Tag: Sakka

Who is it Masters this World of Death and Devas

On May 6, 2016

In Body, Death, Enquiry, Focusing, Mindfulness, Positivity, Resisting Death

Today, I start by reminding my readers that occasionally we might seem to travel far from the subject of death, but everything that we are exploring is related to the topic of how to ‘cheat death,’ as the Nikāya Buddha says, and to live fully. The heart of the matter is in who you think you are. What dies? To resolve this in every cell, we need to master our minds.

So, that’s one thing. And, at the same time, the things we are exploring –especially this matter of how ‘conflict’ arises – is in the service of the planet, and nature. Humans are at war with nature. In the light of this, our approach to death is perhaps more than a symptom (though, it is at least that); because our avoidance of death might well be a cause of the war we wage on nature. So… back to our topic, which presently is our general conflict-oriented mental functioning.

One more thing, before we proceed: some people say, “Why would you look at this negative stuff! Isn’t the purpose to be happy?!” I agree that we wouldn’t want to be on a path of negativity, but if we are to understand how human flourishing happens, we’ll have to include a careful look at our negative habits. When we understand how they work, we can know how to cease feeding them. This necessarily brings some sorrow, but as it is ‘wholesome unhappiness,’ because it is transforming us deeply in the direction of peace.

If this practice of the wholesome would bring harm and suffering,
I would not ask you to cultivate it.
But as the practice of the wholesome brings benefit and happiness,
for that reason, I say, ‘Practice what is wholesome!’ –
– The Nikāya Buddha, Anguttara-Nikāya

∞

Remember, then, that ‘parts language’ is just a convention to help us explore painful states of the psyche; to find the gift in our difficult attitudes and their inter-relations. In our vignette, the person has one attitude (sadness), which is being reacted to by another attitude (dislike). Though the two are inter-dependent, they are in conflict.

Unhappiness has its gifts. The Nikāya Buddha says (in a conversation with a god called Sakka, in Digha Nikāya 21):

“I speak of happiness, ruler of gods, in two ways: where happiness is to be pursued, and where it is to be avoided. Sorrow, likewise, I speak of sorrow in two ways: where it is to be pursued or avoided. So, also, do I speak in two ways about equanimity, where it is to be pursued or avoided.”

Feeling the sadness which is already there leads us forward, whereas blocking access to the sadness in oneself will not only not lead forward, but, it will bring compounded sorrow, because a person will be in conflict with themselves.

So far we have named conflict, which involves rejection of the experience of sadness. Conflict and rejection depend on self-biases working in the person. One ‘part’ (some would say, ‘self’) thinks it has the better view on things than another part, or another person, for instance. At the root of these relative biases is the deeper one of making an object of oneself, via a false apprehension of subjectivity.

(This is probably a good place to mention the Nikāya Buddha’s concept of the triple conceit, because sub-personaities depend on their being better than, the same as, or worse than other parts, or other people. Yes, in this scheme it’s conceited to be attached to being less than others.)

So, Kent and I take time to feel-know inwardly, and we find that the one who says ‘bog of stench’ is actually trying to avoid the difficult feelings. So, let’s name this as ‘preferences’ at work – the likes and dislikes of the inner actors. “Who would want to sit with the ‘bog of eternal stench’?”

When Kent searches in his body for how this shapes his way of being there, he finds some aggressive rejection of his sadness. That avoiding part is using Kent’s strength in what it thinks is a constructive move. The part is glad/delighted/pleased that it is there fighting for… for what? It’s actually fighting for its imagined way of being Kent. It has its particular self-bias, and its own style of selfishness and conceit.

If Kent can accept the bad feeling, without believing the labels given by the disliking process, then the emotion can be seen more clearly as some deep, deep sadness. Sometimes you have to sit with the disliking part for a while, listening kindly to it, before it backs off enough to let you feel into the sadness. After all, the part is made up what the Tibetans call ‘inveterate tendencies.’ That is, these patterns are veterans. These ‘parts’ have been fighting and defending the sadness since Kent was a child.

So, we can be gladdened to find that we have come upon some kind of ‘longing, hunger, thirst, or desire,’ which underlies the depression. Kent’s work means that there is a way out for sentient beings, because there is a dynamic which can be understood, and mastered. This kind of delight is a redirection of the flow of freedom.

My small excerpt from a longer process doesn’t yet show what the sadness itself can reveal about Kent’s deeper longings, but we did make significant small steps. Kent’s body has changed, just that much. There’ll be more steps.

