The life of Madame Guyon

I have borne long and sore languishings, and oppressive and painful maladies without relief. I have been also inwardly under great desolations for several months, in such sort that I could only say these words, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me!” All creatures seemed to be against me. I then put myself on the side of God, against myself. – Jeanne Guyon

Early life

Jeanne de la Mothe Guyon (1648-1717), was a French mystic* in the time of Louis XIV. She was born into an aristocratic family, and like other children of her class she was left in the care of servants when she wasn’t boarding at one or another convent, where she received somewhat better care. Jeanne was sickly as a child. Her illnesses, solitude, and upbringing in the convents formed the ideal conditions for attaining her life’s goal, union with God. 

At the age of eleven Jeanne was introduced to silent prayer while reading about the life Madam de Chantal, and she prayed for what she called the “gift of prayer.” At twelve she repeatedly tried to join a convent but her father wouldn’t allow it. Jeanne’s karma moved her father to arrange for her marriage, at fifteen, to Jacques Guyon, a wealthy, disagreeable man twenty-two years her senior, who may have been responsible for the death of her daughter.

Jeanne had her first awakening in 1668, when she was nineteen. She had been very ill with her first child and was pregnant with her second, and she was in low spirits from the incessant fault-finding of her mother-in-law, her husband, and an ignorant servant they assigned to her. She was visiting her parents, and at her father’s suggestion she went to see a visiting Franciscan priest.

Jeanne’s primary concern was prayer: she aspired for that state of continual prayer that she had seen in a cousin who was a priest–what Hakuin called uninterrupted meditation. After she had explained her difficulty, the priest was silent for a time. Presently he said, “It is, Madame, because you seek without what you have within. Accustom yourself to seek God in your heart, and you will there find Him.” The following is her description of her awakening:

These words brought into my heart what I had been seeking so many years. O my Lord, Thou wast in my heart, and demanded only a simple turning of my mind inward to make me perceive Thy presence. While I was running hither and thither to seek Thee my life was a burden to me, although my happiness was within myself. It was for want of understanding these words of Thy Gospel, “The kingdom of God cometh not with watching . . . For, behold, the kingdom of God is within you” (Luke 17:20). This I now experienced.

I, Lord, went wandering like a sheep gone astray, seeking thee with anxious reasoning without whilst thou wast within me. I wearied myself much in looking for thee without, and yet thou hast thy habitation within me, if only I desire thee and pant after thee. I went round the streets and squares of the city of this world seeking thee, and I found thee not, because in vain I sought without for him who was within myself. – St Augustine

I told this man that my heart was quite changed, that God was there. He had given me an experience of His presence in my soul; not by thought or any application of mind, but as a thing really possessed after the sweetest manner.

I slept not that whole night, because Thy love, O my God, flowed in me like a delicious oil, and burned as a fire which was going to devour all that was left of self. I found no longer those troublesome faults or reluctance. They disappeared, being consumed like chaff in a great fire.

Nothing was more easy to me than prayer. Hours passed away like moments, while I could hardly do anything else but pray. It was a prayer of rejoicing and possessing, devoid of all busy imaginations and forced reflections; it was a prayer of the will, and not of the head. The taste of God was so great, so pure, unblended and uninterrupted, that it drew and absorbed the power of my soul into a profound recollection without act or discourse.

The will absorbed the two others, the memory and understanding, into itself, and concentrated them in LOVE; not but that they still subsisted, but their operations were in a manner imperceptible and passive. They were no longer stopped or slowed by the multiplicity, but collected and united in one, just as the rising of the sun does not extinguish the stars, but overpowers and absorbs them in the brightness of its incomparable glory. (Autobiography, Cp. 8)

A wife and mother

Jeanne had five children, of which two died. She accepted the death of her infant son from smallpox, and a few years later, the suspicious death of her eldest daughter from a hemmorhage, as God’s will.

My youngest little boy took the distemper the same day with myself, and died for want of care. This blow indeed struck me to the heart, but yet, drawing strength from my weakness, I offered him up, and said to God as Job did, “Thou gavest him to me, and thou takest him from me; blessed be thy holy name.” The spirit of sacrifice possessed me so strongly, that, though I loved this child tenderly, I never shed a tear at hearing of his death. (Autobiography, Cp. 15)

Her domestic life was a continual trial, yet she suffered all patiently in the belief that God was purifying her soul of self-pride. Years later, in prison, she told her spiritual director,

I ask you not to look at things on the side of the creature, which would make these persons appear worse than they were. My mother-in-law had virtue, my husband had religion, and not any vice. It is necessary to look at everything from the side of God: He permitted these things only for my salvation, and because He would not have me lost. I had besides so much pride that had I received any other treatment I should have continued therein, and should not, perhaps, have turned to God, as I was induced to do by the oppression of a multitude of crosses.

Spiritual Emptiness

Upon the death of her husband in 1676, Jeanne exclaimed, “Oh, my God, thou hast broken my bonds!” But she could not celebrate her emancipation as she was physically exhausted from the birth of her second daughter, and moreover she was in a state of moral despair that had begun a few years before:

This state of emptiness, darkness, and impotency went far beyond any trials I had ever yet met. I could now no longer pray as formerly. Heaven seemed shut to me, and I thought justly. I could get no consolation or make any complaint; nor had I any creature on earth to apply to. I found myself banished from all beings without finding a support of refuge in anything. I could no more practice any virtue with facility. I often thought all creatures united against me. Laden with a weight of past sins and a multitude of new ones, I could not think God would ever pardon me, but looked on myself as a victim destined for hell.

Second Awakening

Jeanne found herself a widow at twenty-eight with three children to care for. For their sake she remained with her mother-in-law for four more years. Then, in 1680, at thirty-two, she conceived the idea of moving to Geneva. There she envisioned using her wealth and her experience in nursing to found hospitals and convert people through charitable works. To this end she was corresponding with a priest in Geneva named Francois de La Combe. They had met many years earlier and had formed a friendship. It was in this state of happy anticipation, of beginning a new life in a new place and of being near her friend, that she had a second awakening:

About eight or ten days before Magdalene’s day (July 22), 1680, it came into my mind to write to Father La Combe and to request him, if he received my letter before that day, to pray particularly for me. . . . On that happy Magdalene’s Day my soul was perfectly delivered from all its pains. It had already begun since the receipt of the first letter from Father La Combe, to recover a new life, but it was then only like that of a dead person raised, though not yet unbound from the burial clothes. On this day I was, as it were, in perfect life, and set wholly free. I found myself as much raised above nature as before I had been depressed under its burden. I was inexpressibly overjoyed to find Him, whom I thought I had lost forever, returned to me again with unspeakable magnificence and purity. It was then, O God, that I found again in Thee with new advantages, in an ineffable manner, all I had been deprived of; the peace I now possessed was all holy, heavenly and inexpressible. All that I had enjoyed before was only a peace, a gift of God, but now I received and possessed the God of peace. Yet the remembrance of my past miseries still brought a fear upon me lest nature should find a way to take to itself any part therein. As soon as it wanted to see or taste anything, the ever-watchful Spirit crossed and repelled it. I was far from elevating myself or attributing to myself anything of this new state: my experience made me aware of what I was.

I hoped I should enjoy this happy state for some time, but little did I think my happiness so great and immutable as it was. One day of this happiness was worth more than years of suffering. It was indeed, at that time, well worth all I had undergone, though it was then only dawning. An alacrity for doing good was restored to me, greater than ever. It seemed to me all quite free and natural to me. At the beginning this freedom was less extensive, but as I advanced it grew greater. I felt a kind of beatitude every day increasing in me.

I was released from all crosses. I resumed my care of the sick, and dressing of wounds, and God gave me to cure the most desperate. When surgeons could do no more, it was then that God made me cure them. I did all sorts of good, without selfishness or premeditation. Whenever a self-reflective thought was presented to my mind it was instantly rejected, and as it were a curtain in the soul drawn before it. My imagination was kept so fixed that I had now very little trouble on that. I wondered at the clearness of my mind and the purity of my whole heart. (Cp. 27)

In Gex: The start of conflicts with the Church

A year later, in July of 1681, Jeanne quietly left with her four-year-old daughter for Geneva; but her destination was Gex. She had met with the Bishop of Geneva in Paris, and when she told him that she wanted to use her wealth for missionary work, he told her that it was providential, since the New Catholics* were going to establish a convent in Gex. She told him that her calling was for Geneva, but he told her that she might go there from Gex. He drew up a contract for her engagement, but she refused to sign it, although she made a large donation. (*The New Catholics were part of an initiative of Louis XIV to make Roman Catholicism the only religion in France. To this end he had driven thousands of Protestant families into exile, and the Church was charged with the conversion of those who remained.)

Jeanne’s project was destined to failure from the start, and it marked the beginning of her political troubles. While she and Father La Combe did set up some hospitals, the bishop and his priest envied her spiritual attainment and coveted her money. It wasn’t long before they were preaching publicly against her and writing to Paris to denounce her.

Instead of seeing the hostile reaction from the Church as coming from God, however, Jeanne made an illogical distinction between God’s will and the will of her enemies. Laboring under the delusion that God wanted her to lead a reformation of the Church, she spent fourteen years (1681-1695) in the attempt. She moved back and forth between withdrawal and engagement with the Church, but remained defiant right until the approval of her release from the Bastille.

God’s purpose in giving us trials and tribulations

Jeanne believed that God visits tribulations on us first to turn us towards him, and then to destroy the self with all of its impurity. Because of this, she didn’t merely accept her crosses, but prayed for them. In A Short and Easy Method of Prayer she writes:

You can only find consolation in the love of the cross and in complete abandonment. He who has no love for the cross has no love for God (see Matt. xvi. 24). It is impossible to love God without loving the cross; and a heart which has learned to love the cross finds sweetness, joy, and pleasure even in the bitterest things. “To the hungry soul every bitter thing is sweet” (Prov. xxvii. 7), because it is as hungry for the cross as it is hungry for God.

The cross gives God, and God gives the cross. Abandonment and the cross go together. As soon as you are sensible that something is repugnant to you which presents itself to you in the light of suffering, abandon yourself at once to God for that very thing, and present yourself as a sacrifice to Him. You will see that, when the cross comes, it will have lost much of its weight, because you will desire it.

While in prison (1698-1702), writing her autobiography for her spiritual director, Jeanne wrote that with her second awakening (1680) she was “released from all crosses” (see Cp. 27, above). But then she contradicted herself and said that her crosses had increased “until the present time.”

After twelve years and four months of marriage, crosses as great as possible, except poverty, which I never knew though I had much desired it, God drew me out of that state to give me still stronger crosses of such a nature as I had never met with before. For if you give attention, sir, to the life which you have ordered me to write, you will remark that my crosses have been increasing till the present time, one removed to give place to another to succeed it, still heavier than the former. Amid the troubles imposed upon me, when they said I was “in a mortal sin” (the time of her imprisonment) I had nobody in the world to speak to. I could have wished to have had somebody for a witness of my conduct, but I had none. I had no support, no confessor, no director, no friend, no councillor. I had lost all. And after God had taken from me one after another, He withdrew also Himself. I remained without any creature; and to complete my distress, I seemed to be left without God, who alone could support me in such a deeply distressing state.

The explanation is simple. When Jeanne had her first awakening, her self withdrew; but this was only temporary. When she had her second awakening, she again had a glimpse of a highest state, one without the self, but again this was temporary. Jeanne knew this was so because she continued to suffer; but she did not give up. She was so determined to attain sanctification that she made an enemy of the most formidable man in France: Bishop Jacques-Bénigne Lignel Bossuet.

A thorn in the side of the Church

From the time she arrived in Gex, Jeanne’s enemies could always count on the support of her half-brother, Father de La Mothe, to try to destroy her. He wanted only her money. It was de La Mothe who accused Jeanne of going to Geneva in order to be near Father La Combe.

As soon as it was known in France that I was gone there was a general outcry. Father de la Mothe wrote to me that all persons of learning and of piety united in censuring me. To alarm me still more he informed me that my mother-in-law, with whom I had entrusted my younger son and my children’s substance, was fallen into a state of childhood (senile dementia). This, however, was false. I answered all these fearful letters as the Spirit dictated. My answers were thought very just, and those violent exclamations were soon changed into applause. Father La Mothe appeared to change his censures into esteem, but it did not last. Self-interest threw him back again, being disappointed in his hopes of a pension, which he expected I would have settled on him.

After a few months in Gex the sisters began to mistreat her. The bishop kept the letters her friends sent her, and he and the sisters wrote to her friends and others in an attempt to destroy her reputation. Finally she was given an ultimatum: engage as prioress or withdraw. But she wasn’t disposed to go back home:

My near relations did not signify any eager desire for my return. The first thing they proposed to me, a month after my arrival at Gex, was not only to give up my guardianship, but to make over all my estate to my children and to reserve an annuity to myself. They sent me an article to execute, and I signed it. Though what I had reserved to myself was sufficient to support me in this place; yet it was scarcely enough to do so in some other places.

Jeanne first went to stay with the Ursulines at Thonon, who had been caring for her daughter, but the Bishop of Geneva continued to incite people there to turn against her. An aristocratic friend wrote to invite her to stay at her home in Turin, some 300 km to the south and east, and so she took her daughter to Turin for a time. But Father La Combe had previously taken a position nearby in Vercelli, and the Bishop of Geneva wrote to several people saying that Jeanne had gone there to be near him. One day La Combe arrived in Turin and abruptly told her that she had to return to Paris without delay.

I confess this sudden news startled me. It was for me a double sacrifice to return to a place where they had cried me down so much; also toward a family which held me in contempt, and who had represented my journey, caused by pure necessity, as a voluntary course, pursued through human attachments.

Nevertheless she left with her daughter the next day, and for their safety, Father La Combe was obliged to accompany them as far as Grenoble, to the west. At his advice she went no farther but stayed in Grenoble for some time at the home of a friend. There Jeanne became a celebrity:

I placed my daughter in a convent, and resolved to employ all this time in resigning myself to be possessed in solitude by Him who is the absolute Sovereign of my soul. I made not any visit in this place; no more had I in any of the others where I had sojourned. I was greatly surprised when, a few days after my arrival, there came to see me several persons who made profession of a singular devotion to God. I perceived immediately a gift that He had given me of administering to each that which suited their states. I felt myself invested, all of a sudden, with the apostolic state.

It was thou, O my God, who didst all these things; some of them sent others to me. It came to such excess that generally from six in the morning till eight in the evening I was taken up in speaking of the Lord. People flocked on all sides, far and near, friars, priests, men of the world, maids, wives, widows, all came one after another.

In a letter to her brother Gregory, she wrote: “The Lord has seen fit to bless me in labours for the revival of inward religion, especially in Grenoble, where the work was very wonderful.”

In Grenoble an influential visitor found a prayer tract that she had written lying on a table and asked to borrow it. He and his friends liked it so much that he had it printed. Published in 1685, A Short and Easy Method of Prayer became instantly popular, and a matter of months it had spread throughout Europe. However, its publication came at an inconvenient time, since there was a campaign underway against silent prayer, known at the time as quietism. Nancy James (2011) explains:

In 1685, Louis XIV requested that the Vatican condemn as a heretic a popular Spanish priest named Miguel Molinos, accusing him of something called quietism. . . . The work of teachers such as Father Molinos, as well as Madame Guyon, was gaining more and more followers. At times their teachings were believed to advocate the idea that when one receives a divine word from God in quiet prayer, the person then knows a type of spiritual purification and enlightenment that is unavailable through the normal course of life–including through the sacraments of the Church alone. Understandably, the Church hierarchy feared this popular movement that was attracting so many to a path that did not need the mediation of clergy or bishops. In 1687, the Vatican declared quietism to be heretical.

In the midst of this controversy, Father de La Mothe . . . charged that Father La Combe had a secret relationship with Rome that could undermine the authority of the French Roman Catholic leaders. These charges concerned the powerful Bishop Bossuet, who helped lead the Gallican Movement encouraging French isolation from excessive Vatican influence. Father de La Mothe stated that La Combe brought into France ideas of undue submission to the pope, an idea that the Gallican bishops did not accept. He also said that La Combe and Jeanne had an immoral relationship. (pp. 26-28)

Hearing about her growing influence in Grenoble, Jeanne’s enemies began to stir up fear:

Libels began to spread. Envious people wrote against me, without knowing me. They said that I was a sorceress, that it was by a magic power I attracted souls, that everything in me was diabolical; that if I did charities, it was because I coined, and put off false money, with many other gross accusations, equally false, groundless and absurd. As the tempest increased every day, some of my friends advised me to withdraw.

