In the meditation practices I have read and experienced, there is often an emphasis on seeing things clearly as they are. Without judging, labeling or attempting to create a story out of them, I can start to see things more clearly and have a bright perception of them. Sometimes, mindfulness practice is focused on clarifying what something is, but I recently read in Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's book, Understanding the Mind, that there are times when 'not ascertaining' what something is can be a useful approach as well. It depends on what we are dealing with in the moment.
Non ascertainment, according to Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, refers to being able to see clearly but not 'realizing' what it is one is seeing. An example is being in a crowd. Although the awareness functions to know that the crowd is there, I cannot make out the individual people, and mind isn't focused on seeing them as individuals. It is as though the mind is aware of something as a whole but is not engaging in its particular features or discriminating between parts of that experience. Another example referred to is when a baby sees her or his father. The baby has no words or even previous knowledge to recognize the father (p.68). The first example refers to knowing that something is present but not putting one's attention on that object or situation. The second comes from not having a prior experience to label the experience or focus on it. In both cases, I think the main activity of the mind is to recognize the sensations without putting too much meaning on it. The third example that Geshe refers to is on p.69, where he describes the case of people not knowing a language, yet still being able to hear the sounds. Because my recognition of sounds is not tied to a particular 'meaning' or chain of associated thoughts, the sound is experienced just as a sound.
I would imagine that education is most often associated with ascertainment. The classic example is that the more familiar we are with the particular qualities or distinctions between certain things, the more discerning I am. I can tell the difference between a rope and a snake only when I have a clear understanding of how the two are distinguished, and am in a position to realize the nature of both. If I am in a dark room or am feeling ill, I may not have such a clear way to perceive these or know that what is in front of me is one or the other. Without this ability to ascertain or "make out" features, I wouldn't survive for very long. I would need to have quick reactions to know that what is coming toward me is a car, for example.
However there are other cases I can think of where it may be important to let go of ascertainment or previous habitual experiences of something. The mind is always unconsciously ''selecting" which stimuli to focus and which is merely background noise that is not of much value. I wonder if you can imagine what it would be like if the mind were simply unable to filter these sensory experiences. What would happen if, instead of choosing to attend to a conversation, a person simply could not choose to blot out other background sounds? If the person's mind isn't calm, this experience might be quite challenging and cumbersome.
Geshe uses a second example, and that is cases where a person has craving for an object. He remarks, "At any moment, when we meet an attractive object we usually pay considerable attention to it and try to gain as vivid a perception of it as possible...Instead of paying so much attention to objects of delusion it would be wiser to develop non-ascertaining perceivers with respect to them" (p.71) Geshe uses the example of restraining the senses when approaching objects we strongly like or dislike.
What I got from this particular chapter is that mindfulness doesn't necessarily mean that one is focusing on every detail or experience around oneself. While it's beneficial to have an awareness of everything around us, we still have to decide from moment to moment what kinds of focus would lead to wholesome outcomes. When I attach to something I like and continue to 'seek' it, I overlook the question of who is seeking what. In fact, I take for granted that there is a fixed and separate body looking for something or trying to grasp it. "I" have already objectified the desire into an "it" without exploring or questioning that assumption.
It interests me that objectifying in this way is always a form of violence, both to the perceived 'subject' and the 'object.' While Geshe recommends the practice of simply not being driven by attachments or distracted by them, I also suggest that the desire itself can be looked into deeply, and can even be questioned. What does it mean to have the desire? Who benefit and who is harmed by it? Is it really so great to pursue something that is interconnected to the universe? For example, if I crave chocolate, am I really aware of the real nature of this chocolate: where it came from, what its' composed of, who grew it, who is exploited from making it, whether it benefits or harms this body? There are so many questions that complicate the 'object' we perceive as chocolate.
The other assumption that people can make when wanting or craving is that this wanting always leads to a desired outcome. I have often heard of a psychological idea which says, "If you want something, just imagine in your mind what you want, and it will naturally manifest over time." But what is overlooked is that wanting is also a source of anxiety and suffering. Because I am too focused on ascertaining the 'object' of my desire, I overlook the anxiety, fear and emptiness I feel when contemplating the object. If I am too quick to ascertain 'what I like' and 'what I dislike', I may overlook the violence and suffering this creates inside.
Geshe Kelsang Gyatso (1993), Understanding the Mind: An explanation of the nature and functions of the mind. London: Tharpa Publications
No comments:
Post a Comment