it is enough to be aware

   After meditation session tonight, we had a discussion about the question of whether one can have a thought without 'talking to oneself'. The discussion became quite interesting, because it explored this question of who is talking and who is listening, when we 'talk to ourselves'. Are thoughts really uttered by subjects to objects? When a thought arises, is it a part of me having a conversation with myself? I am reminded of the analogy of a chess player who plays against him or herself by switching between playing the black and white pieces. In order for this person to really enjoy the game to which she is engaged, she would have to attach to each 'player' while forgetting that she was the 'other' player just a moment ago. Endlessly, we play this part with ourselves.
   Another theme that came later on in the discussion in the car, was the idea of having to be peaceful all the time, which seems to be a preconception for spiritual practitioners. Spiritual practices like meditation are often promoted as these kinds of practices for calming the spirit and promoting tranquility. Yet, the irony of this promotion is that the more I try to make myself calm, the more I separate this 'non-calm' me from the 'calm' and presumably ideal 'me'. When dealing with emotional turmoil, is it a compassionate idea to try to pose as this super-calm person who tries to suppress emotions?
   It might be more useful, as one practitioner suggested, to look into each passing emotion and ask the question: what part of this experience is the still and authentic mind? What part of what I experience doesn't fluctuate, no matter what the emotion might happen to be? This approach is quite opposite to the idea of trying to suppress emotions using an ideal self. In fact, the approach of Chan isn't to try to avoid emotions, but to allow emotions to emerge, under the awareness that they are all arising in mind.  It is to look for mind in the emotion, or trace the origin of that emotion.
  This also seems to be a more compassionate approach to life. I recently had a conversation with a friend who shared about how people might go to religion so that they can forgive themselves of sins, only to find themselves committing the same 'sins' all over again. Why is that? I think it's because they already divide themselves into a spiritual self and a 'sinful' self, and this duality ends up creating more temptation to sin. This kind of situation involves always trying to measure oneself against an ego-ideal: the ideal, virtuous, "likeable" character. It does not consider that mind plays all the parts in the drama and is never limited to like/dislike.
       In those situations of having a vexation, is it enough just to be aware of the vexation itself? In a sense, it involves observing without attaching a notion of self to what is arising. As long as there is no separate self emerging, the thoughts are always able to co-exist, and there is no contradiction or obstacle between thoughts. But when the thought that I "should calm down" clashes with the thought of "I am not calm", a strange situation arises where I am not able to fully live with the situation. I am 'divided' in thought between a feeling /thought arising and a clashing idea of who I should be.