The Appearance of Insight

This article was primarily intended to clarify some issues around ‘insight inquiry’ for Order members taking part in the current pilot project which is exploring how it may be incorporated in our system of practice. The fact that this article is an exploration of ‘issues’ means that it’s not offering a balanced view of insight inquiry and its outcomes, but is largely exploring what might be perceived as some of the ‘downsides’, not just of insight inquiry but of insight (spiritual death, vipashyana, prajna) generally. As these issues may arise for anyone practising insight, particularly around the self-view, I’ve made it available to all, but please bear in mind its original intended audience.

I noticed in Order discussions some conflation of issues around insight inquiry / direct pointing with issues that pertain to the arising of insight as such, irrespective of the practice approach that has been pursued. Although insight inquiry into the laksanas and the insight that can arise are obviously linked, I think it would be helpful to clarify some of the issues that may occur as a consequence of any arising of insight which amounts to a significant ‘paradigm shift’, irrespective of how it comes about. So although this was initially intended for Order members involved with the insight inquiry pilot project, it is in fact applicable to all who are seriously engaged with any form of spiritual death (vipashyana) practice.

The basic paradigm shift to which insight inquiry into all three laksanas (as well as other insight practices done in the Order) can give rise is a direct seeing and knowing of what Sangharakshita speaks about here:

“The unchanging self or soul that is supposedly the source of that consciousness is something we have added on, an illusion produced by the very activity of dualistic thinking. It is our belief in its existence that ultimately holds us back from insight into the nature of things as they really are – and if we can convince ourselves through our own observation that this ‘self’ is an illusion, the fetter will be broken.”

What I want to highlight are some possible outcomes of the insight into the nature of ‘self’ that can arise from insight inquiry, but equally, can arise from other forms of insight practice. These possible outcomes need to be highlighted in advance as clarity around some of them could well mitigate the likelihood of them arising in the first place. Others may be seen as simply an aspect of what unfolds from the arising of insight, rather than a ‘problem’ or ‘something having gone wrong’. Our collective discourse could then move on from ‘problem orientation’ to ‘wise attention’ to the potential pitfalls of insight and how they can be approached, and maybe avoided altogether.

The issues I’m writing about here have all arisen for various people in the Order who’ve been exploring insight. However, it’s important to note that most Order members who’ve seen into the illusory nature of the self-view are managing to navigate their way through any such issues fairly skilfully, especially as we deepen our collective experiential knowledge and wisdom around the consequences – including the apparent ‘downsides’ – of insight. And not least, the deeper one’s practice has gone in terms of our system of meditation and our general approach to the Dharma life, the more straightforward the integration of insight generally seems to be.

1) `The nature of the experience’

One area that needs clarity is ‘what happens’ when we have indeed convinced ourselves through our own observation that this ‘self’ is an illusion. As Sangharakshita has also said, the self-view is ‘primarily intellectual’ (or cognitive). That doesn’t mean it’s just like an opinion which we can change – note that Sangharakshita says ‘primarily’ intellectual. In fact it’s a deeply and emotionally held view or belief which is all the more tenacious because it seems to be ‘simple common sense’ – is it not obvious that there is a ‘me’ here? Yet if we look at our sense of self an open kind of way, we’ll notice that it seems to be different things at different times – right now the ‘self’ may be the one who is reading this, then it appears to be the ‘me’ who ‘has’ my body, then it’s ‘me, the decider’ etc. Somehow, when you actually look at it, it doesn’t quite seem to hang together – yet despite this, the belief in self persists.

Of course, just thinking about it, mere intellectual conviction, will never shift it. Vipashyana practices such as the main ones we do in the Order and insight inquiry necessarily aim deeper than the superficial levels of the thinking mind and involve our entire being – body, senses, heart, emotions and the more subtle qualities of mind, honed by our practice of samadhi and supported by maitri. Hence, any real paradigm shift, any actual ‘spiritual death’, will be an integrated ‘expression’ of all these aspects of our being. I realise this may make it sound quite a ‘big deal’, but remember that as Order members we’ve all been practising integration, positive emotion, spiritual death, spiritual rebirth and receptivity / just sitting for a long time. The foundation, and probably far more than just the foundation, has been laid and the capacity for genuinely integrated vipashyana is available. We simply need to apply ‘ourselves’ to it with confidence and in a direct and effective way. Hence, using one or another vipashyana approach, we look into and penetrate, this ‘sense of self’ in the direct experience of all aspects of our being. The insight that arises, sooner or later, is a ‘knowing with all our being’ that the ‘self’ we believed we were is illusory, a mere fabrication. In this way, we are liberated from that belief. And although exactly the same kinds of everyday experiences of body, mind, senses and so forth still arise, they are now clearly and directly known not to be self or evidence for a self.

