Reducing the level to which we suffer relies on reducing sensations of suffering and unsatisfied desire. These are sensations which occur from the mental state of incompleteness, of sensation oneself to be doing not have something or doing not have in something. For something to be felt to be doing not have one should feel that there is a thing and a needer required, that is for the needer and required to be concrete entities having (respectively) the requirement and capability to be pleased and for there to be a thing picked that will give such complete satisfaction. This double mental presumption (obviously, in origin an essential part of our evolutionary inheritance) hence rejects us access to the broader fact that whatever that we experience is naturally empty of long-term compound, that all that truly exists is unfolding states of altering conditions. This truth about the temporal nature of all experience is the excellent fact of ‘heaven and earth’, (in Taoism) and the mentor that whatever is initially and naturally empty (in Buddhism).
One path to understanding this fact may be to permit the experience of the important things wanted to be envisaged objectively as no greater than a contingent mindset that will quickly die. It is, objectively speaking, exactly that. But is this to puzzle mental solutions with something that might be objectively real however not rather feel to be the case? Psychologically, I want something, which desiring, in the minute of desire, appears to have compound. But if objectively, there is no self to desire something and absolutely nothing that can give complete satisfaction, or a minimum of enduring complete satisfaction, this mental state should itself be illusory or a minimum of insufficient. In viewing this we may be able to differentiate the evolution-driven and always time-bound truths of our mental states from the ageless ‘objective realities’ of the human condition. In so doing, might this understanding help an awakening that needs the latter to be viewed as more suitable to the previous?
Or, possibly more directly such an awakening may need the previous to be viewed as an insufficient mental reaction to the truth of experience itself, that is the truth of all our experience, past, future and present. In such a view one would have mental truth on the one hand and ‘objective reality’ on the other, however one would be less most likely to puzzle the 2. In which case I would not require to fret excessive about ‘objective reality’, however rather may be encouraged on simply mental premises to ‘float upstream’, to act versus my natural impulse. Yet for this to work I would need to be so encouraged in each mental minute, undoubtedly in all of those repeating minutes in which suffering and desire occur.
I expect it may be possible in theory for something to be seen, a minimum of intellectually, as empty yet still be delighted in as if it were something having compound. But in this case would the indulger have the ability to see that the self that does the indulging is likewise empty? Rather, is it not the case that the indulger’s contingency is swept away by the experience of accessory to the wanted item? If so, it would appear that the requirement is to see experience or conditions as simply experience or conditions that occur briefly however quickly pass. If this can be done, both the experiencer and the knowledgeable can be seen (as if from a third-person viewpoint) as contingent, passing conditions, conditions that like all conditions have no long-lasting compound. Thus, emptiness may be viewed or experienced from this hypothesised third-person viewpoint. Emptiness here is the exact same principle as the Buddhist triad of facts- impermanence, no-self and unsatisfactoriness; or transience, unreliability and contingency. For awakening to happen both subject and item need to be translucented, their contingent nature understood. In in this manner the duality of the seeming and the objectively genuine fixes into a duality of the seeming and the emptiness that underlies all look.
We may pertain to see that Buddhism includes a mindful and cultivated rejection of a truth, particularly the empirical truth of natural choice and its impact over our individual psychology, and an approval that such an unbiased fact need to not be permitted to condition one’s behaviour. Instead, there is an espousal of the moment-by-moment human experience that occurs in each passing minute. We can not reject that we are conditioned by nature to prevent the suffering that such experience frequently triggers us, however we can possibly start to see that just residing in the minute will eventually result in us to be more content and satisfied. This is attained by accepting today, whatever it brings, and declining to be drawn into the self’s fascination with future and previous.
The paradox here is that living a conditioned life, that is a life conditioned by natural choice, whilst the majority of ‘natural’ and efficient of short-term enjoyments, is basically unacceptable. On the other hand, living a life that does not come naturally to us, that is at least abnormal and at first tough, one in which taking the enjoyments managed is, if not precisely renounced, permits those potential enjoyments to occur and after that instantly fall away prior to they are briefly sated and accessory heightened, is the course that results in longer-lasting joy and fulfilment. But in order to live completely in the minute it appears as if one needs to quit, or a minimum of look less positively upon and minimize the growing of, those passing enjoyments that are sweet. In result, one chooses the wholesome to the sweet. This is either a triumph of fact over life, or a triumph of mental wellness over mental suffering.
Could one possibly have the passing enjoyments in addition to the insight into the truth that they are without compound? Perhaps this is the very best of all possible worlds! Buddhism appears to recommend not. Yet Gandhi, with his viewpoint originated from Vedanta, had an intriguing take on this. Once asked whether one needed to renounce whatever he responded, no, one just needs to renounce the renouncer. This would include rejecting the truth of the self, of accepting the truth that it has little compound, that it is just a building through which we frame experience. Of course, there is a sense in which it is a required fiction- it allows us to browse the world and the other selves that we appear to discover in it. But an essential part of the course to awakening is to accept that there is no self, that selfhood is fundamentally empty, which its accessory to passing enjoyments is unhelpful. Rather, by residing in the minute we can end up being freer of desires and end up being less interested, and have less financial investment in, the future of our enjoyments.
This dichotomy in between natural desire on the one hand, and longer-term well-being and assurance on the other, can often appear to be an unpleasant one. Mahayana Buddhism frequently looks for to fix it by stating just that sugar is sweet and salt is salted. Everything is simply what it is. As far as human experience is worried whatever is simply what it appears to be at the minute it is experienced. That is to state, at that minute however not at the next, since at the next minute it has actually passed and something else has actually taken its location. In this view, what our natural development considers at each minute to be sweet at that minute is sweet. What it considers to be bitter is bitter. But we need to neither form an accessory to the sweet nor a hostility to the bitter.
Objectively considering relates to subjectively appearing. Whilst we are asked to accept and welcome the truth that is passing feeling, we need to not hold on to it, or be a ‘haver’ that sticks. Indeed, (as the quote from Gandhi claims) possibly you can have whatever if there is no haver, if what has experience is itself empty, which obviously it is, or we are, objectively speaking. This line of believed returns us to the termination of the self. But now possibly it includes an extra mental insight regarding why selfhood needs to be gone beyond. Such transcendence is not what natural choice created us for, however we can a minimum of start to see how it remains in our interests, that is the interests of our suffering bodies, to check the claims that the self has on our attention and behaviour.
#buddhism #emptiness #naturalselection #selfhood #psychology