The Promise of Perfection

1 6 the promise of perfection Q Andrew, at the end of our discussion of gender, you brought up an issue that is obviously very important to alot of people—relationships. So Iwanted to ask you about your view on this: Do you think it is possible to be free within aromantic relationship? A Almost impossible! The sexual/romantic experience is one of the most confusing areas of human life and seems to be the hardest to get clear about. You see, the sexual/romantic experience almost always creates profound attachment—deep emotional and psychological attachment. And the problem is that if we want to be free, that is the very thing we want to liberate ourselves from. But you’re married, aren’t you? Yes, 1have been for many years. So isn’t it possible to pursue freedom together? Can’t we walk the path to enlightenment in the context of asexual/romantic relationship? the promise of perfection 95 One would hope so—but the way you’re asking the question, because it implies afear of losing something, points to exactly what the problem is. Once again, the thing about sex and romance is that it creates powerful attachment. That is its nature. It is not afree ride—unfortunately. And, therefore, unless we get our priorities clear, it’s almost inevitable that that attachment will quickly become more important to us than our own potential liberation in this life. Ihear so many people say, “We want to pursue freedom together,” but what that almost always means is that holding on to the intensely personal experience of sentimental attachment is their first priority—not the experience of profound inner freedom. But Idon’t understand why there has to be aconflict between freedom and being together. Well, it depends what you mean by freedom. From the perspective of enlightenment, to be free means to he free from attachment. Attachment means, “I have something.” But to be free means, “I have nothing.” You see, when you hold on to absolutely nothing, you are free—automatically. And the truth that liberates is the profound recognition of just that fact—that your own natural state is already free. The only thing that keeps us in bondage is the unquestioned belief that there is something fundamental that is missing from our own self. So out of ignorance of our own natural state, we bind ourselves to people and things, convinced that through creating attachment we will find happiness and content¬ ment. But it never works that way. Because where there is

96 living enlightenment attachment, there is always fear of loss. And where there is fear, there can never be real happiness or deep contentment. It is the revelation of enlightenment itself that shows all of this directly to us—the perennial truth that real happiness and the only lasting contentment lie within us as our own True Self, our own natural state, already full and complete as it is. But in this unenlightened world, we are all deeply con¬ ditioned to believe that happiness and contentment he some¬ where outside our own self. If we truly want to be free, we renounce that way of thinking. We give it up because we have had intimations of aprofound happiness that is already pre¬ sent deep within our own self, alasting contentment that will be ours only when we finally slop looking for it anywhere else. Ido feel strongly drawn toward the profound freedom you’re describing hut Ialso feel like it’s anatural thing to want to be in arelationship. From the way you’re speaking, it almost sounds like you’re advocating celibacy. I s t h a t w h a t I s a i d ? Well, not specifically... So many people tend to misinterpret what Iam saying when¬ ever Ispeak about this particular topic. It’s very revealing. This is such aloaded issue for most of us. And as Isaid earlier, it’s very difficult to see clearly into this area of the human experience, especially when it relates to ourselves. All I’m trying to do is present the facts. You asked about sex. the promise of perfection 97 romance, and enlightenment, and all I’m saying is that the definition of spiritual freedom is freedom from attachment. Sex creates attachment—that’s all there is to it. And that is why there is almost ahrays an inherent conflict between the long¬ ing for inner freedom and the karmic consequences of the sexual/romantic experience. Therefore, the big question is: If enlightened freedom is freedom from attachment, then what are we all going to do about the relentless nature of sexual a t t r a c t i o n ? Iwas hoping you were going to give me an answer to that one! Well, there have been widely differing answers to this peren¬ nial question that have been offered to men and women throughout the ages. On one extreme, we have been encour¬ aged to use the sexual experience itself as avehicle for self-transcendence and, on the other, we have been told that if we want to be liberated men and women, we have to renounce the sexual experience altogether. Ibelieve that if we want to be free, we must think very deeply about these matters for ourselves. We can’t naively assume that there is a simple, ready-made answer to such acomplex and loaded question. And if we are sincere, we have to be willing to bear the burden of that complexity on our own shoulders and figure it out for ourselves. If even enlightened masters have come to such contradictory conclusions about this fundamental issue, then it just points us back to ourselves and our own honest inquiry into one of life’s most challeng¬ ing questions. 98 living enlightenment But have you come up with an answer? Idon’t want to answer the question for you. If you want to be free, then all you need to know is that free means free from attachment. That simple fact transcends the relative matter of whether you’re in arelationship or not in arelationship. If you face that spiritual truth unflinchingly, then you will be looking into the heart of the matter for yourself. And that takes alot more courage than blindly accepting someone else’s conclusions. So then what does it mean to give up attachment? It means recognizing for ourselves that the promise of perfect happiness and blissful fulfillment inherent in sexual desire is overwhelmingly deceptive. It means that we are very clear about the difference between the personal bliss of the romantic interlude and the impersonal ecstasy of spiritual freedom. It means that we choose to renounce personal affirmation for the ecstatic contentment that emerges spontaneously when we finally stop looking outside our own self for the experience of completion. But realistically, in aworld like ours that is inces¬ santly propagating this powerful promise, if we want to be free, we all, to some degree at least, have to be willing to be renunciates! What do you mean by being arenunciate? In this context, renunciation means resisting the temptation to be seduced by the most powerful illusion that there is. the promise of perfection 99 And that illusion is? It’s what Icall “the promise of perfection.” It says: “If 1follow this impulse to its ultimate conclusion, I’m going to find per¬ fect happiness and total contentment—I will experience a deep sense of wholeness; 1will finally be complete.” We do this over and over again and continue to miss the simple truth that the bliss we experience in the romantic interlude never lasts and ultimately creates painful attachment. And also, it is only when we let go of the promise of perfection that it will become clear to us how, more often than not, the experience of romantic intoxication is fueled by the ego’s need for personal affirmation. Okay, okay... where’s the nearest monastery?! But seriously, Andrew, if what you’re saying is true, would there he any reason left to he in arelationship? Even though it’s obviously not what you mean, it still keeps sounding like you’re saying that if we want to he free, we have to give up the whole thing. Well, yes and no. Yes, if it means creating more suffocating attachment that only serves to perpetuate the illusory personal world of the separate ego. But no, if the context for personal inti¬ macy and sexual communion is authentic spiritual freedom. What does that mean? It means that we want to be free more than anything else and therefore are more interested in impersonal ecstasy than 100 living enlightenment personal bliss. It means that the context for personal intimacy and sexual communion would be the impersonal—a dimension that is unknown in this world, that is beyond ego a n d f r e e f r o m a t t a c h m e n t . And where is this impersonal dimension found? Inside your own self. When you renounce the endless self- centered concerns of the separate ego and its small personal perspective, then spontaneously you will find yourself there. That is where you will discover an ahsolute love, abliss that is empty of attachment and free from the conviction that any¬ thing fundamental is missing. And it is that context alone, which is one of inherent fullness or completion, that can make it possible for human beings to come together in per¬ sonal intimacy and sexual communion in away that is free from the pain, complexity, and unending confusion that are usually such an inherent part of this area of life. the promise of perfection 101 i