Stop Thinking and Start Knowing

As a Buddhist practitioner, if you put all of your heart into your practice, there will come a time when you'll experience a breakthrough. So, what is this breakthrough, you may be asking. There is no simple way to explain it, and perhaps it will be good enough to say that it's the point when you stop thinking and start knowing.

Yes, but what does it mean to stop thinking and start knowing? We all know how does it feel to keep thinking, but we're not so sure how does it feel to start knowing. Have we already started knowing? If not, are we getting close to starting to know? How do we know that we have started knowing?

And what is it that we will start knowing? Like, right now you may think that you know how to live, how to deal with various situations. So, is this the type of knowing we can expect a breakthrough experience is going to bring? What else is there to learn?

Obviously,we're not talking about the so-called scientific knowledge. Knowing that the universe may be 15 billion years old is pretty inconsequential here on earth. Pretty much nothing is gained by knowing that, and nothing would be lost by not knowing that fact. There are many other facts that are quite irrelevant to our well being.

But because Buddhist practice is strictly concerned with the human condition, its sole focus is on human well being. So this 'knowing' that we're talking about is the knowing of how to lead a life of well being.

Curiously, seems like in order to know how to lead a life of well being, we need to stop thinking. Thinking seems to be in the way of that vital knowledge.

Basically, what we're talking about here is the type of knowledge that parents have when raising their children. They don't need to think in order to get to the point of loving their children. They love their children effortlessly, and thus, not needing to think, they instantly know what to do. They know how to provide well being for their children.

Buddhists practice that same discipline, only they train themselves to view the entire world as their own children. Once you get closer to that stage, you'll discover that you'll need less thinking, less strategising, and you'll spontaneously approach the land of effortless knowing.

michael said,

on January 22nd, 2006 at 4:26 pm

Similarly, I’ve noticed that my practice (while still in it’s beginning stages) has lead me to “stop thinking” and “start acting”.

When I’m stumped with a slew of problems, I’ve often found myself pacing around thinking about them and how to reach resolution.

Since I’ve become more mindful, I’ve started acting more rather than just thinking about it.

dharmaweb.org said,

on January 26th, 2006 at 6:11 pm

Useless knowledge is no longer interest me. For example, I am stopping reading news online, watching tv, and reading useless stuff. Instead, I spend more time reading buddhist book and with my family.

Alex said,

on January 26th, 2006 at 6:30 pm

dharmaweb.org wrote:

Useless knowledge is no longer interest me. For example, I am stopping reading news online, watching tv, and reading useless stuff. Instead, I spend more time reading buddhist book and with my family.

You bring up a very important point — what is knowledge? I would argue that news, TV, factoids and stuff doesn’t qualify as knowledge. Mere data can be processed, massaged, and shaped into something more legible: information.

But having information is not the same as having knowledge. Information needs to be massaged and distilled before one can reach the stage of knowing.

dharmaweb.org said,

on January 27th, 2006 at 3:49 pm

And I can tell you, what a difference!

When I seat down to meditate and it’s like a video tape recorder, it plays back everything. If you have less things to play back to, the better your meditation session become.

Now I wish I can renounciated more but it’s very hard. I need more time! Someone once said that all of the Buddhist teaching is boiling down to just one word, “Renounciation”.

Desire and Acceptance

My friend Neil asked me the following question:

Hi Alex,

I've had a number of conversations with my roommate recently about desire vs. acceptance. Desire is what leads people to create things in life, but also leads to un-wholesome choices and actions rooted in attachment to self. Acceptance is sort of the flip side of this, where instead of choosing based on interpretations of good and bad, we accept. My understanding of the dharma is that desires are to be extinguished and we should strive to accept. But if that were the case, and we obeyed none of our desires, nothing would get created in the world. Bodhisattvas would not seek to free others, we would never take the time to learn the dharma, no one would paint beautiful portraits, create a more efficient medical system etc.

Do we distinguish between good and bad desires in Buddhism and if so what is the rationale?

OK, that's a very fundamental question, and I think it deserves careful examination.

Like you've already mentioned above, "Desire is what leads people to create things in life, but also leads to un-wholesome choices and actions rooted in attachment to self". It is this erroneous conviction -- that there is such a thing as myself that is somehow separate from everything else -- that leads us to attach to it and to consequently generate all kinds of desires aimed at protecting and furthering the hallucinatory 'self'.

