Selfless Sense control

Discussion
14

Yes. That makes sense to me as well.

It is actually very hard to see the beginning of contact. When one sees a “beautiful person” one is attracted. It happens very quickly. With meditative immersion that process slows down and stretches out.

I suffer from very very bad eyesight and am going blind. This means that I see very very slowly. I actually see the blur become a face and it takes enough time for the other person to get annoyed that I haven’t recognized them. This means that I can look at two people standing together and eventually see one as more attractive than the other. They both start out as blurs–I can’t even tell what gender they are or how old. Slowly, painfully, my brain figures things out and then it limps along to contact. And it is in the process of contact that attraction is established. Attraction is the self-oriented assignment of value to another. Attraction causes one to treat two people differently. Attraction is a preferential feeling. It is, well, self.

When I put my glasses on, things happen much quicker. For my peace of mind, I simply take off my glasses. I am immersed in blurriness.

It is ethics. We fade into Right View. We practice self-effacement as in MN8. Yes, you could say that the larger community of sentient beings or even beings is just another “self”. That can work as well, but then the larger self gets so unwieldy that it doesn’t really fit in my poor little head. It’s just easier to look at all that stuff and just say “not-self”.

In terms of interaction with the world I’ve noticed that it’s just clunkier to hold a self in mind. That self always has imperatives and is a whiny pest impossible to please. Having a self is like driving a car worrying about getting ahead or getting somewhere instead of simply moving in harmony with traffic towards a destination.

This did not work for me as I was cowering in fear for my life. I felt a total lack of control and ever-present danger. I even knew that my fear was a delusion yet it simply would not stop. It took a long time to work out that fear, it was much much deeper than a thought or concept or insight. It took an adoption of right view as well as diligent practice for many many years.

1 Like
15

I am not sure I fully understand this question. Please give me an example. [quote=“Thaniyo_Bhikkhu, post:11, topic:11820”]
I am still not convinced that one can see the beginning of grasping,
[/quote]

Do you mean the moment you realised you want something? Or the beginning of grasping in the universe which I think only the Buddhas can see. (Aganna sutta)

We need healthy food for sustenance. But the moment we want a particular type of food so bad that without it we think our life is meaningless (over exaggerating here :wink:) that’s the point you start noticing why you want it so badly.
Just now I had a piece if chocolate. Then I wanted another piece (as I was watching a meaningless funny drama series on netflix). When I went back for seconds I noticed that particular chocolate of which I had the last piece (apparently) was no longer available. Then I looked for another kind because I wanted it so badly like “what’s my life without this piece of chocolate” kind of way :worried:. As I was looking I knew craving for taste has started (I am not a chocolate fan like some people) and made up excuses like its my hormones (that time of the month), I am bored etc., The actual reason was watching stupid series and eating unmindfully. Why ? Because of five khandas, which is always changing. It was a thought process.
Anyway I had my second piece and kept watching. Because I investigated I stopped at the second piece. The series is so stupid but has funny dialogues and I still seem to want to watch it as I have nothing better to do today. But I can stop it too and grasp on to another like how I am typing here on the forum. (My sense of self wants to tell you “my” point of view so badly).

So yes it’s a series of moments of grasping. As long as it doesn’t have lobha,dwesha and moha we just live in that moment till it passes away. But if I start to argue here, contradict things because my way or highway that’s where the danger comes re: dependent origination where we create bava (existence?) according to my limited understanding.

I am still not sure about your confusion. Maybe I haven’t understood your question or maybe I just want to tell you what I know.

End of the day do you see the silliness of this “self” we hold so dear? It’s hilarious sometimes. ( just by looking at the things I do during the course of the day because of my sense of self) :roll_eyes:

1 Like
16

This is true… but it’s the first step to the path if understanding. People have to start somewhere. As one develops one doesn’t need to change the environment to see things as they are or to close eyes. But people are conditioned to prefer things perhaps from aeons of life times. So we have to let those be where they want to be. As they develop they will see that even if those conditions change it doesn’t matter to them. It will be like “meh” to them.

