One of the main themes in Buddhism is the ‘extinguishing of self’ through ‘enlightenment’… or is it the other way around? They seem to go hand in hand; are they are the same thing? I find that asking such basic questions on word meaning beforehand helps me when pondering life. So, I must ask, “What is self in the first place?” The idea here is that understanding a problem more deeply can help solve it.
“What is self in the first place?”
Let’s consider self in the largest possible sense of the word. In biology there is the concept of emergent properties where simple structures, processes, and order, form a foundational pattern upon which more complex structures, processes and order emerge. I see this principle at work, not only in biology, but throughout existence. Indeed, what is biology but an emergent property of some more primordial order? It is helpful, then, to think of self as just such an emergent property, not only of biology, but also of something much more universal that extends from the present back to antiquity.
Taking this a step further, it is helpful to see the natural impetus in all things to maintain a kind of ’self’ integrity: From the impetus that keeps an atom of hydrogen stable (more or less) to the impetus that keeps the human heart pumping away. In all things, this impetus to maintain self integrity is un-self-conscious, like a baby that has not yet learned to smile. The atom doesn’t think it has to ‘keep it together’, and neither does the heart as it pumps its life away. The worm, the tree, the crow all feel the impetus to ‘keep it together’… to survive, but none think they should. There is impetus to ‘just do it’, without any thoughts of choice or otherwise. Humans are somewhat different, at least on the surface.
The emergent property of mind knows ‘I am’
We experience an emergent property of thought – the mind. We are able to think that we know. One of the earliest things we think that we know is “I am”. All the while, however, the impetus to maintain self integrity (survival) is pulling the strings. Moreover, the more certain one is of “I am”, the harder it is to know and identify that which is pulling the strings. About 400 years ago, the belief in “I am” got a real boost in the Western world from Descartes’ I think, therefore I am; or I am thinking, therefore I exist. From a Taoist point of view, such certainty is just asking for trouble. As chapter 71 puts it:
Seeing all we think and do as an emergent property of something ancient, if not eternal, can be very helpful once you can ‘feel it in your bones’. On the other hand, thinking “I am”, and the other ideals and beliefs we hold, are true and real in their own right leads to never ending difficulty. For example, the idea of God points to a darkly visible, it only seems as if it were there, something. Alas, the ‘naming of’, and ‘believing in’, creates a never ending focal point for division and strife. (Then again, being a tribal species, I guess we ‘need’ something to fight over.)
Buddha’s Second Noble Truth states that, The illusion of self originates and manifests itself in a cleaving to things. The Third and Fourth go on to say that conquering self, extinguishing self and self disappearing will end suffering. Finally he gives us the Eight Fold Path as a means to accomplish this self disappearance. The question is, does this set up an ideal that is impossible to achieve? As always, does believing this create unnecessary difficulty for ourselves? Are we shooting ourselves in the foot? (Then again, being a somewhat neurotic ape, perhaps we ‘need’ something by which to shoot ourselves in the foot.)
Up to this point we see that the idea of self is perhaps just an emergent property of a simpler universal reality. This gives some clues on our goal of extinguishing self. From here it will help to examine the ideal of extinguishing self from an emergent property point of view.
The Ideal is an emergent property of what?
Ideals themselves can also be seen as emergent properties, not only of biology, but also of something more primordial. It is not an accidental whim of nature that human thought is rife with ideals: spiritual, political, romantic, health, intelligence, knowledge, sports… you name it! Ideals provide the direction for our actions, our self actualization. Question: All these ideals are an emergent property of what?
First, let’s review: In biology there is the concept of emergent properties where primary structures, processes and order form a foundational pattern upon which more complex structures, processes and order emerge. I see this principle at work throughout Nature. The only primary ‘ideal’ I see in Nature, as a whole, is balance. This is the ‘ideal’ around which the impetus to maintain self integrity of all things works. Likewise, nature’s core ‘ideal’ of balance serves as the foundation out of which all human ideals emerge. (Whoa! That’s a big chuck to bite off, I’ll admit. Let’s bite of an even bigger one!)
The ideal of balance underlying the impetus of Nature to balance itself can never be realized! Achieving a state of perfect balance is made more perfect by allowing for (incorporating) imbalance. In other words perfect balance is counter balanced by some degree of imbalance. The ideal can never be reached for reaching it would become ‘one sided’, i.e., perfect and complete balance is essentially imbalanced. It is not the ‘whole picture’ for it abandons imbalance. Ah yes, straightforward words seem paradoxical. Not surprisingly, the Tao Te Ching puts this principle more poetically: Great perfection seems chipped, Yet use will not wear it out.
The how of extinguishing self
We have finally come to the how of extinguishing self. The warning above gave us a clue (i.e., To know yet to think that one does not know is best; Not to know yet to think that one knows will lead to difficulty.) The question is, how can one know and yet think they don’t? This really boils down to the depth of your faith in names and words. The more faith in names and words you have, the further from the constant you will necessarily be… or again, is it the other way around? They seem to go hand in hand; are they are the same thing?
Chapter 56 gives us more clues: One who knows does not speak [thinks, writes]; one who speaks [thinks, writes] does not know. I added ‘thinks, writes’ as those are all interconnected with ’speaks’. To put this in an emergent property context: first comes think, then speak, then write. Chapter 56 advices us to “Shut the doors, Blunt the sharpness; Untangle the knots; Soften the glare” and so on. To me, these are all metaphorical for softening faith in names and words. Next is the idea of “mysterious sameness”, which points to the illusion of difference. The illusion of difference being essential to maintain meaning and faith in names and words.
Okay, I’ll admit, we are only beating around the bush of the why and the how of extinguishing self. This may be as far as we can go. Buddha’s Second Noble Truth perhaps show us why. Namely, The illusion of self originates and manifests itself in a cleaving to things. Words, names, ideals, beliefs are all things to which we can cling to in order to maintain our sense of self. Yet, as we have seen, even absent these things, we would still experience the primary property of an un-self-conscious self. The illusion of self, itself, is a natural emergent property. Any notion of ridding ourselves of it, is itself a delusionary ideal. Round and round we go!
This brings us back to the only escape I have found: mysterious sameness. The more I can see similarity in all things, the softer and more muddled my faith becomes in apparent differences (word, names, beliefs, ideals). I’m able to be more like other animals, less dominated by that which so easily throws me off balance (again, words, names, beliefs, ideals). This is as close to “A How-To for Extinguishing Self” I’ve come.
Perhaps chapter 36 offers the best view of the ‘how’ extinguishing self plays out in each of us.
Share on Facebook
0 Response to “A How-To for Extinguishing Self”