Somatic Feeling

[Guest guest]

Enlightenment in Action: Somatic Feeling and Time

 

Correspondence: Gary Schouborg, Performance Consulting, 1947 Everidge Court,

Walnut Creek, CA 94596-2952, USA. E-mail: garyscho

 

Abstract: This article is a naturalistic account of enlightenment as

awakening to somatic feeling, which provides the unconditional value that

makes relative all the particular values of everyday living. To establish

that thesis I clarify a network of ambiguous concepts that make up our

understanding of enlightenment: ineffability, transcendence, self,

happiness, pure consciousness, suffering, identification, and clinging.

Doing so reveals that somatic feeling has the four key characteristics of

enlightenment: transcends time and change, is devoid of a sense of self, is

of unconditional value, and transforms everyday living. Because somatic

feeling is part of our world of natural phenomena, it accounts for

enlightenment without assuming that some metaphysical, non-natural state is

involved. The unconditional value that somatic feeling provides is our

experience of our individual existence as a positive experience in its own

right, independent of the particular conditions in which we find ourselves.

Rather than promote escapist withdrawal from everyday living, this value

promotes survival by optimizing the usual, pre-enlightenment human

strategies of survival: coping with failure to satisfy particular desires;

and facing our mortality, the knowledge of which motivates us to develop new

strategies for survival rather than depend on genetically determined ones.

Enlightenment shortens the grieving process over particular disappointments

in life and enables us to find satisfaction in living while facing our

mortality.

 

I have arrived. I am home. In the here. In the now. I am solid. I am free.

In the ultimate, I dwell. ‹ Thich Nhat Hanh

 

There is a surprising gap in the literature on enlightenment which this

article aims to address: how enlightened everyday activity is possible.

There are innumerable descriptions of enlightenment experiences, whether

spontaneous (Godman, 1985; Roberts, 1993; Trasi, 1999; Lockley, 2000) or

occurring within the context of formal meditation (Naranjo, 1990; Goleman,

1988; Shear and Jevning, 1999; Wallace, B. Alan, 1999, 2001; Tart, 1989,

2001). Since accounts commonly stress enlightenment¹s ineffable and

transcendent character, our first impression can easily be that the

experience is a monk-like withdrawal from everyday activity. We find it

difficult to understand how enlightenment is compatible with, let alone

permeates and transforms, everyday living. Yet that is the common, though

not universal, teaching.

 

To my knowledge, only Trasi (1999) has gone beyond a vague claim of

enlightenment¹s relevance to everyday life and a brief description of an

enlightened person¹s everyday behavior and mental condition. Instead, he has

given sustained attention to the issue. However, this article aims to be

more systematic still and to correct Trasi on two issues: the role of

meditation in producing enlightenment; and the need to rid ourselves of a

belief in an inner self. First, Trasi so emphasizes enlightenment¹s

spontaneity ‹ that it cannot be directly willed into existence ‹ that he too

quickly dismisses meditation as a technique designed to do the impossible,

produce enlightenment. I agree with him that neither meditation nor any

other technique can directly produce enlightenment, but it can pave the way

by clearing away obstacles and allowing enlightenment to emerge. Therefore,

by studying meditation processes, we can discover valuable clues as to

enlightenment¹s function in everyday living. Second, Trasi¹s talk about

no-self too strongly suggests that we should have no notion of our self at

all. More accurate, and I believe more faithful to his meaning, is the

notion I will argue for here: self as a heuristic structure around which

flexible, particular perceptions gravitate. The obstacle to enlightenment is

not having a notion of self, but of having rigid notions of ourselves and

others to which we are attached.

 

Explanations of the relationship between meditation and psychotherapeutic

experiences begin to identify how we can apply enlightenment to everyday

life. The accounts have emphasized the ³witness² function of enlightenment,

where we disengage from our thoughts and feelings in order to observe them

dispassionately (Deikman, Arthur J., 1982, 1996; Deikman, Arthur, 2000;

Wilber, Engler, and Brown, 1986; Epstein, 1995). However, witness accounts

have two limitations: they emphasize the cognitive function of enlightenment

to the disadvantage of affect; and they do not explain how such

disengagement can work in everyday, engaged living except by taking time

outs to recollect ourselves. If enlightenment is radically transformative,

as claimed, and not merely a useful tool that transforms everyday life only

as the automobile has transformed modern life, then it must be more

integrated, permeating every act.

 

Engler (1986) provides a psychoanalytic, developmental theory of

enlightenment that distinguishes between a dysfunctional and functional

understanding of no-self. He argues that enlightenment requires a

well-developed everyday consciousness (self), so that in becoming

enlightened (no-self) we can add to our everyday abilities rather than

replace them. He explains how those with an underdeveloped ability to

function in everyday life could misunderstand talk of an enlightened no-self

to refer to their insufficiently developed self. He also provides a detailed

account of the experience of no-self itself. However, he never explains the

positive side of the equation: what no-self adds to self, thereby changing

everyday living. Wilber (1995; 1997; 2000; 1986) takes on that task in terms

of a sweeping evolutionary theory that, unfortunately, never touches ground.