I think I made a blunder of replying to your post meant for Karl. See what did I tell ya… ? I do silly things everyday.

1 Like
17

:rofl: it was too quiet in here.

1 Like
18

Self is a false assumption of the mind born out of its ignorance. Senses will continue to function and gets controlled in spite of the assumption. I think our job is to meditate and eradicate the clinging of the senses to the false “I”. Thanks😀

1 Like
19

Anatta does not mean that we have no access to bodily, sensorial, emotional, and cognitive functions, but only that we regard them merely as various “natural functions” rather than operations of our personality or ego, or as functions (or choices!) that are arising from any independent and conscious will or desire. So the idea is that they are precisely beyond our control, even when we wish to control them. This understanding allows one to grow increasingly dispassionate about every bodily and mental function, and thereby free from their emotional impact. With this understanding and dispassion, these functions begin to change accordingly and of their own accord, because they have their roots in “cognition”. In other words, we use human cognition as a capacity to subvert human cognition as a set of ideas, just as we use the same power of “reasoning” to formulate a puzzle and also to solve it, or to both invent a visual or auditory symbol and ascribe a specific meaning to it. All these functions are done by means of cognitive capacities, and that’s why animals cannot attain nibbana.

All sentient beings have a karmic (natural) inclination to feel the “I”, “me”, and “mine”, but only human has the cognitive capacities with which to either reinforce or withdraw from these natural tendencies. That’s how animals are more or less equal, but in human you will find both self-obsessed villains and absolved saints! So as Buddhist practitioners we use our cognitive capacities in ways which differ from the norm, instead of reinforcing identification with the senses and emotions, and instead of regarding them as things emanating from our independent and free will, we alienate ourselves from them and do not identify with them, or ascribe any sense of self to them - we see them just as if they were external stimuli.

But this does not make our cognition, or capacity to understand, to be the self, because cognition too, is a natural process. This part is somewhat subtle and is what causes a lot of confusion: The Buddha says that, just as a light or sound stimulates the eye or the ear, thoughts stimulate the mind, so “thinking” is just a stream of ideas which come to the mind, uninvited, just as a flash of light or vibration of sound touch the eyes or ears. It only so happens, naturally, that if the mind attends to a thought of sensuality, or hatred, or any other such samsaric reality, it tends to follow these thoughts, and possibly all the way to death; while if the mind attends to Dhamma, it naturally tends to follow it, and possibly all the way to nibbana. It all depends on what the mind finds attractive to attend to, and we are all disadvantaged because the mind is wired by nature to attend to sankhara or to forms and to seek their pleasurable effects, rather than attend to Dhamma, renunciation, and seclusion - that’s why most people are suffering and are headed to rebirth, and are not free from suffering and the round of rebirth!

But this nature of the mind can change gradually, depending on whether it understands Dhamma and nibbana, and whether it finds them attractive, too! But it’s not “you” that attends to this or that and finds them attractive or repulsive; the mind naturally attends and feels, and evaluates and seeks, and even observes itself as it does all these things; so not even self-awareness is a self or ego. Again this does not mean that these things are not real or are insignificant, but only and simply, they are not to be regarded as “personal” or emanating from any freewill or conscious choice. So I don’t “choose” to write this reply to you now, the mind is doing it, and it is also wondering at the same time whether you will understand it and whether it is worth the effort, and it also reviews the motivation behind writing it. The mind is doing all that and is self-aware of all that by way of meta-cognition. And you probably already know that meta-cognition, that is, being aware of being aware, can go ad infinitum; but suffice it in Buddhist practice, that awareness should float freely, unfettered by behavioural, emotional, and cognitive conditioned responses.

But much of this is only conceptual, experientially speaking a sense of self persists in me as i’m writing to you now, and always: despite of my understanding and belief in the delusional nature of that sense of self, it lingers, because it is naturally instilled in the deepest recesses of our consciousness. So I, or more accurately the awareness side of cognition that is embodied in what is customarily called myself, recognises this sense of self as a profound delusion that is harmful and afflictive, just as I also recognise all emotions to be. But a progressing Buddhist practitioner, that is, his awareness, which inclines to Dhamma and pursues nibbana, finally witnesses the continual decline of that natural sense of self, and finally realises, intuitively and experientially, rather than abstractly or conceptually, that no self exists aside from that delusional phantom, which continues to dissipate as we speak. Unfortunately, it is not possible to experience this dissipation of this profound delusion of selfhood and personality, and the sense of agency and intentionality, without practice.

