|
A Mind Like Water I was able to find one martial artist who claimed Enlightenment at A Mind Like Water, which is interesting all by itself. A Mind Like Water An Interview with Vernon Kitabu Turner
WIE: What, in your view, is the relationship between enlightenment and self-mastery? Vernon Turner: Well, enlightenment is first of all coming to understand that there is no self in the conventional sense. People tend to think of the self as, "Well, I'm the guy who went to this high school and had these parents, and I'm the guy who's got an accounting degree, and I worked my way through it all and achieved these things." Now that's purely an illusory self that we're talking about. Enlightenment is coming to understand or experience that there is no objective selfthere is a being, but there's no objective selfand it's in the process of letting go of that notion that one experiences what one truly is in the universal sense. That's when enlightenment comeswhen you realize that you are not in control. And because of that, you are very much in control. WIE: And how would you distinguish that from self-mastery? VT: Well, the difference may be more in terms of language than reality because enlightenment is the opening up of the eye of perception to the ultimate reality of existence itself. But on the finite scale the application would be self-mastery. In the enlightenment aspect of it there's no one there: There is no you to operate as opposed to this person or that person; your experience is complete, it's whole, it contains the cosmos. But when this enlightenment expresses itself in form, as in walking down the street, speaking and carrying oneself, then its light shines through the eyes of a single entity, and that is when it is known as "self-mastery." WIE: Do you think that perhaps the distinction may also go deeper than that? The reason I ask is because conventionally, self-mastery is associated with the achievement of a powerful and overwhelmingly positive sense of self, and certainly a very clear notion of oneselfan identitywhile enlightenment, even when it is manifested in the world of time and space, is traditionally understood much as you have described it: as the dissolution, or the transcendence, of any separate sense of self, be it positive or negative. VT: When an enlightened person is still, that's enlightenment, but the moment they move, it becomes, as I said, self-mastery, because the moment you move, you have to act in the world of particularsyou have to walk, talk, work, do all these things. Now people who observe your ability to function in this world are going to see you in this heightened state of reality; they're going to see the way you carry yourself and they're going to attribute extraordinary things to you. The point is, though, that in enlightenment you wouldn't necessarily attribute these things to yourself, and that's the main difference. But also, the enlightenment experience doesn't apply to anything in particular, whereas self-mastery can be divided into certain fields. So you could have mastery in many different fields, and yet, even with that mastery, not be enlightened in the true sense. WIE: Someone like Anthony Robbins might be an interesting example in this context because what he teachestheoretically anywaywould seem to transcend the parameters of any particular field. We're talking in this case about an individual who presents himself as, and who to all appearances seems to be, the master of himself. And it would seem to be the case that whatever he's got, whatever realization he's had, covers very systematically every aspect of his life and, as far as he's concerned, of life in general. That's more the kind of mastery that I'm interested in trying to distinguish from enlightenment. Would you say that someone like Anthony Robbins is enlightened? Or is there an attainment that lies beyond the kind of self-mastery that he has achieved? VT: No, I would not say that's enlightenment.
I would say that Robbins has an uncanny ability to master through emulation,
to model that which already exists. It's like two people who play a musical
instrument: One has studied at Juilliard, but the other one has the gift;
he can just pick up the instrument and start playing. Of course the other
one can play toohe just picks up a sheet of music and starts playing.
Well, most people would say that the guy who got his degree from Juilliard
is a superior player because he's got his degree. But in reality the person
who gets his inspiration directly from the source is the superior one
because he doesn't get it in a secondary way. We human beings have the
ability to pick things up from each otherwe do that in the first
grade, we do it from our mother when we learn how to talk, and Dr. Shinichi
Suzuki used the same method when teaching children how to play violin.
So Anthony Robbins has learned what triggers that response, a like response,
and has been able to pass that secret on to a lot of people. WIE: So practically speaking, the difference between the kind of mastery that I've used Robbins to exemplify and the condition of an enlightened individual would be VT: That the enlightened being encompasses all beings in one, while mastery is focused only on the individual being. So if you're a master flycaster, you know that I'm not getting any fish on my end because I can't even get the fly to go on the water right. You have mastered that body. But if I'm going to do that myself, I'm going to have to apply myself as you have, learn the techniques that are necessary to gain mastery over that particular fieldor whatever field. WIE: No matter how total or comprehensive that field might be. VT: Right, because even then we're still talking about mastering that field and then applying it to a particular goal or a particular life. Enlightenment is not a form of mastery in that sense, because in order for there to be a form of mastery, there has to be someone who's standing above it, and if you're already everything, then how could you stand above it, you see? If you're already everything, then why would you need mastery? WIE: The martial arts, though, would also seem to represent a particular form of mastery, and yet you've described them as a path to enlightenment. What is it that makes the martial arts a path to transcendence, or the experience of "no-self," rather than simply another powerful means of developing one's strength, one's skill, one's mastery or sense of personal accomplishment? VT: It can be approached from both directions.
