by Greg Goode
My point is not that we all have an obligation to rush out and learn these things but rather that these kinds of effective actions are types of skills. They contribute to what we think of as “in the best interest of all beings concerned in the situation” that critique 3R asserts. And being able to perform these actions at the right time is a matter of learning and cultivation, not simply a matter of non-dual insight. By critique 3R’s own definition, some kind of ethical education seems necessary.
In Favor of Ethical Teachings—Example
Here’s a simple but important example from my own life. It’s an example of how non-dual insight by itself isn’t enough to produce action that benefits all concerned. In my example, non-dual insight was assisted by something from the local context. In this case, it was a simple word. One small word served to add direction to the general openness that came from insight. That word made all the difference.
Several decades ago, while in the early stages of my non-dual inquiry, I was a freelance writer doing movie and book reviews. One week, I had the idea to write a review of a transgender (male-to-female) beauty pageant being held at a New York City bar. It would feature the usual pageant categories, including sportswear, swimwear, evening gown, and talent.
Before the event, I interviewed the bar owner. She told me that New York had a large community of male-to-female performers, dancers, singers, lip-synchers and celebrity impersonators. Some of them had undergone quite a bit of surgery. Others relied on natural looks, clothing, and makeup. Regardless, every participant had joined this event to celebrate the expression of femininity. I was fascinated and told the owner that I would like to interview some of the contestants.
At first the owner was skeptical of my intentions. Journalists had done write-ups before, and they had only poked fun at the whole scene. I replied that I was sincerely interested. I wanted to do a sympathetic review, and I promised to let her see a copy before I sent it to the editors. She said okay, and we began to walk backstage to meet some of the performers. On the way, I asked her,
“How do I refer to them? As ‘he’ or ‘she’?”
“Whoever you talk to,” she said, “treat her like a lady.”
“Lady.” “She.” Small words. But I took them deeply to heart and sincerely honored them. In a harmonious way, these words reoriented my approach to the people I met. I wrote the article, everyone at the bar loved it, and I became good friends with the owner, the members of staff, and many of the ladies. I learned that they saw themselves as ladies in wonderfully nuanced, creative, and inspirational ways. I learned about the importance and sensitivity of language in their social context. I learned that in their particular milieu, the appearance of gender is a matter of art and heart. The linguistic and gender issues assume paramount importance. If I had used the wrongly gendered word even innocently, I would’ve been invalidating the femininity they expressed so well.
I’ll always appreciate that small lesson from the bar owner. Looking back, I notice that in my original question to her, I was of course saying (and thinking) “he” first. To this day, I consider her response a simple but profound heart-centered ethics teaching that I needed in that context. I had some degree of non-dual insight (perhaps enough to ask her the question?), but to this day I don’t see how insight alone would’ve prevented me from causing others heartache and pain by using the wrong word. I needed the ethics teaching.
To summarize this objection to critique 3R, even though the critique sounds reasonable and impressive, it’s false in my experience. Some ethical teaching is needed.
There’s another reason not to accept critique 3R. What about all those people who haven’t yet realized the truth of their nature? Even if 3R were accurate about what happens upon realization, it would leave everyone else without any ethical teaching until they come to the end. Why wait?
Finally, I would like to revisit a point I made earlier in this chapter. Traditional Advaita Vedanta and Madhyamika Buddhism, which rely heavily on inquiry to foster the discovery of truth, don’t accept critique 3R or any of the other critiques of ethics I discuss. They teach ethics and don’t minimize or omit the importance of ethics. According to these paths, the ethical orientation you have before insight will continue after insight. As your realization deepens, your understanding will deepen. Your creativity and spontaneity will deepen as well. But in no case do these traditions place the burden of effective ethical action on insight alone.
I find it interesting that Shri Atmananda, who doesn’t really mention ethics very much, nevertheless honors the possibility that ethical teaching can be a profound route to self-knowledge. Here’s one of the fuller examples he gives, in which he visualizes the Hindu Brahman marriage as an example of selfless love helping carry a couple to the Ultimate.
In married life they cultivate the art of selfless love, each sacrificing the interest of the lower [personal] self for the sake of the partner. Ultimately, they come to understand that each of them does not love the other for the sake of the other, but for the sake of the self in the other—the self which is indivisible and one.
Thus they are enabled to reach the ultimate Truth by following the ideal married life, of course after initiation by a Karana-guru, without the need of any other sadhana.14
The idea of selfless love assisting our understanding seems a very fruitful approach for a non-dual path. It would be helpful to incorporate teachings like this into non-dualism.
So, What Kind of Ethics?
This is where I have no specific proposals. The type of ethics one adopts is an individual matter. People who are interested in non-dual teachings come from vastly different backgrounds and have different resonances. It makes no sense to prescribe one ethical teaching across the board. Instead, as stated at the beginning of this chapter, the main point I wish to make here is that non-dual teachings should give at least some importance to ethics. The effects of the non-dual portion of a person’s spiritual teaching would be not to refute ethics or make ethics into ironclad rules but to transform ethics by integrating them with the path’s wisdom.
