Discussion Forum Discussion Forum

Miscellaneous

Why so little talk of desire here?

Why so little talk of desire here?
Answer
4/21/14 12:20 PM
The first few noble truths state that the cause of unsatisfactoriness is desire/craving. And while people here make a great deal about nonduality I find little discussion on how nonduality relates to the cessation of desire (does it?).

From my understanding of buddhism it is the ending of desire that leads to nirvana. And while many here have claimed to have fully reached a nondual understanding, no one here claims Nirvana. Are we at the DhO community simply stopping at nonduality and not realizing the nondual implications for ending desire which in turn leads to the end of suffering?

What is the relationship between desire and nonduality? Between desire and the attainments you have reached?

How has a nondual understanding impacted desires for sex, good food, friendship, etc?

RE: Why so little talk of desire here?
Answer
4/21/14 6:35 PM as a reply to Jinxed P.
I think that a distinction should be made between desire in the context of that which is ended upon Nirvana, and desire such as for food or sex.

The desire which has cessation upon reaching nirvana is desire that is conditioned by the issue that nirvana solves. In essence nirvana is the antidote to this desire. This desire is craving, based on the dualistic belief that having what you want will make you full or whole, that the fulfillment of your desire will eradicate your suffering.

A different form of desire however, that is not eradicated upon nirvana/enlightenment, is the everyday desire for things which we perceive ourselves to need. For example one might desire food water and shelter. Even upon enlightenment, one must take care of immediate physical concerns.

Perhaps the desire for sex or something like that, upon enlightenment, is more questionable. However, as I have said elsewhere, upon enlightenment one does not lose their individuality. A persons individuality includes desire for sex, for love. People have a whole suite of desires which are intrinsic to them, and this is not wrong, it's just the way it is.

An enlightened person is not a perfect being in strict moralistic sense. And why should this be the case? What is the grand truth upon which a strict moralist, anti-desire (anti-sex) view point is based? Upon enlightenment one is simply who one most basically is, beyond such conceptual frameworks of good and bad.

I understand that this question comes from a basis of traditional ideas of enlightenment. However I would say that one need not desire simply based on dualistic-confusion, based on belief that the object of desire will make one whole. There is a deeper, natural form of desire, much as there is a deeper, natural self, beyond the 'ego' imposed by dualistic confusion.

RE: Why so little talk of desire here?
Answer
4/21/14 3:18 PM as a reply to Jinxed P.
A person who doesn't understand the type of craving that the Buddha talks about is liable to equate with something it is not.

It's a craving you feel, it's a deep thirst, the resolution of which is Nibbana. The commentators and Abhidhamma compilers directly after the Buddha directly equated desire with desire for "food, sex, sleep, fame, money" etc. And then compiled what they thought was a "technically" accurate Dharma.

But this is not possible, ehi passiko, one must come and see.

This is why I am reluctant to teach the Four Noble Truths, because no one will see them.

But after coming here, it is easy to realize what the Buddha meant by the five clinging aggregates, and how the letting go of craving, is in fact Nibbana.

In peace,

James

RE: Why so little talk of desire here?
Answer
4/21/14 8:01 PM as a reply to Jinxed P.
In non-duality you become everything. Hard to desire something if you're already it. (speaking from experience, of course emoticon).

There's a story of a woman who went to India and came across a holy man. She was quite impressed with him and so asked if he would come to visit her in London. She explained that it would be her pleasure to show him the all the wonderful places around town. He replied "Madam... I am London".

RE: Why so little talk of desire here?
Answer
4/22/14 2:45 AM as a reply to Jinxed P.
the same reason why there is little talk about other things like advanced meditative states and other things that would indicate real progress. Instead we have people who skip all that and go straight to having enlightenment that is superior to Buddha's emoticon

RE: Why so little talk of desire here?
Answer
4/22/14 3:15 AM as a reply to T DC.
T DC:
I think that a distinction should be made between desire in the context of that which is ended upon Nirvana, and desire such as for food or sex.

The desire which has cessation upon reaching nirvana is desire that is conditioned by the issue that nirvana solves. In essence nirvana is the antidote to this desire. This desire is craving, based on the dualistic belief that having what you want will make you full or whole, that the fulfillment of your desire will eradicate your suffering.

A different form of desire however, that is not eradicated upon nirvana/enlightenment, is the everyday desire for things which we perceive ourselves to need. For example one might desire food water and shelter. Even upon enlightenment, one must take care of immediate physical concerns.

Perhaps the desire for sex or something like that, upon enlightenment, is more questionable. However, as I have said elsewhere, upon enlightenment one does not lose their individuality. A persons individuality includes desire for sex, for love. People have a whole suite of desires which are intrinsic to them, and this is not wrong, it's just the way it is.

An enlightened person is not a perfect being in strict moralistic sense. And why should this be the case? What is the grand truth upon which a strict moralist, anti-desire (anti-sex) view point is based? Upon enlightenment one is simply who one most basically is, beyond such conceptual frameworks of good and bad.

