Transcription
Okay, so how many of you have heard a teaching that says something like, "The self or the ego is the root problem. That's the problem"? Come on, more of you. [laughter] I know you have.
So something like that, and we can say it in different ways. But many spiritual traditions, and especially Buddhism, point to the self or the ego as kind of something to be seen through. Somehow it's a problematic thing. And we say, "It's empty. It's illusory," right? Have you heard that too? And now you might have heard, in that, that this self, this ego is not real. It's illusory in some way, but the components of that self or the things that go to make it up -- the body and the bodily processes, the various factors and elements of mind (so the feelings, and thoughts, and perceptions, and consciousness, and attention, and all this) -- those elements, psychophysical elements, are real. And the process unfolds. So the self is not real as we feel it. What the self really is is a process of these components, these aggregates, if you know the Buddha's words. How many have heard something like that? Yeah? Okay. So we say the self is not real as we sense it, but what's real is this process unfolding in time of what's called the five aggregates: the body, the feelings, the perceptions, mental formations (thoughts, and moods, and intentions, and attention), and consciousness.
Okay. If I take that as a statement of truth, there are many, many problems that ensue, okay? First of all, it's not something the Buddha ever said. So it's a very popular teaching these days, when we tend to think a lot about process and computer programming and machines having their process. So it's a popular view, but you cannot find one clause in the whole shelf-load of the Buddha's teachings where he says, "The true nature of the self is a process, a process of the aggregates." It does not exist. But somehow that view has gained popularity. So, okay, the Buddha -- it's not something that he said, first problem. Maybe some of you are not that bothered by that, and that's fine.
But there are other problems. And one is, just to touch on it briefly, that taking that as a truth actually limits the depth of our understanding. It's a statement of limited depth, and it limits, because not only is the self illusory, but also those elements that seem to make up the self -- the aggregates, the consciousness, the body, the bodily processes, the perceptions, the thoughts -- all these are empty and illusory too. And the full thrust of the Buddha's teaching is seeing that all is, in some sense, illusory, just as the self is illusory. It's all empty. So taking that as a truth -- "The self is the process of the aggregates" -- is limited in a couple of ways. [3:42]
A different approach, a more productive, more fruitful approach for opening up depth, and a depth of radical liberation, would be, rather, to take this teaching of the aggregates, the elements that make up the self, and regard them as a skilful way of looking. We can learn in meditation to regard these, moment to moment, contemplate the aggregates as not-self. It seems that it's picky, but it unfolds much, much deeper. All this that I usually take as self, I regard as not-self. Then what happens? Then that opens a very powerful tunnel into a much deeper sense of freedom, a much deeper sense of existence.
Now, actually that's not what we're talking about today; I'm just mentioning that. That's a whole other thing, because this teaching -- "the self is the process of the aggregates" -- is not just limited in terms of depth of insight into the nature of existence. It's also limited, I would say, psychologically. Again, it limits us. It's limited, and limits us psychologically. So if I have a perspective, at times, that "There isn't a self here. There's not really a real self. All there is is the aggregates. There's just the aggregates," I can employ that as a view at times. What happens when I do that? It's helpful at times because it simplifies. It simplifies existence at times. It functions -- a result is it cools desire. When I see that there's just these aggregates, and there's not such a solid self, it cools desire. It evens things out. Very useful at times. If I take it as a truth, and I try to live my life that way -- problems. A little bit -- what's it called? -- well, stupid. It will not serve, for example, for many of the dimensions and aspects and directions of our existence. It will not serve for romantic relationships, or going to bed with someone, for the erotic. Can you see that it doesn't make sense there? Yeah? You can't go to bed with someone thinking about aggregates and aggregates! [laughter] It does not give fire to that dimension of our existence. And you know what? We care about that dimension of existence, and we should care -- not everyone, because some people are renunciate, celibate, etc. But even celibate people -- there's something there, that this picture ("I am just a process of aggregates"), it will not do. It will not do for the breadth and the depth and the complexity and the richness of our psychology.
Or in certain relationships to art and what becomes really deeply meaningful for us, it does not fit. It's an oversimplification. We're in danger of oversimplifying our life, our existence, our psyche, the dimensions of our being. And sometimes it's just not helpful. It does not serve. So if I care, if we care about eros in our lives, and all the forms that that takes -- sexual, romantic, and all the other forms of eros -- if I care about artistic expression, for example, if I care about lots of other stuff, maybe "I need to let go," the letting go might be an oversimplification. It's opposite. Maybe I need to let go of oversimplification, of oversimplifying teachings: "Be in the moment. Just be in the moment. Don't cling. Desire leads to suffering." We are saturated with this kind of simplistic message. Wonderful in certain situations; hopelessly oversimplistic in others, and not helpful, and not giving/nourishing that richness of the multicoloured nature of our being. So we are complex creatures. The psyche is complex. Modern life is really complex psychologically. [8:14]
We talk about the self a lot, but if you really read the original texts of the Buddha, you get the sense -- or I get the sense, at least -- that the self we're talking about is quite different nowadays. We feel the self very differently than they did 2,500 years ago in Indian culture. We live in a different society. So the notion of self, and personality, and individual, and striving, and expressing oneself, and not liking oneself, and judging oneself, all that complexity which is so much a part, just the beginnings of how we feel the self, just did not seem to exist in the same way. The self that we are talking about now is a different kind of self. We feel it. It's not intellectual. We feel the self differently as individuals. So there's that. And there's also the fact that we care about, as I said, the erotic, the romantic, lots of other stuff. That's become a part of our culture. It's not something that we can -- I mean, we can just regard it, "Oh, that's just delusion. Any romantic feelings are just [delusion]." There's a certain amount of truth in that sometimes. [laughter] But it's not really the whole truth, is it?
