sexually very frustrated due to lack of sexual activity in marriage. Also, I've had much hardship due to long lasting illness which takes away joy in life. For people who have never been properly ill, they can't understand how it is to live without joy. Also, I am still virile enough to have and enjoy sex (possibly without opportunity to do it with my wife). In that case, like him, I would seek the company of professionals. I understand that it might hurt my spouse but what can I do? I am not celibate, nor wish to abstain from sex for the years I have left. Am I going to watch porn and masturbate until I keel over? No, after this long illness and long life lived, that doesn't seem like an option that would make me feel good about my life. So, I find prostitutes, pay for their services and get at least some sexual satisfaction, even if it isn't intimate and emotionally connected.

Some time after I've gone to prostitutes, even made friends with them and gave money to support them, my students and wife finds out I've been doing this. Maybe they can't see my actions from my perspective and are unable to see my actions from the human perspective. I am accused of adultery, suspicious use of money and having broken my buddhist vows. I am seen as immoral and immature as a practitioner. People who I have helped, supported and guided, even provided, now condemn and excommunicate me. OK... I just wanted to enjoy life and have sex, and now this has happened. I understand people feel hurt and cheated but I am a human being, with human biology, needs and desires, that despite of life long practice I have not been able to overcome. People who I know well and who I have loved, reject me, and I am left alone by people close to me.

(Imagined prospect ends)

Now, if I really did that and was condemded for these actions, being the person and teacher who I am, knowing how much I have done for my students, I would tear them new assholes. If my humanity as a teacher was ignored due to spiritual fantasies and ideals, I would let my critisizers know exactly where they belong. From this point of view, based on my imagination, I can appreciate Culadasa's moderate comment how he has been treated. His demeanor reveals as much as his words do. I can assure you, my comment wouldn't have been as moderate.

However, as I said, I've talked about these things openly and because of this I doubt my students would treat me the way Culadasa's students have treated him. I have made it perfectly clear that despite of spiritual advancement, I am still a samsaric being and me, like all samsaric beings, make mistakes and are not perfect. Also, in Open Heart-style of dharma practice, we don't have vows other than Bodhisattva Vows. We are tantrics, not sutrics, and view and do things differently.

*

Open Heart Sangha,

www.en.openheart.fi

Mahayana Buddhism Includes Psychology and Doesn't Lack Anything

Mahayana Buddhism Includes Psychology and Doesn't Lack Anything

Santiago: Approaching the understanding of mind from these two sides that humanity has developed: The ancient teachings of awakening (the Wake up line of development) and the modern western discoveries that the ancient masters didn't have access to (the Grow up line of the development), understanding how they support and compliment each other, can help solve sooo many problems, giving us a better framework for understanding why "awakened people" are such a mess sometimes, and possibly help us move counsciousness towards a more inclusive, compassionate and integrated space.



Kim: So how did ancient master become masters if they didn't have access to the modern Western discoveries of psychology? Nothing personal Santiago but this whole idea is utterly ridiculous. I'm going to offend a lot of people but I'm going to say it anyway. It is a misconception of those who are 1. poor practitioners and 2. practitioners of sutrayana. Combine the two and you end up saying stoopid shit like that.

Chris: So, Kim, do you mean to say that medicine hasn't advanced beyond the ancient Buddhist understanding of the physiology of the brain, it's chemistry and the like? Why does the Dalai Lama favor studying that same "stoopid shit?" Is he stoopid, too?

Kim: What does my comment have to do with criticising the development of medicine? Can't speak for Dalai Lama or his interest towards science but you ever heard him mention his psychotherapist?

Chris: So you aren't opposed to combining the practices of Buddhism and the discoveries and practices of modern psychiatry, neuroscience and medicine, Kim?

Kim: No. Did you get that impression?

Chris: Yes, I got that impression from the above exchange.

Kim: Things can always be improved but the mahayana/vajrayana path doesn't lack anything as it has delivered innumerable sentient beings to the other shore. I got no problem with folks combining psychology and buddhist practice but it seems to me that their 1. understanding of buddhism and 2. practice of it has severe shortcomings. That this is their understanding and that they come to this conclusion that buddhism can be bettered with the findings of Western psychology, is not the fault of buddhism and what it has to offer.