I really hope this helped!

20

So by understanding that “lack of control” in regard to the senses, by seeing that they are natural functions, the senses will gradually restrain themselves?

If for example, the eye looks at an attractive sight, should I allow it to do so, while considering that I am not the eye?

If there is an intention to continue looking at an attractive sight, should that also be left alone to go its own way, while I consider that I am neither the intention nor the eye etc?

1 Like
21

Oddly, no.

In meditation, the compulsions ease, we relinquish the craving and peace emerges. However, arising from meditation, the grasping returns. We therefore need to do one of two things to untie the knot of suffering:

  1. Restrain the craving moment by moment (not easy)
  2. Bring meditation into our daily lives moment by moment (not easy)

Buddhism is a PITA. We have to earn Right Freedom through endless diligent practice.

Delight is the root of suffering. --mn1/en/bodhi

Does delight restrain itself?
I think not.
Delight is the self.

22

The senses are just bearers of information. It’s the feeling of attraction that will gradually diminish. But this rather difficult task does not happen so automatically when you stop identifying with your impulses and experiences, there are few other requirements: you must have a motivation to stop being attracted by sensorial stimuli, and must keep that motivation close to memory and attention, and must have the faith that this is possible, doable, and worthwhile.

This would be great! :star_struck: If you really do that, the first thing that will happen afterwards is that the conditioned impulse (or intention) will instantly cease! Hooray!

In fact, there’s no other way to transcend conditioned responses and impulses. But consider also that conflicting impulses and intentions arise all the time, and often the impulse to stare at the beautiful stimulus arises simultaneously along with the impulse to not look at it (supposing you are motivated by Dhamma). Here there’s an opportunity for restraint, but even that is not done through willpower, but rather through samadhi.

There are also myriad meditation subjects which help subvert the natural inclinations of mind, asubha, not-beautiful, is a very ancient such technique which is remarkably effective in the case of sensorial attractions. But recognising anatta with regard to one’s own sensorial experience and impulses is the most superior of all.

Try it for a while! And see what happens!

Congratulations!!

2 Likes
23

I think if you meditate and think that you have relinquished craving but find that after you get up it is still there, then I don’t think that you relinquished it at all and most likely regard craving as a gross sensual pursuit rather than a subtle state?

If the state of peace that emerges in meditation disappears after meditation then it sounds like a somewhat waste of time, of course, one might be making progress in understanding. A state of peace that requires meditation maintenance seems pretty shaky.
I am more interested in a maintenance free kind of peace.

What can be ‘done’ so that I don’t even have to restrain?

24

Now THAT is the “million-dollar question!”. :rofl:

Consider this perspective for a gentle soul unwilling to exert overmuch:

One does not wish to harm others.
One wishes to have chocolate cake.
There are others here who like chocolate cake.
There is only one piece of cake left.

The way without restraint is to simply want the best for all. Thinking this way, one shares the cake without restraint and without resentment.

Note that even living this way suffering will still appear. That kind and gentle soul we might find, fall in love with and marry will die. When that suffering arises, come back to the suttas and look deeper.

:heart:
:pray:

25

I practice this Path as not practicing it is even harder. Suffering motivates my practice.

Not-self is realised at several stages:

  1. As a ‘view’. This is a conceptual acceptance of not-self. You arrive at this from ‘the voice of another’ or wise contemplation. We can contemplate the body and the mental processes to understand how they don’t make up a Self. This is the self view - one of three fetters.
  2. As thinking- these are habitual thinking patterns that utilise a self to think about experiences. These can be eroded.
  3. As instant erroneous identification of processes of the mind or body. The sign of not-self should be practiced for changes to take place here. This would probably be the subtlest level of ignorance.

These are the three levels of ‘perversions’ (vipallasa).