You can see, in just these few interchanges, a kind of experiential inquiry unfolding that exhibits special skills. ‘Skilful,’ is an important Buddhist term. What he and I did was yoniso manasikāra, which the Pāli-English Dictionary means: directing one’s attention with a purpose, or thoroughly; proper attention; having thorough method in one’s thought; and, disposing the mind in accordance with the source. I like this last one, and will explain it in more detail later.

Work like this is also a skilful development of attention because it melds knowing with self-compassion, self-empathy, curiosity, and patience. The kind of patience which I mean here is a mode of what the poet Keats’ called negative capability. It about staying for what is, even if it’s not promising – not rushing ahead to find where this is all going. We stay patiently with the thread as it unfolds, small step by small step. We relish ‘don’t know’ mind, because it has space for it all.

Who will master this earth,
the world of death and devas?
Who shall select a well-taught teaching
like an expert selects a flower?

A learner shall master this earth,
the world of death and devas.
A learner selects the well-taught teaching,
as an expert selects a flower.
– The Nikāya Buddha, The Dhammapada, verse 44-45. Translated by Christopher J. Ash

Mindful in the Body

By admin

On August 24, 2015

In Body, Mindfulness, Positivity, Time, Space, & Knowledge

Gotama’s pupils are ever awake:
day and night, constantly mindful in the body.

– Dhammapada, verse 299. Translated Christopher J. Ash.

The value of directly knowing oneself experientially, with an attitude of kind curiosity, is inestimable. If you really are dying, it can help in so many ways, to clear the mind of unneeded detritus, and to reveal hidden jewels in your very own mind, even in the midst of crisis.

I would like to give you a few illustrations of how the Sakka-Gotama Buddha process of dependent-arising can work in enquiry. So, I offer a fictional conversation between a therapist and a client. I’ll pretend that the therapist is myself, and that the client is a man called Kent.

Kent: “I’ve been feeling somewhat depressed the last few days.”

Christopher: “Right. That’s welcome. [A pause, while I check.] Is it? Can you to be with it, like you were its friend?”

Kent: “I do try to. I say ‘hello’ to the way it lives in my body, but I slip away really quickly.”

Christopher: “Oh, a part of you doesn’t want to go there? Is that what it’s like?”

Kent: “Something like that, yes. It looks like a non-brainer. Who would want to sit with the ‘bog of eternal stench’?”

Christopher: Wow! That’s a powerful image. Don’t let that one get away. Let’s keep that one nearby. It’s got a lot of energy.”

Kent: (Laughs) “Right. True, it does. (Mind you, you can thank David Bowie’s script writer for that.)”

Christopher: Yeah, great movie. But you’re saying that this fits what you’ve got there, right? Check it. Sit alongside that place and get a feel for ‘the bog.’ Is it really like that? Or, does some other part label it that way?”

Kent: “Hmm. I don’t know. Let me see… (Silence). Well not really, it’s more like… a deep pit of sadness.”

Christopher: “Okay. When you can be empathic with it, it’s more like sadness.”

Kent has some skills, of course. He’s been doing this kind of inner work for a while, and if I say something, he feels into his body, to see how it is from the in there. With newcomers, it might not go quite so quickly. But, let’s have a look at what is happening here, using the terms which the Nikāya Buddha introduced to Sakka, and some more terms from our general inquiry. A feeling of being ‘somewhat depressed’ is made up of much – it’s not a thing.

So, we start with a state of conflict. The ‘conflict’ here is within the person. Depression indicates different sub-personalities with different agendas. Why do I say, ‘parts’?

Well, of course, no-one’s mind is made up of parts. But, these energetic patterns have a coherence to themselves, and they have sufficient differences to other such patterns, so that ‘parts language’ helps to differentiate them. This way we see them more deeply, and also awaken non-identification. So, ‘parts language’ is just a convention to help us explore states of the psyche – attitudes – and their inter-relations. The person has one attitude (sadness), which is being reacted to by another attitude (dislike). Furthermore, the two are inter-dependent.

So, taking into account what the Nikāya Buddha said to Sakka, so far we have met a conflict, which involves rejection of the experience of sadness. There are conflicting self-biases working. We take time, and we find that the one who says ‘bog of stench’ is actually trying to bring some strength in. So, we see preferences working – in the likes and dislikes of the inner actors. “Who would want to sit with the ‘bog of eternal stench’?”

When Kent searches in his body for how this lives there, he finds some aggressive rejection of his sadness. That part’s using his strength. And, it’s glad (delighted, pleased) that it is there fighting for… for what? its way of being Kent – its particular self-bias or seflishness.

When the client accepts the bad feeling without believing the labels given by the disliking process, then it can be seen more clearly as some deep sadness. Sometimes you have to sit with the disliking part for a while before it backs off enough to let you feel into the sadness. After all, it’s what the Tibetans call an ‘inveterate tendency.’ That is, it’s a veteran. It’s been fighting sadness since Kent was a child.