So my plea to others would merely be “Please, think about incorporating at least some kind of ethical considerations into how you engage and communicate spirituality.”
As for me, I’ve been doing several things along these lines, and I’ll probably do more in the future. I emphasize how ethics have been helpful in my journey. Also, when I discuss spiritual topics with people, I follow a code of ethics from the American Philosophical Practitioners Association.15 I endeavor to
do no harm;
respect the welfare, integrity, dignity, autonomy, and privacy of others;
be sensitive to alternative worldviews and philosophical perspectives;
avoid creating dependency on me;
avoid sexual intimacy or any other form of dual role that would compromise the integrity of the communicative relationship;
promote mutual understanding, cooperation, and respect between my own modality and others; and
promote ethical practice.
I don’t try to personalize the teachings or make them about me. I like to keep things down-to-earth. I don’t offer myself as someone to emulate. My style is more like that of a college professor or jovial uncle. When I work with groups of people, I much prefer the university seminar format to the satsang format. I feel that the seminar format exhibits a less dramatic power differential between teacher and students. In seminars, everyone sits around a table. The focus of attention shifts from person to person; it doesn’t stay locked on one privileged speaker. The seminar format is more like a dialogue or polylogue and less like a speech or monologue. This doesn’t mean that it isn’t experiential or that we can’t work with the body. All this is included.
There are some teaching archetypes that aren’t my style, such as fool, clown, jester, Zen master, trickster, and disapproving nun. As styles, I like them all, but I’m not wired to use any of them. I’m also content not to use the famous “crazy wisdo
m” style. Crazy wisdom teachings can seem like a paradox or even a negation of ethics—I’m not exactly sure. But I know that many times when I’ve had discussions about the importance of ethics, people cite crazy wisdom as a way to negate the importance of ethics. They narrate examples of famous teachers doing something that onlookers considered unethical or even harmful to the student. According to the narratives, the teacher’s actions derived from a higher wisdom unavailable to onlookers and even to us as consumers of the narrative. The actions were supposed to benefit the student and to facilitate radical breakthroughs. But of course crazy wisdom has also served as a defense for selfish and harmful behavior on the part of the teacher. I feel fine not utilizing this method, even if it limits my options for helping others.
Transparency
I honor the thinking behind the call for teachers to be transparent about what they’re doing. Transparency is a relatively new idea in non-dualism. I have a feeling that the specific implications of transparency for non-dual communication are still a work in progress. For example, how do we balance the call for transparency with respect for privacy?
Oftentimes the call for transparency in the non-dual context involves money. Indeed, Merriam-Webster’s dictionary even includes a definition of “transparent” that bears on money: characterized by visibility or accessibility of information especially concerning business practices (Merriam Webster, 11th ed., s.v. “transparent”). Is it ethical to charge for non-dual teachings? And if so, what would transparency have us report about it?
About a decade ago, there was a two-year period when I charged a sliding-scale hourly consulting fee, under the auspices of a philosophical consulting relationship, to talk about non-dual teachings. In Western culture, philosophical consulting is an ancient profession that received a new lease on life with the 1999 publication of Lou Marinoff’s Plato, Not Prozac! Applying Eternal Wisdom to Everyday Problems.16 I took a training workshop in Italy with Professor Marinoff, which, along with my formal education, qualified me for certification from the American Philosophical Practitioners Association. I continue to work with Professor Marinoff on the scholarly journal entitled Philosophical Practice. There are many types of philosophical consulting, depending on the interests of the client. The issues can be ethical dilemmas, life choices, existential questions, or issues of organizational goals.
So I created a website and began a small part-time business. I worked closely with people one-on-one, spending many hours together on the phone and in person. In the classic Hippocratic way, if I ever thought that the client could receive more effective help from another modality, such as medicine, dentistry, psychotherapy, financial accounting, or a philosophical area that I wasn’t familiar with, I would refer him or her to another practitioner right away.
Over time, it turned out that most of the reporting issues weren’t the classic philosophical problems that my fellow philosophical practitioners were getting. Instead, they were requests for help with non-dual inquiry. When this really dawned on me, I thought about the fact that all the most significant non-dual teachings I ever received came from written material, free classes, and the most casual one-on-one conversations. How could I charge others for what I had gotten for free? The very idea of charging became intolerable to me. Besides, I love talking about these things. It’s never a “job.” To this day, I follow the American Philosophical Practitioners Association’s code of ethics and help with its scholarly journal, but I no longer charge money to speak with people about these issues.
Where to Go from Here?