Nevertheless, although we may be liberated from the view of a separate really-existing ‘self’ and see it to be a mental fabrication, the delusive and afflictive emotions (kleshas) that have arisen in dependence on that view continue to occur. This is because they are mental habits of ‘selfing’ that have become deeply entrenched – that is to say, samskaras. Afflictive samskaras don’t simply disappear because we now are aware that the self-view is an illusion and, as we’ll see below, they can for a while seem even more prominent. However, in general there is now an overriding momentum in place towards their resolution because the self-view, a fundamental basis for afflictive samskaras, is seen and known for what it is – an illusion.

For those engaging with insight inquiry or other spiritual death practice on anatta, the distinction between seeing directly that the ‘self’ is an illusion and the unbinding of samskaras needs to be very clear. True, there is less reification and so more openness and flexibility of mind when it is known directly that the self is a fabrication, and this can have a considerable impact on one’s capacity to ‘address’ afflictive samskaras. But it’s vital to let go of expectations that seeing the illusory nature of self directly will or should result in particular behaviours or changes. It’s especially important to let go of ‘sainthood’ models – e.g. that oneself (or somebody else who one regards as ‘claiming’ insight) now ‘ought’ to be morally perfect, unfailingly compassionate or ever-mindful. Or that one will somehow now ‘float’ to nirvana without any further effort. See the section below on ‘secondary delusions’ for more on these areas.

Another thing that needs clarification is that the ‘nature of the experience’ of seeing directly that the self is an illusion is not, fundamentally, an ‘experience’ at all. All kinds of experience is coming and going all the time, and in meditation there are experiences of samapatis, dhyanas, hindrances, etc. In the area of insight there are experiences of ‘selflessness’, ‘openness’, even ‘cosmic consciousness’, etc. None of these stay around and people can spend ages trying to ‘get back’ to such experiences. In contrast, seeing directly ‘through our own observation that this ‘self’ is an illusion’ is a knowing (nana/jnana) which, once seen thoroughgoingly, is not going to ‘go away’.

This doesn’t mean that it is always present in awareness or in our thoughts, nor does it mean, as explained above, that ‘selfing’ no longer occurs. What it does mean is that when ‘selfing’ has been happening, it’s always possible to recollect directly that this is a self-less arising, i.e. an affliction, a samskara arising as a set of conditioning factors without any substantial entity being involved. And when selfing isn’t happening, e.g. in meditation, it’s always possible to recollect and dwell on the ‘selflessness’ of whatever experiencing that is occurring.

2) ‘Klesharama’

What could well happen after insight into anatta is ‘klesharama’. This is a handy term that Viveka coined in her talk on insight during the 2014 combined convention. Even a ‘basic’ insight such as becoming convinced, through our own observation, that the ‘self’ is an illusion, represents a significant shift in our view of ‘how things are’. It comes as a surprise to a fair number of people (but far from all) that an immediate after-effect of a genuine arising of insight is actually more delusion or more kleshas arising. The ‘common sense’ expectation would be that these would be lessened.

This probably underlies some of the controversies we’ve had in the Order over ‘insight’ and comments such as ‘if she has supposedly “got insight” why is she still ?’ Perhaps it’s better, as Sangharakshita recently suggested, to give people the benefit of the doubt and bear in mind that time will tell (this is paraphrased from my notes of a recent personal conversation with Sangharakshita).

In fact, knowing directly that the self-view is illusory in itself is a significant mitigation of the most basic klesha, delusion (avidya). Yet there are many levels or aspects of avidya and klesha which have not yet even been addressed. If, as Sangharakshita suggests, seeing through the self-view is the breaking of a fetter, there are still plenty of fetters remaining to be broken. Much in the way that people new to meditation discover that they can’t seem to stop thinking, seeing that ‘self’ is a mere view or belief can lead to the discovery that we’re even more full of and driven by kleshas than we’d supposed. Turning towards this, and seeing directly the duhkha intrinsic in klesha-driven samskaras, illuminates the ‘working ground’ for our on-going practice.

