Letting Go of the Idea of Self

The Island,

An Anthology of the Buddha’s Teachings on Nirvana, by Ajahn Amaro and Ajahn Pasanno

Excerpts from Ch.14, Practices and Perspectives II

      “In order to utilize truly the legacy of the Buddha’s guidance, we need to apply the ways of practice as directly and immediately as we can. Although there are ’84,000 Dhamma doors’……being attentive to what will take us through directly is a necessary part of our practice…..we can wander along the Buddha’s path of practice in a way that is less than efficacious if we are not wisely considering how to implement that path directly and realize its true purpose.”
      I think it matters not if we are Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Muslim, or choose any combination of the myriad forms of religious belief available to the modern man and woman. Intellectually, we may know more than anyone on the planet about the concepts of all spiritual teachings, yet still be experientially ignorant. Having full and complete knowledge of the process involved in flying an airplane, sans actual experience in the air, does not a pilot make.....and certainly not one with whom I wish to fly.
      A very important aspect of understanding how to implement the teachings in my life is to pay close attention to terminology. In whatever way a two-thousand year old original manuscript may have been repeatedly translated, by dissimilar cultures in distant lands, my path seems clear. I must search for my own understanding of its essential meaning and traverse my own uncharted path with diligence. Just as the Buddha directed us to “be a lamp unto yourself,” I must take responsibility for my journey by testing every teaching against his admonition to the Kalamas:
             “Do not go by hearsay, nor by what is handed down by others, nor by what is stated on the authority of your traditional teachings. Do not go by reasons, nor by inference, nor by arguments as to method, nor by reflection on and approval of an opinion, nor out of respect, thinking a recluse must be deferred to….(rather) when these teachings, followed out and put into practice, conduce to loss and suffering – then reject them.” (Taken from the Introduction in the book by Christmas Humphreys, “Buddhism, An Introduction and Guide” and therein credited to Woodward, Some Saying of the Buddha, p. 283)
      Or in our common vernacular, check them out and if they work accept them, if not – move on.
      This morning I was paging through a Readers Digest magazine and came upon a cartoon that exemplified my point. It simply showed a curving mountain road, a broken guardrail, and a vehicle flying though the air toward the canyon below. The speech bubble coming from the vehicle read, “recalculating.” How might this be interpreted if seen by a person who is unfamiliar with motor-powered transportation, and the term “recalculating” had been translated into the language of this person living in a remote section of a vast, uncharted rain forest? I have exaggerated the situation so there is no hope of suggesting that this person could have possibly known the exact meaning of the original author. Nor would he have any familiarity with the culture in which that strange looking airborne object might belong.
      But I needn’t go as far as this to make my point. The humor would in fact, be lost even for a person living today if they had never had the experience of failing to follow the directions of a vehicles GPS navigation device. Personal experience is a necessary requisite. It is with this in mind that I offer for your own experimentation, the thoughts of those far more astute than I on the matter at hand.
      Ajahn Amaro writes, “A central part of the direct path of the Buddha is ‘letting go’ or ‘not clinging.’ This is something we must do in the present and recognize the result in the here and now. The degree to which we are able to let go, together with the correctness or appropriateness of that letting go, is what will determine its effect.” He goes on to explain that there are four types of clinging that are instrumental in our suffering and that “when we are able to relinquish these forms of clinging and the ignorance on which they are based, the heart has the opportunity to experience freedom.”
      The four types of clinging pointed to by the Buddhist teachings are clinging to (1) sensual pleasures, (2) views, (3) rules and observances, (4) the doctrine of self. Furthermore, the scripture states that when one does not cling, one is not agitated, and when one is not agitated then one personally attains Nirvana. So it seems quite clear that in order for one to attain Nirvana - release, freedom - one component in the process is to experience the letting go of the idea of self. Note: It is to "experience it for ourselves."
      He writes that there tends to be an assumption that the teachings regarding no-self are abstract and that we need someone more knowledgeable to enlighten us as to their real meaning. However they are a very practical assessment of how we can most successfully relate to the basic conditions of life as a human being. For instance, when we are able to see clearly how we cling to ideas, and in this case, that there is a separate entity called a self, we are able to recognize how these ideations are not in accord with reality; that the clinging to these misconceptions is the root of much of our suffering. He suggests that we can learn to, “step back, cool the ardor of our delusion and relax our grip in order to put down what really didn’t belong to us in the first place. Inextricably bound up with our sense of ourselves is our perception of the world outside ourselves. As the Buddha pointed out, our experience of the world is composed simply of sensate impressions making contact with sense organs; not something separate from ourselves.”
      Amaro tells us that we might see this aspect of the practice often translated under doctrines, and can be presented in very arcane or difficult to understand ways. However, he tells us that these habits of viewing the world all grow out of very common ways of framing issues in our mind and the “….permutations of clinging to the (idea) of self are…extensive.” Elsewhere he writes, “There is no distinct division between the four different forms of clinging. Having clung to sensual pleasures (or views, rites or self) doesn’t mean we are exempt from the other forms of clinging. One form of clinging can easily condition another. Similarly, unraveling one form can lead to the unraveling of others.”
      Here we are reminded of the idea of Dependent-Arising and the interconnectedness of all things. From the confluence of a sense organ with a sensation all of human experience arises and in reverse, with the extinction of any cause, the resulting condition is also extinguished. One might suggest here that when the sensual pleasures are in contact with views to which we are attached, all our beliefs arise regarding the truth or falsity of both, even though they may be in their entirety, improvable and without substance – the idea of self may come to mind here.