Jeanne decided to go back to Turin, so, leaving her daughter in the convent, she set off. But because she took a boat to Genoa, she arrived first in Vercelli. Father La Combe was embarrassed by her presence, but his bishop had a great regard for her and begged her to stay.

However, La Combe had gained popularity not only by his good conduct, but by what he had learned from Jeanne. Jeanne’s half-brother, Father de La Mothe, therefore set about to destroy La Combe. He contrived to have him ordered to Paris. Jeanne decided to go with him. She wrote,

As soon as it was determined that I should come into France the Lord made known to me that it was to have greater crosses than I ever had. Father La Combe had the like sense. He encouraged me to resign myself to the divine will, and to become a victim offered freely to new sacrifices. He also wrote to me, “Will it not be a thing very glorious to God, if He should make us serve in that great city for a spectacle to angels and to men?” I set off then with a spirit of sacrifice to offer myself up to new kinds of punishments, if pleasing to my dear Lord.

Return to Paris

Jeanne arrived in Paris on July 21, 1686, five years after she had left. She rented a house where she lived with her daughter and her two sons. Because news of her gifts and her writings had spread, she was warmly received by several women of the aristocracy, and it wasn’t long before she had built a following among some of the most important families in France. She formed an association of noblewomen and conducted meetings. Paris was divided, according to Upham, between admirers and enemies.

Jeanne’s confidant, Father La Combe was the first to fall victim to their enemies. Father de La Mothe led a group to the Archbishop to accuse him of heresy, and the Archbishop signed the accusations and presented them to the king. The king issued a letter of imprisonment, and on Oct. 3, 1687, La Combe was taken to the Bastille. Upham writes: “It was not enough to put an end to his labours as a preacher. His work, entitled An Analysis of Mental Prayer, written originally in Latin, and translated into French, was submitted to the Inquisition at Rome and condemned by a formal decree, September 4, 1688.”

Father La Combe spent the remaining 27 years of his life in prison. However, he never regretted having had Jeanne as his friend and teacher. And as he told her in a letter, his life in prison was not unlike life in a monastery:

“It is true, there has been some mitigation of my state. I am now permitted to go beyond the walls of my prison into the neighbouring gardens and fields, but it is only on the condition of my labouring there without cessation from morning till evening. What then can I do? How can I meditate? How can I think? —except it be upon the manner of subduing the earth, and of cultivating plants.” (Upham, p. 272)

First imprisonment (1688)

When La Mothe began to pursue the same course against his sister, he warned her to leave Paris, telling her that she was accused of high crimes. In her response, she used surprisingly worldly reasoning for remaining:

I cannot flee, I cannot go out of the way. There are abundant reasons why I should remain where I am. I have made an open profession of dedicating myself to the Lord, to be His entirely. If I have done things offensive to God, I ought by my punishment to be made an example to the world; but I am innocent, and shall not prejudice my claims to innocence by taking flight.” (Upham, p. 275)

The following is her account of the events of 1687 that led to her first arrest:

They continually spread stories of horrible crimes. They then made the king believe that I was an heretic, that I carried on a literary correspondence with Molinos, that I had written a dangerous book; and that on those accounts it would be necessary to issue an order to put me in a convent that they might examine me. I was a dangerous person, it would be proper for me to be locked up, to be allowed no commerce with any one since I continually held assemblies, which was very false. To support this calumny my handwriting was counterfeited, and a letter was forged as from me importing that I had great designs but feared that they would prove abortive because of Father La Combe’s imprisonment, for which reason I had left off holding assemblies at my house, being too closely watched, but that I would hold them at the houses of other persons. This forged letter they showed to the king, and upon it an order was given for my imprisonment.

This order would have been executed two months sooner than it was had I not fallen very sick. I had inconceivable pains and a fever. Some thought that I had a mass in my head. The pain I suffered for five weeks made me delirious. I had also a pain in my breast and a violent cough. Twice I received the holy sacrament, as I was thought to be expiring.

As he had done with La Combe, La Mothe took his accusations to the archbishop, who presented them to the king. But there was an additional detail: the archbishop had a nephew who wanted to marry Jeanne’s daughter, then twelve, as the girl had inherited considerable properties from her father. Furthermore, the king had approved of the union.

In January, 1688, at thirty-nine, Jeanne was imprisoned in a convent. Her daughter was taken away from her and held in secret. Jeanne was told that she would be released if she gave up guardianship and allowed her daughter to marry; but though they threatened her with life imprisonment or the scaffold, she refused. This was the moral decision, since her daughter was a mere child and dependent on her mother’s protection.

Self-will

Jeanne’s letters from her first imprisonment point to the self-will that caused her to suffer in spite of her high state. While at the convent, she corresponded with her friends, who did what they could for her release. Although she always said that one should not merely endure but welcome whatever God wills, she rebelled against her imprisonment:

While I am kept here by the power of my enemies, I cannot help but think of those who need spiritual instruction. What a mysterious providence it is, which keeps me out of my place of labour, out of my element! It looks to me as if there were great numbers of children asking for bread, and there is scarcely anyone to break it to them.”  (Upham, p. 295)

In another letter, written after she had gotten medical treatment at the convent, she is confused about the source of her suffering. If God put it into the hearts of a servant and doctors to treat her, then God must also have put it into her enemies’ hearts to imprison her.

She was favoured, however, after a time, through the sympathy of those who had the immediate charge of the Convent, with the assistance of a maid-servant, and a physician and surgeon. It was done, it is true, in violation of the orders of her imprisonment. But Madame Guyon remarks, ” It was God who put it into their hearts, and gave them the determination to do it; for had I remained as I was, without any proper care, I must have died. My enemies were numerous and clamorous. It was not merely death which was before me, but disgrace. My friends were afraid lest I should die; for by my death my memory would have been covered with reproach, and my enemies would have triumphed; but God would not suffer them to have that joy. After bringing me down, He was pleased to raise me up again.” Upham, p. 292

The pride displayed in these letters explains her extreme destitution, as well as her poor health. Jeanne also hoped for martyrdom: “Was not our beloved Saviour looked upon and denounced in the same manner? Is it a hard matter to walk in His footsteps, and to suffer as He suffered?” (Upham, p. 297)

Through the intervention of the king’s wife, Mme de Maintenon, Jeanne was released after eight months, in October of 1688. She was once more received into the distinguished families with which she had been associated prior to her imprisonment, and she immediately resumed her labors:

The watchfulness of her opponents rendered it somewhat difficult for her to continue her religious conferences for prayer and conversation; but, too devoted and persevering to be foiled by ordinary obstacles, she neither ceased to make efforts, nor did her efforts
cease to be availing. (Upham, p. 300)

Soon after she was released, Jeanne was introduced to Francois Fenelon, who had just returned to Paris from a mission in Poiton, where the king had sent him to oversee the peaceful conversion of Protestants. Fenelon had heard a great deal of Jeanne in the provinces and had been eager to meet her. There was immediate sympathy between the two and Fenelon became her student. As early as November, 1688, a month after her release, Jeanne submitted some of her writings to him for his criticism. (Upham, p. 312)

Jeanne also met Mme de Maintenon at St. Cyr, a charitable house that the king’s wife had founded to educate the daughters of indigent noblemen. After that Jeanne was often invited to St. Cyr, and at some point Maintenon asked her to give instruction to the young ladies. Jeanne obliged for three years, and in 1692 the two had a close acquaintance.

But the acceptance Jeanne found in high society was not to last. Bishop Bossuet was angered that Fenelon, his former student and now the tutor of the heir-apparent, had come under her influence. He was also displeased with the high regard that the king’s wife had for her, and he wrote to Maintenon to tell her that Jeanne was a bad influence, putting an end to her visits to St. Cyr. Maintenon eventually denounced Jeanne.

Though he was an admirer of Bossuet, Thomas Upham’s account shows that Bossuet had long been aware of the campaign of defamation against Jeanne and approved of it. But her influence, instead of decreasing, continued to grow, so Bossuet decided in September 1693 that the time had come to take her measure.

It seemed to him impossible that Madame Guyon, whatever might be her talents and personal influence, could produce an impression, either in Paris or elsewhere, which could be dangerous to the Church. And if it were so, was it not enough that D’Aranthon (Bishop of Geneva) and Father Innocentius, men of distinguished ability and of great influence, had already, in the early and distant places of her influence, set in motion measures of opposition; measures sustained at Paris by the efforts of La Mothe and De Harlai, of Nicole and Boileau, aided by a multitude of subordinate agencies?

He accordingly visited her, for the first time, at her residence in Paris, with the Duke of Chevreuse, in September 1693. During the conversation Bossuet remarked that he had read, with a degree of satisfaction, her Treatise on Prayer, and Commentary on the Canticles. The Duke (Jeanne’s friend) directed his attention to the work entitled The Torrents. He immediately cast his eye rapidly over some passages. A few moments after, he remarked, without condemning anything, that some things required explanation.

A second meeting took place, January 30, 1694. In the interval, the Duke of Chevreuse . . . gave Bossuet the manuscript of her Autobiography. He read it carefully, and politely wrote a letter to the duke, expressive of the interest he felt in it. All her printed works also were submitted to him, so that Bossuet felt prepared to state some of the objections which he felt to her views.

Bossuet arranged another private meeting, where they had a long interview, a fascinating reconstruction of which Upham provides in his biography (pp. 344-363). Jeanne wrote that the archbishop spoke “almost with violence and very fast, and hardly gave me time to explain some things which I wished to explain.” The experience left her sick with a fever for some time afterwards.

In 1694 Jeanne proposed a commission be formed to judge her writings and offered to submit herself to confinement:

Madame Guyon was almost universally considered as the teacher of a new doctrine. Her character was assailed, as well as her doctrine. She wrote, therefore, to Madame de Maintenon, requesting that a number of suitable persons might be selected for the purpose of judging both of her doctrine and morals; and offering to submit to any confinement and restraint until it should please the king to appoint such persons. (Upham, p. 365)

Three eminent clergy were chosen to review her works. Because of the many public attacks, Jeanne had already published “A Concise Apology of A Short Method of Prayer.” For the commission she wrote a lengthy manuscript in her defense, titled “Justifications,” as well as many letters.

The first meeting of the commissioners was in August 1694, at the house of Bossuet in Meaux. Jeanne’s friend, the Duke of Chevreuse, had accompanied her for moral support, but Bossuet asked him to retire. After the interview she went to see one of the commissioners, the Bishop of Chalons, who although kind, suggested that given the state of affairs she would be well advised to “live in a manner as retired as possible.”

In January of 1695 Jeanne went to stay at a convent in Meaux. She was sick for six weeks, until the end of February, and was not yet recovered when Bossuet came and asked her to add her signature to a pastoral letter condemning certain religious errors. She added some remarks to the letter, after which he said that he had expected her to acknowledge herself guilty of all of the errors and confess herself a heretic. She refused, and he threatened to excommunicate her. He then proposed that she declare that there were errors in the work of Father La Combe. She again refused and he went away angry (Upham p. 375). Jeanne left the convent on July 8, 1695. She told Bossuet that she needed to go to Bourbon, but proposed that she would return to spend the rest of her life at the convent; this pleased him. However, the ladies who came for Jeanne took her to Paris.

Second Imprisonment (1695)

When it was known that Jeanne was again in Paris there was an uproar: her enemies denounced her, and the king and Mme Maintenon were angry. Another complication was that the Archbishop of Paris had died on August 6, and Bossuet coveted the position. He saw Fenelon as his rival, and he set about to destroy him by discrediting Jeanne (James, 2011). The king issued a letter for her arrest, and in late December of 1695 she was taken prisoner.

Jeanne was imprisoned in Vincennes for ten months on political charges. When after long interrogations she was found innocent, the Church pressed religious charges and she was transferred to a nunnery. In 1698 she was imprisoned in the Bastille and remained there for four years. This was where she wrote a large part of her autobiography at the behest of her spiritual director.

In 1702, at the age of fifty-four, Jeanne was released. The king banished her to of Blois on the Loire, where she lived for the rest of her life. Even though she had been imprisoned for A Short and Easy Method of Prayer, the tract had remained popular throughout her imprisonment, even within the Church:

It is remarkable that they say nothing to those who prefixed their approbations, and that, far from condemning the book, it has been reprinted since I have been in prison, and advertisements of it have been posted up at the Archbishop’s palace, and all over Paris.

Karma is action and reaction

That Jeanne Guyon was persecuted is indisputable; however she was persecuted in direct proportion to how the Church hierarchy felt threatened by her. Thomas Upham gives the following example of this influence:

In the early part of 1689, a few months before the events of which we are now speaking, some priests and theologians made a visit to Dijon. And, apparently to their great surprise, they found a considerable religious movement in progress, of which Madame Guyon was the reputed author, and which was evidently sustained by the free circulation of her writings. In her return from Grenoble to Paris in 1686, she passed through Dijon on the way, and spent a day or two there. She left a deep impression on a few persons, especially Monsieur Claude Guillot, a priest of high character in the city. The seed thus sown in conversations, enforced by a single sermon from La Combe, sprang up and bore fruit; so that in 1689 the new religious principles excited much attention. The persons who visited Dijon at this time, coming with some degree of ecclesiastical authority, interposed to stop this state of things. Among other things they collected three hundred copies of the work of Madame Guyon on Prayer, and caused them to be publicly burned. (p. 329)

Jeanne’s enemies simply wanted her to go away, and gave her every opportunity to do so; but she defied them. When she returned to Paris in 1686, she hoped to lead a religious movement that threatened the political order. She saw herself as emulating Jesus, who returned to Jerusalem many times in spite of the fact that the Romans and the high priest appointed by them saw him as a threat. While in prison Jeanne challenged the Church:

God accomplishes His work either in converted sinners, whose past iniquities serve as a counterpoise to their elevation, or in persons whose self-righteousness He destroys by totally overthrowing the proud building they had reared on a sandy foundation, instead of the Rock—CHRIST. The establishment of all these ends, which He proposed in coming into the world, is effected by the apparent overthrow of that very structure which in reality He would erect. By means which seem to destroy His Church, He establishes it. How strangely does He found the new dispensation and give it His sanction! The lawmaker Himself (Christ) is condemned by the learned and great as a malefactor, and dies an ignominious death.

Finally, Jeanne hit bottom, feeling abandoned even by God. She wrote:

I have borne long and sore languishings, and oppressive and painful maladies without relief. I have been also inwardly under great desolations for several months, in such sort that I could only say these words, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me!” All creatures seemed to be against me. I then put myself on the side of God, against myself.

Suffering and self-will

Jeanne believed that suffering has two purposes: to turn one towards God, and to purify the soul. She welcomed her crosses until her second awakening; after this point, however, they made her uneasy. At a loss to explain why she continued to suffer, she blamed her enemies for her troubles.

A. W. Marston (possibly Frances Cashel Hoey, 1830-1908), who translated A Short Method of Prayer, was perplexed by the contradiction, and she tried to explain it in a preface:

The “Torrents” especially needs to be regarded rather as an account of the personal experience of the author, than as the plan which God invariably, or even usually, adopts in bringing the soul into a state of union with Himself. It is true that, in order that we may “live unto righteousness,” we must be “dead indeed unto sin;” and that there must be a crucifixion of self before the life of Christ can be made manifest in us. It is only when we can say, “I am crucified with Christ,” that we are able to add, “Nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me.” But it does not follow that this inward death must always be as lingering as in the case of Madame Guyon. She tells us herself that the reason was, that she was not wholly resigned to the Divine will, and willing to be deprived of the gifts of God, that she might enjoy the possession of the Giver. This resistance to the will of God implies suffering on the part of the creature, and chastisement on the part of God, in order that He may subdue to Himself what is not voluntarily yielded to Him.