Chris: Then I'm a "stoopid" one because I firmly believe that the combination of Buddhism and psychiatry/psychology/etc. is more powerful than either one by itself.

Kim: Suit yourself. I'm just saying that even though combination of the two, sutrayana and psychology, go farther together than they go alone, it is an unproved hypothesis when it comes to anuttara samyak sambodhi.

I haven't seen a tantric lama speak of combining vajrayana and psychology but if anyone has references, please let me know. I'll then be happy to tell what is wrong with them and their bhumis, just kidding.

To be clear, I was/am looking for tantric lamas who speak in favour for combining tantra and Western psy and consider that the tantric path is doesn't go far enough.

Chris: Kim, I don't think anyone is saying quite this - that the path doesn't go far enough. What I'm asserting is that Buddhism and the science of the mind are congruent. They support and enhance each other.
Have you seen:
https://www.mindandlife.org/mission/
And:
https://www.dalailama.com/…/buddh…/science-at-the-crossroads

Kim: Yes, I understood what you're saying. I have never had much interest in scientific or psychological findings in relation to dharma practice but I am not against it, either. Each to her or his own but I just don't agree with a lot of folks who say that the buddhist system as a whole lacks anything in terms of comprehensive development. I am however highly critical about a lot of things in buddhism, buddhist paths and buddhists, and admit that for a lot of buddhists, therapy along the noble 8-fold path or paramitas, is a very smart choice. A lot of buddhist practice leaves so much untapped and rather enforces samsaric habits than releases them. A lot depends on the teacher too.

Among teachers who have turned out to be mess, there are tantrics as well but as far as I am aware none of these bad apples were practitioners which is what I mentioned in some of my prev posts. There is no way anyone, incl. a tantric lama will be able to do her or his work well, without hassles and scandals, without making sure of one's personal practice. So, I don't know of tantric lamas who were practitioners, who screwed up. All of them were nonpractitioners and therefore not actual examples or embodiments of vajrayana buddhism.

I am yet to finish the vajrayana path but maybe, when I finish the cleaning process in some distant future, I come to agree that the path of vajrayana lacks something. However, so far, I do not see the slightest indication that this would be the case.

Shargrol: It's interesting to me that I've mostly agreed with some of your statements about many of the scandal teachers not being very advanced as practioners and I've also mostly agree with statements like people who still have emotional/psychological baggage haven't gone far enough... but I've held of agreeing because I couldn't quite figure something out...

But this last post made me realize what it is: it really is more about the practioner's attitude than the practice.

If someone is honest with themselves and continues to see their blind spots, the ways they are not finished, and owns that fact and works on it --- well, then there isn't going to be much of a problem and the practice won't matter much either. If someone is doing mindfulness meditation, tantra, therapy, or centering prayer... if they stay humble and honest, they will keep seeing their imperfections. And if they stay motivated and aware of their imperfections, they will improve.

In fact, I would put my money on a dedicated non-meditator (in therapy or doing religious centering prayer, for example) over a half-motivated vajrayana practioner -- you know what I mean?

I have no idea to inspire people to have high-ideals for themeselves and their practice. It's really the only way to live, but there is no external reward. No one will give you a reward for your practice. And what having high-ideals really means, if you are doing it right, is that almost every moment and every day and every week and every year will feel like a failure. You mostly see and feel the imperfections. But every moment, day, week, year, you continue to refine yourself because you can see and feel your imperfections. That's what it means to really pursue excellence.

Unfortunately, it's clear that these scandal teachers would much rather rest on their past successes and create a mental framework where they are at a kind of pinnacle that can't be surpassed (or they might humble brag and say they are near the top) and then project any remaining shadow sides on the people around them - distancing themselves from awareness of their imperfections... until the whole thing comes crashing down.

Anyway, ultimately I don't think people can rely on any particular framework for waking up and growing up. But the path is obvious and right under our nose.

Kim: I think that attitude is very much part of the practice. It is spoken very widely about by masters of the past. Obviously, "practice" is not only sitting practice.

You hit the nail on the head with, "what having high-ideals really means, if you are doing it right, is that almost every moment and every day and every week and every year will feel like a failure. You mostly see and feel the imperfections. But every moment, day, week, year, you continue to refine yourself because you can see and feel your imperfections.".