I understand that this question comes from a basis of traditional ideas of enlightenment. However I would say that one need not desire simply based on dualistic-confusion, based on belief that the object of desire will make one whole. There is a deeper, natural form of desire, much as there is a deeper, natural self, beyond the 'ego' imposed by dualistic confusion.

T DC I'm not sure what version of Dhamma you are espousing, but it certainly is not Buddhadhamma. What you describe in the above post, and others of yours I have read, is not the goal of awakening of the Buddhist path. However, I can see you are resolved on believing that you have attained the final goal, so I am not going to try and convince you otherwise. This is more for the benefit of future readers of this forum, who maybe seduced and deluded into believing what you describe as full awakening.

Jinxed P, you are right to question these very salient points re non-duality verses desire, as it goes to the heart of the Buddha's teachings, the Four Noble Truths, which are not so much beliefs that we need to adhere to, but Truths to be comprehended & experienced:

This is the noble truth of dukkha
This noble truth of dukkha is to be comprehended
This noble truth of dukkha has been comprehended.

This is the noble truth of the origination of dukkha
This noble truth of the origination of dukkha is to be abandoned
This noble truth of the origination of dukkha has been abandoned.

This is the noble truth of the cessation of dukkha
This noble truth of the cessation of dukkha is to be directly experienced
This noble truth of the cessation of dukkha has been directly experienced.

This is the noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of dukkha
This noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of dukkha is to be developed
This noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of dukkha has been developed


The above is paraphrased for the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta the Buddha's first discourse.

Non-duality is not even a main preoccupation and goal of the Buddhist Path, it is the letting go of craving which ultimately leads to Nibbana. It is the actual letting go of that leads to cessation, not as you have described T DC: "In essence nirvana is the antidote to this desire."

You clearly have the cart before the horse here.

RE: Why so little talk of desire here?
Answer
4/22/14 5:01 PM as a reply to Jinxed P.
One thing I am surprised no-one here talks about is the insight into the illusory nature of desire, as separate from the insight into the illusion of self-as-doer (agent).
In my experience, this insight into desire (which occurred separately some time after I did MCTB 4th path) was a mighty sledgehammer blow into the foundations of the patterns of craving & desire.

Here is how I saw/see it.

Last September I had the insight into non-doership, meaning that self-as-doer, agent was seen through, which is one of the conditions that people in here call 4th path (MCTB 4th Path). Thoughts just appeared with no thinker, the body moves and reacts to various stimuli, and there is no single, controlling entity of my experience. This became my baseline state.

However at this point, my desire, lust, craving etc, were all still unattenuated in any way. I was suffering much less, confusion is significantly reduced but the same craving/fantasy patterns of thoughts, sensations and actions continued to occur, with no controller, no agent.

Although my experience was centreless, and doer-less, just experience, happening all around, it seemed like there were pulls and pushes on experience, which were my latent desires, my karmic conditioning, which I decided needed to be dealt with, or allowed to self-liberate. It seemed certain objects had gravity (or repulsion) which pushed or pulled the mindbody system into conditioned responses. And in my new condition, I curiously had no more power than before over these cravings and aversions.

Then, by doing more insight practice specifically into desire/aversion I felt like I had a really really big liberating insight, and now patterns of wanting/aversion are starting to unwind frighteningly fast. For example romantic & sexual fantasy were really frequent and sticky, but now they are mostly dropped within a second or so.

The insight is very simple, it was simply seeing that the gravity of certain objects, and the "pulls and pushes" they cause are totally illusory. In short that desire is a total illusion.

The illusion of desire works in a similar way to the illusion of "do-er", but it is a little more subtle.

The illusion of do-er
1. a thought appears spontaneously e.g. "look, cake!"
2. another thing happens spontaneously e.g. the hand reaches for cake
3. a false interpretation is made that "I, the self, did that"
4. from this dumb interpretation, more erroneous thoughts can arise "Oh, I'm really bad for taking that cake"

The illusion of desire (even after the illusion of do-er is clearly seen through)
1. a thought appears spontaneously, with no thinker e.g. "thought of Person X"
2. another thing happens spontaneously e.g. sensations around the heart area
3. a very fast habitual false interpretation is made that "therefore there is still desire for person X playing out in this mindbody"
4. from this dumb interpretation, more erroneous thoughts can arise "hmm why do I still have desire for person X?"... suffering

The reality is that in direct sensate experience, it is not helpful to say that the thought (1) CAUSES sensation (2)... it is truer to say that one thing happens, then the other spontaneously, with no link whatsoever, for reason whatsoever, with no meaning whatsoever. Go there in your direct experience now, bring an object of aversion or desire to mind, and watch the play of sensations and thoughts. It appears to the untrained eye that they cause, that they push or pull each other, but look carefully and they are not linked in any way. One sensation cannot pull or push another sensation. It just is one sensation.

The fact that they might appear to be linked is a subtle illusion of self-as-desirer. So I did a lot of insight practice with strong objects of desire and the sensations and reactions and it is seen clearly that there is nothing that can be called desire, nothing that can be found to be lust, nothing that can be called karmic conditioning, experience is just one thing happening spontaneously, then another, with NOTHING in the gaps between... when this was seen clearly then fantasies just don't gain traction anymore, because the root of fantasies is the false interpretation at step 3.