Thomas Upham devoted a chapter (XIV) to this subject. He, too, believed that the cause of Jeanne’s suffering was that she sought happiness in God’s gifts instead of seeking it directly in God. I agree with him. By Jeanne’s own hand we know that in Paris she went far astray in seeking recognition in the world. Regarding her consignment to prison she wrote:

I had nobody in the world to speak to. I could have wished to have had somebody for a witness of my conduct, but I had none. I had no support, no confessor, no director, no friend, no councillor. I had lost all.

Third Awakening

While she was in the Bastille writing about her second awakening, Jeanne added the following paragraph, which seems to describe an insight she had in prison:

When I had lost all created supports, and even divine ones, I then found myself happily compelled to fall into the pure divine, and to fall into it through all those very things which seemed to remove me further from it. In losing all the gifts, with all their supports, I found the Giver. In losing the sense and perception of Thee in myself I found Thee, O my God, to lose Thee no more in Thyself, in Thy own immutability. (Autobiography, Cp. 27)

Indeed, when she wrote about her release from the Bastille in 1702, it is clear that her imprisonment had produced in her a third awakening, one in which she transcended the body and mind:

The abbess and my children’s guardian came to get me and manifested great joy, as did all my friends. The others, however, were extremely annoyed at it. I left without feeling I was going out, and without being able to reflect on my deliverance. Yesterday morning I was thinking, But who are you? What are you doing? What are you thinking? Are you alive, that you take no interest in what touches you as if it did not touch you? I am greatly astonished at it, and I have to apply myself to know if I have a being, a life, a subsistence. I do not find it. On the outside I am like another; but it seems to me I am like a machine that speaks and walks by springs and that has no life or subsistence in what it does. This is not at all apparent on the outside. I act, I speak like another, in a manner more free and expansive, which embarrasses no one and pleases others, without knowing either what I do or what I say, or why I do it or say it, or what causes me to say it. (James, 2011, p. 238)

The remainder of Jeanne’s natural life was spent peacefully in Blois.

* * *

Ben Sira (200-175 BC). Book of Ecclesiasticus. https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Ecclesiasticus-Chapter-4/

The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Autobiography of Madame Guyon, by Jeanne Marie Bouvier de La Motte Guyon: https://archive.org/stream/theautobiography22269gut/pg22269.txt

James, Nancy C. (2011). The Complete Madame Guyon. Brewster, Massachusetts, Paraclete Press.

Upham, Thomas C. (1858). Life of Madame de La Mothe Guyon. London: Sampson Low, Son, and Co. (Upham-Life-of-Madame-Guyon)

The life and poetry of Layman P’ang

Old P’ang requires nothing in the world;
All is empty with him, even a seat he has not,
For absolute emptiness reigns in his house.
How empty indeed it is with no treasures!
When the sun is risen he walks through emptiness;
When the sun sets, he sleeps in emptiness.
Sitting in emptiness he sings his empty songs,
And his empty songs reverberate through emptiness.
Be not surprised at emptiness so thoroughly empty,
For emptiness is the abode of all the Buddhas.
Emptiness is not understood by men of the world,
But emptiness is the real treasure.
If you say there is no emptiness,
You commit a grave offense against the Buddhas. (Suzuki, Passivity in the Buddhist Life)

“Into White” – Cat Stevens, Tea for the Tillerman

Layman P’ang Yun (d. 808)

Layman P’ang was the wealthy son of a prefect and a family man. A Confucian by birth, he and his family practiced Zen Buddhism. He built a hermitage near his house, and later donated his house to be used as a temple. One day Pang loaded all of his money and possessions onto a boat and sunk them in a river.

P’ang experienced his first awakening under Shih-t’ou, and his greatest awakening under Ma-tsu, who formed eighty enlightened masters in his life. When Ma-tsu certified P’ang’s awakening, he asked him if he would put on the black robe or continue to wear white. P’ang replied, “I wish to do as I please”; thus he remained a layman.

P’ang’s wife, son and daughter were all devout Buddhists. He was accompanied in his travels by his daughter, Ling Zhao, who sold the bamboo utensils they fashioned in local markets. The day P’ang planned to leave his body, he asked Ling Zhao to tell him when it was noon. There was a solar eclipse that day and she called him to the window to see it. She then ran to his bed and left her body, obliging her father to pass on a week later than he had planned.

P’ang was a great poet: he is the source of one of the most famous sayings in the literature of Chan Buddhism: “Supernatural power and marvelous activity — Drawing water and carrying firewood.” He is also the source of “Fine snow falling flake by flake, each flake landing in its own proper place.”

The Recorded Sayings of Layman P’ang

by Ruth Fuller Sasaki

THE LAYMAN, whose personal name was Yun and whose nickname was Tao-hsuan, was a native of Hsiang-yang. His father held the office of Prefect of Heng-yang. The Layman lived in the southern part of the city. There he built a hermitage, carrying on his religious practices to the west of the house, and after several years his entire household attained the Way. This was what is now Wu-k’ung Hermitage. Later he gave his former dwelling near the hermitage to be made into a temple. This was what is now Neng-jen Temple.

During the Chen-yuan era [785-804] of T’ang he loaded the treasure of his household — several tens of thousands of strings of coins — onto a boat in Tung-t’ing Lake to the right of the river Shao, and sank it in the middle of the stream. After that he lived like a single leaf.

The Layman had a wife, a son, and a daughter. They sold bamboo utensils in order to obtain their morning and evening meals. The Layman often used to say:

I’ve a boy who has no bride
I’ve a girl who has no groom
Forming a happy family circle
We speak about the Birthless

During the Chen-yuan era of T’ang, the Ch’an and Vinaya sects were in high favor, and the Patriarchal doctrine likewise flourished, diffusing its brilliance abroad, spreading rampant as a hop vine, and effecting its entrance everywhere. Then it was that the Layman initially visited Shih-t’ou, and in an instant his former state melted away. Later he saw Ma-tsu and again sealed his Original Mind. His every act manifested his penetration of the Mystery, and there was nothing about him that did not accord with the Way. He had the boundless eloquence of Manjusri,  in conformity with the Mahayana treatises on reality.

He whose name is “Nameless” has written this preface

 * * *

AT THE BEGINNING of the Chen-yuan era [785-804] of T’ang, the Layman visited Ch’an Master Shih-t’ou.* He asked the Master: “Who is the man who doesn’t accompany the ten thousand dharmas?”
Shih-t’ou covered the Layman’s mouth with his hand. In a flash he realized!

ONE DAY SHIH-T’OU said to the Layman: “Since seeing me, what have your daily activities been?”
“When you ask me about my daily activities, I can’t open my mouth,” the Layman replied.
“Just because I know you are thus I now ask you,” said Shih-t’ou.
Whereupon the Layman offered this verse:

My daily activities are not unusual,
I’m just naturally in harmony with them.
Grasping nothing, pushing nothing away,
In every place there’s no hindrance, no conflict.
Who assigns the (official) ranks of vermilion and purple?
The hills’ and mountains’ last speck of dust is extinguished.
Supernatural power and marvelous activity —
Drawing water and carrying firewood.

Shih-t’ou gave his assent. Then he asked: “Will you put on black robes or will you continue wearing white?”
“I wish to do as I please,” replied the Layman. So he did not shave his head or dye his clothing.

*Shih-t’ou Hsi-ch’ien (700-790), was a Ch’an master of great renown.

Wherever the Layman dwelt there was much coming and going of venerable priests, and many exchanges of questions. According to the capacity of each the Layman responded as an echo to a sound.

* * *

DURING THE YUAN-HO ERA [806-820] the Layman traveled northward to Hsiang-han, stopping here and there. His daughter Ling-chao sold bamboo baskets for their morning and evening meals. The Layman had these [three] verses, which go:

When the mind is such, circumstances also are such
There’s no real and no unreal
Giving no mind to existence
And holding not to nonexistence
You’re neither saint nor sage, just
An ordinary man who has settled his affairs

Easy, so easy!
These very five skandhas* make true wisdom
The ten directions of the universe are the same One Vehicle
How can the formless Dharma-body be two!
If you cast off the defilements to enter bodhi
Where will any Buddha-lands be?*

To save your self* you must destroy it
Having completely destroyed it you dwell at ease
When you attain the inmost meaning of this
An iron boat floats upon water

* Five components of a sentient being: 1. rupa: form; 2. vedana: sensations 3. samjna: knowledge of differences; 4 samskara: expectations; 5. vijnana: consciousness.
* A Buddha-land is comprised of the disciples of a particular Buddha.
* Hsin

2

People have a one-scroll sutra
Without form and without name
No man is able to unroll and read it
And none of us can hear it
When you are able to unroll and read it
You enter the Dharma and unite with the birthless
You don’t even need to become a buddha
Even less a bodhisattva

5

Some people despise old P’ang
But old P’ang does not despise them
Opening my gate, I await good friends
But good friends do not stop by

As my mind is endowed with the threefold learning*
The six dusts* do not mix with it
This one pill cures the ten thousand ills
I’ve no need for the myriad prescriptions.

* Precepts (moral code), practice and doctrine.
* Dusts: Rajas in Sanskrit, meaning impurities. The six sense-phenomena: sights, sounds, sensations, scents, tastes and thoughts.

6

Traveling the path is easy
Traveling the path is easy
Within, without, and in-between I depend upon innate wisdom
Innate wisdom being non-sentient, dharmas do not arise
No form, no mind, a single radiance streams forth
In the mind-ground appears the Udumbara tree of emptiness

*Udumbara tree: a legendary tree said to flower once every three thousand years.

7

It is called wisdom,
And wisdom is the honored
Mind and wisdom joining, you penetrate the Dharma
And the ten thousand things likewise return through the gate of non-duality
Existence is not existence—the Dharma is ever present.

Emptiness is not empty
Emptiness is the ground of existence
All buddhas of the future also will be thus
Those of today are the same as the ancient world-honored ones
Throughout the three realms* there is no other Dharma
What buddha imparted to buddha is being transmitted today

* Desire, form, and formless

8

Without, there is nothing that is not-self, within there is no self
Not wielding spear and shield, I accord with the Buddhadharma
Well-versed in the Buddhadharma, I travel the non-path
Without abandoning my ordinary man’s affairs
The conditioned and name-and-form all are flowers in the air*
Nameless and formless, I leave birth-and-death

* hallucinations

13

A resolute man
In the past
But not today
I destroyed my treasures utterly
And ransomed back my retinue of servants

The six in number
Always accompany me before and after
I do not restrain them
They do not venture to run away

Were there never any other reward of what little services we do, or of the marks of homage we render Thee than this fixed state above the vicissitudes in the world, is it not enough? The senses indeed are sometimes ready to start aside, and to run off like truants, but every trouble flies before the soul which is entirely subjected to God. – Madame Guyon (Autobiography)

The Awakening of Prefect Yü Ti (from the INTRODUCTION by Dana Fraser)

Yu Ti learned about Layman P’ang from reading his poetry. He sought him out and became close friends with him. It was Yu Ti who compiled The Recorded Sayings of Layman P’ang.

There was a time when Prefect Yü Ti of Hsiang-yang issued orders that all mendicant monks in his territory should be apprehended and sent to the capital. There was not a single monk who escaped with his life — all were killed. There were numerous instances of this.

Having heard the news, Master Tsu-yü wanted to visit the Prefect, so he searched among his assembly for companions. About ten men volunteered to accompany the master. He started out at the head of ten followers. Upon reaching the border the ten others feared to go on. The master alone crossed the border. The soldiers found the master coming, put cangues on him, and escorted him under guard to the capital city of Hsiang-yang. When he arrived in front of the government building, still with cangues on, he donned his monk’s robe and entered the courtroom.

The prefect, seated grandly on a chair, put a hand on the hilt of his sword and asked: “Bah! you teacher. Don’t you know that the Prefect of Hsiang-yang has the freedom to put you to the sword?” The master said: “Do you know a King of Dharma doesn’t fear birth and death?” The Prefect said: “Ho-shang*, have you ears in your head?” The master responded: My eyebrows and eyes are unhindered. When I, a poor monk, meet with the Prefect in an interview, what kind of hindrance could there be!” (*title of respect for a monk who is a teacher)

At this the prefect threw away his sword, donned his official uniform, bowed low, and asked: “I have heard there is a statement in the teaching that says that the black wind blows the ships, and wafts them to the land of the Rakshasas.* What does this mean?” “Yü Ti!” the master called. The prefect’s face changed color. The master remarked: “The land of the Rakshasas is not far!” The prefect again asked: “What about Buddha?” “Yü Ti!” the master called again. The prefect answered: “Yes?” The master said: “Don’t seek anywhere else.” At these words the prefect attained great enlightenment, bowed low, and became his disciple. (*Man-eaters: See Suzuki, Manual of Zen Buddhism)

P’ang’s Confucian roots

From the INTRODUCTION by Dana Fraser:

What was P’ang Yün’s relationship to the Confucian traditions of his ancestors? Although he must have been taught the precepts of Confucius as a child, these seem to have had little influence upon him in adult life. The compiler of The Recorded Sayings of Layman P’ang or its later editors hardly mention him at all in connection with Confucianism. There is an account, known only in a Korean edition dated 1245 and not mentioned by any Chinese editors, that gives more information in this regard. This is the Chodang chip, the earliest known history of Chinese Ch’an, compiled in 952 by Ch’an Master Ch’ing-hsiu and two assistants. It was lost in China and, until recently, known only in Korea. Here is the Chodang chip ‘s account of Layman P’ang:

“Layman P’ang succeeded [was a Dharma-heir of] Great Teacher Ma-tsu. The Layman himself was born in Heng-yang.
“He had occasion to ask Great Teacher Ma: ‘Who is the man who doesn’t accompany the ten thousand dharmas?’ Teacher Ma replied: ‘Layman, wait till you’ve swallowed in one swig all the water of the West River, then I’ll tell you.’ At that the Layman attained great enlightenment. He went directly to the administrative office, borrowed a writing brush and ink-stone, and composed a verse which says:

[People of] the ten directions are the same one assembly
Each and every one learns wu-wei
This is the very place to select Buddha
Empty-minded, having passed the exam, I return

“And then he stayed [at Ma-tsu’s temple]. He received further instruction for one or two years. In the end, without his changing his Confucian appearance, his mind sported outside of objects; his feelings were unrestrained, but his conduct fitted with the true purport; his way of life was turbid, but he was preeminent among men. Indeed he was a Mystery-learned Confucian, a householding bodhisattva.

“He first lived at East Cliff in Hsiang-yang, and later lived in a small hut west of the city wall. He had an only daughter, who served him and fashioned bamboo utensils. He had her sell them in the city, by which to provide for their daily needs. He daily enjoyed the Way.

“His verses number nearly three hundred, and circulate widely in the world. All by their words fit the Ultimate Principle, and by their phrases reveal the mysterious course of things; to accomplished Confucians they are jewels and gold, to Buddhists they are cherished treasure.”

Sasaki, Ruth Fuller. The Recorded Sayings of Layman P’ang; a ninth-century Zen classic 
[compiled by Yü Ti]. Translated from the Chinese by Ruth Fuller Sasaki, Yoshitaka Iriya & Dana R. Fraser. 
New York, Weatherhill, 1971. (https://terebess.hu/zen/pang.html)

The Vimalakirti Sutra: The Emancipation that is Impermanent and Permanent

I will tell you how I think of people: I try to forget myself and everyone and merge myself, for their sake, in unity. – Meister Eckhart (Walshe, Vol. II, Sermon 78)

The Vimalakirti Sutra

Translated by Burton Watson in 1997 from the Chinese version by Kumarajiva (T.475) (Wisdom Library)

Chapter 11 – Actions of the Bodhisattvas

The Buddha announced to the bodhisattvas, “There is the doctrine of the emancipation that is impermanent and permanent: you would do well to learn this. What does impermanent mean? It means those things that are conditioned. What does permanent mean? It means those things that are unconditioned. But beings such as the bodhisattvas do not shun the conditioned, nor do they dwell in the unconditioned.

