LEADING ATHEIST SAM HARRIS ENDORSES MINDFULNESS AS RATIONAL SPIRITUALITY

Leading ‘new atheist’ and neuroscientist Sam Harris’ latest book Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion presents what the author [pictured left] describes as a ‘rational approach to spirituality.’ 

Not only that, this man, who is so opposed to conventional religious faith and expression, wants us to lead ‘rich, spiritual lives.’ He says that is quite possible without religion. And there's more---indeed, much more. Harris encourages us to meditate and, especially, to practise mindfulness. 

Confused? Well, you shouldn’t be. Spirituality does not require religion.

Waking Up is a rare and unexpected find, and a real treasure. Drawing upon neuroscience, cognitive psychology, and empirical philosophy Dr Harris (The End of Faith, Letter to a Christian Nation, The Moral Landscape) demonstrates that there is no separate, permanent ‘self’ at the centre of our being. This is perhaps the central thesis of the book. Consciousness is real. The person that you are is real. But your sense of 'self' is illusory.

There's more. Harris says we suffer because ‘we are all prisoners of our thoughts,’ and that includes our beliefs, prejudices, biases, opinions, views, ideas, memories, and all other attachments and aversions. We have a ‘habit of being distracted by thoughts,’ says Harris, and we fail to see things-as-they-really-are, and for most of us our experience of both internal and external reality is filtered through, and distorted by, our thoughts and the other things mentioned above.

Now back to the so-called 'self.' Harris writes that our illusory sense of self can be altered and, wait for it, even ‘extinguished’ by the regular practice of mindfulness, which in Harris’ words is ‘simply a state of clear, nonjudgmental, and undistracted attention to the contents of consciousness, whether pleasant or unpleasant.’

The book describes Harris’ own meditative practices and spiritual experiences, and also has much to say about the nature of consciousness which, says Harris, gives our lives a moral dimension. 

There are some helpful exercises and instructions in sidebars throughout the book. You can also find two audio guided meditations on the blog of Harris’ website including one titled ‘Looking for the Self.’

Waking Up is a gem. It’s also a most important contribution to naturalistic, non-religious spirituality. 

I heartily endorse the book.

RELATED POSTS

YOU’RE AN ATHEIST? THAT’S GOOD!

MINDFULNESS, THE ‘SELF’ AND SERENITY

FROM A SENSE OF SELF TO A SENSE OF BEING

A SPIRITUAL GUIDE TO MINDFUL LIVING

THE EXISTENTIAL ANGST OF OUR BEING BOTH OBSERVER AND OBSERVED

The Scottish-born Australia philosopher John Anderson [pictured left], whose Australian realism (aka Sydney realism) has greatly impacted on my overall philosophy and thinking, taught that a single logic applies to all things and how they are related, and that there are three---yes, three---‘entities’ to any relation such as seeing, having, knowing, etc, namely, the -er, the -ed, and the -ing. Let me explain. First, there is the person who sees, has or knows. Secondly, there is the thing seen, had or known. Thirdly, and most importantly, there is the act of seeing, having or knowing. 

Now, here is the really important part ... nothing, absolutely nothing, is constituted either wholly or partly by, or is dependent upon, nor can it be defined or explained by reference to, the relation(s) it has to other things. For that reason the Biblical statement ‘God is love’ [cf 1 Jn 4:8] is logically untenable as a definition of God. Thus, Anderson firmly repudiated the so-called ‘doctrine of intrinsic relations’ (or fallacy of constitutive relations), which treats relations as if they were terms, and which says that everything is intrinsically related to everything else or, at the very least, is constituted by its relations to everything else.

So, when it comes to the practice of mindfulness, we see that it is a relation involving the following three entities:

* first, the person who is mindfully aware of what is occurring from moment to moment,

* second, the thing or things of which the person is mindfully aware from one moment to the next, each such thing being an occurrence in space and time, and

* third, the act, or rather process, of being mindfully aware from one moment to the next, which includes the ever-so-important acts of mindfully remembering what is present, mindfully remembering from moment to moment to stay present in the action of the present moment from moment to moment, and mindfully remembering in the present moment what has already happened.

