.

Question one and two were submitted by Stuart Sovatsky, PHD.

Q 1: Vedanta, Taoism, Buddhism, Judeo-Christian Gnosticism, Mystical Sufism, all laud sexual transcendence of duality and desire verified by transcendence of sex, from Buddha to Dalai Lama and millions of others in India over the millenniums. Has modern non-dualism created something new where sex and desire are not transcended?

QUESTION 1:

Robert Saltzman: All cultures have within them people who for one reason or another do not engage in physical sexuality. Here are some possible reasons which occur to me (there may be others) for that non-participation :

1. Some humans do not have much sexual desire. This happens at all ages, but frequently in old age.

2. Some fear sexuality--perhaps the physical aspects of sex themselves, or perhaps the emotional intimacy which may arise.

3. Some have been taught that sex is somehow dirty or evil so that by avoiding sex they will somehow avoid punishment or condemnation. Often this kind of attitude is deeply buried in unconscious programming.

4. Some imagine that by eschewing sexual entanglements, including family and children, they will be completely free to consider only themselves and their own desires.

5. Some hope that by avoiding sex they will gain something “spiritual” such as “enlightenment” or freedom from “rebirth.”

 I should my preface comments by pointing out that different people seem to have different aptitudes, requiring different approaches to understanding the human condition. Experience varies widely too, and whether we like to admit it or not, aptitude and experience are all we have for making sense of anything. So my way of seeing these matters is my way, and certainly is not for everybody.

Most likely those who consider themselves on a “path” involving “practices” will not hear a word I say--the words yes, but not the meaning. Likewise, those who imagine that the Dalai Lama, for example, is somehow “higher” than “Robert” won’t hear either. People hear what they want to hear, and misunderstand or ignore what they need to not-hear so as to maintain the integrity of their illusions, which is why spiritual teaching is a fool’s game for the most part.

All many of us ever really hear is our own ceaseless judgmental commentary on the words of others, and upon on our own thoughts and behaviors.  This is like living in a wind tunnel. Ah, well.

That said, just because someone, for whatever motive, eschews sex does not indicate that anything is transcended or even could be transcended. And even if  transcendence (meaning, I suppose, the disappearance of material constraints entirely) is humanly possible--which I seriously doubt-- a discussion motivated by questions about transcendence cannot bring us closer to, but only farther away from the understanding that all seeing already is non-dual (I far prefer the Buddhist term, “dependently originated”), for the unity of seer, seeing and seen is what we are, not what we must somehow become.

There is no “becoming.” In each moment, things are as they are, and cannot be any different. No one is in control. No one is making the present be the way it is. There is no escape from this. No salvation. Now is now. There is nowhere else to go. No destination. Nothing leads anywhere. That is non-duality.

Coming to this understanding is not a matter of renouncing sex or anything else, but of seeing the futility of speculation, and the inanity of belief in authority, whether personal or scriptural. Those scriptures you mentioned were written by human beings just like you and me. The people you mentioned were people just like you and me. They weren’t gods. They had no magic powers that you and I lack.

The Buddha was a person--not a god--who, suddenly getting a gander at what real life is like outside castle walls, was shocked by what he saw, and began a search for the meaning of a life which ends in old age, illness, and death. He tried asceticism, but eventually gave it up as useless. So why now is the Buddha a poster boy for celibacy? If you need a hero (I am sorry for you if you do) make the Buddha a poster boy for rejecting tradition and belief. Make your hero the one who abandoned the castle, dropped all belief, and all reliance on scripture and tradition, and then, just like the Buddha, conduct your own search.

Clearly--clear to me at least--that kind of search is not about what one does with sex organs, but with the organs of rational consideration.

If all we see really is “one without a second,” then it is one without a second right now, and requires no renouncing of anything in order to become one without a second. Life itself contains, as the Buddha observed, its own automatic, built-in renunciation (old age, illness, and death), requiring no fictional character with fantasized free-will to “do” any renouncing. Sooner or later, all will be lost.

Neither does non-duality require publication of more books, or more experts declaiming from podiums and stages. All the words have been said long ago and very well. 

Looking at my list:

 Number one--lack of desire--may be a problem for the person who lacks it, or not, but if it is a problem, no amount of palaver about advaita will cure it. The pharmaceutical companies are working overtime on that one, you can be sure.

Number two--fear of sexuality--is one kind of problem with which I treated when I still practiced psychotherapy. Good therapy can help in such cases. I do not imagine that reading the Vedas would do much good.