“What is meant by not shunning the conditioned? It means not forgetting great compassion, not renouncing great pity. It means giving profound expression to the mind of comprehensive wisdom and never forgetting it. It means teaching and converting living beings without ever wearying. It means being ever mindful of the four methods of winning people and applying them in season. It means guarding and upholding the orthodox Dharma without a thought for life or limb. It means working tirelessly to plant the roots of goodness, keeping the will at all times fixed on expedient means and the transfer of merit to others. It means seeking the truth without ever slacking, preaching the truth without ever stinting. It means diligently making offerings to the Buddhas. It means intentionally entering the realm of birth and death with never a thought of fear, facing all sorts of honor or disgrace with never a thought of joy or sadness. It means not viewing with contempt those who have yet to learn and respecting the learned as though they were the Buddha himself. It means arousing correct thoughts in those sunk in earthly desires, but without unduly prizing one’s own desire to be free of passion. One should not cling to one’s own desire [for emancipation], but instead applaud others’ desire [for emancipation].1

“It means looking on the form and the formless realms as though they were one of the hells and on the realm of birth and death as though contemplating a garden. It means viewing those who come seeking instruction with thoughts of how one may be a good teacher. It means renouncing things and meditating on how to acquire perfect wisdom. It means seeing those who violate the precepts and meditating on how to save them.

“It means viewing the paramitas as one’s father and mother,viewing the elements of the Way as one’s retinue of followers. It means working ceaselessly to nourish the roots of goodness. It means using the adornments of other pure lands to complete a buddha land of one’s own.2 It means practicing unlimited charity and thereby acquiring auspicious physical characteristics. It means putting aside all evil and purifying body, speech, and mind. It means dwelling in the realm of birth and death for countless kalpas, ever valiant in mind. It means listening to the immeasurable virtues of the Buddha. It means never flagging in determination. It means using the sword of wisdom to cut down the thieves that are earthly desires, going beyond the realm of skandhas, elements, and the senses. It means shouldering the burden of living beings and bringing them to permanent emancipation. It means employing great assiduousness in driving back and vanquishing the armies of the Evil One. It means constantly seeking to practice the wisdom that is without discriminating thought, the true aspect of the Dharma. With regard to worldly things, it means lessening desires, knowing what is enough; with regard to unworldly things, it means tirelessly seeking them, yet not shunning the things of the world.

“It means never breaking the rules of proper demeanor, yet being able to conform to worldly ways. It means summoning transcendental powers and wisdom and using them to guide living beings; acquiring concentration and retention so that one never forgets what one has heard; being able to discern the different capacities of people and freeing them from doubt; expounding the Dharma with a pleasing and appropriate eloquence that flows unimpeded. It means scrupulously carrying out the ten good actions and receiving the blessings of human and heavenly beings. It means cultivating the four immeasurable qualities of mind and opening up the Brahma way. It means earnestly beseeching to hear the preaching of the Dharma and receiving it with joy and praise. It means acquiring the voice of the Buddha and the excellence of his body, speech, and mind. It means acquiring his proper demeanor, practicing his good Dharma with profound diligence, ever more accomplished in action. It means using the Great Vehicle teachings to create a community of bodhisattvas. It means never being self-indulgent in mind, never missing an opportunity for acts of goodness. One who practices these methods may be called a bodhisattva who does not shun the conditioned.

“What is meant by saying that the bodhisattva does not dwell in the unconditioned? It means that one studies and practices the teachings on emptiness, but does not take emptiness to be enlightenment. One studies and practices the teachings on formlessness and stillness, but does not take formlessness and stillness to be enlightenment. One studies and practices the teachings on the non-rising [of the phenomenal world], but does not take non-rising to be enlightenment. One views things as impermanent, but does not neglect to cultivate the roots of goodness. One views the world as characterized by suffering, but does not hate to be born and die in it (see note 1). One sees that there is no permanent ego, yet is tireless in instructing others. One sees that there is such a thing as tranquil extinction, but one does not dwell in extinction for long. One views the world as something to be cast off, withdrawn from, yet with body and mind one practices goodness. One sees there is no goal, yet one makes the good Dharma one’s goal. One sees there is no birth, yet one takes on the form of birth in order to share the burdens of others. One sees that outflowings (asava) should be cut off, yet one does not cut them off. One sees that there is nothing to be practiced, yet one practices the Dharma in order to teach and convert living beings. One embraces the view of emptiness and nothingness, yet does not discard one’s great pity. One embraces the view that the true Dharma (enlightenment) can be attained, yet one does not follow Lesser Vehicle (Hinayana) doctrines in this matter. One embraces the view that all phenomena are empty and false, lacking in substance, egoless, unattainable, formless; yet as long as one’s original vow remains unfulfilled, one does not regard merits, virtues, meditation, or wisdom as meaningless. When one practices these methods, one may be called a bodhisattva who does not dwell in the unconditioned.”

1. Craving (thirst), which is the origin of suffering, is principally a craving becoming (bhava), and for the worldly or sensual. But there is a third kind of craving, which is the craving for “not-becoming” (vibhava).

Samudaya (origin): Now this, monks, is the Noble Truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving (tanha – “thirst”) which leads to re-becoming, accompanied by delight and covetousness, seeking delight here and there; thus there is the craving for sensual pleasures, the craving for becoming, the craving for not becoming. – Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta

2. A buddha land consists of a buddha and disciples; adornments may be expedient teachings borrowed from other masters. Burton Watson writes: “To purify the Buddha lands here means to work diligently to lead the beings of various realms or Buddha lands to enlightenment, which is one of the chief aims of the bodhisattva’s activities.”

The Vimalakirti Sutra: The Place of Practice

The Vimalakirti Sutra

Translated by Burton Watson in 1997 from the Chinese version by Kumarajiva (T.475) (Wisdom Library)

 

Chapter 4 – The Place of Practice

The Buddha then said to the bodhisattva Shining Adornment, a young boy, “You must go visit Vimalakirti and ask about his illness.”

But Shining Adornment replied to the Buddha:

“World-Honored One, I am not worthy to visit him and inquire about his illness. Why? Because I remember once in the past when I was leaving the great city of Vaishali. Vimalakirti was just then entering the city, and I accordingly bowed to him and said, ‘Layman, where are you coming from?’

“He replied, ‘I am coming from the place of practice.’

“‘The place of practice—where is that?’ I asked.

“He replied, ‘An upright mind is the place of practice, for it is free of delusion or false imaginings (parikalpita).* Determination or resolution (adhitthana) is the place of practice, for it can judge matters properly. A deeply searching mind is the place of practice, for it multiplies benefits. The mind that aspires to bodhi (also perfection of the vow; pranidhana paramita) is the place of practice, for it is without error or misconception. [*Burton Watson writes: “The term chih-hsin, ‘upright mind,’ may also be translated ‘straightforward mind’ or ‘direct mind.'” In this context I think it means ‘to have Right View’ as opposed to a ‘crooked mind,’ which is confused or deluded.]

“‘Almsgiving (dana) is the place of practice, because it hopes for no reward. Observance of the precepts (sila) is the place of practice, because it brings fulfillment of vows. Forbearance (ksanti) is the place of practice, because it enables one to view all living beings with a mind free of obstruction. Energy (virya/viriya) is the place of practice, because it forestalls laziness and regression. Meditation (dhyana) is the place of practice, because it makes the mind tame and gentle. Wisdom (prajña) is the place of practice, because it sees all things as they are.

“‘Loving kindness (metta) is the place of practice, for it views all living beings equally. Compassion (karuna) is the place of practice, for it bears up under weariness and pain. Joy is the place of practice, for it revels in Dharma delight. Detachment/equanimity (upekkha) is the place of practice, for it rejects both hatred and love.

“‘Transcendental powers (bala paramita) are the place of practice, because thereby one masters the six powers. Renunciation (nekkhamma) is the place of practice, because it knows how to renounce and cast aside. Perfection of expedient means (upaya paramita) is the place of practice, because they can teach and convert living beings. The four methods of winning people are the place of practice, because they can win living beings over. Perfection of knowledge (jñana paramita) is the place of practice, because one carries out what one has learned. A disciplined mind is the place of practice, because one can thereby contemplate all phenomena correctly. The thirty-seven elements of the Way are the place of practice, because through them, one rejects what is conditioned. Truthfulness (sacca) is the place of practice, because it does not deceive the world.

“‘Causes and conditions are the place of practice, for none of the links in the chain of causation, from ignorance to old age and death, ever come to an end. Earthly desires are the place of practice, for through them we know the nature of Suchness. Living beings are the place of practice, for through them we know that there is no ego. All phenomena are the place of practice, for through them we know the emptiness of all phenomena.

“‘Conquering devils is the place of practice, because one is unswayed, unflinching. The threefold world is the place of practice, because there is no path for one there. The lion’s roar is the place of practice, because it has nothing it fears. The ten powers, the four kinds of fearlessness, the eighteen unshared properties are the place of practice, because they are free of all fault. The three understandings are the place of practice, because they are without the least obstruction. Understanding all phenomena in one instant of thought is the place of practice, because one thereby becomes master of all wisdom.

“‘My good man, if bodhisattvas apply themselves to the paramitas and teach and convert living beings, then you should understand that everything they do, every lifting of a foot, every placing of a foot, will in effect be coming from the place of practice, abiding in the Buddha’s Dharma.'”

 

 

Meister Eckhart: Higher states of being

Meister Eckhart preached about the ascending states of being in what the translators—Maurice O’Connell Walshe, based on Josef Quint—have called Sermon Seventy. In this passage from the sermon, Walshe relied on Quint’s translation “due to the difficulty of the subject and the unreliability of the source,” and I have copied it as Walshe translated it.

What is interesting about this sermon is the fact that Hinduism, Buddhism, Kabbala (Jewish mysticism) and Meister Eckhart (Catholic) all speak of ascending states of consciousness in the same general terms. These states are characterized on one hand by the existence or absence of form, and on the other hand by the existence or absence of effort. In the highest state there are no forms, and it has been described as rest, stillness, effortlessness. Because of the ubiquity of these teachings, we must accept them as true.

There is also found in Hinduism, Buddhism and Kabbala the idea of the triple world, or the threefold world, wherein dwell innumerable beings. As Williams (2000) explains, when one attains higher meditative states, one is entering real realms inhabited by real beings (Rebirth, karma and meditation).

The lowest realm is the one in which we dwell. In Buddhism it is called the sense realm, in Hinduism it is called the desire realm, and in Kabbala it is called the action realm.1 It has the highest density and the lowest vibrational frequency.

Moving up there is a realm that Buddhism calls the form realm, Hinduism calls the astral realm, and Kabbala calls formation. Beings in this realm of existence being have eliminated desire, and they cause things to appear instantly by thought.2

Higher up there is a realm that Buddhism calls the formless realm, Hinduism calls the causal realm, and Kabbala calls creation. There are no forms here, although beings still exist as separate entities. From what Thomas Upham described as Madame Guyon’s experience, and from Dolores Cannon’s writings, beings in this realm can and do influence events in lower realms in accordance with divine laws. The Council of Nine, which had direct conversations with Star Trek creator, Gene Roddenberry, exists here (The Only Planet of Choice).

In a talk entitled Letting Go of Ego, Lester says that there are manifold worlds on the astral and causal planes, and he mentions even higher levels. Furthermore, there are many versions of Earth itself, which are called world-lines (see the MAJestic program).

The Earths possess the distinction of being the only worlds in this universe where beings can choose whether they want an ego-centered life or a God-centered life. This has allowed individual souls to achieve rapid growth, but over the past 200 years, malevolent entities took advantage of this freedom to turn Earth into a hellish soul-trap, thus the necessity for the Council of Nine to intervene.

The triple world is “the abode of the unenlightened because beings have not completely abandoned the self.” The Vimalakirtki Sutra explains why a birth in this world, the lowest and most painful place to be, is to be valued:

If you plant seeds in the sky, they will never grow. Only when you plant them in well-manured soil can they sprout and flourish. In the same way, the Buddhadharma (Reality of the Enlightened) will never grow in a person who has perceived the uncreated nature of reality and entered into true understanding. But one who entertains egotistic views as huge as Mount Sumeru can still set his mind on the attainment of complete liberation. From this you should understand that all the various earthly desires are the seeds of the Tathagata (a living Buddha). If you do not descend into the vast ocean, you can never acquire a priceless pearl. In the same way, if you do not enter the great sea of earthly desires, you can never acquire the treasure of perfect wisdom. (Enlightenment attained only from this world)

Lester urged his students to not be tempted by the higher realms: “These states are awfully tempting, and as you move up, some of these characters will invite you into it. My recommendation is this: bypass it all.” (“Get Off the Rollercoaster“) In another talk he said that if we bypass it all we can “save ourselves millions of years”:

If we lose our sense of egoity in the state we are in now, we save ourselves millions of years of growing on the higher planes. To be in a higher astral realm, or a causal realm, or the highest of realms, we still need a sense of separation, a sense of egoity. We need a sense of a higher body. And one of the greatest, most wonderful things about the state we are in now is that it allows us to go all the way back home, right to the very top. Even the gods, the angels, cannot do what we can do. We can go all the way by completely losing the sense of being an ego. (https://youtu.be/NJ_2RMvxZ-4 at 9:10)

Yogananda’s Autobiography (1946) affords us a view of a being who had outgrown the world, but left it without attaining liberation. His goal was never enlightenment (moksha), but rebirth in the astral realm. In his autobiography, Yogananda translated Adi Shankara’s warning about seeing distinctions:

“The Vedas declare that the ignorant man who rests content with making the slightest distinction between the individual soul and the Supreme Self is in peril (of rebirth). Where there is duality by virtue of ignorance, one sees all things as distinct from the Self. When everything is seen as the Self, then there is not even an atom other than the Self.”

Yet despite this admonition, Yogananda persisted until the end of his life in viewing “God” and other people as distinct from himself, and in viewing people and matter as real. In other words, he never gave up seeing his “self” as real. In a demonstration of this dualistic state of mind, during his visit to India in 1935 Yogananda demanded that his guru, Sri Yukteswar, tell him that he loved him.

Later, after Yukteswar had passed on, he appeared to Yogananda and told him that he had become a savior to astral beings, and promised him that they would be reunited:

“As prophets are sent on earth to help men work out their physical karma, so I have been directed by God to serve on an astral planet as a savior. It is called Hiranyaloka or ‘Illumined Astral Planet.’ There I am aiding advanced beings to rid themselves of astral karma and thus attain liberation from astral rebirths. The dwellers on Hiranyaloka are highly developed spiritually; all of them had acquired, in their last Earth-incarnation, the meditation-given power of consciously leaving their physical bodies at death. There you and your exalted loved ones shall someday come to be with me.” (Chapter 43)

The following is Lester’s description of what the form realm would be like on Earth:

If everyone were in harmony, there would be no waiting in line for tickets; there would be no one clamoring around a box office trying to get them. When everyone’s in harmony, there are enough seats for everyone, and everyone walks right in without needing a ticket. You don’t even have to pay for it. Nature provides in superabundance when we get in tune with it. There would never be such a thing as shortages. There is unlimited infinite energy available to us, as well as a superabundance of everything we would want to use. That’s when you’re in tune with nature. Really, no effort is needed when you’re in tune with nature. Effort is required when you’re working against nature, when you’re not in tune with it. This world was put here for our use and play. The idea of nature needing to be conquered is a very negative idea. What needs to be conquered is our negative ideas, and then only positive things happen. (“The Source of All Intelligence”: https://youtu.be/LJ7j5jszw5w)

Lester also described the form realm in his autobiography (2003):

As Jesus said, “In my Father’s house are many mansions” (John 14:2).* After people drop the body they go into a world similar to this where they meet old friends. The main difference is that everything there is immediate. Whatever you think comes into being right away. It’s heavenly compared to this. But because of its being so easy, there’s little incentive to grow. Here, the opportunity for growth is the greatest. (p. 97)

*In the house (beth) of my Father are many abodes; if [it were] not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Precisely because Earth is the realm that provides the greatest opportunity for growth, Lester advised his students to aspire to complete liberation while here:

And we can go from the physical, we can graduate, get our wings, and fly off into the astral. And you can spend far more millennia in the astral than you do here because it’s an easier way of life. And then we can graduate into the causal. But if you understand what the ego is, you can go all the way from the lowest realm that we are in now, back to the highest, by eliminating the ego-sense. When we lose all of our ego-sense we are fully realized. We go all the way. We return to being the All. The opportunity to do this exists more in this realm than in any other realm, because it is so difficult that the incentive is greatest in this realm. As life gets easier the incentive to grow gets less. But when you think you are not going to eat, and the whole world is going to collapse on you and so forth, and you have a sick body and all these troubles, you have a tremendous incentive to get out of that. And the incentive being so much stronger in this realm, it’s possible to transcend all the realms and go right back to the One, or the All. (“The Mind Mirror”: https://youtu.be/CGdCMMRebgM)

You’ll never, ever be satisfied living life in the world—or in any other world, or in the heavens. There are heavens on top of heavens on top of the heavens. We happen to be in the hell-realm of the heavens. And you’ll never, ever be satisfied until you go to the ultimate, until you recognize it. (“The Ultimate Freedom”: https://youtu.be/O5SBbSE0Hcw)

1. Kabbala’s doctrine of the three realms:
“From the conjunction of the Sephiroth emanated directly or remotely three worlds; two called the world of creation and of formation, being spiritual, though of different degrees of purity, and inhabited by spiritual beings; the last, called the world of action, being material, subject to change and corruption and inhabited by the evil spirit and the hosts subordinate to him.” (Ginsburg, quoted in Mansel)

When the mind craves anything it is called the desire realm (kamadhatu). When the mind is not mind of itself but arises because of forms it is called the form realm (rupadhatu). When forms are not forms of themselves but are produced by the mind, mind and forms being formless, it is called the formless realm (arupadhatu). (Bodhidharma’s Method for Quieting the Mind)

 

Meister Eckhart

The original premise of this post was that the higher states or realms are defined by form on one hand, and on the other hand by degrees of work and action (ego) or being (God). For Eckhart the first of the higher states is that in which a soul is “borne up in the Trinity”: “That which God is in power, we are in the image . . .  There we shall know as we are known, and we shall love as we are loved. But this is not without working, for the soul is borne up in that image, and works in that power as that power.”