Three separate and distinct things---each one of which is a fact---and none of which is constituted by its relations to any of the others nor dependent on any of the others. Such is the nature of reality, according to John Anderson, and such is the nature of the practice of mindfulness which is simply the practice of being fully present in the present moment from one moment to the next.

Well, that much at least is fine---not that I expect all people to agree with that way of looking at reality---but I have come to see that, when it comes to cognitive processes, the situation is even more complicated than what I have set out above. You see, there is the person who observes, as well as the other two entities referred to above, but there is invariably something else as well, namely, the presence of a purported entity sometimes referred to as the ‘observing self’ that is regularly at work in our mind. Not only do we observe but we are aware of a ‘self’ in us that is busily … yes, observing. But there’s more. We are self-conscious beings, and not only is there this ‘observing self’ in our mind---along with many other mind-invented selves---there is also an ‘observed self,’ in that the observing self (a subject) is able to ‘split,’ so to speak, and become an ‘observed self’ (an object). So, we have the ‘I’ subject and the ‘I’ object. The latter is arguably a self-knowing ‘I’ subject, but there is considerable disputation among philosophers and psychologists about that matter. As I see it, the whole thing is a matter of consciousness---a constant stream of consciousness or thought (bhavanga-sota, in Buddhism). All these ‘selves’ are generated by the process of thinking itself. They are nothing but thoughts that ‘harden,’ so to speak,’ into selves of various kinds. No one of these selves is more real or permanent than any others. In fact, none of them is the real ‘I.’

Of course, as I’ve pointed out on so many occasions, this ‘observing self,’ along with all other such selves (eg ‘transcendental self,’ ‘immanent self,’ ‘analytical self,’ ‘judging self,’ etc), has no separate, discrete, or independent existence apart from the person each one of us is. In that sense the ‘observing self’ is false and illusory. The problem is that most of us are acutely aware of its presence and ongoing activities in our mind.

The French existentialist philosopher, novelist, and playwright Jean-Paul Sartre [pictured right] wrote about another interesting phenomenon, and it is this. The very presence, and even the potential presence, of other people tends to result in our seeing ourselves (that is, the actual persons that we are) as mere objects in other people’s consciousness. This is not the same thing as the ‘observed self’ referred to above---that is, where a person is aware of himself or herself thought of as an object. No, this is said to be a phenomenon in the world. In other words, we see ourselves as observer---further complicated and amplified by that pesky invention of a thing called the ‘observing self’---and as someone actually observed by others, and not merely as an object external to ourselves, the latter being an object which, as Sartre pointed out, exists as ‘in-itself.’ Sartre sees the latter---the object ‘in-itself, that is---as existing in both an independent and non-relational way. I prefer the Andersonian view of situationality, namely, that all things exist in situations, that is, in relationship with other things. Independent, yes. Non-relational, no.

Anyway, when it comes to our seeing ourselves as someone who is actually observed by others, some say that what we are talking about is another damn self which, like all other selves, is created in and by our mind or consciousness---some sort of ‘self-conscious observed self’ once (or is it twice?) removed. I think the phenomenon is just another manifestation of our seemingly inherent and intractable self-consciousness and, in particular, the self-knowingness of the self coupled with the mind’s ability to generate and project countless numbers of self-aware selves including ‘selves upon selves,’ so to speak, ad infinitum. Anyway, whatever it be, it is something that, in Sartre’s ontology, exists as ‘for-itself’ as it is always in relation to something else. Personally, I don’t find that distinction or classification helpful. As I see it, the self that observes is in truth the exact same self that is observed. Ditto all other selves. 

The nature of self is to be conscious of itself. All consciousness in a sense is self-consciousness, for it is the nature of consciousness to 'see' itself. Life is consciousness in a very fundamental sense (cf the findings of quantum physics), although I reject Sartre's assertion that things-in-themselves exist only as objectivized by consciousness. Life, as I see it, consists of living things living out their livingness (actually, self-livingness) from one moment to the next, so it necessarily follows that life---that is, consciousness or be-ing-ness---is a state or rather process of self-knowingness, that is, a more-or-less constant stream of thought and consciousness, the latter consisting of observations about and reflections upon the self (or selves, to be more exact) as well as awareness of other people and the world around us, but even the latter is ‘editorialized,’ so to speak, in terms of what it external events supposedly mean for us. Everything gets filtered through, and distorted by, our collection of internally generated selves, or at least through the most dominant of them.

