by Greg Goode
Madhyamika, like traditional Advaita Vedanta, is a spiritual path in which analysis and inquiry are prominent. It also emphasizes ethical teachings as essential to realization. In Madhyamika, students are encouraged to develop deep compassion (karuna) as a prerequisite to being taught emptiness. The dialogue at the beginning of this chapter is a dramatization of this point. When meditating on compassion, followers of Madhyamika develop the sincere wish that others be happy and free of suffering. When meditating on emptiness, they meditate on how the self, other beings, and the world don’t exist in the substantial, exaggerated way we usually imagine. Emptiness and compassion are often described as two sides of the same coin.
Personally, compassion helps my meditation on emptiness in this way: it strengthens my motivation. This is a familiar phenomenon even in the everyday sense. If you’re a working person, you’ll have more motivation to continue on the job through tough times if you have a family depending on you. When emptiness meditations get tough, you’ll do a better job of sticking to them if you feel that they’ll benefit not just you but also other beings.9 And emptiness meditations can definitely get tough, because you’ll discover that you don’t exist in the inherent way you had imagined.
Practicing compassion helps me in another way as well. It fills my heart with love. It opens my heart, allowing my self-concern to diminish. In The Art of Happiness in a Troubled World, the Dalai Lama is quoted as saying, “If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion.”10
When I practice compassion, my mind feels clearer and is less demanding that inquiry satisfy the current needs of my separate self. I become more insightful, more subtle, and more able to realize emptiness.
Indeed, my own experience with this path agrees with its teachings—it’s much easier for me to realize emptiness when I approach the meditations with a compassionate heart.
Ethics and Realization
These two formal paths—Advaita Vedanta and Madhyamika—agree about the importance of an ethical outlook. When I internalize the heart-centered ethics teachings, I see beneficial effects for others and myself. One of the benefits is that the paths’ own spiritual goals seem easier for me to reach.
Do ethics still matter once you’ve reached these goals? The two paths have different rhetorical descriptions of realization. They don’t leave it up to the power of realization to impart ethical thought, speech, and action. I look at the relationship between ethics and realization in these paths in the following way. As a student of the path, you’re taught a sense of ethics and the recommended ways of interacting with people (and non-human entities). These teachings are part of your spiritual training, and they help you become a more loving, considerate person. Not only does your realization depend on this ethical orientation, your realization isn’t expected to cause a drastic change in how you treat other beings.
What I find significant for non-dualism is the fact that both of these powerful paths teach ethics in the first place. Neither path expects ethical conduct to proceed merely from realization itself. I consider this an important point for non-dualism, and I’ll return to it shortly.
Against Ethics in Non-dualism
My personal experience is that ethics are essential in non-dual teachings. But not everyone feels this way. There are several popular critiques according to which ethics should definitely not be part of non-dual teachings. You may have encountered versions of these critiques in your exploration of non-dual teachings. In what follows, I discuss three types of critiques and the reasons why they fail.
Critique 1: Ethics are counterproductive. This is the critique I’ve mentioned several times already. According to this critique, non-dual teachings should be descriptive, not prescriptive. Any kind of ethics would be a prescriptive teaching, which is a teaching that posits what we should, in some sense, do. Any prescriptive teaching can only address a so-called person. A person is not the self of awareness, but only an arising that appears to awareness. Such a teaching can’t apply to the Ultimate, which is our true nature. If a non-dual teaching keeps telling us that we should do one thing and not another, we’ll only feel more separate than we already do.
Actually, I understand this critique quite well, because I used to feel similarly about prescriptive claims of any kind. During my younger, rebellious Stirnerite phase, when people told me what I should do, it made me feel aggressive and argumentative. Looking back now, I see that I was largely objecting to ethical teachings of the dogmatic kind. Ethics taught this way tell you what you’re supposed to do and take the position that you’re already obligated, whether you agree or not. Or such ethics may threaten you with misfortune.
It seems to me that critique 1 applies only to dogmatic ethics teachings and not heart-centered ethics teachings. In my opinion, it’s the dogmatic, fear-inducing ethics teachings that give the whole subject a bad name. These ethics actually contribute to entification, the feeling of being a strongly defined and separate being. When being ethically berated in an unloving, threatening way, a person is being addressed verbally and physically as if his or her true identity is a person trapped in a body.
I can understand why people who had suffered under a system of dogmatic ethics would find relief in non-dual teachings that promise ultimate freedom without mentioning ethics.
But again, this entire critique applies only to the dogmatic approach. It fails to show why heart-centered ethics shouldn’t be part of non-dual teachings. My own experience with heart-centered ethics teachings has been extremely positive. Having experienced various kinds of heart-centered ethics teachings for myself, I’ve never found them to contribute to a sense of separation. They’ve had the opposite effect, actually, contributing to a greater feeling of freedom and connection with others.
Critique 2: Ethics are false or irrelevant. The key phrase in this critique is that “the sage is not involved.” Here’s a supporting passage from a book called Awakening to Consciousness. (I apologize for the length, but the passage deserves to appear in its entirety.)
