ANUBHAVA SASVATAMALA


 

ANUBHAVA SASVATAMALA

The Never-ending Necklace of Experiences

 

 

The Buddha has taught us that no effects

Arise without causes and that all causes

Give rise to effects.

 

Our daily life depends upon the activities engaged in to maintain or prolong it and in the course of this engagement we accrue mental characteristics and habits distinctive to ourselves. What such patterns are and how we understand and apply them usually decides whether we characterise our life as being happy or not.

How we think of ourselves is often affected by the society or environment in which we are born and that same society or environment usually gives us our first values and ways of thinking. From these we develop our own distinctive responses and individualisations of them.

In matters relating to what we can term our 'inner' life, society has developed various educative systems, two notable ones being religion and psychology, which purport to deal directly with the problems or queries concerning or relating to that inner life. These systems have in turn evolved various kinds of rules or guides as to how we should conduct ourselves, form relations to others and think about the world we inhabit. Their conclusions and the resultant values, priorities and ethics which develop from them often claim but rarely reflect truly universal values. They are usually internally inconsistent or contradictory and not fully enacted within the civilisations which produce them. Consequently it is quite common to find differences of opinion and practice between various groups espousing nominally the same teaching. A person searching to understand his/her inner life is easily distracted by what is on offer for it is very difficult to find a consistent 'ruler' to measure with.

Different nations embody such inner fragmentation as can be seen by their widely varying educational, political, religious and philosophical priorities or outlooks, and we can trace such differences back to the moralities or values which have arisen both directly and indirectly from the enactment of their philosophical and spiritual priorities (1).

There is often chaos where there should be clarity and fragmentation when what is needed is integration.

The Buddhist teachings speak of attaining mental calm and insight into our being and a great part of fruitful Buddhist study lies in coming to understand and experience what this fully means. Its opposite, namely the frenetic rush of modern daily life with all its ensuing complexities and chaos is well known to us all and many would prefer instead to find some way to dissolve the pressures and stresses we experience within it. Human life is frequently permeated by a widespread sense of dissatisfaction, of suffering in many forms, and modern society is perhaps characterised by its creation of sophisticated but seemingly simple ways of bypassing or ignoring the real causes of such sufferings.

There are many ways we may try to blot out our awareness of either our daily situation or those aspects of life we find painful to endure or behold. Most of us do not know how or where to find a useful means to dissolve such situations and, in searching for a way, we have to take care, for the pervasive habits and sufferings which arise when we seek, in the wrong way, to alleviate or avoid life's stresses are well known, taking form in alcoholism or drug abuse.

It is distinctive of humanity alone that it has developed so many ways of avoiding having to deal honestly or openly with the often self created and harsh facts of its own existential patterns whilst simultaneously claiming it deals with the 'real' world (2).

Any wild animal employing such evasions would quickly fall pray to its enemies.

One significant and important way of perpetuating such unrealities is by pretending that the features of experience, their dynamics, are in fact fixed, static and unchanging, as from this pretence can be fabricated rules or principles which can then be claimed to be, or regarded as, constant and unchanging. The apparent benefit of this lies in the fact that it enables us to create an image of certainty in an uncertain world, of constancy within the intrinsically inconstant. Such images can then be manipulated for the benefit of their creators.

Such fixities however always lead to suffering for sooner or later events occur which serve to remind us of life's inconstancy and unfixity. Whether in the form of a personal disaster of some kind or an earthquake, it is not difficult to see far more reminders of incessant change within our world rather than the opposite.

In order to overcome this basic and evident fact, society has had to devise ways of encouraging us to ignore it, usually by replacing it with something else which acts as a camouflage or cover to experiential reality. This usually takes practical form in the creation of organised systems of thought, and the studies or disciplines which arise from these. Society always develops ways of minimising obvious universal principles in favour of maximising specialised (i.e., partial) studies which purport to authoritatively explain the minutiae of life. It then exalts such specialisations as pre-eminent over all other forms of knowledge (3). This is especially evident in the fields of philosophy and science which originally were forms of religious endeavour but have been turned around to represent the very opposite.