The average person who studies martial arts today, and even those in ancient
periods, did so because they wanted to have physical strength in order
to be able to subdue an enemy or protect themselves, or to have a sense
of personal power. And there was also the aspect of being aggressive or
warlike as a way of earning one's living, and in that case it was a career.
But then, on the other hand, you had the spiritual people. People forget
that Bodhidharma, the twenty-eighth patriarch of the Buddha, was the one
who introduced the foundation of what is known as Shaolin Kung Fu today.
On his way to China he became aware of the dangers on the road from robbers
who would try to attack him in order to get the very important records
that he carried. So he meditated, and it was revealed to him to study
the animals, and in time he developed what came to be called the "Eighteen
Movements of Lo Han." And these Eighteen Movements evolved into Shaolin
Kung Fu and inspired many other martial arts after that. The idea was
that a person who is working for the good of humanity does not develop
an aggressive nature but a peaceful center, and his purpose is to defend,
not to attackto defend his own body, to defend loved ones, to defend
those who are weaker than himself, and never to desire to do harm even
to the one who is attacking you, never to allow yourself to become like
the evil ones who would destroy you. It's when you've developed that resolve
that the spiritual path reveals itself to you and begins to lead you in
the right direction. You'll say, "No, I will do no harm to others.
I will not be a person who is aggressive and violent. But neither will
I sit here and watch someone be destroyed when I know I should reach out
and offer a helping hand." WIE: How exactly is it, though, that this spiritual approach to the martial arts becomes a path to transcendence or enlightenment? VT: Well, when you find out that you are faced with dangerwhen you're thinking, "What am I gonna do?"see what happens if you say, "I'm not worried about it. I don't have to do anything. It'll be done." See what happens if you clear your mind and allow yourself to do exactly what is necessary, exactly what is correct. If you can do that, then when it's all over with, you'll discover that you're just there; you're an observer. And you'll discover that you've observed more than you've actually participatedthat you have learned to still your mind so that the spirit can act. The spirit does not deliberate, only the mind does, and this is what you'll discover. WIE: Traditionally I know it's said that from the enlightened perspective, the minute you think you are the doerthe minute you identify yourself as the one performing an actionin that moment you become the very expression of ignorance itself. Yet even after everything you've explained, I find it difficult not to suppose that the mastery of a challenging discipline like a martial art requires a strong sense of oneself as a powerful individual, a clear and focused understanding of what one is doing, and the will and self-confidence to prevail. Looked at in this way, of course, there seems to be an inherent contradiction between enlightenment and the mastery of a martial art. But your experience seems to suggest that this simply isn't true. VT: It isn't. It just depends on how the person approaches it. Most people approach it on a finite levelas a physical or mental ability. They develop their speed, their agility and their grace through physical exertion, working out, all those things. These are the people who come on like, "I'm the toughest guy in here. I can take all of you guys on." But the person who approaches it from the spiritual is humble, and if they were to come to him and talk that way, he'd say, "You probably could; I can see that. Look at all those muscles. Look at all that. Hey, you're too great for me." But if they were to try to attack him, they wouldn't find anybody there to attackeven though they're physically looking at the person! I've been tested by seventh-degree black belts and other top masters, and I've asked them to explain what they feel when they attack me. They say, "It's like you're not there." They say, "I thought I had you, but then you were gone!" This is because the movement comes from a higher place and it knows what the other person is going to do. I don't know what the other person is going to dobut when they try it, they discover that it's counteracted. A lot of people say, "I want to learn your technique; it's a wonderful technique." But I say, "I don't have any techniques. Yes, you saw what appeared to be a technique. But it's not a technique because I did not apply it. What you need to learn is how to come from that place where all the techniques already exist, and where the proper one will be there when you need it." And I also try to teach people that there's a difference between being a martial artist and being a warrior. A martial artist is exactly what it saysa person who studies the arts of war. But a warrior is the person himself. He doesn't have to have a black belt to be a great warrior; he has the attitude of a warrior, the spirit of a warrior. And he doesn't have to be a great athlete either because he has the heart of a warrior, and the soul of a warrior, so that when the time comes, when he faces danger, he turns to steel and does what he has to do without fear. If you're a martial artist twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, then that's all you project and that's all you are. But if you're a warriorif you're a father when your child comes up, a husband when your wife comes up, a friend when your buddy comes upthen you adapt yourself to all of those different roles and yet none of those roles are you. That's the kind of mind that when the battle starts, you're ready. Because you're not holding on to anything, you have everything at your disposal. That's how it works. WIE: In your book Soul Sword, you describe yourself as having been "a legendary defender of the weak" who "did not hesitate to come to the rescue of victims of gangs or other practitioners of violence." VT: Yes, I kept that promise I'd made when
