Buddhist meditation is sometimes called a mystical form of enlightenment. What does that mean? Well, it depends on who you ask, but William James, the great American psychologist who we heard from in the first lecture, said that there are two hallmarks of a mystical experience. He said that, that first it is noetic, and second, it is ineffable. By noetic he meant that there is a sense that knowledge has been imparted. That, that some deep insight has been apprehended. And by ineffable he meant that it's hard to express exactly what the experience was like. Why the person is so convinced of the truth of this deep insight. And if you want an illustration of what exactly James meant by inept ability, one thing you can do is talk to a kind of serious Buddhist meditator who has had the experience, while meditating, of not-self. And by that, I don't mean the kind of modest version of not-self that we've talked about. Where, you know, you, you say well I don't have to identify with that particular feeling. That feeling doesn't have to be part of myself. I mean full on, extreme not-self, where the person becomes convinced, that there is no self in there. If you ask such a meditator to kind of describe the experience, often what you'll hear is, sorry, I can't describe it. Sometimes you find somebody who is game, who'll give it a shot and even then, when they start talking about it you kind of see what James meant by ineffable. It, the, that it does, def, defy really clear articulation. Well anyway one person, who agreed to talk to me a little about, about such an experience is Rodney Smith. He's a very highly regarded meditation teacher. And the author of a book called, Awakening. And I asked him to try to recall the very first meditative experience he had when he became convinced of the truth of, of the not self doctrine. >> In words, [LAUGH] which already throws me way off stillness. There was no contention, okay? And therefore, it was a, there, it felt, stillness was not a contained state. It was infinite. Infinite stillness, because there was no distance. Infinity comes into play when there isn't any distance. It's the only time it comes into play. So when there is no object that is counter to yourself, or yourself that is counter to an object, then there is infinity. So I would say infinity, I would say stillness, and, and universal awareness. >> Now, by universal awareness, he doesn't mean that he was aware of the whole universe. He just means that he got the sense that awareness, is kind of a property of, of the universe, in a, in a sense. And what he had previously thought of as himself, or his own little realm of consciousness was actually just kind of a particular part of this larger expansive awareness or, or a point of access to it. >> It's like, here's an example. If you take the air around you, alright. The air around you is 360. It's everywhere. This doesn't apply any pressure, it's there. Okay, now make the air awareness. Alive. >> Mm-hm. >> That's what it feels like. It feels like you're being surrounded internally and externally by something that is not self-generated. >> Not every meditator who has had this not-self experience would describe it the way Rodney did, but there were two themes in what he said that are pretty common in these reports. One, is just the idea that there, there's a sense that you're awareness, your consciousness is, is in fact not something that's really defined by a self. I've heard the term owner-less consciousness. As a reference to this. And the other thing when, when Rodney talked about there being no sense of, of opposition between any self and any other other object. That would fall under the, under the heading of kind of transcending the, the subject object duality which is another, another thing you hear. Both of those things are very hard for me to wrap my mind around. and, and I would say do qualify for what William James called ineffable, in, in some sense. But I do think that there's a, a more straight forward way to try to get a sense, for what people mean by not self. There's another avenue we can take. And that is to ask meditators who have had this experience, to talk a little about what thoughts, what their thoughts seem like during mediation. We've talked about feelings and how meditation can give you a kind of different relationship to your feelings. Well we, we haven't really talked about much about what thoughts might seem like to the very serious meditator. And I think that can be a fruitful path here. So I talked about that to, to Joseph Goldstein. Who's a very important thinker in, in American Buddhism and has played an important role in really the development of American Buddhism over the last few decades. About 40 years ago, having spent some time in Asia, he came back and founded, along with Sharon Salsberg and Jack Cornfield, the insight meditation society, that has become a very important institution in kind of spreading awareness of, in particular vipassana meditation. He's also written a lot of books including The Experience of Insight about vipassana meditation. Anyway I did raise this question of kind of thoughts with Joseph. What, what thoughts seem like during meditation. >> So, one little exercise to do. This kind of, it's kind of a fun exercise. Es, especially if you're sitting in a group, just to play it a little bit and to imagine that every thought that's arising in your mind is coming from the person next to you. I just [LAUGH]. Notice, if that would make a difference in how you're relating to the thought. >> Mm-hm. >> And, and I, it, it can, it can give you a sense that, the identification with thought, is extra. >> Okay. >> The thought, the thought itself is appearing, disappearing. Like a sound. But being identified with it, is something we're adding. >> Okay, so then in meditation, there can be the sense that thoughts are just kind of coming out of nowhere so to speak. Almost like, like