We've started getting email reminders of our practice for the week. This week it said: "the disciplined mind is very peaceful". As great philosophical statements go, this probably does not rank up there with "do unto others", but a couple of times I recalled it today, and it made a difference.
It this Philosophy for Dummies TM ?
Why is it that even the most bland or mundane utterance of the wise can take us from darkness towards light? I suppose that maybe the word "wise" is the key there - the respect that it implies makes us pause, and that pause allows our native intelligence to function over our native ignorance. So maybe we don't need much.
Recent scientific research suggests another answer. The psychologist Jonathan Haidt borrows the Buddha's analogy for the human being of a rider on an elephant. The rider is our conscious, verbal mind; the elephant is the rest of us. The thing is, of course, the rider is a recent invention - in evolutionary terms it was dreamed up yesterday - whereas the elephant has been tested and perfected over literally millions of years. Haidt says that in effect we have "Rider 1.0" trying to control Elephant 1 million.
The rider might have his own ideas about where they are going, but if the elephant sees something it wants - or something it wants to avoid - then we go where the elephant chooses. That's why I am unable to live a measured life, even though I know all about its benefits in both theory and practice. The elephant has different priorities.
Many techniques have been developed, especially in recent times, that attempt to solve our problems by addressing the rider. Psychoanalysis, for example - if only I could understand what it was that happened with that dog when I was 2, I'd be much better able to deal with my boss. The only thing is though, psychoanalysis has never been proven to work - it might bring understanding to the rider, but he still does pretty much everything the elephant wants. When the elephant says, "Want Buns", the rider says, "how many?" (of course the elephant can't count ... this is part of the problem).
So we come back to the ancient solutions. Instead of trying to explain everything at the beginning, the traditional remedies or paths start with simple, repetitive exercises. Some are designed to give small, regular rewards for good behaviour. Others are designed to punish wrong-doing. Others, like meditation, bypass the thought process altogether. These things have to be repeated every day, because elephants don't, contrary to popular belief, have long memories. This process, if followed faithfully, builds up strength and capacity. It is compared to churning milk to make butter - there needs to be a transformation first, and then understanding. Until the disciple has gone through all of this, he or she isn't ready for philosophy.
The point is not for the rider to gain control, but for the two to learn to talk to each other, to become integrated. The elephant doesn't know what's good for it, so it desires status and power; the rider has to teach it to pursue the things that will lead to happiness. The elephant is a pessimist, and its fears dominate its thinking - it has learned over aeons that the consequences of missing a meal are far less severe than those of becoming a meal. The elephant is partial to its own interests, so it has to be taught the value of impartiality. It can't be taught all of this in one go, and it doesn't understand English or Sanskrit. It's hard to imagine that any lesson could be repeated too often, or spelled out too much.
That's why a few simple words from the wise help.
It this Philosophy for Dummies TM ?
Why is it that even the most bland or mundane utterance of the wise can take us from darkness towards light? I suppose that maybe the word "wise" is the key there - the respect that it implies makes us pause, and that pause allows our native intelligence to function over our native ignorance. So maybe we don't need much.
Recent scientific research suggests another answer. The psychologist Jonathan Haidt borrows the Buddha's analogy for the human being of a rider on an elephant. The rider is our conscious, verbal mind; the elephant is the rest of us. The thing is, of course, the rider is a recent invention - in evolutionary terms it was dreamed up yesterday - whereas the elephant has been tested and perfected over literally millions of years. Haidt says that in effect we have "Rider 1.0" trying to control Elephant 1 million.
The rider might have his own ideas about where they are going, but if the elephant sees something it wants - or something it wants to avoid - then we go where the elephant chooses. That's why I am unable to live a measured life, even though I know all about its benefits in both theory and practice. The elephant has different priorities.
