Contemplative Science, page 17
In the traditional practice of applying mindfulness to feelings, one observes the arising and dissolution of the three basic kinds of feelings of physical and mental pleasure, pain, and indifference in oneself, others, and alternately between oneself and others. Other, more complex affective states are left to the next level of practice, but special attention is given to pleasant and unpleasant feelings because these have such an enormous effect on the kinds of choices we make and the ways we lead our lives.
While classical cognitive science has been “cognocentric,” in the sense of maintaining that humans are cognizers first and foremost, recent advances in affective psychology and neuroscience suggest that emotions are primary, and cognition has a secondary role as an organizing influence. According to Buddhism, neither cognition nor emotion is primary; rather, they are coemergent, incapable of existing without the other. It is important to bear in mind, however, that the feeling of indifference, which some might regard as being an absence of feeling, is regarded in Buddhism as also being an affective state.
When observing the arising, presence, and dissolution of feelings firsthand, one recognizes that they are experienced in various regions throughout the body, and some do not appear to have any identifiable location at all. When empathetically attending to others’ joys and sorrows, pleasures and pains, one may ask: Are such “observations” of others’ internal affective states strictly inferential? That is, are these observations really conceptual conclusions based upon perceived outward signs? Or might this type of empathetic awareness be more direct, more akin to perception? I am not aware that either Buddhism or modern science has reached a consensus regarding these questions, but I believe they merit careful consideration.
The cultivation of mindfulness of mental processes follows the threefold sequence as above, while observing the mind as it is affected by different conative, attentional, cognitive, and affective states, such as craving, hatred, delusion, anxiety, elation, concentration, and agitation. The aim of this practice is explicitly therapeutic in nature. Some conative, attentional, cognitive, and affective states and processes are conducive to one’s own and others’ well-being ; others are harmful. By attending closely to the factors that give rise to a wide range of mental processes and by observing the effects they have on self and others, one begins to recognize through experience those processes that are conducive to one’s own and others’ well-being and those that are destructive. In this way one identifies the distinctions between wholesome and unwholesome mental states. This is an essential element of mindfulness within Buddhist practice. As one authoritative Theravāda text declares, “Mindfulness, when it arises, follows the courses of beneficial and unbeneficial tendencies, [recognizing] these tendencies are beneficial, these unbeneficial ; these tendencies are helpful, these unhelpful. Thus, one who practices yoga rejects unbeneficial tendencies and cultivates beneficial tendencies.”16
In particular, like a physician diagnosing an illness, one pays special attention to what Buddhism calls “mental afflictions,” which can be identified by the criterion that they disrupt the balance and equilibrium of the mind. While some wholesome mental processes, such as compassion, may indeed disturb the calm of the mind, this disruption is not deep, and its long-term effects on mental states and behavior are healthy. Other processes, however, such as resentment, have a deep and harmful impact on mental health as well as subsequent behavior, so they are deemed afflictions.
As in the previous practices of attending mindfully to the body and feelings, in this phase of the practice one observes one’s own and others’ mental processes simply as impersonal phenomena, arising in dependence upon prior causes and conditions, paying special attention to the duration of these mental states: how long does each one last, and for as long as it lasts, does it exist as a stable entity persisting through time or as a sequence of momentary events? When one observes a process in one’s own mental continuum, is it affected by the sheer fact of being observed? Is it possible to observe a mental state with an awareness that is not itself in that same state? For example, is it possible to observe anger with a calm, dispassionate awareness? Does one observe an intentional mental process while it is occurring, or is such mindfulness always retrospective? It is important to bear in mind that the Pāli term commonly translated as “mindfulness” (sati) also has the connotation of “recollection,” implying that many, if not all, acts of mindfulness may actually be modes of short-term recall. The issue of observer participancy is obviously crucial to the first-person examination of mental states, and it should by no means disqualify such introspective inquiry any more than it has disqualified exploration in the field of quantum mechanics.
The fourth phase of this practice is the cultivation of mindfulness of mental objects, which include all nonintentional mental processes as well as all other kinds of phenomena that can be apprehended with the mind. Thus, this category is all-inclusive. At the same time, there is a special emphasis on observing in oneself, others, and both oneself and others the contents of the mind affiliated with wholesome and unwholesome mental states, as well as the conditions leading to their emergence and dissolution. In addition, one mindfully observes all the phenomena of the environment from one’s own perspective by means of direct perception and empathetically attends to them from the perspective of others. The overarching theme of all these practices is the cultivation of a multiperspectival view of the self, others, and the intersubjective relations between them. The techniques are explicitly designed to yield insights into these facets of the lived world, but they all have a strong bearing on the cultivation of compassion and other wholesome affective states, without which the cultivation of wisdom alone is said to be one more form of bondage.