However, it doesn’t always happen in an ‘orderly’ fashion. A clear insight into the illusory nature of ‘self’ and the associated shift in our outlook can actually stimulate kleshas as the conditioned, desire-driven mind tries to restore a sense of familiar ground. From the perspective of others, it may well appear that someone who is saying that a real insight has arisen can seem to be even more unskilful or untogether than they were before.

This is usually a transitory phase but can be confusing and distressing if such a possibility is unanticipated, and more so if well-meaning friends are imputing, erroneously, that this ‘proves’ there is no insight at all. Unless we have the kind of capacity that, from accounts in the Pali canon, the Buddha appears to have had, we can’t directly know what’s going on with someone else ‘internally’ so, again, giving the benefit of the doubt until ‘time tells’ is likely to be the most appropriate response.

3) Difficulties and dukkha

A closely related area concerns various difficulties that may arise in relation to an arising of an insight ‘shift’. These may include fear, depression, sleeplessness, and other kinds of unpleasant or worrying mental / physical symptoms (which may arise in relation to significant deepenings in shamatha as well as vipashyana). There can be a tendency to judge these, or for others to judge them, as ‘something going wrong’ in one’s practice. However, as with ‘klesharama’ attack, which will very likely be bound up with this, what’s ‘coming up’ is a consequence of the insight ‘going deeper’.

One way of looking at it is that previously ‘repressed’ or ‘subconscious’ samskaras are brought into consciousness, which in itself can trigger various reactions in mind and body. It can take some time for this to process and integrate. In the meantime, it’s most helpful to realise that this is part of the consolidation of insight and it can’t, in fact, be avoided. In facing our delusion and its consequences, there is inevitably going to be dukkha involved. However, no two people are alike and comparing oneself with others when this kind of thing is happening only piles on more dukkha.

4) ‘Secondary delusions’

Closely related is the emergence of what might be called ‘secondary delusions’. This refers to the possibility that, on the basis of a genuine insight arising, especially perhaps insight into the illusory nature of the self, one can jump to quite erroneous and unhelpful conclusions. Most of these could be avoided with some wise and helpful kalyana mitrata, including prior warning and clarification of views around the issues which may arise along with insight, as is being outlined here.

A fairly obvious one would be a (usually very transitory) view arising along the lines of ‘this is it – I’m enlightened!’ Any arising of insight can be accompanied with a great sense of liberation and various kinds of samapati, bliss and so on. With all this, and in the absence of having been given prior perspectives as to what may happen, it’s easy to impute that one has ‘attained’ much deeper insight than one actually has. This becomes clear sooner or later when deeply embedded kleshas and samskaras that haven’t been liberated at all kick back into action, which can be a salutary and painful experience. The very notion that one has ‘attained’ something (I’m enlightened’) is a strong indicator of much lurking delusion.

Related to this are various forms of ‘spiritual bypassing’. The view ‘this is it’ can lead to ‘there’s nothing left to do (and anyway, no-one here to do anything).’ This can precipitate a falling into denial that suffering, kleshas, addictions, dysfunctional personality issues and so forth are there at all, or at least a refusal to face the fact that there is still plenty of ‘stuff’ (kleshas, samskaras, delusion) that needs attention. It’s closely related to ‘alienated awareness’ – sure, one level of delusion may have been seen, but one has now taken refuge in another view, a conceptual ‘dead end’ which may feel quite safe and cosy but is actually a closing-down and turning away from ‘things as they really are’. Another similar one is the ‘hinayana arhat’ syndrome which bypasses the phenomenal, ‘relative’ world altogether and takes refuge in a one-sided view of ‘emptiness’ or ‘ultimate truth’. And then there’s what may be called the ‘advaita syndrome’ which takes refuge in a sense of oneness, wholeness or consciousness as the ‘ultimate’. The problem being that although these are all valid experiences or perceptions that can arise in the course of Dharma practice and meditation, that’s all they are – experiences or perceptions that are being confused with realisation of the unborn, the uncompounded, the deathless.