So, notice, too, that Sakka would be gladdened to find that we have come upon at least one ‘longing, hunger, thirst, or desire,’ underlying the depression. There is a way out for sentient beings, then.

We don’t yet know what longing the sadness itself has, but we do know that the strong part has the desire not to feel the deep pit of sadness. And, as we enquire into it, it reveals its desire that the person survive in his work life, his social life, and so on; which it believes that he won’t do, if he succumbs to the ‘eternal bog of stench.’ (There is probably an inner judge somewhere, here, too.)

You can see, in just these few interchanges, an experiential inquiry unfolding that has special skills enfolded into it. It’s ‘skilful,’ in Buddhist terms. (That is, it is yoniso manasikāra, which the Pāli-English Dictionary defines as: fixing one’s attention with a purpose, or thoroughly; proper attention; having thorough method in one’s thought.)

It’s a skilful development of attention, too, because it includes self-compassion, self-empathy, curiosity, and patience. Patience is, in more modern terms, a mode of negative capability. Remember Keats? Not rushing ahead to find where it’s all going — staying here with the thread as it unfolds. Cultivating ‘don’t know’ mind; which at this level is relative, but later can have a profoundly complete presence. And, all this is found by referring back to the body’s experiences; that is, with mindfulness of the body.

Sakka’s Questions II

By admin

On August 20, 2015

In Death, Radiant Citta, Resisting Death, Time, Space, & Knowledge

A short post today. I walked into a half open door in the night, and got a nasty whack on my eye socket. I’ve been a bit dazed since, but I feel a bit better after a visit to my acupuncturist, today. Should be okay in a couple of days. You just don’t know what’s next. – Christopher.

A river of longing flows, and beings are pleased.
Seeking happiness they attach to pleasure, but get birth and decline.

– Dhammapada, verse 341. Translated Christopher J. Ash

Our wishes, wants, hopes, longings, hungers, and so on, themselves bring pleasure. We are pleased to long. However, the kind of pleasure we are talking about, in answer to Sakka, is the self-defeating kind of pleasure. At root it involves rejection of things as they are, and selfishness – which not only bring conflict, they are conflict.

The teacher says to Sakka that this wilfulness goes with erroneous reflections (vitakka) on self and on life processes. We can see, then that it is here – with concepts – that one’s ego-stances and defences are established. And, it’s here that the holes in consciousness arise. They exist because one depends on erroneous views about consciousness. So, when someone says they feel like there’s an empty, black hole in the middle of their body, I don’t merely take that as poetic talk. It’s very real to the person, and it comes with unconscious feelings and concepts. The experience of a hole; the person’s unexamined thinking; the hidden pleasure, and the longings – these all inter-are. The hole arises as a dynamic complex. If they truly want to end the suffering, they need to become familiar with the dependently-arisen nature of the black hole.

And, next, the Buddha says to Sakka that the underlying support for such erroneous concepts, he says, is the mis-perception of life’s multiplicity (papañca-saññā-saṅkha) – that is, dualistic perception. How to transform dualistic perception, which is the root of distorting desire, is, then, the whole point of the Buddhist work. Until this level is reached, we are without a revolution in consciousness, and our contentment will depend on tinkering with the patterns. One teacher told me once that this was like a person in a movie theatre, up there at the screen with cans of paint and brushes, trying to capture the images onto the screen. The person is not only engaged in a fruitless, messy, conceptual exercise, but they miss the movie.

People encircled by thirst run about like captured hares.
Confined by the bonds of their clinging, they suffer, again and again, for a long time.

– Dhammapada, verse 342. Translated Christopher J. Ash

This dualistic perception makes manifold what is not manifold; that is, via concepts it takes the differentiations (the sentient processes of perceiving differences) as establishing things which are really absolutely, separate. Boundaries are established as really existing, rather than as conceptual. As a result, we lose and misuse the very real power of concepts. This means experiencing without the big-life context – without the wholeness. We miss, for example, the simple fact that what is ‘over there’ depends for its presentation on a consciousness. When we begin our projects of understanding from a reality devoid of the big wholeness dimension, we can only repeat old patterns. We run around in circles. That’s called samsāra.

There is a way out of the violence. Sakka is delighted to hear that there is a dynamic which can be understood, and mastered. This kind of delight is a redirection of the flow of freedom. Thank you, Sakka.

Sakka’s Questions

By admin

On August 19, 2015

In Death, Radiant Citta, Resisting Death, Time, Space, & Knowledge

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.

