When ignorance and craving underlie our stream of consciousness, our volitional actions of body, speech, and mind become forces with the capacity to produce results, and of the results they produce the most significant is the renewal of the stream of consciousness following death. It is the sankharas, propped up by ignorance and fueled by craving, that drive the stream of consciousness onward to a new mode of rebirth, and exactly where consciousness becomes established is determined by the kammic character of the sankharas.
— “Anicca Vata Sankhara”, Bhikku Bodhi
I’ve found some very interesting definition of viparinama dukkha. I’ll save it here for later reference. Irrelevant to the fact is his definition correct or not (I’d say its more likely sankhara dukkha), I’m pretty sure this feeling is very familiar to the most of us. -df
Thus, from the experience of social conditions there arises both physical and psychological suffering. But more fundamental still is that profound sense of unease, of anxiety or angst,which arises from the very transience (anicca) of life (viparinama-dukkha). This angst, however conscious of it we may or may not be, drives the restless search to establish a meaningful self-identity in the face of a disturbing awareness of our insubstantiality (anatta).Ultimately, life is commonly a struggle to give meaning to life — and to death. This is so much the essence of the ordinary human condition and we are so very much inside it, that for much of the time we are scarcely aware of it. This existential suffering is the distillation of all the various conditions to which we have referred above — it is the human condition itself…
…the anxiety, the profound sense of unease felt by the individual in his naked experience of life in the world when not masked by busyness, objectives, diversions and other confirmations and distractions.
— “Buddhism and Social Action: An Exploration”, Ken Jones
— “Psychotherapy without the Self: A Buddhist Perspective”, Dr. Mark Epstein M.D.
“…when the path of insight is analyzed carefully, stages with predominantly two contrasting affective tones can be discriminated, what the Visuddhimagga, the classic textbook of Buddhist psychology, calls experiences of “terror and delight”
…
…experiences of terror, on the other hand, derive from the investigating aspects of the mindfulness practice and from the insights that precipitate out of such practice. They are characterized by clear perception of the impermanent, insubstantial and unsatisfying nature of the self and the field of experience. These experiences are profoundly disturbing; they evoke discomfort, fear and anxiety, require the meditator to relinquish fundamental beliefs and identifications, and tend to be fragmenting and anxiogenic.
…
The experience of terror, however, and the fruits of the insight practices, have little to do with the ego ideal. There is no satisfaction of a yearning for perfection in these experiences, no evocation of grandeur, elation or omnipotence. Rather, these experiences directly challenge the grasp of the deeply buried and highly treasured ideal ego. They confront the “illusory ontology of the self” (Hanly, 1984, p. 255), expose the ego as groundless, impermanent and empty, and overcome the denials that empower the wishful image of the self. When faced with these experiences, the meditator has nothing to fall back on; he must surrender his most closely guarded identifications, relinquishing them as “not me” and “not mine.” As described in the Visuddhimagga, He sees the non-existence of a self of his own … he sees of his own self too that it is not the property of another’s self… . He sees the non-existence of another’s self, thus `There is no other’s self anywhere’ He sees of another that that other is not the property of his own self thus `My owning of that other’s self does not exist’ So this mere conglomeration of formations is seen … as voidness of self or property of a self…. (Nyanamoli, 1976, p. 763)
— “Psychotherapy without the Self: A Buddhist Perspective”, Dr. Mark Epstein M.D.
“Confusion over what is meant by ego can arise here, with many mistaking egolessness for abandonment of the theoretical/ metapsychological/structural ego. Egolessness, in this case, is confused with the absence of repression, or with liberation from psychological defenses, a view which often encourages the release of buried sexual or aggressive longing. This can be thought of as a “primal scream” version of egolessness, perpetuated by insufficient conceptual preparation for meditation, and vulnerable to becoming a kind of self-righteous hedonism. The need for an appropriate conceptual framework at this stage is clear. ”
— “Psychotherapy without the Self: A Buddhist Perspective”, Dr. Mark Epstein M.D.
“Refusing to progress either on the path of concentration, by focusing the mind on a single object, or on the path of mindfulness, by moving from attention to content to attention to process, the meditator can be caught up in a fascination with psychological material without moving toward any resolution of conflict. Rorschach studies of experienced meditators showed no diminution of internal conflict, but only a marked “non-defensiveness in experiencing such conflicts” (Brown & Engler, 1986, p. 189), a rather paralyzing combination in someone who refuses either to seek therapeutic help in working through the conflict or to let go of the content of the conflict as demanded by the meditative path. Alternatively, there are those who find that meditation both reveals to them their need for therapeutic work and facilitates that work by decreasing their defensiveness. ”
— “Psychotherapy without the Self: A Buddhist Perspective”, Dr. Mark Epstein M.D.
(Also clearly marks an importance of “letting go”, accepting “as is” is only the half of the deal -df)
“Preliminary practices of meditation, just like beginning psychoanalysis, require the meditator to take his or her own experience as the object of awareness. In Buddhist terms, the attentional strategy is called “bare attention,” while in psycho-analytic terms it is called “evenly suspended attention” or free association. Both require what Freud called the suspension of judgment and the giving of “impartial attention to everything there is to observe” (1909, p. 23). In Buddhist terms, bare attention is defined as “the clear and single-minded awareness of what actually happens to us and in us at the successive moments of perception” (Nyanaponika, 1962). In psychodynamic terms, this self-contemplation is defined as a therapeutic split (Engler, 1986) in the ego (Sterba, 1934), in which ego takes itself as object. As Freud commented in his New Introductory Lectures, We wish to make the ego the object of our study, our own ego. But how can that be done? The ego is the subject, par excellence: how can it become the object? There is no doubt, however, that it can. The ego can take itself as object; it can treat itself like any other object, observe itself, criticize itself, do Heaven knows what besides with itself…. The ego can, then, be split; … The parts can later on join up again. (Sterba, 1934, p. 80)”
— “Psychotherapy without the Self: A Buddhist Perspective”, Dr. Mark Epstein M.D.
“Guntrip (1971) insists that “every personality” hovers “between two opposite fears, the fear of isolation in independence with loss of ego in a vacuum of experience, and the fear of bondage to, of imprisonment or absorption in the personality of whomever he rushes to for protection” (p. 291). These two poles, of grandiosity or omnipotence on the one hand, and emptiness or insufficiency on the other, represent what Lou Andreas-Salome (1962), one of Freud’s great confidants, termed the “dual orientation of narcissism,” that of the “desire for individuality” with its associated feelings of “a ghostlike facsimile of existence” (p. 7) versus the “contrary movement toward conjugation and fusion” that involves “identification with the totality” (pp. 4-5).”
— “Psychotherapy without the Self: A Buddhist Perspective”, Dr. Mark Epstein M.D.
