Being Freed From All Sense Desires Is Not Born Again Into This World

The phrase "I'1000 correct, you lot're wrong" is the archetypal expression of our tendency to adhere to views and opinions: "If I recollect it, it must exist true, and if yous call back differently, sorry, only you're wrong. You might be a expert person, but you're just wrong." This is the very opposite of the attitude expressed in the last four lines of the Mettā Sutta (SN 1.viii):

By not holding to fixed views,the pure hearted one, having clarity of vision, being freed from all sense desire,is not born again into this earth.

"Not holding to fixed views" means letting go, not clinging. In a number of his teachings, the Buddha talked about four different kinds of clinging, four different zones of attachment. The first kind is clinging to sense-desire, sense-pleasance (kām-upādāna). The 2d kind is clinging to precepts and practices: rules, observances, conventions (sīlabbat-upādāna); the blind belief in conventional structures. This can include rules of religious behavior, simply too be things like the value of money. The next kind of clinging is clinging to the feeling of cocky, attavād-upādāna, the "I, me, and my" feeling. Just the kind of clinging examined hither is clinging to views and opinions, as in the line from the Mettā Sutta: "non belongings to fixed views," diṭṭhiñca anupagamma in Pali. This last type of clinging is called diṭṭh-upādāna.

In our culture, we tend to concord opinions in very high regard. The tendency to take our opinion or view as an ultimate reality is a strong habit for all of usa; if I see something in a particular way, what I think is right, and so I am right! But if we adhere to that manner of thinking, if we take information technology to be admittedly valid, nosotros volition find ourselves in conflict with those who think differently: "If you call up differently from me, you must exist wrong." This can lead to friction, contention, and all kinds of quarrels at the family, social or political level, even to the point of leading to warfare over a view, or a simple deviation in understanding. This is an important issue in our lives and if we do not understand its core, how information technology works in our own minds, in that location's no existent hope of solving it on a broader scale. So nosotros need to explore that quality of contention, that divisiveness, that polarity. Where does it come from and what tin nosotros practice about it?

One trouble that may arise is that if I am right and y'all are wrong, I might feel it'southward my duty to fix you straight: "I'm pure, you're impure, and it's my sacred duty to gear up you lot so that we have purity." On a social level, this led to the terrible depredations of Nazi Deutschland or the Rwandan genocide, "ethnic cleansing" in the Balkans, or those "religiously" inspired militias who experience it's their duty to defend the word of their lord by wiping out those who think or deed differently. Similar evils have been frequently committed in the proper noun of commonwealth. This kind of attachment and clinging, of getting lost in our ain viewpoint, creates very real difficulties, tensions, suffering, and harmful experiences in the lives of many people.

The more than we believe in our opinions, the greater our investment in the rational listen. Indeed, the more logical our thoughts may be, the more than tidy our rationale, the more perfectly valid it may seem to exist to straighten somebody else out because they are "incorrect." And even if we exercise not recollect of setting someone straight as a sacred duty, nosotros tin can withal have a potent mental attitude of righteousness.

Information technology might be the instance that we take been praised for that quality during our childhood and upbringing, taught that righteous indignation is a skilful quality. On one level, we can brand a tight logical instance for thinking that way, and say it's absolutely true past our own judgment and reasoning. Only then, we will non recognize what it does to our own heart and the way that we relate to others. The outcome is farther complicated by the fact that sometimes stepping upwards and taking activity may be exactly the appropriate thing to practise, irrespective of our feelings of righteous indignation.

The basis on which we have action is the element that makes the deviation, as illustrated by the following story. In the early days in Ajahn Chah's monastery, Ajahn Sumedho was the only Westerner living there. He was a very agog, idealistic monk who took the monastic preparation extremely seriously and was very committed, as all adept monastics should be. But he had grown upwards in an atmosphere of righteous American conditioning, and had a dissimilar style of going nigh things from some of the other monks in the monastery. A Thai monk who was also living there was very loud-mouthed and outspoken, incautious about his speech. This was extremely unusual in Thailand, where people tend to be much more restrained, non-confrontational or outspoken in average social interactions. The young Bhikkhu Sumedho took nifty offense at this monk's beliefs and thought: "This is totally out of order, and why isn't Ajahn Chah proverb anything? He lets this guy just behave on and make a fool of himself and upset everybody, and everyone tin can encounter he's out of society but no ane is saying anything! This is ridiculous! Somebody ought to get up and... even though I'g a inferior monk I really ought to... if somebody doesn't say something, I volition!"