      He writes, “True letting go does not come about only by repeating the words of Buddha’s teaching. There needs to be an unambiguous understanding of the difficulties that ensue from grasping or clinging, and an unwavering discernment that can let go of whatever clinging leads to suffering. The mind that generates mental formations continues to create the causes for its entanglements, whether they are pleasant or unpleasant.”
      The real question then becomes “how do we let go?” and the answer is in his next statement. He says. “With wisdom as the foundation (“wisdom” being the operational term), the mind can dwell with non-clinging as its base and realize true peace by not generating any volitional formations" (mental habits, opinions, compulsions).
      He goes on to clarify further, “This ability is not a void, empty state resembling a vacuum. Instead, it is a dynamic state of equipoise that relies on a balance of faculties and discernment rooted in non-clinging.”
      It is at this juncture that I would like to reinforce the need to go into the words of another and find our own perspective within them. In the above quote he refers to “an unambiguous understanding” which we need to find concerning “our own difficulties” that arise out of grasping or clinging to ideas. This process is what the Buddha, I believe, had in mind when he admonished us be a lamp unto ourselves and to “Work out (y) our own salvation with diligence.” So, since in my experience the only thing that is ambiguous is what is proposed by others - it seems reasonable to understand the path out of ambiguity into clarity, is to put it in my own words. This however takes a commitment to the work of finding one’s own perspective on any matter. And in this particular case he tells us that the subject of our inquiry is “our own personal experiential difficulties with the process of clinging” and “the manner in which we personally suffer as a result.” No one else’s words or perspectives will suffice as the ground for our liberation. As it is often said, “It’s an inside job.”
      In addition to this personal inventory, I hear him saying there needs to be an, “unwavering discernment.” The opposite might be a “one-time” inspection. But I read “unwavering” as pointing to an abiding discernment, or awareness - that is, on-going; and it is the repetitive nature of this search for the personal suffering which arises from our clinging to ideas, that we can understand what is pointed to by his use of the term wisdom coming two sentences later.
      He is telling us that the secret to “letting go” rests in our continued commitment to looking deeply at our own experiences, now and in the past, so that we may achieve the wisdom that comes from seeing clearly, the present reality of our human condition. Furthermore, he points out that by seeing clearly, exactly how it is that our perceptions are simply the conditional interaction of sense datum with our neuro-chemical physiology, we are afforded a freedom (i.e. Wisdom) from the constraints of delusory ideations. But the last sentence is of immense importance. He reminds us not to understand the result (Wisdom, enlightenment, nirvana, bliss, etc.) as if it were a void or vacuum. Rather, that it is a dynamic state, occurring within our material existence, wherein our release from clinging and attachment is directly related to an “equipoise that relies on a balance of faculties and discernment rooted in non-clinging.” In other words we find a point of equanimity between the senses and the use of those senses to understand ourselves; the equanimity being grounded or rooted in an ongoing desire or intention to see life with the eye of (Buddha) Wisdom.
      Amaro cautions us further when he writes, "Even the right view that induces non-clinging cannot be clung to as an end in and of itself. Although it forms a central part of the path of practice – keeping us on course and focused in the present – it has to be abandoned when it has done its work, so that true release can follow.” This theme is echoed in the Sutta Nipatta as translated by Venerable H. Saddhatissa; “As a drop of water does not stick to a lotus leaf or as a lotus flower is untainted by the water, so the sage does not cling to anything –seen, heard, or thought.”
      And as to the question “Why?” let me borrow from Christmas Humphreys once again, “The ephemeral self must die, so much is clear: but what shall attain salvation, become enlightened, reach Nirvana, when this unreal, separative, misery-causing self is dead? The answer is man.”
      So now some thoughts from a previous post: Ego is a term that designates an "enduring and conscious element that knows experience," (Philosophical definition based on Random House Dictionary 2010). This definition leads us to imagine an enduring and conscious "self" refuted in the Buddhist teaching of Anatta (No-self). Robert Kennedy says, in his book Zen Gifts to Christians,“The self is the sum of its functions in the present moment.” When I imagine a function as an experience, it allows me to understand the essence of ego or self, not as an entity but rather, as a verb. A verb which denotes a mental construct (perhaps we might read as "illusion") manifested in physical behavior commonly referred to as an act of grasping, wanting, desiring, or evading.
      Now this is an important statement so let me repeat it: When I imagine a function as an experience, it allows me to understand the essence of ego or self, not as an entity but rather, as a verb. A verb which denotes a mental construct (perhaps we might read as "illusion") manifested in physical behavior commonly referred to as an act of grasping, wanting, desiring, or evading.
      In this way it becomes quite easy, in light of dependent-arising, to understand ego as an action arising out of attraction or aversion which arises out of sensory contact. Think about it - the brain, working with its biologically determined functions, responds to sensory contact, and from this arises wanting and the result is dissatisfaction or suffering.
      It stands to reason then if we stop wanting, being attached, and grasping after things, the ego or “I” will no longer arise. In the absence of wanting, this thing thought of as "me" will simply be one with whatever is, in each moment. The Buddha told us that life is suffering because of this grasping; our tendency to strive for more and more and never be satisfied. We find ourselves dissatisfied with life; we suffer from want. We tend toward becoming covetous of that which we don't have, neurotically attached to what we do, and in fear of losing it once obtained. Ego, desire, suffer; they are one and the same. We get off track when we think that ego is an actual entity. Release is in "letting-go."
      To be free from want we must disentangle the threads of "I" in the myriad tapestry of self arising from the world of form that plays behind our eyes.



