|
> One of the aims of mediation is to gradually understand that this self is really an illusion Yes this is a standard Buddhist (and not even exclusively Buddhist) point, and I'd say it's basically correct, but the problem is that it can, and has been understood in dozens of ways. Some more profound than others, and plenty contradicting one another. Let me give a fairly psychological interpretation. One of our major cognitive functions is to create and maintain an automatic, pre-verbal map of the world, at the center of which stands a mapped entity labeled "ME". Let's call it the "self-representation". This is in itself fine and dandy, and quite useful; it gives us a sense of being an integrated organism through time, and lets us say things like "yesterday I went swimming". More troublingly, it's also the subject of our self-esteem, and of most of our hopes and worries. The map, with our self-representation in the center, is not the only thing in our awareness - we're also able to attend to stimula and feel our emotions in the here and now. The problem, and the only problem as far as radical Buddhism is concerned, is that our sense of being is most of the time entirely fused with this self-representation. It becomes the entirely of who I am to myself. (Hence Ramana Maharshi's super direct path: inquire within "who am I"). What meditation does, by slowing down the whole mechanism, is to allow us to feel that there is more to me, here and now, than this running self-representation. By insistently putting our attention away from it, we temporally and partially unfuse from the self-representation. We get little breaks from it, where it either it mostly just stops for a while, or it becomes something I see happening, rather than something I am. And if I can see it happening, I can also train myself to not give it so much importance. The result is a much vaster inner perspective, and a sense of deeper presence - for a few moments at least. But, usually, the moment the meditator notices these changes happening, the most automatic reaction is for the self-representation to rise back up as the one who wants to own that. HEY, INTERESTING STUFF IS HAPPENING TO ME!!! And there you go go crashing again into stuffy ordinary consciousness. Hence the usual advice you will hear from good meditation teachers: getting experiences if often easy, but not running after them can take years and years of practice. |
Because I've never found much success with meditation, but the split between present-experience and self-representation has always seemed... well, easy to me. This idea of them being "fused" is only something I discovered in discussions around meditation. But then that makes me wonder if I misunderstand it.
Conceptually, I can understand the present-experience meditation aims at as simply experiencing the senses. Which I'll do sometimes, especially outside in nature. It's nice. I've never had any trouble quieting down my thoughts, as long as I'm not in an immediately stressful situation.
But it's also never "changed" me in any way. It doesn't make me feel like there's "more to me", nor does it feel like it's some kind of desperately needed respite from my self-representation. I rather like the challenges of everyday life. Even if they're not "so important", it gives me meaning and purpose in a way that, well, I can't find any comparable meaning or purpose in focusing solely on present-experience.
So I guess my question is, am I missing some aspect of meditation? Am I misunderstanding something here? Because what I've been struggling to understand is why letting go of self-representation is seen as good or a goal. You're left with your sensory experience, but I don't understand what's meant to be so profound about that. It's never led me to any ethical realizations the way reading moral philosophy has, nor has it led me to any therapeutic realizations the way psychotherapy has -- nor do I really understand the mechanism by which it could. But I feel like I might be missing a piece of the puzzle?