Organised religion itself has also been forced to move on in the face of philosophical and scientific facts, and has had to reassert and rejustify both its relevance and validity. It has usually done this in one of two ways, either by liberalising its principles to such a degree that it becomes undistinguishable from sociological endeavours or it has become even more persistent in its insistence upon faith, not wisdom, as its principal determinative factor. Both of these approaches - the insistence upon the pre-eminence of knowledge based upon a visible and repeatable experimentation or the pre-eminence of faith in invisible and unrepeatable powers such as God - are incomplete.

 

Within the panorama presented by the two former views we can discern various degrees of optimism, pessimism and materialism open to humanity in its consideration of such methods and attitudes. These can be summarised as falling within the following four corners:

Each of these tenets embraces a multitude of religious and philosophical sub-systems which collectively summarise nearly all the views current in our time.

None of them has proved sufficient for our modern age as is evidenced by the increasing rates of crime, social alienation and widespread disbelief concerning them common to most civilised nations.

This is because humanity has not yet learnt to fully live at all.

In coming to see how we may usefully pierce this fog of restriction, fear, pain and confusion we need to examine our basic views regarding our situation and the consciousness which experiences it. This is necessary because we can see that a solution cannot lie in forming simply another restrictive view or law concerning its results. This is what the previously stated points already summarise and include. We must instead look again at the very basis which creates and directs how, at what and where we look, including its mechanics and processes.

If we make a mistake at this stage all of our subsequent efforts may prove useless.

The Buddhist teaching neither starts from a stance of materialistic science nor from a blind belief in some almighty god, but instead concerns itself with very basic and understandable ideas concerned with how perceptions and our cognition of them comes about. It shows that our mental states arise from the organic activities of the physical senses and are interpreted by consciousness according to certain of its characteristic responses and distinctive patterns or habits. Such patterns themselves are formed within our consciousness from the former results of such states and from our present responses to them (5). This series of self percepting and perpetuating activities carries on in an uninterrupted and creative process throughout our lifetime and is verifiable within our own experience irrespective of our educational or social background.

From this can perhaps be seen that those mental factors, traits or habits which are carried in our consciousness (in the form of likes/dislikes, preferences, biases etc.) may greatly modify both what and how we perceive the world around and within (6).

Now whilst errors or omissions in our cognitive sensorial processes are easily noticeable and correctable (i.e. we can obtain spectacles or hearing aids etc.), errors (7) in the processes (8) of consciousness itself are not.

Such errors can take many forms in content or object. In some situations ideas arise in a different form to the usual or are seen in other ways. The resultant perception of mental phenomena is of such a nature that it is entirely self sufficient to the individual concerned, and the types of ideas created do not require them to be shared by others. Such mental phenomena may or may not be realised by their percipient who in turn may or may not be content with them.

The collective processes of this and other such characteristics of thinking can also bring about an accumulated effect where such patterns, or even the content of consciousness itself, differs so greatly from that of others that it may be difficult, perhaps even impossible, to communicate with others upon some common ground even if it is wished.

The difficulty here lies not in trying to establish what the other person thinks, the themes or goals of their ideas etc., but firstly trying to see if their conclusions or statements do reflect a real situation, i.e. are they correct (9). Then if so (or not), how did they arrive at this conclusion (10)? In order to enquire so one must be familiar with the actual formative process of consciousness both in oneself and the other person. Only then can we hope to be able to apply any useful and relevant form of therapy. Understanding how such processes arise, their content and resultant effects form an important object of the Buddhist study of consciousness (11).

This is not always as dramatic as the former paragraph may appear to suggest. I am not talking here only of abnormal states of mind but equally the common daily processes of thought though which we see and deal with the 'ordinary' world. Very ordinary people may be in situations where the pressures of life around them produce internal responses or realities entirely unsuspected by others. However my comments do not exclude consideration of abnormal states of consciousness.

