GLOSSARY… Illusoryself-grasping (Pali/Skt:
ahamkāra ('I'-making); Skt:
ātma-grāha), which is dependent upon illusoryself-view: of persons, the two types of illusoryself-grasping are 1) gross/intellectually-formed (Skt:
parikalpita), meaning of a speculated 'I' independent of body and mind, and 2) subtle/innate (Skt:
sahaja), meaning of an inherently-existing self imputed upon actual khandas/skandhas. Only the latter type is said to be innate with all sentient beings.
……..Gross illusoryself-grasping is abandoned during the path-stage of stream-entry (1st bhumi); and subtle illusoryself-grasping in respect of the form-skandha (own form plus objects of the physical senses) is eradicated during fruition (2nd bhumi). Subtle illusoryself-grasping occurs at a deep level of the mind-and-energy continuum and does not refer to conscious intent, but is dependent upon subtle illusoryself-view.
Patigha/
Pratigha: enmity/fighting/opposition/wrath (source: Monier-Williams Sanskrit dictionary), 5th fetter; see also
vyāpāda.
Self (Pali:
atta; Skt:
ātman): The third seal of Buddhist teaching states that all phenomena (i.e any object of the physical senses or mind) are “not selves”. This is a Buddhist technical use of the word “self”, for a specific purpose, and does not challenge or prevent other uses of the word, in Buddhism or elsewhere. In this technical use of the word, a “self” is true and actual (that is, not imaginary (which seems fairly obvious:-) and not a conceptual substitute for something, not an idea or mental image or representation, not a word or other label); also, a “self” is individual (separate, indivisible/uncompounded), constant, and independent of other causes and conditions.
Skandhas: My general use of this term (from my understanding of its use in my ‘Zen years’) may differ from the Theravadin
khandas in respect of the third and fourth skandhas, namely
saññā/
samjñā and
sankhāra/
samskāra.
Samjñā, in my usage, means thoughts (ideas/images/yatter/etc) as formations;
samskāra means “putting together" or "compositional activity" (illusoryself-grasping is a 'compositional activity', 'I'-making). I found this usage has some relevance when referring to awakening-sequencing in the three consecutive Supramundane Paths/Big Cycles (the first being from stream-entry to ‘arhat’) covered by this and later accounts.
Vyāpāda: death/destruction/malice/ruin (source: Monier-Williams Sanskrit dictionary), 5th fetter; see also
patigha/
pratigha.
-o-O-o-
INTRODUCTION & DISCLAIMER…… Mention of individuals in any unbecoming light is for narrative clarity, not revenge …
……..My assigning Theravadin and Mahayanist terms for stages is conjectural; I am not trying to requalify the original referents of those terms. However, some of my descriptions may differ from traditional formulae/ translations; thus I have used ‘single quotes’ for stages where I consider my use of these terms might be controversial. I have consulted with no one whom I consider experientially expert in both the stages of actual liberative insight I have described and in the use of these terms. I prefer to think and write of my liberative experiences in terms of what they did, but include references to traditionally-named stages for comparison …
-o-O-o-
BLAH...ERM, DEPRESSING SPIRITUAL AUTOBIOGRAPHY STUFF (PART 2)…… [preceding depressing stuff omitted...but plenty followed :-)]
STREAM-ENTRY
IN early 1968, relations with my father worsened after his recent return from six months’ business in Africa. He seemed to regret being again in England, a place he had never liked; and I seemed to provide him with no end of dissatisfaction and annoyance just by being myself! Being exposed to a frequent heavy hail of concepts and opinions over weeks, I realised that I too had many ideas and opinions about what was or was not true, and saw my own obligation to know Truth directly, not through ideas and opinions, others’ or mine.
……..Wanting to give my full, uninterrupted attention to this enquiry, I decided to wait until the school’s Easter holidays. I was heartened to remember my successful experience of two years before when I had initially felt up against an impenetrable wall, and was certain I could resolve the present issue. By the time the holidays began I felt great urgency about my enquiry, and reflecting on how long I'd already lived (in this life), not wanting to delay longer than necessary.
……..For some reason, I sat in our dining-room to contemplate the matter; the room was used almost only for dining with guests. I formulated my question, “What is Truth?”; but then I had to understand what I meant by it. I wanted directly to know, “What is, before I stick my words and labels on it, or substitute my concepts and opinions for it?” I had no knowledge of Buddhism (other than that it was a religion), or instruction in meditation at this time, so I did the only thing that seemed obvious to me…in silent concentration I suppressed thoughts. I do not recall how hard I had to work at this; I remember it being physically stressful, so I probably had to apply myself a few times, but I was resolute.