I prayed to God as a child. When I went up to New York in the sixties,
it was completely gang-ridden, and whenever anybody was being beaten up,
I never hesitated to get in the midst of the fight and take the person
off of them. You see, the thing about the spirit is that the spirit can
say things you would never say yourself because you know you couldn't
back them upprobably you'd never even think them. So when the local
gang made a circle around me in the basement of Livingstone Baptist Church
after I'd been in New York for just a couple of weeks, I said, "How
would you like me to handle this? Would you like it one-on-one, or do
you want the group plan?" Now everybody's standing around thinking,
"Boy, he's either got to be very good, or he is crazy." Then
this guy called Karate came in, their warlord, of whom people said, "He's
a killer; he's been in jail for murder." I'd heard of Karatehis
name was written on all the buildings in graffitiso this was one
of those movie moments. They were all saying, "He's the one, Karate!
Kill him! Make an example of him!" So Karate looks at me and says,
"I'm going to kill you." And I said, "Well, you may do
that, but before you do, I'm going to take so many pieces out of you that
forever people are going to know you were in a fight with Vernon."
I looked at him and he looked at me, and then he just came up and put
his arms around me. He made room at the table and said, "Get us some
drinks!" He made peace with me. He offered to give me a girlI
said, "No, thank you." He offered to give me an apartmentyou
know, the gangs control these things. "No," I said, "I
have my own, but I really appreciate the honor." WIE: What was the source of your confidence? Has it always been the same, or did it change at some point? VT: There's a difference between the source
of my confidence, period, and my confidence in my ability to defend. They
began at different times. I was born into a Christian family and we went
to church all the timeI mean, when the door opened we were in! And
we also had worship services in our house; before we went to bed we had
to have prayer and Bible study and all thatso I came from that kind
of a family. Now what I didn't come from was a family who sat in the dark
or under trees meditating, and no one could figure that out. But in that
meditation, in that stillness, I connected with the source of life within
me, and my relationship to that was direct, so in that quietness and stillness
I felt secure and whole, and when people began to attack me, I had two
feelings: One was that I knew exactly what to do to stop the attack, and
the second feeling wasnot wanting to hurt anybody. Anyway, every
time someone was going to hit me, I would know what was going to come,
and I would also know, "I could stop this." WIE: You've written that a transformation in your martial arts practice occurred sometime after you met the Zen master Nomura Roshi, a transformation catalyzed by your initiation into the Zen meditation practice known as shikantaza and, in particular, by a powerful satori [awakening] you had while doing that practice. Did the goal of your martial arts practice change in any substantial way after this experience, or was it more or less the same as it had always been? VT: The goal of my practice didn't change because I had never wanted to be a bully in the first place, and I had the ability to fight before I had that experience in shikantaza. What happened, though, is that it deepened. My early meditation had given me my own abode, but I still needed something else, and when I met Nomura Roshi, I suddenly became aware of something outside of me, something that was beyond what I was experiencing, and I saw that I needed to take a leap. I had built up walls around myself that needed to be broken down, so for two years I practiced letting go, or droppingdropping body and mind. I remember that when I was sitting, I began to become afraid at different times because I sensed I was dying. I was very afraid. I said, "Oh, my God, I'm going to die, something is happening to me, I'm going to die." But I was advised to go ahead and die, so I decided to do just that. I said, "Well, the next time this occurs, with the life I'm living now, I'm just going to let go. I don't know what I'm doing here; what's it all about anyway? If I die, then okay." So an initiation came through Nomura Roshi that brought me into a new level. Before, I'd been more conscious of the things that were happening. Now all of a sudden it became one with me, and there was no "art" to be known as a separate experience. I became the art, wherever I went and whatever I did. WIE: After your realization, did you continue to practice forms? VT: Yes, but