In ancient times, humanity — that is we — dealt with the horror of inexplicable existence in a harsh and unforgiving world by first creating and then worshiping with unconditional fear and devotion, gods and spirits; we bowed down to them as the source of all things, good and evil, that befell us. We sought ways to placate and protect ourselves from these dark and incomprehensible forces and their inscrutable movements in the world by sacrifice; by the intervention of shamans, rituals, superstitious rites and so forth; and by abject submission to what we imagined to be their will.
And then, about 2,500 years ago, we began to shake ourselves loose from this dark confusion, and the idea arose in us that the truth of all things whatsoever is to be found only within our selves. This shift gave rise to all the religions and non-animistic spiritual practices alive in the world today. In India, the Vedas, the Upanishads, and the teachings of vedanta, dvaita and advaita all arose from this startling new idea; God is within, truth is within, release from suffering and confusion is within, absolute Reality is within.
The Buddha appeared among us early on in this shift, and urged us to rely first and always on our natural intelligence and common sense in this adventure. He told us to believe nothing, not even what he said, if it did not agree with what we could see and understand for ourselves. But we paid no attention to him, preferring as we do, to find someone else to believe in; someone else to appeal to for truth; someone else to bestow upon us the object of all our desiring and the end to all our confusion. And the model we created to replace the old model, was the old model, complete with unscrutable gurus, teachers wise beyond our ability to comprehend, and transcendental mystical masters in the place of the old gods and spirits and dark forces.
And even now in the worldly West, as then in the superstitious East, we honor this model. We seek out gurus, teachers and preachers, and spiritual beings of every stripe, expecting to get from them boons and realizations and special favor by our devotion and merit. We — the students, the devotees, the supplicants — sit at the feet of our masters yearning with all our hearts for the transmission of some energy or state that will shock us out of the trance of ignorance and propel us into a state that transcends normal consciousness, a state that clears — destroys, really — the mind; a transmission that ends ego and ego-thought, and creates within us an empty and pure new reality in which all things are seen clearly and peace and freedom and love reign unhindered and unobscured.
Or we look for teachers who will give us occult practices and techniques and understandings that will clear away the fog of neurotic impulses, negative emotions, false responses to stimuli, and all forms of self-betrayal, in the belief that truth is obscured and hidden from our vision by these habits of mind; that if only we could find a moment of true clarity, truth would shine through once and for all with a force that might dissolve the thick, hot smoke of self-deceit and stupid self-involvement that characterizes our every thought and desire. If only mind could be fixed, made clean and true, then all would be well.
This model has been around for about 2,500 years now, and has not worked out all that well. Otherwise, would we not be seeing less hatred and violence and cruelty among us? Would there not be by now, a huge majority of enlightened ones radiating wisdom and peace throughout humanity? Would we still have to answer these questions with mysterious references to wise ones hidden from view, or by resorting to perversions of the insight that all is well as it is. It has been twenty-five hundred years now, and still we are told that realization is for the few. How can that be? How does this comport with the Buddha’s insistence that we rely on our own native intelligence? Does this seem reasonable to you?
We desperately need a new model, a model that arises from a clear seeing that the very core, the most profound and radical heart of what’s possible here is the simple insight that truly we are what we seek, and that the sole cause of all confusion and suffering whatsoever is a false belief about what we are, and that the only solution to this problem is the truth, which is the ever-present, self-evident reality of our being. We need a model that recognizes that while there certainly are those from whom the lie of false identity has been removed, those who might actually be of some practical help to those of us still caught in its grip, the only true teacher is the teacher that knows himself to be servant, not master. We need a new model in which our own inherent intelligence and discernment can be relied upon to separate the wheat from the chaff.
EMail This Post
Print This Post 
2,815 Views 
Brad | 08-Nov-06 at 11:35 pm | Permalink
My favorite part of this post:
We need a model that recognizes that while there certainly are those from whom the lie of false identity has been removed, those who might actually be of some practical help to those of us still caught in its grip, the only true teacher is the teacher that knows himself to be servant, not master.
This is the only teacher I want.
Brad
Don | 19-Nov-06 at 5:45 am | Permalink
Life itself is teaching me, reminding me of what I seem to have forgotten.
It’s as if I am re-learning, over and over again, what I already know.
One cannot help but love.
Tobias | 19-Nov-06 at 9:25 am | Permalink
Hello John,
My favorite part is the last sentence: “we need a new model in which our own inherent intelligence and discernment can be relied upon to separate the wheat from the chaff.” (and find the truth).
If such model could be found, if this is possible (the same way science started to discover this universe, opposing religious belief)… it would change the world of humanity.
If one looks to evolution, there have always been steps to a new understanding of the world, and oneself. Today, that what science does concerning this universe, has to find its fulfillment concerning the understanding of ourselves. Otherwise science seems to be the tool mankind will use to kill itself.
It is somehow the missing point, where the philosophy of the “siècle de la lumière” stopped, wasn’t able till now, to look behind. I. Kant stopped at the point where the world appears, and one is not able to say anything about the nature of the things appearing.
It seems just only a little step, but somehow very difficult, to find this link of “I and world”.
