Productive Agents
[ Home ]

The following train of thought arrived while reading the Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra. The sutra had encouraged me to be more aware of thought processes. I realised that many thoughts and moods were due to blind habit and previous conditioning and that 'I' was not in control of what happens inside my head. This has given rise to a greater confidence and trust in 'the muse' who/which was responsible for the content (if not the layout) of this article.

George Clark (January 2003)
clark@srds.co.uk

For sources of quotations click HERE
Sometimes I feel that I should be more focused and productive. Is it a good or bad feeling?

This is a subtle point but Vimalakirti was quite clear about it:

 The Dharma is ultimately without formulation and without verbalisation. Who verbalises: "Suffering should be recognised, origination should be eliminated, cessation should be realised, the path should be practiced," is not interested in the Dharma but is interested in verbalisation.

… the Dharma is calm and peaceful. Those who are engaged in production and destruction are not interested in the Dharma, are not interested in solitude, but are interested in production and destruction.

… if you are interested in the Dharma you should take no interest in anything.
The subtlety has to do with the idea of 'agent'.

 Language requires a subject for every sentence, an 'I'. But the conscious 'I' is an illusion and is the source of the problem and cannot be part of its cure.

wu-wei = non egoic action
action without a conscious 'I'

 

easy as riding a bike

 There is thus another concept of agent - wu-wei. This means something along the lines of non-action where this implies that things get done without a conscious 'I' being involved.

Everyday examples include automatically snatching up a baby that is about to fall into a well (innate reflex (instinct) - nature) and riding a bicycle once you have learned how (conditioned reflex (learned behaviour) - nurture).

So what does it mean to say that, "'I' should be more focused and productive"?
Two levels of agency can be seen to be at work :

Conventional agent

Liberated agent
When 'I' is the conventional 'I' then it is involved with formulation and verbalisation and with production and destruction. This is obviously missing the grander Buddhist point. The second level of agency involves non-egoic-action. There is focus, and productive work is done, but the actor is not self-aware of the action. Ego consciousness is not involved.
The liberated agent is more active than most people realise. A name can be on the tip of your tongue but will not appear until 'you' stop trying to remember - so who remembers?

Most poets, and writers appreciate that they are but instruments for their muse. "The words and ideas appear already formed and all that 'I' do is write them down."

It is as if the subconscious part of your brain was another 'you'. The familiar conscious part knows very little about it.

The subconscious part is the source of your dreams and nightmares when you are asleep and of daydreams and moods when you are awake.

Most people, when they bother to think about it, realise that the content of their consciousness is a very small part of what goes on inside their head. And, more significantly, 'they' are not in control.

The subconscious has a mind of its own and dictates what ideas and emotions get tossed into consciousness.

The 'I' of consciousness is a tiny cork on the vast swelling ocean of unconsciousness.

So can the unconscious mind be trained and brought under control? Can it be more focussed and productive? Yes.

This is the purpose of Buddhism which sees the conventional agent as the root of spiritual sickness. 'I' have difficulty getting my head round the solution but wu-wei goes with the flow.

Vimalakirti is an eloquent spokesman for the Buddhist cure:
Sickness arises from total involvement in the process of misunderstanding from beginningless time.

It arises from the passions that result from unreal mental constructions, and hence ultimately nothing is perceived which can be said to be sick.

 Why? .....

 

… There is no self in this body, and, except for arbitrary insistence on self, ultimately no 'I' which can be said to be sick can be apprehended.

Therefore, thinking, "'I' should not adhere to any self, and 'I' should rest in the knowledge of the root of illness," you should abandon the conception of yourself as a personality and produce the conception of yourself as a thing, thinking, "This body is an aggregate of many things; when it is born only things are born; when it ceases only things cease" …
What is the elimination of this sickness? It is the elimination of egoism and possessiveness.
What is the elimination of egoism and possessiveness? It is the freedom from dualism.
What is the freedom from dualism? It is the absence of involvement with either the external or the internal.
What is the absence of involvement with either the external or the internal? It is non deviation, non fluctuation, and non distraction from equanimity.
What is equanimity? It is the equality of everything from self to liberation.
Why? Because both self and liberation are void.
How can both be void? Because they exist only by names which have no independent nature of their own

"When you achieve this equality your are free from all illnesses but there remains the concept of voidness which also is an illusion and should be wiped out as well."

So there can/should be focus, and a productive move towards liberation;

but it will be successful only if 'I' do not focus and try to move productively towards liberation.

Sources of quotations:
Thurman R A F (1976,1991) The Holy Teaching of Vimalakirti - a Mahayana scripture;
Motilal Banarsidass Publishers; ISBN 8120808746
Luk, Charles (1972) Ordinary Enlightenment - a translation of the Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra
Shambala; ISBN 1570629714

In Association with Amazon.co.uk

[ Home ]