This went on for some months and he grew more and more indignant. Somewhen Ajahn Chah went off to visit a branch monastery for a few days, and information technology happened that at the aforementioned time, in that location was the fortnightly recitation of the monastic rule, after which the teacher gives an instructional talk and and so asks: "Is at that place any concern that the Sangha wants to bring up?" With Ajahn Chah away, it was thus i of the senior monks leading the meeting and who said: "Has anyone got any business to discuss?" Even though Ajahn Sumedho had just been a monk for two or three years and the loud-mouthed bhikkhu was a scrap senior to him, he said: "Yes. I've got something I'd like to bring up. I'm very concerned about the conduct of Bhikkhu X, and..." He had a whole listing of dissimilar occasions, he had witnesses, he had the testify, he had all his criteria; everything was lined up. And he was "right": all the things for which he criticized the monk were factually valid—y'all could see that other people had been upset or they took offense and walked away, and and then on. While Ajahn Sumedho was saying this, the offending monk was looking at the floor and everyone else was listening, taking it all in. Finally he got to the terminate of his Dhammic diatribe and the senior monk said: "We'll just expect till Luang Por Chah gets back and so we'll bring this thing to his attention."

A few days later Ajahn Chah returned, and word reached him pretty apace near this outrageous confrontation by the foreign monk. He took note of that. But before Ajahn Chah came dorsum, the monk who'd been criticized and shamed in this style left the monastery and wasn't seen once more. Afterwards a few days, Ajahn Chah found a moment to chat with Ajahn Sumedho and said: "You know, Tan Sumedho, what yous said about the loud-mouth monk, you did something very harmful there. You meant well, simply what you did was harmful because even though..." the expression he used in Thai was bahk bahp, daer jai di, which ways: "His mouth is evil, but his heart is practiced." "He'southward got bad verbal habits. I knew that. Of course, anybody knows that. But how many monasteries do you recollect the fellow had to leave before he came here? This was the one identify where he could stay and practice, because I fabricated infinite for him. But now you've closed the door on him and you lot have to take responsibility for that; he can't stay here anymore because you shamed him publicly. And and then you lot have to acknowledge that that was poorly done on your part. You were right in fact, but wrong in Dhamma."

That to me is an extremely precise and helpful teaching. In our minds, the ii ideas are often meshed together: "If I'm correct, then however I act on that rightness is good"; this is the principle of the "Antinomian heresy" in Christian tradition. In terms of the Buddha's education besides that goodness is not guaranteed, it's non necessarily then, because there'south a principle whereby information technology's not just a thing of what nosotros practise, but the way that we do information technology. It'southward not just the opinion nosotros have or the fashion we see things, just how we express them that makes the difference. That'due south the crucial chemical element, and that'south what the young Ajahn Sumedho had missed. It was a very powerful lesson for him; he has remembered information technology ever since.

And so how practise we respond when someone says: "I know I'm right?"

I was at a coming together of the community some years ago where at that place were some differences of opinion. Twenty or so people saw things one style, simply ane person in the group saw information technology very differently—they claimed that in a certain crunch "100% of the problems in the situation were Ten's fault; I was not to blame at all." At first no i else in the group could accept that seriously, some knowing from direct experience that what this person said was inaccurate. Then it was gently pointed out to them:

"Here we are – there are twenty of your peers maxim 'We encounter it similar this', and yous're maxim 'No, you're all wrong.' Does that seem reasonable? Do you really mean to say you believe you contributed 0% to the difficulties of the upshot?" To which the person replied with consummate conviction: "That's right. None of it was my fault." "And if all of us see information technology differently?" "Then you lot're wrong"—and said with a sugariness grin.

In this case, it was very helpful to be able to see that person'southward accented and non-reflective attachment to their view; the fact that they had such an irrational certainty in their own rightness demonstrated that: "Nosotros're not working with an adult mentality hither; this is a person lost in a childish reaction," and so the grouping was able to take the consequence on from there. Oftentimes, similar this individual, we practice not accept a reflective arroyo. We do non come across how tightly nosotros are belongings something, or have any kind of perspective on it. Nosotros demand therefore to larn how to recognize that feeling of rightness and explore it, and so that even if nosotros feel we are a 100% sure, we can reverberate on that feeling earlier we decide how to handle the state of affairs.

In that location'south a principle called "practicing Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma," dhammānudhamma paṭipatti (S 55.v), which is one of the essential elements, the final factor for stream entry. If we really desire to be free, it'due south absolutely essential to understand and embody this principle, to truly run into the difference between just having a sense of rightness, and recognizing that the mode we human action needs to be in accordance with Dhamma, with fundamental reality. The challenge is to find how to bring about that accordance with reality. One problem is that our attending becomes caught by the upshot itself. Something offends our ideals, goes against our spiritual principles, or is strongly loaded emotionally, and we get and so taken by it that nosotros do not encounter the emotion with which we are handling it.