Now, the phenomenon of our seeing ourselves (that is, the actual persons that we are) as mere objects in other people’s consciousness is known in existentialist circles as ‘the Look.’ It is an ontological problem of no mean importance, and it tends to result in the formation of a number of interesting psychological phenomena such as an almost schizoid self-consciousness, acute or generalized anxiety, and, yes, a certain existential angst (especially when you start to ponder upon this whole damn thing). In his famous existentialist play No Exit (Huis Clos) Sartre has one of the three deceased characters in Hell, the lesbian Inèz, taunt Garcin, one of the others, declaring that she is nothing but the look that sees him---‘a mere breath on the air, a gaze observing you, a formless thought that thinks you.’

So, in Sartre’s ontology, which I don’t totally accept, each one of us is nothing but the look or gaze that sees the other.’ But, whatever we are, we are terribly self-conscious of being both the observer and the observed. Oh, the existential angst of it all! Can the observed self escape the eye of its own observer? Is there no escape, no exit, from all this? Death, perhaps? Well, not even death, according to Sartre. Read Huis Clos. There's an even greater existential problem---the inherent instability and essentially illusory nature of the self, together with the elusiveness of the human personality itself, over time. If you doubt the truth of that, read or watch the absurdist play Krapp's Last Tape by Samuel Beckett. As the failed writer Krapp listens to a 30-year-old tape recording of his own voice, a self at one moment in time is confronted with the self (or at least one of the selves) of 30 years earlier. The two selves are totally different and completely unknown, even unintelligible, to each other, so to speak. It all seems so depressing, so futile, and so hopeless. Indeed, in a very real and profound sense, it is.

The good news, as I see it, is that it is indeed impossible for there to be, at the psychological level, observation without the annoying, interfering presence and consciousness (including self-consciousness) of both the observing self and the observed self, not to mention that ‘self-conscious observed self’ phenomenon discussed above The Indian spiritual philosopher and anti-guru J. Krishnamurti [pictured below right] wrote:

When you look at a flower, when you just see it, at that moment is there an entity who sees? Or is there only seeing? Seeing the flower makes you say [i.e. think], ‘How nice it is! I want it.’ So the ‘I’ comes into being through desire, fear, ambition [all thought], which follow in the wake of seeing. It is these that create the ‘I’ and the ‘I’ is non-existent without them.

Now, Krishnamurti did indeed expressly acknowledge on several occasions that there certainly is an entity, in a physical sense, who observes---namely, the person who observes. However, what Krishnamurti strongly disputed was the idea that there was, at the psychological level, a separate, independent, permanent, stand-alone entity called the ‘observing [or witnessing, or perceiving] self’ … or any of the other ‘selves’ for that matter. Yes, we do indeed tend to operate as if there was such an entity, and to a very large extent our misbelief in the separate and independent existence of such an entity only helps to bring it into psychological being and keep it alive. Worse, as Sartre pointed out, we also tend to perpetually see ourselves as an actual object in other people’s consciousness.

True meditation, said Krishnamurti, is:

… the understanding of the whole activity of thought which brings into being the ‘me’, the self, the ego, as a fact. Then thought tries to understand the image which it has created, as though that self were something permanent. This self again divides itself into the higher and the lower and this division in turn brings conflict, misery and confusion. The knowing of the self is one thing and the understanding of how the self comes into being, is another. One presupposes the existence of the self as a permanent entity.

Krishnamurti went on to say that ‘if you consider the self a permanent entity, you are studying a self which is non-existent, for it is merely a bundle of memories, words and experiences.’ True meditation---Krishnamurti didn’t use the word ‘mindfulness’ but that it what he was talking about---is ‘to see the movement of every thought, to understand it, to be aware of it, is to come to that silence which is meditation, in which the “observer” never is.’

