FORGET ABOUT HAVING A ‘TRANSCENDENTAL’ EXPERIENCE!

Emeritus Professor Paul Kurtz and Dr Ian Ellis-Jones



I am a rather sceptical sort of person. I am proud of that fact. I refuse to accept or believe in anything unless and until I am satisfied that there is sufficient probative material attesting to the existence or veracity of the thing in question.

Trained as a lawyer to always look for evidence, ordained into the Unitarian ministry (which has always been a sceptical, questioning, open-ended denomination or form of religion), a former president of both the Humanist Society of New South Wales and the Council of Australian Humanist Societies, and a student of empirical philosophy, I find absolutely no evidence for the existence of any 'supernatural' order or level of reality, any 'transcendental' realm of reality, or any 'paranormal' activity ... and I can't stand superstition of any kind.

As regards the latter (superstition), I am simply amazed, and at the same time equally appalled, at the number of people I encounter who boast how they are 'not religious' in any way but who are otherwise incorrigibly superstitious and credulous, often engaging in New Age nonsense or dubious forms of 'alternative healing' of various sorts in respect of which there is little or no empirical support. Please check out the wonderful websites of Quackwatch and James Randi.

I have never forgotten the good advice received from Paul Kurtz (pictured above, with yours truly), to always resist what Kurtz describes as 'the transcendental temptation' as well as to avoid engaging in 'magical thinking'. Kurtz, who is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Buffalo, is one of the world's greatest living philosophers and freethinkers, and the author of many seminal books on philosophy, religion, humanism and freethought, including, not so coincidentally, one entitled The Transcendental Temptation: A Critique of Religion and the Paranormal. For those interested, you may wish to listen to this YouTube video of Paul Kurtz discussing 'Affirmations of the New Skepticism':

'Supernaturalism.' How I hate that word ... and its supposed meaning! A man I respect greatly, the late Australian bishop Lawrence W Burt (pictured left), once wrote, 'In a universe of LAW there can be no supernatural. There may be the super-physical, or super-normal, but there can be no super-natural. You cannot transcend Natural law, nor suspend it. Every branch of science is a testimony that this is a Universe of inviolable LAW.'

I fully agree. Whilst there may be states of experience which can be labelled  transmundane or transnatural (as opposed to 'supernatural', 'transcendental' or 'paranormal'), I see no need whatsoever for us to attempt to ‘extricate’ ourselves from, or otherwise ‘transcend’, our ordinary existence or ordinary states of consciousness or so-called ‘relative experience’ (whatever that means, if anything) ... whether by means of chemicals, prayer, mantra meditation or any other means.

How can we conceive of there being any existence, or other order or level of reality, other than our ordinary ‘natural’ existence, that is, the way in which ordinary things exist in space and time. John Anderson (pictured right), former Challis Professor of Philosophy, at the University of Sydney, would refer to this as the ‘problem of commensurability’, that is, that any notion of there being different orders or levels of reality or truth is, in Anderson's words, ‘contrary to the very nature and possibility of discourse’. 

Yes, any concept of there being some ‘supernatural’ order or level of reality is strictly meaningless and unspeakable.  We can have no conception of any such existence, nor any conception of what it might possibly be like.  Further, as Professor Anderson often pointed out, even if there were, in fact, more than one order of reality, how could there be connections between them? 

Empirical observation can find nothing ‘metaphysical’, ‘occult’ or ‘beyond experience’. Both science and philosophy afford us no evidence or support for the idea that there are any entities beyond space and time which yet work out their supposed purposes within space and time. Both science and logic compel us to reject the unobservable as the cause of the observable.

Forget about having a so-called ‘transcendental’ experience, whether in the sense of supposedly 'going beyond' (whatever that means) the normal, physical, three-dimensional limitations of human functioning, perception and existence or otherwise. We - that is, all of us except, perhaps, those suffering from various forms of delusions, clinical or otherwise - spend most, if not all, of our time in so-called ‘ordinary’ reality, so it stands to reason that, if we are to have any meaningful experience at all, it can, must and will be found in our ordinary day-to-day existence ... as just another occurrence in space and time.