Number three--the belief that sex is somehow dirty or evil so that by avoiding sex one somehow avoid punishment or condemnation--I wonder how much of this rather sick idea derives from the belief that celibacy is somehow “higher” than sexuality. As I write this, the Supreme Court of India, where homosexuals are frequently murdered, sometimes by their own families, has just ruled that homosexuality is a crime against the state to be punished with serious sanctions. This in a country which is dominated by Hindu religion and culture. The non-duality buff who likes to worship the Vedas will argue that scripture is not responsible for mass cultural attitudes. I don’t think it is that easy.

I’m no expert on the Vedas, so I don’t know if Hindu scripture actually does establish a hierarchy in which participation in sex is “lower,” and celibacy “higher”, but if it does, how can that not have bled over into the popular Indian mindset? Certainly we see this with the American Christians and their Bible, every word of which they hold, nonsensically, to be literally “inerrant.”

Number four--eschewing sexual entanglements in order to concentrate entirely on self--could be a motive of someone who want to devote ones entire life to a particular study without distraction. That study might be the pursuit of “enlightenment,” but it doesn’t have to be. I happen to know a scholar (not in religion) who has no time for lovemaking or anything else but work.

Number five--the belief that avoiding sex will further or hasten “realization,” perhaps coupled with the belief that engaging in sex is somehow a “low” or “dualistic” activity, which seems to be the focus of this interview.

Question 1 is a bit strange, actually, because it simply assumes the soundness of these beliefs about sex and celibacy, making them axiomatic, and backs up that premature cognitive commitment with the weakest possible evidence--an argument from authority--as if a catalog of books and “holy men” could ever really convert belief into fact. Perhaps for some it can. For me, not at all.

Other holy men and other books say other things--opposite ones sometimes. And who cares what someone else thinks, anyway? No authoritative pronouncement rules my mind--never could, not in the least. Be a light unto yourself, I say. Kill the Buddha. If you cannot be a light unto yourself, there will be no light for you at all, but only the shadows cast by the light of others less fearful than yourself. The Dalai Lama puts his pants on one leg at a time just like you do. That old fellow says as much, but the adoring believers will not allow themselves to understand that he really means it.

You glom on to what makes sense to you and reject what doesn’t. So it is always about YOU, and never about the Buddha. The only “Buddha” you will ever know is YOU. The only authority you will ever know is YOU. Why? Because it is your judgment, your discernment, your intuition alone which determine which authority to trust or not trust, and what makes sense or not. On the mental level, there is nothing but you--one without a second. The Buddha said all that too, but that part does not appeal to those who are looking for paths, methods, and prohibitions. Blaze your own path, I say. Otherwise, you are just an imitator.

Having sex is no more dualistic than sitting on a cushion trying to attain transcendence--both are the very same subject/object splitting. Aiming at future attainment is the expression of a dualistic commitment which will never comprehend a non-dual outlook at all. Whether the object to be attained is a figment called “enlightenment,” or m’lady’s fantasized quim, makes no difference at all. Seeking is seeking, no matter what is being sought. Fantasy is fantasy, is it not?

Just as m’lady’s actual favors, once attained, will never match the fantasy, neither will the pipe-dream called “enlightenment” ever match the ordinariness of awakeness. This last bit has been said often. Why is that not believed? People misunderstand the Buddha, I think. He said in plain words that he attained nothing, but in their fever to attain something--something “special”--the seekers overlook that petty detail.

The living realizer--the one who needs neither an historical figure nor anything else to tell him what’s what--has no ambition for attainment (speaking for myself of course--who else?), and finds the entire spiritual endeavor to be no more valuable than any other form of entertainment. Understanding arrives, if it arrives, while we are entertained by these questions, not as the result of them.

Understanding is here in this and every moment, I say. The sudden groking of that--the full comprehension of it--for all anyone knows, could arrive right in the midst of a roll in the hay (while the ascetics outside the bedroom struggle to suppress their sex fantasies). No one is in control of, or an expert on, how, when, or where one awakens to the simplicity of timeless being.

Q 2: Is this a higher state than what Buddha and founder of advaita, Adi Shankara, taught to monks and lay people and lived personally?

Robert Saltzman: I mean no personal disrespect to the questioner whom I have never even met, but this question hits me like satire. A question about non-duality which refers to a “higher state?” That’s like a joke (or a koan at best), but one, evidently, that not everyone gets.

Higher than what? There is only one “state,” the one you find yourself  in now. The rest is hearsay, credulity, and fantasy.

