Transcending Spiritual Teachings

[Milfoil]

Three times in the last few days I have been given the sign or story of the 6 of swords/Buddhist Raft of Dharma story. Though not Buddhist myself, there are a lot of teachings which resonate with me personally.

For those who are unfamiliar with the Buddha's story of the raft it runs along the lines of:

A monk comes to a wide, flowing body of water, the land on his side is marshy, unstable and difficult but the land on the other side is firm, fertile and good. There are not boats to take him across so he considers that if he gathers wood and grasses together, binds them and makes a raft, he can get across the river to the other side. So he diligently spends his time gathering the materials, learning how to put them together and making the raft. Upon reaching the other side, should he take the raft up on his back and carry it with him so that he can cross other rivers or should he leave it behind?

The story parallels the dharma (path of spiritual teachings), how it is useful to help us achieve a degree of knowlege, discipline and understanding, like the raft it can take us to a new shore (enlightenment) but once there, how useful are these teachings? Will they burden us or assist us?

We still know how to make the raft but do we have to carry the actual raft with us or can we leave it behind, not be attached to the teachings and spread our wings wider to embrace all things? That is not to say that we accept everything suggested, but that through enlightenment (the wisdom to no longer need outside direction) we are able to let go of the dogma and limiting beliefs which may have offered the necessary support and structure until we arrived at that new understanding.

Is this true for all beliefs? It seems and feels true to me, that all I need is me to be here and present but where does this leave the more rigid belief systems where this kind of thinking does not form part of their teachings? Did they never get to this point? I think many did, the mystics in all the major religions perhaps but not the structure of the religions themselves.

So the opennes to drop everything as a realisation of a wider wisdom, as opposed to accepting everything in an attempt to achieve the same realisation - what do you think?

Are the two mutually intertwined or incompatible?

 

[BodhiSeed]

My first thought is the Buddha was teaching about attachment. He wanted the monks to realize that Truth is not something that can be boxed up and mass-marketed. I don't think he meant for the monks to toss out all they had learned, but to know that truth is a process, a quest, that never ends. If you're content/complacent with what you know and consider it as absolute, you cease to grow and all conversation ends (but sermons begin).

 

[Milfoil]

Yes, and attachment itself is a massive area of contemplation. It wasn't so much to throw out everything you have learned (hence - you take the knowledge of making the raft with you) but to leave the actual raft itself behind (the dogma or rules).

 

[Richard]

The various religions (Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.) are not IT, but they may point to IT. As regards Buddhism, the Hermann Hesse novel Siddhartha marked a turning point in my life from which, fortunately, I have never recovered.

 

[Milfoil]

I agree. What strikes me is the rigidity of the raft (Religious teachings) and how we have to have discipline and focus, strength and vision to paddle that raft to the other shore. So much has been invested in that raft, as Bodhiseed says, it's the attachment to the system which then causes problems.

IF we can detach ourselves from the support that the raft has given us because the far shore IS the wisdom to do just that, do we stand beyond religion or at the centre of it?

I ask because some belief systems seem to alude to this 'realisation' or 'enlightenment' even if in code or hidden knowledge, yet others don't even hint at it.

 

[Richard]

I agree. What strikes me is the rigidity of the raft (Religious teachings) and how we have to have discipline and focus, strength and vision to paddle that raft to the other shore. So much has been invested in that raft, as Bodhiseed says, it's the attachment to the system which then causes problems.

IF we can detach ourselves from the support that the raft has given us because the far shore IS the wisdom to do just that, do we stand beyond religion or at the centre of it?

I ask because some belief systems seem to alude to this 'realisation' or 'enlightenment' even if in code or hidden knowledge, yet others don't even hint at it.

The term "religion" implies conformity to a certain religious structure. Enlightenment transcends such structures. The way I see it, enlightenment is linearly neither within or beyond religion. It lies in a different dimension (i.e., transcendental).

 

[Zephyros]

The term "religion" implies conformity to a certain religious structure. Enlightenment transcends such structures. The way I see it, enlightenment is linearly neither within or beyond religion. It lies in a different dimension (i.e., transcendental).

I don't know about that. For me religion is merely a spiritual system codified into a political structure. Like in many things, the masses go "by the book" (including New Age) while it is the spiritual few who actually reach enlightenment through search, even if it is through a structured religion. An example of this is the Kabbalah, which connects to Milfoil's raft. Kabbalah is derived from Judaism, and while there are some sources in it who go against the mainstream, but it all goes back to the same, Jewish, essence.

As to the raft, that's a very interesting question, and I think of the annihilation of self as a core pillar in many different religions and beliefs. There is Shiva the Destroyer who opens his Eye at the end of time, destroying the world, thus bringing all of creation to the oneness with itself, the sum of which is Nothing.

In the Kabbalah, too, there is the doctrine of 0=2 (this may seem unrelated but I'm getting somewhere, so bear with me!) and it is told as a kind of failry tale. The masculine and feminine of Chochma and Binah merge to become the pure creative potential of Keter (in essence, two become nothing) and at the same time produce the Prince of Tiphareth and the Princess of Malkuth, who in turn renew the cycle and so on. Thelema is based on this, that we can contact our own higher beings who tell us our true courses in life, thus fulfilling the divine will (since our True Will cannot be contrary to Divine Will) and rising up towards self-annihilation in Keter. This progress is possible only if we discard anything that is not inherent to our true being (rather than the figure we think of as "us"); nothing superfluous can cross the Abyss.