Why Do I Believe That?

      In our next discussion group my friends and I will be looking at the question "Why do we believe what we do?" Not as simple a question as one might think....if one really thinks about it. And since I haven't really accepted anything at face value since I was in grade school - at least not for long - I'm going to explore this question here in the hope that it will enable me to bring more than confusion to our next meeting.
       The following is one translation of what the Buddha is reported to have said to his followers;
            "Do not believe anything simply because you have heard it.  Do not believe anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.  Do not believe anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.  Do not believe anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.  Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.  But after observation and analysis when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."

      I think the first time I heard this admonition to "be a lamp unto oneself," I was a college freshman in a previous dimension of time, far, far away. It seemed to me to be of the utmost importance even then. However I had not yet gained the necessary mental acuity to flesh out the rest of my position. I think my friends might say that the jury is still out on this issue today, but I shall avoid that digression for now.

      Some might suggest that what they believe is truth. I have been searching for "what is true" since that early introduction to what turned out to be the severely limited annals of my experience with higher education. However, as my search widened and gained more depth over the years, I came to the realization that what I might believe at any moment had absolutely no necessary connection to what should be considered Truth. Surely whatever I believe is a truth for me, but Truth is another thing altogether (as evidenced by a previous post titled Chasing One's Tale). They are in most cases totally different animals. Or at least, we should be able to agree that no clear, absolute connection can be made between them. Personally, at some point I realized that if I knew the Truth I would have no need for a belief about it.
       "So," about now you're probably mumbling to yourself, "just get on with what you do think on this subject." Fine. Here goes.

        The results of my personal inquiry into "why I believe what I believe" to date, is that it resonates with what I have experienced and/or it is the result of my best thinking on the subject. Yes, it is purely subjective. How could it be otherwise? Without some form of Divine Intervention, (which, acceptable for some perhaps, has never met the two criteria I just mentioned), how could I imagine even a moment of successful, objective reasoning on any subject, without thought? That's just not reasonable since all human reasoning is subject to the limited capabilities of our brain. As the bumper sticker on my car says, "Don't trust everything you think."