Often people finally comprehend non-duality--now is now, and now is one without a second--when they are dying, when, that is, striving and future have gone out the window with the rest of vanity. Some fortunate ones catch on sooner and so get to enjoy the show. That’s just the way the cookie crumbles.

NDM: Thanks Robert for answering those two questions.  Just a couple of follow-ups.  When you said earlier,

“People misunderstand the Buddha, I think. He said in plain words that he attained nothing, but in their fever to attain something--something “special”--the seekers overlook that petty detail.”

NDM:  Yes he did say that but he also spoke about Nibbana, or (nirvana in Sanskrit), being the eradication of desire, ill will and delusion. He says that as long as someone has certain fetters, this Nibbana is unattainable. He says an arahant, (a perfected one) has overcome these 10 fetters below.

The Pali canon's Sutta Pitaka identifies ten "fetters of becoming" 

1.belief in a self (Pali: sakkāya-dihi, doubt or uncertainty, especially about the teachings (vicikicchā) attachment to rites and rituals (sīlabbata-parāmāso) sensual desire (kāmacchando) ill will (vyāpādo or byāpādo)  lust for material existence, lust for material rebirth (rūparāgo) lust for immaterial existence, lust for rebirth in a formless realm (arūparāgo) conceit (māna) restlessness (uddhacca) ignorance (avijjā)

Do you feel that overcoming an egoic identity view is enough for liberation from suffering, ill will, conceit, restlessness and so on?

Robert Saltzman: Thanks for this question, John, which is very well-conceived, as it goes right to the crux of my comments about celibacy and non-duality.

Since the ten fetters come from the Pali canon, I would like to reply by touching upon the very first talk that the Buddha gave after realizing his own freedom—the keynote document in that canon. Traditionally it is said that the Buddha delivered this Sermon At Benares to the five ascetics who had been his companions for the six years he spent wandering in the forest before coming to an understanding of the true nature of humanity.

Before going into that, however, I must offer two caveats. First, I am neither a scholar of Buddhism nor a practicing Buddhist; in short, I am no expert on any of this, so I ask the forgiveness of anyone who considers herself or himself to be an expert and feels offended by my understanding of these matters. Second, no one actually knows what the Buddha said. The Pali canon was written down four or five hundred years after the death of the Buddha, and was not a record of what the Buddha actually said, but only a compilation of the oral traditions of the time.

Now, the Sermon at Benares is a short document, but it contains, in my opinion, the entire essence of Buddhism. It was, after all, the first confession of the Buddha's new-found enlightenment, and he was trying it out on the very same people whose respect for him had ended with his quitting their group. In fact, when he approached them, so the story goes, they were prepared to reject him, but--again the story--the look in his eyes silenced them. Certainly, he would not have omitted anything essential from such an important talk.

In my view, if one understands this single lecture—really understands it, I mean—there is nothing else to study, and nothing to discuss. Then why would the Buddha go on giving sermons and lectures containing all kinds of details such as the ten fetters?

He did that, I imagine, because like anyone who tries to teach anything, he found out that people vary widely in their capacities to understand what is being taught, and also in their capacities to put into practice what is being taught.

Some people—the Buddha, I suppose, was one like this—require neither a teacher nor any teaching at all; they just get it on their own.

Others can hear the message once, perhaps hearing only a few words, and they get it immediately. Hui Neng, the sixth patriarch of Zen, was a character like that. Hui Neng was illiterate, and knew nothing about Buddhism. One day, while delivering firewood to a shop, he overheard a man reciting a line from the Diamond Sutra: "Depending upon no-thing, you must find your own mind." Instantly, Hui Neng was enlightened, so the story goes.

Other people may need many repetitions of a message, perhaps from various angles, before they begin to get the drift. Still others will never get the full gist of the message, but at least be able to hear enough of it in watered down form so that their everyday behavior might improve. And yet others won’t even get that much. They will remain entirely ignorant of the message—perhaps because their minds are dull, or perhaps because they don’t want to hear it.

Among his other talents, the Buddha seems to have been an acute psychologist, so I imagine that he was quite aware of these human differences, and more than capable of expressing the essence of his message in different words, attuned to the capacities of his listeners, so as to extend the reach of his compassionate teaching as far as possible.

OK, then. The Sermon at Benares lays out the entire core of what later became “Buddhism.” What is that core? Only four items:

1. The Middle Way (quoting from the Sermon):

"There are two extremes which the man who has given up the world ought not to follow--the habitual practice, on the one hand, of self-indulgence which is unworthy, vain and fit only for the worldly-minded, and the habitual practice, on the other hand, of self-mortification, which is painful, useless and unprofitable.