Artist and copyright owners unknown.

All rights reserved. (Original source: The New Yorker?)

In truth, there is at the ontological level only you (that is, the person who you are), the person or other object observed, and a state of observation in your mind. Ideally, when you are mindfully ‘at one’ with the person or object observed, the observer and the observed become one, so to speak, and there then is at the psychological level nothing but pure observation and choiceless awareness of ‘what is.’ In true meditation, or mindfulness, the so-called ‘observing self,’ along with all other selves including the so-called ‘transcendental self,’ ‘analytical self,’ ‘judging self,’ and ‘observed self,’ disappears from consciousness. So, as Krishnamurti says, when you truly look---that is, just look and not judge, compare, analyze, interpret, name, etc---at a flower, you just see the flower, and at that moment---please note those words, ‘at that moment’--- there is no psychological entity that sees. Nor, for that matter, is there then any sense or consciousness of our seeing ourselves (that is, the actual persons that we are) as objects in other people’s consciousness.

Now, if we can but extent this choiceless and seamless seeing from one moment in time to the next, and then on to the next, and so on, there will then be nothing but observation. We will come to see things as they really are---in many cases, for the very first time. In time, we will become so engrossed in what we are doing that we will cease seeing ourselves (that is, the actual persons that we are) as objects in our own minds as well as objects in other people’s consciousness.

Gone will be the so-called ‘observing self,’ the ‘observed self,’ and the so-called ‘self-conscious observed self.’

RELATED POSTS

WHY NOT EXPERIENCE REALITY WITHOUT THINKING? NOW, THAT’S A GOOD IDEA!

 

MINDFULNESS, PROFESSOR JOHN ANDERSON AND THE FACTICITY OF THINGS

ARE YOU IN PRISON? (CHANCES ARE YOU ARE BUT DON’T KNOW IT)

‘Being convinced that self, manifested in various ways, was what

had defeated us, we considered its common manifestations.’

Alcoholics Anonymous.

‘Emancipate yourself from mental slavery,

None but ourselves can free our minds!’

Bob Marley.

Well, are you in prison? You will probably say, ‘Of course, I’m not,’ unless you actually happen to be reading this post while behind bars. However, I suggest to you that it is highly likely that you are in imprisonment to a greater or lesser extent. Please read on.

If there is a bedrock or foundational idea in Buddhism it is the teaching with respect to dukkha (Pāli; Sanskrit: duḥkha). Life is said to be characterised by dukkha. Now, this word dukkha is usually translated into English as ‘suffering’ or ‘dissatisfaction,’ but there is no one single English word that is adequate to describe or rather compress all the aspects of the meaning of the word dukkha. For want of a better word, the English word ‘unsatisfactoriness’ comes closest as it arguably includes almost everything which dukkha embraces---things such as, but not limited to, unfulfilled desire, suffering (both physical and mental), distress, dissatisfaction, discomfort, discontent, disquiet, disharmony, pain, sorrow, heartache, affliction, bodily ailments, misery, unhappiness, anguish, angst, anxiety, depression, stress, tension, insecurity, unease, dis-ease, conflict, separation, alienation, frustration, emptiness, and insubstantiality. All these things make for imprisonment.

Unsatisfactoriness is certainly a big part of our lives. This can be demonstrated empirically. For example, get yourself into a comfortable position---and now try staying in that position for any length of time. Sooner or later you will become uncomfortable and will be forced to change your position in order to get comfortable (again). And on it goes. Now think of something joyous and uplifting. Sooner or later a disquieting or otherwise sad thought will enter your consciousness. It will happen every time. All that is satisfactory will become unsatisfactory---sooner or later ... and ordinarily sooner rather than later. One thing about Buddhism---it espouses an empirical, realist psychology. That is one of the reasons I like it.