This seems like an important insight post mctb 4th path and I believe is the basis for the therevada path 2 (weakening ill-will / sensual desire), but I have not seen anyone talk about it. It can only really be appreciated after seeing through self-as-doer/watcher (mctb 4th path) because prior to that, it is not possible for people to see that there is nothing in the gap, because they still believe in a nebulous selfy-continuity to the whole of their experience, so they can't see clearly that there really is nothing hiding in that gap which can possibly be their desire.

By the way this (doing insight practice on the strong desire-feeling-thought patterns) is I think the same method which Adyashanti describes in rooting out of thought belief patterns, and also I believe the same process as Byron Katie's the work. Basically you are just trying to see the patterns clearly, see that there is no you in them, no desire in them, then finally they can self-liberate. Prior to this, if you believe that there is some mysterious force of personal desire in there, then the patterns cannot self-liberate as they are being held in confusion.

Anyway just how things have panned out for me. would be interested to hear from other people...

Jinxed P:
The first few noble truths state that the cause of unsatisfactoriness is desire/craving. And while people here make a great deal about nonduality I find little discussion on how nonduality relates to the cessation of desire (does it?).

From my understanding of buddhism it is the ending of desire that leads to nirvana. And while many here have claimed to have fully reached a nondual understanding, no one here claims Nirvana. Are we at the DhO community simply stopping at nonduality and not realizing the nondual implications for ending desire which in turn leads to the end of suffering?

What is the relationship between desire and nonduality? Between desire and the attainments you have reached?

How has a nondual understanding impacted desires for sex, good food, friendship, etc?

RE: Why so little talk of desire here?
Answer
4/22/14 7:41 PM as a reply to Sadalsuud Beta Aquarii.
Thanks for that post Sadalsuud. I too would be interested if any one else has similar experiences..

How would you say that seeing that desire is an illusion has effected you in terms of suffering and happiness?

also when you said that MTCB 4th path cleared up a lot of confusion..what did you mean by confusion?

RE: Why so little talk of desire here?
Answer
4/23/14 4:51 AM as a reply to Jinxed P.
This has to do with the origins of the pragmatic dharma movement. Also with the fact that people here are almost all laymen, who still have sex, earn a living, etc.

Though people do discuss this issue, under the guise of different "models of awakening": different descriptions of what enlightenment is and what it means. You will find occasional mention of the "10 fetter model", which is basically the one you are referring to (a google search for "10 fetter model will give results).

One point is that models of awakening can get so implausible (perfect personality, total absence of pain, rainbow body, etc) that it is more productive to drop the most outlandish ones and try to attain those which are less ambitious first. I have seen that after attaining to some goal people invariably find that more can be done, and they move on.

Even within models people can keep moving the flagpost: you experience whatever it is you feel satisfies the requirements for the understanding of "the illusory nature of self" and you move on to understanding "the illusory nature of object" or "the illusory nature of desire" or whatever. Or upon attaining "complete freedom" you find that you still need to attain to "super-complete freedom". Or you are suddenly able to do all the jhanas as described in some specific book or framework, and you decide that you want to do jhanas in a different way, as taught by some other source (for example).

One problem is that many of these goals are very subjective. Someone claims that they have "seen the ultimate nature of reality" [1]... but have they? Or do they just believe and appear to have done so? What if someone claims to have "no sensual desire" but still has sex (maybe lots)? Maybe they do sex for different motives?! What if someone claims to have "no ill will of any kind" but other people still get hurt while interacting with this person (maybe often)? Maybe it is the other people hurting themselves (as people often do)?!

I am getting a bit off-topic here, but I think that this complication is part of the reason why people don't discuss certain models very openly.

[1] Swear to god, I sometimes have the feeling that people give pseudo-random names to whatever dramatic epiphanies or perceptional transitions they go through. To me, "seeing through the illusory nature of desire" reads like "Super-duper-level-7".

RE: Why so little talk of desire here?
Answer
4/23/14 9:16 AM as a reply to Jinxed P.
I don't consider myself to be done yet, but I do seem to be getting deeper insight into certain patterns. For example, yesterday I had a strong craving for chocolate. I went to the campus hangout and got this thing that had the equivalent of chocolate frosting oozing out between two sweet crackers, and ate all of it. Then I felt sick. I noticed the sick feeling, and instead of tuning it out I let myself experience it fully. It continued far into the evening. I have also been having a strong aversion to my work. At the moment, there is a fair amount of it piling up. What I am seeing now is that this organism is tired, and these things are happening because of a need for rest. So instead of scolding myself for having no willpower, I have carved out some space this week to get some rest, eliminating non-essential activities.

This may not sound like deep insight, but it does take the onus off of a personal self that "should" be exercising executive power over craving and aversion. I would venture to say that the body and mind are going to be needing what they need even with further attainments, but perhaps craving and aversion can be seen as signals rather than orders to be obeyed. One more thing: in my tai chi class, I can tell exactly the point where my energy is exhausted, by the fact that I lose focus. Up until that point my concentration is strong. I can see that this body and mind need compassionate care, the same as one would give to a child. There is no sin or shame in any of this.

