Buddhist conceptions of self are radically different from the conceptions of self that you find in Euro-American Psychology; such as those found in self psychology and depth psychology. The very foundation of the Buddha’s teaching warns about the trickster as being both the father and mother of all illusion. This figure is called Mara. Mara (called in Hinduism, Maya) is regarded as thee principal deity that manifests, perpetuates and governs the illusion that we are conscious and the unconscious dualistic habit of constantly needing to name everything in the phenomenal Universe. According to the Buddha’s teaching he is the concept of western self, itself.
In traditional Buddhism four senses of the word “mara” are given (Guruge, 2011).
- Kilesa-mara, or Mara as the embodiment of all unskillful emotions.
- Maccu-mara, or Mara as lord of death, in the sense that because we remain identified with the illusion of the physical reality, we stay trapped in the ceaseless round of birth and death.
- Khandha-mara, or Mara as metaphor for the entirety of conditioned existence.
- Devaputra-mara, or Mara the son of a deva (god), that is, Mara as an objectively existent being rather than as a metaphor.
In the west we might think of Mara as Satan, but the biggest difference is that in the Bible when Satan is spoken of, he is spoken of more as a scapegoat, whereas in Buddhism, we find similar metaphors but Mara is amoral, there is no judgments in his actions, no revenge towards God. Buddha makes clear that we are fundamentally responsible for our actions even if we are tricked. Mara may play several roles but he is fundamentally always the trickster (Samyutta Nikaya 4:8).
Mara is recognized as the architect of illusion and constantly tries to make the attention become fascinated with the dualistic intellectual center as the primary form of understanding. Buddha understands that Mara is always trying to cause our consciousness to become fascinated, identified and hypnotized by physical sensations in order to create desire. When desire has been created then consciousness has become trapped within it (sankharas) (Samyutta Nikaya 15:115). Amplify this illusion one hundred fold and you get what we call thoughts, which are really just desires (complexes) that have trapped energy (cathected chi). Therefore according to Shakyamuni Buddha’s teaching, Euro-American understandings of mind, consciousness and self are themselves the invention of the trickster and fraught with the very subjectivity it claims to be able to observe. Mara wants to constantly increase mental formations (complexes or sankharas) in the psyche in order to invest more and more consciousness in form rather than in emptiness. This is discussed in great length in Buddha’s teaching on dependent origination found in the Samyutta Nikaya; a large set of short scriptures (suttas).
In order to more clearly understand this teaching it is best to reflect and examine the differences between conceptions of self held by Buddhists and Euro-American Psychology.
The Trickster in cultural constructs of self
One of the fundamental differences between Buddhist psychology and Euro-American psychology is in what consciousness and/or self is. Modern Euro-American psychology and neuroscience suggests strongly that consciousness is in some way synonymous with our thoughts, feelings, hormones, body. It seeks to discover what its nature is. Buddha suggests that consciousness is totally independent of the body, feelings and mind (Majhima Nikaya 22). It is beyond concepts and does not need to engage in dualistic views in order to interact with and comprehend reality. The construct of what makes a healthy and happy human is thus tied into what is self.
In Buddhist psychology the goal is to eliminate the elements of the mind that cause subjectivity (Trickster/desire) in order to move from the experience of relative truths to an absolute truth. It could be said however that Buddhists go about this in an entirely different way from western science as monks are trained (in Monastic settings) to take into account and apply the principles of the Werner Heisenberg theory of physics, in another form not called the Werner Heisenberg theory. This theory which expresses the notion of the observer becoming a part of the observed system is fundamentally a part of the study of reality. In this theory of physics, the observer is no longer external and neutral, but through the act of measurement he becomes himself a part of observed reality. This marks the end of the neutrality of the experimenter. It also has huge implications on the epistemology of science.
The theory of Self vs. no self. Atman or Anatman
The Buddha taught that their are two levels of truth; Absolute truth: which one can come to know when there is no self to discriminate, and Relative truth in which, no matter how advanced the practitioner is along the path, as long they are attached to self concepts, they will continue to see truth unconsciously affected by the egoic aggregates (concepts, desires, complexes) at some level. Thus we each are tricked into seeing the world we want to see by Mara. Relative truth is always affected by Trickster, for to the Buddha trickster lived in the mind as well as in the world.
In Buddha’s psychological teachings, he taught that it is possible to know an objective truth but with the teaching that, in order to experience absolute truth one must eliminate the notion of self; not continue feeding it with object relations. For it is the concepts of self that makes reality into a subjective experience based upon attachment to sensations, feelings and mental discriminations regarding those experiences. It is the notion of self, defined by our internal narratives and reactions to external stimuli that is Maya. It is the trickster looking to create a new appetite, a new desire to repeat a pleasurable sensation or avoid an uncomfortable experience.
