Guest guest Posted March 22, 2007 Report Share Posted March 22, 2007 Editorial Where Charity Begins I said in my last editorial that 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 succour? 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 organised 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 behaviour 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 crystalises 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 favour of his own opinion entitled to call himself a Christian?"*'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 harmonising 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."** 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.*** 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."****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." 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. Realisation 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. * Buddhism and Christianity in the Light of Hinduism, p. 33, by Arthur Osborne, Rider & Co. ** Spiritual Discourses of Swami Vijnananda from Prabuddha Bharata, Oct. 1963 issue. *** The Teachings of Ramana Maharshi in His own Words, p. 92-93, Rider's edition, p. 115, Sri Ramanashram edition. **** 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. ***** The Life of Milarepa, Tibet's Great Yogi, -p. 157-8. By Lobzang Jivaka, John Murray. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2007 Report Share Posted March 23, 2007 thank you, michael, for posting this editorial. accurate, delightfuly clear and true to it's title. a joy! yosy ps. what is the name of the author? , " Michael Bindel " <michael.bindel wrote: > > Editorial > > Where Charity Begins > > > > I said in my last editorial that 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 succour? 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 organised 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 behaviour 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 crystalises 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 favour of his own opinion entitled to call himself a Christian? " * > > '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 harmonising 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. " ** > > > 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.*** > > > 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. " **** > > 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. " > > > 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. Realisation 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. > > > > * Buddhism and Christianity in the Light of Hinduism, p. 33, by Arthur Osborne, Rider & Co. > > ** Spiritual Discourses of Swami Vijnananda from Prabuddha Bharata, Oct. 1963 issue. > > *** The Teachings of Ramana Maharshi in His own Words, p. 92-93, Rider's edition, p. 115, Sri Ramanashram edition. > > **** 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. > > ***** The Life of Milarepa, Tibet's Great Yogi, -p. 157-8. By Lobzang Jivaka, John Murray. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.