The Easier Alternative to the "Not Me" approach

The "not me" approach comes from the seal of Anatta, "no self in conditioned things", recognizing that all things are not of the self, in particular the six senses or the five aggregates/khandhas (body, feelings, perceptions, sankharas, consciousness).

The Accepted Method

The way this formula worked is that we firstly "look" at what we consider a "me" in terms of the six senses or five aggregates, and then reject a "me" in terms of that.

For example, we can "look" at our body first, recognizing and being mindful of it. Then we can consider how it is either:

• Composed of millions of interacting components, of cells, of bacteria, and how they are all patched up from endless components to produce a body which has no actual separate identity as a self.

• Composed of warmth (fire), fluidity (wind), liquidity (water), solidity (earth) and spatiality (akasa/space), and has no actual separate self identity.

• Composed of bags of blood, tissue fluid, faeces, urine, air, and so on - with no actual separate self identity.

This is the commonly accepted interpretation of the approach, as well as various other contemplative, enquiry methods, going into all the six senses or five aggregates. This worked very well for me over the past few years.

Pondering the Reason Behind the Approach

I don't claim to have any new take on it, but just a few weeks ago, I had an insight into this whole process and realised there was a deeper method (at least, to me) to intepreting this.

I pondered - what exactly is wrong about a "self"? The main issue is that this self is what creates a grasping or clinging onto. From this grasping comes forth all kinds of afflictions like hatred, lustfulness, and so on.

I then pondered - why is there a grasping or clinging onto in the first place? I then realised there was a common pattern - all beings seek to maximise satisfaction (pleasure) and decrease dissatisfaction (pain). As such, they attach either lustfully or hatefully to things.

I next pondered - why does this maximisation of pleasure and minimization of pain fail? I realised that it was not that it fails, but rather the whole ideation is based on a wrong understanding and illusion.

The Problem

We use the six senses to experience the outer and inner as one single field of the world. The problem is that experience is NEUTRAL intrinsically.

In other words, sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touches or thoughts are all without any pleasure or pain. Pleasure or Pain (P&P for short) is assigned by the mind to whatever is experienced.

Again, experience is neutral. The mind assigns P&P to these neutral sense-objects, creating either lustful or hateful attachments.

Twist on Approach

Therefore, the problem lies in the assignment of P&P, which is the very core of the problem of a self. If it never assigned a P&P, there would not be suffering in old-age, sickness, death, and the whole mass of problems.

Hence, self equals the assignment of P&P. If you ponder this, it makes complete sense.

Self is territorial. Whatever gives it pleasure is taken into its boundary. What gives it pain is rejected outside its boundary. This clear division between P&P is the self.

Therefore, instead of saying this is "not me", contemplating "is this pleasurable or painful intrinsically" seems to make more sense. "Am I rejecting or clinging onto it" is the implication here!

Support for this interpretation

We can reconcile this with the Pali Canon. In particular, the Maha-saccaka sutta talks about how both pleasure and pain does not invade the mind when one is both developed in body and mind.

In the Mahayana and vajrayana traditions, this mind of non-abidance is a huge key. One of the key instructions is particularly not to reject or cling onto phenomena.

This is exactly what rejecting or clinging means - the assignment of P&P by the mind on fundamentally neutral things that originally have no P&P.

Success with this

We must be careful not to turn this into a cognitive game. Instead, I encourage you to try this too, and ask "is this intrisically pleasurable or painful?"

In daily life, constantly ask yourself if you are lustfully or hatefully attaching to things. Sights? Sounds? Tastes? Smells? Sensations? Ideas and Beliefs?

In meditation, do the exact same thing. Simply sit there. Then go one by one for each sense. Or each khandha. Or whatever surfaces in your mind as in zazen. Or whatever distracts your mind in object-focused meditation. Etc.

The key is to turn this enquiry into something non-verbal. Basically, you just "look" into its fundamental nature. Do you see any pleasure or pain there? You are not asking a mental or subvocalised question. You are looking.

For example, if I ask you to look for an apple in the room, you wouldn't be asking yourself a question like "is the apple here?" Instead, you look. Then it becomes clear that the apple is right there.

Similarly, if you look for pain or pleasure that is intrinsic, you will only find the neutrality of things. You will realise it is the mind that assigns P&P to things, creating lustful or hateful attachment.

Just wanted to share another perspective :)

submitted by /u/RealDharma
[link] [comments]

from Buddhism https://ift.tt/2yWGQU8