What’s Wrong with Meditation III – Jargon

 

By John M. de Castro, Ph.D.

 

“Since clarity is beneficial and if Buddhism really is adaptable, then using one’s own language in its study should not be a big deal. I’m not trying to be Anglo-centric but it seems like we all lay it on thick some times.” – Brian Schell

 

As was discussed in the prior essay on What’s Wrong with Meditation I – Expectations  and What’s Wrong with Meditation II – Improper Instructions there are three essential problems with the way meditation has been presented in the west that have produced problems, misconceptions, and misunderstandings. First, meditation has been presented in a way that has evoked beliefs, ideas, and images that are overly idealized and not reflective of the typical experiences of meditation practice. Secondly, immediately jumping into meditation practice has been encouraged, without the provision for proper background information, study, or instruction. Lastly, the focus of the present essay, the jargon used to describe the process, experiences, obstacles, and results are extreme, resulting in ideas and expectations that far exceed normal experience and miss the most powerful aspects of the teachings.

 

Words and phrases such as suffering, emptiness, impermanence, greed, quieting the mind, stopping thoughts, clinging, no-self, abandonment of desire, karma, etc. are in a sense accurate, but they present too extreme an image of what the process is, what actually occurs, and what are the desired outcomes. This can cause the practitioner to be looking for the wrong experiences and completely miss it when the experiences are moving in the right direction. In fact, a recent issue of a Buddhist magazine had three separate full articles each explaining what was meant by a particular term. No wonder the novice doesn’t have a clue what they mean.

 

Let’s start with “suffering.” We are told that the purpose of meditation is liberation from suffering. This term is often thought by the beginner, as was true for me, to mean very painful or highly damaging. I was taught that the way to liberation was through suffering. This gave me problems because I didn’t believe that I was suffering and this left me at sea as to how to proceed with meditation. But, the word that the Buddha used was dukkha which is often translated as “suffering” but this Pali word also can also be translated as unsatisfactoriness. Now that’s a completely different story. Looking at experience it can readily be seen that humans find most things in their live as not being satisfying. In fact, we wish that most of our experiences were different than they were. We want the news to be different, we want our meal to taste better, we want our route to be free of traffic, we want others to think like we do, etc. The truth is that unsatisfactoriness is everywhere all of the time in our lives. Once we see this we can begin to meditate on why we find things to be so unsatisfactory. We can begin to uncover the universality of the Buddha’s teachings. We can begin to see our egos refusing to accept things as they are, producing unsatisfactoriness. What a difference a translation of a word makes.

 

We often hear the word greed as a desire that we should release. When I think of greed, I picture intense pursuit of money, like in the movie “Wall Street.” That being the case, it seemed that releasing greed is not a problem as I don’t think of myself as having that level of desire for money or things. But, again, the word is deceptive. What is actually meant by greed is wanting things, anything, even simple things, like a piece of candy, a new wallet, a significant other, the red light to change, win a point in tennis, for it to stop raining, etc. So, what we need to work on eliminating is not extreme avarice, but desiring things.

 

So, when we’re meditating should we release the desire to have anything. No, again that’s not the meaning. Desire for things is in human nature. There’s nothing wrong with it. In fact, it’s healthy. What needs to be released is insisting that you get the desired outcome. It is not needed that you meditate on releasing the desire, rather releasing the need for a particular outcome. This is even true for meditation. We need to release the desire to “make progress,” to “clear our minds,” to get into a new state of consciousness, etc. When it is said to eliminate greed, it simply means to eliminate the stake we might have in attaining the thing we desire. If we don’t get it or we get something we’re not expecting, it’s OK. We’re not married to the outcome. This is what is meant by another confusing term equanimity. It just doesn’t matter what happens, whether the desired outcome or something different happens. It’s perfectly OK either way.

 

One of the most confusing pieces of jargon is no self. We are instructed to practice and realize that there isn’t a self. This is sometimes termed losing the center. When I first heard of no-self, I envisioned it as being a state devoid of an experiencing entity. But, again that’s not the meaning. The mind produces a concept of self, based upon experience and conditioning, which is very useful in negotiating our world. But, it is a hypothetical construct. There is no thing that can be pointed to that is the self. It’s simply a term used to summarize a set of experiences. This construct is not permanent and unchanging but evolves and changes with experience. What the idea of no-self refers to is just that. There is no thing that is the self and there is nothing permanent called the self. Hence, there is no permanent self, or no self. Seeing this we can meditate on the self and become aware of its artificial and ever changing nature. We can begin to understand what is real and what is constructed reality.

 

When we meditate we are instructed that we should quiet the mind. When I first heard this I envisioned producing a state with no disturbance, no thoughts, feelings, interpretations, etc. But, once more that is not what is meant by quieting the mind. Thoughts, feelings, sensations, etc. arise in the mind spontaneously. There is nothing wrong with this. It’s the natural ongoing function of mind to do this. What’s referred to as quieting the mind simply means not to respond to these sensations. It simply means allow them to arise and to fall away without reaction, simply watching them. Thoughts will occur but in a “quieted mind” they are simply noted and let to dissipate without further processing. Likewise, sounds, sights, tactile sensations are only observed without further attention. Similarly, feelings arise, are observed, and allowed to simply dissipate without thought, or any attention at all. So, the “quieted mind” is not exactly quiet. Lots can be going on. But, whatever is happening is not reacted to, attended to, or thought about in any way. So, in meditation, we quiet the mind, not by turning things off, but by being a passive observer, letting them flow in and flow out, arise and fall away, come and go. This needed explanation because the term used can easily give a wrong impression and lead the meditator to try to control what can’t be controlled, leading to frustration and feelings of failure. Understanding what is really meant by the term produces peace and progress in meditation.

 

Meditation practice is often confusing and new practitioners often assume meditation is something other than it is because of the problematic and misleading terms used in its description and instruction. If you want to meditate it is important that proper instruction is provided in the early stages of practice so that it can develop appropriately. Without this instruction the meditator can move in wrong directions, become frustrated, and abandon the practice. With proper instruction, the meditator can understand the process, understand when its going in the right direction, be patient with its ups and downs, gradually improve the practice, and enjoy all of the wonderful benefits of a meditation practice.

 

“A seeker may be clever and may understand the exceedingly complicated principles of Buddhist philosophy, but is this really wisdom? These concepts have been born through excessive philosophizing in overly intellectual environments, where monks apparently had nothing better to do than analyze trivial things rather than find a clear path to enlightenment. To be intelligent is to aspire to gain the right knowledge: knowledge which is directly useful in the task of finding peace and realizing our true self.” – Anadi

 

CMCS – Center for Mindfulness and Contemplative Studies

 

This and other Contemplative Studies posts are also available on Google+ https://plus.google.com/106784388191201299496/posts and on Twitter @MindfulResearch.