Monday, April 27, 2009

Moral Implications of Meditation

According to my understanding of meditation the self (i.e., that part of consciousness that is able to observe thoughts) observes the mind (i.e., that part of consciousness that produces thoughts) and by doing so the self becomes detached from the mind. In this detached state, the mind becomes something of a seperate entity. This would imply (at least it does to me) that the self, therefore, is not responsible for the actions of the mind. As such, as the mind goes through the normal course of the day coveting, lustful, jealous, spiteful etc. there is a sense that the self can say "well, that's just the mind doing that and I'm not responsible for it." In other words, the self is not morally responsible for the actions of the mind even though it might experience the "pleasures" associated with the mind's bad behavior. It seems to me that meditation can then become a way of obsolving the self from its own "sinful" behavior. This confuses me a little.

3 comments:

  1. Perhaps the self, while not responsible for the erratic thoughts of the mind, is still responsible for actions taken.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Would this be true if an action was taken reflexively and primarily motivated by the mind? Is the self at fault if the mind is dominant? (Thanks BTW for being the first to comment).

    ReplyDelete
  3. Also, sins such as Lust and Coveting involve the thought alone. How might that be reconciled with your proposal?

    ReplyDelete