oTranscendent, Immanent, and Non-Existent
I have heard more than one teacher recently proclaim that there is no such thing as Enlightenment. The context was to discourage the over-striving that Westerners can sometimes get caught up in, and to encourage a simple engagement with daily-life practice and relationships in order to realize deeper peace. This is well enough, but then there was the further assertion that such practice is the best we can do, and is indeed superior to the delusional wish for Awakening.
I found myself profoundly saddened. I hope to convey here something of why. It’s a temporary departure from my usual essay topics, which are more practice-oriented – and yet, perhaps it is not so different fundamentally. Perhaps it will spark some reflection for you on your own path and aspiration.
The great spiritual traditions point toward something that is called “Transcendent” (or “supramundane”), an experience or form of knowing that is wholly different from our ordinary world, something truly sacred. Touching this changes our life in ways we can't know ahead of time. It evokes such possibilities as awe, abiding peace, deep intuition, and the grace of connecting to something infinitely vaster than our small sense of self. It matters less what this is exactly or should be called, and is more about the change it brings, which is the highest potential for a human being.
This brings up questions for people. Some are questions of faith: Is this real, and is it actually possible to reach it? Others are about its nature: Will our experience of it always be something wondrous and unusual, or does it infuse ordinary daily existence with some sacred quality? And yet others concern how to find it: Must we leave our regular lifestyle, or can this be found within daily life?
Let us call this sacred knowing the Transcendent. The second two kinds of questions – its nature and how to find it – assume that there is a Transcendent and make a further distinction between it being truly “transcendent” (outside of normal human life) or being “immanent” (deeply immersed in life).
This dualistic framework is not necessarily helpful, but the questions behind it are not fruitless ones. In wrestling with the nature of and search for the Transcendent, it is typical that spiritual teachings go through cycles of favoring transcendence or immanence. It is important to realize that when either extreme is grasped at the expense of the other, people’s spiritual potential is undermined.
For some time in Western Buddhism, the pendulum has been swinging into the “immanent” realm. It has now reached the extreme where the very existence of the Transcendent is questioned.
But consider first the other extreme: Claiming that the Transcendent is only found outside of regular life and that it can only be found through a radical departure from such a life. This happens in Buddhism when the “unworldly” aspects of liberation are given a dominant status. It tends to alienate or discourage people through its disregard for much of the human experience.
A more balanced view is found in teachings that say that the sacred is accessible in ordinary life – that the Transcendent manifests through immanence. By spiritual development along some path, people can open to the Transcendent and include it as part of their life.
But it is also possible to fall into the opposite extreme. When immanence is given a dominant status, the Transcendent can seem extra and even unnecessary. The renunciation needed to open to the Transcendent may be downplayed and eventually forgotten. Modern Buddhist teachings now include ideas such as: Freedom is found in each moment of mindfulness; liberation means nothing more than handling our daily life with more kindness; and what we really need is just to be better people. These teachings offer the comfort that one’s spiritual life does not involve changing anything about one’s family, job, leisure time, and community life.
The only thing worse than glorifying the Transcendent is denying it. All of the above sentiments can be helpful guidance at some moments of practice. But when the aspiration to find a type of freedom beyond a “more easeful daily life” is seen as unimportant – or Enlightenment is even claimed to be non-existent – “practice in the world” is rendered impotent as true spiritual practice. This is how knowledge of liberation (and the fullest human potential) is lost, and it often happens when a wisdom tradition becomes popularized. Resting in the comfort of the teachings supersedes zest for what is deeper than mundane life.
Buddhist teachings clearly state that if you only know what is in the world, you are bound to experience struggle, stress, or dissatisfaction (dukkha). Teachings in the worldly realm help people to struggle less, which is certainly a good aim, but not the Buddha’s main point. Discovering a genuine end of struggle – ie, what transcends all dukkha – is the fruit of undertaking Buddhist practice. After that discovery, it may be very appropriate to emphasize daily life practice, to delve into the intricacies of human relationship, and to serve the world from a place of genuine selflessness. Finding Nibbāna is not the end of the path, but the beginning.
