Transcription
I just want to start by saying I don't think it's particularly an advanced thing, okay? Some of you, I know, are quite new. I don't think it's particularly advanced. It's not that. But what it is, I would say, is quite different from a lot of what we may have been used to hearing or coming across, certainly in the Insight Meditation world. So it's quite different. If you're very new, know that: what we're talking about today, it's not that it's particularly advanced; it's that it's quite different -- just to put it vaguely in some kind of context.
Who feels very new, by the way? Okay. Or even moderately new? [laughter] Later on this morning, there will be a group for anyone who wants to talk about the nuts and bolts of meditation. So not so much about the theme that we're taking for the day, which we can talk about at the end -- there will be time for discussion and questions. But later on this morning, I'll announce it. Perhaps just before lunch, there will be a group, and you can come -- anything about meditation, really welcome, even if you don't feel like a beginner.
Okay, so this theme that we want to explore today, in a way, really, it's approaching a sort of usual kernel of problem or issue that we approach in the Dharma. It's the self and the problems of the self. That's what we're aiming at today. But approaching it from quite a different angle than, as I said, if you've been around in Insight Meditation circles. A quite different angle than we're used to approaching it. And through that different approach, I feel that actually a door is opened to a huge territory -- absolutely enormous territory. That's one of the reasons why I feel a little bit ambivalent about even approaching this in a day-long. In a way, we're just nibbling at the edges of something very large, a small piece of something much, much bigger. I hope that the day stands on its own, that it's kind of self-contained. So let's see!
There will be quite a lot of material today, in a way, or perhaps I should say quite a range covered. Part of where we're heading, especially later, maybe this afternoon, might seem -- and probably is -- relative to what a lot of you know, it's pretty far out. It might sound pretty strange, etc. You don't have to take all of it at all. We're just going through some stuff. Some will resonate with you. Some will maybe horrify you. I don't know. You can take as much or as little as you want. So you could take just a very little of what we're talking about today, and use it just as an occasional addition to your range of meditative tools. So you have this kind of practice, and very occasionally, you dip into what we're talking about today, in quite a small way. That might suit you. That might sit very well. That's fine. So an occasional technique to add.
Or it might be you want to take more, or even more, or even the whole of what we're going through today, all of it. But that end of things, I would say, is quite a radical opening. It involves quite a radical opening of perspectives and vision -- shaking up, perhaps, of even what we consider the Dharma to be, what we consider the path and the practice to be, and even our sense of existence. So you can take as much or as little, but that end might feel quite radical. Unfortunately, I don't have time, we don't have time today, for me to spell out exactly all the implications of what we're saying. But you will sense some of them, for sure. So really this is a very long-winded way of saying: I wonder if we can have some open-mindedness, and just let things come in, and see where you land with them. But to keep the mind open.
Those of you a little bit familiar with Buddhist teachings, Dharma teachings, or other spiritual traditions (most spiritual traditions, in fact), may have heard something like, "The root problem is the ego," or "The root problem is the self." How many have heard something like that? Does that maybe ring a bell? And then you might have heard something like, "And this ego or this self is (words like) 'empty' or 'illusory.' It's not real in the way that it seems to be." This ring a vague bell? Yeah? Okay. And you might have heard, in these kind of circles, something like, "That self, that ego, is not really real. But what it really is is a process. It's a process in time of physical and psychical components, mental and physical components, aggregates." So if you know the standard Buddhist teaching of five aggregates (the bodily processes, the feelings, perceptions, mental formations, thoughts and moods and things, and consciousness), and all this is just a process in time. "That is the nature of the self. Everything else is kind of illusory." Does that vaguely ring a bell?