Tobias
Michwel | 20-Nov-06 at 5:27 pm | Permalink
Who or what could possibly be a model for this? Nothing can model this. We think Jesus or Satsang offers it, and yet, (as John once stated,) what you experience in Satsang is not what you’re looking for (my paraphrasing). Maharshi didn’t offer a model — not insofar as John teaches Maharshi. It can only be your being, and there can be no model for that — not even others’ beingness, freely self-awakened as it may be. Therefore, as John suggests, bring the attention back to its source — your being. Unfortunately, and luckily, being doesn’t model itself, except to explore by way of self-amnesia, it seems. So, even models have a place, which is the same as to say that even problems have their place. In other words, perhaps the last thing we should be asking for is another model — the which would probably just go through the historical social mind cycle described by John in this blog. The model in which “our own inherent intelligence and discernment can be relied upon to separate the wheat from the chaff” WAS Buddhism. That, as John states over and over, “we truly are what we seek” is beyond and apriori all modeling.
Frank W | 21-Nov-06 at 4:33 am | Permalink
Dear John,
I owe a gratitude that I cannot put to words for the absurd good luck of coming across Ramana Maharishi’s not-a-teaching in my lifetime. Sitting at the feet of a teacher, Isaac Shapiro in my case, was the best thing that happened to me yet. I love meeting in truth - That’s what Satsang is, right? However, meeting in truth does in no way imply the santaclausiness that a lot of people, ‘teachers’ and ‘students’ alike, seem to enjoy to no end.
As a mushroom once told Terence McKenna, asking someone else for enlightenment is like one grain of sand on the beach asking another for directions. The greatness of Ramana’s teaching is that there’s really no teaching, no teacher, no student, there is only a meeting in truth.
Belief is the old model. I see no distinction between false and true belief. It’s usually true enough, as belief, that is. Our culture has belief and religion thoroughly mixed up. We’re all raised in the belief that belief is a good thing. And that belief is never challenged.
Now do we need a new model, or should we have a deep distrust of models in the first place? What kind of model would prevent my great-great-granddaughter twenty times removed burning a candle for a gilded bronze statue of Ramana Maharishi? I can’t think of any. Only the love of truth could do that.
Michwel | 24-Nov-06 at 12:47 pm | Permalink
This is a somewhat contrite sequel to my blog of Nov. 20. I feel the loose end of it is that: “there is a place for models, just as there is a place for problems,” as well as for words, being that these are in (relatively) transient existence. Should they be therefore given any attention? No, to be true to John’s teaching; no. And yet they partake of our attention, whether consciously or not. Being needs not fight them. And, we impartially allow (and even add) to their fulfilled lives, sometimes even as they begin or end as models. They appear, approach, and disappear as they get too close, unless we splice a personal storyline onto them so as to give them mass and duration. In the case of models, they appear, approach and disappear, unless we splice a personal or impersonal story onto their pretextual nature. If we do, the storyline has the added advantage of a pretextual value, increasing its potential for mass and duration. However, if we do not splice a personal storyline onto the arising model, the pretextual value of it is simply another pointer. As with any thought, a pointer, whether of greater or lesser perceivable consequence. So the question arises, is John pointing to a pointer of perceivable consequence, by suggesting that there is a pretextual value in intelligence and discernment. His words: “…a new model in which our own inherent intelligence and discernment can be relied upon to separate the wheat from the chaff.” John is realy asking, are we ready to perceive the pointing value of a model (this model, in particular) without splicing a personal storyline onto it. Are we awake enough to distinquish intelligence and discernment without having to define them for ourselves in terms of a dissociated mental interpretation (”mind”) and judgement-based perpetuation (”story”). Are we ready to perceive intelligence and discernment as issuing from being — issuing from us as and for being. Can we “do” this beyond any context of mind or story? Yes, sure we can, John, because you have pointed us to at least that spot. The question remains, however, do these pre-phenomenal (even pre-vibrational) expressions of being comprise a “model”? For now, I would elect “no”, because a model is generally understood to be a circumscription, separate from what/who it models for. Intelligence is the ongoing or intermittent touch of awareness in consciousness. Discernment is the perception of distinction in that touch. Neither appear to be circumscribed in themselves, or by anything. And, nor are they circumscribed in their actions of separating wheat from chaff. They are uncircumscribed points, independent of dimension. They are “permanent” (”can be relied upon”). They can be framed with a projected (transient)embodiment and thus be modelled, for either an instant or for an eon in mind. But I do not presently perceive them per se self-presenting as models.
Should this blog response itself perchance “point” to a discernment, it will have pointed to a mirror. You have been pointed to by way of that mirror. But should it perchance “model” discernment, perhaps best let it go. Now.
Ernie | 20-Apr-07 at 7:15 pm | Permalink
I love this entry.
Maybe compassion for the worlds increasing misery and stupidity will force us to actually listen and learn (or remember) rather than worship ?
Peace,
Ernie
Alex | 25-Apr-07 at 6:22 am | Permalink
Thank You
genny carr | 12-Feb-08 at 9:31 am | Permalink
John - do you ever come to San Diego area? The Philosophical Library would invite you to come and share yourself. Please contact me.