Similar to today, in Buddha’s time Brahmins held similar philosophical ideas to modern western psychotherapy. They held that there was a self attending to the senses and also that thoughts and feelings were a part of that self. This is very similar to the vague and ambiguous way Hillman explains the self/soul concept. Buddha fought very hard against this kind of teaching and in the suttas one can find various debates with teachers of his time. The Buddhas teaching of anatta (Pāli) or anātman (Skt.) refers to “non-self” or “absence of separate self”, this is the core of the Buddha’s psychology. The Buddha expresses this in Majhima Nikaya Chapter 22 when he says;
“Monks, there are these six view-positions. Which six? There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma, and assumes about form: ‘This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.’
“He assumes about feeling: ‘This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.’ “He assumes about perception: ‘This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.’ “He assumes about fabrications: ‘This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.’ “He assumes about what seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: ‘This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.’
“He assumes about the view-position — ‘This cosmos is the self. After death this ‘I’ will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity’: ‘This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.’
“Then there is the case where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma assumes about form: ‘This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.’
“He assumes about feeling: ‘This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.’ “He assumes about perception: ‘This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.’ “He assumes about fabrications: ‘This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.’ “He assumes about what seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: ‘This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.’
“He assumes about the view-position — ‘This cosmos is the self. After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity’: ‘This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am”(Majhima Nikaya 22).
At the time of the Shakyamuni Buddha it was a commonly held view amongst Brahman’s that the self (Skt. Atman) was synonymous with thoughts. That our identity is almost one with the Spirit but for the body. Though this is an interpretive view, it is one that the Buddha spoke against strongly throughout his own teaching. It is easy to see how one could arrive at this interpretation when reflecting on the following verse from the Mundaka Upanishad, “the one on whom the veins converge, like spokes on the hub of a wheel, that one moves on the inside, becoming manifold. Meditate this on the self. The one that consists of mind, the controller of the breaths and the body, who is established in food, having settled in the heart, with the perception of him by means of their intelligence, wise men see it….”(Wynne. P. 69). In these verses one may easily confuse the self (Atman) with what we perceive to be our true identity.
This view held by the Brahmin’s, that is held by Euro-American Psychology presently is the view, or we could say the work of the trickster. Making us believe in the illusion that self psychology perpetuates for us, “the primary psychic self …which differentiates into organized structural patterns under the impact of experience of object relationships after birth” (Guntrip. 1961, p.7). More than anything Buddha would have said to us that the Trickster is your mind (Dhammapadda 3).
It is possible that the Buddha experienced witnessing these very same struggles within the Brahmans and practitioners of his time, constantly evaluating where they were on the path to Atman, or if they were on the correct path at all. We can assume that he held such a position based upon the fact that he was constantly engaging in the debate between Atman or Anatman and the lack of gnosis with the Brahmin priests. The Buddhist scholar David Kalupahana concurs with this when he says, “…for the Buddha, the more menacing metaphysical issue was the cognito or the transcendental apperception of the rationalist, which was also implied in the upanishadic notion of self (atman)” (29).
In the Tevijja Sutta we find the Buddha dealing with these issues when two young Brahmins come to him for counsel regarding an argument they had been having over which of their teachers is more astute about the path of union with Brahma. The Buddha discusses this with them and also through questioning gets them to realize that these teachers have no direct experience, no gnosis of what they are teaching. He assists them in informing themselves that they have been believing in a false teaching, the trickster has been at work, and furthermore he insists that he himself has had direct experience of Brahma and can show both of them, through his methods, how to experience Brahma for themselves (Digha Nikaya 13).
Thinking is not consciousness but a trick.
Contrary to popular western belief, Buddha emphasized that there was no subjective soul or self which is reborn. If we assume for a moment the Brahmans believed in a subjective soul or self which returns, the view of the subjective soul will be similar to the one held by modern Christians or by James Hillman. Through questioning and inquiry of Christians one can easily see that most Christians hold the view that that which will live beyond death is the same person which lives in life, meaning the self identity which one feels in their thoughts. It is this belief of the soul characterized by mind that the Buddha taught against as stated above in Majhima Nikaya Chap. 22. That there is no continuity of conceptual consciousness characterized by an internal dialogue. That this internal dialogue is a trick. It is Mara, the great deceiver that seeks to perpetuate causality. The trick is found in the fundamental belief that thinking in us is a choice, whereas it is actually a neurotic, incessant chatter.
Right now we believe that our thinking is conscious and in our control. Let us assume that our consciousness can be defined by thinking. This would imply then that there is some choice to consciousness, or choice in thinking. This is however, the crux of the illusion. We are under the illusion that there is a choice in thinking. Nothing could be further from the truth. If we inquire into exactly what is a thought? A thought is characterized by images, words or symbols. Thought as an image is a way in which defined experiences are stored as pictures or memory and is often deposited in the subconscious or unconscious. Thought as words or symbols is a way to define and communicate experience and action.
