Wisdom Within Words
Emphasising the need for clear thinking, Sangharakshita discusses beliefs, concepts and perfect vision. Interview by Dharma Life magazine.
Dharma Life: Sometimes Wisdom is regarded as beyond concepts and beliefs, but you stress the importance of looking at one’s beliefs in the light of Buddhist teachings and cultivating what Buddhism calls Right View. This seems a rather unfashionable emphasis; why do you make it?
Sangharakshita: I emphasise the importance of looking at one’s views because in the modern world wrong views of various kinds are so predominant. If you seriously entertain wrong views, and if actions are based on them then, according to Buddhist teaching, one is not able to follow the spiritual path nor achieve Enlightenment. Right View is therefore regarded as absolutely crucial in Buddhism, whether understood in terms of comprehension of the Four Noble Truths or any of the other traditional formulations of the Buddha’s teaching. All are different conceptual expressions of the same spiritual realisation and go to make up the conceptual content, so to speak, of Right View.
DL: I am interested in the relationship between the concepts Buddhism teaches, and which Buddhists try to understand, and the realisation that lies behind them.
S: Sometimes I use the term Right View and sometimes I speak of Perfect Vision and the difference between the two points to a very important distinction. Perfect Vision is often explained in Buddhist texts in terms of full comprehension of the Four Noble Truths. This is not a merely theoretical or intellectual understanding, but actual Insight into that to which the teaching of the Truths refers. It is a liberating spiritual experience. One person, having had that experience of Perfect Vision, seeks to communicate it to another in conceptual terms, and one of the ways in which he does this is by saying, I have seen the Four Noble Truths
. In other words, the content of his liberating experience finds expression in terms of that particular formulation. Another person, hearing him explain the Truths, may understand them conceptually, and thus may have Right View. But he understands them only theoretically, without having the deep, comprehensive experiential realisation that, for example, the Buddha had. He only understands the Truths. So when it is a matter of the Buddha’s full comprehension — his realisation of the Four Noble Truths — I render sammaditthi as Perfect Vision; when it is a case of the purely or largely theoretical understanding on the part of the unenlightened disciple, I render the term as Right View. Right View is important because it is only on the basis of Right View that one practises the Dharma and comes to realise Perfect Vision.
DL: Is there a danger that emphasising Right View can lead to literalism or dogmatism, that emphasis on ideas can get in the way of direct practice and experience?
S: Some people believe that insistence on the correctness of any particular view is ‘dogmatic’, but I think that is a misuse of the word. Right View — as distinct from Perfect View — is a matter of theoretical understanding, and wih regard to the theoretical understanding of any spiritual teaching there is always the danger of literalism. It is as though the human mind has an inbuilt tendency to slip into literalism, however many warnings are given against it. So yes, there is certainly a possibility that teachings which are conceptual expressions of the Buddha’s spiritual experience , such as the Four Noble Truths, may be taken literalistically, but that should not be used as an argument against emphasising the importance of Right View. Emphasising the importance of Right View means drawing attention to the fact that without Right View there can be no Perfect Vision and that wrong views, therefore, are positively dangerous. If the importance of Right View is emphasised in this way — if it is seen as a means to an end — such an emphasis will not lead to literalism.
DL: Speaking of right and wrong views raises the question of authority. Who defines what is right, and on what basis? How do you see your own authority to make such judgements, especially in relation to your disciples?
S: For me as a Buddhist, the Buddha has Perfect Vision and he gives expression to that Vision in terms of Right View. Thus the ultimate authority is the Buddha. I define Right View, in the first place by referring to the Buddhist scriptures, especially those which, so far as we can make out, are nearest in time to the Buddha himself or are most likely to reflect what he actually taught. Next we have to draw upon our own understanding of those teachings. We also have to draw upon our personal experience, so far as it goes — experience that may be spiritual to some extent, or more mundane.
In my opinion no Buddhist teacher, whether in the East or in the West, is entitled to do more than that. I don’t agree with the view, taken by at least some Tibetan Buddhists, that authority resides wholly in the lama, and that you have to accept as the truth whatever the lama says. Such a sacrifice of individual judgement goes against the spirit of the Dharma and against the Buddha’s own words as they have come down to us.
In relation to my own disciples, I simply apply these principles. I have studied the Buddhist scriptures, to some extent; I have tried to put their teachings into practice; I have some experience of spiritual life and some experience of dealing with people. To that extent I have some ‘authority’ to make judgements about right and wrong views. I can’t enforce my conclusions (nor would I wish to do so), but those people who have confidence in me, especially those who say they are my disciples, will at least give careful consideration to the conclusions at which I have arrived.
DL: Wisdom is spoken of in different ways in Buddhism. Sometimes it is seen as a goal that is far above us and which we must struggle to reach; sometimes becoming wise seems to be a matter of waking up to something within us and which we already know. Borrowing terms from theology, you could call these the transcendent and immanent approaches to Wisdom. What is your own approach?
S: There are, indeed, different ways of speaking of Wisdom, and the Buddhist tradition contains examples of both the immanent and the transcendent ways. For instance, the Buddha tells us that the Dharma is deep, that it is subtle, and this could be seen as describing it in terms of immanence. My own emphasis derives from a consideration of the nature and structure of the Buddhist path. In the broadest sense, the Path is three-fold: it consists of ethics, meditation, and wisdom. Meditation goes beyond ethics, and Wisdom goes beyond meditation, just as Enlightenment goes beyond Wisdom.