Many techniques have been developed, especially in recent times, that attempt to solve our problems by addressing the rider. Psychoanalysis, for example - if only I could understand what it was that happened with that dog when I was 2, I'd be much better able to deal with my boss. The only thing is though, psychoanalysis has never been proven to work - it might bring understanding to the rider, but he still does pretty much everything the elephant wants. When the elephant says, "Want Buns", the rider says, "how many?" (of course the elephant can't count ... this is part of the problem).
So we come back to the ancient solutions. Instead of trying to explain everything at the beginning, the traditional remedies or paths start with simple, repetitive exercises. Some are designed to give small, regular rewards for good behaviour. Others are designed to punish wrong-doing. Others, like meditation, bypass the thought process altogether. These things have to be repeated every day, because elephants don't, contrary to popular belief, have long memories. This process, if followed faithfully, builds up strength and capacity. It is compared to churning milk to make butter - there needs to be a transformation first, and then understanding. Until the disciple has gone through all of this, he or she isn't ready for philosophy.
The point is not for the rider to gain control, but for the two to learn to talk to each other, to become integrated. The elephant doesn't know what's good for it, so it desires status and power; the rider has to teach it to pursue the things that will lead to happiness. The elephant is a pessimist, and its fears dominate its thinking - it has learned over aeons that the consequences of missing a meal are far less severe than those of becoming a meal. The elephant is partial to its own interests, so it has to be taught the value of impartiality. It can't be taught all of this in one go, and it doesn't understand English or Sanskrit. It's hard to imagine that any lesson could be repeated too often, or spelled out too much.
That's why a few simple words from the wise help.
7 comments:
Nourishing stuff - could even be the peaceful mind is disciplined.
'The point is not for the rider to gain control, but for the two to learn to talk to each other, to become integrated.'
This phrase has echoed over the last week. It often seems that the intention of the teaching is to 'gain control' over the elephant.
Is this my misunderstanding of the teaching - or its interpretation here in the western world with its western window - or are you challenging the prevailing orthodoxy? Or possibly both?
Is our window on the teaching conditioned by what we bring to it by way of current middle-class values? I think it may be. A particular gloss, a way of judging the world, of assessing value and persons that is so engrained we rarely see it?
Some time ago I got to wondering whether the Monty Roberts "Horse Whisperer" technique could be applied to this kind of thing. The "tradition" before this point had been to beat the animal into submission. The animal then becomes submissive, but through fear. The alternative is to learn its language and gain its willing cooperation...?
I was thinking of Monty.
The thing is that we are not equipped to beat the elephant into submission. The rider knows all about 'measure' ... but unless the elephant is convinced through long training, it just takes what it wants. Gritted-teeth stoicism usually conceals a rampant appetite, just waiting for a dark kitchen with a well-stocked fridge, or for an absent husband ...
Jonathan Haidt says, "The rider evolved to serve to the needs of the elephant".
This is profoundly challenging to 'our' idea of the way things are, but if we free ourselves from that for a moment, doesn't it ring true? It's not that "I" am the rider and the elephant is some alien "lower nature"; they are both aspects of the same "I".
I like the elephant with its well-stocked fridge... although, of course, I will only admit to horses.
Yes,'breaking' a horse is still the recognised term for teaching a young horse. But, although it's a physical process, its resources are of the mind, especially since the horse is much stronger physically than a human.
Leaving aside the special qualities of a Monty Roberts, how does it happen? A mix really... of a little hard discipline, showers of love.... The horse does have to be guided.
At Goodwood I once had the experience of seeing a two-year-old filly canter to the start of the race, flying over the ground, perfectly balanced, her jockey still as still, rider and horse as one. It was beautiful but quite startling. You don't see perfection very often.
That must be our aim - to bring rider and beast into close harmony.
Incidentally, the filly easily won her race. I knew she would but I was so struck by awe I forgot to put on a bet!
just dropping by to say hi
Louis Vuitton Louis Vuitton Pas Cher Pas Cher Louis Vuittonsac Louis Vuitton
Post a Comment