……..At some point something suddenly switched...and nothing looked the same any more; instead, an extraordinary spaciousness and seeing a unified field of forms (of which my body-form was part). In wonderment I looked at my hands: they were not my hands; this physical form was not ‘me’. Everything (i.e visual form) was ineffable…beyond anything words and concepts could reach. Amazing...astonishing...miraculous. All seamless... arising together. Who could not but feel awed, humbled, and with immense gratitude? ...In this spaciousness something else had changed; I didn’t know what it was, but when I observed my thoughts they seemed more like some faint yattering at distance and (faintly perturbingly) less graspable as ‘me’.
……..Unfortunately I do not recall all details, or necessarily in actual sequence. Looking at the forms in this unified field I saw their seamlessness in space, intervening spaces also part of the field; their compoundedness, and seemingly infinite divisibility yet simultaneous dimensionlessness as points; and their indefinability and ungraspability by concept and word. I considered the far sweep of possible consequences of any event (these days, called the ‘butterfly effect’). Together these raised the question, “Why should event B follow event A?” What had appeared ‘logical’ was not ‘logical’, as I had understood it, at all; what I had thought of as ‘logic’ seemed to be an act of faith or will from start to end, a series of premises, which might (or not) coincide with events. I saw how self-importance concerning ones likes and dislikes could lead to many kinds of judgement that blind one to reality; one could live ones whole life barely glimpsing or acknowledging the world beyond these projections. I saw that mistaking words and concepts for the reality to which they referred could do the same.
……..I felt humbled and deeply grateful for what I had seen, and vowed to try to live by it and to deepen my understanding. Having glimpsed beyond the opposites, I was aware of need to free myself from blinkers of like and dislike, concepts and words. Spontaneously I began to refer to Truth devotionally as “Lord”, and to “the Absolute”. Nonetheless, I suffered from a dualistic view of Absolute versus relative, ‘the Absolute’ seeming to exist as separate and elsewhere from the relative. Lacking knowledge of mindfulness training, and fearing that to feel/think something meant that I believed it, thereafter I exerted great effort to suppress internal responses that seemed inappropriate or untruthful, a practice both anxiety-provoking and physically stressful.
Notes: I understand the above-described awakening in Buddhist shravakayana terms as entry to stream-winner stage (first stage of the Supramundane Path), at which the experient is said to be released from the three fetters of 1) Pali: sakkāyaditthi; Skt: sakāyadrishti, often translated as “false view of a ‘self’” (i.e a fixed, unconditionally arising or independently existing, indivisible entity imputed as, in, or separate from the kandhas); 2) doubt about the reality of spiritual training and awakening; and 3) holding rituals and ceremonies as alternatives to, or substitutes for, awakening. However, explanations of sakkayaditthi may be exceedingly ambiguous, and might lead readers to suppose that elimination of this fetter refers to all the kandhas and is the full overcoming of innate illusoryself-grasping (see glossary); this would actually be a case of arhat-fruition. Kāya means “body” or “group”; my understanding is that, at stream-winner stage, it is the body (and other forms in ones environment), and not the entirety of the kandhas, that is deeply realised as not-self (not-selves), innate illusoryself-grasping in respect of the form skandha (which includes ones body-form plus forms in the environment) being eradicated. This is also the explanation given by Theravada teacher Ajahn Chah, tucked away in Opening the Dhamma Eye, re Kondañña. This impacts very subtly on the appearance of a fixed, unconditionally or independently arising, indivisible, substantial ‘self’ as other kandhas; but in 1968 I did not understand the basis of this effect.……..I have read that people can leap over individual stages of the Supramundane Path in their awakenings: thus, for example, someone who had sufficiently weakened the two fetters of kāmachanda/kāmarāga (ardour/fervour for sense-desires; 4th fetter) and patigha/vyāpāda (see glossary) might first awaken directly to not-self at once-returner stage (or even non-returner stage), leaping over stream-winner stage in the process.……..In terms of the bodhisattvayana, I understand the above-described awakening to equate to the wisdom aspect of the first and second bhumis. My mind was not that of a bodhisattva wishing to liberate all beings out of great compassion; sorting out my own act was my aspiration!:-) Equating entries to stream-winner stage and the first bodhisattva bhumi, Vajrayana teacher Geshe Kelsang Gyatso wrote in Ocean of Nectar that only the “intellectually-formed view of the transitory collection ”, and not the “innate view” (associated with innate illusoryself-grasping), is abandoned on this bhumi, but that the second bhumi starts with abandoning/eradicating grossest actual innate illusoryself-grasping. I did not have the wherewithal by myself to arrive at conscious intellectual understanding of no ‘self’ in all the skandhas; had I encountered śūnyatā (emptiness) teachings at this time, I would have recognised the truth of them (with great relief...phew!:-) although certainly not fully understanding them.……..Concerning "logic", my reflections above were from a perspective of the unconditioned nature of the conditioned, which was rather confusing to me at the time!……..My awareness of "need to free myself from blinkers of like and dislike" echoes the requisite for gaining 'once-returner' stage, namely lessening the fetters of kāmachanda/kāmarāga and patigha/vyāpāda; which suggests to me that a common process unfolds in further awakening.