The Collected Works of Chogyam Trungpa: Volume One (57 page)

Q
. You mentioned nowness in your talk, and I was wondering how it is possible to become aware of the absolute through awareness of a relative moment in time?

A
. Well, we have to start by working through the relative aspect, until finally this nowness takes on such a living quality that it is no longer dependent on a relative way of expressing nowness. One might say that
now
exists all the time, beyond the concept of relativity. But since all concepts are based on the idea of relativity, it is impossible to find any words which go beyond that. So nowness is the only way to see directly. First it is between the past and the future—now. Then gradually one discovers that nowness is not dependent on relativity at all. One discovers that the past does not exist, the future does not exist, and everything happens now. Similarly, in order to express space one might have first to create a vase, and then one has to break it, and then one sees that the emptiness in the vase is the same as the emptiness outside. That is the whole meaning of technique. At first that nowness is, in a sense, not perfect. Or one might even say that the meditation is not perfect, it is a purely man-made practice. One sits and tries to be still and concentrates on the breathing, and so on. But then, having started in that way, one gradually discovers something more than that. So the effort one has put into it—into the discovery of nowness, for example—would not be wasted, though at the same time one might see that it was rather foolish. But that is the only way to start.

Q
. For meditation, would a student have to rid himself of ego before he started, or would this come naturally as he is studying?

A
. This comes naturally, because you can’t start without ego. And basically ego isn’t bad. Good and bad doesn’t really exist anywhere, it is only a secondary thing. Ego is, in a sense, a false thing, but it isn’t necessarily bad. You have to start with ego, and use ego, and from there it gradually wears out, like a pair of shoes. But you have to use it and wear it out thoroughly, so it is not preserved. Otherwise, if you try to push ego aside and start perfect, you may become more and more perfect in a rather one-sided way, but the same amount of imperfection is building up on the other side, just as creating intense light creates intense darkness as well.

Q
. You mentioned that there are two basic forms of meditation—devotional practice, or trying to communicate with something higher, and the other one, which is simply awareness of what is—but this devotional practice still plays a part in Buddhism as well, and you have devotional chants and so on, so I am not quite sure how this comes in. I mean, the two appear to be different, so can they in fact be combined?

A
. Yes, but the kind of devotional practice which is found in Buddhism is merely a process of opening, of surrendering the ego. It is a process of creating a container. I don’t mean to condemn the other kind of devotion, but if one looks at it from the point of view of a person who has an unskillful way of using that technique, then devotion becomes a longing to free oneself. One sees oneself as being very separate, and as being imprisoned and imperfect. One regards oneself as basically bad, and one is trying to break out. In other words the imperfection part of oneself is identified with “I” and anything perfect is identified with some external being, so all that is left is trying to get through the imprisonment. This kind of devotion is an overemphasized awareness of ego, the negative aspect of ego. Although there are hundreds of variations of devotional practice in Buddhism, and there are many accounts of devotion to gurus, or being able to communicate with the guru, and of achieving the awakened state of mind through devotion. But in these cases devotion is always begun without centralizing on the ego. In any chants or ceremonies, for example, which make use of symbolism, or the visualization of Buddhas, before any visualization is created there is first a formless meditation, which creates an entirely open space. And at the end one always recites what is known as the threefold wheel: “I do not exist; the external visualization does not exist; and the act of visualizing does not exist”—the idea being that any feeling of achievement is thrown back to the openness, so one doesn’t feel that one is collecting anything. I think that is the basic point. One may feel a great deal of devotion, but that devotion is a kind of abstract form of devotion, which does not centralize inwardly. One simply identifies with that feeling of devotion, and that’s all. This is perhaps a different concept of devotion, where no center exists, but only devotion exists. Whereas, in the other case, devotion contains a demand. There is an expectation of getting something out of it in return.

Q
. Is there not a great fear generated when we get to this point of opening up and surrendering?

A
. Fear is one of the weapons of ego. It protects the ego. If one reaches the stage where one begins to see the folly of ego, then there is fear of losing the ego, and fear is one of its last weapons. Beyond that point fear no longer exists, because the object of fear is to frighten somebody, and when that somebody is not there, then fear loses its function. You see, fear is continually given life by your response, and when there is no one to respond to the fear—which is ego loss—then fear ceases to exist.

Q
. You are talking about the ego as an object?

A
. In what sense?

Q
. In the sense that it is part of the external environment.

A
. Ego is, as I have already said, like a bubble. It is an object up to a point, because although it does not really exist—it is an impermanent thing—it in fact shows itself as an object more than actually being one. That is another way of protecting oneself, of trying to maintain ego.

Q
. This is an aspect of the ego?

A
. Yes.

Q
. Then you can’t destroy the ego, or you would lose the power to recognize, the power to cognate.

A
. No, not necessarily. Because ego does not contain understanding, it does not contain any insight at all. Ego exists in a false way all the time and can only create confusion, whereas insight is something more than that.

Q
. Would you say that ego is a secondary phenomenon rather than a primary phenomenon?

A
. Yes, very much so. In a sense ego is wisdom, but ego happens to be ignorant as well. You see, when you realize that you are ignorant, that is the beginning of the discovery of wisdom—it is wisdom itself.

Q
. How does one decide in oneself whether ego is ignorance or wisdom?