Eckhart generally talks about “works” in the sense of service to others; but sometimes he is talking about graces or gifts, which is the ability to perform miracles:

A master called Avicenna declares that the mind of him who stands detached is of such nobility that whatever he sees is true, and whatever he desires he obtains, and whatever he commands must be obeyed. And this you must know for sure: when the free mind is quite detached, it constrains God to itself . . . (On Detachment).

For the sake of symmetry we will call being “borne up in the Trinity,” where one has the ability to “constrain God,” the attainment of the form realm.

I know now that your simple word is binding on the whole cosmos. – Yogananda

Above this is “being that does not work but here alone is being and work.” Again, for symmetry, we will call this the attainment of the formless realm. 

Above everything is the Godhead, where there is only being and no work. According to Eckhart this is “the highest perfection of the spirit to which man can attain spiritually in this life.” But the Godhead it isn’t the highest state of all, he says, because it is “being” without “person”—that is, personality. For him the very highest perfection is “that which we shall possess forever with the body and soul.”

Mahayana Buddhism teaches about the threefold body of the buddha. The lowest is the sambhogakaya, or reward body, which is when the body of a sage functions in perfect harmony. Next is the dharmakaya, which is the state of union with the Dharma, or the Godhead. Highest of all there is the nirmanakaya, which is the transformation body or manifestation body. This is where a buddha appears in different forms to teach beings everywhere according to their capacities and needs. A buddha has to ability to transform himself while still alive, but it appears that the earthly body is prone to dying while one is out of it.

Like Eckhart, Buddhism considers the realization of the Dharma, or Godhead, to be an incomplete enlightenment. Upon attaining enlightenment, the bodhisattva does not remain in contemplation of sunyata, or non-materiality, but is ever ready to help lead others to liberation. The Vimalakirti Sutra says, “One sees that there is such a thing as tranquil extinction, but does not dwell in extinction for long.” In Sermon Seventy Eckhart holds up Jesus as exemplifying this unity of “person” and “being” we should aim for:

“Then the outer man will be entirely maintained through the supportive possession of personal being, just as humanity and divinity are one personal being in the person of Christ.”

(I.e., possessing personal being, a self with a lower-case ‘s’, will allow one to keep the outer man alive. – Ed)

 

He becomes a monk in all the different creeds of the world
so that thereby he may free others from ignorance
and save them from falling into erroneous beliefs. – Vimalakirti Sutra

* * *

Sermon Seventy

Now take note of a saying which I consider very fine: when I think how one He is with me, as if He had forgotten all creatures and nothing existed but I alone. Now pray for those who are entrusted to me! Those who pray for anything but God or to do with God, pray wrongly: when I pray for nothing, then I pray rightly, and that prayer is proper and powerful. But if anyone prays for anything else, he is praying to a false God, and one might say this was sheer heresy. I never pray so well as when I pray for nothing and for nobody, not for Heinrich or Konrad. Those who pray truly pray to God in truth and in spirit, that is to say, in the Holy Ghost.

That which God is in power, we are in the image: what the Father is in power, the Son in wisdom and the Holy Ghost in goodness, we are in the image. “There we shall know as we are known”, and we shall love as we are loved. But this is not without working, for the soul is borne up in that image, and works in that power as that power; she is also borne up in the Persons in accordance with the power of the Father, the wisdom of the Son and the goodness of the Holy Ghost. All this is the work of the Persons. Above this is being that does not work but here alone is being and work. Truly, where the soul is in God, just as the Persons are suspended in being, there work and being are one, in that place where the soul grasps the Persons in the very indwelling of being from which they never emerged, where there is a pure essential image. This is the essential mind of God, of which the pure and naked power is intellect, which the masters term receptive.

Now mark my words! It is only above all this that the soul grasps the pure absoluteness of free being, which has no location, which neither receives nor gives: it is bare ‘beingness’ which is deprived of all being and all beingness. There she grasps God as in the ground, where He is above all being. This is the highest perfection of the spirit to which man can attain spiritually in this life.

Yet this is not the highest perfection: that which we shall possess forever with the body and soul. Then the outer man will be entirely maintained through the supportive possession of personal being, just as humanity and divinity are one personal being in the person of Christ. Therefore I have in that the same support of personal being in such a manner that I myself am that personal being while totally denying my awareness of self, so that I am spiritually one according to my ground, just as the ground itself is one ground. Thus according to the outer being I should be the same personal being, entirely deprived of my own support. This personal man-God-being outgrows and soars above the outer man altogether, so that he can never reach it.

Relying on himself he indeed receives the influx of grace from the personal being in many manifestations of sweetness, comfort and inwardness, and that is good: but it is not the best. Therefore if he remained thus in himself [in the body] yet unsupported by himself, then, although he would receive comfort through grace and the co-operation of grace, which however is not the best thing, the inner man, who is spiritual, would have to come out from the ground where he is one, and would have to be directed by the gracious being by which, through grace, he is supported. Therefore the spirit can never be perfect unless body and soul are brought to perfection. Thus, just as the inner man, in spiritual wise, loses his own being by his ground becoming one ground, so too the outer man must be deprived of his own support and rely entirely on the support of the eternal personal being which is this very personal being.

We have now therefore two kinds of being. One ‘being’ is according to the Godhead, bare substantial being, the other is personal being, and yet both are one ‘substance’. Now since the same substance whereby Christ is a person, as the bearer of Christ’s eternal humanity, is also the substance of the soul, and yet there is one Christ as regards substance, as regards both being and person, so too we must be the same Christ, following him in his works, just as he is one Christ as regards his humanity. For, since by my humanity I am of the same genus, therefore I am so united to his personal being that, by grace, I am one in that personal being and am that personal being. So, since God (Christ) dwells eternally in the ground of the Father, and I in him, one ground and the same Christ, as a single bearer of my humanity, then this (humanity) is as much mine as his in one substance of eternal being, so that the being of both, body and soul, attain perfection in one Christ, as one God, one Son.

May the Holy Trinity help us so that this may come to pass in us. Amen. (p. 174)

* * *

Lin-Chi:

Followers of the Way, the one who at this moment stands alone, listening, clear and vibrant right before the eyes, this one is not limited to any place; unhindered he penetrates everywhere and moves freely in the triple world. Entering all kinds of situations, he is never affected by them. In the fraction of a moment he descends to the lowest realms. Meeting the Buddha, he talks with the Buddha; meeting patriarchs, he talks with patriarchs; meeting arhats, he talks with arhats; meeting hungry ghosts, he talks with hungry ghosts. He goes everywhere, roaming through the realms and talking with living beings, yet never strays for a single thought from his shining purity. Penetrating the ten directions, to him the ten thousand things are of one suchness.

Madame Guyon on simplicity and multiplicity:

The soul is created one and simple like God. To arrive at the end of creation, we must therefore leave the multiplicity of our actions to enter into the simplicity and unity of God, “in whose image we are created” (Gen. 1:27). God is one and multiple; God’s unity does not prevent its multiplicity. We become one with God’s unity and have the same Spirit with God. Yet we are multiplied in respect to God’s outward will, without leaving our unity. So when we are entirely moved by the divine Spirit, which is infinitely active, our activity differs greatly in energy and degree from that which is only our own. (James, p. 97)

God asks two admirable things from his devotee. One, now he must leave the profound silence in which he has remained. During the time of becoming lost in God, God asked that the devotee reduce his being into the the simplicity and unity of God. Now that the union is complete, God desires to give the devotee the fruit of his consummated state, the knowledge of multiplicity and unity. In this stage the multiplicity does not interfere with the unity, and the unity does not interfere with the multiplicity.

God desires that the devotee should add the outward praise of his mouth to the silent word of the center known as the state of unity. This is an imitation of what is accomplished in glory. After many centuries, when the soul has been absorbed into the ineffable yet ever-eloquent silence of the divinity, it will receive its glorified body, which will give praise to God. So this resurrection of the body will have its own language of praise that increases happiness yet does not interrupt the soul’s peace.

In this life, after the soul knows consummation in a unity that cannot be interrupted by external actions, the body’s mouth finds praise appropriate to it. The beautiful harmony between the silent word of the soul and speech of the senses makes up the consummation of praise. (James, p. 231)

I should be unable to write anything about my interior state. I will not do it because I have no words to express what is entirely disconnected from everything considered as feeling, expression, or human conception. I shall only say that after my state became resurrected, I found myself for some years, before being placed in the state that is called apostolic, in a bliss equal to that of the blessed, reserved for the beatific vision. Nothing down here touches me, and neither do I see anything in heaven or in earth that can trouble me concerning myself. The happiness of a soul in this state cannot be comprehended without experience, and those who die without being employed in the external state die in supreme bliss even though overwhelmed with external crosses. (James, p. 242)

* * *

Cannon, Dolores (1996). Between Death and Life: Conversations with a Spirit. Bath: Gateway Books.

Ginsburg, Christian D. (1863-1864) The Essenes: Their History and Doctrines and the Kabbalah – Its Doctrines, Development and Literature. New York: Cosimo (2005). Cited in Longueville Mansel, Henry (1875). The Gnostic Heresies of the First and Second Centuries. London: John Murray.

James, Nancy C. (2011). The Complete Madame Guyon. Brewster, Massachusetts: Paraclete Press.

Levenson, Lester (2003). No Attachments, No Aversions: The Autobiography of a Master. Sherman Oaks, California: Lawrence Crane Enterprises.

M. O’C. Walshe (1987). Meister Eckhart: Sermons and Treatises Volume II. UK: Element Books Limited.

Williams, Paul (2000). Buddhist Thought: A Complete Introduction to the Indian Tradition. London and New York: Routledge.

Yogananda, Paramhansa (1946). Autobiography of a Yogi. New York: The Philosophical Library

If you have a staff, I will give you a staff

Case 44: Basho’s Staff

Basho (Chinese Master Ma-tsu) said to his disciples, “If you have a staff, I will give you a staff. If you have no staff, I will take it from you.” (The Gateless Gate)

Bodhidharma:

If you take obtaining to be obtaining, there is something that you do not obtain If you take not obtaining to be obtaining, there is nothing that you do not obtain. (The Long Scroll)

Dogen:

The flowers depart when we hate to lose them;
The weeds arrive when we hate to watch them grow. (Watts, The Way of Zen)

Yeshua:

The Kingdom of Heaven is thus: To every one that has shall be given, and he shall have abundance; but from him that has not shall be taken away even that which he has. (Matthew 25)

Therefore I say to you, whatever things you ask when you pray, believe that you receive them, and you will have them. (Mark 11:24)

Sadi Benzahmare, one of Yeshua’s teachers:

They are the laws of nature (i.e. of reality). The law of manifestation: that one desires, and then one knows that it shall be fulfilled, and the need shall be fulfilled. These laws are the basic laws of nature. (Cannon, Jesus and the Essenes, p. 213)

Layman P’ang (d. 808):

During the Chen-yuan era of T’ang he gave away his house to be used as a temple and he loaded the treasure of his household—several tens of thousands of strings of coins—onto a boat and sunk it in a river. After that he lived like a single leaf.

The Layman had a wife, a son, and a daughter, all Buddhists. They sold bamboo utensils in order to obtain their morning and evening meals. (Ruth Fuller Sasaki, The Recorded Sayings of Layman P’ang)

Lester Levenson:

You should have only one desire: a desire for complete liberation, complete realization. Any other desire will keep you in suffering.

Wanting is the sensation of lacking. First, to want something means we feel we don’t have it. We feel empty, lonely, lacking or deprived, and we believe that if we possessed that object or had that experience, we’d feel filled up and we would be happy. So behind all desiring and seeking is first a motivation to be happy, and second a belief that happiness lies in the fulfillment of desires.

On the contrary, desire is the problem. Being in a state of desire is suffering, wanting, lacking, hurting, and looking to a future time when we will have what we desire and be happy. Desire is an admission that we are lacking. If I am the infinite One, I desire nothing—I am the All. (1993)

Meister Eckhart:

If there were a man who possessed all the world, and he gave it up as freely as he received it for God’s sake, then our Lord would give him back all this world and eternal life as well. And if there were another man who possessed nothing but good will, and he thought: Lord, were this whole world mine, and if I had another world and yet another (or as many more as you please); if he were to pray: Lord, I will give up these and myself as freely as I received them from you, then God would give that man just as much as if he had given it away with his own hand. Still another man who had nothing physical or spiritual to renounce or give up, it is he who would give up the most. A man who completely gave up self for a single instant, to him all would be given. But if a man gave up self for twenty years and then took it back for a single instant, it would be as if he had never given it up. One who has given up self and keeps giving up self, and never casts a glance at what he has given up but remains firm, unmoved in himself and unchangeable, he alone has left self behind. (Sermon Fifty Seven)

Hakuin’s Letter in Answer to an Old Nun of the Hokke (Nichiren) Sect
The 25th day of the Eleventh Month of Enkyo (C.E. 1747)

Once there were two children of Mr. Chang. The elder brother was named Chang Wu and the younger Chang Lu. One day they bundled up some provisions and set out on a long journey. While on the way they happened to find a bar of gold, and they danced for joy at the discovery. But later they parted ways and some thirty years passed in which each of the brothers did not know whether the other was dead or alive. Lu, wondering about his brother, sought him in all directions, and finally having discovered his brother’s whereabouts, journeyed there from afar to pay him a visit. When Lu came finally to his brother’s place, he was amazed at its opulence: the water wheels groaned as they turned and carts filled with grain came rumbling past. Oxen and horses filled the stables, flocks of geese crowded the ditches. The sound of bamboo flutes and pipes floated from the house and voices were raised in song. Elegant guests came in and out.

Lu, shaking with fear, was unable to cross the threshold. Bowing to the ground with terror and trembling, he offered his name card. Two boys handsome in appearance and elegant in bearing came to greet him. Chang Lu followed them in, walking with extreme diffidence. The magnificence of the walls and the beauty of the buildings were such that K’ang I and Shih Nu would have felt at home in them. Chang Lu’s spirits faltered and his legs trembled and he did not know where to sit down. After a short while Chang Wu, attended by his concubines and female servants, appeared from beneath an embroidered canopy. The resplendent costuming of the women who attended on his brother astounded Chang Lu; the embroidered damasks overwhelmed his eyes. A golden incense burner poured forth the fragrance of a thousand flowers; jade ornaments gave off hundreds of delicate sounds. A crimson embroidered cap adorned Chang Wu’s head; from his shoulders a purple gown hung. He seated himself on a luxurious green cushion and leaned his arm on a sandalwood table. He glared with the haughty eyes of a tiger; he held his shoulders arrogantly in the pose of a kite.