The Self seemingly ceases in some experiences. This might be enough for some to understand that everything is not-self.
However some might find that this in itself adequately convincing and might need further deep seeing into a senses or aggregates. Some people find Asubha helps especially if their sense of self is around their body. In any case it must be clear that there’s nothing which can be considered as Self. This is despite whether the sense of self is present. That sense of self is ignorance in action. It is not to be relied upon. Continuity, control, and causality must be investigated!

2 Likes
26

The eye is present as an inferred image because I am seeing. I experience it as an external object which doesn’t appear directly, even when I perceive it in a mirror or touch it with my hand. If I pay attention to the physical eye, it is generally with a neutral sensation but it can be painful at times. I know that this seeing organ diminishes because of the present blurry vision, helped back into clarity with glasses.
So due to sight and touch and the quality of such perceptions, I infer an eye, the mental image of eye appears when I think about the eye. I imagine the eyeball and it’s physical sensation.

However the mechanics/inner workings of the eye are not operated by me, it’s way of seeing I have no say over. The way it works does not appear but I know it sees. It is almost like another creature living in my head. It searches for and finds particular sights amongst many possible sights, it seems selective.
To assume that it is self aware seems stupid, it is more like a plant to me. It feeds, grows, lives. A symbiotic organism living in the head of the body. A light absorbing jelly ball with roots.
It seeks and sees things which produce certain effects like lust, anger, delusion, joy,calm,inspiration etc the most intense sights seem to be the most searched after. Therefore if the eye is what it seems i.e a plant, a creature, then it can be guided, governed as such. If it is not governed it will naturally just go the path of least resistance, or whatever it has been doing , it is thus far not producing anything liberating and in fact I can say that it is more on the untrained side.

The eye seeing sights is not beneficial apart from the basic function for survival. It sees this and that, this and that…until it ends. Every sight is just seen. There has been so far no lasting sight , no sight that the eye has stuck on. The eye cannot keep the light it receives, just like eating food…except for the excrement part. In fact what the eye gets from its living is not known to me, it’s as pointless as a flower or like an animal that has its own feeding ground where it roams aimlessly.

The eye organism ,like a flower/plant, indicates to me that it does not think, therefore I infer that it is not even unconcerned about me, it doesn’t and cannot acknowledge me or my concerns. It is not a self aware entity that I can communicate with. It is simply a bodily organ, making up a significant part of my experience and so I cannot just ignore it.
I can choose to damage it on some levels, like blinding it in various ways but even once blinded, the blinded eye or missing eye remains as an image or thought, just like before and it would still play a significant part. .
Knowing that the eye is growing or feeding in whatever way presents itself, I can see why guarding of the eye is important. If it feeds on things which result in an agitated mind then it’s best just to keep it clear of such sights., Which then could produce a less agitated experience but it is not satisfactory because it’s not about finding the right kind of sights which will make all things wonderful.
In fact the more the eyes is seen as it is, like a plant etc the less importance sights become and I could say that that transcendent attitude is satisfying because it doesn’t depend on sights or state of eye.
So I could calm the eye through restraint, which is pleasant but I cannot rely on the eye or sights to sustain that pleasure. However if I grow the knowledge of the Nature of eye, then the pleasure of release(transcendent attitude) will sustain itself because it is dependent on knowing the Nature of eye and sights, not on particular sights but sight in general( they only remind me of the knowledge i.e anicca,dukkha,anatta).

1 Like
27

With a gun pointed at your eye, facing death, what would you see?

28

One who practiced rightly, would not be oblivious to the danger, the avoidance of the pain will be preferred (since it’s not really a pleasant abiding).
Fear of death would not be a problem since he has already died beforehand, as in, relinquished conceit/identification.
Also, the possibility of pain or imminent death cannot induce ignorance again (for one who practicesd rightly).

One would see a sight, perceive a perception, feeling a feeling, neither of which are identified with.

In MN:145, the advice to Punna discourse, this is the kind of question that the Buddha asks him. The Venerable Punna might have answered your question:
" If they point a gun in my face, I would say , how wonderful it is that I was not shot"

2 Likes
29

Excellent sutta. I had not read it before. Thank you.