Yes, there is the ordinary ... and the extraordinary ... but the latter is to be entirely found and experienced in and among the ordinary. There is no transcendence except to the extent that there clearly occur transformative events that can be said to ‘transcend’ our expectations and lie outside or beyond our conscious will or control. (As an aside, I shudder when I hear of meditative or other similar practices being trademarked and only able to be taught by certain supposedly 'initiated' gurus. Forget all about gurus, As Krishnamurti said time and time again, they are unproductive, and even prevent one from having an otherwise direct relationship with reality [that is, truth] itself.)

Forget about ‘expanded consciousness’. There's nothing to 'expand' (or 'enlarge'), for there is no ‘consciousness’ whose nature it is to be known. I repeat, there is no consciousness whose nature it is to be known ... so there can be no degrees of that which does not exist. Consciousness, as philosophers such as David Hume and William James have pointed out, is not an 'entity' in its own right but simply a name for the logical relationship between the person who knows and the thing known ... the third necessary element in the relation being the act of knowing. So-called 'expanded consciousness' means nothing more than waking up or leaving the cave.

There is absolutely no need to ‘elevate’ your self-awareness. (Indeed, all attempts to do so are bound to end in failure. For starters, there is no 'self' of which to be or become aware.) All you need to do, dear friends, is to become more alert to, and aware of, what is happening in and around you. It’s as simple as that. Become more open, more curious, and more flexible.

So, forget about forms or methods of prayer or meditation which would seek to ‘elevate’ your consciousness or self-awareness or ‘extricate’ yourself from your ordinary state of experience thereby purportedly putting you in touch with some supposed transcendental or supernatural state of reality.

Now, this is fact ... there is only a continuity of moment-to-moment experience and awareness ... a continuous process or transformation from one state to another. Everything is observable, and all things observed exist and are observable on the same plane of observability. Thus, there needs to be a direct continuity between what is proposed as an explanation for any occurrence and the occurrence itself, for if there were no such continuity it would not be possible for us to say how observable effects are produced ... nor even that they are effects at all.

In light of all of the above, it should come as no surprise, except to those who want or choose to believe otherwise, that rigorous independent systematic scholarly reviews over many decades have found little probative evidence of demonstrable  lasting health benefits - other than general relaxation and certain positive spinoff effects - attributable to, or otherwise associated with, a certain type of meditative practice which invokes notions of ‘transcendence’ in some or all of the senses referred to above. That is not to say that people cannot, and do not, derive benefits of various kinds from all forms of meditation and relaxation ... but, when one looks at the evidence, nothing compares with mindfulness.

Yes, the evidence for the efficacy of mindfulness is abundant and very strong indeed. Since 1967 over 1,500 studies worldwide have been conducted by over 250 independent research institutes and centres showing mindfulness meditation to be clinically effective for the management of, among other things, stress, depression, anxiety and panic disorders, chronic pain, substance abuse, eating disorders, obsessional thinking, impulsivity, strong emotional reactivity and a wide array of other medical and mental health related conditions.

Mindfulness, to the extent that it takes the form of meditation - for it is much more than that as well - is totally unlike all other forms of meditation. Dr Jon Kabat-Zinn  (pictured right), who has done more than any other Westerner to promote mindfulness as both a way of life and a therapeutic modality, refers to mindfulness as ‘falling awake’.

I love that ... falling awake ... not falling alseep ... not falling into or otherwise creating some dreamy state ... but falling awake! Mindfulness is simply mindful living, as opposed to living on auto-pilot. In addition, mindfulness takes meditation and applies it to one’s entire life. Thus, mindfulness is not something you do for, say, 20 minutes a day, rather it’s something you do 24/7... yes, even when you’re asleep ... at least, to the extent humanly possible.

A single logic applies to all things and how they are related. All things exist in the same order or level of reality ... and on the same ‘plane’ of observability.

So, stop trying to ‘elevate’ your self-awareness. There is nothing to elevate. Stop trying to 'expand' or 'elevate' your consciousness. There is nothing to expand or elevate. Simply wake up ... and become more aware of what is happening in and around you. Stop seeking the ‘transcendental’. There is nothing to transcend or to which to transcend. Finally, stop trying to 'extricate' yourself. There is nothing from which to extricate yourself ... except fallacious thinking.

Seek only the extraordinary within the ordinary ... for you can find it everywhere! It is more than enough ... but don't just take my word for it, experiment for yourself!


POSTSCRIPT. Paul Kurtz died on October 20, 2012.

