What is subjectivity?

The Watercooler
21

Firstly, ‘asavas’, I was unsure what this meant so I asked Ajahn Brahm then, things got clearer. It started to make sense all of a sudden! He said, the asavas are what are driving the proliferation of thoughts.

The proliferation we experience is the outflow. It flows out of some process that we are not fully conscious of - into consciousness. Contact conditions consciousness? The process we are not fully aware of - at least, that is how it is ‘here’ - is dependent-origination.

Literally, when there is the experience of ‘papancha’ (mental wandering and discursive activity) that ‘is’ an outflow.

When this outflow ceases ie. there’s no compulsive thought process the asavas are not making mischief. An advanced practitioner is almost always immersed in a state of inner silence. They have ‘next to no’ papancha.

They only engage in conscious thought activity when it’s skillful to do so. Therefore, there is a natural ease and relaxation, much less stress or, the potential for it. There’s little - or no - ‘outflow’ (asavas) arising.

This brings joy and happiness and, this invites the possibility of Samadhi.

The whole eightfold path unfolds ‘naturally’ as a consequence of this ease of being. It’s not something that a ‘doer’ does - directs, controls. It’s not something that a ‘thinker’ figures out and then does as a ‘doer’. There is a relaxation in faith/confidence when the Dhamma is seen/lived clearly.

This faith, confidence, is an awakening factor. When there is an ease of being no energy is wasted. This energised state is related to the sense of well-being - happiness. Energy is an enlightenment factor as well and, so on…

Secondly, I feel it’s right that you drew attention to compassion, empathy, kindness, a generosity of spirit. This is also related to seeing-through - or beyond - the formations of self and other. It’s a natural consequence of deepening in the Dhamma.

The compassion of an awakened-one is not due to compliance with a code of ethics.

When subjectivity and the anxiety, fear, selfish motivations etc. that arise with it or, in dependence on it, are not arising in the continuum, the sublime emotions are completely spontaneous.

No further need for loving kindness meditations, thinking about puppy :dog2:-s etc.

2 Likes
22

Dear Gabriel, please provide EBT source material that would lead us to entertain these notions?

Adi-Shankara didn’t teach anything like the above - either. His notion of a nirguna-absolute ‘Self’ is: without characteristics, attributes and, qualities - without any substantive content. He post-dates the Buddha.

There is also an I-making ‘process’ model in Shankara’s teachings to explain what he calls the ‘Maya’ (illusion) of subjectivity. This is why he is referred to as an ‘impersonalist’ acharya.

Ramanuja and Madhva believed in a personal core, a transcendental-subject that is inside the material body - giving it life. They lived long after the historical Buddha and they refuted his teachings - they also refuted Shankara.

Yours in the Dhamma, L

1 Like
23

Some profound Ajahn Chah quotes:

“You are your own teacher. Looking for teachers can’t solve your own doubts. Investigate yourself to find the truth - inside, not outside. Knowing yourself is most important.”

“Looking for peace is like looking for a turtle with a mustache: You won’t be able to find it. But when your heart is ready, peace will come looking for you.”

“The heart is the only book worth reading.”

1 Like
24

If you scroll up you’ll see that I didn’t claim that these are EBT positions, obviously they are not. You gave certain dictionary definitions for ‘subjectivity’ which I found insufficient and I added these definitions, an ‘official’ one from Merriam-Webster, and then my own iteration. My point was to add a term for a subtle sense of ‘selfhood’ beyond the crude terms usually employed by discussions and the suttas.

But we’re spinning in circles, and I’d like to see other participants contributing before coming back to the discussion, otherwise it’s too anemic.

3 Likes
25

Looking for example at SN12.44, I think the “world” being described is my personal, subjective experience. So it’s about “my world” rather than “the world”.

“And what, bhikkhus, is the origin of the world? In dependence on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact…"
https://suttacentral.net/sn12.44/en/bodhi

3 Likes
26

That was Karl

1 Like
27

Apologies! you have the same green logo :zipper_mouth_face:

2 Likes
28

We have the teaching about ‘sakaya ditthi’ (personality belief). This is the belief that what is experienced is:

Or, how do you see it - how does ‘personality belief’ manifest in the continuum? The continuum - the stream of experience - right now???

Is there the assumption of an owner - an experiencer?? Just relax and attend - what is found?? Is bare awareness sustained or interrupted? No pressure- just curious!

Is it possible, that we merely attribute the notion of a ‘person’ to the process, who is said to be ‘in’ or ‘integral’ to the ever changing stream of experience?

What do you think the Buddha is saying to Bahiya - what does he mean - in this teaching (see below)? After hearing these words Bahiya woke up!