If we take that as a truth, that the self is illusory, but the process of the aggregates is real, we're going to run into a lot of problems, okay? Taking it as a truth brings problems -- all kinds of problems. For a start, the Buddha didn't say that. There's no passage anywhere in the Pali Canon where he says the self is a process. It doesn't exist. Apart from that, because we could say, "Well, who cares what the Buddha said?" (but just historically, he never said that), it also has other problems, in the sense that it's a limited view. It's limited in the depth of understanding that it can unfold. Actually, what we want to see eventually is that even this process is illusory. Even the things that make up the process, the so-called aggregates, are illusory, are what they call 'empty.' What the Buddha more often taught is, these aggregates, these bits of a process, are to be used as what I would call 'ways of looking.' Can I look at the elements that seem to make up me, the body, the consciousness, the moments of perception, and see them as not-self? He's talking about training a way of looking that is liberating, and that's different than taking it as a truth. That's a whole other subject; we're not talking about it today. But just to know that taking it as a truth limits things.
The avenue I want to go down today is that not only is it limited in depth, it's limited what I would call psychologically. It limits psychologically, to think that that is the nature of the self, of who we are, [that] we are a process of just these aggregates. If I look at myself or another, and I consider myself as just a process of mental and physical aggregates, what does that do? What does it do? It does something. One of the things it does is it simplifies. It simplifies suffering at times. At times, it simplifies suffering. To go into that mode of seeing things has the effect, at times, of simplifying and simplifying suffering. It cools desire: "I'm just this process." It takes the gas out of desire sometimes.
But in its benefit is its problem, because there will be many situations in our life when that's completely not what we want; that's not helpful. It's not helpful to take the gas out. It's not helpful to simplify. If we think of romantic situations -- me and a partner or whatever it is, just to see us as processes of psychophysical ... it's not very romantic! Or in bed with someone. It's not really what ignites the passion, is it? [laughs] So these areas of our life, that for most lay people are actually quite important, they're deeply, psychically important to us -- the romantic, the erotic, many areas of art -- that we're actually shrinking something and desiccating something, drying something up by viewing things only as a process. It's an oversimplification, and it's not helpful in certain situations or certain dimensions or aspects of our life.
If we want, if eros is important to us, if art is important to us, if other expressions of the psyche are important to us, we need to be careful about oversimplifying. The letting go that we talk about so much in these traditions, the letting go needs to be in relationship. What we need to let go of are oversimplifications sometimes, let go of simplifying. "Be in the moment," sometimes it's the wrong thing. It's completely the wrong thing. It does not serve certain aspects or certain realities in the range of the psyche. "Don't cling," similarly. "Desire leads to suffering." Very simple, attractive teachings, very important in a certain domain. In another domain of our being, completely inappropriate, the wrong thing, lead the wrong way, lead to a brick wall.
Modern life is psychologically complex. Human beings, we have complex psyches -- deep, rich, complex psyches. It does not serve to only always simplify things, flatten things. I mean, human beings have always had complex psyches, but modern human beings, you and me, nowadays in the Western world, we are complex, rich, deep. The whole sense of self we have these days is actually very different than the sense of self that people had in the Buddha's time. We live in a very individualized culture where we feel our selves differently, as complex, individual beings, in a way that perhaps they didn't so much in other cultures, other times, where community was stronger, where the whole fabric of society and the kind of assumptions were different.
And for a lot of us, as I said, the erotic, the romantic, the artistic -- many, many avenues of manifestation, what wants to manifest -- it's still important to us. We have this very complex self, and a range that can easily get narrowed. The psychic range gets narrowed, and something in the psyche gets flattened, if we're too simplistic. Sometimes we have a fantasy of simplism. Maybe that's because our life is too complex: we want everything to be simple. And Dharma teachings come along, and they look so simple: "Ah, that's nice -- simple." Something might get lost. Something might get squashed. Something might get truncated, trammelled.
Is there a place, in whatever word you want to use, 'spiritual life,' 'psychic life,' is there a place for something much more complex, something dark, even? Do the dark gods have a place? Does possession have a place? When you're in love, are you not a bit crazy? Does that have a place, to be a bit mad, to not be calm, to be possessed by something?