RELATED POSTS

RATIONAL HUMANENESS IS THE ANSWER

A SPIRITUAL GUIDE TO MINDFUL LIVING

MINDFULNESS, PROFESSOR JOHN ANDERSON AND THE FACTICITY OF THINGS

MINDFULNESS, THE 'SELF' AND SERENITY

MINDFULNESS AND THE LIVINGNESS OF LIFE

MINDFULNESS AND THE TOTALITY OF ALL THINGS

YOU SHALL CEASE TO BE NEVER!

THE MINDFUL ART OF KNOWING ONESELF

THE DEATH OF PAUL KURTZ---FATHER OF SECULAR HUMANISM

MINDFULNESS FOR CHILDREN

Here’s a wonderful way to share quality time with your children or grandchildren.

Brian Despard, a plumbing contractor from Massachusetts, who has been practising mindfulness for some time now, has produced a truly delightful children’s picture book on mindfulness entitled You Are Not Your Thoughts. (I love that title! The sooner we learn we are not our thoughts, our feelings and our bodies, the quicker we begin to understand who we really are.)

Research shows that children benefit by learning mindfulness early. (After all, mindfulness, to those who practise it, is perhaps the best method of training the mind into a healthy, and progressively healthier, state.) When children are able to experience their thoughts and feelings without being judged and overwhelmed, they are less prone to unhealthy effects. By learning to trust their own inner wisdom, they will be less susceptible to harmful peer pressures.

‘Children have true beginner's mind, but this state of mind is clouded by an ever-increasing number of thoughts as they grow. They start life living in the moment then slowly learn that “doing” is more important than “being”,’ Despard says. ‘I wrote this book with the intention of planting the seed of mindfulness in children, and introduce basic concepts to adults who are unfamiliar with them. In this sacred place of loving-kindness between adult and child a new level of consciousness can emerge. We only have moments to live; the only time our lives are unfolding is now.’ Great stuff. Mindfulness, at its best, helps us to appreciate the innate preciousness of every moment ... and what a wonderful thing for children to appreciate as well ... and as early as possible before other things 'corrupt' their young and beautiful minds.

You Are Not Your Thoughts – which is a great introduction to mindfulness not only for children but also for adults as well – has captured the attention of leading experts in the field of mindfulness practice and education. For example, Myla and Jon Kabat-Zinn, the authors of the equally wonderful Everday Blessings: The Inner Work of Mindful Parenting, write, ‘A playful and wise picture book that gives young children simple ways to be more in touch with what is essential and beautiful in themselves.’

Despard has been hosting public talks since the book’s release and has also taught introductory mindfulness lessons to pre-K through Grade 5 students within the Chicopee Public School system in Massachusetts. Additionally, the book is being used in school districts by educators and counsellors across the United States.

‘I feel this book is relevant in these times of increased societal pressures that have made national headlines (eg school bullying, self-image, depression, etc),’ says Despard. ‘There is no better time than now to start the conversation of compassion and acceptance. There is no greater gift than the gift of mindfulness.’ Indeed, for what is mindfulness if it is not nonjudgmental, unconditional, conscious, fully accepting presence and lovingkindness?

There aren’t many good books on mindfulness for children. This book is truly a gem. I heartily recommend it, for it shows that there are many ways for children to be, and live, in the all-important present moment ... with openness to what is and with a minimum of negativity. The book also 'teaches' that happiness and peace of mind never come from external sources.

Despard discusses the book, and the nature of mindfulness, on this TV clip (courtesy of YouTube).

NOTE. This blog sets out a simple form of mindfulness sitting meditation.


RELATED POSTS

AUSTRALIAN SCHOOL CHILDREN LEARN MINDFULNESS

MINDFULNESS MEDITATION INCREASES WELLBEING IN ADOLESCENT BOYS

MINDFULNESS FOR SPECIAL-NEEDS STUDENTS

MINDFULNESS AND YOUTH TRAUMA

MINDFULNESS, FUNDAMENTALISM AND A TALE OF TWO CITIES

GOLDIE HAWN'S LOTUS GROWS IN THE MUD

MINDFULNESS AND TEENAGERS' BRAINS

JESUS OR BUDDHA? WHO'S 'BEST' FOR TODAY'S WORLD?