A further example is ‘antinomianism’ – which seems to arise from a thought process, following insight into the illusory nature of ‘self’, along the lines of ‘so given there’s no “me” here, how can there be any ethical responsibility for actions?’ This is one possible way in which a denial of relative truth can occur, representing a mental attachment to an ‘ultimate truth’ perspective which hasn’t yet been fully integrated, or its consequences understood. There may be no ‘actor’, but the nature of basic insight into anatta is that there never has been – yet actions still have consequences. Again, if clear views around such issues can be communicated to those engaging in spiritual death / vipashyana practice in advance (meaning all Order members), there’s far less likelihood of momentary deluded thoughts of this kind taking hold in the aftermath of some genuine but basic arising of insight.

All these ‘secondary delusions’ point to the fact that seeing that the self is illusory is just the beginning of the unfolding of insight. Speaking in terms of the ten fetters, Sangharakshita has this to say: ‘All the fetters, gross and subtle, imply the continued presence of the conception of a separate self: the self-view eliminated when the first three fetters are broken is only a relatively gross form of that mental attitude, which recurs in subtler forms in the fetters that are broken at more advanced states of development’ (Living with Awareness p. 133). Not seeing this, people can still fall into unhelpful expectations once some insight has arisen – e.g. that suffering ‘ought’ to end now, or that there ‘shouldn’t’ be any sense of self or ‘me here’ at all any more. In terms of the asavas, that of ‘view’ – i.e. self-view – may have been seen through, but those of desire and existence or becoming have barely been addressed.

There are surely plenty of other potential ‘secondary delusions’ – not to speak of the more subtle primary ones – that we need to recognise and be able to point out to ourselves or others, but I hope these examples flag up some of the areas to which we need to be alert. Being aware of the issues and alert in this way is a vital expression of kalyana mitrata. If noticed and remedied in time – or better, flagged in advance – none of these need be a particularly big issue.

5) ‘Claims’ and appropriation

As alluded to above, I recently asked Sangharakshita for some clarification around ‘making claims’. He made it clear that it depended on how people spoke about insights – with modesty, or with some kind of ego-attachment or appropriation. The latter is what he meant by ‘making claims’.

Appropriation is part of the ‘ego kick-back’ that is possible in any area and at any stage of practice, e.g. in relation to ethical practice, ‘being a good meditator’, becoming an Order member, altruistic activity, getting some insight, teaching the Dharma, etc. etc. It’s not especially likely to occur when genuine insight into anatta arises – more the reverse – but that can happen too. To the extent that this can happen (in any area of our practice), we need to be alert to it, and open to friends and kalyana mitras who are able to point to what we are currently unable to see.

Thus, ‘making claims’ does not mean talking about what’s happening in our practice in an appropriate context, nor does it mean talking of our practice in terms of traditional formulations such as the ten fetters. In the Pali Canon, there is no injunction against ‘making claims’; rather, there is an injunction against making false claims, that is, making false claims to ‘attainments’ one does not have. Thus, if the fabricated and illusory nature of the self-view is seen and known directly, saying as much (appropriately and without ego-clinging) is not ‘making claims’.

Naturally, care needs to be taken, even when speaking appropriately, that what is said is not misunderstood. Given that we seem to be at a stage in the Order where misunderstandings abound regarding what happens or ‘should’ happen when basic insight into anatta has occurred, I feel we need to be having far more collective discussion, clarification and exploration of the areas touched upon above. And it may be useful, too, to bear in mind this note of what Sangharakshita recently said to me regarding people who ‘accuse’ others of ‘making claims’: How can you criticise unless you know? Don’t be in a hurry to pass judgment.

So as flagged at the beginning, this article is mostly about what might be regarded as the ‘downsides’ of insight, and I’ve barely mentioned ‘upsides’. Suffice it to say that the Buddha’s wisdom teachings on seeing things as they really are, seeing through and becoming liberated from all delusions, is the deepest and most beautiful expression of compassion that has come down to us. In our own context, seeing what may be holding ourselves and others back from realising this is equally an expression of compassion in action. If our aspiration is to help as many living beings as possible to realise the Dharma and the cessation of dukkha, clarity about misdirections is indispensible. This article is a small contribution to our discussion and clarification of these areas in the Order. May we all realise the Dharma fully and play whatever part we may in that ‘wave’ of wisdom-compassion that has come down the centuries from the Buddha himself.