I can identify with that. It is not "fun", if you do it right.

Remaining vulnerable and open to have one's faults pointed out is an absolute necessity. It is easy to plateau and become self-confident in a dualistic fashion without it. I'm sorry if I get on people's nerves but still, I agree with Culadasa when soon before his case broke out said that the path (sutrayana) he has followed "doesn't go far enough" and that, "As you progress on the paths of awakening, the changes of you recognising them (parts of our pscyhe) as something that needs to be purified, diminishes." It is a striking statement coming from him. From what I have seen, sincerity or bad attitude never seemed Culadasa's weak point. Actually, to me he seemed to have an admirable character which obviously had a lot to do with what he accomplished/s in his life.

A tantric would never say what Culadasa did for the simple fact that if you practice deities, archetypes of enlightened mind, there is no way for becoming blind to one's own blindspots. It is impossible because the deity doesn't allow it. One simply keeps feeling bad as long as there is something wrong with one's view or attitude.

http://openheartopenheart.blogspot.com/…/culadasa-john…

Santiago: No offense on my part Kim, I'm grateful that we live in times where anyone has a right to express their opinion (although that's also a pain in the ass sometimes :grin. I just wonder, what is your expertice on modern Western psychological discoveries? Is it big enough to make the claim that the ancient Masters understood what this science has discovered? Did they also know about quantum physics, or even general newtonian physics? I'd just say that whenever someone thinks they have the Dharma all figured out (or figured out enough to deny new approaches that they themselves don't understand well), then THAT'S an utterly ridiculous, ignorant, shitty idea.

Kim: Hi Santiago.

I am not an expert of Western psychology or sciences but if I may, perhaps a bit of an expert of meditative yoga. Yogis, such as Shakyamuni Buddha, Guru Rinpoche and numerous others sought to find a solution to remove dualistic suffering through the doctrine of emptiness and practice of various yogas. They succeeded and that's how the whole thing got started, which is why there are people who attain the same what the ancient masters did, to this date. I do not know quantum physics but I doubt anyone has ever diminished or removed their self-based confusion (dukkha) through it. Reg. healing through psychology, I am sure it happens but whether this outcome is valid as buddhist practice, is a good question. Actually, it probably is an entirely irrelevant question to a lot of people who just wish to remove their knots in one way or the other.

Dharma doesn't seek to explain all possible things, just those of our mind. It adresses a very specific problem, that of self-delusion, and I know that through these means full enlightenment can be attained. Tantric guru yoga, in which one tunes in with some enlightened master such as those mentioned above or some other, reveals this. When one spends sufficient time in guru yoga it explains a lot of the tantric path in comparison to other paths, of one's own buddhanature and about the concerned mahasiddha guru. I can agree with what the tantric tradition says that this is an extremely valuable and unique experience that cannot be acquired by any other means. From that experience I can testify that perfect enlightenment is possible and that real masters do not have shadows or unresolved psychological issues, and that they do not behave in ways like samsaric beings do. If you wish to see one in person, Amma the hugging saint is one, though not a buddhist. I'd say Rana Rinpoche is another one, though I haven't yet met him in person. Their energetic radiation is completely different from others, incl. very experienced meditators.

Sutric buddhism doesn't have tantric guru yoga, so consequentially practitioners of those paths generally do not gain this experience. It is actually possible to get the same "transmission", if you will, from chanting of the Refuge of the Three Jewels or Bodhisattva Vows, but then it is very common for sutrics to not realise that there is an element of transmission or energetic charge related to these prayers. I have actually never seen this being pointed out by any teacher of sutra but nevertheless, the same potential is there. This is a common problem in established tantric buddhism as well, although the probability is higher since the energetic charges from lineage masters, deities and prayers are more.