THE FOUR IMMEASURABLES
Just as the qualities of cognizance and loving-kindness are coexistent in the ground state of awareness known as the bhavaṅga, so too in the course of spiritual maturation must the light of insight and the warmth of a loving heart be cultivated together. Therefore, in Buddhism the four applications of mindfulness are traditionally complemented by the cultivation of the four immeasurables, namely loving-kindness, compassion, empathetic joy, and equanimity.17
Each of these affective states can easily be conflated with other emotions that may appear similar but are fundamentally different. To help distinguish between the affective states to be cultivated and their false facsimiles, it may be helpful to draw on the classification of different types of relations proposed by the philosopher Martin Buber in his classic work I and Thou.18 We can begin with what Buber calls an “I–it” relationship, in which one engages with another sentient being viewed simply as an object, to be manipulated in accordance with one’s self-centered desires. In such a relationship the other’s existence as a subject fundamentally like oneself is ignored or marginalized, viewed only in terms of how he or she (really “it”) may be of aid, be an obstacle, or be irrelevant in the pursuit of one’s own goals. On that basis, this individual comes to be regarded as a friend, enemy, or someone of no consequence. In an “I–it” relationship there is effectively only one subject, oneself, but in explicitly dehumanizing the other, one is implicitly dehumanizing oneself as well.
An “I–you” relationship, on the other hand, is essentially dialogical in the sense of one subject meaningfully engaging with the subjective reality of another person. While an “I–it” relationship is fundamentally manipulative, an “I–you” relationship is intersubjective and therefore based upon a sense of empathy. According to Buber, in the midst of an “I–you” relationship, one may transcend the polarity of self and other and engage with a sphere between self and other, in which both access the “eternal thou” that transcends individuality. This cannot happen unless both subjects are involved in an “I–you” relationship. It is at heart a participatory experience.
Western thought, inspired by the Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman traditions, is largely anthropocentric when it comes to intersubjective relationships. But according to Buddhism, all sentient beings strive to experience pleasure and joy and to avoid pain and suffering. This is an indication that Buddhism is rightly characterized as more biocentric than anthropocentric, and its aim is to cultivate loving-kindness and the other wholesome affective states in this tetrad for all sentient beings to a degree that transcends all boundaries and demarcations.
The first of the four states to be cultivated is loving-kindness, which is understood as the heartfelt yearning for the well-being of others. Although it is tempting to translate the corresponding Sanskrit term (maitri) simply as “love,” it is not commonly done because in English, this term is often used in ways that conflate an “I–you” relationship with an “I–it” relationship. The loving-kindness cultivated in Buddhist practice emphatically entails an “I–you” relationship, for one is vividly aware of the other person’s joys and sorrows, hopes and fears. But in English the word “love” is also used in cases of sexual infatuation, personal attachment, and even strong attraction to inanimate objects and events, all of which involve “I–it” relationships. In Buddhism an entirely different term (rāga) is generally used to denote such kinds of attraction, and it is variously translated as “attachment,” “craving,” or “obsession.”
According to Buddhism, attachment is an attraction to an object on which one conceptually superimposes or exaggerates desirable qualities, while filtering out undesirable qualities. In cases of strong attachment, one transfers the very possibility of happiness onto the object, thereby disempowering oneself and empowering it. Even when such attachment is directed toward another person, it entails more of an “intrasubjective” than an intersubjective relationship, for one is engaging more poignantly with one’s own conceptual superimpositions than with the other person as a genuine subject. When the reality of the idealized object of attachment—with all his or her faults and limitations—breaks through the fantasies, disillusionment may ensue. That in turn may lead to hostility and aversion, which superimposes negative qualities upon the person previously held dear.
Thus, according to Buddhism, loving-kindness does not readily turn into aversion, but attachment does. And while loving-kindness is a wholesome conative state (not simply an emotion) that is conducive to one’s own and others’ well-being, attachment is a major source of anxiety, distress, and interpersonal conflict. It is therefore very important not to conflate them, but in most close human relations, such as between parents and children, spouses, and friends, they are normally mixed. In these complex human relationships the Buddhist ideal is to attenuate the mental affliction of attachment and cultivate the wholesome conative state of loving-kindness.
In what may appear at first glance to be paradoxical, in traditional Buddhist practice one first cultivates loving-kindness for oneself, then proceeds to extend this affectionate concern to others. The rationale for this is based on a fundamental premise expressed by the Buddha, “Whoever loves himself will never harm another.”19 This strategy seems especially appropriate in the modern West, where feelings of self-contempt, low self-esteem, guilt, and being unworthy of happiness seem to have reached epidemic proportions.20 In the meditative practice itself, one first attends to one’s own longing for happiness and wish to be free of suffering, and generates the loving wish, “May I be free of animosity, affliction, and anxiety, and live happily.” Like the preceding practices of mindfulness, this involves a process of objectifying oneself and yearning for the person brought to mind, “May you be well and happy.” In this way one enters into an “I–you” relationship with oneself!
