Help on the Quest for Self-realization-Reminders-83

[Guest guest]

Help on the Quest for Self-realization-Reminders-83

 

Where Charity Begins

 

…The quest for Realization is the great enterprise, the true goal of

life. Yet one often hears the objection: 'But isn't it more

important to help others?' Although some who make this objection

doubtless do so in good faith, it is at bottom a hypocritical attack

on spirituality. It goes back to the 19th Century socialists who

used to say: "First things first. Let us first remove the poverty of

the people, then there will be time to consider their spiritual

needs." Well, they succeeded in what they considered first. There is

very little poverty left in North-Western Europe. And did they then

turn to spiritual succor? Not at all. The anti-spiritual trend

accelerated and became more unabashed. The workers who acquired

leisure, security and a competence had less time, not more, to

devote to their spiritual needs.

 

In fact it is not true that welfare facilitates religion, or poverty

impedes it, or that material needs are the 'first things' to be

attended to. Christ taught the exact opposite when the rich young

man approached him and he told him to give his property away and

become a mendicant. But then, of course, Christ and his followers

would be put in gaol in a Welfare State because begging is illegal.

If poverty can be an impediment, so also can prosperity. Indeed, it

might well be said that in a welfare state prosperity is the opiate

of the people, lulling them into a false sense of security.

 

One sign of the animus behind the do-good objection is that it is

only used against those who turn to a spiritual path. If a man

declares that his absorbing interest in life is music or business or

politics no such objection is made; only if it is religion that he

turns to. And why should it be supposed that one who is striving to

subjugate or destroy his ego is doing less to help others than one

who allows it free play? Rather he is likely to do more. He may be

more unobtrusive about it, simply helping those who come his way

rather than engaging in organized charities, but there is likely to

be less vanity and more genuine goodwill in what he does.

 

A touchstone that has been widely used in assessing moral behavior

is: 'What would happen if everyone did that?' If everyone lived as

the Maharshi enjoined, in the world but not of it, fulfilling his

professional and family obligations with detachment, helping where

he came upon the need for help, while striving on the path, the

answer is that there would be no need for social service, since none

would be exploited or impoverished for the benefit of others. There

would be no destitute to help.

 

This touchstone also, however, has an anti-spiritual animus, being

aimed in part against those who renounce the world to be come monks

or sadhus. It is in fact against those who renounce the world that

the first objection mentioned, 'but wouldn't it be better to help

others?' is primarily aimed, although by extension it has come to be

applied unthinkingly to all who follow a spiritual path. In fact it

crystallizes the Reformation revolt against traditional Christian

monasticism. Indeed, even before the high tide of the Reformation,

the anonymous 14th Century author of 'The Cloud of Unknowing' spoke

regretfully of it in terms of Martha's complaint against

Mary. "'Just as Martha complained then about Mary her sister, so do

active persons complain about contemplatives unto this very day.' In

terms of the Gospel story, this attitude of mind means that Martha

chose the better way. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but

is one who rejects the decision of Christ in favor of his own

opinion entitled to call himself a Christian?"*

__________________________

* Buddhism and Christianity in the Light of Hinduism, p. 33, by

Arthur Osborne, Rider & Co.

 

'What would happen if everyone did that?' The first and most obvious

answer is that it is an unreal question, since everyone will not do

that: there are more Marthas than Marys in the world.

 

A deeper answer is that "man does not live by bread alone." Everyone

is a transmitting station of harmonious or destructive influences.

The discordant, aggressive or corrupt tendencies in a man can be

just as infectious as physical diseases, and that despite the fact

that he may outwardly be doing social work. Conversely, the

beneficent emanations of a spiritual person can have a harmonizing

effect on all around, even if they never speak with him, never meet

him face to face, even though he may be a recluse with no apparent

contact with the world. If people can believe that a musician

bestows something on the community, even though he does not supply

food or clothing, it is but a step farther to understand that a

spiritual man can too. Indeed, his benefaction is more powerful

since, being independent of forms, it can penetrate the mind

directly without the mediation of the senses. That is why the

fellowship of saints has always been so sought after.

 

The influence may be almost too subtle to perceive, like a vague

perfume of roses or it may be strong and tangible. "Great souls,

wherever they are, create a spiritual zone around them: and anybody

coming within that zone realizes something like an electric current

passing into him. It is a very strange phenomenon, impossible to

explain, unless one has experienced it oneself."*

__________________________

* Spiritual Discourses of Swami Vijnananda from Prabuddha Bharata,

Oct. 1963 issue.

 

In the subtler sense of giving spiritual aid this error of turning

outwards to the welfare of others instead of attending first to

one's own quest, goes right back to the foundation of Mahayana

Buddhism some two thousand years ago. I do not question the

spiritual potency of the Mahayana. The test of a tree is its fruit,

and the great Sages the Mahayana has produced are proof enough that

the way they trod was valid. That is all we need to know about a

path - that it can take us to the Goal. Nevertheless, their

criticism of the Hinayana and their substitution of the Bodhisattva

ideal for that of the Arahat, as it stands and as it is to be read

today, is the point of view of ignorance.

 

Briefly, it is that the Arahat seeks only his private, individual

Realization or Nirvana, whereas the Bodhisattva pledges himself to

seek the Realization of all mankind, and even holds back voluntarily

from the final step of entering Nirvana until his self-imposed task

of helping others has been accomplished.

