Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey went on a 10-day vipasanna meditation retreat in Myanmar, and described some of his experiences in a Twitter thread. The thread is interesting both for its perspective on Dorsey’s views of meditation, and for the many diverse responses of Twitter users.
https://twitter.com/jack/status/1071575088695140353?s=21
Dorsey is receiving much criticism in the global press for seemingly ignoring what is going on in Myanmar with the Rohingya.
But I was struck by something Dorsey said about meditation, impermanence and suffering. It’s a kind of statement that is very common in the “insight meditation” tradition, and is in turn influenced by the Theravada abhidhamma tradition, I think.
The idea is that the point of meditation is to break down experience into its smallest temporal components, so that one can understand that each episode of suffering consists of little atoms of suffering that arise and pass away in a nonce. Somehow recognizing that all of these little temporal atoms of suffering rapidly come to an end is supposed to be connected with the goal of reaching the end of suffering.
I have heard this kind account so often that I have forgotten how little sense it makes to me, and to my own understanding of the path and the goal. Suppose I am feeling some intense aversion toward, or hatred of, some person or thing in the world, and my hatred lasts for a long time. If, through “insight”, I come to see my hatred as consisting of a very long sequence of transient “hate moments”, each coming to an end before the next one begins, how does that help me conquer my hatred or bring it to an end? A long temporal river of hatred can keep flowing on, even if one sees it as composed of a bunch of itty bitty droplets of impermanent hate.
There is another line about the importance of impermanence in Buddhist thought that seems similarly off the mark to me. It is fairly common to hear some meditator/therapist in a dhamma talk in effect telling people that they should cheer up because the Buddha taught that their troubles are impermanent. If you get some bad news today, there is no point in getting down in the dumps about it, because tomorrow you are bound to get some good news that will turn that frown into a smile!
This seems like some simplistic and bad advice, at least for some people, because they might be subjected to a long train of bad news, with little relief. If someone’s life partner dies, I don’t see how it helps them to be told that they should cheer up, because they are bound to get some good news any day now.
My understanding is that when the Buddha recommended reflecting on impermanence, he was focussed on the objects of desire, aversion and attachment. We crave and cling to things, and suffer as a result, because we systematically ignore their transience. So when we begin to fill our minds with the impermanent nature of what we cling to, our mind naturally finds them less suitable objects for desire, and lets go.