Disease at Mental Level- : CM and Buddhist 5-phases

[Guest guest]

In my, as yet s/w limited, readings, the two (loss and liberation)

> generally go together. " Deep joy, calm, and clarity " (to quote the

> subtitle of a new how-to book on the jhanas (stages of meditative

> absorption) by Shaila Catherine) are the focus, the goal. But it must be

> distinguished from other yearned-for states of (pseudo-)satisfaction.

> There is always the qualification that the best peace, happiness

> (liberation) arrive thru letting-go, releasing conditioned patterns. Not

> as achievements one gets and holds onto as an attainment.

 

 

Lonny: No doubt that renunciation is an important key to spiritual

freedom. In fact, it seems to be a lost art in a postmodern world

whose greatest value appears to be having infinite options at all

time, through all circumstances. Nonetheless, the point I was making

is that it's interesting that Buddhists often focus on the grief

associated with the " loss " so much. Such an identification is, I

believe a cultural attribute rather than something inherent in the

process. Sure there is a sense of loss but my experience is its

insignificant in relationship to the lightness and clarity gained. And

the point is that while emotions come and go, as do the seasons, our

relationship to our experience is volitional and that's what makes the

difference between health and pathology.

[Guest guest]

Wed, 9 Jul 2008 10:29:20 –0700, " " <johnkokko wrote:

 

>>I've heard of the six phases schools before... can you elaborate on this?

 

The Tibetan version of 5-elements (with metal = air/space, wood =

consciousness) is in the Book of the Dead. And Stephen Levine uses it in

his guided meditations on the dying process. Gil Milner, master of

Chinese and Tibetan medicine in the Spokane WA area, also taught this

once in a workshop I took in (1980s). Tibetan " Vrajyana " Buddhism (the

" 3rd vehicle " ) is said to be one of those lineages closest, best

preserved, relative to the " original " , whatever that may mean.

 

The " six element practice of equanimity " I found in Tricycle magazine

(Summer 2007, pp38ff; the author, a Scotsman named Bodhipaksa, can be

found at wildmind.org). Quotations below are from that article.

 

" The Six Element practice --- a profound contemplation of

interconnectedness, impermanence, and insubstantiality --- is one of the

most significant insight [vipassana] practices in the Pali canon. The

Buddha recommended it as a way of " not neglecting wisdom, " and taught it

as a technique for developing equanimity [abandoning attachment to

both/either pleasure and pain] and cultivating meditative absorption, or

jhana. In the Six Element practice, we contemplate in turn earth, water,

fire, air, space, and consciousness, noting how each element is an

ever-changing process rather than a static thing. " [a phase or " agent "

(Unschuld) rather than " element " ]

 

" One of the most striking features of this practice is the thorough way

in which it deconstructs our experience… "

 

The practice, as described in this article, is to vividly, directly

experience each quality in oneself, e.g. earth as physical presence,

weight, solidity. Buddha uses a catalogue of terms reminiscent of

passages in the NeiJing: calling to mind (experiencing) " flesh, sinews,

bones, marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, diaphragm,… " Then realizing how

every part of this is the same stuff as the outside world, comes from

outside (food), eventually goes back. Boils down to our own

participation in earthness being a fleeting instance of borrowed stuff.

There being really no substantive " me " to the body (except delusionally).

 

Then the same contemplation with water (fluidity in experience and

body), fire (in a word, " qi " – remember? heat, motion, transformation,

defense, holding in place), air (breathed air, gases), and space

(boundaries of inner-space and outer-space). Note associations air and

lungs (metal), and space with boundaries, which some (e.g. Ted Kaptchuk)

associate with liver / wood.

 

Given air substituted for metal, and space for wood, the progression is

clearly the same as the complete Chinese wu-xing control cycle (earth,

water, fire, metal, wood). And the intent of the progression here is to

" deconstruct " each of them, which, in a sense, releases control,

dissolves each successive element (i.e. as vividly in the process of

death).

 

About the " sixth " element " (the big question):

 

" It isn't obvious that consciousness is an element like [the others].

Perhaps … we can't even say what consciousness is. … Perhaps we could

say that consciousness is the other elements knowing themselves. [shen:

the sixth as the " big " shen, and the other five as the " little " shens of

each organ/element (yi, zhi, shen, po, hun)?]

 

" The Buddha introduces the element in this way: 'Then there remains only

consciousness, bright and purified.' It's just possible that he was

referring here to the mind's intrinsically empty nature, or he may

simply have meant that the mind has been brightened and purified by

letting go of grasping after the other five elements.

 

So this " sixth " is really something in a different dimension than the

other five.

 

I guess someone should research what the actual (Pali / Sanskrit) terms

are whence all this is translated and interpreted. What is the term

there for " element " ?

 

Another historical question would be: does this really go back to

documented sources ( " Pali canon " ) some centuries B.C.E.? Which would

mean a significant simultaneous or even prior formulation to the Chinese

wu-xing. Or does the " Pali canon " span a longer term of Buddhist

renditions and interpretations? In which case, very likely coming later,

and very likely already influenced by Chinese thought. Particularly as

one of the major lineages / schools of Buddhist tradition is the Chinese

" Chan " (5th to 12th Centuries), associated with the cultural highpoints

in art, literature and thought of the Tang and Song dynasties. And which

migrated to Japanese " Zen " after the Song, when Chinese " neo-cons "

(neo-Confucians) " purified " their culture of the " foreign " influence of

(Indian) Buddhism.

 

Footnote: it is postulated that the Chinese took so readily and deeply

to Buddhism because it fits so well, extending upon the basis of the

Taoist framework, which was/is, despite the dominance of Confucian

influence in social / political institutions, a deep current throughout

Chinese history.

 

That's all I know about it, John.

 

chris m