Now, this is not to say there is no joy in life. Of course, there is joy in life, but it is undeniably true that nothing in life will satisfy us indefinitely---not even joy. Really. Sooner or later, we will always find that something that gave us joy or pleasure no longer does so. We are always searching for something new and fresh---something to relieve some state of unsatisfactoriness in our lives ... at whatever point in time. In time, that new and fresh thing becomes stale, and on it goes. The teaching of dukkha simply affirms that unsatisfactoriness is inescapable and ever-present in our lives in varying degrees from one moment to the next. Here are the written words of Shakyamuni Budhha on the nature of dukkha:

This, bhikkus, is the Noble Truth of Dukkha: birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, sickness is dukkha, death is dukkha. Presence of objects we loathed is dukkha; separation from what we love is dukkha; to not get what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha.

Yes, negativity in any way or form is dukkha, or unsatisfactoriness. Being born, aging, sickness, death, separation---all these things are or involve dukkha.

Buddhism would be very depressing if there were no ‘cure’ for dukkha, but that is not the case. However, we must first enquire as to the cause of dukkha, and according to Buddhism the cause is this---upādāna. That Sanskrit and Pāli word literally means ‘fuel.’ Heard the expression, ‘to add fuel for the fire,’ in the sense of making a problem or bad situation worse? Well, the word upādāna is used in Buddhist teachings to mean clinging, grasping, and attachment, and any and all of those things will simply add ‘fuel’ to the ‘fire’ of our lives. In short, clinging, grasping, and attachment (including aversion, being a 'reverse attachment,' but an attachment nevertheless), cause suffering, unsatisfactoriness and bondage of various kinds. Listen to these words of one of the greatest exponents and interpreters of Buddhism in the 20th century (indeed of all time), Buddhadāsa Bhikkhu [pictured above right]:

Wherever there is upādāna, right there is bondage. The bondage may be positive or negative, but both are equally binding. By regarding things and clinging to them as ‘I’ or ‘mine,’ bondage occurs. When bound to something, we get stuck in it, just like being stuck in prison.

All of the Dhamma principles of Buddhism can be summarized as: upādāna is the cause of dukkha, dukkha is born out of upādāna. …

In my counselling work, I teach and use what is called ‘self illusion therapy.’ This form of therapy was developed by a wonderful Australian psychologist Jim Maclaine (now deceased) [pictured left]. He was one of Australia's most experienced and respected drug and alcohol counsellors and addiction psychologists. He worked in that field for some 40 years and he helped literally thousands of alcoholics, other addicts, and persons with obsessional behaviour, to overcome their various addictions and obsessions, using self illusion therapy. I was one of the many persons Jim helped. Self illusion therapy works. I personally can vouch for that fact. 

Self illusion therapy will help you to overcome any and all of your problems---yes, all of them---not just those in the form of addictions. Actually, we are all addicted to something or someone, and generally several things. One of the things we are addicted to in our Western society is the whole notion of ‘self.’ Self is an illusion in a very special sense. When you truly understand what that means, you will be free from the bondage of self in all of its myriad manifestations.

The basic idea is that ‘self cannot change self,’ because ‘self,’ which in any event is simply a mental idea or image in our mind of the person we supposedly are, is the problem and, as William Temple [pictured right] pointed out, ‘no effort of the self can remove the self from the centre of its own endeavour.’ Also, ‘self,’ of which there are literally hundreds in our mind that wax and wane from one moment to the next (although some are quite persistent over time, forming part of our personality) are, as I’ve said, ‘illusory.’ 

Now, the use of the word 'illusory' in this context does not mean that these 'selves' don’t exist. It simply means they have no separate, independent, permanent existence apart from the person each one of us is. Indeed, these selves have absolutely no substance or power in and of themselves whatsoever. They are only images---not visual ones by the way---that we feel. Images of our sense of what is are. Some may be true, and some are false. Yes, they are felt images (eg ‘I am little, and less than others’). For more on this subject you may wish to read this post. Now, once a person really understands this idea, they can begin the process known as ‘letting go of self.’ The result? Freedom from bondage. Happiness. Peace of mind. Serenity. Improved relationships. And much, much more. Sounds too good to be true? Well, it is true---but letting go of anything---especially ‘self’---is never easy.

