In order to reflect further on death and ethics – that is, before I consider the ethical body, and the striking proposition that ‘Mindfulness cures death’ – I would like to define an important distinction about the body. You might have noticed that I freely use the term ‘combodiment.’ I take it from the work of Japanese Focusing-oriented psychotherapist, clinical psychologist, and doctor of medicine Akira Ikemi. In a paper (found on the Focusing Institute’s website, here) Dr. Ikemi writes:
“The English word ’embodiment’ may have a dualistic connotation originating in Western culture. An exact Japanese translation of this word does not exist. The word may have come from a cultural background where the spirit was assumed to be incarnated or ’embodied’, encapsulated in our physical bodies. The prefix ’em-‘ denotes a ‘putting into’. Thus far, this paper has described a sort of ‘com-bodiment’, where the body points beyond itself ‘altogether with’ (com-) the universe. The body is seen as a processing-generating itself with the whole universe at every moment of its living. This view of the body will be referred to as ‘combodying’.”
He “…advocates seeing bodily living as generating its own living together with the universe, and emphasizes the person’s reflexive awareness with which one can make sense of, and change one’s combodied living.”
He is presenting the body as an ongoing process of life generating life. This is lovely. I agree with his effort to move away from the implications of ’em-‘ in our word ’embody.’ (He says, by the way, there is no Japanese equivalent of ’embody,’ to use in translation).
To me, a vision of the body as being of the same intelligence that generates the planet (and exceeds even this), not only inspires me, but – more importantly – can contribute to correcting our relationship to the natural world, and can be readily confirmed in the practices of Focusing, mindfulness and meditation.
In this article he alludes to Eugene Gendlin’s assertion that the body is before perception and concept, and is already situated in and interacting with the world and the universe. In another paper Ikemi says: “I agree with Gendlin that the body is already relating to the world before perception and that starting the study of intentionality from perception greatly limits the intricate relating of the body.”
Do you see how radical this understanding of the body is? It questions two commonly held views of the body, found in most people’s talk and thoughts.
One is the idea of the body being some ‘thing,’ inside which, a mind and/or a soul ‘resides.’ The real stuff is on the non-body plane. Even if this is stated poetically – for example, “the body as a temple in which the soul is guest” – this is still a dualistic way of thinking, and hence produces stress (dukkha).
Equally, Ikemi is not suggesting that other kind of ‘thing,’ the medical, materialist body: where the body is ‘physical stuff’ only – physical stuff which gives rise to a mere appearance called ‘mind.’ In this view, the so-called physical stuff is taken as real and is the cause of the ‘hurrah’ we call ‘mind’ or ‘consciousness.’ ‘Mind’ in this neuro-biological model is known as an ‘epiphenomenon.’
The word comes from the art of rhetoric, and it refers to the flourish at the end of a speech. The fact that neuro-biologists put forward this word shows what little value they give to consciousness. To them, the real stuff of mind is in the sense organs, the nervous system – especially the brain – and the hormonal and other systems in the medically defined body. Consciousness or mind is more or less an illusion.
Now, I’m suggesting that we should use these terms – body and mind (or soul, or consciousness) – for experiences in situations, and not to establish ultimate realities – physical or mental. They are useful words (and we don’t want to throw away the medical uses, either), but we needn’t mistake the word for the reality; any more than you would mistake the pointing finger for the thing pointed at.
And, what is it that is being pointed at, with the words ‘body’ or ‘mind’? Some kind of experience. In terms of actual living experience, the body which Gendlin offers us has more power to support freedom of consciousness; so, in that context, Dr. Ikemi’s word ‘combody’ is very useful. If you are interested in a life of authentic relationship, as a base from which to contribute to the welfare of the world, I suggest that a combodying process is the more helpful way to think of a body.
Often the body is conceived as something static, but in this vision, the body is living forward freshly and creatively. Ikemi: “Combodying incorporates the past and the whole present situation, and yet it newly lives forward.”
Practices: Would your body breathe without air? If you pay attention to your breath – where does your breath and ‘the world outside’ begin and end? Putting aside perception, ideas, thought, concepts, and so on, directly come into the breath. Live the breath. Can the world ‘outside’ be separated from the breath ‘inside’? Where does the air become ‘my breath,’ and where does it cease to be ‘my breath’? If you conceive of such a place (for example, at your nose), take your attention inside that space to find where ‘my air’ ends and the ‘world’s air’ begins.
And, is ‘air’ a necessary part of the definition of ‘breath’ and ‘breathing’?
After this, what do you think of Gendlin’s statement (in A Process Model) that: “In breathing, oxygen enters the bloodstream-environment and goes all the way into the cells. The body is in the environment but the environment is also in the body, and is the body.”