Pitfall of Being Alone by Ken McLeod

Pitfall of Being Alone by Ken McLeod

From Ken McLeod’s Waking up to your Life, pp. 87-88:

“Finally, there is one pitfall in meditation practice that you must avoid. Meditation practice raises the level of energy in your system in the form of active attention. The higher level of energy inevitably brings you into contact with reactive emotional patterns. If you now become selective and repress certain emotions, pushing them out of attention, two things happen. The higher level of energy in your system flows into the reactive pattern, making it stronger. The higher energy also flows into the repressing pattern, making that stronger. Both the reactive patterns of the emotion and the repression are reinforced. You end up splitting in two. One part of you is capable of attention and response. The other part becomes increasingly rigid and inflexible. It takes over unpredictably whenever the repressed emotion is triggered by events or situations. Typically, a person becomes more arrogant and self-indulgent, obsessed with power, money, sex, security, or other fixations, and acts in ways to control or amass the object of the obsession. Long-term practitioners and teachers who protect areas of their lives from their practice frequently run into this problem with unfortunate and sometimes tragic results. We run the risk of a similar fate if we protect any area of our personality or our lives from the increased awareness that develops in meditation.

To guard against this problem, always have at least one person, a teacher, colleague, or friend, with whom you discuss all aspects of your practice and your life. The person needs to be someone you trust and to whom you will listen regardless of the state of mind you are in or what he or she says. The only way to be sure that you will not protect an area of your habituated personality from the effects of practice is to have such a person in your life.”

Culadasa John Yates: Sutrayana ”doesn't go far enough”

Culadasa John Yates:

Sutrayana ”doesn't go far enough”

See this video from July 2019: https://youtu.be/X7brJ8qrLBo?t=3404

In the video Culadasa John Yates, a veteran of 50 years of practice and one of the most respected teachers of buddhist meditation in the West, discusses The Mind Illuminated, his own version of buddhist sutrayana meditations, and states that it "doesn't go far enough", despite of some insight and awakening that the method produces. This lecture was given about a month before he was fired or himself left his own Dharma Treasure organisation due to allegations of misconduct in the forms of lying and extramarital sexual affairs.

Although Culadasa's bio says that together with his hinayana lineage, he also has vajrayana lineage, I have never seen or found a reference that would state that he is a tantric practitioner or that he would teach tantra. If you know that my information lacks in this regard, please correct me. I have sought this bit of information for few years but never found it. In some webcasts he has mentioned vajrayana in general but I have never seen him talk about tantric practices in the sense that it was something that he and his students were actively involved with.

In the video he says that he has gone through buddhist meditation training and that, despite of some illumination, "buddhist meditation traditions" (in plural) have severe deficiencies. He goes on to say that combination of shamanism and buddhism would tap what his practices have left untapped. In this connection, he also mentions Tibetan buddhism and Bon-tradition. That he doesn't mention his own vajrayana teachings or practices, adds to my belief that he is not a vajrayana practitioner.

Culadasa John Yates

As a practitioner of sutrayana, his statement about the deficiency of all buddhist traditions needs to be viewed with critical thought. I am aware that buddhism in general and Tibetan vajrayana in particular has all kinds of problems but in general based on my own observations vajrayana practitioners go farther in their practice than practitioners of sutrayana. I leave scholars, academics and doctors of buddhism entirely out of this. In terms of bhumi analysis (OHBM) it can be clearly seen that tantrics have more bhumis open and perfected, or in common terms have more clarity and purity than sutrayana practitioners do. By saying this I do not deny the benefits of sutrayana, because I know from my own experience that sutra practice reaps benefits, though they are lesser. In my own experience as well as apparently Culadasa's, sutrayana leaves a lot of the psyche into the shadow. It just "doesn't go far enough". For this reason I have discussed the benefits of joining sutra and tantra together.

The problem is that sutric meditation practice is built on one's own effort, energy and ability of attention which in the present samsaric condition are very limited. On the other hand , tantric deities that are archetypes of the enlightened mind cannot but reveal all the nooks and corners of the mind or psyche, leaving nothing hidden. This is the unique gift and potential of tantric practice, that non-tantric methods do not have. 

Culadasa, "As you progress on the paths of awakening, the changes of you recognising them (parts of our pscyhe) as something that needs to be purified, diminishes."

It is such a strange thing to say... but this precisely is Culadasa's testimony of the insufficiency of sutric practice.