It is within such a theme that Buddhist teachings differ widely from their European counterparts. As Buddhism has such a long history and one concerned very much with the content and characteristics of consciousness it bears within it much experience and wisdom concerning such therapies. Perhaps a good example of this lies in Buddhism's view of the potential of the human mind and condition, which it exalts over all other forms of existence, whether perceived or not, and is extremely tolerant of that form of suffering and unrest that we term in the West a 'mental' illness.

It is perhaps here, in the understanding of what constitutes a mental illness, that we can see many examples of the attempt alluded to earlier of formulating a camouflage, a diversion of attention, in order to hide the inadequacies of materialistic opinions, attitudes and understanding in relation to actual living processes which are neither understood nor found socially acceptable.

Modern analysis, diagnosis and treatment of mental illness is often based upon primitive attempts to posit the intrinsically dynamic consciousness into rigid, unchanging, archetypal forms which, in turn, are given important sounding names and classified into groups. Each of these groups is then accorded specific forms of treatment or restraint depending on the urgency of the individual situation and case history.

One such term with which most of us will be at least familiar, is 'neurosis'. This word is typically used to characterise conditions regarded as detrimental to those who exhibit or experience them -such as inner conflict, obsession, worry or mental agitation (incidentally characteristics common to politicians, social heroes, film stars and the modern successful businessman). Once we give a shape to a particular condition or form of expression we feel safe from it, it has been 'contained' within a nomenclature and is thought to then be safe to deal with. Sadly, such terms as 'neurosis' represent more the bluffs and pretences of materialistic views rather than real insight, for at best such a term can only indicate the front end of what seems to be an unknown and/or unacceptable characteristic of a series of mental states. It is but a nomenclatural covering or camouflage for inadequacies of understanding and outlook.

Such terms are commonly used when we talk of mental illness as if there was such a thing as an 'ill' mind. Mind or thought itself cannot be ill any more than can breathing or sleeping (12). States or conditions of consciousness are not singular entities in their own right. Thinking in such a way is reflected in the famous Buddhist philosopher Vasubandhu's commentary upon his text "Visamtika Karika" ("The Twenty Verses") where he demonstrates the impossibility of seeing a single atom. As no such an entity exists as an object of sight in its own right so there cannot be said to be something which is composed of such entities (i.e. a group or grouping of atoms). Until we can determine a primary state as existent, a secondary one remains only an imaginary hypothesis not a 'fact'. Even 'facts' themselves are merely groups of certain intrinsically dynamic features which, being allowed to give rise to experiences, are then regarded as if frozen in time.

If we think of mental states as actual entities we stand in danger of solidifying them into an independent existence, in a manner similar to that which we often apply to ordinary physical illnesses. In this the solidification of an unsolid concept is glaringly evident for we will often regard a state of illness as the body plus an illness. Such a view makes the state of illness itself something in its own right, existing as an unwelcome visitor to, and irrespective of, its 'host' body. Another trouble with such a view is that it tends to make us regard physical illness as something quite distinct and independent of its experiencer (13), and we forget that it is the experiencers themselves who form the matrix for that state of illness to come into being. It is they alone who are its base, for illness can only exist as an experiential state to those who experience it. Illness is only a usually undesired, qualitative condition of our physical being, which itself is a composite of other states of experience and experiences of states. If we regard physical or mental illness as an entity we will also regard our experiences of it (i.e. its symptoms) as the illness (14).

From this we may be led to believe that if we rid ourselves of the symptoms we also rid ourselves of the illness (15). This is alleopathic medicine, it is neither sufficient nor workable in the long term. Serious physical states may have small, even insignificant symptoms, overpowering symptoms can emerge from insignificant illness.

No mental state is an entity in itself but a series of different activities connected together by a common feature or factor (16). When we manifest any one of these factors the others, of which it is made up, come into being almost automatically. Although those characteristics which are more in evidence, or more influential than others, determine what it is we call that state (17), the state itself does not exclude other subsidiary conditions or qualities, some of which may be quite different to the predominant mode.