 

Now, in the first place, there is no such thing as individual

Realization. Realization means realization that there is no

individual: that is to say it is realization of the basic Buddhist

doctrine of anatta, no-ego. Nirvana is the state which remains when

the individual ceases to exist. How then, can it be individual? To

ask one who has awakened from the dream of individual be-ing into

the reality of Nirvana whether others also have attained Realization

would be, as the Maharshi expressed it, as senseless as asking

someone who wakes up from a dream whether the other people in his

dream have also woken up.*

__________________________

* The Teachings of Ramana Maharshi in His own Words, p. 92-93,

Rider's edition, p. 115, Sri Ramanashram edition.

 

This, of course, is fully understood by the Mahayana teachers, but

not by all their followers. One of their basic scriptures expressly

affirms that there are no others to help, as a safeguard after

speaking of the boundless compassion of the Buddha. "The famous

Diamond Sutra makes it quite clear that the doctrine of compassion

is only a facade for the ignorant, since in reality there are no

others to whom to be compassionate. 'The Lord Buddha continued: Do

not think, Subhuti, that the Tathagata would consider within

himself: I will deliver human beings.' That would be a degrading

thought. Why? Because really there are no sentient beings to be

delivered by the Tathagata. Should there be any sentient being to be

delivered by the Tathagata, it would mean that the Tathagata was

cherishing within his mind arbitrary conceptions of phenomena such

as one's own self, other selves, living beings and a universal self.

Even when the Tathagata refers to himself, he is not holding within

his mind any such arbitrary thought. Only terrestrial human beings

think of selfhood as being a personal possession, Subhuti. Even the

expression 'terrestrial beings' as used by the Tathagata does not

mean that there are any such beings. It is only used as a figure of

speech."*

__________________________

* Buddhism and Christianity in the Light of Hinduism, p. 113-114, by

Arthur Osborne, Rider, quoting A Buddhist Bible, p. 91-92, edited by

Dwight Goddard, Harrap.

 

As long as there is the concept of an 'I' there is a concept of

others; as long as there are others to help there is an I to help

them and therefore no Self-Realization. The two go together; they

cannot be separated.

 

OTHERS

What will they think of this?

What will they say to that?

So others arise.

When there are others there's I.

In truth there just IS.

Isness alone is;

No others, no I, only a dance, a rhythm,

Only a being.

 

Of course, one has to, play the game of 'I and others', to act as

though they existed. It is as if (as can sometimes happen) one had a

dream and took part in its events while at the same time being awake

enough to know that it was a dream.

 

What, then, is this vow to help others before seeking one's own

Realization? Nothing but a resolve to remain in a state of ignorance

(avidya). And how will that help others? It means clinging to the

ego one has sworn to dissolve, regarding it as supremely wise and

beneficent! In the language of theism it is revealed as overweening

arrogance, the decision to show God how to run His world or to run

it for Him.

 

Whatever may have been the traditional Mahayana discipline (and a

significant injunction by Milarepa, one of the great Mahayana

saints, is quoted in a recent life of him: "One should not be over

hasty in setting out to help others before one has realized the

Truth; if one does it is a case of the blind leading the blind.")*

this urge to help others by being a guru before one's time is one of

the greatest pitfalls for the aspirant today. There may be some

compassion in it, but there is likely to be far more vanity and

egoism. Few things so flatter the ego as the dream of being a guru

surrounded by the adulation of disciples. Few things so impede an

aspirant as turning his energy outwards to guide others when it

should still be turned inwards to his own purification. In spiritual

things it is true, as the 19th Century economists falsely asserted

about material things, that you help others most by helping

yourself. The Maharshi never indulged such people. He told

them: "Help yourself first before you think of helping others."

__________________________

* The Life of Milarepa, Tibet's Great Yogi, -p. 157-8. By Lobzang

Jivaka, John Murray.

 

In any case, there is no need of any vow of compassion. The nearer a

man comes to the truth of the Universal Self, the more his

phenomenal, individual self will take its true form and, without any

vows, without arrogating to himself the control of his own destiny,

he will find himself acting as it is his nature to act, doing what

it is his true function to do. It may not be his function to be a

guru at all: if it is it will come about naturally and healthily

when the time is ripe, without his trying to force it.

 

A few examples will illustrate this. Buddha was the only son of his

father and the heir apparent to his father's small kingdom. In what

the unctuous do-gooders would call 'selfish' preoccupation with his

own spiritual welfare, he abandoned wife and child, father and

throne, and set forth alone as a sadhu to seek Enlightenment. And

how many millions have since drawn sustenance from his renunciation!

St. Francis of Assissi forsook the family business and alienated his

father in order to embrace 'the Lady Poverty'. And what spiritual

wealth has flowed forth from his material destitution! Sri

Ramakrishna was consumed with ecstatic craving for the Grace of the

Divine Mother. Nothing else concerned him, neither helping himself

nor others. It seemed he would go mad with longing and despair.

Then, when he did at last attain, such power flowed through him as

to launch the spiritual regeneration of Hinduism and its attraction

for Western seekers. Realization descended unsought on Ramana

Maharshi when he was a schoolboy of 16. He left home, seeking only

solitude, and remained immersed in the Bliss of Being: yet disciples

gathered round and he became the Jagat-Guru, the World-Guru, of his

time through whom a new path adapted to the conditions of our age

was made accessible to those who seek.

 

All of which goes to show that the Universal Harmony does not

require any man's planning to give it shape; or, in theistic

language, that God can do His job without our advice.

 

>From The Mountain Path Editorial, April, 1964