RE: Why so little talk of desire here?
Answer
4/23/14 5:46 PM as a reply to T DC.
Thank you for making this post, Jinxed. I think you've helped me understand why I've been having so much trouble relating to MCTB and this community. The responses to this thread verify something I've suspected: the enlightenment talked about here just doesn't seem to have much to do with suffering. There is such a strong focus on anatta, and I kept trying to find out how this mindset people were straining to achieve related to removing stress, but it just never lined up. I mean, all the talk about cycling forever through dark nights, even after you've reached the end of the road, and once you get there you're still going to feel craving and aversion... I just don't understand the point. I mean that respectfully, too; I just really don't understand. I can't see any real benefit to removing a concept of a self if it doesn't mean the stress goes with it. I understand some people desperately want to know the truth about their existence, but even after years of practice and experiencing the feeling that there is no self, why do you believe it's true? It's possible for a concentrated mind to convince itself of a lot of things - maybe this whole path is essentially a self-indoctrination process. I don't really know. I'd really like to understand, but none of it makes much sense to me. If you'd like to answer this question directly I have another thread about it. I don't want to derail this one.

@T DC: Your response doesn't make sense in the context of Buddhism, at least in my understanding of it. The buddha was looking for an escape from dukkha, which is what the ancient Indians believe kept a person in samsara. Dukkha means all attachment, in any form, for any reason - this is why the arahant has to give up attachment to the jhanas, otherwise he or she will be reborn in a heavenly or formless realm. Karma was considered a natural law, where, when a person/being died, whatever they were most attached to would lead them to be reborn in a realm that would suit their disposition. If a person dies with a heart full of anger, they'd be reborn as a demon. If a person was highly attached to sex, maybe they'd be reborn as a rabbit. In this kind of belief system, contemplatives out searching for liberation wouldn't be satisfied until they truly believed there was nothing left that would keep them in samsara. From this, if we believe the buddha really was liberated, as he said, we have to conclude that he felt no desire or attachment at all. There was nothing left holding him to the world except the life of his body, and once he died, he wouldn't be reborn.

I don't really put much stock in ancient Indian cosmology, myself, but it doesn't matter very much. Liberation from stress in this lifetime has it's own intrinsic appeal. There's no need to believe what the buddha believed to benefit from the methods.

One thing I am surprised no-one here talks about is the insight into the illusory nature of desire, as separate from the insight into the illusion of self-as-doer (agent).


This is very interesting to hear you say, to me, because you say you've completed the path presented here. If you think they're separate, that probably means this no-self path isn't going to be useful to me. I think you're mistaken in thinking you need to believe in an illusory self to see the nature of desire. I've been working on desire from the very beginning, and while I can't say I've made any changes in how I see the existence of my "self", I've had a number of insights into the link between stress, desire, and the emotions. Something to point out: desire doesn't have to be seen as an illusion to remove it or challenge it. The suttas give many techniques, including the jhanas and mindfulness, to cut desire at the root and achieve equanimity toward the five aggregates. Anatta (not-self) is one of the strategies that the buddha gave to remove desire - but I have yet to find any real talk of "no-self" in the suttas. There are a number of suttas that mention no-self as wrong view, though... I understand you guys aren't too concerned about where a strategy comes from, rather how successful it is, but from the talk I've seen from Daniel and Ken Folk, along with the other people around here claiming to be "fourth path" or what have you, this no-self strategy doesn't seem to be working. If you guys feel I'm wrong and can explain how following this path will lead to the ending of negativity in my life, please let me know! I'd really like to understand!

Even within models people can keep moving the flagpost: you experience whatever it is you feel satisfies the requirements for the understanding of "the illusory nature of self" and you move on to understanding "the illusory nature of object" or "the illusory nature of desire" or whatever. Or upon attaining "complete freedom" you find that you still need to attain to "super-complete freedom". Or you are suddenly able to do all the jhanas as described in some specific book or framework, and you decide that you want to do jhanas in a different way, as taught by some other source (for example).


But this is exactly what the Buddha was challenging with his whole system. The very definition of an arahant is "there is nothing left for this world." The arahant is someone who has finally dropped all desire and craving. To this kind of person, it doesn't matter what kind of signposts there are, who is achieving them, or why. They're free from all wanting, why would they try to achieve anything else? If someone says to an arahant, "I have a new system of enlightenment for you to try! There are 100 different blissful meditative attainments and it will lead to an understanding all of reality including quantum physics, knowledge of all the countless dimensions, godlike powers, and lordship over all of existence! You also get 1000 diva wives/husbands who have been training for 1000 years each in the kamma sutra!" The arahant would simply say, "That's nice, but I'm free. I'd rather just sit here on this tree root."