It is like a necklace. We may have a necklace formed of different beads or stones, each one being quite different in shape, colour and texture. Because there is no common feature between them if someone asks us to describe the necklace we cannot do so by means of any common factor. We have to generalise and say 'it's a necklace' and that is all. If we pick up the necklace we can do so by any one of its beads or components, we do not have to hold every one. If we do pick it up by one bead all the others follow. We can hold all the necklace simply by means of one component. We can use such an example as a key to understanding how we may develop the aware attitude required to understand the various Buddhist therapies for the sufferings we all experience. We have already seen that states of mind or of physical being only occur, appear, or have force as singularities (i.e. the illness, the worry, etc.) We also know that such states are in fact multiplicities.

Due to this they can be understood, approached and dissolved in small and manageable steps, rather than large and difficult ones. This is a traditional approach used in Buddhism. We do not need any special talent or knowledge to experience illness, be it physical or mental, but through understanding its real nature and content we can see there is a possibility to transform it which is within our capabilities. It is no use seeing any state of consciousness as a burden we justly deserve or have to bear, for that both solidifies the state and produces a reinforcement of its effects. We can perhaps see this in dealing with our sense of fear or insecurity.

Both of these states have supportive features which connect them. If we 'unpick' one of these, all the others are also able to similarly be unpicked. In such a way of seeing we have a door to self liberation, as all we need to enter it is the capacity to experience the world as we do but without looking upon, or from within it, with propagandised, self delusive eyes. There are various ways to approach transformations of our consciousness and Shakyamuni showed us two methods of great value. Although there are many others, most of them arise from or are based upon one or other of these basic two. They are termed in Buddhist Sanskrit 'vipasyana' and 'samatha'.

The first represents the analytical approach and method in relation to perturbations of consciousness, the second refers to the development of a calm and detached observation of such perturbations by universalising their content. These two techniques can be applied to all and every manifestation of what we term neurosis, fear, worry or despair.

In the first we assume a warrior's approach to problems and meet them head-on, searching or probing for weaknesses or contradictions through which we can attain experience of their intrinsically deceptive qualities. We try to see through their camouflage of solidity, meaningfulness and unchangeableness.

Such a battle is not conducted wildly or at random but coolly, precisely and with great courage. We meditatively 'attack' and note responses, we recognise our enemy's weaknesses, where their supplies come from and how they arrive, who commands the assault forces and where the leaders are etc. Then and only then we conduct our counterattack - at precisely the right moment, in the right areas and with the right kind of forces and arms. We repeat such processes again and again until they are successful.

In the second we simply observe those same states with a detachment borne of the universalisation of their features. This means that we try not to reach out to them or try to hold them. Nor do we take those states as if they were our own exclusive possessions. From such a method we may attain a direct but detached experience of out own tendency to cling to and preserve without change our own inner states of consciousness. Such a proclivity is the very basis of all other experiences of dualistic states of consciousness. This latter method may seem simpler or gentler to us but in fact it is just as difficult as the first one, it is just that the 'enemy' works in a more subtle and subversive manner and with better camouflage.

If we lose the first battle we are killed or made into slaves by the victor.

If we lose the second we are unknowingly seduced into becoming commandos of the enemy's army.

One or both of these methods can bring us to the understanding of the states of consciousness we experience as 'our' own, and of their ability to present as unitary what is really a compound. If we can dissolve one of the supportive features of such a state all its associated ones will also dissolve along with it. Using our necklace analogy of earlier this is the realisation that when we cut the string of the necklace at any one bead, all the other beads will fall away.