NOTE. It's not an easy life being a provocateur and controversialist. Since writing and uploading this blog a couple of indignant readers have accused me of religious bigotry (cf my earlier blog on 'Bigoted Buddhists') and have said that I have been too hard on Jesus, and that the New Testament accounts of the incidents regarding his destruction of both the fig tree and the pigs should be taken, not literally, but metaphorically or 'spiritually'. Sorry, folks, I won't buy that. Even if the incidents were so-called 'object lessons' - and I address that point, as well as many others, in the blog - any lessons taught come at too high a price, namely, wanton destruction of living things. Look, I love the man Jesus, and I also love the man Buddha. I do not accept that Jesus was God in any unique or exclusive sense, and I do not believe that he ever claimed to be God in any unique or exclusive sense (at least not in any New Testament passages that can truly be said to be 'authentic' as opposed to editorial interpolations and the like). Further, I do know Biblical Greek, and thus I cannot accept the assertion which has been made by one or two readers that Jesus' supposed words, as translated into English, do not for the most part faithfully represent what is otherwise recorded in the Greek manuscripts as words purportedly having been said by Jesus. No further correspondence will be entered into in respect of this matter. If any Christians are offended by anything I have written, my advice to them is ... get over it, and don't be so precious. Mindfully yours, IEJ.

The Venerable Shravasti Dhammika writes in The Buddha and His Disciples:

So extraordinary was the Buddha, so unerringly kind and wise and so positive was an encounter with him, that is would change people's lives. Even while he was alive legends were told about him. In the centuries after his final Nirvana it sometimes got to the stage that the legends and myths obscured the very real human being behind them and the Buddha came to be looked upon as a god. Actually the Buddha was a human being, not a 'mere human being' as is sometimes said, but a special class of human being called a complete person (mahapurisa). Such complete persons are born no different from others and indeed physically they always remain quite ordinary. But through their own efforts they bring to completion every human potential and their mental purity and understanding develop to the stage where they far exceed those of ordinary human beings. A Buddha, a complete person, is even higher than a god because he or she is even free from the jealousy, anger and favouritism that we are told a god is still capable of feeling.

I very much like the idea that Buddha Shakyamuni was a human being. I have often said and written that we human beings simply cannot follow a god or a demi-god or someone who is supposedly both god and man ... but only a human being. And, yes, gods - even the Judeo-Christian one - can be very jealous, angry and tribal. As the American Baptist preacher and writer Dr Harry Emerson Fosdick once said, 'Better believe in no God than to believe in a cruel God, a tribal God, a sectarian God. Belief in God is one of the most dangerous beliefs a person can cherish.'

Now, accordingly to orthodox Christian belief, Jesus is ‘truly God and truly man’, possessing two whole and perfect natures – the nature of God and the nature of man. A ‘real man’, but without sin. Really? Was Jesus truly perfect and without sin? I have spoken and written elsewhere on that topic area, and some of what follows comes from the copy of that public address.

To talk about any person as being ‘sinless’ or ‘without sin’ is a negative conception. Be that as it may, the Jesus of the Bible, contrary to his own teaching, did not always love his enemies and bless them. Indeed, Jesus would at times call down curses upon the heads of his enemies (see, eg, Lk 11:42-52), subjecting anyone who dared oppose him to abuse, curses of various kinds and threats of divine punishment and retribution. Jesus declared, 'Take my enemies, who would not have me rule over them, bring them here, and kill them before me' (Lk 19:27). Nice stuff.

Christians love to assert that Jesus' anger was 'righteous anger', and that he always kept his anger under control, but I beg to differ. It seems to me that Jesus had some real 'anger management' problems.

Are you familiar with the story of Jesus and the Gadarene swine (see Mt 8:28-34)? Jesus cast some ‘devils’ into a herd of pigs, and the pigs ran off into the sea and drowned. Whichever way you splice it, we here have Jesus being unnecessarily cruel to animals. These animals obviously belonged to someone, and their wanton destruction would have had adverse financial and other consequences for their owner. Now, if Jesus truly was omnipotent and omnibenevolent, he could easily have found a much more humane way to dispense with the devils - like just making them go away. Why be so unkind to the pigs? I am sorry, Jesus, but gratuitous cruelty to and suffering of animals is not a state of affairs that we human beings, of any persuasion, can accept nowadays, if we ever could.