May All Beings Be Free,



-Kim Katami, 23.8.2019
Pemako Sangha
www.pemakobuddhism.com

 

Cessation by Culadasa John Yates

Cessation by Culadasa John Yates

Quoted from ”The Mind Illuminated” by Culadasa John Yates

The Mind-System model and unification process help us understand one of the most profound Insight experiences, the cessation event. A cessation event is where unconscious sub-minds remain tuned in and receptive to the contents of consciousness, while at the same time, none of them project any content into consciousness. Then, consciousness ceases—completely. During that period, at the level of consciousness there is a complete cessation of mental fabrications of any kind—of the illusory, mind-generated world that otherwise dominates every conscious moment. This, of course, also entails a complete cessation of craving, intention, and suffering. The only information that tuned in sub-minds receive during this event is the fact of a total absence.

What makes this the most powerful of all Insight experiences is what happens in the last few moments of consciousness leading up to the cessation. First, an object arises in consciousness that would normally produce craving. It can be almost anything. However, what happens next is quite unusual: the mind doesn’t respond with the habitual craving and clinging. Rather, it fully understands the object from the perspective of Insight: as a mental construct, completely “empty” of any real substance, impermanent, and a cause of suffering. This profound realization leads to the next and final moment of complete equanimity, in which the shared intention of all the unified sub-minds is to not respond. Because nothing is projected into consciousness, the cessation event arises. With cessation, the tuned-in sub-minds simultaneously realize that everything appearing in consciousness is simply the product of their own activity. In other words, they realize that the input they’re accustomed to receiving is simply a result of their own fabricating activities. This has a dramatic effect. The sub-minds of the discriminating mind have the Insight that everything ever known, including the Self, was nothing but a fabrication of the mind itself. The sub-minds of the sensory mind have a slightly different Insight: the only kind of information that ever appears in the mind that isn’t purely mind-generated is the input coming to them directly from the sense organs.

If the sub-minds are receptive but there’s nothing to receive, can a cessation event be consciously recalled afterward? It all depends on the nature of the shared intention before the cessation occurred. If the intention of all the tuned in sub-minds was to observe objects of consciousness, as with popular “noting” practices, all that’s subsequently recalled is an absence, a gap. After all, if every object of consciousness ceases, and there’s no intention for the sub-minds to observe anything else, then nothing gets imprinted in memory. However, if the intention was to be metacognitively aware of the state and activities of the mind, we would remember having been fully conscious, but not conscious of anything. We would recall having a pure consciousness experience(PCE), or an experience of consciousness without an object (CWO).

To be clear, there is no actual “experience” of “consciousness without an object” during the cessation event, nor could there possibly be. That experience, like any other, is a construct of the mind, and in this case is generated after the cessation event has already ended. How the memory of a cessation event is interpreted retrospectively takes many forms, depending on the views and beliefs held by the person whose mind is doing the interpreting. Thus, the cessation event itself is not a mental construct, but the subsequent interpretations are entirely constructed.

Regardless of what does or doesn’t imprint in memory, every sub-mind tuned in to consciousness during cessation must assimilate the event into its own representation of reality. As with any Insight experience, the new information forces a reprogramming of how all future experiences are interpreted and responded to. Realizing that all phenomenal experience, including the Self, are mere mental constructs, and therefore “empty” of any real substance, radically transforms how the mind functions. We understand, more clearly than ever before, craving and suffering as the grasping after mere mental constructs—and the more sub-minds are tuned in during the event, the stronger that understanding will be. Of course, it’s not that hard to acquire a conceptual grasp of these truths. Many have done so. But only Insight can establish this understanding at a deep, intuitive level.

The transformative power of a cessation event depends on how unified the mind was. Unification determines the overall size of the “audience” of sub-minds receptive to events in consciousness. Only the parts of the mind-system that were tuned in during the cessation are affected. If the mind were completely unified, then every sub-mind within the mind system would be affected simultaneously, and there would be a complete Awakening of the entire mind-system. [Footnote: nirodha-samāpatti]

However, if the mind was only partially unified, there are two possibilities: no transformation, or incomplete transformation. This is because a certain degree of unification is needed during the event to reach enough sub-minds to make any tangible, lasting difference to the whole mind-system. With too little unification, a person may have a very memorable peak experience, but with little or no lasting effect. However, if the critical threshold is reached, the second possibility is an incomplete transformation of the mind-system, limited to those sub-minds that happened to be tuned in at the time. Complete transformation must await subsequent cessations or other Insight experiences that have a similar impact on the remaining parts of the mind-system. This incremental process of transformation explains why Awakening is traditionally described as occurring in a series of stages.