Stages of Meditation Page 10

  The antidote to mental dullness and excitement is introspection. The function of introspection is to observe whether or not the mind is abiding stably on the object of meditation. The function of mindfulness is to keep the mind on the object; once this is achieved, mental introspection has to watch whether the mind remains on the object or not. The stronger your mindfulness, the stronger your mental introspection will be. For example, if you constantly remember, “It is not good to do this,” “This is not helpful,” and so forth, you are maintaining introspection. It is important to be mindful of the negative aspects of your daily life, and you should be alert to their occurrence. Therefore, one of the unique features and functions of mental introspection is to assess the condition of your mind and body, to judge whether the mind remains stably on the object or not.

  At the same time, it is important to remember that if your spirits sink too low, your mind will become dull. At the onset of mental dullness you should make efforts to lift your spirits. Whether you are low spirited or high spirited at any given time depends very much on your health, diet, the time of day, and so forth. So you are the best judge of when to reduce your mental spirits and when to heighten them.

  In this process, distraction should be eliminated and with the rope of mindfulness and alertness the elephant-like mind should be fastened to the tree of the object of meditation. When you find that the mind is free of dullness and excitement and that it naturally abides on the object, you should relax your effort and remain neutral as long as it continues thus.

  Initially, the mind barely attends to the object of meditation. But with prolonged practice, by developing the antidotes to mental dullness and excitement, the grosser types of these impediments decrease in strength and the subtle types become more obvious. If you persist in the practice and improve the force of your mindfulness and alertness, there will come a time when even the subtle types of these impediments do not obscure your meditation. Generating a strong will to engage in a proper meditation, free of all the obstacles, can have a very positive impact. Eventually you should be able to sit effortlessly for a session of an hour or so.

  Realization of single-pointed concentration is not an easy task. You must have the endurance to practice for a long time. By continuous practice you can gradually eliminate the defects of the body and mind. Defects in this context refer to the states of dullness and heaviness of the body and mind that make them unresponsive or unserviceable for meditation. These defects are thoroughly eliminated as the meditator develops the nine stages of calm abiding. The practitioner eventually generates mental pliancy, which is followed by physical pliancy.

  You should understand that calm abiding is actualized when you enjoy physical and mental pliancy through prolonged familiarity with the meditation, and the mind gains the power to engage the object as it chooses.

  Calm abiding meditation is a practice common to Buddhists and non-Buddhists. So in terms of its mere identity there is nothing profound or special about it. However, when we investigate the nature of some object, whether it is conventional or ultimate, calm abiding meditation is very important. Its main objective is to develop single-pointed concentration. Although we say prayers or engage in tantric practices, we are faced with the question of whether they are effective. The main reason is our lack of concentration. So, we should develop a mind that is able to abide single-pointedly on the object of focus. In the initial stages, even if we are unable to generate a final calmly abiding mind, it is crucial to cultivate a good deal of mental stability while practicing the six perfections, altruistic ideals, and so forth. The final goal of practicing calm abiding meditation is to actualize special insight.

  9. ACTUALIZING SPECIAL INSIGHT

  IN THIS TEXT we are talking about engaging in the practice of the six perfections as cultivated by a Bodhisattva. In this context, the purpose of calm abiding meditation is to be able to cultivate a transcendental special insight. Therefore, after having cultivated calm abiding we should endeavor to cultivate special insight.

  After realizing calm abiding, meditate on special insight, thinking as follows: All the teachings of the Buddha are perfect teachings, and they directly or indirectly reveal and lead to suchness with utmost clarity. If you understand suchness, you will be free of all the nets of wrong views, just as darkness is dispelled when light appears. Mere calm abiding meditation cannot purify pristine awareness, nor can it eliminate the darkness of obscurations. When I meditate properly on suchness with wisdom, pristine awareness will be purified. Only with wisdom can I realize suchness. Only with wisdom can I effectively eradicate obscurations. Therefore, engaging in calm abiding meditation I shall search for suchness with wisdom. And I shall not remain content with calm abiding alone.

  The altruistic thought that aspires to the highest enlightenment is generated on the basis of compassion. Having strongly established such an altruistic motivation, the practitioner engages in virtuous activities such as calm abiding meditation and special insight.

  Now, let us discuss meditation on special insight. In order to meditate on the special insight that realizes ultimate reality, we need to develop the wisdom that understands selflessness. Before we can do that, we must search for and identify the self that does not exist. We cannot be satisfied with merely believing in its absence. We must ascertain from the depths of our heart that there is no basis for such a self to exist. It is possible to reach this ascertainment by way of bare perception or by reasoning, just as we ascertain any other phenomenon, secular or religious. If an object is tangible, we do not have to prove its existence, because we can see and touch it. But with regard to obscure phenomena, we have to use logic and lines of reasoning to establish their existence.