"Neither abstinence from fish or flesh, nor going naked, nor shaving the head, nor wearing matted hair, nor dressing in a rough garment, nor covering oneself with dirt, nor sacrificing to Agni, will cleanse a man who is not free from delusions.

"Reading the Vedas, making offerings to priests, or sacrifices to the gods, self-mortification by heat or cold, and many such penances performed for the sake of immortality, these cannot cleanse the man who is not free from delusions.”

2. The Four Noble Truths:

"He who recognizes the existence of suffering, its cause, its remedy, and its cessation has fathomed the four noble truths. He will walk in the right path.

"Right views will be the torch to light his way. Right aspirations will be his guide. Right speech will be his dwelling-place on the road. His gait will be straight, for it is right behavior. His refreshments will be the right way of earning his livelihood. right efforts will be his steps right thoughts his breath; and right contemplation will give him the peace that follows in his footprints.

"Now, this is the noble truth concerning suffering:

"Birth is attended with pain, decay is painful, disease is painful, death is painful. Union with the unpleasant is painful, painful is separation from the pleasant, and any craving that is unsatisfied, that too is painful. In brief, bodily conditions which spring from attachment are painful.

"Now this is the noble truth concerning the origin of suffering:

"Verily, it is that craving which causes the renewal of existence, accompanied by sensual delight, seeking satisfaction now here, now there, the craving for the gratification of the passions, the craving for a future life, and the craving for happiness in this life.

"Now this is the noble truth concerning the destruction of suffering:

"Verily, it is the destruction, in which no passion remains, of this very thirst; it is the laying aside of, the being free from, the dwelling no longer upon this thirst.

'Now this is the noble truth concerning the way which leads to the destruction of sorrow. Verily! it is this noble eightfold path: that is to say:

"Right views; right aspirations; right speech; right behavior; right livelihood, right effort; right thoughts; and right contemplation.

3. No-self

“Nirvana is uncompounded; it is made by nothing at all. One cannot say of Nirvana that it arises or that it does not arise or that it is to be produced or that it is past or future or present, or that it is cognizable by the eye, ear, nose, tongue or body."

4. Dependent Origination:

Which means that nothing exists apart from everything else. In other words, some condition or another is required in order for anything to arise. In this sermon, the Buddha touched only very lightly on this fourth pillar of his message—later he would address it more fully—but it is there:

“He who fills his lamp with water will not dispel the darkness, and he who tries to light a fire with rotten wood will fail.”


Now for one who truly understands these four items, I say, there are no fetters, and he or she sees that there never really were.

• 
  The idea of fetters is a concept, added later by the Buddha, in an attempt to reach people who could not understand his original message. If their lack of understanding involved hangups such as attachment to rites and rituals or desire to live in a formless realm (both of these disease states are rampant among seekers of “enlightenment, by the way), or belief in a self, then perhaps pointing out the “fetters” might make them a bit more conscious of these hangups. But this is already in the mode of trying to reach people who don’t catch on easily.
  
  A bit farther down the scale of comprehension are people who lack the ability to understand these matters, even with motivation and careful explanation. These ones need rules and regulations so as at least to orient their ordinary lives in a direction away from harming self and others. So the Buddha did promulgate rules like that—but those rules are not for you, John, or for me. Still other humans lack any interest at all in going beyond sensual pleasures and/or the pursuit of worldly power, fame, etc. Even rules can’t help people like that. As for the heart of the teaching, the idea of “no-self” is anathema to such folks. That’s just the way the cookie crumbles.
  
  If one can understand truly, there is no need for rules, and the fetters, seen as the illusion they always were, simply disappear. A word to the wise is sufficient.
  
  Suppose, however, my saying that there is no need for rules seems a bit unsatisfying. Suppose, I mean, that one genuinely wants insight into true nature, but is perplexed as to how to go about it. Instead of concentrating upon avoiding or overcoming the “ten fetters”—which to me seems quite a negative focus--let me offer instead a list of positives that one might consider.
  
  The Buddha at one point spoke of seven factors that lead to enlightenment. Here is his list (followed by my understanding of the terms he used):
  
  Mindfulness—noticing ones present surrounding and internal states as one lives from moment to moment—not being lost in thought.