Buddhadāsa Bhikkhu, in a wonderful little pamphlet (actually, the transcript of a lecture delivered by Buddhadāsa in 1988) entitled The Prison of Life that is worth its weight in gold---it has helped me greatly in my own life---lists these ten things as the several causes of upādāna:

1. Life. Yes, life itself causes upādāna. True, life can be very enjoyable, but the far too many people live merely for the enjoyment of life. What’s wrong with that, you may ask? Well, it sounds great, but if that’s all we do, and if that is our sole aim in life, sooner or later we will become infatuated with and engrossed in life. In time, that will turn out to be a prison.

2. Instincts. We all live under the instincts. These instincts (not just the sexual ones) force us to follow their concerns and needs. Buddhadāsa notes how we all like to show off and brag---our new car, boat, house, clothes, jewelry, etc, etc. These are prisons.

3. Senses. The five senses plus the mind itself (which, in Buddhism, is considered the sixth of the senses [the six āyatana]) become senses without much trouble at all. Yes, these six āyatana are exactly what the word āyatana means, namely, tools or means for communicating with the external world, but the problem is we all end up serving---yes, serving---these senses in order to satisfy them. The result? Imprisonment to the senses.

4. Superstition. Religious people are especially prone to this one, but we are all victims of superstition to some degree or another regardless of whether or not we are religious in any formal sense. Superstition quickly becomes a prison.

5. Sacred institutions. So-called holy, sacred or ‘miraculous’ places, churches, temples, mosques, are prisons, and imprison those who cling to them.

6. Teachers. Adherents of Eastern religions are especially vulnerable to this one, but Western religions have their esteemed teachers, saviours, messiahs, as well. All so-called teachers imprison their disciples and pupils. In any event, they cannot grant you what you really need (that is, salvation, enlightenment, emancipation). At best, they can only point the way, and most of them can’t even do that. Each of us has to be our own teacher and disciple/pupil. We must look within to find the answer to our problems.

7. Holy things. Yes, things such as holy water, sacred relics, and all kinds of sacred things become prisons before you know it.

8. Goodness. We all, except the most evil of people, love good, and teach good to others, but as soon as upādāna gets mixed in with the good, the good becomes a prison. In fact, wherever there is upādāna, you will find a prison.

9. Views. There is a Pāli word for things such as personal thoughts, opinions, views, theories, beliefs, preferences,  interpretations, judgments---diṭṭhi. Yes, the conditioned mind is perhaps the main obstacles to achieving freedom from bondage to self. In order to be truly free we must learn to see things as they really are. We cannot do that when everything we see and experience is filtered through a conditioned mind. Getting rid of all beliefs, and seeing things as they really are, is what this whole blog is about. My mission in life is to get people to give up all their beliefs, and I suggest various ways in which people can do that in order to develop an unconditioned mind. Unless you do this, you will never be free from the bondage of self.

10.  Purity. Yes, purity (or innocence), like goodness, if clung to and ‘worshipped,’ or used for show and competition, soon becomes a prison. Buddhadāsa says this is the ‘highest prison.’

So, what is the answer? How do we get out of prison? The answer is ‘voidness,’ that is, not having any self, living free from self, and void of all ideas and notions of self. You see, when there is upādāna, then ‘I,’ the self (the false self) is born. For example, you May cling to tobacco. You are attached to nicotine. You are addicted. There is upādāna, and a self---one of many, many such selves---is born. ‘I need/want a smoke.’ Get the idea. Every self or ‘I’ in us (eg the ‘I’ that wants to smoke, the ‘I’ that doesn’t like chocolate, etc), every like, every dislike, every strong opinion and bias, is the result of some upādāna.  When there is no upādāna regarding ‘I,’ there is no bondage, and there is freedom from the worst bondage of all---the bondage to self and the false notion of self (attā).

