by Tang Huyen
One can free oneself, one can unbind oneself, in a
perfectly natural manner — but the way of doing so
would rather focus on processes, instead of giving
focus to the self or the "I", which might be
self-defeating.
In modern logic, it is said that if a problem
cannot be solved, often that is because it is
wrongly posed, it is a false problem, and a
false problem has no solution, cannot have
a solution, but one can know that it is a false
problem and not bother with it. In modern
science it is said that if you pose a wrong
question, you won't even get a wrong answer.
Buddhism in general since the time of the
Buddha has been just such a systematic
debunking of false problems and wrong
questions, in that we cause suffering to
ourselves and inflict suffering on ourselves,
all for nothing, exactly because we frame
false problems and wrong questions for us
to solve. The first and foremost false
problem and wrong question is the self or
the "I". In Buddhism, it is said that we follow
words to chase realities. Here we follow the
word "self" (as in myself, oneself) or "I" to
chase realities, when in fact the self or the
"I" is merely a convenient label for some
cluster of phenomena that tend to occur
together. But we follow such words to chase
some realities, and in so doing we cause
suffering to ourselves and inflict suffering on
ourselves, all for nothing. The way out is to
reconsider the issue, to check whether we
have posed a false problem and a wrong
question.
Here, with regard to the issue of unbinding,
Buddhism would say that it is wrongly framed,
that it is framed in a prejudicial manner, such
that the outcome is hampered by the way it
is framed. Another way of framing it would
offer a solution, and a solution with elegance.
The Buddha tells the layman Potthapāda
about the "conscious entry into the gradually
obtained complete cessation of notion
(abhisaññā-nirodha, where the emphatic
prefix abhi- qualifies nirodha)." The monk
enters the four form meditations, then the
first three formless places, and in each of the
latter he ceases the notion of the previous
stage. In the third formless place, which the
Buddha calls the "summit of notions"
(saññāgga), he thinks: "To mentate at all is
bad (cetayamānassa me pāpiyo), it would be
better not to mentate (acetayamāyum), but
other gross ones would arise (aññā ca olārikā
saññā uppajjeyyum). So I will not mentate
and compose (na ceteyyam na
abhisaṃkhareyyam)." So he no longer
mentates and composes (so na ceva ceteti
na abhisaṃkharoti), and to him no longer
mentating and composing (tassa acetayato
na abhisaṃkharoto), the notions cease (tā
ceva saññā nirujjhanti), and other gross ones
do not arise (aññā ca olārikā saññā na
uppajjanti). So he touches cessation (so
nirodhaṃ phusati). This is how the
"conscious entry into the gradually obtained
complete cessation of notion"
(anupubbābhisaññā-nirodha-sampajāna-samāpatti)
comes about. DN, I, 184 (9), Chinese
Dīrgha-Āgama, 28, 110b.
So it is by refraining from mentating and
composing that one "touches cessation"
(nirodhaṃ phusati), which is Nirvāṇa.
In the Scripture on the Analysis of the Six
Modalities, at the fourth form meditation,
after concentrating on equanimity, the
meditator reflects: "If I move this equanimity,
purified thus, into the place of infinite space
[and so on for each of the other three formless
attainments] and should develop my thought
in accordance with it, leaning on it, supported
by it, standing on it, taking it as object,
attached to it, this equanimity, purified thus,
leaning on the place of infinite space, is
therefore composed (saṅkhataṃ etaṃ). What
is composed is impermanent, what is
impermanent is suffering; if it is suffering, I
know suffering; after knowing suffering, from
the equanimity I do not move into the place
of infinite space." If the monk contemplates
all four formless places this way with wisdom,
he does not accomplish them, does not move
into them. He therefore neither composes nor
wills out/mentates (neva abhisaṅkharoti
nābhisañcetayati) for becoming (bhava) or
un-becoming (vi-bhava).
"'I am' (asmiti) is a thought (maññita, Skt.
manyita), 'I am this' is a thought, 'I will be'
is a thought, 'I will neither be nor not be' is
a thought, 'I will be with form' is a thought,
'I will be without form' is a thought, 'I will
be with notion' is a thought, 'I will be without
notion' is a thought, 'I will be neither with
notion nor without notion' is a thought; the
monk thinks: if there is none of these thoughts,
agitations, etc., the mind is quiesced."
The Pāli formulation: "when he is gone beyond
all thoughts, the sage is said to be at peace"
(sabba-maññitānaṃ tveva samatikkamā muni
santo ti vuccati). Chinese Madhyama-Āgama,
162, 692a, MN, III, 246 (140).
So one attains the state of non-mentation and
non-composition by ... not mentating and not
composing. Not by force, but by gently
stopping producing more mentation and
composition (the fourth aggregate), by
abstaining from furthering mentation. Just that
is liberation, and there is no higher state in
Buddhism.
Of the above two texts, the former concentrates
on notion (saññā), the second aggregate, whilst
the latter focuses on volitions and the
compositions, altogether the fourth aggregate.
The implication is that these two aggregates
make up the domain of mentation, and that to
quiesce either one is also to quiesce both —
they implicate each other and go up and down
together.
Thus to get into the absence of thought, one
exerts some efforts, efforts that deactivate
thought gradually, as thought thins out, until
thought stops (the third aggregate, notion, and
the fourth aggregate, the compositions, stop).
What remains is direct, raw cognition
(pratyakṣa), which is free of thought.
Nothing mysterious, nothing mystical.
The main point is that the process of attaining
freedom, as described in the above two texts,
makes little mention of the self or the "I". The
focus is rather on processes, like notion (the
third aggregate) and the compositions (the
fourth aggregate), and, as it turns out, such
processes are impersonal. There is no self or
"I" to back them up.
In the second text, when looked at from the
point of view of the compositions, the self or
"I" is only a product of thought, a composition,
and not something existing on its own side.
That is how it is undone. To stop the
compositions (not forcibly, but gently) also
stops the self or "I". It is no longer produced.
At the end of the process, the self or the "I"
has been dissolved, without grabbing attention
in the meantime. That is the trick. That is how
the self or "I" can be given up. Stealthily,
so to speak.
So, one can free oneself, one can unbind
oneself, and in a perfectly natural (as opposed
to supernatural) manner, but the way of doing
so would rather focus on processes, instead of
giving focus to the self or the "I", which might
be self-defeating.
Colophon
Posted to talk.religion.buddhism on January 3, 2005, in reply to _cloud's post on the impossibility of the self freeing itself. Author: Tang Huyen. Message-ID: <[email protected]>.
Tang Huyen's longest single essay on Buddhist practice. The central argument: the question "how can the self give up the self?" is a false problem, wrongly framed. The Buddhist solution is to focus not on the self but on the impersonal processes of mentation (notion, the third aggregate; the compositions, the fourth aggregate). Two canonical texts are cited at length: DN I, 184 (Potthapāda Sutta, with Chinese Dīrgha-Āgama parallel at 28, 110b) on the gradual cessation of notion at the summit of meditative attainments; and MN III, 246 (Scripture on the Analysis of the Six Modalities, with Chinese Madhyama-Āgama parallel at 162, 692a) on the cessation of the "I am" thought and all its derivatives. In both texts, liberation is achieved by gently not-producing more mentation — not by force, but by abstention. The self dissolves as a byproduct. "Nothing mysterious, nothing mystical."
Preserved from the Usenet archive for the Good Work Library by the New Tianmu Anglican Church, 2026.
🌲