       So, in an attempt to make the definitive statement you have been eagerly awaiting I will say, "My beliefs arise out of my particular history which includes, but is not necessarily limited to, all that I have learned from my own search as well as from those influences in my particular life experience which are so deeply embedded, that I am unaware of them as constitutional influences. In short I am referring to the historical aggregate named Bob, as he is at any moment in time. In addition, my beliefs are the result of visceral/emotional experiences as they arise in each moment. And these beliefs change in direct relation to my continued effort to be open to and mindful of them.....especially when they seem troublesome, painful, or in some manner disturbing to any beliefs presently held.
       My beliefs are as impermanent as anything else in this relative existence. They arise from memories of the past as well as the hopes or desires for an imagined future, and will function as a palliative to the fears and uncertainties endemic to the human condition. Whether or not I remain entrenched in any particular belief however, is contingent on my willingness to recognize that "what I believe" is not proof of any Universal or Ultimate Truth. It represents who I am at any point in the evolving history of Bob.
       At the very mundane level, beliefs allow us to function in this life with a modicum of psychological freedom since we don't have to process and determine our position on everything that arises. We can accept some things as factual, i.e. accurately depicting reality, and move on to making everyday decisions without the burden of doubt about the minutia of everyday life.
       Beliefs however, also have a dark side if we don't hold them lightly with an open mind. To do otherwise fosters hubris; a posture in which genocide and all of man's inhumanity to man is incubated. When mankind's need to feel safe from uncertainty and change becomes an obsession, beliefs can harden into unwavering preferences and prejudices. (If you are interested you can read more on this in the previous posts titled, The Three Shuns, and Preferences and Equanimity)
       The value of the Buddha's statement, "after observation and analysis when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it" would seem intuitive. And in order to assist us in the work of observation and analysis, he spoke to us about what I personally consider the fruits of his awakening: Dependent Arising, Impermanence, No-self, and Emptiness. With a deepening understanding of these four foundations of understanding, we are able to accept the uncertainties and ever-changing nature of our existence with equanimity.

       

The Illusion of Me

      One thing I have become painfully aware of as a result of my hours on the cushion is that there is a subjective experience of physical pain. No surprise there, right? At times this pain can be lessened by any one of several methods and will often disappear all together. But at other times there is just nothing I seem to be able to do but relax and be with the experience. It's during these trying times that I have recognized that there is also, for lack of a better term, an objective recognition in the form of an observer sans the subjective, painful experience. During meditation it's as though there is a part of me sitting up in a glass enclosure watching and knowing that the sitting-me is feeling pain, without however the experiencing the pain. I actually have this image in my mind.
      Now the way that I have depicted this mental splitting is not to be misconstrued. It should be understood only as the way I envisioned the experience during meditation. It seems that I was able to separate from the actual physical sensation but needed some sort of picture and metaphoric representation of a place "to go." For some reason, possibly attached to my years in law enforcement, I created a vision comparable to the common area in a prison with the glass enclosed watch-tower in the center. Metaphorically speaking we might say that when I was able to stay within the tower I was free of the experience of pain. I have often tried to stay with that observer. I am able to do so for only a short period of time and will fall back into focusing on the physical experience once the pain is avoided.
      So much for my introduction. What I want to talk about here is the fact that when I refer to a "part of me" it implies that this me to which I claim ownership, is able to shapeshift or in some other way separate into a second....what shall we say...."alternate me?" Like that entity we hear referred to as an alter-ego perhaps. Philosophically interesting - maybe; and while helpful in describing my experience, it may not be at all helpful in understanding the notions of impermanence and no-self in Buddhist teachings. Each of us must judge for ourselves in these matters.
      So now more to the point. Ego is a term that designates an "enduring and conscious element that knows experience," (Philosophical definition based on Random House Dictionary 2010). This definition leads us to imagine an enduring and conscious "self" refuted in the Buddhist teaching of Anatta (No-self). Robert Kennedy says, in his book Zen Gifts to Christians,“The self is the sum of its functions in the present moment.” When I imagine a function as an experience, it allows me to understand the essence of ego or self, not as an entity but rather, as a verb. A verb which denotes a mental construct (perhaps we might read as "illusion") manifested in physical behavior commonly referred to as an act of grasping, wanting, desiring, or evading. In this way it becomes quite easy, in light of dependent-arising, to understand ego as an action arising out of attraction or aversion which arises out of sensory contact. Think about it - the brain, working with its biologically determined functions, responds to sensory contact and from them arises wanting and the result is dissatisfaction or suffering.
      It stands to reason then if we stop wanting, being attached, and grasping after things, the ego or “I” will no longer arise. In the absence of wanting, this thing I think of as "me" will simply be one with whatever is at the moment. The Buddha told us that life is suffering because of this grasping; our tendency to strive for more and more and never be satisfied.  We find ourselves dissatisfied with life; we suffer from want. We tend toward becoming covetous of that which we don't have, neurotically attached to what we do, and in fear of losing it once obtained. Ego, desire, suffer; they are one and the same. We get off track when we think that ego is an actual entity.
        To be free from want we must disentangle the threads of "I" in the tapestry of self arising from the world of form that plays behind our eyes.