In our culture (which is, I suppose, a good thing in some respects), a lot of the suffering that people experience is in relationship to the self and the personality and the expressions of the self. Obviously not all, but quite a lot of the things that people really struggle with and really have a lot of pain about is in relation to the self, personality, and the expressions of self. We could say, or rather, one avenue to healing all that is to see the emptiness of this self, to see the illusory nature of this ego and the self, and that's wonderful, and that's great. Absolutely beautiful, viable, deep avenue in practice. And going back to what I said at the beginning, even the view "It's just a process of aggregates," even that's helpful sometimes and to a certain extent (but it's limited for the reasons I said). So today, it's like, are there other ways to approach this, this problem of self, this difficulty with the personality, etc., other ways to open up the self and what we might mean by that? And what might these other ways lead to? What might they deliver us to?
What if we start a little bit with something that's familiar territory to many people, will be familiar territory, and actually quite familiar ways of working? So if I say 'inner critic,' do you know what I mean by that? This self-judging, self-criticizing, self-berating voice or energy within one. Some people call it superego or inner critic. Are you familiar with this? Yeah? So this constellation in the psyche that's very, oftentimes, directed towards the self, criticizing, harsh, judging, etc., berating. How might we heal that in our lives, if that is a problem? In my experience, it's a problem for most people in our culture. Not everyone; most people. How might that whole structure be healed over time?
We could just list. One way is the mettā practice, the loving-kindness practice -- really patiently cultivating this well-wishing, befriending of oneself and of others. Over time, it really does erode and dissolve this inner critic pattern. We might also say, again, repeating, that seeing the illusory nature of this self, the whole inner critic just dissolves. Those are two principal ways. But we can explore another way.
Sometimes, some people actually have the experience or the sense that the inner critic is almost like a person. It's almost as if someone is sitting on the shoulder, wagging the finger, and pointing and judging and blaming and criticizing. One way of working is deconstructing that person. It feels like a person in there. And actually seeing: it's not a person. We can break it into elements. There are thoughts, and there's, importantly, the believing of those thoughts: "I am a failure. I always was a failure." There are not just the thoughts, but there's the belief of those thoughts. There's aversion, and there are hindrances, certain hindrances around. All those elements together are actually what's there, and not the person. So you deconstruct the person into these elements and it loses some of its power.
That's very possible, really worth trying. But it's almost like the reverse is possible: either spontaneously or deliberately, actually letting this inner critic constellate more, manifest more, as a person, as a figure in the psyche (or figures -- might be plural). Actually letting it come clearer as a distinct person, or maybe it's an animal; some kind of figure. It could happen spontaneously. It could happen more deliberately. And then maybe it's possible to actually dialogue with this person, this inner person, so to speak. And the dialogue could happen in a variety of ways. One might actually show up with all of one's strength and actually challenge this inner critic person. It says something, and you say, "Why are you saying that? Where is your evidence?" And whatever it says, you ask it a question back. You're poking at it with your investigative mind, with your intelligence. If you can do that, almost guaranteed you'll find out that you're more intelligent than this inner critic, who is actually not the brightest of critics. And if you poke at it, it doesn't have a lot to stand on.
So that's one way of approaching, is actually quite a tough stance. Another way is much softer, much more gentle, much more loving: bringing into relationship with this person a softness, a kindness, seeking to understand. "Why are they saying this? What is it that they're wanting? What's going on there?" So could be two kinds of approaches to a dialogue there.
Backtracking, we can deconstruct a person into elements, or we can actually let that person constellate, and enter into relationship with them. Both are helpful, both deconstructing and constructing, if you like. Both are helpful. It is not the case that the first one is ultimately true, that the real nature of this is it's just thoughts, elements, etc. That's what we tend to assume, particularly in these circles: "The reality of it is this." Actually, that's not the ultimate reality of it. Both are available for us as ways of working.