Again, I’m not sure about specifics. Myself, I’ll be looking for more ways to incorporate ethics into non-dual teaching. One thing I cannot recommend is a standard program or universal set of ethical guidelines for everyone to adopt. That would make no sense, given human diversity. And of course it has the makings of the dogmatic, totalitarian type of ethics teaching that people rightly reject.
When I think about the heart-opening ethics teachings that I’ve received, both inside and outside of “official” non-dual teaching contexts, I’m filled with tears of joy. And awe. These teachings have made me happier in countless ways and improved my interpersonal relationships. And I still consider myself a beginner! I consider heart-centered ethics teachings to be crucial for non-dual inquiry. In my experience, these teachings have been indispensable preparation for the mental, physical, and energetic shifts involved in non-dual insight. I can’t recommend these teachings highly enough!
Chapter 3
The Language of Joyful Irony
Dear Greg,
This is the body-mind mechanism known as Jason Andrews,17 who has written before. There has been the experience of no-self happening here. First there is the experience, but then it is gone. Can it be stable?
This organism will be in the New York City area this coming April. Would it be possible for this apparatus and that one to get together for a cup of coffee sometime? It is known that there is no time or space, and objects are just consciousness, but words must be used.
Sincerely, Jason.
In this chapter, I’d like to discuss the approach to language used in the direct path. I call this approach “nonreferential.” Simply put, nonreferentiality is an approach to language that doesn’t assume the existence of subjects or objects. Thinking in a nonreferential way about language can be a very freeing complement to self-inquiry.18
In the direct path, nonreferentiality results from seeing through the myth of objective existence. It supports the insights and direct seeings that happen in your inquiry. And if inquiry isn’t your strength, you can set it aside and engage nonreferentiality directly through language, poetry, music, and song. You can even look at vision, sense of hearing, and sense of touch as languages. One thing I like about nonreferentiality is that it yields a greater freedom of expression than our regular attitude toward language. It’s also a natural component of joyful irony, which I discuss later in this chapter and in chapter 10, “After Awareness: The End of the Path.”
The “Realist” View of Language—Representationalism
The nonreferential approach is very different from our usual way of thinking about language. Usually we feel sure that nouns refer to existing objects. We think that pronouns such as “I,” “you,” and “she” refer to existing people. And we think that sentences refer to existing facts. When someone is speaking, we sometimes get the feeling that there must be something out there for the words to refer to. Why else would there be a word for it?
Let’s call this the “representationalist” approach to language. Representationalism usually assumes some kind of relationship between words and their referents. It may be that objects cause our words through a complex chain of events. Or that words are mental pictures of objects or point to objects. Of course non-dual teachings don’t have us think about these linguistic issues too much. They try to have us get behind or beyond language. But Shri Atmananda talks about language more than many other teachers do. He provides the seeds of a helpful and freeing way to think about language. I explore more of this below.
The message from Jason above was an e-mail I received that shows how even exponents of non-dual teachings can be seduced by the representationalist approach to language. The circumlocutions in Jason’s e-mail are obvious. Plus, they make his message harder to understand. Let’s take a look at a few of them:
Avoidance of pronouns: “the body-mind mechanism,” “here,” “this apparatus”
Non-dual disclaimers: “there is no time or space,” “objects are just consciousness”
Strained passive voice: “There has been the experience…” “It is known that…”
Apology for the unavoidable: “…but words must be used”
(By the way, when Jason and I met up, we went for pizza and had a great conversation. After we sat down and ordered, he apologized again for using words. But after that, the conversation was quite normal!)
So why would someone feel the need to communicate like thi
s? I’m sure that Jason wanted me to know that he didn’t think he existed as a truly existent entity. I got that. I interpreted the circumlocutions as a kind of non-dual greeting card. But also, I got the sense that Jason was trying to be accurate. He was exercising care not to use a word to refer to something that didn’t exist. So Jason didn’t want to use the words “I” and “you,” because he was sure that the personal I and the personal you were imaginary entities that didn’t exist. He was also apologetic about referring to a month and a place to meet for coffee, because there isn’t anything that truly bears these labels. But since it’s hard to suggest a meeting in any other way, he used the terms and then apologized for using them.
In other words, Jason still subscribed to the representationalist view of language. This view depends on an unexamined duality between world and words, between what exists and its expression. If something doesn’t exist, then we shouldn’t use a word for it, because that would be assuming it does exist. In non-dually correct representationalist speech, pronouns are out. Personal names such as Jason are harder to avoid. But some speakers do avoid them. Instead of saying “the body-mind organism called Jason,” they might say “the body-mind organism here.”
Something else strikes me about this kind of communication: it’s unbalanced. It’s not impartial or equal. It allows some things and disallows others. Jason wasn’t avoiding absolutely every noun. In spite of his efforts not to refer to non-existent objects, he couldn’t succeed completely. Certain things got a pass, such as bodies, minds, words, and coffee. Why weren’t these words, which represent equally non-existent objects, avoided?