From the Bahiya Sutta: “When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of dissatisfaction (dukkha).” :heart_eyes:

29

Two unrelated thoughts after skimming through the above:

Firstly it feels strange to me to go looking for statements about subjectivity in the EBTs, seeing as it is a somewhat modern concept.
https://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=Subjectivity+
The EBTs are more interested in Anaya than self even.

Secondly, I find this the strangest similie

The first half works well, but as for the second I can’t imagine a turtle with a moustache ever coming looking for me yet I do hold out a hope that peace might one day.

30

https://goo.gl/images/5DGZxr :heart_eyes:

1 Like
31

Subjectivity means personal interpretation/expression of objective experiences. My experience of a glass of wine, as a teetotaller, might be different from that of a wine-taster with the exact same glass.

However who this person doing the experiencing is, is a different question.

Is it consciousness? Is it the person experiencing emotions? :sunglasses:

1 Like
32

This is interesting, if there is no uniformity this would suggest that objectivity is also a mental construct.

Nibbana is not an object yet, this is where the journey reaches its culmination when all ignorance of the ‘way it is’ is absent. If, Nibbana is not an object, it cannot be objective, an ‘objective’ reality.

Therefore, subjectivity/objectivity co-arise and, as there is no uniformity with regard to either, they are both mind-made. Products of the imagination. There is no ‘objective’ world.

This is not to say, that nothing exists it only means the ‘way it is’ has nothing to do with a subject/object dichotomy.

If, there is no inherently existing subject the same must apply to an inherently existing object-reality. They are both delusions - misconceptions - with regard to, what actually ‘is’. They ‘appear’ to rise and fall together - not seperately.

As soon as there is ‘the beautiful’, the appearance of pristine stillness and silence, there is nothing substantive to ‘hold’ the attention - subjectivity dissolves.

1 Like
33

This was exactly my point. Our ‘world’ is mind made, even if we navigate it by using mundane conventions (which can have the illusory appearance of objectivity) … :slight_smile:

2 Likes
34

To clarify this a little further; the Mundane conventions are basically those ‘frames of reference’ that define our sphere of interactions with others, and which are the source of our conditioning. Eg. the social system, including beliefs and values, accepted knowledge, and interpersonal relationships etc ,within which we operate. The social system into which we are born, basically is the source of most of our conditioning, and informs the way our mind ‘creates or conceives’ our world.

My understanding at this point in time is that - This conditioned mind is the source of conditioned reality. It has a self at the centre of it :slight_smile: It is this self, which enables the process of volition, to either want or reject, which in turn results in ‘doing’ and ‘being’. and off goes the process of Dependent Origination :smiley:

The dichotomy of self versus other is reliant on the reference point of a self… no self, no other… One this is gone, the chain of D O is broken… the illusory nature of our conditioning begins to crack and reality as it really is begins to become visible.

IMHO It is very difficult to crack open delusion while constantly engaged in the Mundane Conventions, as they are continually reinforcing the mind made world.

In seclusion, one is finally away from that ‘frame of reference’ and there is a better chance to see through the delusion.

This is just my understanding from reading EBT’s and practice in seclusion… NB/ this is not ‘the truth’ it is just my way of integrating the Buddhas teachings into my ‘world’, at this point in time

:anjal::dharmawheel:

P.S If there is an inherent contradiction between what I have written and the teachings of the Buddha, I would be grateful if it were to be pointed out :anjal: :slightly_smiling_face:

2 Likes
35

Your emphasis seems to lie on social conditioning, and I find that this aspect is not expressed enough in the Suttas, still the body is missing. The mind is conditioned by the reality of the body (a lot of fear and aversion comes directly from being subjected to it), and the body is conditioned by its genetics, which also affects the mind more or less directly (neurotransmitters, hormones, etc). If one leaves out the body one might come to romanticize animals and their ‘natural state’ while the animal realm is seen consistently as below the human realm in the suttas.

So, in a way, our body creates the world just as much as our mind does. After all the mind is quite ready to believe the claims (and limitations) of the body.

2 Likes
36

Thanks @Gabriel, you are absolutely right! - basic bodily sensations through the 5 sense doors leading to craving and aversion eg hot/cold, pleasant/unpleasant > our cries as babies… etc.

Thanks :smiley:

1 Like
37

AN6.61 In the Middle is one of the most fascinating suttas on (non-)subjectivity.

“Contact, mendicants, is one end. The origin of contact is the second end. The cessation of contact is the middle. And craving is the seamstress, for craving weaves one to rebirth in this or that state of existence.
That’s how a mendicant directly knows what should be directly known and completely understands what should be completely understood. Knowing and understanding thus they make an end of suffering in this very life.”