voices although it's not like you're. >> Yeah. >> Hearing things maybe literally but it's more like. >> Correct, correct. >> As you might guess the way he put that reminds me of the modular view of the mind and the modular view of the mind, the conscious mind doesn't really generate the thoughts But rather the thoughts are generated by some modules outside of the realm of, of consciousness. Michael Gazzaniga an adherent of the module review of the mind, who we've mentioned and, and who did those split brain experi, experiments that we talked about earlier has put it this way. Gazzaniga has written it's a dog-eat-dog world going on in your brain with different systems competing to make it to the surface to win the prize of conscious recognition. So, as he puts it, whichever notion you happened to be conscious of at a particular moment, is the one that comes bubbling up. The one that becomes dominant. Normally we don't see the bubbling up, right? We don't see a thought kind of enter the conscious realm. Rather we can identify with it immediately apparently and just thunk that the conscious mind generated the thought. And maybe meditation, by kind of calming the mind, making the mind still. Lets you actually see the thought emerging consciousness before you identify with it. In any event, once I kind of saw the parallels between what Joseph Goldstein was saying and this modular view of the mind, I kind of pressed him on the point and, and, and tried to kind of crystallize the parallels. Let me see if I have this right. During meditation. You, you could begin to see that, or, or come to believe that. Whereas you might have thought, all your life you're thinking, thoughts, the thing you think of you as, is thinking the thoughts. It's closer to being the case that the thoughts try to capture you. The thing you [CROSSTALK] >> Yeah. >> Think of as you. Right, I mean, they, they, they come from somewhere. >> Right. >> Somewhere in your body. Somewhere in your brain. But [CROSSTALK] >> Yes. >> But. Okay, so far, so good. But then at this point I started leading the witness a little farther than he wanted to go. >> But. >> Yes. >> But whatever part of your body, your brain, you're thinking of as you, is more like the, the captive of the thoughts, the thoughts reach out and try to grab it and carry it with them. >> So. Well I think that. That's kind of an interesting way to describe it and it certainly feels like that. But I, I would phrase it a little differently. It's just that the thoughts are arising. >> Mm-hm. >> And there is a strong habit of mind to be identified with them. So it's not so much that I think they have the intent to reach out and kind of trust. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> But rather, rather it's just this very strongly conditioned habitual identification. This is how we've lived our lives. >> Mm-hm. >> And it, it takes a practice to break that condition. You know, to be mindful of the thought rather than to be lost in it. >> Okay, so Joseph says it, it's, it's going too far to think of the thoughts as actually alive and trying to capture your attention. And I think that's going too far too. But he also said that that's what it feels like. And that makes sense, in terms of a modular view of the mind. If a module, having reached a certain level of activation, succeeds in propelling a thought into your consciousness, it might seem that the thought has a certain vibrance. In any event, Joseph's basic report that during mediation often it seems like you are not the one thinking your thoughts. That report is quite common, I have heard a number of meditation teachers say thoughts think themselves, now, I'd say that's not exactly right. I'd say modules generate the thoughts, but again, it, it might seem to you like the thoughts think themselves because the, the modules are kind of outside of the realm of, of consciousness so the thoughts seem to enter consciousness of their own accord. So anyway, once I led the witness a little too far I kind of, I kind of backed off a little and, and, and took another shot at, at the subject with, with Joseph and tried to kind of get clear on exactly what, what, what rendering of the basic idea he would accept. But, but let me just put it this way. Thoughts become to seem much more like. Active things, than the things you know, than passive things. In other words, they're actors in your consciousness that you've got to deal with, and you're in the habit of going along with them, but that's not necessary. >> Correct. And they become a lot less active, when we see them for what they are. When we're not pulled into the drama of them. You know, it's sort of like going to the movies. We, we go to the movies and there's a very absorbing story, and we're pulled into the story. And we field so many emotions and you know, we're excited, or afraid, or in love, whatever. And then maybe in a moment we sit back and say, oh, this is just lights. These are just pixels of light projected on a screen. >> Mm-hm. >> Right. And nothing. Everything that we thought is happening is not really happening. >> Mm. >> It's the same way with our thoughts. We get caught up in the story, in the mind's drama of them. Forgetting they are essentially insubstantial nature. >> Now, this may remind you of something that Yitha, our friend the Buddhist nun said earlier not about thoughts, but about feelings, and in case if you don't remember, here is a flashback. >> It's just like you are watching a movie, the movie is, it's a kind of a, in a picture by picture, in motion and you, you grasp it as real. But, when you you know, take a one by one, a piece by piece, it's not real. >> So, I think it's interesting that both thoughts and feelings are being described here with that same metaphor of a movie. And maybe there's connection between these two things. I mean what Joseph said suggested that when feelings are running strong the thoughts seem kind