 

Shifu Nagaboshi Tomio

Kongoryu-Ji Temple

 

 


 

(1) There are many examples of this, the civil and criminal legal code and educational requirements being most obvious. [back]

(2) In a 'real' world people would not need to hide the fact of death along with dead bodies, would not tolerate poverty, suffering or deprivation amongst others. 'Real world' people cannot tolerate injustice, cruelty or oppression, do not shun the mentally ill or physically disabled and cannot bear to enjoy anything in life gained at the expense of others. [back]

(3) In our history, both religion and philosophy have been used in such manners. Another common, but usually transparent, method of social diversion arises in media stories or denunciation of activities deemed to be against whatever are the interests of the current society. This is especially evident in cases involving spiritual groups. Recently a Bishop condemned a Christian group which, he said, was led by a 'cult' figure and explained that such 'gurus' arose because their activities were not always approved of by their governing bodies, nor were their leaders subject to criticism by their peers. Such gurus, he explained, were charismatics who taught in a manner very different from the orthodoxy within which they arose and ignored both advice and criticism. In short, he described a teacher identical to that his own church presents its founder as being. [back]

 

(4) This first are common to orthodox science and state religion, the second to fatalists or nihilists, the third to humanism and atheistic socialism, the last to hedonists, solipsists and materialist liberalism. [back]

(5) Of course in those with missing or afflicted organs the process of interaction alters somewhat due to the different organic predominance. Despite this, what is sensorially perceived still forms a basis for consciousness and those patterns of that consciousness which arise from them. [back]

(6) Most of us will be familiar with the situation in which one person, disliking another, acts as if they simply weren't there and when asked why they didn't respond to such person's queries maintain they did not hear them speak. Children especially perfect the art of not hearing requests for things they would not wish to do. [back]

(7) I am using the word 'errors' here with some reservation as it indicates a judgement based upon a pre-determined set of values. Whether any set of values can override or has more, or better, values than another set has to be determined. In the same way the term 'sane' has only a relative meaning and cannot represent some fixed, unchanging form of conduct which is universally valid. [back]

 

(8) By 'processes' I mean the distinctive patterns and traits which form our experiences and which, by reason of our attachment to them, influence or orientate us to perceive, act or think in specific manners. Such 'processes' may involve all and any experiences such as factual information, day to day perceptions and thoughts, dream states, hallucinations, memories, or current events and values. [back]

(9) It is well known that people termed 'schizophrenic' often exhibit perceptive insight far beyond the capacities of their carers, often disturbingly so. I am therefore using the term 'correct' here to mean firstly, are they consistent with their experiencer's own views and values, and secondly, in a more universal sense, to mean, are they harmful or destructive to others. [back]

(10) Eventually we come to the conclusion that it is the formative nature and processes of consciousness itself that requires understanding and not any particular expression of their results. [back]

(11) There is one reason why Buddhism lays so much emphasis upon the development of a spiritual content within companionship (termed the 'kalyana mitrata'), rather than friendship based only upon shared pleasures or material goals in which the inner awareness or states of others can be easily ignored or bypassed in favour of external aims. [back]

(12) In Buddhist teaching, of the many mind/body conditions liable to initiate the unskilful retributive activity known as 'Karma', that concerning the autonomous self sustaining actions of physical or mental being is classified as being of a neutral category (avyakrta) and not capable, or liable to, initiate any retributive activity. [back]

(13) If illness were a consistent entity it would be the same for all who experience it and it would follow that everyone experiences the same illness! [back]

(14) Such as a 'disturbed' mind' or a 'worried' mind etc. Both of these states may be quite justified and signs of a healthy concern or compassion towards other human beings. [back]

(15) Such as when we take an aspirin to alleviate a headache. Drug manufacturers often encourage such a view. [back]

(16) This means not that the series can exist in its own right but that each factor of the series has its particular significance only when it arises in a certain relation to other factors. The resultant action consists of the combined modificatory, and often determinable, effect this connected series gives rise to. [back]

(17) Thus the state of happiness is one in which happy states of mind predominate over all other states present. [back]

 

 

 

 


The author has studied Kempo and its associated arts for over 35 years and is the head instructor of Mushindo Kempo in Europe. He was invited to found the first dojos at both Oxford and Cambridge Universities and was chief instructor at the latter for 5 years leaving to found the Hakurenji Temple in London. An initiate of the esoteric sect of Buddhism he has taught at the Kongoryuji Temple for the part 18 years. He is the author of many historical, philosophical and doctrinal works concerning Kempo, Chinese esoteric Buddhism and the Buddhist forms of natural medicine and diagnostics.

Back