All prisons are gathered in that Pāli word attā. The truth is there is no permanent, separate, independent thing as the ‘self.’ This idea is called anattā, a Pāli word that means ‘no-self’ or, more correctly, ‘not-self.’ Buddhadāsa says, ‘destroy attā, then all the prisons are finished and we won’t build any more of them ever again.’ It has been written, ‘no anattā doctrine, no Buddhism.’ The concept of anattā is bedrock to Buddhism as well as the ‘self illusion therapy’ I employ in my counselling practice. By the way, the teaching of anattā can also be found in all other major religions including Christianity, where Jesus is reported as having said, ‘I can of mine own self do nothing’ [Jn 5:30]. Having said that, self illusion therapy can be used without, and does not depend upon, any religious framework.

The Buddhist teaching of anattā affirms that there is no actual ‘self’ at the centre of our conscious--or even unconscious--awareness. Our so-called consciousness goes through continuous fluctuations from moment to moment. As such, there is nothing to constitute, let alone sustain, a separate, transcendent ‘I’ structure or entity. We ‘die’ and are ‘born’ (or ‘reborn’) from one moment to the next. You are a person---a person among persons---not a ‘self.’

The answer to your problems and mine is this---get rid of self. The key? Self-observation. Watch. Observe. Live with mindful, choiceless awareness of what unfolds as your moment-to-moment experience of life and the person that you are. ‘Tear out the foolishness that creates attā, along with attā itself,’ writes Buddhadāsa, ‘and all the prisons will be gone.’ That is the only way to be relieved of the bondage of self.

Do you think it’s time you left the prison? It’s up to you, you know. The key to unlocking the prison gate is inside you. Look within to find it. You will not find the key anywhere else.

RELATED POSTS

‘WHAT AM I TO DO WITH MYSELF?’

 

THE ILLUSORY MIND [Part 1]

 

THE ILLUSORY MIND [Part 2]

MINDFULNESS, THE SELF AND SERENITY

KNOW THYSELF! UNCHAIN THYSELF! RIGHT NOW! RIGHT NOW!

WAS JESUS A BUDDHIST? THE DOCTRINEOF ‘NO-SELF’ IN CHRISTIANITY

YOUR MIND IS ITS OWN PRISON

SLAVES OF THE 'I'---EVEN UNTO DEATH

IMPORTANT NOTICE: See the Terms of Use and Disclaimer. The information provided on this blogspot is not a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Never delay or disregard seeking professional medical advice from your medical practitioner or other qualified health provider because of something you have read on this blogspot. For immediate advice or support call Lifeline on 13 1 1 14 or Kids Helpline on 1800 55 1800. For information, advice and referral on mental illness contact the SANE Helpline on 1800 18 SANE (7263) go online via sane.org

YOU ARE AN AGGREGATE---YES, A HEAP!

Yes, you are an amalgam---a heap. Perhaps that doesn’t sound very flattering, but as the American comedian Jimmy Durante [pictured left] used to say, ‘Them is the conditions that prevails.’

The historical Buddha saw the human being as simply an amalgam of ever-changing phenomena of existence. It is written that Buddha had this to say about the matter:

The instructed disciple of the Noble Ones does not regard material shape as self, or self as having material shape, or material shape as being in the self, or the self as being in material shape. Nor does he regard feeling, perception, the impulses, or consciousness in any of these ways. He comprehends each of these aggregates as it really is, that it is impermanent, suffering, not-self, compounded, woeful. He does not approach them, grasp after them or determine 'Self for me' ['my self']--and this for a long time conduces to his welfare and happiness.

The instructed disciple of the Noble Ones beholds of material shape, feeling, perception, the impulses, or consciousness: 'This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self.' So that when the material shape, feeling, perception, the impulses, or consciousness change and become otherwise there arise not from him grief, sorrow, suffering, lamentation, and despair. (Adapted from the Samyutta Nikaya.)

The Buddha thus makes it clear that the so-called ‘self’ is only an ‘aggregate’ or ‘heap’ of perceptions and sensations. It is, in the words of Manly Palmer Hall [pictured right], ‘a summary of what is known and what is not known’. We are not a ‘self’; we are persons among persons. However, when it came to attempting to explain the conventionally accepted concept of ‘person’, the Buddha referred to various psycho-physical ‘elements’ at work in a person---the ‘five aggregates’ (skandhas [Sanskrit], khandhas [Pāli], ‘aggregates’ in English)---which are said to serve as the basis (or rather ‘bases’) of what we ordinarily designate as a ‘person.’

