(CLOSE WINDOW TO RETURN TO CONTENTS)
The Wisdom of the Mountains And The Science of the Healthy Mind
by Henry M. Vyner M.D.
The natural state of the mind is joy. When you truly leave your stream of consciousness in its natural state, the thoughts and emotions that appear in your stream of consciousness dissolve and become joy. And then that joy becomes you.
It becomes you in the sense that it becomes your awareness; a joyful awareness that seeks out and finds that which is good in all people and all situations. A seamless feeling of joy, love and compassion that manifests as an effortless and heartfelt respect for all living beings – including one's self, the trees and the mountains.
One reason, if not the main reason, I go into the mountains is that the mountains are a big space. When I am in the mountains, my mind becomes part of that space and it runs free. Meditation can do the same thing for you as well. They both generate a state of mind that is totally open to everything.
In fact, you can go so far as to say that a healthy mind is a mind that it is like a space. The healthy mind is an egoless mind that is like a space in the sense that it doesn't try to change its stream of consciousness in any way. It does not repress, hold onto or believe its thoughts and emotions.
And once again, when you leave your thoughts and emotions in their natural state they dissolve and transform themselves into wisdom and joy.
Thoughts and emotions
Fall on the ground of my awareness
And dissolve like snowflakes in an early winter storm
That make no sound and leave no trace.
In contrast, the socialized mind creates within itself an ego. An ego that is forever and always trying to change the contents of its stream of consciousness so that they will match its sense of identity. In so doing, the ego keeps you from knowing the joy of your natural mind by covering it over with a constant stream of thoughts and emotions that block your ability to know and manifest this joy.
Nonetheless, most societies, including our own, believe that a healthy mind is a mind with a strong ego, and as a result, we teach ourselves and our kids to develop and maintain an ego. When you have an ego, it causes you to suffer and lose contact with the natural joy of your mind. It also causes us to fight wars in the name of the identities our egos protect. This is something we can and will change.
---------------------------------------
As a religion, Buddhism offers the world the nondual wisdom and compassion of the egoless mind. But it has something else of import to offer the world as well, and this something else is entirely related to the gift of the nondual mind.
For the last ten years now, I have been interviewing Nyingma lamas about their experiences of their own mind in meditation for the purposes of:
(1) Developing a descriptive science of the phenomena that appear in the stream of consciousness, and
(2) Using that descriptive science to construct an empirically valid theory of the healthy human mind.
The work is going well, and amongst other things, it is showing that:
(1) The Tibetan traditions of Buddhism and Bon possess a genuine and unique science of the mind that empirically demonstrate that a healthy mind is an egoless mind – giv given the paradox that you have to have an ego to be egoless.
(2) It is possible to put this Tibetan science into a form that the western scientific community will recognize and accept as a valid science.
Now imagine for a moment, that science were to somehow prove that it is the egoless, as opposed to egocentric, mind that is a happy and healthy mind. And that as a result, humanity in general came to accept the idea that the healthy human mind is the egoless mind. I do not think that we would all wake up egoless tomorrow morning, but it could fundamentally reorient the direction in which our societies are moving.
When science determined that the Earth is not the center of the universe, the idea met with some stiff resistance, but eventually it became common knowledge that the Earth orbits around the Sun. When Pasteur and Koch discovered the existence of bacteria, it fundamentally changed the clinical and culinary practice of hygiene. When medicine discovered that cigarettes cause lung cancer, it moved a lot of people to stop smoking.
In much the same way, if science were to demonstrate that the healthy mind is the egoless mind, it seems possible that people and societies would slowly but surely abandon the pursuit of egocentricity and take up the pursuit of the egoless mind. And if this were to happen writ large, it could impact our lives in a number of important and interesting ways. For example:
(1) It could change the way we raise our kids. Children would be brought up to be egoless instead of egocentric.
(2) It could change the way we practice psychiatry and psychotherapy, and
(3) It could go a long way towards removing the psychological causes of war.
War amongst nations is nothing more than a replication of the inner war that all egocentric minds fight with themselves. If we took up the pursuit of the egoless mind, we would be eradicating the psychological causes of war.
-------------------------------
The Tibetans possess a centuries old systematic science of the mind that contains knowledge about the mind that modern scientific psychology does not yet have. Amongst other things, this Tibetan mind science describes the essential differences between the egocentric and egoless mind, and it demonstrates that a healthy and happy mind is an egoless mind -- given, once again, the important paradox that you have to have an identity to be egoless.