Contact (phasso) is engagement with the conditioned forms of mind and body, the social norms, the bodily attraction, etc. Stepping back from contact towards the origin of contact, abiding in the middle, contact ceases. Name-and-form as well as consciousness are the condition for contact (DN15). In fact, name-and-form and consciousness are co-dependent and conditions for each other. The instruction of AN6.61 that contact ceases in the middle between contact and name-and-form-and-consciousness is quite interesting. It is interesting for several reasons:

  1. contact does not inevitably arise from name-and-form-and-consciousness (AN6.61)
  2. without contact, our actions can evolve freely beyond the constraints of social convention (DN15)
  3. without contact, our actions can evolve freely beyond the constraints of biological urge (DN15)

On the last two:

“Suppose there were none of the features, attributes, signs, and details by which the category of mental phenomena is found. Would linguistic contact still be found in the category of physical phenomena?”
No, sir.

“Suppose there were none of the features, attributes, signs, and details by which the category of physical phenomena is found. Would impingement contact still be found in the category of mental phenomena?”
No, sir.

So regarding name-and-form and consciousness:

This is the extent to which one may be reborn, grow old, die, pass away, or reappear.

By restraining contact, name-and-form and consciousness dissipate on their own since they are ephemeral. Contact is the reinforcement. Every time we see a cup as a Cup, that contact reinforces the Cup form in our heads and constrains our actions. The grasping aggregates can’t grow without contact.

2 Likes
38

Thank you Karl, I really appreciate your familiarity with the suttas :slight_smile: but I wonder if you could clarify exactly what you mean…

Contact is with one of the 5 senses, vision, hearing, tasting, touching, smelling… when the sense organ (eyes, ears tongue, skin and nose) encounters a stimulus this leads to a sense consciousness being formed (eye consciousness, ear consciousness etc).

If by the middle - you mean (or the suttas mean) interrupting/seeing the process between contact and sense consciousness, then I understand how that goes.

However, when you say

Are you referring to each sense consciousness or mind consciousness or the whole lot?

And just finally, I’m not sure how useful focusing on avoiding ‘contact’ through the sense organs is… Without this one cannot sustain life… but I’ve found that focusing on the arising and passing away of consciousnesses as they occur, allows one to short circuit (so to speak) the delusional aspect of reinforcement of conditioning.

Does this tally with what you are saying? ie. that the “middle” is awareness of the arising and passing - or the formation - of consciousnesses.

With this example it also becomes clear why this type of mind training is so hard within a non-renunciate context, and within the maelstrom of a social milieu… It is just too complicated to be able to isolate single threads of cause and formation, in either consciousness or feelings and thoughts, in order to be able to interrupt them.

:slight_smile:

2 Likes
39

My understanding of contact is informed by what I know of AI and image recognition in particular. One of the most fascinating things about image recognition is that it is inherently prejudiced. In fact that is almost the definition of an image recognizer–it is biased to recognize or “make contact with” certain images. To train an AI image recognizer, we show lots of pictures to the AI. And for each picture we say, maybe…, “cat” or “not a cat”. We state a choice. And as we show pictures in this way to the AI, its consciousness grows. The AI gets a feeling for the form of a cat and its perception sharpens with all that cat/not-cat feedback. Eventually we get a cat recognizer. Yay!

Notice how well the previous paragraph aligns with the grasping aggregates. We have form, feeling, perception, choices and consciousness. With just a bit of relishing (i.e., our feedback) they all grow. And we eventually get a fancy cat recognizer. Yay! The cat recognizer is also prejudiced. It doesn’t like dogs. Boo!

Indeed, studies have found that when we do the same thing with people faces, something odd happens. The human face recognizer surprisingly only understands, for example, …white men. :open_mouth:

And now we have a delusional, prejudiced AI that is very adept at making contact with particular names and forms. The degree of contact is the “relevance score” (just like SCV shows in search results) :thinking:

But back to our human face recognizer.

It is delusional, because it has had more exposure to white men pictures. Upon further thought, one realizes that this problem is insoluble because it could just as well have been biased by exposure to pictures of black women, chinese old guys or whatever. Image recognizers can never be fair. They do not see truth. They see what we want them to see. :eyes:

And this is just like our own minds. We see what we want to see. Ouch!

Therefore, when the Buddha says, “In the Middle” between contact and origin of contact, hope arises in me. The hope is that by restraining contact, we might start to see just what we need to see and no more. The hope is that in restraining contact, I will stop seeing “Hey, a cute attractive person! Wow!”, or “Whoa what an uncool person, Yuck and Bye!” but instead just see…human beings.

Contact is a spectrum. On the one hand we might see an edible sweet as just a simple contact. On the other hand, craving will have driven us to eventually also see Chocolov 75% Dark Chocolate And No Other as a “That’s ME! CONTACT! Fine Food!” By restraint in contact, we see coarse/fine food as…just food.

That is my understanding of being in the middle between both ends.

1 Like
40

Many Thanks @karl_lew :slight_smile: I’ll just let that percolate for a while :smiley:

1 Like