If you guys don't think this is possible, your practices must be leading you in a very different direction from what I seem to have found for myself after some simple practice and reading the suttas. The buddha tried all the big practices in his day including self-inflicted torture, and in the end he realized, "Oh, how silly I've been. I just needed to calm down and let go of all this wanting..." There isn't really much that we want in life. We just want to be content and satisfied. We get angry because we think other people are taking away things that lead to our satisfaction. We get sad because we don't have something that used to lead to our satisfaction. We are anxious because we believe something we rely on for our satisfaction is going to go away. You can approach it any way you like, but in the end the heart of buddhism is simple stopping in the middle of your desire and realizing there is nothing you really need to do. Just let go of all of it. That seems to be what he's saying. Why does it matter what self is, or if you can see everything as empty? How does any of that relate to lasting contentment?

One of the things that has confused me a lot is the way jhana is treated as a simple calming or mind strengthening exercise in Theravada. They say something like, "Learn jhana if you have trouble focusing, but it's not very important. Best not to waste time and do vipassana as soon as you can concentrate." In my experience over the last few months (an admittedly shot time), the jhanas are essentially a systematic training in letting go. This seems to be the very core of the Buddha's teachings. What could be more insightful than learning equanimity is a more pleasant feeling than bliss? This alone has transformed the way I see every emotion or desire. I spend a lot of time these days simply sitting and existing. It just feels nice just to let go and realize there is nothing you need to do, ever, to be happy. Ironically, the one thing on this site that seems to be the most Buddhist is the Actual Freedom stuff, and they have nothing but contempt for altered states of consciousness. I've read all the hate speech on their website, but that only served to make me more confused, since they are essentially preaching mindfulness training.

I know you guys get these sorts of posts a lot here, and everyone has their own strong opinions, but I've spent a lot of time trying to reconcile the buddha's teachings with the things people around the world are calling buddhism, and I've failed to come up with any great understanding. The teachings seem so simple to me until I read the commentaries and religious texts and traditions. I guess, end of the day, it's just another desire to let go of - the desire to understand.

RE: Why so little talk of desire here?
Answer
4/23/14 7:06 PM as a reply to Jane Laurel Carrington.
Jane Laurel Carrington:
I don't consider myself to be done yet, but I do seem to be getting deeper insight into certain patterns. For example, yesterday I had a strong craving for chocolate. I went to the campus hangout and got this thing that had the equivalent of chocolate frosting oozing out between two sweet crackers, and ate all of it. Then I felt sick. I noticed the sick feeling, and instead of tuning it out I let myself experience it fully. It continued far into the evening. I have also been having a strong aversion to my work. At the moment, there is a fair amount of it piling up. What I am seeing now is that this organism is tired, and these things are happening because of a need for rest. So instead of scolding myself for having no willpower, I have carved out some space this week to get some rest, eliminating non-essential activities.

This may not sound like deep insight, but it does take the onus off of a personal self that "should" be exercising executive power over craving and aversion. I would venture to say that the body and mind are going to be needing what they need even with further attainments, but perhaps craving and aversion can be seen as signals rather than orders to be obeyed. One more thing: in my tai chi class, I can tell exactly the point where my energy is exhausted, by the fact that I lose focus. Up until that point my concentration is strong. I can see that this body and mind need compassionate care, the same as one would give to a child. There is no sin or shame in any of this.


Hi Jane,

IMHO, this line was your biggest insight: "perhaps craving and aversion can be seen as signals rather than orders to be obeyed." The progress I've seen in my own practice revolves around this idea. The beginning of your story seems to have two kinds of craving in it. You wanted the chocolate, but you also wanted not to want the chocolate. After you ate the chocolate, you felt sick, and then you absorbed into this feeling - perhaps to punish yourself? This whole mass of stress you described could end at any point in its progression by realizing that a bad feeling doesn't have to end to be content. The craving for sensual pleasures (like chocolate) are not the true craving, but a mask for discontent. Discontent is simply the feeling of, "I need something besides what reality is right now to be satisfied." Next time you crave chocolate, look in your heart and ask yourself what you really want, it will probably be as simple as allowing that desire to continue on without fighting it. Simply say, "Ahh, this feeling is impermanent, as are the pleasant tastes that come with the chocolate. In the end, all I really want is satisfaction, and to be satisfied, I just need to stop wanting." Wanting to resist wanting, or wanting to make wanting go away, is still wanting. Let all of the wanting just be itself and watching without being too attached to what it does. Without any attachment, these things tend to fizzle out on their own in about a minute. Then, having seen how weak the feeling really was, the next time you feel it, you won't take it as seriously. Eventually it won't arise at all - you'll just be content already.

However, if you do eat the chocolate next time, you can use this same method on any feelings of self-retribution you might have. They're just as hurtful and stressful as any other craving, and spending the whole night carrying them around isn't going to make the desire for chocolate go away. In the end, all it takes is letting go.

You might like this story: http://users.rider.edu/~suler/zenstory/obsessed.html

RE: Why so little talk of desire here?
Answer
4/23/14 8:27 PM as a reply to Jinxed P.
@Jinxed & @NotTao - seeing the illusory nature of desire has caused the collapse of a lot of desire related patterns of thoughts and emotions, which has hugely reduced suffering for me. For example, I am no longer suffering much from romantic and sexual fantasy, which was strong and painful previously.