when enlightenment hits, forms disappear; it becomes formless. Even though what you're doing is a form, you don't cling to it, and that's the difference. There are constant and endless variations on the same theme as you come to master the principlethat's the way of the spirit. You may have a principle there because the body can only move but so many different ways; but once you've mastered that principle, it's just water flowing through, and you're not interpreting it, you're following it. WIE: Before you had this experience in shikantaza, did you already think of yourself as an individual who had "mastered himself"? VT: I never thought of myself in those terms. In fact, it was only when I met the Roshi that, being in his presence, I saw myself. And I mean that literally. For the first time I experienced myself because his being was like my being, and therefore it was like two-way communication without a word being spoken. And in that way I became defined, in a sense, because when I was a loner, there was no one like me, and I had no way of knowing who I was. But when I saw Nomura Roshi sitting there in the park, I could feel our relationship, and all my questions being answered with no questions being asked. Then I understood that I was functioning on a plane that was different from the everyday plane that my friends and associates were functioning onand that was my salvation because now my purpose was becoming clear. Before that, there was nobody to even give me the hint of who I was or what I was doing. All those years that I had been meditating, I had been sitting in shikantaza, without ever knowing that such a word even existed. WIE: One could say, then, that in that meeting, you actually acquired a notion of self. VT: Yes, but in a very different sense. "Self" with a capital "S." WIE: In light of the discovery you've been describing, I'd like to try to distinguish in a very specific way between the two attainments we've been speaking about. It would seem that an individual who has achieved an unusual degree of self-masteryperhaps we could again use the example of Anthony Robbinstends to demonstrate certain qualities: charisma, confidence, positivity, creativity and a kind of dynamic freedom. He doesn't seem to be limited in the way that many people are. But all of these qualities seem to arise from the discoveryto use Robbins's wordsof one's "personal power": the individual has developed a very deep conviction that could be articulated as "I Can." Enlightened individuals often seem to express similar qualities, but their source, you seem to be saying, lies in a different placein the discovery of being itself, in "I Am." VT: Or "Not I." WIE: Yes, that's true. "Not I." VT: Well, then, too, you're talking about
a difference in purpose. Those who function in the capacity of a spiritual
teacher, of course, would be coming from "Not I" because they
are speaking from the fundamental source. But where Anthony Robbins is
speaking from is the point of reception"I've got this. I'm
using it." And that's what he demonstrates. If there were music but
nobody who believed they could actually play it, we wouldn't have any
music, because even though music could theoretically exist, there'd be
nobody with enough confidence to pick up an instrument. So on this end
when a person wants to do something or achieve something and they don't
have any confidence, they run to Anthony Robbins and he tells them, "You
can achieve anything. If you believe in it, you can do it. Who's your
example? Who would you like to be like?" He's showing them how to
focus in order to get past their doubt and express something. WIE: In your view, is it possible for these two fundamentally different orientations toward life, "I Can" and "I Am," to coexist within a single individual? VT: Well, they do all the time. For example, some of the greatest spiritual masters write books, and when they sit down to write those books, they have confidence in their ability to translate their experience into a publishable work that people can read and understand and enjoy. So it's coming through themas a conduitbut at the same time, if it doesn't become personal, it has no reality base; it's just talk. So when they can say, "I had this experience, I know," then we see that it's actually possible for something that is universal to be experienced by an individual being. And as we listen to these people talk about their transformation, it begins to take place in us. It becomes real. It's no longer something beyond the cosmos that's happening totally unrelated to anybody in particular. WIE: I understand. But I was speaking more in terms of the individual's fundamental relationship to life. Is my relationship to life based on "my ability to do something"in other words, "I Can"or is it based on the recognition that, "prior to anything I do or say, I exist, and that what's being expressed through me is the fact that I existI Am"? It's clear from what you've just said that these two relationships to life do, practically speaking, coexist, but much of what you've said also seems to suggest that on a very fundamental level, one may at some point find oneself having to choose between them. This is not to say that action would then be excluded from one's repertoire, but that where one standswhere one locates the essence of one's beingis something that needs to be decided because what one's life is actually going to express depends upon it. Does this kind of decision accord with your own experience? VT: Yes, in the sense that if you get even