So it should be fairly easy to see that in Buddhism we can clearly identify bad desires. Any desires that spring from the erroneous concepts, such as the concept of a separate self, cannot be deemed good. The rationale behind this distinction lies in the fact that erroneous concepts inevitably lead to suffering.

As you already know, Buddhism is only concerned with human condition. According to the Buddha's teaching, the prevalent factor underlying human condition is suffering. It is impossible to conceive of any arrangement whatsoever that could possibly eliminate this condition. One can place all one's hope in concepts such as heaven, nothingness, etc., but upon closer inspection all these concepts turn out to be unsatisfactory.

Nevertheless, Buddhist teaching insists that having a desire to extinguish suffering is not a bad desire. As a matter of fact, being a Buddhist practitioner myself, I would argue that all those things you've enumerated above (painting beautiful portraits, building more efficient medical systems, learning the Dharma etc.) are the direct manifestation of the desire to extinguish suffering.

But therein lies the rub -- suffering is a direct outcome of attachment which leads to desires. Yet here we have a strong desire to abolish suffering. Isn't that also an attachment that will inevitably lead to suffering? The situation seems paradoxical: in order to dissolve suffering, we need to have a desire to do so, which implies further suffering!

How to find a way out of this conundrum? Buddhist teaching and practice is all about exactly this problem. The Buddha showed us the way out of this sticky predicament 2,500 years ago.

I'd like you to think about the Buddhist way out of this for a while. Let me know your findings, and then we can look into it a bit deeper.

Be well,

Alex

Old Comments

michael said,

on January 6th, 2006 at 3:26 am

Off of the top of my head, it seems that the Buddha taugh that the ultimate goal is to alleviate suffering, thus making that the only desire that is allowable.

Alex said,

on January 6th, 2006 at 8:48 pm

michael wrote:

Off of the top of my head, it seems that the Buddha taught that the ultimate goal is to alleviate suffering, thus making that the only desire that is allowable.

Yes, that is correct. However, this is stuff that pertains to the entry-level Buddhism. What Neil was asking is more advanced questions. Like, if the ultimate goal is not to have any goals, then it doesn’t make much sense, does it?

Buddhist practice focuses on resolving exactly such kinds of questions.

michael said,

on January 13th, 2006 at 5:02 am

Well, I’m curious. What is the proper answer?

Alex said,

on January 16th, 2006 at 5:33 am

michael said:

Well, I’m curious. What is the proper answer?

Luckily, and at the same time unfortunately, the answer boils down one word — shunyata. I say luckily, because having a crystal clear single word supplied as an answer is much better than a long winded narrative explaining the finer points of an answer. But the word itself is very recondite, and that’s why I’ve said that it’s also unfortunate that we can offer a single word as a proper answer.

Michael, if you don’t know what shunyata is, then we’ve got to talk:-)

Let me know if you’d need more detailed explanation of this answer.

Thanks.

Alex

lynda said,

on January 19th, 2006 at 1:09 pm

My understanding of the question is as follows. I believe that grasping is responsible for our suffering. Desire itself is not the problem, it is how it is manifested in our thoughts and behaviours. So desire to understand the dharma for example is fine as long as we dont let it turn into grasping for something we want to have and to hold on to. If we strive to get rid of desires then we have lost the plot and we will create suffering for ourselves.

Alex said,

on January 21st, 2006 at 12:22 am

lynda wrote:

My understanding of the question is as follows. I believe that grasping is responsible for our suffering. Desire itself is not the problem, it is how it is manifested in our thoughts and behaviours. So desire to understand the dharma for example is fine as long as we dont let it turn into grasping for something we want to have and to hold on to. If we strive to get rid of desires then we have lost the plot and we will create suffering for ourselves.

This is a very astute observation. It is indeed very important to nail the correct dianosis before attempting the cure (as all of you who are watching the TV show “House” know quite well).

But the real issue in the Buddhist practice is how do we deal with the diagnosis? If we conclude that grasping is actually at the root of our suffering, we would naturally be very keen on eradicating the root cause. But right there the problem arises — by wanting to get rid of grasping, are we not grasping at non-grasping? Are we not simply amplifying the grasping itself?

lynda said,

on January 23rd, 2006 at 8:09 pm

Grasping to get something and trying to rid yourself of something are two sides of the same coin, both are forms of attachment. I believe that attachment is the cause of suffering and that is what the practice of mindfulness is helping me to learn more about. My attachment to this and that is still there but in time I may be able to learn how to stay fully aware. But maybe not, I travel in hope with good companions also on the same journey, thank you for your comments and travel well