Chang Lu took one look and could not help but lower his eyes to the ground. His body seemed to shrink and his tears flowed without cease. He was quite unable to raise his head and look his brother straight in the face.

Deliberately Chang Wu began to speak: “My brother, why were you so long in coming? How is it that you appear in such distressed circumstances?”

Chang Lu, wiping away his tears, asked then timidly: “My brother, to what lord are you indebted? From whom have you received patronage that you are so great and wealthy now?”

Chang Wu answered: “I am not the minister to any man, nor have I received the largess of a patron. I am just someone who a long time ago found some money.”

Chang Lu said: “How many boxes of gold did you find? Was it as much as can be piled into a large wagon or loaded onto a giant ship? Was it money that fell from heaven or a treasure buried beneath the earth? Who was the person who forgot about all this wealth?”

“Not at all. It was the money that thirty years ago you and I found together upon the highway,” replied his brother.

Chang Lu responded: “How strange! With only one bar of gold you were able to attain all these riches?” Then suddenly Chang Lu became greatly troubled. “Are you perhaps a member of an evil gang, a partner in crime with the thieves Tao Chih and Chuang Ch’iao? If so, I’d better leave in a hurry so that I’ll be able to escape the fate that is sure to fall on the nine families of relatives. If I stay here, I’ll just be inviting my own death.”

Chang Wu laughed heartily: “What happened to the money you acquired thirty years ago? Did you gamble it away? Squander it on wine and women?”

Chang Lu replied: “I see, I see. My disreputable appearance must seem very strange to you. Please ask the others to leave the room. I have something I want to say to you in private.” Chang Wu glanced up and then asked all his women to leave. Chang Lu cautiously drew nearer: “Do I look like someone who loses his money gambling or concerns himself with the women of the gay quarters? I am not poor because I lost the money, but rather trying to protect it has worn me out. Didn’t you tell me long ago: ‘Guard the money well. Don’t squander it recklessly’? I am not the one who would go against the instructions of his brother.”

As soon as Chang Lu had found the money, he wrapped it in a tenfold cloth and guarded it with the utmost care, as though he were protecting the jewel of Pien Ho or the precious Night-illuminating Jewel. He carried it with him wherever he went. For thirty years he had not relaxed, and had remained sleepless, fearing that he was constantly under the threat of death from thieves and assassins. He dreaded it if people inquired of his health, turned away from all his friends, and avoided association with anyone. He became a man of abject poverty, wearing on his shoulders a disreputable gown, patched in a hundred places, and on his head a tattered cap. People paid him absolutely no attention, never giving him a second thought, and this, in turn, he found a blessing. Fearing that he might lose his money, he took no wife, remaining always single. He hid himself in places where he need have nothing to do with other men, seeking out abandoned houses and dilapidated mausoleums to sleep in. He never stayed at an inn and was content with the most miserable of food. He begged beside the gates of people’s houses, and if he was forced to stand for long time, he might on occasion sing for his food.

Then saying: “The gold is right here,” he looked about several times to make sure that no one else was there to see him, and then he loosened his filthy, torn gown and fishing about in the folds finally drew out a packet wrapped around ten times in cloth. He undid it, and looking all around again, he took out the gold and showed it to his brother. “Where is the money that you picked up?” he asked. “Bring it out and let’s see it for old time’s sake.”

Chang Wu replied: “Not long after you and I parted some thirty years ago I got rid of the gold.”

Chang Lu paled and stared intently at his brother’s face. Reflecting pensively he remarked: “You got rid of the money while I guarded it. Yet, though you got rid of it, you have become wealthy, and I who guarded mine am miserably poor.” He opened his eyes wide and struck his forehead and gnashed his teeth and gnawed on his lips and could not help feeling deeply depressed. After a while he said: “If it is bad to hold on to something and starve from poverty and good to get rid of something and revel in riches, then, even though I am late about it, shouldn’t I also rid myself of the gold? Please tell me how to get rid of it.”

Chang Wu said: “The gold that you picked up was worth less than a yellow leaf. Not only did it fail to benefit you, but on the contrary, it impoverished you and did harm to your heart and entrails. Had you wrapped up a yellow leaf, it would have weighed nothing as you went on your rounds, nor would you have been afflicted by poverty; instead you might have spent your time in a simple cottage, caring for a wife and children, and might have slept comfortably, with your head high on a pillow. Your holding on to it was the road that led away from these things; my getting rid of it was the road that led to them.

“After I left you those thirty years ago, I went to Yang-chou. To me my gold was lighter than yellow leaf, and I bought with it a great amount of salt. As soon as I sold the salt, with the profit I bought silk floss. As soon as I sold the silk floss, with the profit I bought hemp. As soon as I sold the hemp, with the profit I bought grain, fruit, fish, and meat. I sent people throughout the country to gather the treasures of mountain and sea, the beauties of land and water. Bringing all these things together, I opened several large stores with some three hundred employees. People stormed my doors with money in their hands and there was no variety of food that I did not sell. My possessions and wealth became enormous; T’ao Chu-kung’s riches were small by comparison, I Tun’s possessions would amount to nothing beside mine. My storehouses and granaries stand eave-to-eave in rows. I possess fifteen thousand acres of fertile land. I have purchased several score of mountains clothed with cypress and pine and groves of catalpa and cedar, and have set myself up in the establishment. This is the road I traveled by getting rid of the gold, which I regarded as lightly as one does a yellow leaf.”

Chang Lu stood up, bowed, and said: “Blessings on you, my brother. I hope that you continue in the best of health. Your losing, while only seeming like losing, actually turned out to be devoting your efforts to keeping. My keeping, which only seemed to be keeping, was actually devoting my efforts to losing. Holding on and letting go bring different results indeed. One knows for a certainty that a yellow leaf, when it falls into the hands of a wise man, is true gold; when true gold falls into the hands of a stupid person, it is only a yellow leaf. Oh, how I regret the thirty years of pain I have caused myself, the energies I have exhausted without a bit of gain!” His voice was choked with painful sobs.

Jesus: The Parable of the Talents

For the Kingdom of Heaven is as a man traveling into a far country who called his own servants and delivered to them his goods. And to one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one, to each man according to his ability, and straightaway took his journey. Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with them and made another five talents. And likewise, he that had received two also gained another two. But he that had received one went and dug a hole in the ground and hid his lord’s money.

After a long time the lord of those servants came back and asked them for a reckoning. And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, you delivered to me five talents; behold, I have gained five talents more. His lord said to him, Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful in a few things; I will make you ruler over many things. Enter you into the joy of your lord.

Likewise, he that had received two talents came and said, Lord, you delivered to me two talents; behold, I have gained two talents more. His lord said to him, Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful in a few things; I will make you ruler over many things. Enter you into the joy of your lord.

Then he that had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew that you are a severe man, reaping where you have not sown and gathering where you have not cast a net. And I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the earth. See, there you have what is yours.

His lord answered and said to him, You ill and lazy servant, you knew that I reap where I sowed not and gather where I have not cast a net; you ought therefore to have left my money with the money lenders, and then at my coming I should have received my own with usury. Take therefore the talent from him and give it to him that has ten talents.

For to every one that has shall be given, and he shall have abundance; but from him that has not shall be taken away even that which he has. And cast the unprofitable servant out into the darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matthew 25:14-30 American King James)

Lin-chi:

When your mind has learned to cease its momentary seeking, this is called the state of the bodhi tree; but while your mind is incapable of ceasing, this is called the tree of ignorance. Ignorance has no fixed abode; ignorance has no beginning or end. As long as your mind is unable to cease its moment-by-moment activity, then you are in the tree of ignorance. You roam among the six realms of existence and the four types of birth wearing fur and with horns on your head. But if you can learn to cease, then you’ll be in the world of the clean pure body. If not one thought arises, you’ll be up in the bodhi tree, using your transcendental powers to take different forms in the threefold world, assuming any bodily shape you please, feasting on Dharma bliss and meditation delight, illuminating things for yourself with the light from your own body. Think of clothes and you’ll be swathed in a thousand layers of fine silk; think of food and you’ll be provided with a hundred delicacies. And you will suffer no sudden illnesses. Bodhi is everywhere: that’s why there is nothing to obtain. (Watson, 1999)

Cannon, Dolores (1992). Jesus and the Essenes: Fresh Insights into Christ’s Ministry and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Bath: Gateway Books.

Hakuin (1971). The Zen Master Hakuin: Selected Writings. Translated by Philip B. Yampolsky. New York: Columbia University Press (pp. 86-123). (Orategama)

Levenson, Lester (1993). Keys to the Ultimate Freedom: Thoughts and Talks on Personal Transformation. Phoenix, Arizona: Sedona Institute. (keys-to-the-ultimate-freedom)

Watson, Burton (1999). The Zen Teachings of Master Lin-chi. New York: Columbia University Press. https://cup.columbia.edu/book/the-zen-teachings-of-master-lin-chi/9780231114851

Watts, Alan (1957). The Way of Zen. New York: Vintage Books. (The-Way-of-Zen)

The Nag Hammadi Library (http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/apopet.html)

Meister Eckhart: On Detachment

He becomes a monk in all the different creeds of the world
so that thereby he may free others from delusion
and save them from falling into erroneous beliefs. – Vimalakirti Sutra

The indifference with which one treats crow droppings—such an indifference to all objects of enjoyment, from the realm of Brahma down to this world, is verily called pure non-attachment. – Adi Shankara, “Self-Realization”

The masters say that heaven permits no alien intrusion: no fierce assault can penetrate to do it outrage. So too the soul that is to know God must be fortified and established such that nothing can penetrate into her, neither hope nor fear nor joy nor grief nor suffering or anything that could disturb her. Heaven is at all points equidistant from Earth; likewise the soul should be equally distant from all earthly things, no nearer to the one than to the other. Where the noble soul is, she must maintain an equal distance from all earthly things, from hope, from joy and from sorrow: whatever it is, she must rise above it. – Meister Eckhart (Vol. II, p. 167)

ON DETACHMENT

(Abegescheidenheit)

I have read many writings of pagan masters, and of the prophets, and of the Old and New Testaments, and have sought earnestly and with all diligence to discover which is the best and highest virtue whereby a man may chiefly and most firmly join himself to God, and whereby a man may become by grace what God is by nature, and whereby a man may come closest to his image when he was in God, wherein there was no difference between him and God, before God made creatures. After a thorough study of these writings I find, as well as my reason can testify or perceive, that only pure detachment surpasses all things, for all virtues have some regard to creatures, but detachment is free of all creatures.

The teachers greatly praise love; but I extol detachment above any love. First, because at best, love constrains me to love God, but detachment compels God to love me. Now it is a far nobler thing my constraining God to me than for me to constrain myself to God. That is because God is more readily able to adapt Himself to me, and can more easily unite with me than I could unite with God. That detachment forces God to me I can prove thus: everything wants to be in its natural place. Now God’s natural place is unity and purity, and that comes from detachment. Therefore God is bound to give Himself to a detached heart.2

In the second place, I extol detachment above love because love compels me to suffer all things for God’s sake, whereas detachment makes me receptive of nothing but God. Now it is far nobler to be receptive of nothing but God than to suffer all things for God, for in suffering a man has some regard for the creatures from which he receives the suffering, but detachment is quite free of all creatures. But that detachment is receptive of nothing but God I can prove this way: whatever is to be received must be taken in somewhere. Now detachment is so nearly nothing that there is no thing subtle enough to maintain itself in detachment except God alone. He is so subtle and so simple [of a single essence] that He can stay in a detached heart. Therefore detachment is receptive of nothing but God.

Furthermore, a Bodhisattva stands firm in the perfection of patience. Upon taking the vow of enlightenment he prepares himself thus: “If all beings were to hit me with sticks, clods, fists, or swords, not even one single thought of anger should arise in me; and also should I introduce all beings to such patience!”

It is as if a clever magician had conjured up a great crowd of people: if they all hit him with sticks, clods, fists, or swords, nevertheless, he would bear towards them not even a single thought of anger; and if he were to introduce these magically created beings to such patience, no being at all would have been introduced to it, however many he had introduced to it. The same is true of the Bodhisattva. And why? For such is the true nature of things that in fact they are illusory. – Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra (Conze, 1975, p. 139)

The masters also extol humility above many other virtues. But I extol detachment above humility for this reason: humility can exist without detachment, but perfect detachment cannot exist without perfect humility, for perfect humility ends in the destruction of self. Now detachment comes so close to nothing that between perfect detachment and nothing, no thing can exist; therefore perfect detachment cannot be without humility. But two virtues are always better than one.

The second reason why I praise detachment above humility is because humility means abasing oneself beneath all creatures, and in that abasement man goes out of himself into creatures, but detachment rests within itself. Now no going out can ever be so noble, but remaining within is nobler still. . . . Perfect detachment is not concerned about being above or below any creature; it does not wish to be below or above; it would stand on its own, loving none and hating none, and seeks neither equality nor inequality with any creature, nor this nor that: it wants merely to be.3 But to be either this or that it does not wish at all, for whoever would be this or that wants to be something, but detachment wants to be nothing. It is therefore no burden [does not impose itself] on anything.

I also praise detachment above all compassion, for compassion is nothing but a man’s going out of himself by reason of his fellow creatures’ lack, by which his heart is troubled. But detachment is free of this, stays in itself and is not troubled by any thing: for as long as any thing can trouble a man, he is not in a right state. In short, when I consider all the virtues, I find none so complete and so conformed to God as detachment.

A master called Avicenna4 declares that the mind of him who stands detached is of such nobility that whatever he sees is true, and whatever he desires he obtains, and whatever he commands must be obeyed. And this you must know for sure: when the free mind is quite detached, it constrains God to itself, and if it were able to stand formless and free of all transient events it would assume God’s own nature. But God can give that to none but Himself; therefore, God can do no more for the detached mind than give Himself to it. But the man who stands thus in utter detachment is rapt into eternity in such a way that nothing transient can move him, and in such a way that he is aware of nothing corporeal and is said to be dead to the world, for he has no taste for anything earthly. . . .

Now you may ask what this detachment is that is so noble in itself. You should know that true detachment is nothing else but a mind that stands unmoved by all accidents of joy or sorrow, honour, shame or disgrace, as a mountain of lead stands unmoved by a breath of wind. This immovable detachment brings a man into the greatest likeness to God. For the reason why God is God is because of His immovable detachment, and from this detachment He has His purity, His simplicity [singleness, indivisibility] and His immutability. Therefore, if a man is to be like God, as far as a creature can have likeness with God, this must come from detachment. This draws a man into purity, and from purity into simplicity, and from simplicity into immutability, and these things make a likeness between God and that man. And this likeness must occur through grace, for grace draws a man away from all temporal things and purges him of all that is transient. You must know, too, that to be empty of all creatures is to be full of God, and to be full of all creatures is to be empty of God.

You should also know that God has stood in this unmoved detachment from all eternity, and still so stands; and you should know further that when God created heaven and earth and all creatures, this affected His unmoved detachment just as little as if no creature had ever been created. I say further: all the prayers and good works that a man can do in time affect God’s detachment as little as if no prayers or good works had ever occurred in time, and God never became more ready to give or more inclined towards a man than if he had never uttered the prayer or performed the good works. I say still further: when the Son in the Godhead wanted to become man, and became man and endured martyrdom, that affected God’s unmoved detachment as little as if he had never become man. You might say at this, ‘Then I hear that all prayers and good works are wasted because God does not allow Himself to be moved by anyone with such things, and yet it is said that God wants us to pray to Him for everything.’

Now you should mark me well, and understand properly if you can, that God in His first eternal glance (if we can assume that there was a first glance) saw all things as they should occur, and saw in the same glance when and how He would create all creatures and when the Son would become man and suffer; He saw too the least prayer and good work that anyone should do, and saw which prayers and devotion He would and should accede to; He saw that you will call upon Him earnestly tomorrow and pray to Him, but God will not grant your petition and prayer tomorrow, for He has granted it in His eternity, before ever you became a man. But if your prayer is not sincere and in earnest, God will not deny it to you now, for He has denied it to you in His eternity.