Investigation--open-minded, in-depth consideration of teachings and other ideas—staying away from unexamined beliefs and hearsay—refusing to engage in debates—not claiming to know things which one really does not know.

Energy—the expression of a healthy outlook backed up by healthful habits.

Joy—noticing the happiness inherent in being at all, regardless of circumstances 

Relaxation/tranquility—applied to both body and mind.

Concentration --a one-pointed focus of mind, which deals with one thing at a time without hurry or anxiety.

Equanimity—facing the ordinary vicissitudes of living with calmness of mind and with detachment and dispassion.

NDM:  Lastly, what are your views on this below by Swami Sivananda?

The following rules would be very useful to those who are trying to observe Brahmacharya in thought, word and deed.

 

1.   Give up evil company, loose talks, cinemas and televisions, and newspapers and magazines dealing with sex and love. Do not mix freely with the opposite sex. If this is found unavoidable in the course of the daily duties of life, a male can mentally address a member of the opposite sex as ‘mother’. A female can address a male as ‘father’. Sri Ramakrishna used to look upon all women as forms of the Divine Mother. Anadamayi Ma, the well-known saint of Bengal who lived during recent times, used to address all elderly males as ‘Pitaji’ (father) or ‘Baba’.

2.   Keep your head bowed down while you walk in the street.

3.   Minimise your needs. Do not look into the mirror often. Lead a rigorous, disciplined life.

4.   Avoid looking at the mating of insects, animals and birds.

5.   Do not ride too much on a bicycle.

6.   Root out love of leisure and ease. Overcome laziness and always be engaged in some useful work. Let the mind be always occupied in the study of spiritual literature or some active work along useful lines. Let there be no time for idle pleasure.

7.   Let the work you do be a source of joy. Find pleasure in your work. Let it not be done under compulsion. The mind turns away from that which it does not like, and then takes recourse to other objects for getting pleasure. You should work freely and happily, so that there may not be occasions for the mind to resort to unhealthy practices. Work for the sake of God. Then all work will become interesting. Take to hard physical labour but do not exhaust yourself. Do your work as a hobby. Then you can do it happily.

8.   Do Sirshasana, Sarvangasana and Siddhasana. Practise deep breathing and Bhastrika Pranayama. Take long walks. Take part in games and sports.

9.   Take cold baths if you can. Do not use perfumes and fashionable dress. Do not attend dance or music parties. Do not sing worldly songs. You may take part in Kirtan and Bhajan without trying to display your musical talent.

10.  Do not smoke or take drugs or alcohol. They are harmful to the body and mind. Avoid non-vegetarian food.

11.  Give up tea, coffee, pungent foods and excess of sweets and sugar. Take them moderately if you cannot give them up altogether. If possible, fast once a week. Take only milk and fruit on that day. Do not take milk without mixing a little ginger with it. Avoid pungent, stimulating dishes, sauces, savouries and pastries.

Robert Saltzman: This list, in my view, is pure foolishness.

Don’t ride too much on a bicycle? Give me a break! Don’t watch animals mating? Why? Because the friction of the bicycle seat or the cooing of the mating doves might remind you of everything you are trying to repress? That is really sad. Asceticism is really sad. The Buddha, who had practiced austerities, said as much:

“Neither abstinence from fish or flesh, nor going naked, nor shaving the head, nor wearing matted hair, nor dressing in a rough garment, nor covering oneself with dirt, nor sacrificing to Agni, will cleanse a man who is not free from delusions.”

So rules like Sivananda’s will never “cleanse the man who is not free from delusions.” The fantasy that celibacy leads to “enlightenment” is a major, big-time delusion. Freedom cannot derive from repressing or avoiding anything, I say.

There is only one “path” to freedom: insight leading to understanding. Once that occurs, one will know what to do and not do. Questions about behavior, whether involving food, sex, or anything else, won’t even arise. And inappropriate desires will simply evaporate because one knows—with certainty—that there is nothing in their satisfaction but the next go-round on the wheel of pleasure/pain/pleasure/pain.

More from the Sermon At Benares: “"He who recognizes the existence of suffering, its cause, its remedy, and its cessation has fathomed the four noble truths. He will walk in the right path.” In other words, the understanding mind requires no “path,” but blazes its own right path, moment by moment. This, I dare to add, is my true experience.

By the way, the Buddha was trained in the Vedas, and his message, although often relying on Vedic language, was in many ways a frank rejection of those traditions—certainly a complete rejection of the kind of rulebook Sivananda seems to have in his pants pocket.

 

END OF INTERVIEW