  Selflessness is of two types: the selflessness of persons and the selflessness of phenomena. So the self to be negated is also of two types: the self of persons and the self of phenomena. A person is defined in relation to the mental and physical aggregates. But to ordinary perception, the self, or person, appears to be the ruler over the body and mind. The person thus appears to possess a self-sufficient entity or self that does not have to rely on the mental and physical aggregates, their continuity, or their parts and so forth. That notion of a self-sufficient person, which we ordinarily cling to very strongly, is the self of persons we are seeking to identify. It is the self to be negated. Through intellectual processes a practitioner can come to understand that such a self does not exist. At that point he or she develops the wisdom understanding the selflessness of persons.

  The selflessness of phenomena refers to the perceived object’s lacking true existence and the perceiving mind’s lacking true existence. Perceived objects are of the nature of the perceiving mind, but normally they appear to exist externally. When we cling to that external existence, it becomes the basis for developing attachment and aversion. On the other hand, when we see the reality that perceived objects are devoid of external existence and that they are merely of the nature of the perceiving mind, then the force of desire and animosity are naturally reduced. The perceived object’s lacking external existence, and the perceiver and the perceived object’s lacking separate identity or substance, constitute the grosser level of the selflessness of phenomena.

  The perceiving mind, too, is devoid of true existence. When we say things lack true existence, we mean that things exist under the sway of the mind to which they appear, and that objects do not have a unique or substantial existence from their own side. To our mistaken mind things appear to exist from their own side, and we cling to that appearance. But in actuality things are empty of such an existence. This is the subtle emptiness according to this school. Thus, by negating the apparent true existence of things, we develop a sense of their illusory nature. Understanding the reality that things are like illusions counters the generation of negative emotions like attachment and aversion.

  Here the author very clearly explains that all the teachings of the Buddha are ultimately i
ntended as instructions to guide practitioners toward realizing the state of enlightenment. In pursuit of this goal, an understanding of suchness is crucial. The Buddha himself achieved enlightenment by actualizing the meaning of ultimate truth. There are countless philosophical views, but if we follow correct views, we can make progress on the spiritual path and gain insight into ultimate truth. On the other hand, following incorrect views leads to the wrong paths and unpleasant consequences. Practitioners who gain proper insight into the view of suchness can thoroughly eliminate all their wrong views from the very root.

  What is suchness like? It is the nature of all phenomena that ultimately they are empty of the self of persons and the self of phenomena. This is realized through the perfection of wisdom and not otherwise. The Unraveling of the Thought Sutra reads, “‘O Tathagata, by which perfection do Bodhisattvas apprehend the identitylessness of phenomena?’ ‘Avalokiteshvara, it is apprehended by the perfection of wisdom.’” Therefore, meditate on wisdom while engaging in calm abiding.

  Suchness refers to the selflessness of both persons and phenomena, but mainly to the selflessness of phenomena. When expounding it in detail, scholars differ in their interpretations. According to this text, the selflessness of phenomena is described as subtler than the selflessness of persons. A person is posited in reliance upon the mental and physical aggregates. When we talk about the selflessness of a person, the person refers to a self-sufficient person existing in its own right, without relying on the aggregates. Such a person does not exist even on a conventional level, and therefore to be devoid of such an identity is what is known as the selflessness of persons.

  The great Kamalashila, a renowned student of the esteemed Shantarakshita, belonged to the Yogachara Svatantrika Madhyamika school of thought. This school asserted two levels of the selflessness of phenomena—subtle and gross. The non-duality of subject and object, or perceiver and perceived, is the gross level of suchness, while seeing all phenomena as empty of true existence is the subtle level of suchness. Of all the sutras the Buddha taught, the Perfection of Wisdom sutras deal with this subject in greatest depth.

  It is extremely important that the notion of “I,” the selflessness of persons, and the selflessness of phenomena be scrutinized thoroughly. Each of us has an innate and spontaneous feeling of “I.” This is what experiences happiness and sorrow, and also what gives rise to happiness and sorrow. Different schools of thought have posited various views since ancient times on the way in which the “I” exists. One of the ancient Indian philosophical schools viewed the self or “I” as the user, and the mental and physical aggregates as the objects to be used. Thus, the self and the aggregates are viewed as different entities.

  According to other philosophers, the self is a permanent, single, and independent entity. The self is what has come from previous lives and what travels to the next when the mental and physical aggregates disintegrate at the time of death. I have the impression that other religions like Christianity also believe in a self that is permanent, single, and independent. By implication, such a self does not depend or rely on its aggregates. None of the four schools of thought within Buddhism believe in such a self. They deny the self’s having any substantial existence apart from the mental and physical aggregates.