The Dynamics of Living Beings

By admin

On August 18, 2015

In Enquiry, Mindfulness, Positivity, Time, Space, & Knowledge

“It is perception, consciousness, that is the source of all the basic obstacles [to peace]”
– the Buddha of the Sutta-Nipāta. Translated by Saddhatissa.

Today’s post looks at the finer detail of how the angry ape plays such tricks as would make the angels weep. (Measure for Measure, II.ii) He could be driving a car next to you, today. She could be you, at the office. It could be your sister, brother, mother or father, your cousin, or best friend, who dumps on you today. The ape is anyone in conflict with reality.

Here’s the general breakdown of processes involved. Conflict situations depend on selfishness – that is, on identifications involving involving ‘me and mine.’ They depend on rejection of ‘what is.’ One clings to one’s own strongly held view. Naturally, then, being displeased with things-as-they-is (sic) is present. This has a feel like: “It has to be my way.” Or, “I hate it when….” Or, “Why me?” Under this clinging is the will to exist in accordance with how I think – not with how isness is; but with how isness should be, for me. “This shouldn’t be happening to me!” Though, of course, it is actually happening, irrespective of my preferences. But, my rule is that things like this are not to happen to me!

So, in a conflict with someone, when angry or enraged, our less conscious views include that we are boundaried selves (located objects) in a surrounding environment. The environment is a hostile or dangerous not-self ‘out there.’ There’ll be a lot implied, here, depending on one’s innate character style, and one’s life-experiences. One’s very existence can even feel, on the basis of this ego-system, threatened by an off-hand comment or the toot of a horn! However, all this is not something irreversible, because the reaction, however strong, is merely dependent on habit-energy. It goes deep, of course, and it is warrior’s work to turn toward your own ‘stuff,’ and to approach it with a learner’s mind.

Though one conquers in battle
a thousand times a thousand men,
one is the greatest war-hero
who conquers just one’s self.

– Dhammapada, verse 103. Translated Christopher J. Ash

The most profound learning is engaged in, when one encounters the field of the fundamental habitual splits, created by grasping and naming. The split is in the holistic ground of primordial experiencing. The split can be summed up this way: a separate ‘perceiver’ is imagined to exist ‘in here,’ over and against the ‘perceived’ there. The good news is: because this is about experiencing, then this can be understood in our own experience, and we can establish contact with wholeness.

“Anger, confusion and dishonesty arise when things are set in pairs as opposites. The person with perplexity must train himself in the path of knowledge. The recluse has declared the Truth after realization.’

– Sutta-nipāta, verse 868. Translation, Saddhatissa.

‘Experiencer and experienced’ is a fundamental dualism, which gives rise to many kinds of ‘this and that.’ ‘I/not-I,’ ‘exist/not-exist,’ ‘here/there,’ ‘this way’/‘that way,’ ‘inside/outside,’ and so on – all arise.

When angry, look for the sense of a bystander perceiver in ‘here,’ with a perceived problem-one over there. The other is an object, at this point. That is, something ‘thrown’ (-ject) over there (ob-); which is also something ‘fallen out’ from the primordial ground. The Oxford English Dictionary says that the word object means literally a thing thrown before or presented to the mind or thought. This is what rejection and selfishness do to interactional life of undivided multiplicity – they split it up.

It happens incredibly quickly, and only mind-training gets to the root of this. It can be done, though. To that end we train ourselves in calm and inquiry (samatha-vipassanā), opening up new ways of experiencing. The world is usually experienced as a world of bits dispersed all over the place, with our intentions seeming to be the only factor of coherence. This kind of world has to be devalorised through insight into its actuality – how it actually works – which leads (if skilfully done) to developing inner powers of compassion and wisdom; and, realising the power of the wisdom beyond wisdom. This profound inner guidance takes over as we deepen into the way of discovery.

Swans travel through the sky –
the leaders direct their course with inner power.
The wise are guided from the world,
having conquered Māra and his army.

– Dhammapada, verse 175. Translated Christopher J. Ash

Regarding the dynamics of personality-formation and its maintenance (paṭiccasamuppāda), there are many texts showing this in the Buddhist Nikāyas. There are several perspectives given of this dynamic. For instance, in The Sakka Panha Sutta, the Nikāya Buddha (teacher of gods), is questioned by the powerful god, Sakka. He asks the Buddha about the causes of conflict everywhere. ‘Why there is there all this violence? People want to live good lives, but they end up in all kinds of conflict.’ The Buddha’s answer is: “It’s due to rejection and selfishness.” Sakka then continues the enquiry, going deeper step by step, until the root cause is found. I’ll summarise the points made in this particular sutta, with a little commentary, tomorrow.