Then there’s the story of Jesus cursing, and in the process destroying, a fig tree (see Mk 11:12-14, 20-22). Here we have Jesus causing wanton destruction to a tree. If someone did that in New South Wales today, they could be charged with contravening the local council’s tree preservation order, the maximum penalty being AUS$1,100,000.00. (In addition, where a person is guilty of an offence involving the destruction of or damage to a tree or vegetation, the court dealing with the offence may, in addition to or in substitution for any pecuniary penalty imposed or liable to be imposed, direct that person to plant new trees and vegetation and maintain those trees and vegetation to a mature growth.)

The story of Jesus’ cursing of the fig tree poses problems for Bible-believing Christians who are desperate to believe that Jesus was perfect, that is, ‘without sin’. (Of course, if the story didn't happen, or didn't happen as reported, then maybe the Bible can't be trusted. Shock, horror.) Now, you need to know this. According to the story, it was not the right time of the year for figs, so not surprisingly the tree had no figs ... but it was still leafy. The tree was simply fulfilling its nature. I ask you, what could be more intrinsically wonderful than that? Buddha Shakyamuni would have cherished such a tree. It was, after all, still a living thing that had a right to exist (irrespective of whether or not it was actually 'owned' by some farmer) and the tree might even have afforded some beauty as well as shade in the otherwise barren countryside.

Jesus, noticing that the tree bore no figs, immediately proceeded to pronounce a curse (that is, judgment) upon the tree with the result, we are told, that it simply ‘withered from the roots’. Again, nice stuff. Why blame the tree for not bearing figs? Even the most eminent of Christian Bible commentators have referred to Jesus as being ‘petulant’ and ‘ill-tempered’, 'venting', as he did, his ‘feelings of frustration and despair’ upon the fig tree.

Now, if, once again, Jesus truly was omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and if he really wanted to show his supposed ‘miraculous’ powers, why did he not command the fig tree to bring forth fruit? Instead, he chose to display his vindictiveness ... yes, vindictiveness ... and even childishness. Strong stuff? Maybe, but I am sticking to my guns as regards these two gospel stories  (being only two of many such unflattering stories which I could quote).

If any of my readers are Bible-believing Christians – which is not all that likely – please don’t tell me that this story is simply what Christians refer to as an ‘object lesson’ – in this case, a supposed ‘miracle of judgment’ performed on what one eminent Bible commentator refers to as an ‘inanimate [sic!] object’. Object lesson or not, the supposed moral lesson (presumably the futility of a religion that is all pretence) comes at far too high a price, namely, the destruction of an integral part of nature. And I don't want to hear from anyone what I have otherwise read all too often in many Christian publications, namely that, as the supposed Son of God, Jesus has the right to destroy vegetation ... or anything else for that matter. (Christians love to play that card in an attempt to explain away otherwise unacceptable behaviour on the part of the man Jesus.) As I have written before, if people are rewarded for believing such things, then I wouldn't want to believe in or worship such a god.

In today’s world especially (with global warming and so on), that sort of conduct - wanton destruction of trees and vegetation - is morally unacceptable, in the same way that we have now come to judge severely those in high places who appear to condone various forms of abuse against humans, especially minors. The incident regarding the fig tree is, in my opinion, a serious moral wrong, and I don’t think we should account it as being anything less than that.

I mentioned above that Jesus is recorded, time and time again, as hurling abuse at those who dared to disagree with him. Not so the Buddha. Now, according to Buddhist scriptures there were certainly plenty of people who disagreed with Buddha. What was the Buddha’s response? Well, it is reported, time and time again, that he would remain calm, unflustered and polite ... even to the point of smiling in the face of criticism. Indeed, he urged his disciples to do likewise. On other occasions, when he was rudely abused, the Buddha maintained a dignified silence.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I love both Jesus and Buddha Shakyamuni - each is an important Way-Shower for me - and I am firmly of the view that, despite the horrible gross distortions of their respective teachings that have taken place over the centuries, both Jesus and the Buddha taught essentially the same message (namely, that the kingdom of heaven, or buddha nature, is within all of us, acceptance of which frees us from the bondage of self). Also, I am not that silly that I would assert that Buddha was a ‘better’ (whatever that means) person than Jesus.

What I do, however, assert is this – in all-important matters pertaining to the very survival of our planet, and as regards how we should behave toward the plant and animal kingdoms of the world and the natural environment as well as to our fellow human beings (especially when the latter criticise or abuse us), the life and teachings of the Buddha are, in my respectful opinion, much to be preferred to those of Jesus of Nazareth. The Buddha's all-embracing, all-inclusive philosophy of 'Do no harm' - whether to humans, plants, animals or anything else for that matter - is the answer to the problems of today.