  Nevertheless, according to Buddhist philosophy, the self does exist. If we were to contend that the self does not exist at all, we would plainly contradict common perception. We should examine and analyze the way in which the self does exist. Through logical analysis we can determine that the self exists in dependence on the mental and physical aggregates. Different schools provide different levels of interpretation of the aggregates, but it is generally agreed that the perception of the self is formed by relying on the perception of the aggregates. In other words, the existence of the self can only be posited in reliance upon the aggregates.

  Why make the effort to search for the self, or “I,” and investigate the nature of its existence? By and large we think of people as belonging to two camps: those belonging to our own side and those belonging to the other side. We are attached to those on our side and we generate animosity toward those on the other side. Motivated by attachment and animosity, we commit various negative actions of body, speech, and mind. At the root of all these unwholesome and unhealthy thoughts and actions lies the feeling of “I,” or self. The intensity and scope of our negative actions depend on how strongly we hold to the misconception of self. It is important to realize that this clinging onto the “I” is innate, and yet when we search and try to pinpoint the “I,” we cannot find a self-sufficient “I” that has control over the mental and physical aggregates.

  Because of this innate misconception of the “I,” we have an endless succession of desires. Some of these desires are very peculiar. An ordinary person recognizes someone else’s physical beauty or intelligence, and desires to exchange them for his or her own inferior qualities. The true mode of existence of the self is that it is imputed in relation to its causes and other factors. We are not trying to negate the sense of a self, or “I,” as such, but we should definitely be able to reduce the strength and intensity of our sense of a self-sufficient “self.”

  Yogis should analyze in the following manner: a person is not observed as separate from the mental and physical aggregates, the elements and sense powers. Nor is a person of the nature of the aggregates and so forth, because the aggregates and so forth have the entity of being many and impermanent. Others have imputed the person as permanent and single. The person as a phenomenon cannot exist except as one or many, because there is no other way of existing. Therefore, we must conclude that the assertion of the worldly “I” and “mine” is wholly mistaken.

  There is no self or person existing in isolation from the mental and physical aggregates. This is to say that a person exists in reliance upon the aggregates. This can be well understood by observing our everyday conventions. When the body and other aggregates are young, we say the person is young; when they age, we say the person is old. These conventional expressions concur with the actuality that the person exists in dependence on the aggregates.

  Meditation on the selflessness of phenomena should also be done in the following manner: phenomena, in short, are included under the five aggregates, the twelve sources of perception, and the eighteen elements. The physical aspects of the aggregates, sources of perception, and elements are, in the ultimate sense, nothing other than aspects of the mind. This is because when they are broken into subtle particles and the nature of the parts of these subtle particles is individually examined, no definite identity can be found.

  “Phenomena” here refers to everything that is enjoyed or used by a person, such as the five mental and physical aggregates, twelve sensory sources, and eighteen elements. All these external objects, such as physical form and so forth, appear to have an identity separate from the perceiving mind. But in reality this is not the case. If they possessed an identity separate from the perceiving mind, then the two, the phenomenon and the perceiving mind, should by definition be wholly unrelated entities. This would also contradict the notion that things are posited by the perceiving mind. The object perceived does not have an identity separate from the mind that perceives it. If things like physical form were to have external existence, we should be able to find it even after we had removed the form’s component parts piece-by-piece. Since this is not the case, we can conclude that things are devoid of external existence. This also implies that the perceived object and the perceiving mind do not exist as separate entities. Therefore, proponents of this school of thought say that there is no external existence apart from being of the same nature as the mind.

  Therefore, due to grasping tightly and incorrectly at such things as form and so forth over beginningless time, the mind itself appears to ordinary people as form and so forth, separate and external, just like the appearance of form and so forth that are perceived in a dream. That in the ultimate sense fo
rm and so forth do not exist separate from being an aspect of mind should be analyzed. But, one who has the thought that the realms are just mind, having understood that everything that is designated as phenomena is only mind, comes to think, when this mind is analyzed specifically, that it is an analysis of the nature of all phenomena. Thus, he would specifically analyze the nature of mind. Such a person analyzes in this way.

  Thus, suchness, or emptiness, refers to a lack of substantial separation between the subjective mind and the object perceived by that mind. This is because when physical things are broken into small particles and the identity of those particles is sought, no definite identity, or self, can be pinpointed. This view of the Chittamatra, or Mind Only School, is very similar to the contention of the Yogachara Svatantrika Madhyamika, with some subtle differences, but this view is not acceptable to the later Madhyamika schools. So, the next lines explain the exclusive philosophical viewpoint of the Madhyamika.

  In the ultimate sense, the mind too cannot be real. How can the mind that apprehends only the false nature of physical form and so forth, and appears in various aspects, be real? Just as physical forms and so forth are false, since the mind does not exist separately from physical forms and so forth, which are false, it too is false. Just as physical forms and so forth possess various aspects, and their identities are neither one nor many, similarly, since the mind is not different from them, its identity too is neither one nor many. Therefore, the mind by nature is like an illusion.