I think a genuine experience of the Transcendent renders the transcendent / immanent distinction into more of a difference in flavor than in substance. Hence there are intriguing phrases that link the two, such as “Samsara is the same as Nirvana.” This is true from one perspective, and not from another. It is true if you have touched Nirvana. When you have departed the world, you “come back” in a different way. But if you have never left, such phrases are not true.
Of course, there are numerous problems with the language at this point: There is no “you,” and the Transcendent lies outside of time (and hence there is no “before” or “after” or “coming back”). But just because the language fails to specify or describe does not mean that it fails to point. There is the Transcendent. Please don’t let anyone shortchange you on that. What you do to find it – and especially what you do afterwards – is up to you.
So now we can talk about the path. It takes many forms. Certainly we do not have to be monastics to practice deeply. The Buddha also said that we do not have to consciously wish for Awakening; we must only create the conditions for it (SN 22.101). However, the conditions include confidence in the Buddha’s Awakening (SN 48.12), appropriate attention to wisdom teachings (AN 2.126), and practice in accordance with the Dhamma (SN 55.5).
Generating such conditions requires some degree of faith and understanding. Every now and then, someone has a genuine experience of the Transcendent without teachings or practice, but the vast majority of us will need to put in some deliberate effort and also learn the art of letting go. What this entails is highly individual, but it certainly involves some renunciation of other activities and aims, and some changes to our relationships and lifestyle.
It is easy to dismiss the Transcendent, the mystical, the sacred, the divine, because many forces in conventional society, and even some within spiritual movements, draw us away from the attitudes and practices that support finding it. The most reliable foundation is the longing or aspiration in your own heart; through connection with this, you can meet resources (people, teachings, practices, etc) that foster your path. Dismissing the Transcendent sacrifices what is of greatest value in the human heart.
Although my teachings span a range, they come from an underlying aim of conveying strategies for Awakening, typically in the form of practices and viewpoints. I can only teach authentically from a Buddhist perspective, but I don’t think this is the only valid path. And even within Buddhism, there are many skillful ways to awaken the heart. I continue to walk my own path, partly for the purpose of pointing the way more accurately for others.
Why do you practice?
I have heard more than one teacher recently proclaim that there is no such thing as Enlightenment. The context was to discourage the over-striving that Westerners can sometimes get caught up in, and to encourage a simple engagement with daily-life practice and relationships in order to realize deeper peace. This is well enough, but then there was the further assertion that such practice is the best we can do, and is indeed superior to the delusional wish for Awakening.
I found myself profoundly saddened. I hope to convey here something of why. It’s a temporary departure from my usual essay topics, which are more practice-oriented – and yet, perhaps it is not so different fundamentally. Perhaps it will spark some reflection for you on your own path and aspiration.
The great spiritual traditions point toward something that is called “Transcendent” (or “supramundane”), an experience or form of knowing that is wholly different from our ordinary world, something truly sacred. Touching this changes our life in ways we can't know ahead of time. It evokes such possibilities as awe, abiding peace, deep intuition, and the grace of connecting to something infinitely vaster than our small sense of self. It matters less what this is exactly or should be called, and is more about the change it brings, which is the highest potential for a human being.
This brings up questions for people. Some are questions of faith: Is this real, and is it actually possible to reach it? Others are about its nature: Will our experience of it always be something wondrous and unusual, or does it infuse ordinary daily existence with some sacred quality? And yet others concern how to find it: Must we leave our regular lifestyle, or can this be found within daily life?
Let us call this sacred knowing the Transcendent. The second two kinds of questions – its nature and how to find it – assume that there is a Transcendent and make a further distinction between it being truly “transcendent” (outside of normal human life) or being “immanent” (deeply immersed in life).
This dualistic framework is not necessarily helpful, but the questions behind it are not fruitless ones. In wrestling with the nature of and search for the Transcendent, it is typical that spiritual teachings go through cycles of favoring transcendence or immanence. It is important to realize that when either extreme is grasped at the expense of the other, people’s spiritual potential is undermined.
For some time in Western Buddhism, the pendulum has been swinging into the “immanent” realm. It has now reached the extreme where the very existence of the Transcendent is questioned.