However, if we were to begin to rigorously observe ourselves, not through thinking but by dividing our attention. Through looking for where our attention is coming from moment by moment. Within this concentrated state we would begin to see our psychological sleep and thus notice how trickster is working on us. This is what the Buddha called mindfulness. The division of the chi or attention so that the consciousness is aware of the inner state and the external event simultaneously. The Buddha states that only within this state of mindfulness is it possible to have enough inner separation from thoughts and inner reactions to see the trickster in action.
Through a continuity of mindfulness one can begin to verify that thoughts are an automatic activity that happens without choice at all. They are not choices. This incessant neurotic chatter is the basis for most of the problems in our lives and the root of the psychological hypnosis we all live under.
This does not mean however that the Buddha was actually teaching nihilism or total dissolution of awareness. The Buddha, within the suttas implies many times that there is a continuity of consciousness, however he was struggling to teach against the habit of constantly needing to intellectually conceptualize consciousness which is what the Brahmins and what we in the west have now become stuck doing. Buddha suggested that when one lives from consciousness, there is no need to continually evaluate experience; rather experience needs to be observed as it already contains gradations of truth. This is known further as one uses mindfulness to separate from the 5 skandhas (aggregates) and works on dissolving the flow of mental formations (Sankharas).
In the Samyutta Nikaya we can find this psychological schema:
- 1-Pure unconditioned Consciousness
- 2- Perception: stage of pre cognitive conditioning where instinctive and adaptive states are formed. This is preverbal and so words and communication are not present here.
- 3- Discriminating mind: A conditioned mind that learns and later needs to discern 1 thing from another, i.e. glass from air. Here thinking is a device that is used for communication and in order to impel us towards an action. Images and actions become connected to words; thus later one can believe that all inner action is controlled by some form of thinking due to this process of learning. Seeing certain images and labeling those by certain sounds we can begin to feel those sounds evoke those images internally without having to actually physically see the images. This gives some the belief that thinking and experiencing are one and the same. Emotion is, in the western view, tied here.
- 4- The 5 senses: Lenses through which is experience is gathered and through
Buddha’s way of teaching was a response to both his own gnosis and to the dominantly held view of Brahmins in his time that you cannot escape karma- cause and effect- a paradigm also held in western psychology; i.e that all knowing must come under the final influence of the mind, its discriminations and discernments. That all and anything known by consciousness is known by the mind. Buddha rejected this and found a way to go beyond causality through Samatha Vipassana meditation and an experience in meditation called, Sunyata. Through his method of Samatha and Vipassana he claimed to see into and behind the nature of causality and dualism.
The big problem, or trap would eventually be in trying to explain how to leave duality but within a dualistically constructed language. At first he foresaw this and decided he would not teach the dharma as it would be vexing for people as a result of this problem. Buddha felt it was the mind, in participation with Maya that perpetuated suffering. For many years after his initial realization under the Bodhi tree Maya tried to trick Buddha over and over back into a dualistic way of understanding the nature of reality through desire and mental constructs. Buddha was able to recognize the tricks because he was no longer identified with the self that contained the Trickster. He was no longer identified with the mind.
“ Just as a fletcher straightens an arrow shaft, even so the discerning man straightens his mind — so fickle and unsteady, so difficult to guard.
As a fish when pulled out of water and cast on land throbs and quivers, even so is this mind agitated. Hence should one abandon the realm of Mara.
Wonderful, indeed, it is to subdue the mind, so difficult to subdue, ever swift, and seizing whatever it desires. A tamed mind brings happiness.
Let the discerning man guard the mind, so difficult to detect and extremely subtle, seizing whatever it desires. A guarded mind brings happiness.
Dwelling in the cave (of the heart), the mind, without form, wanders far and alone. Those who subdue this mind are liberated from the bonds of Mara”.
Shakyamuni Buddha; Dhammapadda 3
References
Buddha (2000). Dhammapadda. (Dharma Publishing Staff, Trans.) Berkeley: Dharma
Publishing.
Buddha (2000). The Connected Discourses of the Buddha; A Translation of the Samyutta
Nikaya (Bhikku Bodhi, Trans.) Boston: Wisdom Publications.
Buddha (1995). The Long Discourses of the Buddha; A Translation of the Digha
Nikaya. (Maurice Walshe, Trans.) Boston: Wisdom Publications.
“The Buddha’s Encounters with Mara the Tempter: Their Representation in Literature and Art”, by Ananda W.P. Guruge. Access to Insight, 16 June 2011, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/guruge/wheel419.html.
“The Demons of Defilement: (Kilesa Mara)”, by Ajaan Lee Dhammadharo (Phra Suddhidhammaransi Gambhiramedhacariya), translated from the Thai by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight, 7 June 2010, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/lee/demons.html.
Wynne, Alexander (2007). The Origin of Buddhist Meditation. London and New York:
Routledge. 109, 8
Recent Comments