What might happen if we do this, if we're willing to work this way a little bit, experiment with this way? Sometimes, often, a person will see that what seems like the inner critic actually turns out not to be an inner critic. It's just somehow showing up that way in the dynamics of things. Sometimes the inner critic turns out to be what I call the 'clumsy old protector.' Somehow, this character is showing up, berating, harassing, etc., and it really wants to protect us. It's seeking to protect us from being hurt, from being vulnerable, from looking like a fool in public, or something or other. It's just going about it in a very clumsy way. It's actually, weirdly enough, coming out of love. But unless I turn towards this inner critic and engage with it, I cannot begin to see that. It cannot begin to reveal its, if you like, deeper essence.
So sometimes we need to turn towards this inner critic and let the image fill out, explore the image, explore that person and the relationship with them. Maybe they're transformed. Maybe the relationship with them transforms through that. Maybe a dialogue is possible. One woman a little while ago, not too long ago, was on a retreat at Gaia House. A lot of inner critic, and we talked about this, and I suggested something like this. She went away, and she said, all these voices of criticism, "I turned towards, and I asked it what it wanted and why it was criticizing." And then, to her great surprise, a voice replied. She actually heard a voice. Not a [visual] image, but a voice, a very gentle and very kind voice. She was really bowled over by this. And it said, very kindly, "I want you to use your full potential." She was so surprised, and it touched her. The kindness in it and the message in it touched her and brought her to tears. Is that inner critic? What is that? It was manifesting [as] inner critic, but the moment I turn towards it, something else.
Another woman, also not too long ago, was on retreat at Gaia House, and in her whole relationship with practice was starting to feel very pressured, which is a very common thing: I'm starting to push myself too hard, force myself, "I need results," etc., in practice. She was coming into interview, and described this pressure that she felt, and assumed, was calling it inner critic: "My inner critic is coming up." And in the conversation that we had, she mentioned, "My mum died." I've forgotten how long it was, but it wasn't too long ago. "My mum died. And she was so wonderful." She said, "My mum was so wonderful, and she died." And then, she also said, the other thing that struck me, "It's really hard to live up to that standard. She was so wonderful, it's really hard to live up to that standard." This was all part of the conversation we were having about her pushing hard in practice.
And I said to her, "You know, she's still alive. She's still alive as an image, as a person in the psyche. She's still alive as a psychic person, with a certain autonomy. You know that." Now, we're not talking about denial here. She was grieving for her mother, who she loved very much. She was completely aware she was dead, she wasn't going to see her again. We're not talking about denial, someone pretending that she wasn't dead and not feeling her feelings. We're also not talking about spiritualism, sort of séances and contacting dead spirits floating around. Not talking about that right now. Talking about something about the psyche. "She's still alive to you as an image, as a psychic figure, as a being. And maybe you have a duty to that. Maybe you have a certain duty to her, to this image. Maybe that's a beautiful duty." Because 'duty' is a pretty heavy word in our culture. It's one of these words*, oof,* 'duty.' But some duties are felt as beautiful, as ennobling, as something that the heart and the soul want. They want that. "Maybe you have a beautiful duty to her. Maybe her kindness, her generosity, comes through you in some way. And maybe she wants that."
And she understood immediately what I meant. Immediately, she understood. She was very touched by it and felt the beauty of it. This is something beautiful; there was a beauty in it, and deeply touched by it, and felt a lot of freedom come with it. A few, I think it was a couple of months later, she wrote me a letter, and she said it was life-changing: "Seeing things that way has been life-changing, in so many ways. It has opened up the whole sense." What we're talking about here is, again, what I would use the language, 'ways of looking.' I'm not talking about spiritualism. I'm not talking about denial. I'm talking about a way of looking. I'm entertaining, we're entertaining, a certain notion. Not quite believing something. Entertaining a certain relationship with something that opens up something in the being, something very beautiful.
I don't want to oversimplify things. It was still quite complex with her. There were elements of her relationship with her mother that needed some work, patterns to let go of, etc. But something, it's almost like [it] moved to a very different level, in relationship to the self, in relationship to the mother, in relationship to existence.
I'm going to stop there now, and let's pace the teachings over the day.