Having totally accepted that the Source is the only doer, the Sage is constantly at peace, but equally, he is just like any ordinary person, a bodymind—computer programmed by Source registered as destiny in his genes. Therefore, the genes in a Sage may bring about an action, which could even be condemned by the society or even by the law of the Country. So, the Sage’s actions may result in some recognition from society, but also condemnation, yet the Sage is not involved in the results, as he knows he is not the doer: sometimes there may arise a sense of pleasure, a sense of regret, but never pride and arrogance, guilt and shame. The Sage does not even react if an action of his is condemned. The Sage accepts it with a sense of regret, but as it has happened, the Sage has to accept the result of that condemned action.11
According to this critique, non-dualism shouldn’t include an ethics component because there’s nothing for ethics to apply to in the first place. Actions that look like helping or harming may emanate from the “Sage,” or they may not. Whatever happens isn’t due to personal agency. There’s no personal agency anywhere. Still, having deep insight won’t change your behavior and turn you into a murderer or a bank robber. Thus, the teaching of even heart-centered ethics would be, at best, irrelevant.
One problem with the quoted passage is that the discussion of the non-existence of doership is entirely in terms of the sage. How can the sage be the only one for whom the Source is the doer? Of course the sage is defined here as one who has accepted that there’s no personal doership. But actually, according to this teaching, there’s no doer anywhere. The lack of doership itself should apply to everyone, not just the sage. Why is the position of “not involved” only for the sage? For example, in my amoralist, nihilist Stirnerite way of thinking, there was no conception of a “Sage.” The insight that nothing was to be placed above personal interests was for anyone and everyone. Under the influence of Stirnerism, I was unkind to many people. I was also “not involved�
� because I found ethics to be limiting and irrelevant. I hurt many people by being an argumentative jerk. Feeling an aggressive, arrogant, superior glee, I would start arguments and end up being insensitive and verbally hurtful. And I never felt bothered by the consequences. I was having fun! Was I covered by the “not involved” principle? Yes, because it applies to everyone. The “not involved” principle applies to amoralists and nihilists too. This doesn’t make critique 2 very appealing!
Critique 2 is partial and privileges the sage, when by rights it applies to everyone, since everyone lacks personal agency just as the sage does. This partiality leads us to the second point: this critique functions to spiritually legitimize objectionable behavior on the part of those who consider themselves enlightened.
We usually hear the anti-ethical teaching that “the sage is not involved” at precisely those times when the sage has been performing some action that others have reported is painful or harmful.12 Why is it mostly then that these ethical pronouncements about the sage are heard? This seems very convenient for the sage. The convenience seems like what Western logicians call the fallacy of special pleading, a kind of psychological fallacy, which applies a principle in an uneven way. This double standard serves to rationalize an action and benefit a particular, preselected person. Personally, I find critique 2 and its anti-ethical approach logically suspicious, psychologically unbalanced, and spiritually unhelpful.
In addition, this critique seems to be falling out of favor. These days, more and more people expect some kind of ethical accountability in the area of non-dual teachings. People find the idea of a sage who can abuse others and still be granted the status of sage to be abhorrent. This might not have been the case back in the 1990s, when non-dual teachings were new and it seemed that non-duality could do no wrong. But I think that many people involved in non-dual teachings just don’t find critiques like this one to be convincing anymore.
Critique 3: Ethics are unnecessary. Whereas critique 2 asserts that the sage is not involved in ethical or unethical behavior, this critique asserts that the sage always behaves ethically. It asserts that by virtue of being a sage, the enlightened one always acts in a loving, compassionate way that benefits all. Therefore, we don’t need to include ethics in non-dual teachings. The very event of enlightenment takes care of everything.
I’ve heard this critique delivered in two different styles. One style sounds similar to critique 2 in its defensive, rationalizing tone. It states that ethical teachings are unnecessary in a non-dual path because when a person becomes enlightened, he or she will automatically act for the good of all concerned. A proponent of this view might argue: “I realize that I’m Love, Knowledge, and Being. I no longer act from the perspective of a person; I act from the universal. As an enlightened one, I no longer have a sense of separation. Ethics can’t apply to me. All actions flowing through ‘this’ mind-body mechanism issue directly from the Love that is my nature. As unconditioned Love, I am the Absolute. The Absolute isn’t unethical, so how can any actions that flow from the Absolute be unethical?”
If I lend my ear to this presentation of critique 3, listening not for truth so much as tone, it sounds hyped and overblown. I’ve heard too many guru scandals rationalized by these elevated and self-privileging terms.
The high-toned, worshipful language sounds as if it’s trying to pull a fast one. The language has the beseeching, manipulative tone of an advertisement. Unconditional love is a quality of openness that applies to the Source, as awareness. But I feel as though I’m being asked to make a perspective shift in which I attribute this loving unconditionality to a finite, particular person who seeks to be treated in an exalted way. I feel as if I’m being asked to buy into something. I almost want to tap my pocket to make sure my wallet is still there. This critique is worded in a style that simply won’t be convincing to contemporary observers of the non-dual scene. Indeed, critiques like this one seem to be less common these days than, say, fifteen years ago.