This Tibetan mind science is not, at first glance, a science in our modern sense of the scientific endeavor. For one, the Tibetans who developed this mind science did not think of themselves as scientists. Nor were they familiar with our notions of science and the scientific method. Furthermore, their observations of the mind were and are often presented in symbolic religious language. Nonetheless, they were scientists.
They were scientists in the sense that they made systematic observations of a group of phenomena, and then derived, from these observations, theories about those phenomena. They used the sixth sense, which is called the mental consciousness in Buddhist psychology and the mindÕs eye in our own parlance, to make observations of the phenomena that appear in the stream of consciousness. They then used these observations to construct systematic theories of the healthy and unhealthy human mind.
Herein lies the essential difference between Tibetan mind science and our own scientific psychology. Tibetan mind science studies the phenomena that appear in the stream of consciousness and western psychology does not.
In fact, the very heart of Buddhist and Tibetan psychology is that it is a science of the phenomena that appear in the stream of consciousness. It is, in its essence, a descriptive and theoretical science of these phenomena. In contrast, our scientific psychology has taken the explicit position that it is not possible to scientifically study the stream of consciousness.
This is not at all a trivial difference. It is, in fact, a very important one. The truth of the matter is that Tibetan mind science possesses a variety of indispensable knowledge about the mind that our psychology does not have, and it has this knowledge precisely because it has studied the stream of consciousness.
The import of this difference lies in the fact that the key to empirically understanding the nature of the healthy human mind is to study the stream of consciousness. (Vyner, 2003a) If you want to understand the defining characteristics of the healthy mind, and if you want to understand how to cultivate a healthy mind, it is imperative that you empirically study the phenomena that appear in the stream of consciousness.
-------------------------------------------
The processes that appear in the stream of consciousness are an important group of psychological phenomena. They are the dialectical processes of the mind.
The dialectical processes of the mind are the processes by which the mind knows and relates to itself. They are the processes by which the watcher knows and controls the thoughts and emotions that arise in its stream of consciousness. They are a universal group of phenomena in the sense that they are present in all human minds, and they are, as such, objective (as well as subjective) phenomena. (Vyner, 2003b).
The import of these processes lies in the fact that they define the difference between the healthy and unhealthy human mind. The healthy, or egoless, mind possesses one type of dialectical process – the egoless mode of self awareness, and the unhealthy mind possesses a different type of dialectical process – the egocentric mode of self awareness. (Vyner, 2003c)
The DzogChen traditions of Tibetan Buddhism and Bon have implicitly understood that this was the case, and as a result, they have developed, over the centuries, a descriptive and theoretical science of these processes.
They did not call them the dialectical processes of the mind, but nonetheless, they produced astute scientific descriptions of the different processes by which the egocentric and egoless watcher relate to the phenomena that appear in the stream of consciousness. Let me give you just a few examples that come from the Dzog Chen literature of Tibetan Buddhism.
The first example comes from the "Tshig-Don Rinpochei Dzod," a text written by Longchenpa This text has been translated by Tulku Thondup Rinpoche, and it appears in his important anthology of LongchenpaÕs writings – which in its first edition carried the title of Buddha Mind.
In this text, Longchenpa talks about the appearance in the mind of a special type of pre-dual phenomenon that is called an "appearance of the basis." In his introduction to the anthology, Tulku Thondup describes these appearances as the simultaneous appearance of both an inner light and the compassion that knows that light. In Tulku Thondup's words:
"At that time, from the nature of spontaneous accomplishment, arise outwardly the appearances of the five lights and the glow of compassion as the cognition that analyzes the(se) appearances." (pg. 53)
Longchenpa describes, in the "Tshig-Don Rinpochei Dzod," the two different kinds of cognitive response that the mind can and does make to these "appearances of the basis." He describes the first type of response and its consequences as follows:
"(B)y not apprehending those appearances as other and by realizing them as the natural glow (of self radiance) with a pure mind, the movements (of the intrinsic awareness) cease - At the first movement, by realizing the self-essence of the self-appearances, the realization (of the true meaning) developes - At the second movement, the delusions are dispelled and the (perfection) of primordial wisdom develops." (pg. 207)
Longchenpa describes the second type of response and its different consequences as follows:
"When (phenomena) arise as the 'appearances of the basis,' there arises the cognition which is the power of compassion - Through the aspect of not realizing the essence of the "appearances of the basis" themselves (as they are), one becomes distracted into delusions - One becomes deluded into the appearances of the basis as the (dualistic) cognitions of apprehended and apprehender - then six thoughts arise as the ceaseless apprehenders; and the six emotional defilements arise - one (then) wanders in the three realms and six migrations of beings (samsara) through the chain of twelve interdependent causations -" (pg. 208)
What Longchenpa is describing here, is that if the mind responds to a single moment of consciousness without attributing a self to that appearance, that appearance will dissolve and become nondual primordial wisdom. On the other hand, if the mind responds to a pre-dual moment of consciousness by attributing a concept of self to that appearance, that appearance will become the thoughts and emotions of dualistic mind.
