Big Mind, Little Mind and Reality

There are different terms used to describe the dynamic between Big Mind (i.e., the true self, Atman, witnessing conscience) and Little Mind (i.e., the ego, monkey mind, chattering mind) and that which is real. "Reality" is a vast blank slate from which seemingly limitless data is derived. It seems that Big Mind is usually one step removed from perceiving reality directly. This one step is Little Mind, the commentator on reality. Big Mind can choose to perceive reality directly but tends to use the Little Mind as an intermediary. It is a question of what Big Mind chooses to focus its attention on. Big Mind can focus on reality itself or on the often distracting Little Mind. This dynamic suggests that Little Mind is not all bad as seems to be the rap that Buddhism gives it (at least as far as I understand it). It suggests that Little Mind exists as a helper for Big Mind so perhaps there is some useful role for Little Mind to play. However, for most of us (I assume) this relationship is out of balance. Big Mind has abdicated too much of its role to Little Mind. Put another way, Big Mind is sleeping and Little Mind is running the store.

Brief Note Regarding Talking About Meditation

I just finished a great book about meditation called "The Joy of Living" by Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche. Towards the end he mentioned that it is better not to talk about experiences had during meditation because it tends to promote pride which is somewhat antithetical to the process. I think (from my humble and inexperienced position regarding the topic) that this makes a lot of sense. Therefore, in that spirit I will only discuss meditation in a general way without discussing my own personal experiences, going forward.

Morality, Meditation and Anxiety

Morality causes anxiety. When the mind perceives that a moral code has been broken then punishment must be meted out in the form of anxiety. Under normal circumstances the self and the mind are one so that when the mind produces anxiety the self feels it. Meditation (on the other hand) alleviates anxiety by putting distance between the self and the mind whereby the mind cannot so easily infect the self with anxiety. Now, it could be said that an anxious self tends to act immorally. For example, one reaction to anxiety is to take action to get rid of anxiety. The most common tactic is to distract the self in some way and the most effective distractions are typically the most destructive. Alcohol comes to mind here. Another reaction to anxiety is to become irritable and to lash out at other people. So, from this perspective, meditation is a moral act even though its immediate effect is to insulate the self from the punishment it seemingly deserves. In the long run (theoretically) the act of meditating will promote moral behavior by reducing anxiety. So in a round about way, meditation produces moral behavior by avoiding the punishment for imoral behavior. Or something like that. This reminds me of the wheel of suffering or samsara. Perhaps it is a miniature version.

Your Father Who Sees in Secret

But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you. (Matt 6:6)

There is a sense in Christianity that thoughts matter and "improper" thoughts (e.g., coveting and lust) are sinful and morally wrong. Now, my understanding of Buddhism (and I make no claim to be an authority on the subject) is that thoughts are random and unavoidable and it is best not to get caught up in them. So, under one system these thoughts are crimes requiring a system of justice to mete out punishment and under the other, the thoughts themselves are in a sense their own punishment. Is there some way to reconcile these two positions?

I've often thought that the external, personal deity of Christianity is a metaphor for the actual thing. On one level this makes sense because God being outside of creation is probably not bound by the rules of creation and any attempt to define Him would probably define Him as an entity less than He actually is. This reminds me of a statement my freshman year roommate made to justify his non belief in an omnipotent god. "Can God make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?" This question, I think, points out the limited nature of speech to describe the divine more than it offers an insight into the divine. So, what we cannot define with words, we describe with symbols.

The question then becomes, who is this Father that sees in secret? Is it an external entity sitting on a throne? Is it a deeper part of the self? Is it something else entirely? I think the answer to this question might serve to reconcile the Christian and Buddhist concepts of thought. But I really can't be any more specific than that. It's a cop out, I know.