And thus God has regarded all things in His first eternal glance, and God performs nothing afresh, for all has been performed in advance. Thus God ever stands in His immovable detachment, and yet the prayers and good works of people are not wasted, for he who does well will be rewarded, and he who does evil will reap accordingly. This is explained by St. Augustine in the fifth book of On the Trinity, in the last chapter thus: ‘Deus autem, etc.’ which means, ‘God forbid that anyone should say that God loves anyone in time, for with Him there is no past and no future, and He loved all the saints before the world was ever created, as He foresaw them. And when it comes to be that He displays in time what He has seen in eternity, then people think He has gained a new love for them; so too, when God is angry or does some good thing, it is we who are changed while He remains unchanged, just as the sun’s ray hurts a sick eye and delights a sound one, and yet the sunshine remains unchanged in itself.’ Augustine also touches on the same idea in the twelfth book of On the Tr inity in the fourth chapter, where he says, ‘Nam Deus non ad tempus videt, nee aliquid fit novi in eius visione,’ ‘God does not see in temporal fashion, and no new vision arises in Him.’ In the same sense Isidore speaks in his book On the Highest Good,5 saying, ‘Many people ask, What did God do before He created heaven and earth, or whence came the new will in God that He made creatures?’ and he answers, ‘No new will ever arose in God, for although a creature did not exist in itself (as it is now), yet it was before all time in God and in His reason.’6 God did not create heaven and earth as we (perishable beings) might say, ‘let that be so!’ for all creatures were spoken in the Eternal Word. To this we can add what our Lord said to Moses when Moses said, “Lord, if Pharaoh asks me who you are, how am I to answer him?” and the Lord said, “Say, ‘He who IS has sent me” (Exod. 3:13-14). That is as much as to say, He who is immutable in Himself has sent me.

But someone might say, ‘Was Christ in unmoved detachment when he said: “My soul is sorrowful even unto death” (Matt. 26:38; Mark 14:34), and Mary when she stood before the cross? How is all this compatible with unmoved detachment?’ Concerning this, you should know what the masters say, that in every man there are two kinds of man.7 The one is called the outer man, that is, the life of the senses: this man is served by the five senses, though the outer man functions by the power of the soul. The other is called the inner man, that is, man’s inward nature. You should understand that a spiritual man, who loves God, makes use of the powers of the soul in the outer man only to the extent that the five outer senses need it: the inward nature is not concerned with the five senses except insofar as it is a guide or ruler of those senses, guarding them so that they do not yield to sense objects in a bestial fashion, as some folk do who live for carnal pleasures like beasts unendowed with reason; such people should be termed beasts rather than men. And whatever powers the soul has over and above what it gives to the five senses are all devoted to the inner man. And when such a man perceives a noble or elevated object, the soul draws into itself all the powers it has granted to the five senses, and then that man is said to be insensible or entranced,8 for his object is an intelligible image or something intelligible without an image.9 But you should know that God requires of every spiritual man to love Him with all the powers of the soul. He says, “Love your God with all your heart” (Deut. 6:5; Matt. 22 :37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27). Now some people use up all the powers of the soul in the outer man. These are people who turn all their senses and their reason toward perishable goods, knowing nothing of the inner man.

You should know that the outer man can be active while the inner man is completely free of this activity and unmoved. Now Christ too had an outer man and an inner man, and so did our Lady, and whatever Christ and our Lady ever said about external things, they did so according to the outer man, but the inner man remained in unmoved detachment. Thus it was when Christ said, “My soul is sorrowful unto death,” and whatever lamentations our Lady made, or whatever else she said, inwardly she was in a state of unmoved detachment. Here is an analogy: a door swings open and shuts on its hinge. I would compare the outer woodwork of the door to the outer man, and the hinge to the inner man. When the door opens and shuts, the boards move back and forth, but the hinge stays in the same place and is never moved thereby. It is the same in this case, if you understand it rightly.

Now I ask, ‘What is the object of pure detachment?’ My answer is that the object of pure detachment is neither this nor that. It rests on absolutely nothing, and I will tell you why: pure detachment rests on the highest, and he is at his highest, in whom God can work all His will. But God cannot work all His will in all hearts, for, although God is almighty, He can only work where He finds readiness or creates it. I say ‘creates it’ on account of St. Paul, because in him God found no readiness, but made him ready by infusion of grace. And so I say God works according as He finds us ready. His working is different in a man and in a stone. Here is an example from nature. If you heat a baker’s oven and put in it dough of oats, barley, rye, and wheat, there is only one heat in the oven, but it does not have the same effect on the different kinds of dough, for one turns into fine bread, the second coarser, and the third coarser still. And that is not the fa ult of the heat, it is due to the materials which are unlike. In the same way God does not work alike in all our hearts: He works as He finds readiness and receptivity. Now in whatever heart there is this or that, there may be something in ‘this’ or ‘that’ which God cannot bring to the highest peak. And so, if the heart is to be ready to receive the highest, it must rest on absolutely nothing, and in that lies the greatest potentiality which can exist. For when the detached heart rests on the highest, that can only be on nothing, since that has the greatest receptivity. Let us take an example from nature: if I want to write on a wax tablet, then anything written on that tablet already, however wonderful it may be, will prevent me from writing there; and if I want to write I must erase or destroy whatever is on the tablet, and the tablet is never so suitable for me to write on as when there is nothing on it. Similarly, if God is to write the highest on my heart, then everything called ‘this and that’ must be expunged from my heart, and then my heart stands in detachment. Then God can work the highest according to His supreme will. Therefore the object of a detached heart is neither this nor that.

Again I ask, ‘What is the prayer of a detached heart?’ My answer is that detachment and purity cannot pray, for whoever prays wants God to grant him something, or else wants God to take something from him. But a detached heart desires nothing at all, nor has it anything it wants to get rid of. Therefore it is free of all prayers, or its prayer consists of nothing but being uniform with God. That is all its prayer. In this sense we can take St. Dionysius’s comment on the saying of St. Paul, “There are many who run, but only one gains the crown” (1 Cor. 9:25). All the powers of the soul compete for the crown but the essence alone can win it. Dionysius says the race is nothing but a turning away from all creatures and a union with the uncreated.10 And when the soul has got so far, it loses its name and is drawn into God, so that in itself it becomes nothing, just as the sun draws the dawn into itself and annihilates it. To this state nothing brings a man but pure detachment. To this we may add a saying of St. Augustine, ‘The soul has a secret entrance to the divine nature, when all things become nothing for it.’11 On earth, this entrance is nothing but pure detachment, and when the detachment reaches its climax, it becomes ignorant with knowing, loveless with loving, and dark with enlightenment. Thus we may understand the words of a master, that the poor in spirit are they who have abandoned all things to God, just as He possessed them when we did not exist.12 None can do this but a pure, detached heart.

That God would rather be in a detached heart than in all other hearts, appears if you ask me, ‘What does God seek in all things?’ to which I answer from the Book of Wisdom, where He says, “In all things I seek rest” (Sir. 24:11).13 But nowhere is perfect rest to be found but in a detached heart. That is why God prefers to be there rather than in other virtues or in anything else. You should know, too, that the more a man strives to be receptive to divine influence, the more blessed he is; and whoever can gain the highest readiness in this is in the highest state of blessedness. But none can make himself receptive to divine influence but by uniformity with God, for insofar as a man is uniform with God, to that extent he is receptive to the divine influence. But uniformity comes from man’s subjecting himself to God, and the more a man is subject to creatures, the less he is uniform with God. Now the pure detached heart stands free of all creatures. Therefore it is totally subject to God, and therefore it is in the highest degree of uniformity with God, and is also the most receptive to divine influence. This was what St. Paul meant when he said, “Put on Christ,”14 meaning unformity with Christ, for this putting on can only take place through uniformity with Christ. Yo u should know that when Christ became man, he took on, not a man, but human nature.15 Therefore, go out of all things and then there will remain only what Christ took on, and thus you will have put on Christ.

Whoever would know the nobility and profit of perfect detach­ment, let him note Christ’s saying concerning his humanity, when he said to his disciples, “It is expedient for you that I should go away from you, for if I do not go away, the Holy Spirit cannot come to you” (John 16:7).16 This is just as if he had said, ‘You rejoice too much in my present form, and therefore the perfect joy of the Holy Ghost cannot be yours.’ So, leave all images and unite with the form­less essence, for God’s spiritual comfort is delicate; therefore He will not offer Himself to any but to him who scorns physical comforts. Now take note, all who are sensible! No man is happier than he who has the greatest detachment. There can be no fleshly and physical comfort without some spiritual harm, for “the flesh lusts against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh” (cf. Gal. 5:17). Therefore, who­ever in the flesh sows disorderly love reaps death, and whoever in the spirit sows ordered love, reaps from the spirit eternal life. Therefore, the quicker a man flees from the created, the quicker the Creator runs toward him. So, take note, all sensible men! Since the joy we might have from the physical form of Christ hinders us in receiving the Holy Ghost, how much more of a hindrance to gaining God is our inordinate delight in evanescent comforts! That is why detach­ment is best, for it purifies the soul, purges the conscience, kindles the heart, awakens the spirit, quickens the desire, makes us know God and, cutting off creatures, unites us with God.

Now take note, all who have good sense! The swiftest steed to bear you to His perfection is suffering, for none will enjoy greater eter­nal bliss than those who stand with Christ in the greatest bitterness. Nothing is more gall-bitter than suffering, nothing more honey-sweet than having suffered. Nothing disfigures the body before men like suffering, and nothing beautifies the soul before God like having suffered. The finest foundation on which this perfection can rest is humility. For whatever man’s nature creeps here below in the deepest lowliness, that man’s spirit will soar aloft to the heights of the God­head, for joy brings sorrow and sorrow joy. And so, whoever would attain perfect detachment should strive for perfect humility, and thus he will come to the neighborhood of God. That this may be all our lot, so help us the highest detachment, which is God Himself. Amen.

Notes
2. Cf. Sermon 73.
3. The variant reading eine sin ‘to be alone’ is rejected by Quint, following Schaefer.
4. Avicenna, Liber VI, Naturalium, 4.4 (ed. of 1508) (Q). Skinner/Clark’s ref. 1s wrong.
5. Sent. I, ch. 8, n. 4 (Q).
6. Cf. note 1 above.
7. Cf. Sermon 56.
8. Not ‘senseless or crazy’ (Clark).
9. Quint cites Thomas, De veritate, q. 13, a. 2 on the different degrees of absorption. These are reminiscent of the ‘world of form’ (rupaloka) and the ‘formless world’ (arupaloka) of Buddhism, which are attained by the practice of the jhiinas (‘absorptions’).
10. De divinis nom. 4.9 and 13.3 (Quint after Fischer).
11. Not traced directly in Augustine’s works.
12. Cf. Sermon 87.
13. Not the Wisdom of Solomon but Ecclesiasticus (The Wisdom of jesus Sirach), as in Sermon 73, note 1; cf. Sermon 45.
14. Cf. Sermon 92 and note 1 there.
15. Cf. Sermon 4 7 and note 2 there.
16. Cf. Sermon 75.

M. O’C. Walshe (1987). Meister Eckhart: Sermons & Treatises Volume III. UK: Element Books Limited (pp. 117-121).

Meister Eckhart: On performing works

In this talk, as in most others, Meister Eckhart is amazingly frank about the content of enlightenment, discussing God’s gifts (supernormal abilities in Buddhism, mysteries in Catholicism, powers in Hinduism) as if these were everyday matters. One interesting thing is that he alludes to unspecified dangers awaiting an untrained man attempting to imitate a saint: “If an untrained, unpractised man wanted to conduct himself and behave like a trained man, he would destroy himself and nothing would ever come of him.” He then mentions “food or drink or anything else,” which conjures up Simon Magus and his “licentious” eating habits and his friendship with a former prostitute.

Lester Levenson (1993) warned against the misuse of supernormal powers in a talk entitled “Healing”:

Getting interested in these psychic powers is a wrong approach. Being interested in the powers, one might develop the powers. Then, using the powers without having your understanding up to them, you will misuse them. You will use them too selfishly and they’ll boomerang and hurt you, your growth, and the powers, causing you to lose the powers. This happens to all psychic people who develop beyond their level of understanding. So I suggest that you develop your understanding until all the powers naturally open up to you, and then if you choose to use them, you’ll use them rightly and you won’t be hurt. (p. 178)

Paramanand Saraswati, author of an English-language biography of Swami Trailanga (2013), had this to say on the subject:

These powers are called the Ashtasiddhis. However, these are not the primary mission of any real spiritual aspirant. To reach the altar of God is the only mission to accomplish, and along this path the acquisition of Ashtasiddhi happens by divine grace. But it is also evident that spiritual aspirants can sometimes deviate from the right path. Quite frequently these aspirants become proud having acquired a few of the siddhis and thus ruin themselves.

When someone acquires divine power of such kind because of intense spiritual austerities and then becomes proud over possessing such abilities, then all such blessings that he received inevitably become useless and bring about their downfall. These persons are usually reborn in rich families or an abode of a yogi, where, in a new body, they resume their unfinished spiritual quest.

Supernormal abilities can never harm anyone but the one attempting to use them. The meaning of “the elbow does not bend backwards” is that these abilities fail in the presence of self-will. The person is only a channel for the Supreme Will. Hawaiian and Tibetan sorcerers believed they could harm or kill their enemies at a distance, but in reality the enemy perceived the intended harm and performed it on himself. The principle of mutuality between assailant and victim is confirmed in the investigations of Alexandra David-Neel (1931):

Taking with him the object which is to be animated – let us say a knife destined to kill someone – the ngagspa shuts himself in seclusion for a period that may last over several months. During that time he sits, concentrating his thoughts on the knife in front of him and endeavouring to transfer to the inanimate object his will to kill the particular individual whose death has been planned. . . . Certain lamas and a few Bön-pos have told me that it is a mistake to believe . . . that the knife becomes animated and kills the man. It is the man, they said, who acts on auto-suggestion as a result of the sorcerer’s concentration of thought. Though the ngagspa only aims at animating the knife, the man against whom the rites are performed is closely associated in his mind with the idea of the weapon. And so, as that man may be a fit receiver of the occult “waves” generated by the sorcerer (while the knife is not), he falls unconsciously under their influence. Then, when touching the prepared knife, the view and touch of the latter put into motion the suggestion existing, unknown to him, in the man’s mind, and he stabs himself. (Chapter VIII: Psychic Phenomena in Tibet)

This, of course, is sorcery, which is the attainment by long discipline of a small degree of control over matter. It has nothing to do with emancipation.

 

From “The Talks of Instruction,” translated by M. O’C Walshe

You should be unattached in your works. But for an unpractised man it is an uncommon thing to reach the point where no crowd and no task hinders him. It calls for diligent application, so that God is ever present to him and shines before him completely unveiled at all times and in all company. Skilful diligence is required for this, and in particular two things. One is that a man has shut himself off well inwardly, so that his mind is on its guard against the images without, that they remain without and do not unfittingly keep company and walk with him, and that they find no resting-place in him. The second is that he should not let himself be caught up by his internal imagery, whether it be in the form of pictures or lofty thoughts or outward impressions or whatever is present to his mind; nor be distracted nor dissipate himself in their multiplicity. A man should train and bend all his powers to this and keep his inner self present to him.

Now you might say a man must turn outwards if he is to do external works, for no task can be done but according to its own form. That is true. But the externality of form is nothing external for the practised man, for to the inward-turned man all things have an inward divinity. This above all is necessary: that a man should train and practise his mind well and bring it to God, and then he will always have divinity within. Nothing is so proper to the intellect, nor so present and near as God. It never turns in any other direction. It does not turn to creatures unless subjected to violence and injustice, whereby it is quite broken and perverted. If it is thus spoilt in a young person, or whoever it may be, it must be very diligently trained, and it is necessary to do all in one’s power to bring the intellect back and train it. For, however proper and natural God is to it, once it gets turned away and is settled among creatures and caught up in them and accustomed to this state, it becomes so weakened in this part and lacking in self-control, so hindered in its noble striving, that all a man’s efforts are insufficient to draw it back fully. Even though he makes every effort, he requires constant watchfulness.