In my experience so far, the lessening of suffering is exactly a side effect of deepening insights into anatta (non-self), and not "a goal". Well, we are playing with words here, but it's a shift in perspective. You start out saying "I want to suffer less" and you solve the problem by removing the "I" at various depths, which crushes the patterns which cause suffering.

@Bruno
sorry to add labels to insights in a manner which you perceive as un-needed. I feel that one of the strong points of DhO-like forums is that the use of very precise and technical language can help point people to genuine insight. For example, in this case I wanted to lessen my desires and recursive thinking, and a teacher told me - don't aim to do these things, they will happen as insight into anatta deepens. But gave no pointers at all on how or where to deepen the insight. Eventually someone else pointed me to exactly this place (illusion of self-as-desire), and I found it pragmatically worked a treat. So this is my attempt to maybe help anyone else out. If you feel the description is needless then either you totally get both the insights already and it's trival to you, fair play to you. Or if you don't see the 2 insights as distinct at all then I suggest you check it out, as I believe that there is a valuable suffering-lessening thing in there.


to no-one in particular, but addressing a DhO way of speaking:

I would like to say that although it definitely feels true at one level, I think it can be misleading to say that insights into non-self end at mctb 4th path. For example the AF stuff, in a way is exactly just having more insights into no-self. It could be described as being about breaking the illusion of the subtle subjective quality of moods, which when done, leaves thoroughly no-one at home to even perceive anything (happy harmless apperception).


Jinxed P:
Thanks for that post Sadalsuud. I too would be interested if any one else has similar experiences..

How would you say that seeing that desire is an illusion has effected you in terms of suffering and happiness?

also when you said that MTCB 4th path cleared up a lot of confusion..what did you mean by confusion?

RE: Why so little talk of desire here?
Answer
4/24/14 9:45 AM as a reply to Not Tao.
Not Tao:


Hi Jane,

IMHO, this line was your biggest insight: "perhaps craving and aversion can be seen as signals rather than orders to be obeyed." The progress I've seen in my own practice revolves around this idea. The beginning of your story seems to have two kinds of craving in it. You wanted the chocolate, but you also wanted not to want the chocolate. After you ate the chocolate, you felt sick, and then you absorbed into this feeling - perhaps to punish yourself? This whole mass of stress you described could end at any point in its progression by realizing that a bad feeling doesn't have to end to be content. The craving for sensual pleasures (like chocolate) are not the true craving, but a mask for discontent. Discontent is simply the feeling of, "I need something besides what reality is right now to be satisfied." Next time you crave chocolate, look in your heart and ask yourself what you really want, it will probably be as simple as allowing that desire to continue on without fighting it. Simply say, "Ahh, this feeling is impermanent, as are the pleasant tastes that come with the chocolate. In the end, all I really want is satisfaction, and to be satisfied, I just need to stop wanting." Wanting to resist wanting, or wanting to make wanting go away, is still wanting. Let all of the wanting just be itself and watching without being too attached to what it does. Without any attachment, these things tend to fizzle out on their own in about a minute. Then, having seen how weak the feeling really was, the next time you feel it, you won't take it as seriously. Eventually it won't arise at all - you'll just be content already.

However, if you do eat the chocolate next time, you can use this same method on any feelings of self-retribution you might have. They're just as hurtful and stressful as any other craving, and spending the whole night carrying them around isn't going to make the desire for chocolate go away. In the end, all it takes is letting go.

You might like this story: http://users.rider.edu/~suler/zenstory/obsessed.html


Thanks for the feedback! At first I found your descriptions of wanting this or that to be confusing, but I think I'm on my way to sorting it out.

So what happened is that I just plain decided to go with the desire for chocolate to see what would happen. And I decided to stay with the sick feeling not as a punishment, but to let it in, see what it was like. As a result, I had the insight that eating the chocolate failed to end in satisfaction. The illusion that it would was punctured. And as I let unpleasant sensations in, I was able to experience other sensations as well, such as fatigue. Which means that yes, I really was desiring something else--I was desiring rest. In fact, I recognized that as a need, and took measures to fulfill it.

I have to be honest: I wanted not to want the stuff. I let that in as well. And I was thinking about the punishment motive when I started feeling sick, but realized that it just didn't make any sense, so I dropped it.

Right now there's a task I need to do and I'm feeling aversion. The aversion leads to a belief, that I won't be able to complete the task successfully, with bothersome results (I'm looking for documents and worried I won't locate them). So I am avoiding, pushing off the task, by being on this website, which is a lot more fun than facing the possibility that these documents are not accessible. What to do? Investigate the fear of the sensations of frustration. Investigate the fear of being criticized, and the potential for sensations associated with self-reproach and blame. Investigate the fear of inconvenience, the sensations of being unable to control my space and what it contains. Break it all down. Who or what am I trying to protect?

Again, possibly these aren't the deepest insights, but they are where people live a lot of the time. Can I let these things be and still be okay? Of course. So, on with the search!

RE: Why so little talk of desire here?
Answer
4/24/14 1:15 PM as a reply to Not Tao.
Hi NotTao,

Sorry I didn't see you had addressed this at my quote. You are asking some interesting questions and I will try and answer a bit. I think you are mixing up what you think is the pragmatic scene with a general buddhist approach to development. Maybe these explanations might help?