1 Like
30

Below is a translation (my version, perhaps the way I understood) of a dhamma point by a Sri Lankan nun.

In this dhamma of cause and effect (hetu pala) there is no physical self to attain nirvana or to travel in samsara.
So it’s the mental nature that goes in the cycle of samsara or attains nirvana.
When we investigate we recognise the mental nature that is prone to travel in samsara or the mental nature that could attain nirvana.
The thoughts of there is a “self” to attain nirvana or “no self” to attain nirvana are both contructed in our minds and should be let go of as both are extreme ends. When that happens there is wisdom which is also a thought. The seeing/understanding of sunyata happens through wisdom (yatha butha nyana) which are thoughts. To know that they are nothing but thoughts we have to not cling to the constantly changing always being put together mind.

This made me realise how hard the job of translating is. So thank you to everyone in SC for all your work and the feed back of the users.

2 Likes
31

Of course I am not altogether sure what this venerable nun is referring to here, perhaps in part I agree that conceptualisation, or more accurately, over-conceptualisation about thoughts of anatta is only tiresome and confusing, and not useful. But also perhaps in part I disagree with a middle-way approach when it comes to anatta, and not really on pedantic or conceptual grounds, but on pragmatic and pedagogical ones:

The thought “there is no self to attain nibbana” may possibly turn away a beginner from the path, because at this early stage of practice the psyche does not know how to be motivated by anything other than a personal sense of accomplishment or gain. But later on, that same thought actually becomes very important and perhaps even necessary, and its absence or neglect represent in my estimation a predominant cause of frustration on the path, and giving-up on nibbana! That such thought represents an extreme end, is probably true; but that does not make it false - for the thought that “there is any nibbana” and also “there is any path to attain it” are likewise extreme, but nevertheless necessary in order for one to pursue nibbana and follow that very path leading to it - and “faith” in this or renunciate enterprise is no mere accessory! Given what nibbana is, then, the thought “there is no self to attain it” becomes the only possible rational answer! But more than being rational, it is also effective, in that it points one’s attention precisely to that which is hindering one’s progress toward nibbana: māna or “personal incentive”!

However this is quite a subtle matter, and needs a lot of context to talk about it constructively; and that too is tiresome and confusing! :slight_smile: But I’d say that anatta-sañña is paramount and essential, but indeed, it is a sañña, not a process of ideation and abstract conceptualisation, but a recognition, a memory, and a recollection of a reality which though may be subtle, yet firmly secure and certain in one’s intuitive awareness.

2 Likes
32

Why is the emphasis put on the ‘physical’ and not the mental, i.e could one then say that it is the mental self that goes on and on?

There is no discernment of the body if there is no mind to discern, and no mind without the body being there. You cannot know the body without Thinking about.
Even if you think about a body which is independent of mind that is a also a thought.
And thus the Dhamma/paticcasamupada :“with this, this is”.
The body and mind are arisen together at the same time.

Assuming that the mental nature/mind is that which is independent from the body, is to assume a self.

But seeing that both body and mind determine each other, seeing that principle of ‘with this, this is’ ; then an independent thing, master of itself, creator of itself is inconceivable, a self is seen as an assumption due to ignorance of The Dhamma Principle.

If it were constantly changing then no change would be discerned in the first place. One cannot even refer to a thing called ‘mind’ if it were constantly changing. Particular thought come and go because the mind is already there persisting.
To refer to something, means that you can discern it, and to be able to discern , that thing must be there enduring(not changing) or ‘persisting’ while changing - ṭhitassa aññathattaṃ paññāyati -An:3.47

I agree that translating is quite a task, especially from Sinhala into English or from English into sinhala. I had a few English essays translated into sinhala and then back into English, and both English essays were completely different, not even remotely the same.

2 Likes
33

This is like consciousness transmigrating. It’s incorrect.

This is correct. When the body dies a new body forms this interdependence.

If we are mindful we become aware that things change from one to the next. There is change after the object of meditation arises, while it ‘remains’ as well.

1 Like