A
. It is not really a question of deciding. It is simply that one sees in that way. You see, basically there is no solid substance, although we talk about ego existing as a solid thing having various aspects. But in fact it merely lives through time as a continual process of creation. It is continually dying and being reborn all the time. Therefore ego doesn’t really exist. But ego also acts as a kind of wisdom: When ego dies, that is wisdom itself, and when ego is first formulated that is the beginning of ignorance itself. So wisdom and ego are not really separate at all. It seems rather difficult to define, and in a way one would be happier if there were clear-cut black and white, but somehow that is not the natural pattern of existence. There is no clear-cut black and white at all, and all things are interdependent. Darkness is an aspect of light, and light is an aspect of darkness, so one can’t really condemn one side and build up everything on the other. It is left entirely to the individual to find his own way, and it is possible to do so. It is the same for a dog who has never swum—if he were suddenly thrown in the water he could swim. Similarly, we have a kind of spiritual instinct in us and if we are willing to open ourselves then somehow we find our way directly. It is only a question of opening up and one doesn’t have to have a clear-cut definition at all.

Q
. Would you care to sum up the purpose of meditation?

A
. Well, meditation is dealing with purpose itself. It is not that meditation is for something, but it is dealing with the aim. Generally we have a purpose for whatever we do: Something is going to happen in the future, therefore what I am doing now is important—everything is related to that. But the whole idea of meditation is to develop an entirely different way of dealing with things, where you have no purpose at all. In fact meditation is dealing with the question of whether or not there is such a thing as purpose. And when one learns a different way of dealing with the situation, one no longer has to have a purpose. One is not on the way to somewhere. Or rather, one is on the way and one is also at the destination at the same time. That is really what meditation is for.

Q
. Would you say, then, that it would be a merging with reality?

A
. Yes, because reality is there all the time. Reality is not a separate entity, so it is a question of becoming one with reality, or of being in reality—not
achieving
oneness, but becoming identified with it. One is already a part of that reality, so all that remains is to take away the doubt. Then one discovers that one has been there all the time.

Q
. Would it be correct to describe it as the realization that the visible is not reality?

A
. The visible? Can you define that a bit more?

Q
. I am thinking of William Blake’s theory of the merging of the observer with the observed, and the visible not being the reality at all.

A
. Visible things in this sense are reality. There is nothing beyond nowness, therefore what we see is reality. But because of our usual way of seeing things, we do not see them exactly as they are.

Q
. Would you say, then, that each person is an individual and must find an individual way toward that?

A
. Well, I think that brings us back to the question of ego, which we have been talking about. You see, there is such a thing as personality, in a way, but we are not really individuals as separate from the environment, or as separate from external phenomena. That is why a different approach is necessary. Whereas, if we were individuals and had no connection with the rest of things, then there would be no need for a different technique which would lead to oneness. The point is that there is appearance of individuality, but this individuality is based on relativity. If there is individuality, there must also be oneness as well.

Q
. Yes, but it is the individuality that makes for oneness. If we weren’t individuals, we couldn’t be one. Is that so?

A
. Well, the word
individual
is rather ambiguous. At the beginning individuality may be overemphasized, because there are various individual aspects. Even when we reach the stage of realization there is perhaps an element of compassion, an element of wisdom, an element of energy, and all sorts of different variations. But what we describe as an individual is something more than that. We tend to see it as one character with many things built onto it, which is a way of trying to find some sort of security. When there is wisdom, we try to load everything onto it, and it then becomes an entirely separate entity, a separate person—which is not so. But still there are individual aspects, there is individual character. So in Hinduism one finds different aspects of God, different deities, and different symbols. When one attains oneness with reality, that reality is not just one single thing, but one can see from a very wide angle.

Q
. If a student has a receptive mind and wishes to make himself at one with nature, can he be taught how to meditate, or does he have to develop his own form?

A
. Nature? How do you mean?

Q
. If he wishes to study, can he accept other people’s teaching, or can he develop them himself?

A
. In fact it is necessary to receive oral instruction, oral teaching. Though he must learn to give before he can accept anything, he must learn to surrender. Second, he finds that the whole idea of learning stimulates his understanding. Also this avoids building up a great feeling of achievement, as though everything is “my own work”—the concept of the self-made man.

Q
. Surely that is not sufficient reason for going to receive instruction from a teacher, just to avoid the feeling that otherwise everything is self-made. I mean, in the case of someone like Ramana Maharshi, who attained realization without an external teacher, surely he shouldn’t go and find a guru just in case he might become big-headed?

A
. No. But he is exceptional, that is the whole point. There is a way, it is possible. And basically no one can transmit or impart anything to anybody. One has to discover within oneself. So perhaps in certain cases people could do that. But building up on oneself is somehow similar to ego’s character, isn’t it? One is on rather dangerous ground. It could easily become ego’s activity, because there is already the concept of “I” and then one wants to build up more on that side. I think—and this may sound simple, but it is really the whole thing—that one learns to surrender gradually, and that surrendering the ego is a very big subject. Also, the teacher acts as a kind of mirror, the teacher gives back one’s own reflection. Then for the first time you are able to see how beautiful you are, or how ugly you are.

Perhaps I should mention here one or two small points about meditation, although we have already discussed the general background of the subject.

Generally, meditation instruction cannot be given in a class. There has to be a personal relationship between teacher and pupil. Also there are certain variations within each basic technique, such as awareness of breathing. But perhaps I should briefly mention the basic way of meditating, and then, if you want to go further, I am sure you could do so and receive further instruction from a meditation teacher.