IN BUDDHISM, we make a distinction between two principal categories of experience. On the one hand are experiences related to and contingent on our senses. On the other are experiences that are less dependent on the senses, which Buddhists describe as “mental”.
Sensory experiences are unmediated by language or concepts. They are direct and non-discriminatory. Take seeing a flower. Visual cognition is very direct – it only apprehends the flower in terms of colours and shapes. But when you think about a flower – a mental cognition – then that includes flowers you have seen in the past as well as the flower you are seeing today.
If you constantly reaffirm the thought of the flower and focus on it, you are directly engaging with an object that is a construct of your mind – not a physical object, but rather an imagined form of the flower. Thus the idea of something can get mixed up with its mental image.
Advertisement
In this way, many of our emotional “afflictions”, such as attachment or desire, can increase to such a point that the image does not correspond to reality outside the mind. These “imaginary forms” might include what the West would call projections, or fantasies about something or someone.
Imagine a case where someone holds a nihilistic view and asserts the utter cessation of something that in reality has an ongoing existence. This is a distorted view, an expression of “afflictive” intelligence. If one simply responds to that affliction by saying, “That’s bad, I don’t like it”, that doesn’t make the distorted view go away. You cannot make a distortion go away simply by reprimanding it. Rather, one needs to bring in reason. To counteract afflicted intelligence, you have to bring in unafflicted intelligence.
Let’s take this Western term “emotion”and draw on its Latin etymology of “that which sets in motion”. In Buddhist understanding, there are two ways in which the mind is set in motion or aroused. One is cognitive, using reasoning and taking evidence into account. This more thoughtful mode tends to give rise to positive emotions, as in arousing loving kindness. Then there is another, much more spontaneous way in which the mind is set in motion. There may be a little bit of reasoning that goes on in this process, as when one looks at an object and says, “That’s attractive”, but the reasoning is pretty flimsy.
A lot of the negative or destructive emotions arise from the more spontaneous category. Therefore from a Buddhist point of view, in dealing with the afflictions, understanding the nature of reality becomes very important because lack of understanding leads either to some kind of nihilism, or to false denial.
When Buddhists talk about afflictions of mind not being an inherent part of the mind, they are certainly not claiming that these afflictions are unnatural. Just like any other qualities of the mind, these afflictions are also innate aspects of it. Rather, the afflictions have not penetrated into what is called the luminous nature of mind, which is seen as its most fundamental aspect.
This claim is based on several premises. One is that the luminous nature of the mind is primordial, fundamental and essential. The second is that all the afflictions we experience are rooted in a fundamentally distorted way of perceiving the world. In some sense they do not have a solid, stable support – they are not based on reality, so that makes them fragile.
Another premise is that powerful antidotes exist that allow us to counter these afflictions and their underlying basis. These antidotes engage with reality in valid ways. They are qualities of mind, which implies that they can be enhanced and cultivated.
Emotion is like death in that it is part of our mind, part of our life, part of our nature. However, within the realm of emotions, some are destructive, some are positive. So it is worthwhile analysing what kinds of emotion are destructive, and which are constructive or beneficial. With this awareness, let us try to minimise the destructive emotions, and let us try to increase the positive emotions, because we want a happier society.
Now I’d like to say more about the fundamental nature of the mind. There is no reason to believe that the innate mind, the very essential luminous nature of awareness, has neural correlates, because it is not physical, not contingent upon the brain. So while I agree with neuroscience that gross mental events correlate with brain activity, I also feel that on a more subtle level of consciousness, brain and mind are two separate entities.
Indeed, I believe the automatic assumption in cognitive neuroscience that brain and mind are invariably two sides of the same activity limits the scope of scientific enquiry. That assumption means that science looks for its answers only within an arbitrarily limited framework. With so many new developments and discoveries in brain science, perhaps scientists might break out of this paradigm and expand the parameters brain science has set for itself.
For instance, one phenomenon I would like scientists to study is what Tibetans call “abiding in the state of clear light” after death. In this state, it is said, some advanced practitioners are able to remain in a meditative state for several days after the breath stops, during which time their body shows no signs of decomposition.
I am also interested in the idea of a “subtle cognition”, almost beneath the threshold of consciousness. When one is simply sitting quietly and pondering something, and out of this quiet thinking you start to get angry, without any external stimuli at all, where is the causal arrow pointing?
Are there any compelling empirical grounds for asserting that the brain gave rise to that subtle cogitation leading to anger or other emotions? Or might this subtle threshold or quasi-conscious cogitation be having an impact upon the brain – which, of course, would then have a reciprocal influence, arousing other emotions?
Since, from the Buddhist perspective, we consider all other mental processes to be derivative of the innate mind, the luminosity that is the fundamental nature of awareness, one could say that all mental processes that have been studied by neuroscience are emergent properties of this essential nature of awareness. I think there is quite a different perspective in modern neuroscience, where they are understood as emergent properties not of some essential luminosity of awareness, but of the brain. That’s a big difference.
A crucial reason why this is important in Buddhism is that when you have such a total emphasis on environment and brain, as you do in neuroscience, you have to look to somebody else in order to change. They have to do it for you rather than you doing it yourself. Even many religious practitioners feel that any good change in their lives will come from outside, for example from God, without much personal effort. I think that’s the greatest mistake.