You thus have a path of ascent, where the stages are not merely successive, like the stages along a road, but those of a path going up the side of a moutain. At each stage you go, no further, but higher, and of course the last stage is regarded as the highest of all. Here each stage transcends the previous one, though incorporating it. It is a path of perpetual transcendence and, since the pilgrim is the path, of perpetual self-transcendence. The goal can therefore be described as the Transcendental — meaning that which transcends everything else, especially all previous stages.
DL: In speaking of the Transcendental is there a danger that we turn it into a thing or a place?
S: Well, there is a danger of reifying any abstract noun. One just has to be aware of that; one can’t simply stop using such terms. But it ought to be clear from the context that one is not, in fact, reifying, and therefore that what one is saying is not to be taken literally. If one talks about the Dharma at all one can’t help using abstract terms. Moreover, one shouldn’t forget that the Buddhist tradition speaks of the Nirvanadhatu or ‘Sphere of Nirvana’. Nirvana being not just a state of mind, so to speak, but an objectively existing reality that one intuits through wisdom. Therefore one shouldn’t abandon languages, such as that of the Transcendental, too readily. One simply has to be aware that language has its limitations and perhaps use such terms ‘poetically’ rather than in the strict metaphysical or ontological sense.
DL: Why do you think so many other western Buddhist teachers emphasise the immanent?
S: There may now be two to three hundred western Buddhist teachers, and as far as I am aware no survey has been done to ascertain their views in this respect. But I would say that if they do not emphasise the transcendent nature of the Path they can hardly be Buddhist teachers. Not that in the Buddhist scriptures there is no mention of immanence. Even in the Pali scriptures there are two references to the fact that the mind is by nature pure. Later in the history of Buddhism, there is the Tathagatagarbha doctrine, according to which Buddha-nature is inherent within each individual. Some western Buddhist teachers emphasise immanence in this sense. But that is a dangerous thing to do.
If people are told they have Buddha-nature, they will almost inevitably think of that as something added on to their ego-personality as a sort of possession, and that misunderstanding may well prevent them from making any real effort in the direction of Enlightenment. That is not to say that there may not be some justification, philosophically, for using the language of immanence, but from a purely practical point of view it is unwise to do so.
If it is true that the language of immanence is more popular, the reason is evident. People like to be told that they are Buddha: it flatters them. Perhaps it makes then think that they don’t have much more work to do. They just have to sit there thinking — because in their case it can only be a matter of thinking — that they are Enlightened already.
DL: Similarly, there is a popular emphasis on the importance of being in the present. Some Zen practioners try to see the whole of life in this way.
S: They might do that when they are meditating, but how did they come to be there sitting on that cushion? At some point in their day they had to stop ‘being in the present’ and start thinking about just getting into the car and going along to the zendo. It’s nonsense to talk about just remaining in the present all the time in this sort of way. Actions have consequences, and this principle connects us to both the past and the future, which means that we have to think about them at times, whether we like it or not.
DL: A similar issue arises in the metaphors that are used for spiritual paths. Certain teachers, perhaps influenced by western psychology, suggest we have to explore the depths of the mind. You emphasise ascent to the heights of spiritual life. What lies behind this?
S: Buddhism itself emphasises the heights rather than the depths, in the sense that it emphasises the importance of going from a lower to a higher stage of ethical and spiritual development. If one is a Buddhist at all, one will therefore emphasise the heights in the way. Emphasising the depths can only mean emphasising going down in the opposite direction, that is to say, from the skilful to the unskilful. In Buddhism one doesn’t speak of a spiritual path that goes ‘down’. In the Sallekha Sutta the Buddha says:
Just as all unwholesome states lead downwards and all wholesome states lead upwards, so too a person given to cruelty has non-cruelty to lead him upwards. One given to killing living beings has abstention from killing living beings to lead him upwards. One given to taking what is not given has abstention from taking what is not given to lead him upwards.
One can speak of certain mental states being lower, but in Buddhism such states are hindrances. If one has within a Buddhist context the conception of a path that goes from stage to stage in an upward direction, then clearly going down means going from a relatively higher to a relatively lower stage of ethical and spiritual development — which is the direct opposite of the Buddhist life. So it’s not wise to use the language of going down into the unconscious in this connection; one should use the traditional Buddhist language, and speak of overcoming the hindrances. And clearly you are conscious of them, at least to an extent, otherwise you wouldn’t be able to overcome them.
DL: When people talk about contacting their depths rather than rising to the heights, often they’re referring to the difficult, painful aspects of reality. Doesn’t this language have value from that point of view?
S: We certainly have to look at difficult and painful things. If we have to look at our own weakenesses, and even at disastrous happenings, in the world, that may be difficult and painful. But in doing so we don’t have to speak of going down into the depths in the psychological sense, as that particular usage of the language of heights and depths is incompatible with the traditional Buddhist usage of it. Moreover, one must not forget that in Depth Psychology itself ‘depth’ is just a metaphor. One must therefore be careful not to take it too literally or to oppose the ‘going down’ of depth psychology to a ‘going up’ that is of a wholly different order.
DL: What is the particular significance for you of speaking of the heights?
S: When one says higher one really means of greater value. The conception of the Path is inseparable from a sense of values. In following the Path you feel you are going from something of lesser value to something of greater value.
DL: How significant are these issues around the metaphors we use to describe and even understand the spiritual life?
S: Language is only language. Even when one speaks of the Buddhist path it is only a figure of speech. But it is a very useful figure of speech and one that lies at the heart of Buddhism. If you take the figure of the Path too literally you will think that when you move on to the succeeding stage you leave behind the preceding stage. But that would be transferring what is true of the Path in the literal sense to the Path in the metaphorical sense. We cannot but speak metaphorically, but we have to remain aware that we are speaking metaphorically. It is not just that metaphorical language is useful — it is indispensable.
This article was originally published in Dharma Life magazine 10