RELATED POSTS

TAKING REFUGE IN MINDFULNESS

WAS JESUS A BUDDHIST? THE DOCTRINE OF 'NO-SELF' IN CHRISTIANITY

TEA AND MINDFULNESS

Whilst in Japan recently I was fortunate enough to be present at a Japanese tea ceremony (chanoyu, sado or simply ocha in Japanese).

Tea was originally brought to Japan in the 9th century by the Buddhist monk Eichū (743-816) who had returned to Japan from China.

The Japanese Tea Ceremony (also known as ‘the Way of Tea’) has its spiritual roots, at least in part, in Zen Buddhism as well as in Daoism, and especially in the Daoist influences upon Zen. The ceremony is a traditional and very beautiful Japanese choreographic ritual – one which is cultural, artistic (for the whole ceremony is viewed as a work of art) and spiritual – in which tea is prepared and served with careful attention to all details. It is a good example of what has been called ‘mindfulness through ritual’.

A lot of preparation goes into a Japanese tea ceremony. The host of the tea ceremony must give due consideration to all aspects of the ceremony including such matters as flower arranging, the kind of clothing (namely, kimono) to wear, appropriate art, special calligraphy [see below], and food. Traditionally, one to three (but sometimes more) guests are invited. The guests arrive and enter a special place for the tea ceremony.

Here are some photos of the tea house in which the ceremony which I attended was held.

The tea house is situated in a beautiful Japanese-style public garden, which, in its highly ordered and formal fashion, itself has its roots in Zen.

The sole purpose of a tea house, which is specially designed and designated ('consecrated', in a Western sense), is to serve as a retreat for the making and drinking of the tea and the associated food. The tea house is and becomes a sanctuary from the worries, hassles and vexations of the outer world. It is a special place where one can consecrate oneself to what has been called the 'undisturbed adoration of the beautiful'.

Both the exterior and interior of the tea house, as well as the path leading to the tea house, are important in helping to set the desired mood – one of order, balance (most notably between the yin of the water and the yang of the fire used to warm it [cf Daoism]), harmony, simplicity, freedom from vulgarity, tranquility and equanimity.

I mentioned above that the Japanese tea ceremony has spiritual roots in Daoism and Zen. (Ikkyu, who revitalized Zen in the 15th century, apparently had a profound influence on the ceremony.) Now, according to Zen the whole universe cen be experienced in the drinking of a single bowl of tea. The experience of making and drinking tea - like everything else for that matter - comes from giving oneself over totally to the here and now and fully participating in the activity with a heart free from selfish thoughts and desires.

As regards the actual conduct of the tea ceremony, the guests are ordinarily welcomed only with a bow. No words are spoken. After the guests are seated, the host makes the beverage. Powdered green tea (matcha), which was introduced into Japan by Eisai, another Buddhist monk returning from China, in the 12th century, and which sprouts from the same plant as black tea but is unfermented and ground, is placed in a tea bowl, hot water is added, and a bamboo whisk is used to stir the mixture into a frothy brew.

Thin tea is served to each guest in an individual ceramic bowl, while one bowl of thick tea is shared among several guests. A sweet dessert is served as well and is consumed more-or-less contemporaneously with the drinking of the tea (which, itself, can be a bit bitter).

The bowl is passed to the most important guest, who bows to the host upon receiving the tea, takes the bowl with their right hand, places the bowl in the palm of their left hand, looks at the bowl, holds and turns the bowl in the 'prescribed' manner (ordinarily thrice clockwise [cf the triple gem?, the three marks of existence?], but not uncommonly just once [i.e. 180 degrees] clockwise), and raises it up, being careful to observe the foot as well as the interior shape. This act is performed to pay homage to both the object and its maker. The guest drinks some tea and then wipes the rim of the bowl, turns the bowl counter-clockwise, and passes the bowl to the next guest (or, if there be no next guest, returns it to the host).

When all the guests have tasted the tea, the bowl is returned to the host who rinses it, and cleans the tea scoop and tea container. The host offers the cleaned tea scoop and tea container to the guests for examination. Afterwards, the group engages in conversation about the objects used in the tea ceremony and the presentation that took place.