But this critique can be stated in a more sensible way, as I examine next.
Critique 3R (revised): Ethical teachings aren’t needed because, having realized one’s true nature, one will inevitably and spontaneously act in the best interest of all beings concerned in the situation. This is a much more reasonable statement of critique 3. The crux of its meaning is that something important happens when people realize their true nature, and it has a positive effect on their behavior.
I agree about the positive effect on behavior. But I don’t agree that ethical teachings aren’t needed. Even though something fundamentally important happens when people realize their true nature, it still isn’t sufficient to guarantee that they’ll always act in the best interest of all beings concerned in the situation. In what follows, I say more about why I think ethical teachings are needed.
But first, what happens when people realize their true nature? In terms of the direct path, they realize that they’re not a person, a mind, or a body. They realize that they’re nothing other than awareness, which is the nature of all.
In an important sense, this realization isn’t personal. If I (Greg) have realized my true nature, it’s not only Greg who’s not a person or an agent of actions. There are no true persons, agents, or actions anywhere. All these things are nothing more than arisings—which is to say, nothing other than awareness. And if the transparent witness has collapsed (see chapter 9), then I can’t even seriously claim that there are arisings. Because no dualities are experienced, it doesn’t seem that anything appears, disappears, arises, or falls. Even talking about it is a nonreferential affair, more akin to poetry than science.
Greg gets out of the way. “Greg,” which used to be the central focus of actions as well as their supposed point of origin, is realized to be neither. There’s no reason to privilege Greg over anything else. There’s nothing that has any obligation to Greg. Greg is no different from a puff of smoke.
In the spirit of joyful irony, I can say that the effect on my behavior is through my mind and my heart. Even my body is reoriented.
So then what happens? I feel a vast love for everything and all beings. I feel an overwhelming love that reaches out to find ways of helping. I don’t feel a desire to harm others. Even more, I feel motivated to help promote welfare to the extent I can. I can’t find any other important reason to do anything. I can help in little ways, such as by smiling at someone on the street. And I may be called upon to help in a big way, such as by laying my life down for someone. I don’t know, and I’m not sure what’ll happen.
It’s this overwhelming love that brings me to my disagreement with critique 3R. According to critique 3R, after having realized my true nature, I will inevitably and spontaneously act in the best interest of all beings concerned in the situation. This places the entire burden of effective ethical action upon insight alone, leaving out many other critical factors.
Critique 3R claims that insight is enough. I disagree. Whatever it takes to act in the best interest of all beings concerned in the situation requires more than mere non-dual insight. I vote to add some kind of ethical teachings to the package. Even then, there’s no guarantee that effective ethical action will take place. But I think that ethical teachings make ethical action more likely. Insight, together with an ethical orientation, will equip people in mind and body with a powerful set of ways and means of treating one another more kindly.
Every once in a while, I hear stories about an enlightened person who does amazingly right and relevant things. All these “enlightened actions” are attributed solely to the person’s awakening, with no credit to the ethical and cultural education the person may have received. Why discount those formative aspects?
So Why Isn’t Insight Enough?
Non-dual realization is helpful, for sure. People who are enlightened will act without calculation and without egocentric expectations that their actions must benefit themselves. But more specificity is needed. Some kind of ethical pointers or guidelines are needed, bec
ause insight is too vague for the complexity of specific situations we encounter in life. As I discussed earlier, my own ethical education has been desultory. My parents never delivered ethical teachings to the family, and I didn’t grow up in a religious, spiritual, or heart-centered way. So I know what it’s like in practice to have no idea what to do in an ethical sense, even if I have good intentions. I know what it’s like not to have been equipped with the usual tools for helping people effectively. I didn’t spend my formative years undergoing the depth of training that produces the kind of spontaneous responses considered to constitute ethical action. Because of these aspects of my upbringing, and because I was an amoralist and a nihilist, I’m in favor of at least some amount of ethical teaching in non-dualism or any other spiritual endeavor.
This applies to the time after non-dual insight as well. In my case, my heart and mind were open and loving, but I didn’t have what musicians call “chops.” To some extent, an ethical orientation is dispositional: people build up compassionate “reflexes” through habitual compassionate action. These prepare them for spontaneous action when things are happening too fast for their mind to process. We could look at effective ethical action as being dependent on certain skills.13
For example, many skills are associated with an altruistic and beneficial orientation toward others. There are active skills, such as being able to perform CPR, execute the Heimlich maneuver, or save a person from drowning. These skills can also include speech and action. For example, my family never attended funerals. When I finally attended my first funeral as an adult, I became acutely aware of not knowing what to say. For this reason, I can imagine that at a funeral, rather than “I’m sorry,” “My sympathy to your family,” “If you ever wish to talk, I’m just a phone call away,” or “You and your loved one will be in my thoughts,” someone who had received no practical ethical education might very well say something correct in terms of non-dual insight but incredibly insensitive, such as “There are no persons. A person is merely an arising in awareness.”
