Alan Smithee:
At times my focus gets spacious and wide, and I then try to investigate aspects of the mind, such as the "sense of self." I try to discover where it comes from and how it arises.
At these times it becomes apparent that a sensation will arise and then the sense of self will follow/pop up, trying to "merge" with that sensation. Or when a thought/image/etc. arises the sense of self arises and will try to "merge" with this thought/image/etc.
By merge I mean that it appears that the sense of self wants perception to join once again with the sense of self in the less abstracted way seamless way [sense of self + perception] and then take up the agenda of the sense of self, meaning, take action or "react" to the sensation/thought in some way [sense of self + perception + sensation/thought = reaction].
When in Equanimity it is easier to maintain the separation between the sense of self, perception, and the sensations/thoughts, etc., but viewed at these times the sense of self becomes very confusing.
The sense of self is a kind of thing which wants to colonize all the other thoughts/sensations/perception, as if it wants to own them, or merge with them, take credit for them, react to them. The sense of self wants to take credit for everything: IT perceived something, IT felt something, IT thought something. Is the sense of self a thought like any other thoughts?
What makes it different? What makes it unique and gives it its unique colonizing power? Is the sense of self a thought which refuses to acknowledge that things pass away, in that it always want(s) to arise/perpetuate/maintain? In the scheme of things while in a meditative state it is easy to realize that a thought or sensation just occurs and isn't you, but this sense of self is a real bitch. It will fight tooth and bloody claw to maintain its control and its illusions.
Does anyone have any comments on how to more skilfully investigate the phenomenon of the sense of self?
It always amazes me that modern people seem so "hell bent" on attempting to reinvent the wheel, so to speak, when attempting to understand or gain insight into what Gotama taught. And many times, without bothering to apprise themselves of what he was recorded to have said.
Does it ever occur to people to follow the gist of the main teachings in order to discern the kernel of truth within them? For instance, do people ever bother to study and understand the five aggregates in order to gain a clearer insight into
anatta?
Anatta, which literally means
an- "without" and
atta "self," or in the context of the Dhamma "without self ." The five aggregates reveal five processes by which human beings
create the illusion of self in every act they accomplish. By means of form, feeling, perception, volition (or mental formations), and consciousness.
The best way I know how to communicate this is to quote Richard Gombrich, from his book
How Buddhism Began, The Conditioned Genesis of the Early Teachings, who explains it this way: "The Buddha's interest in
how not
what, his emphasis on process rather than objects, could be said to be summarized in his teaching of the
paticca-samuppada, conditioned origination." Earlier on in this essay, Gombrich states correctly that: "Consciousness is, for the Buddha,
a process which illuminates objects. So when there is nothing to illuminate, there is no illumination: 'consciousness has no attribute' (
anidassanam)." That last statement, "consciousness has no attribute" really nails the point. No attribute by which to
identify itself. Hence, if there is no attribute by which it can be identified, who or what is it that suffers or experiences dissatisfaction?
Gotama spoke of the aggregates in terms of their being "not self" or "without self."
"Bhikkhus, form is not-self. For if, bhikkhus, form were self, this form would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of form: 'Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.' But because form is not-self, form leads to affliction, and it is not possible to have it of form: 'Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.'
"Feeling is not-self. . . . Perception is not-self. . . . Volitional formations are not-self. . . . Consciousness is not-self. For if, bhikkhus, consciousness were self, this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be thus.' But because consciousness is not-self, consciousness leads to affliction, and it is not possible to have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be thus.'
"What do you think, bhikkhus, is form permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable sir." — "Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?" — "Suffering, venerable sir." — "Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?" — "No, venerable sir."
"Therefore, bhikkhus, any kind of form (feeling, perception, volitional formation, consciousness) whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all form should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.' "
He spoke only about the
processes of the mind and how to recognize them in action in order that people would begin to see that these processes themselves were the cause, the source, if you will, of the problems they created for themselves. And being able to see the aggregates in this light was deemed to be "right view." If they were viewed in any other light than this, it was deemed to be "wrong view." When form, for example, is reified and seen as a self or as containing a "soul," this is "wrong view."
People can tend to become caught in this vicious cycle while fruitlessly endeavoring to figure out what it is they are doing wrong. It all comes back to "wrong view." Follow the path (
Right View,
Right Thought,
Right Speech,
Right Action,
Right Livelihood,
Right Effort,
Right Mindfulness, and
Right Contemplation/Concentration) as you are learning to discern and see the truth and you won't go wrong.
Spend some time contemplating that sutta quotation (either during or outside of meditation) and see what you come up with. Or alternatively, contemplate Gombrich's description of the aggregates being a "process" of mind (dependently co-arising) by which the mind fabricates/creates a "self." You may surprise yourself!