The Japanese tea ceremony is a 'transformative practice' characterised by such qualities as humility, simplicity, restraint, purity, harmony ... and naturalism. (As regards the latter, the host tries to keep to the natural state of things as much as possible.) Every action is performed carefully, deliberately and consciously ... with alertness and awareness (that is, mindfully, for a wandering mind leads to mistakes in 'form' (kata)) ... and with that additional element of curiosity, even anticipation, as regards what is happening from one moment to the next.

What was especially beautiful about the ceremony I attended was the fact that, although there was careful attention to detail and form, every action appeared to be done with typically Buddhist lovingkindness and compassion. You see, the whole 'process' involved in the tea ceremony is not about drinking tea per se but aesthetics and spirituality ... and preparing a bowl of tea from one's heart. In that regard, the host of the ceremony always considers the guests ... with every gesture and movement.

I mentioned above the word 'harmony'. Yes, every element of the ceremony, and every movement in it, points to and elucidates the serenity of the whole. The ceremony is an object lesson and a living symbol, that is, it not only ‘symbolises’, ‘represents’ or ‘stands for’ something else (the ‘inner reality’), it actually is instrumental in bringing about that reality. It is what has been referred to as ‘concretized truth’. Powerful stuff.

The tea ceremony affords numerous opportunities for reflection and quiet contemplation, and is a virtual microcosm of the order that Japanese see in their world.

The Japanese are mindfully aware of the fact - so often overlooked by Westerners - that every human encounter is a singular occasion which will never recur in exactly the same way. Accordingly, every aspect of the tea ceremony - the spiritual world of tea - is savoured ... and mindfully experienced.

Ritual, if done the 'right' way and with the 'right' intent, can be very empowering, indeed transformative. Ritual can take us to a 'sacred' realm beyond time and space.

I was pleased to see some young Japanese women participating in the actual tea ceremony itself - a ceremony which has an ancient and almost otherworldly character about it. It is essential that rituals of this kind be preserved for future generations.

RELATED POSTS

HAIKU AND THE MINDFULNESS OF THE MOMENT

JAPAN, THE DALAI LAMA, THE QUEEN MOTHER, A MOTOR VEHICLE ... AND MINDFULNESS

COMPASSION FOR JAPAN

SHINTO---OR LIVING MINDFULLY WITH THE KAMI



JAPAN, THE DALAI LAMA, THE QUEEN MOTHER, A MOTOR VEHICLE ... AND MINDFULNESS

I have recently returned from 10 days in Japan. I had a wonderful time with some dear friends, making some new friends in the process.

For me, the trip to Japan had about it a deep sense of life fulfilling itself. My late father fought in the Australian Army in the Second World War. He lost several mates at the hands of the Japanese. Even though he later had respectful relations with many Japanese business leaders during the 1960s and '70s he never really forgave the Japanese for what he, and many other hundreds of Australians of his era, saw as their inexplicably unnecessary gross cruelty in wartime, particularly to women and those who were otherwise sick or injured.  I can only imagine what my father would have thought, but whilst in Tokyo I paid my respects to the Japanese war dead at the famous (or infamous) Yasukuni Shrine, which is dedicated to those who died fighting on behalf of the Emperor of Japan. It is a different world now.

Now, the people I met and otherwise travelled with in Japan were, without exception, kind and compassionate to me, and I felt enriched to be in their company. Special thanks are due to Yasushi and Akiko (who now live in Australia), Sonomi and her wonderful parents Isao and Takeko, Masaka, Akio and Arisa. Showered with gifts of all kinds, and taken to the most beautiful of places, I could not have been treated better by any other human beings. Arigatō gozaimasu. ありがとうございます

In a stream of consciousness style I recall azaleas and hydrangeas in full bloom, with a splendour that I had never encountered before in my life … giant bonsais of all kinds … crows with huge heads … hot springs and traditional Japanese baths … Japanese food of all kinds … beautiful rice paper ... Shinto shrines … Buddhist temples (in particular, those of Shinnyo-en, a Buddhist denomination of which I am a member) … Japanese women in colourful kimonos … crowded but ever-so-clean trains which run on time … mist over Mt Fuji … one thousand year old Samurai castles … and much, much more. I even found one of my recent books on the law in the foreign language section of a major Japanese book shop!

