A ‘me-self’ at the imagined centre of the person is crucial to separation-mind. Today, we’re going through this in a little more detail. But first, let me remind you why I’m doing this.
Death is something that we rarely examine. When it comes to bodily death, conventionally we accept that we can only know it from the outside of it – at least, until our time has come. Having our acquaintance with death limited to this mode of thinking (3rd-person, object mode) means that we: a) remain unprepared for death, b) don’t access the subtle dimensions of experience, and can’t recognise the dimension of life called ‘the deathless.’ That is a great loss of riches in life and death, on all levels of human experience. It means we have images of happiness that are unrealistic, unachievable. It also means the violence goes on, because it is based in ignorance of the deeper layers of consciousness. So, yesterday, I mentioned ‘rejection and selfishness’ as causes of conflict. I could say, too, that selfish happiness can’t bring happiness.
‘Rejection,’ or false separation, is an normal part of ego development, it would seem. If you want an instance, just think of the phenomenon of the ‘terrible twos,’ the phase that some developmental theorists call the ‘rapproachement.’
“The rapprochement subphase of ego development in childhood begins when the child becomes conceptually aware of his separateness from his mother. This coincides with the deflation of his grandeur and omnipotence. He becomes actually aware of his vulnerability and dependence. One possible recourse for him is to defend against the perception of vulnerability and dependency by continuing to believe in his omnipotence. In this case he develops a self that is based on this defensive sense of grandiosity, an inflated sense of self that covers up emptiness and deficiency.”
– A.H. Almaas. Pearl Beyond Price, p. 286
However, I’ll give the Buddhist language for these deeper layers. The newcomer can still get the gist of what follows, though, if they just skip the Pāli words, which are in brackets. I’m putting in the Pāli words, this time, for those who have more extensive Buddhist background.
So, I was saying: Sakka the God-king asks the Nikāya Buddha about the cause of violence. The answer is ‘rejection and selfishness’ (issā-macchariya). I think of this as: self-bias. So, Sakka then asks further questions, to unfold more deeply the inter-related mind-events which give rise to conflict. The teacher explains that this combination is related to another kind of common experience: ‘being pleased or displeased (piyappiyā).’ Say, for example, that I am mindlessly thinking of buying some delicious (fictional) Ken & Mary’s ice-cream. The thought pleases me. It may even obsess me. The thought becomes a kind of ear-worm.
If I am unreflectively pleased by the thought of Ken & Mary’s, mindlessly delighting in it, I will go into grasping and defending mode of personality. Let’s say, on top of this, I have a cancer diagnosis and my doctor has asked me to reduce sugar, and reduce my weight, and… I have good reason to abandon the thought of Ken & Mary’s, right? But the thought of tasting Ben & Mary’s is pleasing to me, and, next, I refuse abandon it.
Actually, speaking personally, as your guide, here: When I was a young meditator, I figured that musical ear-worms were just the brain’s habit, and that you just had to suffer them. Later, when my familiarity with the subtle dimensions of desire was stronger, I saw that there is a subtle delight in the thought-music which keeps them going.
Of course, the delight which we’re examining, here, can be a more subtle delight. I can pick a fight with my spouse, for example, because while arguing I feel less lonely, less isolated, more solid, strong (with false strength, but…), and so on. In other words, arguing with my loved one might please my need to feel like I’m a separate someone, or a special person. It might demonstrate to me that I’m smart, or righteous, or something.
Next, the teacher tells Sakka, that a necessary condition for being pleased or displeased is ‘desire’ (chanda); that is, some kind of seeking – a hungry desire or wilfulness. This is where i refuse to abandon the thought of Ken & Mary’s.
It’s worth my saying, here, in the context of the continued indulgence in what is not good for us, that the desires we are speaking about here – unwholesome desire – usually has to do with underlying deficiency in the personality (as Almaas mentions, above). Freud called these holes, ‘lacunae.’ These don’t get extensive treatment in the Nikāyas; however, there is the concept of a ‘barren heart-mind’ (or, cetokhila, see MN16). The ‘barren heart’ seems, to me, to be an early reference to lacunae. On the subtle level they are not just theoretical elements. They can be felt as very tangible experiences of absence.
Enough for today. Let me summarize: Conflict needs ‘rejection and self-bias.’ These need some kind of being pleased or displeased. Being pleased depends on kinds of desire: your wishes, wants, longings, hungers, and so on. We can add to the conversation between Sakka and the Nikaya Buddha, that there are ‘holes’ in consciousness (cetokhila), related to these desires.
I’ll be back with the second half of the conversation tomorrow. If you want to read the very long sutta, yourself, Thanissaro’s translation is here. Remember, all this fuels a misperception about the nature of the big life process, and your individual flow in that flow.
When desire flows,
Pleasure arises
Attached to happiness, seeking enjoyment,
People are subject to birth and death.
– Dammapada, verse 341. Translated Gil Fronsdal.