of more tangible and, and more part of you. And as I said earlier, there is the view that even when feelings aren't running really strong, still thoughts tend to have a kind of an affective quality. Some, some kind of feeling tone associating within. And if so, it could be that the feeling associated with the thought is kind of what, what attaches it to you, what makes it feel part of yourself. What inclines you to, to kind of own it. So, the feeling tone of a thought then becomes a kind of cement. that's, that's mere conjecture. But, I think it's kind of plausible conjecture. Certainly it would explain why it is that, that as you meditate and the mind gets more calm and still and the feeling seem to lose their, their power. Then the thoughts also seem less tangible. And a little more remote. In any event the, the kind of practical upshot of this is pretty clear. >> So when we have that basis of wisdom about the nature of thought, then we have more power to choose. Okay, which thoughts are helpful. Which are going to serve me, serve others, then react on them, which are not so helpful, those we can more easily let go. >> Okay so that brings us back to the more modest version of, of not self, in other words, just thinking well, there are these feeling I don't have to own or there are these thoughts that I don't have to own or consider part of myself and you, and you, you view it that way but without really letting go of the concept of a self. But it could be this, this modest version of not self leads kind of naturally to the more extreme all in composing version of, of not self. In other words you start out thinking well I don't have to own that thought, I don't have to own that feeling. And then you, you, you might start to think well then in principle I don't have to own any of them. And the implications of that might dawn on you. Anyway I ran this idea past Joseph. So we've said, you don't really have to identify with your thoughts, even if you're in the habit of it. We earlier said you don't really have to identify with your emotions, even if you're in the habit of it. And this is you know, you can kind of see how you start looking at all aspects of subjective experience like this. You could be led to doubt the very existence of self. And this, this is the logic to some extent of the Buddhist's argument. For the non existence of self, right? As framed in the context of what are called the five aggregates. >> Yes, yes. >> The way, the way Buddhist thought divides your experience in these five aggregates, some of which we've talked about. >> Yes. >> That's the logic of the argument, right? There's nothing in your experience. That you have to, that you are really intrinsically identified with. >> Exactly. >> Okay, so there's there's a kind of organic connection between the modest and extreme versions of the, of the not self doctrine, in at least a kind of logical, intellectual sense. In other words you realize that you don't have to identify with some of your thoughts or feelings and then you realize that well, in principle you don't have to identify with any of, with any of them. But what about experientially? What about the feeling of not self? Is it the case that if you start out kind of, feeling through meditation, that, wow, I don't, I don't really have to own this particular feeling or this particular thought. Does that naturally lead you to get where, say Rodney Smith was? and, and have the experience of full-on not self. Well, in a way, Joseph Goldstein seems like a good example of this. So, do you mean, you, you have a sense of distance from your consciousness itself? >> I wouldn't, I wouldn't so much say use the term distance as non-identification with. >> Mm-hm. >> There's the experience of consciousness, and every object of thoughts, emotions, decisions. So there's the experience without being identified with them. >> Okay. >> And that's when we begin to get a sense of the selfless nature. >> Now, that doesn't sound exactly like Rodney Smith's description of the experience of not self, but it's kind of moving in that direction. It does sound this theme of ownerless consciousness. And that raises a, a question. You know, when you are not identifying with your consciousness where is the you that's not identifying with it, right? When you're seeing not self don't you have to be seeing it from some perspective well I, I guess you have to be there. I mean I guess this is what, what William James meant by ineffable. But it does remind me of a question raised by Leda Cosbys, the pychologist we heard from earlier when she was talking about mental modules which she was calling mechanisms. And she was talking about how pervasively they influence our perception. And here's what she said. >> There's always some psychological mechanism doing something. It's creating our experience of the world. It's creating our perception of the world. it, it, that's why I wouldn't say that domain specific mechanisms color our perceptions, I'd say that they create our perceptions. But there's no such thing as perceiving the world in a way that doesn't involve carving it in some, carving it conceptually into pieces. There's no right activity from nowhere. >> Okay, in the next lecture, we're going to ask whether there is a view from nowhere, and if not, what the closest thing to that is. Or, to put it another way, we're going to look at the Buddhist concept of enlightenment from the standpoint of evolutionary psychology. And we're going to do some other things in that lecture, after all, it's the, it's the final lecture. I'm going to try to, to wrap up a number of the threads that have been running through this course. And render a kind of evaluation of key points of Buddhist thought from the standpoint of modern psychology. And I'm going to look again at the question of whether Buddhism offers a spiritual world view that is valid. And viable even in an age of science. [BLANK_AUDIO]
