The Pain of No Pain#
Undoubtedly, some people can develop a basic immunity to certain unbearable pain through meditation training. In July 1963, a monk named Thich Quang Duc publicly protested the South Vietnamese government's mistreatment of Buddhists. He placed a mat on the street in Saigon and sat in a lotus position. Another monk poured gasoline on him, and Thich Quang Duc said, "Before closing my eyes and entering parinirvana, I sincerely implore President Ngo Dinh Diem to have a compassionate heart towards the people and implement policies of religious equality to ensure the lasting prosperity of the nation." Then he lit a match. Journalist David Halberstam witnessed the entire process and wrote, "Throughout the whole process, the monk engulfed in flames remained still, without a sound or a groan, his stillness contrasting sharply with the weeping of the people around him."
At this point, you may argue that Thich Quang Duc did not achieve liberation from illusion at all, but rather endured torment from illusions. After all, the fact is that he was burned to death. So, since he lacked the intense pain that we normally associate with being burned to death, and the feeling that triggers the necessary alertness to make the survival instinctive actions that most of us would make, can we say that he was the one who lacked the understanding of the truth?
What illusions do we have in our "normal" feelings, thoughts, and perceptions? The importance of the question I am focusing on has two reasons. One reason is simple and practical: obviously, if unpleasant emotions such as anxiety, fear, self-disgust, and depression are in some sense illusions, we can dispel these illusions through meditation or at least free ourselves from their control, and we can take advantage of this. The other reason, which may seem more academic at first glance but ultimately has practical value, is whether the Buddhist understanding of the mind and its relationship to reality is really so crazy. Clarifying when our feelings mislead us helps us understand these issues. Are many things in the reality we perceive really illusions?
This question leads us to delve into Buddhist philosophy, which is not commonly seen in mainstream meditation narratives. These narratives naturally focus more on short-term benefits such as stress reduction and increased self-confidence, but they do not delve into the philosophical aspects of the origin and prosperity of Buddhist meditation. Of course, it is not wrong to use meditation as a purely therapeutic tool, without deep changes in one's understanding of reality. Because it is beneficial for you to do so, and it is likely to be beneficial to the world as well.
Nevertheless, using meditation in this way is not choosing the red pill. Choosing the red pill means exploring fundamental questions about the relationship between the perceiver and the perceived world, and exploring the basis of our general understanding of reality. If you are seriously considering choosing the red pill, you will not only be curious about the "effectiveness" of the Buddhist worldview in the therapeutic aspect, but also explore it from a philosophical perspective. Does this seemingly confusing Buddhist view of "true" and "false" make sense from a modern scientific perspective? Most of the later parts of this book discuss this question. This question is important not only at the purely philosophical level but also for how we live. Although this influence has obvious practical benefits, describing it as the "mind" effect is more appropriate than calling it the "therapeutic" effect.
But let me remind you. Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a "Buddhist worldview." After Buddhism emerged around 500 BC, it soon split. Just as Christianity has Catholicism and Protestantism, and Islam has Sunni and Shia, Buddhism also has distinct branches, and there are differences in certain doctrines among these branches.
Buddhism can be roughly divided into Theravada and Mahayana. The Vipassana meditation I practice comes from the Theravada branch. The radical and widespread ideas about illusions come more from Mahayana Buddhism (which Thich Quang Duc practiced). Some Mahayana Buddhist monks are even more extreme, holding a form of "idealism" and believing that everything we perceive through consciousness is actually imaginary. This branch of Buddhist thought, which is consistent with the ideas in the movie "The Matrix," is not mainstream in Mahayana Buddhism and has a weaker position in the entire Buddhist system. However, even mainstream Buddhist thinkers partially acknowledge the concept of "emptiness." "Emptiness" is a subtle concept that is difficult to describe in short words (in fact, it is equally difficult to describe in long essays), but at least one layer of meaning can be affirmed: the things we see in the world are not as unique and real as they appear on the surface.
In addition, there is an important Buddhist idea that the "self" (like yourself, myself) is an illusion. From this perspective, the "you" who generates thoughts, feels emotions, and makes decisions is not a real existence. If we put these two Buddhist ideas together - "not-self" and "emptiness" - we can come to a very radical view: your inner world and the outer world are different from how they appear. In the eyes of most people, these two ideas are either crazy or very suspicious. And since the premise of these ideas assumes that humans are naturally deceived, we cannot let our instinctive reactions hinder us from seeking the truth. A large part of this book explores these two ideas, and what I hope to do is to explain the rationality of both.
Our natural views of the "external" world and the "internal" world (the world in our minds) are deeply misled, and from the perspective of Buddhism, the erroneous understanding of these two worlds does bring a lot of suffering to people. Meditation can help us see more clearly.
When I talk about the scientific basis of exploring the Buddhist worldview, I don't mean to look for scientific evidence to prove that "meditation can reduce suffering." If you want such evidence, there are many existing research results and related reports that can be used. I also don't mean to study the changes that occur in your mind when you meditate and start to change your perception of reality. However, I will certainly refer to some key brain scanning studies.
By "scientific basis," I mean using the tools of modern psychology to explore a class of questions: why are human nature easily deceived, and how exactly are we deceived? How does illusion deceive us? How does illusion cause us suffering? How does illusion cause others to suffer? Why are Buddhist methods of dispelling illusions (especially meditation) effective? What constitutes sufficient achievement in meditation? In other words, does the elusive state (some call it "enlightenment") that supposedly exists at the peak of the meditation path really exist? What kind of state is it to see the world thoroughly?
Is "saving the world" - preventing tribalism from spreading globally and causing chaos and slaughter - really just a matter of purifying human illusions? The word "just" is actually inappropriate, as it makes things seem easy. In fact, if illusions are deeply rooted in our hearts, it really takes great effort to dispel them. However, I still want to say that it is also good if we can realize that struggling for eternity is also struggling for truth, as long as we are committed to the great mission of saving the world, it is also great to kill two birds with one stone! In addition, it is also good to use meditation to try to see the world more clearly, reduce suffering in the process, seek liberation and freedom, and at the same time, widely contribute to the development of human nature, and the pursuit of personal redemption promotes the pursuit of social redemption.
In this epic exploration process, the first step is to carefully study our feelings: pain, happiness, fear, anxiety, love, desire, and so on. Feelings play a very important role in shaping perception and guiding life. It is not an exaggeration to say that this is actually more important than most people think. Are they reliable guides? We will explore this question in the next chapter.