1. Traditional hardcore real-deal Buddhism:
0. goal - let's try and eliminate suffering.
1. do some basic training in morality and concentration so you can meditate well
2. now you're lead a more harmonious life and can meditate well, start doing strong insight practice to realise anatta
3. realise anatta. don't make a big deal of this though. It's just the beginning, like taking the stabilisers off your bike.
4. with the insight into anatta, all belief systems are begun to be let go of, both the obviously bad ones but also all the 'good' ones which helped you so far.
5. All patterns of selfish behaviour can liberate themselves at their root, if faith is there. This now happens much much much faster and efficiently than pre-anatta insight. It is like the difference between using a dustpan and brush to clean up your neurotic stuff VS a vacuum cleaner. Also a vacuum can get stuff out of some cracks in the floorboards that a brush simply cannot.
6. all neurotic patterns of craving/desire/aversion are gone. All belief systems, all moral frameworks, are gone. No suffering at all. Enlightenment.


2. Traditional softcore Buddhism aka self-improvement
0. goal - let's try and eliminate suffering
1. do some basic training in morality and concentration so you can meditate well
2. you become kinder, more in control of desires, have insights about all psychological stuff and generally become a better person. Wow, Buddhism is great.
3. Do not believe in all the devotional, mystic or anatta stuff, or non-dual realisation stuff, because you can see that your interpretation of Buddhism is working just fine, you have made leaps and bounds, and you don't need all that mumbo jumbo. The buddha simply logically describes a path of psychological self-development.
4. Build up a view of what you think is good and moral behaviour (skillful) VS unskillful. Build up a view of how your thought/desire patterns work. As time goes by you do more and more skillful stuff, suffering less and less.
5. Lead a very good conventional moral life, according to certain rules and frameworks. Suffer a bit.


3. Your impression of the Pragmatic Dharma scene
0. goal - let's try an eliminate suffering
1. get obsessed with maps, technical practice and the nature of the illusion of self
2. do loads of dry insight practice which basically leads you to misery and depression for some months or years
3. realise anatta to some degree. go totally fucking nuts, claim you have "done what had to be done", describe yourself as enlightened and build a huge identity around the idea of no-self
4. Deny that it is possible to eliminate sensual desire or ill will, hence causing yourself to be stuck, not practising wholeheartedly to eliminate them, hence creating a self-affirming loop that it's impossible
5. Retain your stuckness by creating more and more models or paths that focus on technical aspects of non-duality or meditation, rather than allowing the ego to totally surrender to truth
6. continue suffering


It sounds from your post like you are currently in mode 2, because mode 3 does not appeal. My opinion is that without anatta, buddhist practice is de-fanged, limited. With overemphasis on anatta Buddhism is also limited - people get stuck in the transcendent aka 'stink of zen'. Many great teachers have warned on both these sides.

I agree that it can seem here that anatta is overemphasised. But do not let what you perceive here put you off the idea that anatta is v important. Pretty much every type of Buddhism has some kind of training to point people toward realising anatta. It IS in the suttas, the buddha famously uses the analogy of a cart to demonstrate the emptiness of self. And he talks about anatta in terms of lack of agency (control) in the Anattalakkhana Sutta. Therevada has insight practice, so does all the Tibetan buddhism, Zen has koans.

My own journey within this ---- I was stuck in mode 2 for a couple of years. Then very gratefully I found the pragmatic scene and had some realisation of anatta. Then decided that practice needed to continue in ways that are not discussed a lot here, for various reasons as discussed above and in this thread. But that does not invalidate the importance of what the perceived angle of practice is in the pragmatic scene. It is beautiful, invaluable, vital.

go well. I enjoyed writing this from the hammock I now have in my room, & the sun is coming through the window... emoticon



Not Tao:

One thing I am surprised no-one here talks about is the insight into the illusory nature of desire, as separate from the insight into the illusion of self-as-doer (agent).


This is very interesting to hear you say, to me, because you say you've completed the path presented here. If you think they're separate, that probably means this no-self path isn't going to be useful to me. I think you're mistaken in thinking you need to believe in an illusory self to see the nature of desire. I've been working on desire from the very beginning, and while I can't say I've made any changes in how I see the existence of my "self", I've had a number of insights into the link between stress, desire, and the emotions. Something to point out: desire doesn't have to be seen as an illusion to remove it or challenge it. The suttas give many techniques, including the jhanas and mindfulness, to cut desire at the root and achieve equanimity toward the five aggregates. Anatta (not-self) is one of the strategies that the buddha gave to remove desire - but I have yet to find any real talk of "no-self" in the suttas. There are a number of suttas that mention no-self as wrong view, though... I understand you guys aren't too concerned about where a strategy comes from, rather how successful it is, but from the talk I've seen from Daniel and Ken Folk, along with the other people around here claiming to be "fourth path" or what have you, this no-self strategy doesn't seem to be working. If you guys feel I'm wrong and can explain how following this path will lead to the ending of negativity in my life, please let me know! I'd really like to understand!

