A few days ago I wrote about how discovering Jean Toliffson was a gift not only for myself, but for the readers of this blog. Since, I finished listening to her interview with Sam Harris on his Waking Up app, which made me even more appreciative of Toliffson's naturalness and humility.
She's a spiritual teacher who doesn't actually believe in either spirituality or teaching. At least, not as how those words are generally defined and used in Zen, Buddhist, Advaita, Nonduality, and similar pursuits.
That's what made her discussion with Harris so interesting. I like and respect Harris a lot. But compared to Toliffson, he comes across as much more traditional in some respects.
Over and over, Harris would express a view of his, and Toliffson would gently but firmly say something like, "I understand where you're coming from, Sam. What you're saying has value. I used to believe much as you do. However, now I don't find this perspective to be useful."
One of her favorite words is Here/Now. Toliffson is all about embracing what is happening here and now, which she correctly says is the only place and time anything can happen. For thoughts of the past or future can only occur now, and thoughts of another place can only occur here.
So what's the place of goals in spirituality? Well, to begin with, Toliffson isn't big on the very idea of spirituality, from what I can tell. I say this because "spirituality" is an abstraction. You can't experience it with your senses. This concept only exists in the human mind, not anywhere in the natural world.
Okay, but regardless of what we call it, isn't there a place for goals aimed at making us a better person? I certainly have believed in this for most of my life. Listening to Toliffson, though, it seems clear that she views goals as contrary to her view of living.
Toliffson is a practical person. She realizes that intentions, plans, goals, and such are necessary in everyday life. Today I had the goal of doing our grocery shopping. I achieved it. Now I have the goal of writing a blog post. Likely I will achieve it.
However, this is different from viewing Life Itself as needing goals.
Like, enlightenment, self-realization, mystical experiences, discarding negative emotions, higher state of consciousness. Toliffson sees these as distractions from Here/Now, especially when they're idealized as necessary components of a "spiritual" life.
Toliffson finds value in all kinds of teachings. She just doesn't view any of them as must have's for a particular person.
When Harris would talk about how he gained a lot from a certain Buddhist teacher, Toliffson would respond with something like, "That's wonderful, Sam. You got what you needed from this person. However, different people need different things at different times. What benefitted you wouldn't appeal to someone else."
This is an obvious observation. But often what's obvious gets overlooked. Of course, people differ in what they need to be content. Yet we tend to universalize our personal experience and try to fashion it into a recipe that everyone should cook up in their own minds.
I do this. Most people do. Maybe not consciously, but it is reflected in my judgments about other people when they don't adhere to some standard that I've set for myself as a desirable quality. Well, it is desirable. For me. Not for others.
I'm not setting Toliffson up as some sort of guru for those of us who don't believe in gurus. She clearly doesn't want that job. I just look upon her as a example of the sort of person who appeals to me in my increasingly non-spiritual form of spirituality.
Non-dogmatic. Open-minded. Humorous. Humble. Down to earth. Flawed. Imperfect. Human.
In a way it's crazy that I have to be reminded of how pleasant it is to manifest those qualities, whether in myself or as perceived in another person. This is simply the way lots of people are naturally. They don't have to spend years studying Zen or, like me, years studying the people who study Zen and similar practices.
But to some extent I'm still recovering from my thirty-five years of immersion in a religion, Eastern style, that taught this world is a place to escape from with the aid of a guru who was considered to be God in Human Form.
For those three and a half decades I wasn't into Here/Now. I was heavy into There/Then, as most followers of dualistic religions are, since their goal is to attain a state of consciousness far different from that of ordinary life.
Now I'm pleased to just be an ordinary person. As is Toliffson. Which helps explain why I enjoy her so much. By the way, check out her list of recommended books with reviews. Wow. Really extensive. I've read many of the books, but not nearly all of them. Very impressive list.
Discover more from Church of the Churchless
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Holy Toledo Brian
Tollifson’s book list is pretty comprehensive – an apparent who’s who of the ‘it’s all consciousness/here now/present moment set’. There’s a whole bunch of folk in there I’ve hardly heard of. However, it’s good to see some familiar faces e.g. Spira, Harris, Adyashanti, Ramana, Nisargadatta, Kabat-Zinn, JK etc. After a quick look the list seems to be light on the more traditional devotional types (I understand she’s historically more about advaita/non-duality), though Hafiz, Rumi and Kabir are mentioned. Couldn’t see any reference to Sikh Gurus and certainly nothing at all pertaining to RSSB Gurus and shabd. I find this interesting and can’t help wondering why this is the case, it’s almost as if the path you used to walk (and like myself, still seem to have this connection to), was/is a completely different trip???
Per the Be Here Now school, I think Suzuki Roshi said it all in Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind. A book I keep by my bed and have re-read countless times. The Rosh was big on practicing with “no gaining mind” and without any idealistic aka spiritual goals. Constant Zazen in every moment. That’s really all there is to Zen, and to living life fully. From all accounts of those who knew him, Suzuki Roshi did it.
Trungpa’s Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism was a huge book for me and others who were examining our Sant Mat-based orientation on garnering numinous experiences and practicing to Get Somewhere. Whatever Trungpa’s faults (I once dated one of his gopis) it’s a useful book for taking a look at one’s presumptions.
Taking a look at our presumptions is a deep topic. I like the diversity of her list, as she cites a wide variety of, let’s call them, schools of meditation.
I’d suggest though that the list itself ironically betrays a presumption: that meditation, specifically meditation on the present moment, is the summum bonum of spirituality. Encapsulated: Me, meditating on the now, is The way to finding wholeness and fulfillment, happiness, freedom from stress, etc.
I no longer believe that’s true. I no longer believe that salvation lies in the Eastern focus on “the now.” I do believe it’s *partly* true. I definitely believe that Zazen or Tolle or any other “in the now” modality is useful to us. But it’s not enough by any measure.
If meditation on the now isn’t enough, what then is missing? Well, 2 things, and they’re right there in the traditional spiritual teachings of both East and West.
Love, and Community.
The Bodhisattva ideal is very understated in Suzuki Roshi’s writings, yet is a huge part of his Buddhism. The Dalai Lama constantly talks of compassion and kindness as integral to his understanding of Buddhism. Sharon Salzburg wrote much about the benefits of metta, and that’s partly because her teacher, Dipa Ma, said that some people are better off doing nothing but metta.
I agree with that 100% I think metta meditation is actually more practically beneficial to most people’s psyches than is Goenkaesque attention to every physical sensation. I’ve found this to be so in my own meditation practice.
As for community, again, if we look at almost every spiritual tradition, we find so much about the benefits of a community of believers. Spiritual friendship, said the Buddha, is the whole of the path. Even Dogen, Grandmaster of the Now School, emphasized the significance of practicing together in his teachings. He stressed the importance of communal practice (known as “sangha”) as a fundamental aspect of Zen practice.
This is the Church of the Churchless, and we all share a certain disaffection with churches, or with certain kinds of churches. This dislike of churches is not uncommon and not without reason. But I think there’s another side to “church,” or spiritual community, that’s worth considering. Having been a regular member of a spiritual community for many years, I’ve found that community is actually *more* essential to the wholeness of my psyche than meditation is (though I meditate daily). I think church, community, sangha is extremely powerful — hence, while I think there are many worthwhile books about the spirituality of meditating on the Now, I also think the one-man band method of reading books and pursuing the now isn’t as effective as we might assume.