In the next phase of the practice, one brings to mind someone else whom one dearly loves and respects. Recalling this person’s acts of kindness and virtues, one brings forth the heartfelt wish, “May this good person, like myself, be well and happy.” Continuing in this practice, one similarly brings to mind in sequence a more casual friend, then a person toward whom one has been indifferent, and finally a person toward whom one has felt aversion. The aim of the practice is to gradually experience the same degree of loving-kindness for the dear friend as for oneself, for the neutral person as for the dear friend, and finally for the enemy as for the neutral person. In this way, the conceptually superimposed “I–it” barriers demarcating friend, stranger, and foe are broken down, and immeasurable, unconditional loving-kindness may be experienced.
As stated previously, the false facsimile of loving-kindness is attachment. According to Buddhism, the opposite of loving-kindness is not indifference but hatred. While indifference may be viewed as being turned 90 degrees away from loving-kindness, hatred is turned 180 degrees away, for when the mind is dominated by hatred, one actually feels unhappy at the prospect of another’s well-being. The proximate cause of loving-kindness is seeing loveable qualities within others, not merely their outer, surface attractions. One succeeds in this practice when it causes animosity to subside, and fails when it leads only to selfish affection, or attachment, for this implies that one is still stuck in an “I–it” mentality.
The second of the four immeasurables is compassion, which is inextricably linked with loving-kindness. With loving-kindness one yearns that others may find genuine happiness and the causes of happiness, and with compassion one yearns that they may be free of suffering and its causes. These are really two sides of the same coin. While attachment is frequently confused with loving-kindness, righteous indignation for the sake of others can easily be confused with compassion. If one’s “compassion” extends only to the victims of the world and not to the victimizers, it is likely to be another case of attachment to the downtrodden, combined with aversion to the oppressors. In other words, one is still trapped in an “I–it” mentality. The compassion cultivated in Buddhist practice is focused not only on those who are experiencing suffering and pain but also on those who are sowing the seeds of further suffering and pain (for themselves and others), namely those who maliciously harm others. According to Buddhism, all the evil in the world stems from attachment, aversion, and the delusion that underlies both. These destructive tendencies are regarded as mental afflictions, very much like physical afflictions, and those who are dominated by them are even more deserving of compassion than those afflicted with physical diseases. But to feel compassion for evildoers is not to condone the evil they commit. It is to yearn that they be free of the impulses that compel them to behave in such harmful ways, and thereby to be free of the causes of suffering.
In the meditative cultivation of compassion, one attends first to someone who is wretched and miserable, wishing, “If only this person could be freed from such suffering!” Progressing in this practice, one then sequentially focuses on an evildoer (regardless of whether he or she seems happy), on a dear person, on a neutral person, and finally on someone toward whom one has felt aversion. The goal of the practice is like that of the cultivation of loving-kindness, namely, to break down the barriers separating the different types of individuals until one’s compassion extends equally to all beings.
The false facsimile of compassion is grief. In English, compassion is often verbally expressed with a comment such as “I feel so sorry for that person,” but according to Buddhism, merely feeling sympathy for someone does not necessarily include compassion. When one empathetically attends to another person who is unhappy, one naturally experiences sadness. But such a feeling may lead instead to righteous indignation and the vengeful wish to exact retribution on whoever has made the other person unhappy. On the other hand, in the cultivation of compassion, sympathy acts instead as fuel for the warmth of compassion. One does not simply remain in a state of sadness or despair, but rises from it with the wish, “May you be free of this suffering and its causes!”—psychologically moving from the reality of the present suffering to the possibility of freedom from it.
The opposite of compassion is not indifference, but cruelty. When this mental affliction dominates the mind, one insidiously acknowledges the subjective reality of the other and wishes for that person to experience misery. This is widely regarded as the greatest evil to which the mind can succumb. The proximate cause of compassion is seeing the helplessness in those overwhelmed by suffering and its causes, while also recognizing the possibility of freedom from such misery. One succeeds in this practice when one’s own proneness to cruelty subsides, and fails when the practice produces only sorrow. It is important to emphasize that the Buddhist meditative cultivation of loving-kindness and compassion was never intended as a substitute for active service to others. Rather, it is a mental preparation for such altruistic service that raises the likelihood of such outer behavior being truly an expression of an inner, benevolent concern for others’ well-being.
The cultivation of the final two immeasurables follows naturally from progress in the cultivation of the first two. If one feels loving-kindness and compassion for others, then when they experience joy, the spontaneous response is to take delight in their happiness. But such empathetic joy can also be cultivated in its own right. In Buddhist practice, one focuses first on a very dear companion who is constantly of good cheer, then on a neutral person, and finally on a person who has shown hostility. In each case, one empathizes with the other’s joy and experiences it as if it were one’s own. However, it is possible get caught up in a kind of hedonistic pleasure in relation to others, which is the false facsimile of empathetic joy. The opposite of this wholesome affective state is envy; its proximate cause is the awareness of others’ happiness and success; and one fails in this practice when it results in hedonism.