a hint of what enlightenment is, you'll give up everything for it. Because
everything that isn't enlightenment is vanishing all the time. At this
very moment there's hardly ground beneath our feet, and what ground there
is, is vanishing as we speak. People think they're awake when they're
walking around in the street, but actually they're asleep then, too. Awakening
is when you see through it allthe dream when you're asleep and the
one when you're "awake." Then you understand that the viewpoint
we have of ourselves is based on a misconceptionthat because we
perceive our personal experience as the ultimate reality when in fact
it's not, we don't approach life as we should. That's why we need enlightenment
to straighten us out. WIE: Let's speak for a moment about surrender, which is traditionally thought to mean the giving up of control, whereas mastery is generally associated with the cultivation of perfect controleven more so, generally speaking, in the martial arts, where winning clearly involves asserting one's own will over the will of one's opponent. What is the role of surrender in a practice that seems to be oriented almost inevitably toward the visible demonstration of mastery and control? VT: In a state of surrender, you're not attacking, but neither are you defending, because the action does not take place from your consciousness. On our own scale, we may look upon someone who does the Lord's bidding as a murderous person, but on the higher level where it's all played out, we are sometimes instruments, and if you are the Lord's instrument, you are not striking, which means not that you're merely saying you're not strikingyou really aren't. You are not moving, but your body moves anyway, and things definitely happen. So when people say, "That was great, that was a wonderful move," you say, "Well, I cannot take credit for that. It wasn't me." WIE: Could someone be an instrument of evil and be said to be surrendered? VT: Yes, in the sense that if a person is an instrument of evil, then they've surrendered to evil. And if we're talking about the mastery of a particular art, or a skill that comes totally under the control of that person's ego, I suppose that's possible. But if we're talking about spiritual mastery, that's a misnomer in a way because spiritual mastery makes you an instrument of the Divine, and you could not use it to do what God would not do. Your mastery takes the form of a servantyou reach out to people, you love people, you try to help transform them; you work with them, not against themand you would never do anything to harm anybody because you can't make a distinction between them and you, not even if they're bad. It's all you because it's all one. If you were to attempt to harm someone, it would pain you as much as it would them because you would feel their pain, and you wouldn't want them to suffer. So it would have to be taken out of your hands, because you'd let yourself get annihilated rather than bring harm to another. WIE: Is that what is known as the "warrior ethic"? VT: Yes. In Bushido, the word "bu"
means to cease strugglingit means that there is no one to struggle
against. Now, not all warriors embrace this ideal at the highest level,
but at the highest level it's said that the true master of the sword carries
no sword. It isn't needed, because he's the weapon. His weapon is his
continence, his stillness. His enlightenment is really something that
is not of this plane at all, and for that reason it's not something that
people can easily recognize. People can recognize mastery, because mastery
manifests on the physical plane, but people generally don't beat a path
to an enlightened person's doorstep unless they are spiritually seeking.
There are enlightened people in the world today, but most of them don't
have a highway coming to their house because most people are looking for
things in this world, and when they see somebody who seems to know how
to get these things, they're very interested. But an enlightened person
is really not that interested in this world, and in a sense the enlightened
person draws people away from the world, not into it. You see, as long
as you want to be in the world, and of the world, you can't really be
enlightened because the demands are different. In mastery, you have to
focus body and mind, and in enlightenment, you've got to let go of them. WIE: When did you begin accepting challenges? VT: When my first book of poetry, Kung Fu:
The Master, came out in 1975, the martial arts were beginning to become
quite popular, but they were always being emphasized as a violent sport.
And whenever I would do talk shows, people would ask me, because of the
title, "Do you do martial arts?" I'd say, "Yes, I do,"
and then the host would say, "Could we get a demonstration?"
"A demonstration? A poet demonstrating martial arts?"that
was their idea! So I began to do more and more of these demonstrations,
but for only one reason: to point out the unlimited freedom and power
of the spiritual way, of the Zen way. Then some people started talking
in the martial arts world: "Is this a joke, is he a charlatan, is
this for real?" So I said, "It's not me that they're attacking,
it's the truth, so I'll tell you what: I'll accept any challengers, day
or night, twenty-four hours a day." And then I started getting them! |