I read an article a number of years ago about two sets of astronomers who were both trying to carry out the same kind of measurements to decide whether the universe was probable to keep on expanding or not, and the exact rate at which it was expanding. They had two big telescopes to aid make those measurements, and they were competing over who would exist first to take the final proof about this question. On one level, there were very refined and intellectual high-tech astrophysical issues, ostensibly to notice out the truth about the nature of the universe; merely on the emotional level, it was more than similar a scrap between 8-year-olds in the playground. One of the project heads commented: "Some people say that gravity is the most powerful force in the universe; I disagree, I think professional jealousy is stronger." I thought that was very acute. What the scientists actually cared about was who would end upward on top. Simply at to the lowest degree he had noticed that kind of dynamic was operating.

One arroyo to meditation is understanding how the mind becomes defenseless in these contentious states, where the reptile brain, the sense of disharmonize and contention, quarrel, competition, takes over our field of experience, and how nosotros get into situations where we are clinging to our "rightness" just it's not making united states of america whatsoever happier.

Once a Brahmin scholar called Daṇḍapani, whose proper name ways literally "stick in hand," i.due east., "the man with the walking-stick," came to the identify where the Buddha was sitting, meditating (Madhupiṇḍika Sutta, M 18). He was a professional debater who'd heard of the Buddha's reputation and came to ask him: "What's your philosophy? What kind of instruction exercise you proclaim? What kind of views do you assert?" The Buddha, being a very quick gauge of human graphic symbol, said: "I proclaim such a teaching that espouses non-contention with anyone in the world." The account says that Daṇḍapāni then clicked his tongue, his forehead puckered into three furrows and, wagging his head from side to side with nothing to say, he went away and left the Buddha by himself.

Later the Buddha described this encounter briefly to the monks and said:

When the listen doesn't grab hold of things, when you lot don't detect any "thing", whatever opinion, whatsoever fixed position to delight in, then that is what brings most the cease of quarrels, the end of disputes, malicious oral communication, the taking upwards of weapons and of statement – that's where contention comes to an stop, where the heed doesn't relish taking hold of 'this is my position!'

This very brief statement left the monks a bit perplexed, so they went to Ven. Mahā-Kaccāna, who was skilful at explaining in detail the Buddha'south cursory or cryptic statements. Mahā-Kaccāna gave a wonderful clarification of how the qualities of contention arise.

Dependent on the middle and forms, eye-consciousness arises. The coming together of the three is sense-contact. With sense-contact as condition, in that location is feeling. What one feels, that i perceives...

This is perception, saññā, giving the perceived object a name.

What i perceives, that one thinks about. What one thinks about, that one mentally proliferates.

So the chattering mind takes that perception and launches off with information technology.

With such conceptual proliferation (papañca) as the source, the middle is beset by mental perceptions and notions characterized by the prolific tendency, with respect to the past, the future and present forms cognizable through the eye.

Merely and so, if aught is institute there to delight in, to welcome and concur to, this is the end of the underlying tendencies to lust, aversion, views, dubiousness, conceit, desire for existence and ignorance. This is the end of resorting to weapons, quarrels, brawls, disputes, recrimination, malice and imitation speech. Hither these harmful, unwholesome states cease without rest."

This process begins with a sense-contact. Something impacts one of the senses; there's a contact, and so at that place's a feeling of attraction or aversion, or a neutral feeling. That feeling leads to perception. And so we might give a audio that we hear a name, or it might cause a trigger in the mind of interest or enthusiasm, or have an emotional impact, and that recognition is saññā; not just the sense perception merely the tone that goes with information technology.

The words "sign" and "designation" are related to the Pali word saññā. That naming action brings upwards thought, vitakka. And from thought comes papañca, the strings of conceptual proliferation. That is when the chattering mind actually launches off, and that's what somewhen leads to a feeling of "me oppressed by the world," "me pressured past this affair I'm stuck with that I do n't desire," "me pursuing this thing that I haven't got," "me being burdened by this painful experience," or "me caught upwardly in this particular quality." It leads to the array of perceptions and notions that besets the heart and creates a feeling of alienation, of a "me" in a state of tension with "the world."

So, states of conflict and contention develop because we take a thought or a perception, and then the mind runs with it. The guided meditation which follows this article looks more than closely at how that procedure works, and how we can follow it back to the source; the simple, straightforward sight, sound, feeling, smell, taste, or thought; the innocence, the simplicity of the raw sense perception. The saññā, the vitakka, and the papañca all develop from something straightforward: a feeling, a sound, a sight. In meditation, nosotros can train ourselves to go back to the source of an private perception or idea, or but a memory floating upwardly, and so stay with the simplicity of that. In the Korean tradition, there is a beautiful collection of teachings which talks about this practice; there it's known as "tracing back the radiance" (Buswell Jr. 1991). In meditation, we'll find that ninety-nine times out of a hundred, if nosotros follow the conflicts the mind gets into and the tensions it creates back to what triggered them, nosotros'll accept left behind that feel of tension and breach, that conflicted country, we'll have let go of information technology.