Here are two more descriptions from Longchenpa of how different watcher responses to the stream of thoughts have different consequences. They both come from the eleventh chapter of a text called the Shingta Chenpo and it, too, appears in the anthology called Buddha Mind. In the first passage, Longchenpa tells us that:
"If the thoughts are followed , the continuous chain of thoughts will never cease and (one will) remain indistinguishable from an ordinary person." (pg. 285)
On the other hand,
"In the sky like mind, by letting the thoughts of the mental remain naturally, they dissolve like clouds disappearing (in the sky)." (pg. 287)
If the watcher follows and believes the thoughts that appear in its stream of consciousness, more and more thoughts will continue to appear. In contrast, if the watcher leaves those thoughts in their natural state, if it does not try to change or follow them in any way, then they will dissolve and disappear.
Here's one more set of observations from Longchenpa. They also come from the eleventh chapter of the Shingta Chenpo. He says in this passage that when the mind remains in the
"(S)pace-like absence of projections and withdrawals, there is no concept of apprehender. That is the non-dual primordial wisdom. At that time, by dissolving the mind and mental events into the ultimate sphere, one swells in the realization of the nature of mind. At that time, the mind and mental events have dissolved in the natural purity of the mind, like salt dissolving in water, and no more thoughts are flickering." (pg. 297)
When the mind's awareness is like a space – when the mind does not hold onto, repress or follow the phenomena that appear in its stream of consciousness – those thoughts dissolve and disappear. As a result, thoughts will cease to appear in the stream of consciousness. Here Longchenpa has described three different causal sequences: (1) When the watcher does not grasp thoughts, those thoughts will dissolve and disappear. (2) When the watcher does not grasp thoughts, thoughts will stop appearing in the stream of consciousness. (3) When the phenomena that appear in the stream of consciousness dissolve, one can realize the nature of the mind.
The DzogChen literature contains a systematic description of these and other dialectical phenomena, and it uses them to describe the differing characteristics of the egocentric and egoless mind.
In the interviews that I have been doing with contemporary DzogChen lamas, we have been discussing their own experiences of the mind in meditation to see if they have actually experienced the dialectical phenomena described in the DzogChen literature. A typology, or descriptive science, of the dialectical phenomena experienced by the lamas has emerged from our discussions, and at the present time, that typology delineates and describes thirty-six different kinds of phenomena.
To give you a quick idea of what we have been talking about, here is a list of a few of the phenomena that have been described by the lamas: (1) the involuntary stream of consciousness, (2) the diminution and/or cessation of the involuntary stream of consciousness, (3) the dissolution of individual moments of consciousness (4) repression (5) attachment (6) dual awareness (7) nondual awareness and so forth.
In addition, we have also used this typology to construct a theory that empirically describes the differences between the egocentric and egoless mind. We have found that the essential difference between these two types of mind is their mode of self-awareness. The egocentric mind has an egocentric mode of self awareness and the egoless mind has an egoless mode of self awareness. (Vyner, 2003c) The evidence also seems to be indicating that a healthy and happy mind is an egoless mind.
In other words, we are beginning to develop a descriptive and theoretical science of the dialectical processes of the mind. This science has existed for centuries in the DzogChen tradition, and in our interviews, we are empiricizing, systematizing and, in some small ways, expanding upon this traditional DzogChen science.
---------------------------------------------
There has been, in the history of western psychology, considerable interest in understanding the dialectical processes of the mind. There exists, in the history of western ideas, a large body of theory that has focused on the issue of trying to understand the dialectical processes of the mind.
For example, Freud's structural theory is a dialectical theory in which one part of the mind, the ego, is portrayed as controlling impulses from another part of the mind, the Id, at the behest of the superego (Freud, 1923). The false-self system controls the self in Laing's phenomenological theory (Laing, 1969). Reason controls the appetites and passions in the chariot metaphor found in Plato's Phaedrus, and so forth.
The scientific status of dialectical mind theory is, unfortunately, compromised. Usually, when science reaches an understanding of something, it arrives at a point at which it has only one theory of that phenomenon. For example, astronomy has given us but one theory of the mechanics of planetary motion. There is only one theory of the structure of DNA, and only one explanation of the phenomenon of radioactivity.