Above all things a man must see to it that he trains himself strictly and well. If an untrained, unpractised man wanted to conduct himself and behave like a trained man, he would destroy himself and nothing would ever come of him. Once a man has first quite weaned himself of all things and become a stranger to them, then he can faithfully perform all his tasks, and delight in them or leave them alone without hindrance. But whatever a man loves or takes pleasure in and willfully follows, whether it be food or drink or anything else, this cannot be maintained without harm in an untrained man. A man must train himself not to seek his own in anything, but to find and take God in all things. For God does not give, and has never given any gift which a man might take and rest content with it. All the gifts He has ever given in heaven and on earth, He gave that He might find one gift–Himself. With all these gifts He wishes to prepare us for that gift which is Himself; and all the works God ever wrought in heaven or on earth He wrought for the sake of working one work–to hallow Himself that He might hallow us. Therefore I say, in all gifts and in all works we must learn to regard God; we should be satisfied with nothing and stop nowhere. There is no manner of standing still for us in this life, and never has been for any man, however advanced he might be. Above all things, a man must ever be directed towards God’s gifts, and ever anew.

I will speak briefly of one who greatly wished to receive something from our Lord. I said she was not yet ready, and if God gave her the gift while she was unready, it would perish. A question: ‘Why was she not ready? She had a good will, and you say that that can do all things, and it contains all things and all perfection.’ That is true; but there are two different meanings of ‘will’: the one is an accidental and non-essential will [i.e., without ‘essence’], and the other is a decisive will, a creative and a trained will. Of course it is not sufficient for a man’s mind to be detached for one split second, just when he wants to link up with God, but one must have a well-trained detachment before and after. Then one can receive great things from God, and [receive] God in those things. But if one is not ready, the gift is spoilt and God [creative power] with the gift. That is why God cannot always give us things as we ask for them. It is not due to a lack on His part, for He is a thousand times more eager to give to us than we are to receive. But we do Him violence and wrong in hindering His natural work by our unreadiness.

A man must learn to give up self in all gifts, and keep or seek nothing for himself, not profit or enjoyment or inwardness or sweetness or reward or heaven or own-will. Where God finds His own will, there He gives Himself and bestows Himself in it with all that He is. And the more we die to our own, the more truly we come to be in that. Therefore it is not enough for Him that we give up self and all we have and can do just once, but we must constantly renew ourselves and so make ourselves simple and free in all things. (Vol. III, pp. 45-48).

M. O’C. Walshe (1987). Meister Eckhart: Sermons & Treatises Volume III. UK: Element Books Limited.

David-Neel, Alexandra (1937). Magic and Mystery in Tibet. London: Penguin Books. (https://www.theosophy.world/sites/default/files/ebooks/magic-and-mystery-in-tibet1931.pdf)

Levenson, Lester (1993). Keys to the Ultimate Freedom: Thoughts and Talks on Personal Transformation. Phoenix, Arizona: Sedona Institute. ISBN 0-915721-03-1

Saraswati, Paramanand (2013). Trailanga Swami and Shankari Mataji. Kolkata: Amar Nath Poddar.

Rebirth, karma and meditation

by Paul Williams and Anthony Tribe

[The following is part of a discussion of Buddhist cosmology in general, and the threefold world in particular]

Mental intentions (karman — plural of karma) which are wholesome, animated by the three basic virtuous states of mind, non-greed, non-hatred, and non-delusion, give rise to appropriate acts and favourable rebirths. Unwholesome intentions animated by greed, hatred, and delusion produce unfavourable rebirths. The favourable rebirths here are rebirths as a human or as a god (Brahma) of the desire realm. Unfavourable rebirths are rebirths in hells, as a ghost, or as an animal (including a fish, worms, bugs, etc.). Thus favourable and unfavourable rebirths spring from states of mind. And there are some specific wholesome states of mind in addition to these that occur only in meditation: these are states such as attaining one of the four meditations (Sanskrit: dhyanas; Pali: jhanas).

Favourable rebirth as a god of the desire realm, enjoying various sensual pleasures, occurs through acts animated by such states of mind as non-greed, non-hatred, and non-delusion. Similarly the favourable rebirth as a god of the form realm occurs by having accustomed oneself to one or more of the four dhyanas. A monk who, for example, has cultivated the path to a high level removes various negative factors preventing the attainment of enlightenment and attains the fourth dhyana; after death, that monk will be reborn in one of the pure abodes, corresponding to the fourth dhyana, and will there attain enlightenment. Thus, given that rebirth accords with mental events, reference to the higher planes as corresponding to meditative states simply describes the sort of mental event which is necessary in order to attain rebirth on those planes. The ‘bodies’ of those reborn there — defined in terms of experiences of seeing and hearing plus consciousness for the form realm; and consciousness alone for the formless realm — are the bodies that support and express experience on those planes. Beings reborn on those planes are undergoing the experiences of those dhyanas.

It follows from all of this that when in this life the meditator attains to, say, the third dhyana, that meditator is undergoing temporarily the experience of one reborn as a god on that particular plane of the form realm: that is what being reborn there is like. Correspondingly, for one undergoing any of the appropriate mental states in this life, one undergoes temporarily the experience associated with being reborn on the appropriate plane. Thus if one is overwhelmed with greed, hatred, or delusion, one is in the state of one born as a ghost, in hell, or an animal respectively. But one familiar with the third dhyana will, after death, be reborn on the appropriate plane for that dhyana. The appropriate plane of the cosmology is not simply a description of the mental state of a meditator. Similarly, in spite of a common suggestion among some modern Buddhists, the plane of hell is not simply a description of the state of mind of one in this life full of hatred. As one’s mind is, so one actually becomes.

 

Williams, Paul and Tribe, Anthony (2000). Buddhist Thought: A Complete Introduction to the Indian Tradition. London and New York: Routledge (pp. 79-80).

Buddhist meditation: The theoretical framework

Buddhist meditation: The theoretical framework

by Paul Williams and Anthony Tribe

Calming meditation aims to still the mind. It presupposes that the meditator has faith in the teachings of the Buddha, has adopted the moral perspective required of a good Buddhist, and is otherwise involved in the religious activities expected of a practitioner who is seriously engaged in the path. In order to bring about the desired state of mental calm the meditator starts by learning to focus the mind, narrowing down its attention so that he or she becomes simply aware. In other words, he or she concentrates. Because concentration requires something to concentrate on, works such as the Visuddhimagga list forty different possible objects of concentration. These include concentrating on, for example, a blue disc. This is one of ten objects of concentration known in Pali as kasinas, and taking a coloured disc as an object is said to be particularly suitable for those whose personality is dominated by aversion among the three root poisons. Those who are dominated by craving might take as their object the skeleton. Those by delusion (or whose mind is inclined to instability) might start with mindfulness of breathing. This last has become well known in the modern world through being the very first meditation practice in the Mahasatipatthana Sutta, a discourse particularly favoured by more recent Burmese meditation masters and there used for all meditators, perhaps because everyone’s mind is at first inclined to instability. Indeed the text describes itself as the sole way:

Herein, a monk having gone to the forest, to the foot of a tree, or to an empty place, sits down cross-legged, keeps his body erect and his mindfulness alert. Just mindful he breathes in and mindful he breathes out. Breathing in a long breath, he knows ‘I breath in a long breath’; breathing out a long breath, he knows ‘I breath out a long breath’; breathing in a short breath, he knows ‘I breath in a short breath’; breathing out a short breath, he knows ‘I breath out a short breath’.

(Mahasatipatthana Sutta trans. Nyanaponika Thera: 117–18)

Then there are the so-called ‘divine abodes’ (brahmaviharas), also known as the ‘four immeasurables’, again particularly recommended for those of an aversion disposition, but originally thought of as a sufficient means for attaining enlightenment itself. These entail developing all-pervading loving-kindness (metta), with the universal wish: ‘May all sentient beings be well and happy’. One then develops universal compassion (karuna) with the universal wish, ‘May all sentient beings be free of suffering’. This is followed by universal sympathetic joy (mudita), which is delight at the happiness of others; and finally, universal equanimity (upeksa / upekkha). In such meditations one practises steadily and repeatedly, gently drawing the mind back to the object when it wanders.

The meditator is exhorted to overcome the five hindrances: sensual desire, ill will, tiredness and sleepiness, excitement and depression, and doubt. In abandoning the five hindrances, the Samaññaphala Sutta observes, the meditator “looks upon himself as freed from debt, rid of disease, out of jail, a free man, and secure” (Samaññaphala Sutta, trans. Rhys-Davids 1899:84), and eventually he or she attains the first jhana (Sans. dhyana). As we saw above, the first jhana is characterised by applied thought, examination, joy, happiness, and one-pointedness of mind. The second jhana has just joy, happiness, and one-pointedness of mind, since ability in meditation has here become so refined that consciously applied thought and examination are no longer needed in order to place the mind on the object. The third jhana lacks even joy, which can become a disturbance, and has only happiness and one-pointedness. The fourth jhana similarly lacks happiness, and possesses just one-pointedness and equanimity. From attaining the fourth jhana it becomes possible (it is said) to develop what might be called supernormal powers (Sans. rddhis), or ‘super-knowledges’ (Sans. abhijña). These include the ability to create bodies with the mind, walk through walls, fly through the air, hear distant sounds, know the minds of others, and to know the past lives of oneself and others.

The general view of the Buddhist tradition is that some considerable ability in calming meditation is necessary in order to develop very effectively insight meditation, although it is not necessary actually to attain the fourth dhyana before commencing insight meditation. Insight meditation involves bringing about a state of meditative absorption where the object of meditation is not one of the objects of calming meditation but rather is how things really are, understood in terms of suffering, impermanence, and not-self and their implications and ramifications. In so doing one attains wisdom (Sanskrit: prajña). As can be readily understood from what has gone before, seeing in this manner directly in the deepest way possible is held to cut completely the forces which lead to rebirth and suffering.

The model for the path of insight meditation employed in Buddhaghosa’s Visuddhimagga is that of the ‘seven purifications’. The first two purifications concern (i) engagement in proper moral conduct (sila), and (ii) developing tranquility (samatha – not to be confused with samata or sameness). The third (iii) is ‘purification of perception’, breaking down the sense of a self through awareness that our consciousness of the world takes place entirely within our own mind, and it is created by our mind’s five functions (skandhas). The fourth (iv) purification is the ‘purification by overcoming delusion’. Just as the purification of perception involves an awareness of ways in which we erroneously perceive the existence of the self, this fourth purification involves examining how phenomena arise. Thus one comes to understand karman and to see directly how things are the result of causality and nothing more. Buddhaghosa observes (19:27) that upon overcoming delusion one becomes a ‘lesser stream-enterer’. The fifth purification (v) is that of ‘knowing and seeing what is the Way (magga) and what is not the Way’. This involves taking various groups and classes of phenomena and seeing that they are all impermanent, cause suffering, and are not the Self. One then sees them as arising and falling in their constant change and impermanence. Thus the meditator comes to deconstruct the apparent stability of things and to directly see the world as a process, a flow. Gethin draws attention to the images Buddhaghosa selects for this stage of the meditator’s experience:

[T]he world is no longer experienced as consisting of things that are lasting and solid but rather as something that vanishes almost as soon as it appears—like dew drops at sunrise, like a bubble on water, like a line drawn on water, like a mustard-seed placed on the point of an awl, like a flash of lightning. Things in themselves lack substance and always elude one’s grasp—like a mirage, a conjuring trick, a dream, the circle formed by a whirling firebrand, a fairy city, foam, or the trunk of a banana tree.

(Gethin 1998:190; ref. Visuddhimagga 20:104)

The mind of the meditator at this time is said to be close to absorption (dhyana), and there is a danger that the meditator might become complacent and attached (Visuddhimagga 20: sects 105 ff.). Tearing himself away from this, the meditator attains the sixth (vi) purification, ‘purification through knowing and seeing the path (patipada). At this stage the meditator returns to contemplating with renewed vigour and ever deepening awareness the rising and sinking of phenomena (dharma), and attains a series of eight knowledges with ‘knowledge in conformity to truth as the ninth’ (op. cit.: Ch. 21). Attaining the eight knowledges, in a state of deep equanimity and concentration, the meditator crosses over from worldly meditative absorption to transcendent or supramundane absorption. At this point the meditator ‘changes lineage’. He or she ceases to belong to the lineage (class) of ordinary people (Sans. prthagjana) and joins the lineage of the Noble Ones (Sans. arya). He or she is said now to take nirvana as the meditative object. Nevertheless the complete eradication of hindrances or fetters (samyojana; also anusaya—tendencies) may still take time. One is said to become a ‘stream-enterer’ by abandoning the first three of the ten fetters: the ‘view of individuality’, doubt, and clinging to precepts and vows. In finally and deeply abandoning these one will be reborn at the most seven more times before becoming enlightened. In becoming a stream-enterer one is said to attain the seventh (vii) and final purification, the ‘purification by knowing and seeing’.

On permanently weakening the next two fetters, sensual desire and aversion, one becomes a ‘once-returner’, who will be reborn as a human being no more than one more time. On completely abandoning all five fetters one becomes a ‘never-returner’, and if one still does not attain full enlightenment one is reborn in the higher planes of the form realm.* On completely and irrevocably eradicating all ten fetters one becomes enlightened, an arhat. In one moment the meditator sees and understands the four Noble Truths, and all the factors leading to enlightenment are fulfilled. In subsequent moments the meditator is said to enjoy the ‘resultant’ meditative absorption. These four ‘noble fruits’ may be attained successively, over a long period of time; but there is also a view that their attainment may be in quick succession, or even that one might ‘leap’ directly to one or other of the fruits.

*desire realm, form realm, formless realm: the triple-world
The desire realm consists of worlds of descending orders of density and ascending orders of frequency: Earth has the highest density and the lowest frequency
The form realm consists of worlds in which there are forms but no desire
The formless realm has no forms

Paul Williams with Anthony Tribe (2000). Buddhist Thought: A Complete Introduction to the Indian Tradition. London and New York: Routledge. https://epdf.tips/buddhist-thought-a-complete-introduction-to-the-indian-tradition2d1f51a1d8124d8318514b2d4c44740c51971.html

The Seven Purifications of Buddhaghosa’s Insight Meditation

  1. ‘purification through proper moral conduct’ (sila)
  2. ‘purification through developing calm’ (samatha)
  3. ‘purification of view’, breaking down the sense of self through constant direct awareness (mindfulness) that we are nothing more than skandha
  4. ‘purification by overcoming doubt’—examining causal dependence as a continuum in time; understanding karman
  5. ‘knowing and seeing what is the way and what is not the way’—taking various groups and classes of phenomena and seeing that they are all impermanent, cause suffering, and are not Self (Anatta-lakkhana Sutta)
  6. ‘purification by knowing and seeing the path’
  7. ‘purification by knowing and seeing’

The Ten Fetters (Buddhaghosa, Visuddhimagga)

Samyojana: Fetters that bind one to death and birth. These are identification with the self, doubt, clinging to precepts and practices, attachment to the sensuous realm, aversion, attachment to the form realm, attachment to the formless realm, conceit, restlessness, and ignorance. (Note: these are very similar to anusaya–tendencies.) The last fetter, ignorance, is simply the condition of not having attained enlightenment. Therefore, it isn’t a fetter so much as a fact.

  1. identification with the self (sakkaya-ditthi)
  2. doubt (vicikiccha)
  3. clinging to precepts and practices (silabbata paramasa; S. upadana)
  4. attachment to the sensuous (desire realm) (kama-raga)
  5. aversion (vyapada)
  6. attachment to the form realm (rupa-raga)
  7. attachment to the formless realm (arupa-raga)
  8. conceit (mana)
  9. restlessness (uddhacca*)
  10. ignorance (avijja)

*Uddhacca is the inability to concentrate on any object steadfastly. Being distracted, one’s mind wanders from one object to another.

The first five samyojana are called ‘lower fetters’, as they belong to the desire realm; the last five are called ‘higher fetters’, as they belong to the form and the formless realms.

He who is free from the first three is called a Stream-enterer (Sotapanna).

He who has overcome four and five is called a Once-returner (Sakadagami). He will return once to the desire realm, where he will either attain liberation or pass on to a higher realm after death.

He who is fully freed from all five is called a Non-returner (Anagami). Again, if he does not attain liberation in this life he will pass on to a higher realm after death.

He who is freed from all ten fetters is called an Arahat, a completely enlightened one.

(Wisdom Library: https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/samyojana)