Guided Meditation

Settle downwardly and sit in a comfortable posture for meditation: cross-legged, kneeling, or on a chair, however you cull.

First of all, accept a moment to notice how you lot feel. It always helps to briefly have stock of what the mood is. Do you lot feel inspired? Tired? Happy? Depressed? Whatever it might be, just take a moment to observe what that tone, the mood of this moment is.

Feel the presence of the torso. How is information technology? Does it feel light? Heavy? Comfortable? Uncomfortable? Hot? Cool? How is information technology? Detect what y'all brought here with you. What'southward your starting point? Past recognizing that this is the textile you are working with, this body, this listen, you tin can allow your actions, your attitude, guide the body and mind towards what will exist useful, beneficial for you.

Now feel the presence of the spine. Bring attending to your courage. Invite the body to sit down upright. Permit the spine lengthen, stretch to its full natural extension.

Bring the quality of alertness and attentiveness to what you are doing, helping to brighten and energize the body, the mind.

And so, effectually the spine as the key column, the axis of your concrete world, take a few moments to allow the body relax in a full and complete mode. Relax the muscles of the face, neck, and shoulders.

Relax the artillery and the easily.

Relax the trunk of the body. Let the chest be a lilliputian more than open, the abdomen soft and relaxed, complimentary from tension.

The hips, the legs: let them soften and loosen. Invite the whole body to be at ease, to settle at this particular time, this particular place. Give yourself permission to permit go of all tension, to be alert, attending to the nowadays moment.

To sustain or constitute that attention in the present, we take a simple meditation object like the feeling of the breath. Without changing or modulating the breath in any deliberate style, let the natural rhythm of the breathing be the center of attention for the side by side little while, feeling each inhalation, each exhalation. Invite the mind, the attention, to residue and to settle in this present moment; the weight of the body, the breath entering and leaving—the simplicity of this moment.

When you lot detect the attention has drifted abroad, let go of what the mind has latched onto; come back to the present moment, letting the jiff be like a central point, a flag marking this very moment. Y'all gear up the intention to follow the breath, merely and then you detect the mind is becoming distracted. The adjacent thing you know, you are planning next week, recollecting a conversation early on this morning time, a film you watched last night, your grandmother's cottage in a foreign country.

Whenever yous notice that your heed has drifted off in that way, come across if you can follow it back. See if you can trace the chain of idea that led upward to that association.

Follow the string of thoughts and associations to meet where the association came from. Did it come from a sound? A feeling in your knee? A random retention of a fragrance?

Whenever y'all find some kind of string of associations, of conceptual proliferation, see if you can follow it back, theme by theme, thought past thought, to run across where information technology came from.

And once you get to the root, when you recognize: "It was just that sound! It was that feeling in my genu!" stay with that perception for a moment. Stay with that simple recognition. Feel its tone, its ordinariness. Then after a moment, permit go. Get back to the breath. Re-establish attention in the present.

You tin extend this practice one stride further to explore the quality of conflict by deliberately bringing to mind an occasion that had a powerful bear on on you lot, someone with whom you take argued, an ex-partner, parent, kid, co-worker, co-monastic. Bring to mind some occasion of conflict, of a difference of opinion. You exercise non need a whole story, just the very briefest of thoughts, a word or a couple of words: "That argument." And so see, note, sense the chain of thoughts and feelings that is triggered when yous deliberately launch the papañca stream. When the listen is fatigued into this stream—this flood of associations so that you lot are lost in it—stop! Then follow it back through each link in the chain, to where it began with perhaps a unmarried word. How unremarkable, ordinary that original word is, and still it can give rise to such a flood, an ocean of associations, with their qualities of force per unit area, tension, stress. When we follow it dorsum to that single simple word, that one idea, how does it feel? What'due south the tone? What's the quality at the root, before all the thoughts and associations are launched from it? Wonderfully uncomplicated, is not it?

Reference

Writer information

Affiliations

1. Amaravati Buddhist Monastery, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, HP1 3BZ, UK

   Ajahn Amaro

Corresponding writer

Correspondence to Ajahn Amaro.

Boosted information

Excerpted from I'm correct, you're wrong! by Ajahn Amaro. Amaravati Publications, 2016

Rights and permissions

Well-nigh this article

Cite this article

Amaro, A. Non Property to Stock-still Views. Mindfulness 10, 582–585 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-018-1017-x

Download commendation

• Published: 31 January 2019

• Issue Appointment: 15 March 2019

• DOI : https://doi.org/x.1007/s12671-018-1017-10

lewisparily.blogspot.com

Source: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12671-018-1017-x

Share this post