But consider first the other extreme: Claiming that the Transcendent is only found outside of regular life and that it can only be found through a radical departure from such a life. This happens in Buddhism when the “unworldly” aspects of liberation are given a dominant status. It tends to alienate or discourage people through its disregard for much of the human experience.
A more balanced view is found in teachings that say that the sacred is accessible in ordinary life – that the Transcendent manifests through immanence. By spiritual development along some path, people can open to the Transcendent and include it as part of their life.
But it is also possible to fall into the opposite extreme. When immanence is given a dominant status, the Transcendent can seem extra and even unnecessary. The renunciation needed to open to the Transcendent may be downplayed and eventually forgotten. Modern Buddhist teachings now include ideas such as: Freedom is found in each moment of mindfulness; liberation means nothing more than handling our daily life with more kindness; and what we really need is just to be better people. These teachings offer the comfort that one’s spiritual life does not involve changing anything about one’s family, job, leisure time, and community life.
The only thing worse than glorifying the Transcendent is denying it. All of the above sentiments can be helpful guidance at some moments of practice. But when the aspiration to find a type of freedom beyond a “more easeful daily life” is seen as unimportant – or Enlightenment is even claimed to be non-existent – “practice in the world” is rendered impotent as true spiritual practice. This is how knowledge of liberation (and the fullest human potential) is lost, and it often happens when a wisdom tradition becomes popularized. Resting in the comfort of the teachings supersedes zest for what is deeper than mundane life.
Buddhist teachings clearly state that if you only know what is in the world, you are bound to experience struggle, stress, or dissatisfaction (dukkha). Teachings in the worldly realm help people to struggle less, which is certainly a good aim, but not the Buddha’s main point. Discovering a genuine end of struggle – ie, what transcends all dukkha – is the fruit of undertaking Buddhist practice. After that discovery, it may be very appropriate to emphasize daily life practice, to delve into the intricacies of human relationship, and to serve the world from a place of genuine selflessness. Finding Nibbāna is not the end of the path, but the beginning.
I think a genuine experience of the Transcendent renders the transcendent / immanent distinction into more of a difference in flavor than in substance. Hence there are intriguing phrases that link the two, such as “Samsara is the same as Nirvana.” This is true from one perspective, and not from another. It is true if you have touched Nirvana. When you have departed the world, you “come back” in a different way. But if you have never left, such phrases are not true.
Of course, there are numerous problems with the language at this point: There is no “you,” and the Transcendent lies outside of time (and hence there is no “before” or “after” or “coming back”). But just because the language fails to specify or describe does not mean that it fails to point. There is the Transcendent. Please don’t let anyone shortchange you on that. What you do to find it – and especially what you do afterwards – is up to you.
So now we can talk about the path. It takes many forms. Certainly we do not have to be monastics to practice deeply. The Buddha also said that we do not have to consciously wish for Awakening; we must only create the conditions for it (SN 22.101). However, the conditions include confidence in the Buddha’s Awakening (SN 48.12), appropriate attention to wisdom teachings (AN 2.126), and practice in accordance with the Dhamma (SN 55.5).
Generating such conditions requires some degree of faith and understanding. Every now and then, someone has a genuine experience of the Transcendent without teachings or practice, but the vast majority of us will need to put in some deliberate effort and also learn the art of letting go. What this entails is highly individual, but it certainly involves some renunciation of other activities and aims, and some changes to our relationships and lifestyle.
It is easy to dismiss the Transcendent, the mystical, the sacred, the divine, because many forces in conventional society, and even some within spiritual movements, draw us away from the attitudes and practices that support finding it. The most reliable foundation is the longing or aspiration in your own heart; through connection with this, you can meet resources (people, teachings, practices, etc) that foster your path. Dismissing the Transcendent sacrifices what is of greatest value in the human heart.
Although my teachings span a range, they come from an underlying aim of conveying strategies for Awakening, typically in the form of practices and viewpoints. I can only teach authentically from a Buddhist perspective, but I don’t think this is the only valid path. And even within Buddhism, there are many skillful ways to awaken the heart. I continue to walk my own path, partly for the purpose of pointing the way more accurately for others.
Why do you practice?