And the truth is, we care about that. And that's in our being. And is there not a place in our existence, is there not space for a kind of madness? And sometimes we're kind of corralling the teachings into quite a narrow expression that erases, that flattens something in the being. There's no allowance for a kind of madness, or to be possessed in the different kinds of ways that we can be possessed. You know, when you fall in love, you're possessed and you're bonkers. Can that have its place? Does it deserve a kind of respect or even a kind of regarding with sanctity, that we can very easily erase and just leave it at, "Buddhism has nothing to say about this"? Is there not a place for what we might call the 'dark gods'? Not just all white and fluffy, but actually, do they have a place, the dark gods?
So sometimes, with the teaching and the way we relate to it, there's what I call a 'fantasy of simplism.' We want everything to be simple. We want our life to be simple. We want the teachings to be simple. Everything gets simple, simple, and something gets flattened, potentially.
So in our society, and I speak in here to many people -- and it's a good thing, in a way, in our society, although it also results in some problems and some limitations, and in a way, it has come in for good reasons, but also not such good reasons -- that a lot of the suffering that we experience as human beings in sort of relatively affluent modern Western culture is at the level of, we could say, the personality. This is where a lot of people struggle. A lot of people feel a lot of their most chronic pain in life is around the personality and the expressions, we could say, the expressions of the self. Going back to what we said earlier, you could look at all that, and regard the self as empty, understand its emptiness, and that will dissolve. Actually, the deeper the emptiness, the more it dissolves all those problems. Even this teaching that "there is just the process of the aggregates" can be very helpful to some degree, in some of the areas of the personality. But as we said, it has problems, because it cuts off certain aspects, and it limits psychologically.
So really, what I want to explore today is, are there other ways to approach this whole business about the self, other ways to open up the whole notion of self, and what we mean by it, what we feel by it, what the possibilities are? As I said, I want to go gradually over the day. And actually, let's start somewhere very, very familiar to everyone -- familiar territory, and even familiar ways of working. Okay?
If I say 'inner critic,' do you know what I mean by that? Yeah? It's this constellation of voices or elements in the being that are criticizing, that are harassing, judging (usually oneself -- it could be others, as well), that sort of thing, the self-critic. Some people call it 'superego.' Do you know what I mean by that? So let's start there. That's familiar as an experience to most people in our culture. How might we heal something like that? Well, one way is the loving-kindness practice. Lots and lots of mettā and well-wishing over time just dissolves that structure, that inner critic -- just dissolves it. Another way would be to see the emptiness of the self, as we talked about, and that will also dissolve it.
Sometimes what happens is it feels like, with the inner critic, that there is, so to speak, someone on the shoulder, a character, this inner critic character just behind or sitting on one shoulder, wagging their finger, and berating us, and judging, and haranguing us, and all the rest of it. So it actually feels like a character with its own sort of autonomy. One of the possibilities, or another possibility, is to deconstruct that person of the inner critic. It's not really a person. It's some thoughts. And very importantly, it's a belief in those thoughts. That's the real sticking: I believe those thoughts that are being spoken. It also involves aversion, and other hindrances. So rather than actually being a kind of person, a character, we can deconstruct it, and see it, just into its elements. And that tends to deconstruct some of its power, really. So that's very possible.
But -- and this is really what I want to introduce today, this kind of thing -- the opposite is possible. I could actually either spontaneously allow it to constellate into a kind of person in the psyche, or actually deliberately address it as if it was a person. Make it a person, go along with, as if it's a character, a person. So the inner critic becomes a person or a figure; it might be an animal or something. And then what? Maybe I can begin to dialogue with this person, this inner critic character. And even with the dialogue, there might be different kinds. So I could take quite a tough stance in relation to this inner critic: it criticizes me, and I ask it, "Why are you saying that? Where is your evidence?" And whatever it says, I can come up with another question. I can challenge it. What I will find, if I really hold my ground, and I use all my intelligence, I'll find that I'm actually more intelligent than the inner critic. It's not the brightest -- what's the phrase? -- sharpest knife in the drawer. And with challenging it, actually, it begins to lose some of its power. [16:03] I could also operate and work in a much kinder way, a softer way, seeking to understand it. Why is it criticizing? What does it want? What is it after? What does it feel? So both of those are possible.