RE: Why so little talk of desire here?
Answer
4/24/14 1:22 PM as a reply to Jane Laurel Carrington.
Jane, I think your response points to the fundamental difference between two paths. You've helped me sort out some thoughts I've had about these practices, so thank you!

I think I've been trying to make sense of two methodologies that seem similar on the surface, but are actually leading to different results. In the situation you described, what I'd be looking for was where the stress was, and how the desires I had caused it to continue rather than dissipate. I would feel successful when I could see clearly what caused the stresses to cease in relation to what desires I let go of. This is why I gave you the advice I did, I was assuming you were attempting to see through the desire and how it led to suffering. Specifically, what I would find as the culprit would be the desire to control the urge to eat the chocolate. This desire for control is specifically what I've found to prevent control in similar situations of my own experience. Once I've let go of this desire to control, or the desire for the emotion itself to change or go away, I have been able to see that the emotion itself doesn't have much to it and tends to dissolve quickly on its own if I place my attention on other things. With this practice, I attempt to strike at the root of the emotion itself so it is weakened or won't arise again in the future.

The way you approached the situation (this will be my interpretation, so feel free to correct me), you were looking at the stress, specifically, as an illusion caused by an interaction between a "doer" or a "self" that felt the emotion, and the emotion in its raw form. You were attempting to use the strong emotions to understand the illusion so that, next time you felt those emotions, you would be able to tolerate them more easily.

Or, maybe a better way to put it, the eventual goal of your practice (or, if I may be so bold, the practice presented in MCTB ) is the ability to withstand any emotion that arises. The goal of my practice (perhaps a more AF type thing) is to prevent the arising of unpleasant or stressful emotions.

This may actually be a deeper divide in Buddhism in general. Zen seems to lean towards withstanding emotions, whereas Tibetan Buddhism seems to work on preventing them. In Theravada, the Burmese methods aim towards withstanding, and the Thai forest tradition aims towards preventing.

Perhaps you could diagnose a tradition by the importance they place on the jhanas. If withstanding all emotions is the goal, the jhanas, at best, would be seen as practice for dissociating from pleasant emotion, and at worst a fundamental trap that will lead you astray. If removing all stress is seen as the goal, the jhanas would be seen as an essential tool for learning how to release said stress and abide in a stress-free lifestyle.

RE: Why so little talk of desire here?
Answer
4/24/14 1:41 PM as a reply to Sadalsuud Beta Aquarii.
LOL Sadalsuud that really cracked me up - especially part 3. ^^

I think you're right about my impressions, but I'm definitely not in mode 2. I've actually read a large number of the suttas and I haven't found anything that I disagree with on a fundamental level. In the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta especially, I see the buddha as describing a very effective strategy that leads to dispassion.

Bhikkhus, form is not-self. Were form self, then this form would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.' And since form is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.'


This is a sound logical argument that describes a logical way of relating to phenomena that will lead to dispassion, the ending of craving, and thus, stress. The way I've often seen anatta described in the pragmatic scene is that it is a truth that needs to be realized, and by seeing that truth due to some mystical mental events (fruitions) you will magically let go of cravings because...idk voodoo. emoticon This is the main problem I seem to have. The whole goal, as I see it, is dispassion towards things that you can't control, not the visceral annihilation of the sense of self.

RE: Why so little talk of desire here?
Answer
4/24/14 4:19 PM as a reply to Sadalsuud Beta Aquarii.
Un-needed is probably not the right idea I was trying to convey.

My general impression about a lot of the "meditation is about trueself/noself" approach is that the language they use is far from technical.

What someone might call "seeing through the illusion of desire as self" (IDS) might not mean the same at all for someone else using the same nomenclature. Because the matter of whether you see IDS or not is ultimately a matter of you deciding you see it.

That said, I am not saying that your realization / perceptual transformation is not genuine, that is not the point at all. I totally believe you when you say you have had some transformation that lessened suffering after someone told you to see IDS. But I tend to believe that if someone had told you to see "the illusion of agitation as self" or some other nomenclature, you would have gone into your meditation with the added attention/concentration/ardency to have the exact same breakthrough, and today you would be giving it a different name.

Because while you praise the DhO for its use of technical language, my impression is that things like "illusion of self" and variants thereof are far from technical.

This is in contrast, for instance, with "staying with the meditation object uninterruptedly for 30 minutes", or "sustain a panoramic focus", among other measures of progress in meditation, which are far more objective, and can be assessed far less arbitrarily.

My impression when people say "saw the annatta of whatever" is basically that they had some epiphany (a genuine one), and they phrase it in the cultural lingo they are used to hear surrounding these things.

Granted, it could be just me who doesn't get it. I started having this impression after the "ruthless truth" people interacted with DhOers a few years ago.

RE: Why so little talk of desire here?
Answer
4/24/14 4:59 PM as a reply to Bruno Loff.
Haha, maybe this is why the Pali canon has 99 examples for every possible thing that could happen in any way, and it repeats all of it 99 times.

RE: Why so little talk of desire here?
Answer
4/25/14 8:20 AM as a reply to Jinxed P.
edit: This is actually BS and decided to delete previous post.

Arahat is desireless. Fetters model is correct.