To understand the Japanese it seems to me that you have to know about kata (型 or 形, literally 'form'). There is, for Japanese, a right way to do almost anything, and that includes eating, bathing, dressing, laying out a garden, folding paper, doing martial arts, and so forth. At times it seems that for the Japanese doing things the right way is just as important as, if not more important than, doing the right things. Form has always had a reality in itself for Japanese – something which is slightly reminiscent of Plato’s theory of Forms.

I got to thinking about mindfulness. Form is important (see this blog as to one suggested 'form' with respect to the practice of mindfulness), but there must never be any triumph of form over substance. Form requires effort, and mindfulness only requires just that much effort as is necessary to remain present from moment to moment with bare attention, choiceless awareness and a certain amount of curiosity. 'Effortless effort', if you like.

The day after I returned to Sydney from my trip to Japan I travelled to Canberra to hear the Dalai Lama (pictured below) – one of the most inspiring and beloved persons in the world. He said nothing I hadn’t heard before, but it was still wonderful to see and listen to the great man.

His Holiness spoke of the importance of compassion, tolerance and forgiveness. He said that it was not all that important to be religious. What was important was being a 'good human being', and ethical conduct – with ‘ethical’ meaning what doesn’t harm others' experience or expectation of happiness. He also said that all religions were not the same - which was a good thing because we are not all the same - but all religions nevertheless emphasised love, compassion, patience, tolerance, forgiveness, contentment, harmony, responsibility, and so forth ... even if their respective adherents didn't always possess or display those inherent, objective spiritual values.

The Dalai Lama was asked whether, in his opinion, there was more compassion in the world today than in previous times. In his opinion, there was. His Holiness mentioned a meeting he had with the late Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother (pictured below) when she was 96. The latter was apparently asked by the Dalai Lama whether she thought the world had gotten ‘better’ over her long lifetime. Without any hesitation the Queen Mother apparently said, 'Yes,' pointing to the modern day concern with the importance of human rights, the refusal to no longer accept totalitarian regimes, and various other matters. The Dalai Lama said as much, as well, in Canberra the other day, also making reference to the fact that people are no longer prepared to uncritically and unconditionally wage war for their respective countries.

I think that His Holiness and the Queen Mother are both right ... despite terrorism, the rise of religious fundamentalism, increasing consumerism, global warming and other evils.

The Dalai Lama said nothing that was directly related to the practice of mindfulness but he did speak of the importance of the ‘gift’ of life itself … and of the need to accept those things which we simply cannot change.

One such thing occurred to my wife and I yesterday when, driving back to Sydney from Canberra, the engine of my motor vehicle ‘died’ on me whilst driving along a motorway. It seems the car is beyond repair. Such is life. The car, after all, is only a material thing. Ugh.


RELATED POSTS

HAIKU AND THE MINDFULNESS OF THE MOMENT

TEA AND MINDFULNESS

COMPASSION FOR JAPAN

SHINTO---OR LIVING MINDFULLY WITH THE KAMI

THICH NHAT HANH ON MINDFULNESS

'Taking even one step in mindfulness can benefit all beings on Earth.'

- Thich Nhat Hanh.

This is one of my shortest blogs ... phew! I am about to leave for Tokyo, but I wanted to leave you with these wonderful words. They are written by that ever-so-inspiring Vietnamese Buddhist teacher, writer and peace activist Thich Nhat Hanh who often reminds his listeners and readers that to live mindfully is 'to keep our appointment with life' which is available only in the present moment:

‘A person who practises mindfulness can see things in a tangerine that others are unable to see. An aware person can see the tangerine tree, the tangerine blossoms in the spring, the sunlight and rain which nourished the tangerine. Looking deeply one can see the ten thousand things which have made the tangerine possible … and how all these things interact with each other.’

Yes, mindfulness enables us to ‘touch’, indeed penetrate, the core of reality – the very livingness of life itself – and, in so doing, we come to appreciate not just the innate beauty but also the interconnectedness of all living things ... something Hanh refers to as 'InterBeing.'

Hanh writes that we are 'mindful' when we are 'deeply in touch with the present moment'. It is only then that 'our understanding of what is going on deepens, and we begin to be filled with acceptance, joy, peace and love' ... which is a very good starting-point and foundation for, what for most of us is, the ultimate goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all.

See you in a couple of weeks.

Yours, in Gassho

IEJ