Not-self, meditation, and awakening.
While I am not a qualified teacher, or even an experienced meditator, I do not agree that the Buddha’s position was that one cannot actively develop mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom. In fact, it seems to me that the Buddha did indeed encourage his followers to develop these things. To begin with, the Buddha taught that whatever is impermanent is stressful, and whatever is stressful is not-self. The goal of Buddhism is to essentially take this [analytical] knowledge, along with a specific set of practices, as a stepping stone to what I can only describe as a profound psychological event in the mind. Nevertheless, that does not mean that I believe the teachings on not-self are understood to deny individuality (MN 22) as well as individual effort (attakara), far from it. I believe that their intended purpose it to merely point out the ultimately unsatisfactory nature of the psycho-physical entity consisting of mind and matter in a variety of ways as well as the insubstantiality of our ego which is built upon these five, fleeting phenomena, not to suggest that mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom cannot be developed. Even though we have no real control over the unsatisfactory and impermanent nature of our existence, and this is evident by the fact that we cannot say, “Let my body be thus, Let my body not be thus. Let my feelings … perceptions … mental processes … consciousness be thus. Let my my feelings … perceptions … mental processes … consciousness not be thus” (SN 22.59), if you try to move your arm, your arm still moves. In other words, do not let the teachings on not-self lead to inaction but to right action.
The way I see it, craving is the cause of suffering, and to end suffering its cause must be removed; the difficulty arises when it comes to how exactly this is done. My theory is that craving is a very subtle aspect of the mind, or better put, that craving is a very subtle but powerful aspect of our psychology. It is there, latent in the mind, waiting to exert its influence through mental fabrications by directing or at the very least encouraging the mind to desire sensory experiences, to desire becoming, or to desire non-becoming, i.e., it is the “appetite” of the mind to feed upon sensory experiences via the five clinging-aggregates, the desire to desire. The problem is that these processes of subtle movement in the mind are so subtle that they are almost impossible to discern as they are taking place. That is where I believe meditation comes in; meditation helps to calm and still the mind so that these mental events become easier and easier to observe. One, in effect, uses conditionality in order to fabricate controlled states of mental absorption until they are able to discern the presence of craving, its movement in the mind, and the fact that even these refined and subtle states of mental absorption are ultimately stressful and unsatisfactory. This leads one to develop dispassion, and dispassion leads one to cease fabrication thus opening the doors to the deathless by ending the chain of causation. Therefore, my suggestion would be to stick with whatever method of meditation you find to be more conducive to attaining states of mental absorption and supplement that with a moderate amount of study to strengthen right view.
(That would be Matt, I think!)....
OK everyone, try again now..........
How much did you 'feel' whilst you wrote and posted that for us?
How deeply did that cut with you?
To be honest, the post was originally intended as a response to a dilemma that someone is having with their meditation practice, and I thought that it would be a good idea to share it here. The part that I was really replying to was:
Intellectually, I understand what Sujin Boriharnwanaket means, and it accords well with what science has to say regarding determinism and the illusion of free-will; however, I find such views to be counterproductive to the practice.
Jason
Thanks for posting the source. I disagree with the author in all respects. This is exactly the kind of nihilistic stance which I find so unwholesome and "life denying" in some sections of Buddhism. It's also entirely misguided.
Regarding the 'free will' debate, I also think that some pretty obvious stuff is omitted from the rather defeatist attitude pushed by the author. Firstly we can have some influence over our actions (albeit from a limited menu of possibilities). We can't just sprout wings or wish ourselves rich but we can and do make countless decisions every day, most motivated by the three poisons, but not exclusively.
This whole debate fails to address the main act of will. Whether it is free or not, does not come into it. It simply IS. Namely the volitional thought consciousness from which our rebirth arises. The single most significant ACT of creation. The limits upon a sentient being's possible actions arise within that act - we are the result of that and by feeding the process of ego provide fuel for the fire which consumes even ourselves. Within a deluded context this act is a locking-in to samsara, for an enlightened being it is the illusory play of the clear light mind.
Anatta (Not-Self) remains the finest meditative tool we have, as it does not allow us to anticipate anything. We do not need to cling to any ideas about a soul or self - the release can be total. To reify this into an ultimate philosophy of (No-Self) is to do something the Buddha never did.
Namaste
Kris
(Too bad you also have to be SMART to be Buddhist.
(Too bad you also have to be SMART to be Buddhist.
Jason
What I meant was, that given your recent, unfortunate mental turbulence, unrest and confusion, and given the personal trials you're experiencing, of having met a Dhamma-wall and banged head-on into it at too-many-miles-per-hour....
How much of what you're studying at the moment, resonates with you through the heart?
How much of it fills you with 'feeling?
because If you feel that it's all just 'cerebral' and it doesn't resonate with you, I'm just wondering if you don't need to take a break....?
Well, I felt that I needed to write it at the time. Not only did I have the desire to help, but I wanted to express a point of view that is generally over-looked by many "orthodox" Theravadins. In other words, it can be easy to take the Buddha's teachings on not-self as a metaphysical assertion rather than something to be used in the practice. This can lead to unproductive views, views such as one cannot develop things like mindfulness, concentration, wisdom, and those views can lead to confusion and discouragement. It certainly resonated with me because (i) I do not want to see this person disrobe and (ii) I feel that unproductive views like this need to be addressed by shifting the focus back to a more pragmatic view of the Buddha's teachings on not-self and meditation.
Jason