And now, finally, I'm getting to the raft.

I see the parable not only as what you said, Milfoil, but also that the value of those teachings is only in how they manifest in our personalities and being. The raft could be the material aspect of things while the idea of it could represent higher planes, and the body of water is the Abyss. In a way, once we have the knowledge to build the raft, it becomes unnecessary to build it, we have already crossed the water without moving a muscle. In a perfect world, that would be true and none of us would need to build the raft, but in this world we usually do need it. Since it is knowledge that must not only be known, we must build the raft, break our backs into it and only then are we enlightened enough to discard it.

In essence, we have no choice but to discard it, since like the building of the raft must be both known and experienced, so does any spiritual teaching pale in comparison with the spiritual realms it discusses.

 

[Milfoil]

I'm not sure about that either LRichard. Religion, spiritual practices, ceremonies etc are the road which others have laid down in an attempt to allow everyone a way to find something. Some would say Heaven, others say enlightenment. Although I would agree that enlightenment does transcend such structures, as the raft story indicates, are some structures even heading that way at all?

Closrapexa, you make some very interesting points but is ego death or the annihilation of the self the same as enlightenment? Is it part of it or the whole? If it were the whole argument, then in Buddhist belief, upon death, when the ego is broken down, there would be no need for anyone to be reincarnated. From my limited understanding of it, the ego death, whether through NDE, self development and questioning, repeated reincarnations or serious spiritual study and disciplines, is a big step and a necessary part of enlightenment but nothing more.

In order to know the mind of God, reach enlightenment or become one with everything, that ego barrier has to be broken down so that the soul has a chance to realise on a wider level but what is it that we are realising in this state?

Back to the question - is the goal of going to heaven in the Christian faith the same as achieving enlightenment in the Buddhist?

 

[Milfoil]

So the opennes to drop everything as a realisation of a wider wisdom, as opposed to accepting everything in an attempt to achieve the same realisation - what do you think?

Are the two mutually intertwined or incompatible?

This is also what I wanted to understand more fully. If the spiritual teachings we learn and follow are like a pack horse loaded with everything we need to cross the mountain and eventually the climb is so high that the horse cannot cross, do we unpack the horse and send it back down the mountain, shoot it or try to drag it up and over the mountain? I shot the horse once, when I left Christianity and became agnostic/atheist. I see others trying to drag the horse (their belief structure) up a sheer mountain face and spend their lives trying in this impossible pursuit.

If we were to accept everything, would that not be like having not only a pack horse but a whole mule train stretching right down to the valley? How do you even start to know what you packed?

What I am getting at is that being more than open minded but accepting every spiritual concept along the way in an attempt to find the wholeness promised by so many spiritual paths, does this not actually hamper our efforts?

 

[BodhiSeed]

This is also what I wanted to understand more fully. If the spiritual teachings we learn and follow are like a pack horse loaded with everything we need to cross the mountain and eventually the climb is so high that the horse cannot cross, do we unpack the horse and send it back down the mountain, shoot it or try to drag it up and over the mountain? I shot the horse once, when I left Christianity and became agnostic/atheist. I see others trying to drag the horse (their belief structure) up a sheer mountain face and spend their lives trying in this impossible pursuit.

If we were to accept everything, would that not be like having not only a pack horse but a whole mule train stretching right down to the valley? How do you even start to know what you packed?

What I am getting at is that being more than open minded but accepting every spiritual concept along the way in an attempt to find the wholeness promised by so many spiritual paths, does this not actually hamper our efforts?

I "shot the Christian pack horse" and found myself in limbo, then spent the next 20 years studying a variety of philosophies and religions - Hindu, Sufi, Kabbalah, Buddhist, Pagan, Shamanic teachings, etc. - trying to find "the way." Then only problem with this method is that you go several miles down one path, then switch to or add another, thus never making much progress. I do believe that commitment is a necessary ingredient (for me). But I've finally realized that my path doesn't have to have a label, but it does need some parameters. This quote by Buddha gives me some:

“Do not believe in something because it is reported. Do not believe in something because it has been practiced by generations or becomes a tradition or part of a culture. Do not believe in something because a scripture says it is so. Do not believe in something believing a god has inspired it. Do not believe in something a teacher tells you to. Do not believe in something because the authorities say it is so. Do not believe in hearsay, rumor, speculative opinion, public opinion, or mere acceptance to logic and inference alone. Help yourself, accept as completely true only that which is praised by the wise and which you test for yourself and know to be good for yourself and others.”

The Buddha, The Kalama Sutta, Anguttara Nikaya, Sutta Pitaka

Like the Four Agreements, this quote gives me the Four Tests:
1. "Help yourself" (what I seek I can't buy at Wal-mart; I'm going to have to do the work).
2. "Accept only what is praised by the wise" (my definition of "wise" includes that their life is as much an example as their words; this step is a check for my ego as well).
3. "Test it for yourself" (If I can't experience it in this world in some way, it is useless to me. This step reminds me of the teachings from the "Secret.")
4. "Is it good for myself and others?" (Who will this benefit? Is it totally self-centered or totally other-centered, or does it benefit all?)