It ultimately suffers the incoherence of his own metaphysical speculations

and never provides a concrete picture of what enlightened everyday living

looks like in practical detail. Naranjo, Tart, and Wallace begin to supply

some of that detail by identifying everyday traits that result from

meditation. However, they do not identify any mechanisms that explain how

the meditation practices they discuss could have caused those traits. This

limitation keeps the authors from providing a systematic, and therefore

specific and thorough, account of enlightened everyday living.

My aim in this article is to show that by failing to make the link between

enlightenment and everyday living central to their inquiry, preceding

accounts have in their different ways failed to identify the essence of

enlightenment and have consequently failed to explain both how enlightened

everyday living is possible and what it actually looks like. What they have

missed is that becoming enlightened is awakening to somatic feeling as the

unconditional value that makes relative all the particular values of

everyday living. Because of its roots in somatic feeling, enlightenment is

radical in withdrawing from nothing, but changing the value of everything.

I refer to somatic feeling to emphasize its roots in our body and to

distinguish it from other states called feelings. It is not externally

oriented like touch, as in ³The desk top feels smooth². It is not a complex

inner state like intuition, as in ³That actor has a feeling for the role²;

like emotion, as in ³You hurt my feelings²; or even like the personal, felt

meaning that an event may have for an individual (Gendlin, 1999, 1996,

1981). It is even more elemental than feeling (vedanaskandha), the second of

the five Tibetan Buddhist stages (skandhas) in the arising of a moment of

experience. Although the skandha of feeling is without the conceptual

elaboration that characterizes most emotions, it is nevertheless

referential, a primitive affective response to the environment (Hayward,

1998). Somatic feeling is even more elemental, since it is non-referential,

having no reference to the environment at all. It is the most primitive form

of proprioception, in contrast to the more obvious and referential versions

that inform us of the relative position of our limbs, head, and torso; in

contrast even to the proprioceptive feedback from our face, which

contributes both to our emotions (Frijda, 1986) and to our sense of self in

interaction with others (Cole, 1997). Somatic feeling is therefore not even

Ki, which is the composed but strong energy that the enlightened are said to

feel just below the navel (Austin, 1998).

 

Somatic feeling is our primitive sense of well-being, of being centered or

grounded ‹ of being at home ‹ no matter what may be the particular

conditions of our existence at the moment. It cannot be identical to any

particular bodily sensation, since it abides whereas they come and go. It

provides the context from which particular sensations, as well as thoughts,

arise. It is our simplest state of consciousness. Its non-referential

quality gives it the four key characteristics of enlightenment: it

transcends time and change, is devoid of a sense of self, provides

unconditional satisfaction, and transforms everyday living. Because of these

four characteristics, somatic feeling is a transcendent experience, but its

somatic nature makes it naturalistic rather than metaphysical,

non-phenomenal, or non-natural. That is, somatic feeling is a transcendent

experience that exists completely within our world of natural phenomena and

does not lead beyond it. I therefore agree with Forman that this elemental

form of consciousness is ³more like a field than a localized point² but

disagree that it ³is not limited to the body² (Forman, Robert K.C., 1998, p.

197).

 

Establishing the preceding claims requires that I clarify a network of

ambiguous concepts that make up our understanding of enlightenment:

ineffability, transcendence, self, happiness, pure consciousness, suffering,

identification, feeling, and clinging. The most fundamental source of

ambiguity is enlightenment¹s ineffability. The first section, ³Ineffability

and Context², distinguishes between ineffability and ambiguity, explaining

that enlightenment is not uniquely ineffable, but shares that quality with

every conscious state. Difficulties in discussing enlightenment stem from

ambiguities in language rather than enlightenment¹s ineffability,

ambiguities created by inadequately identifying the context within which the

particular discussion functions. Second only to the mistake of confusing

ineffability and ambiguity is failing to distinguish metaphysical and

naturalistic transcendence. Whereas metaphysical transcendence leads beyond

the world of natural phenomena, naturalistic transcendence does not, being

transcendent only in not sharing certain characteristics with other parts of

the natural world. Making that distinction in the section on ³Transcendence²

allows us to focus clearly on the transcendent role that the naturalistic

state of somatic feeling plays in enlightenment. To identify somatic feeling

as unambiguously as possible, ³Awakening to Somatic Feeling² discusses it

within the context where we are likely to encounter it most explicitly,

meditation. ³Somatic Feeling and Naturalistic Transcendence² then explains

how somatic feeling has three of the four key characteristics of

enlightenment: transcends time and change, is devoid of a sense of self, and

provides unconditional satisfaction. Traditionally, the notion of

transcendence has generated a number of contrasts, which are explained in

the section on ³Partial Mind Awakens to Whole Mind². From that perspective,

we are able to understand the relationship between ³Clinging and Time²,

which in turn enables us to understand, in ³Somatic Feeling and Everyday

Living², the fourth characteristic of enlightenment: how it transforms

everyday living. ³Human Development and Somatic Feeling² refines the notion

of somatic feeling by placing it within a developmental framework, thereby

providing a basis for enlightened parenting. ³Neuropsychology of Somatic

Feeling² concludes the body of the article by discussing the

neuropsychological research that supports the preceding phenomenology of

somatic feeling¹s role in enlightenment.

 

----------

 

I have posted the remaining article on my website, under Religious Studies:

 

http://home.att.net/~garyscho

 

Gary Schouborg

Performance Consulting

Walnut Creek, CA

garyscho