These ‘five aggregates’---‘aggregates’ being ‘facts’---are said to be nothing more than ‘constantly changing conglomerates of moments of materiality, sensations, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness’ (R C Lester, Theravada Buddhism in Southeast Asia, 1973: 26). The ‘five aggregates,’ which are also known as the ‘five hindrances,’ are as follows. 

First, there are the aggregates of corporeality or materiality, that is, matter or bodily form, and more specifically the physicality of the sentient being or person, being the gross physical body, gross form, together with the six sense organs (organs of sight, sound, touch, taste, smell---and the mind)---all objects regarded as being compounded entities.

Secondly, there are the aggregates of sensations and emotions (or feelings), and more specifically the physiological processes resulting from the contact of matter with matter, sense organs with objects of sense, including the five ordinary bodily senses as well as mental feeling with ‘feeling overtones.'

Thirdly, there are the aggregates of perceptions, more specifically, those of recognition and perception---being mental discriminations born of sensations, the recognition of objects and, more specifically, the capacity and power to perceive as well as recognise and distinguish between physical objects of all kinds, including the ability to comprehend the specific marks of phenomenal objects.

Fourthly, there are the aggregates of predispositions, more specifically, those of ‘dispensational’ or mental formations or factors (eg fixations and conclusions of the mind such as attitudes, beliefs and opinions), and more specifically volitions which are said to be primarily responsible for bringing forth future states of existence.

Fifthly, there are the aggregates of consciousness, that is, consciousness in the fullest sense of the word. The aggregates of consciousness are composed of moments of awareness as well as awareness of awareness (or mindfulness). Although not an ‘entity’ as such, the aggregates of consciousness binds the varied sense and feeling elements of the individual---physical awareness, bodily feeling-tone, and mental constructs---into a personalized unity, that is, the person among persons that each of us is. Moreover, these aggregates remain more-or-less continuous throughout unceasing change, until death comes with the disintegration of all the aggregates.

The Buddha, ever the empiricist and realist, acknowledged the important distinction between our perceptions or sensations of things and the things themselves, stating that ‘the senses meet the object and from their contact sensation is born’ (Paul Carus, The Gospel of Buddha, 2002[1894]: 54). Also worth noting are these words attributed to the Buddha and quoted above---‘when the material shape, feeling, perception, the impulses, or consciousness change and become otherwise.’ In other words, the same event or situation can bring about different effects, and it is also the case that different events or situations can bring about the same effect. It all depends on the ‘field’ of context (the so-called ‘causal field).

The spiritual philosopher J Krishnamurti [pictured left], although not a Buddhist, articulated a number of distinctive ideas that have much in common with Buddhist thought and teaching. For example, Krishnamurti wrote:

In uncovering what one actually is, one asks: Is the observer oneself, different from that which one observes---psychologically that is. I am angry, I am greedy, I am violent: is that I different from the thing observed, which is anger, greed, violence? Is one different? Obviously not. When I am angry there is no I that is angry, there is only anger. So anger is me; the observer is the observed. The division is eliminated altogether. The observer is the observed and therefore conflict ends. (J Krishnamurti, The Wholeness of Life, 1987[1978]: 142.)

Now, you may well ask, ‘What does all of this matter, assuming for the moment that it is true?’ Well, as I see it, it is very important. True, lasting, in-depth psychological transformation can only take place when there is, firstly, a realization that self cannot change self because self is ‘illusion,’ and secondly, there is a reliance upon a power-not-oneself. That power-not-oneself can take various forms, one of which is the personalized unity that is the person among persons that each of us is. The ‘self’ cannot change the ‘self,’ but the person can change---even if that person be little more than a heap, that is, an amalgam of ever-changing phenomena of existence.

RELATED POSTS

THE ILLUSORY MIND [Part 1]

THE ILLUSORY MIND [Part 2]

THE HEART OF BUDDHIST PSYCHOLOGY

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF BUDDHISM