If we backtrack, we can deconstruct it into elements, or we can actually let it constellate into a person, a figure, an animal, whatever it is, and actually enter into relationship with that. Both can be helpful. The deconstruction and the constellation can be helpful. And it is not the case that the ultimate truth is "it is just elements." That's not true. It's not true. It's only a level of truth. So both are viable options for us.
What might happen if we allowed ourselves to explore in that way of actually engaging and relating to a character, a psychic character, if you like? Sometimes what will happen is, we'll see that this inner critic is not really an inner critic. It looks like, it seems like an inner critic, but actually it's not. Sometimes what we find is, the inner critic is really what I call a clumsy old protector, the clumsy old protector. It's actually trying to help us, maybe trying to protect us from embarrassing ourselves in public, or being vulnerable, or thinks we'll get hurt, so it steps in to sort of pre-empt that process, and make us not do this or that, or express this or that, so that we won't get hurt. It's trying to protect us. Unfortunately, it's going about it in the clumsiest possible way. But its intentions are, weirdly, kindness. But if we can approach, and actually let the image of it fill out, explore it, and explore a relationship to it, maybe it begins to transform. This inner critic begins to fill out, and begins to transform. Or at least the relationship with it transforms. Maybe it's possible to dialogue with it.
So a little while ago at Gaia House someone was on retreat, and she was having some of this inner critic come up quite strongly. And we were talking about this possibility. And so she went away, and the next time it came up, she turned towards it. That's the first step, because usually what we do is we do this, and just cowering from it, turning away because it's so painful. So I don't actually turn towards it. She turned towards it. And she asked it, she engaged it, she asked, "What do you want? What do you want? And why are you criticizing?" And to her enormous surprise, a very gentle voice, a very kind voice -- not an image, a voice -- replied, "I want you to use your full potential. I want you to use your full potential." And it was so saturated with kindness, this voice. And she was completely surprised, and then really touched, and it brought tears to her eyes. Is that inner critic at that point? The turning towards, the engaging, has changed something. [19:22]
Or another person on retreat, again not too long ago, similarly practising and then bumping into this inner critic, and feeling oppressed by it, etc., and she said she got a lot of pressure. It's like pressure to push, push, push in practice, and she was assuming inner critic. She came into the interview saying, "I'm experiencing a lot of inner critic." And we talked about it, and in the course of the conversation, she said, "My mum died a little while ago." I forget how long it was. "My mum died, and she was so wonderful, my mum. She was so wonderful." So she was still grieving, in part, for her mum. But she also said, "It's hard to live up to that standard. She was so wonderful." And I said to her, "You know, she's still alive. You know that? She's still alive. She's still alive, so to speak, in you, you could say, as an image, as a psychic person with a certain autonomy." Now, she knew what I was talking about. She got it immediately. We're not talking about denial. She was feeling her feelings of grief, definitely. She wasn't cutting them off or hiding from them. We're also not talking about -- I think 'spiritualism' is the word, where you do séances and Ouija boards and all that. I'm not talking about that. Not denial, not spiritualism -- something else. She's still alive for the psyche, to the psyche, in the psyche, if you like, for you.
And I also suggested, "Maybe you have a duty to that. Maybe you have a duty to her, to this image that's alive in you." The word 'duty' for us mostly is a pretty heavy word, 'duty.' It comes with a sense of problem, but maybe the duty here has a sense of beauty to it. There's a beautiful duty. And again, she understood immediately. She was right there. "Maybe," I suggested, "maybe her kindness and her generosity comes through you. Something is coming through you, and maybe she wants that."
And she said this was incredibly freeing to think this way. The whole sense of what was happening, what was going on, the whole sense -- she wrote me, about two months later, a lovely letter, a long letter, explaining how this way of relating to it actually opened a whole other aspect, and a whole sense of herself, and her mother, and relationship, all that. Very freeing, and very touching, and there was a real sense of beauty in that, and she said -- her words were 'life-changing' in the letter. Something really changed in the sense of existence.
We're not talking about spiritualism here. I'm not talking about denial in this case. We're talking about a way of looking, a way of entertaining. I'll talk more about this later today. We're talking about a way of looking, a way of entertaining something that opens it up in a very different way, with very different possibilities. And there were also other things, other aspects for her. There were patterns to work through in relationship to her mother and all that, but something at the core of it was very different.
Okay, I think I'm going to stop there for now, actually. And I said, starting simpler and familiar, and taking it in directions where maybe we're not so familiar with. It will get more and more as we take it through the day. But I think, now, let's do a sitting together. So if you want to stretch, really, just hopefully stay in the room, and just take thirty seconds or so to stretch if you need to.