When it comes, however, to the dialectical theories of the mind, the situation is dramatically different. We do not yet have a single dialectical theory of the mind. There are only schools of thought, and there is a whole horde of them.
There are the orthodox Psychoanalysts. The Jungians. The Existentialists. The Rogerians. The Transpersonal Psychologists. The Self Psychologists. The Ego Psychologists. The Object Relations Theorists. The Gestalt Psychologists. The Grofians. To name just a few.
The empirical root of this theoretical polyphony lies in the fact that science has not yet allowed itself to study the dialectical phenomena of the mind. Given the nature of the scientific method, an empirically valid dialectical theory should be a theory that is derived from observations of the dialectical processes by which the mind relates to and controls itself.
To construct a theory of atomic structure, science had to first make systematic observations of subatomic particles. To construct an empirically valid theory of the dialectical processes of the mind, one must first make observations of the processes by which the mind relates to and controls itself.
As matters stand now, however, science has not yet allowed itself to make observations of the dialectical phenomena because they appear in the stream of consciousness. With the failure of the Introspectionist School and the consequent ascendance of the Behaviorist School of psychology at the beginning of the twentieth century, it was explicitly decided that it is simply not possible to scientifically study the mind, much less the stream of consciousness.
As a result of this decision, and its general acceptance by the scientific community, it has not been possible to empirically study a group of very important natural phenomena – the the dialectical processes of the mind. This has been a large mistake, but it is one that we can correct now that it is becoming apparent that meditation is a scientific tool that can be used to study the phenomena that appear in the stream of consciousness. (Varella and Shear, 1999; Vyner, 2002; Wallace, 1999)
----------------------------------------
I would like to propose that we use meditation to start a new area of research within the fields of psychiatry and psychology; which could be called, simply enough, the field of descriptive psychology.
Scientists in this field would be both western and indigenous practitioner-scholars who have received extensive theoretical and applied training in meditation. They would use meditation as a research tool for the purposes of: (1) developing a descriptive science of the steam of consciousness (2) doing research on the dialectical processes of the mind and (3) developing a body of theory that is derived from that research.
Given that science is the study of phenomena that can be observed by the senses, the field of descriptive psychology will be the scientific field that uses the mental sense to study the phenomena that appear in the stream of consciousness. In this way, the field of descriptive psychology would be just like all of the other scientific disciplines: a field that describes and analyses sensory phenomena.
It would also be a field that replicates and expands upon the mind science of Buddhism, and I think we would find that it more helpful in a way than doing functional MRIÕs and electroencephalograms of meditators.
There will, of course, be objections in the scientific community to using the mindÕs eye to develop a descriptive and theoretical science of the stream of consciousness. There will be two main objections. The first one will be that it is impossible to achieve interpersonal verification of observations of the mind. Only I can see my stream of consciousness, and only you can see yours. The second objection will be that the phenomena that appear in the stream of consciousness are subjective phenomena, and that as such, they are not amenable to scientific study. These are genuine problems, but not, by any means, insurmountable ones. (Vyner, 2003b)
It seems to me that the best way to demonstrate the validity and utility of the field of descriptive psychology is to actually go ahead and do the work that will comprise and create the field. If it is good and useful work, it will stand. If it is bad work, it will not survive, and that would be as it should be.
The next step that we will be taking, to both develop this work on the healthy mind and the field of descriptive psychology, will be that of putting together a working group of Lamas and Western practitioner-scholars for the purpose of doing collective research on a series of key issues.
I suspect that this group of meditating scientists will be able to agree on and verify many of their observations of the objective phenomena that appear in the stream of consciousness. For example, I suspect that we will all find that:
When awareness is a space that leaves the stream of consciousness in its natural state,
When awareness ceases to believe and live in the narratives created by the stream of consciousness,
That is when the thoughts and emotions of the mind dissolve and disappear and become joy.
The joy that is space-like nondual self awareness. The joy that is you.
This is, after all, an observable phenomenon. In the words of one previous observer of these phenomena, Longchenpa:
(I)n the Self-liberated Ordinary Mind There is no inner and outer, and it has gone beyond the extremes of apprehender and apprehended.
Affirmation and denial are self-liberated, and the defilements and antidotes have arisen as innate nature.
Liberation will be attained without any objective aim...
There is no need of acceptance or renunciation.
The omnipresent Primordial Wisdom is Free from discriminations, (and is) great bliss, unsought for, and spontaneously accomplished.
--------<o>---------
(CLOSE WINDOW TO RETURN TO CONTENTS)