Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
But What is the cause for our monkey mind?
So its pretty obvious that theres a delusional idea of "self"...but why does our mind jump around from thought to thought so randomly all the time? What is the cause for this monkey mind? its roots?
ignorance?
ignorance?
0
Comments
Also note how the sutta talks about the "uninstructed run-of-the-mill person." So perhaps it's saying that more advanced meditators may very well be able to tackle the mind head-on (pun not intended), cultivating insight?
Being deluded beings, we are often always this monkey mind, but because we are caught up in a whirlwind of activity, we rarely notice it. Meditation is a way of actually noticing that it has been there all along. Over time, observing the monkey mind (rather than indulging it or repressing it), we don't cling to the idea of the self (as a permanent, stable, separate, independent and essential entity), but learn to let go of it.
~Pema Chodron
A good book to read on this is: My Stroke of Insight, written by a neurologist who suffered a stroke that affected only her left brain. Fascinating stuff. The sense of oneness with everything comes from the right brain, too, she reports.
Would like to share some thoughts on the Assutava Sutta.
At the beginning of the Sutta, the Buddha first declares that an uninstructed person might be able to develop detachment from the body because the body's "growth and decline" is "apparent". So this seems to be saying that it's easy for anyone to observe the body's growth and decay which will lead him/her to become "dispassionate" towards it, and thereby, gain "release" from it (at least to a certain degree).
When we read the first paragraph of the Sutta in conjunction with the third paragraph of the Sutta, there seems to be an implication that although the body may be regarded by an uninstructed person as self, nonetheless, the ability to observe its growth and decay can be a sufficient cause for such uninstructed person to become dispassionate towards it and be released from it to a certain degree.
In the second paragraph, the Buddha then declares that the uninstructed person is unable to be released from the mind because s/he clings to the mind as self.
Then in the third paragraph, the Buddha says that it is the body rather than the mind that should be considered as the self by the uninstructed person. This is because when s/he looks at the body, it is "seen standing [for many years]". This seems to be saying that a seemingly permanent body should lead to the body being perceived as a permanent self. We may also infer here that even though the growth and decay of the body is "apparent" (as Buddha declared in the first paragraph of the Sutta) which would lead one to see a degree of impermanence of the body, this realization would still not be sufficient for an uninstructed person to destroy the idea of body as self. To put it another way, the fact that the body can be seen as "standing" for a long time is enough to make an uninstructed person regard it as self despite the body's easily observable nature of growth and decay.
The Buddha then goes on to describe the mind using the analogy of the monkey. Here, he seems to just be saying that the mind is ever changing at all times whether during the day or during the night, it jumps from one mind-object to another, like a monkey grabbing one branch to the other. So the Buddha is saying that this ever changing nature of the mind makes it unsuitable for the mind to be regarded as a self. However, since in the previous paragraph of the Sutta, he had declared that an uninstructed person does in fact cling to the mind as being self, we may assume that he is also saying that an uninstructed person is incapable of seeing this ever changing nature of the mind.
Then in the paragraphs that follow, the Buddha basically distinguishes the "instructed disciples" to the uninstructed person, saying that the former are able to see dependent co-arising and thereby become detached to both the body and the mind and gaining "full release".
The main difference between the uninstructed person and instructed disciple therefore seems to be that while the former might be able to gain some degree of release from the body by observing its growth and decay, s/he would still suffer through being stuck with the mind as self, whereas an instructed disciple can gain "full release" from both "form" (ie. body) and mind through realization of dependent co-arising and thereby end all suffering. We may also conclude from this Sutta that as between body and mind, it is the mind that is more difficult to gain release from because its arising and cessation (ie. impermanence as shown through its monkey-like nature) are not apparent as the growth and decay (ie. impermanence) of the body.
Is that why the Buddha taught the meditation on the 32 parts of the body? If we understand the nature of body, the mind becomes dis-enchanted with form, due to its decay and passing away, therefore one less "branch" for this monkey to swing from, and then this would lead to the understanding of the links of arising in its entirety? or just certain aspects of co arising?
Part of the reason we stop swinging, peeling and chest beating, is formal practice. Calming the ape. We begin to recognize our and consequently others monkey tricks. It allows us compassion for our family tree.
Buddhism in essence is very simple. Animals are guided by instinct. Humans are often capable of rising above the animal. Buddhas are awake to the innate turmoil and have overcome its vagaries.
If we watch our behaviour with the same discernment and 'objectivity'' we reserve for others we become aware of our monkey, human and Buddha Natures.
Me Jane, You Tenzin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenzin_Palmo
I normally associate the meditation on the parts of the body as a form of meditation on the unattractiveness of the body although I don't believe the realization of the body's unattractiveness would lead directly to insight on dependent origination. The purpose of this meditation seems merely to focus on becoming disenchanted with the body as a means to overcome the hindrance of sensual desire.
As a form of contemplation on non-self, separating the 32 parts of the body can help us to negate the view of the body as one whole entity that embodies the self. We learn to see the body as a constituent of parts and that within each constituent part there cannot be something called the self. So you can look at hair and reflect, "Am I the hair?", then you can look at your nails and reflect, "Am I the nail?" and so on. In this way, I think we are supposed to reach a realization that since there is no "I" in any of the body's constituent parts, the whole body - made up of these constituent parts - also does not contain a self (and this conclusion would be further supported by reflection on the fact that the body is also merely a congregation of the four elements). Again, however, I don't see a direct link of this type of contemplation to the understanding of dependent origination.
However, it appears that the Maha-satipatthana Sutta does say that mindfulness of the body (including the meditation on the parts of the body) can be used as a basis for meditation on dependent origination leading eventually to full release. Thanissaro Bhikkhu gives an explanation about it here (see the introductory section)
Have you observed your own mind in action? The mind is a series of processes all working together that in Buddhism is called the skandhas. One of those processes is "consciousness". This doesn't just mean being awake. It's awareness. The focus of your attention. You are reading this and focused on it right now. Your consciousness has settled on these words and the act of reading through your eyesight to focus your awareness on.
But emotion is also a skandha, and a thought pops into your mind about something that happened at work today because you're worried and stressed about it and your emotions keep insisting your mind does something to solve the problem. So the consciousness is dragged along and you lose the thread of this message and have to go back and figure out where you left off. And habits are also one of the skandhas and you keep checking the clock because it's almost time for the kids to come home from school, and your consciousness is once again dragged back and forth. And finally, form is also one of the skandhas and your stomach tells your brain that you're hungry and the mind is once again dragged along into thinking about what to do for supper.
It's the way your mind works, that's all. You can teach it to ignore the constant demands for our attention by training the consciousness part of it to focus on the here and now, but that doesn't eliminate the other parts of the mind which are still there and working away, trying to keep us alive. And in some cases we don't want to eliminate this shifting attention span. The awareness of the mind has a default scan mode built in by evolution because you don't want that lion to sneak up on you while you're trying to get a drink of water. In today's world, you don't want that speeding car arriving from the left to slam into you at the intersection because you're focused on the light turning from red to green.
On the other hand, not being able to concentrate on one thing for very long even has a name now in psychiatry: Attention deficit disorder.
As to what happens to the skandhas when one is enlightened, to me that's like asking what happens to your mind. It's still there. You don't lose your memories or emotions or such. A Theravadan would probably have a different answer.
feeling -> concentration
perception -> wisdom
formations -> liberation
consciousness -> knowledge of liberation