Self-Sense Witch Hunts

I am not very fond of the instruction to seek out and pay special attention to any sensation masquerading as “I” or a “self”, in order to debunk or eradicate it. I know I’ve talked about this before at KFDh, and Chris has chimed in on more than one occasions expressing a similar dislike of this instruction (Chris, correct me if I’m wrong). There’s something strange about it, and it keeps popping up all over the place. I think it’s based on a misunderstanding of the Buddha’s teachings on anatta (non-self). The practice is not completely misguided on theoretical grounds, but it is incomplete.

Here’s an example of what I mean – the Buddha taught (as far as we know) that suffering is the problem, and that craving/clinging/thirsting/resisting is the cause (Noble Truths #1 and #2). It makes sense to me, then, to first look into the arising of suffering in my immediate experience, primarily as experienced in the body. It is sure to be associated with some sense of resistance; either grasping at pleasure, actively avoiding pain, or just checking out by getting lost in fantasies or just plain zoning out. After recognizing the experience and accepting it as it is, investigation follows. This is where the “non-self” instruction comes in handy. Investigation into suffering reveals conditioned patterns of identification – a misinterpretation of appearances. Noticing and really ‘groking’ that the misapprehension is resulting in suffering, and then really noticing that the appearance in question is “not me, not mine, not self,” is a way to invite wisdom to take the place of delusion. This influences the ‘mechanism of clinging’ (as I’ve been calling it), allowing it to release its grip. It was previously impossible to see things how they really are due to the subtleties of the experience residing outside of conscious awareness. Uncovering the process, and seeing it with the eye of wisdom, is the medicine that allows the clinging to stop. (Of course, this isn't the ONLY way to practice skillfully.)

But can you see how this is different than just looking around for some sense of self? Such practices seem almost ludicrous to me. The habits of identification run deep. They are often not available to conscious awareness in the same way one would hunt for Easter eggs in a park. It takes some skilled digging. Besides, one could also easily mistake the sense of ‘presence’ or ‘being’ as something which needs to be eradicated, when really that’s just the flavor of experience. And the very act of looking for a self splits experience in two, making it impossible to locate “who is looking” by sheer will. As Alan Watts used to say, you can’t bit your own teeth, taste your own tongue, look at your own eyes, or touch the tip of your finger with the same tip of the same finger. In this way, one layers this dualistic split on top of the sense of presence/being, confuses the two, and then tries to get rid of them both.

I’ll contend that going on witch hunts for a self-sense, rather than addressing the problem in a more skillful way, is likely to get a yogi nowhere fast. It may even reinforce craving, as opposed to cultivating dispassion and surrender. Not to mention that this practice is sort of a silly game of spiritual Where's Waldo? Only, a lot more frustrating, as there is no Waldo.

I should say that this self-sense hunting strategy I’m putting down is not the same as self-enquiry as taught by masters like Ramana Maharshi or Nisargadatta Maharaj. There are subtleties to their methods that I think are overlooked by many a Western vipassana practitioner, and perhaps I’ll write about that in a separate post.

Eh?

-Jackson

Hear, hear!

I don't think there IS a 'sensation of self'-- I think that it [sense of separate self] is an INFERENCE, something one thinks, or concludes. Erroneously, as it turns out.

Okay, I know that there is no 'sensation' of self. That is pretty clear, right?

However, when I do vipassana (or really now any time I look for it like in this moment) I often notice a quick "image" of Mike Monson that the mind seems to produce as a sort of aid in trying to identify somehow with a sensation. This image is varied based on habit patterns - it can be ugly or pathetic or lovely or neutral dependng on the attitude developed over time in my mind about this Mike Monson thing (very pyschological-type stuff on a micro level I think).

This image is not a 'self'' either, but is part of the overall mix of stuff that thinks it is a self.

I think Jackson would agree that all that stuff is never going to stop happening no matter what and the key is to see it for what it really is and be cool.

Kate - yes, an inference, which has a lot to do with the stories we keep about ourselves and our world, often at a subconsious level. But these stories can be exposed and seen for what they are, which is a part of the process of moving from clinging to release.

Mike - that's a good point. Self 'images' do arise, either as a feeling, talk, or image. For me, these arise with the personal narratives I carry with me and freeze around as a defense against experience. Practice helps to thaw them out, so to speak, so that I'm carrying around less karmic (deeply habitual) baggage from day to day. Life is much more free and spacious as a result. Still so much more work to do!

Also, I don't know if those self-images ever go away. I don't know if it matters. I'm not going to make it my life's work to reserve happiness for a time when these images no longer arise. Life's too short, you know?

Thanks for you comments!

Off the subject I guess, but I really think that a lot of what is going on with people who are just disfunctional in one way or another all the way to the extremely mentally ill or addicted -- is a particularly screwed up "self creation mechanism" (for want of a better term)

I could go on and on about that but will have to save it for later. .

Also, one of the great values of vipassana (and other dharma practices I'm sure) is the ability one can develop to see in great detail the truth of what is going on in the constant creation of a self. The lucky thing is, once it is seen (and continually watched) a lot of the suffering-creating details will melt away.

That's not really that off-topic, Mike. I hold a similar view to yours. There are many exceptions (physiological or developmental causes, for example), but I think a lot of the mental illness people suffer from is due to rigid ego structures and maladaptive behavioral patterns.

Western psychotherapy has sought to establish new healthy behaviors, as well as more resilient ego structures, as a way to move one from pathology to normalcy. That's all well and good, for the most part. But there's something to be said about helping one see through their issues, but then allowing them to come to terms with the spaciousness that holds it all. So often we replace old patterns with new ones, never allowing our basic openness to just "be". Getting well acquainted with our basic openness to experience is a big step toward optimal mental health, in my opinion. It takes courage.

Yes,

However, don't develomental causes help create the unhealthy self creation mechanism. The only example I can think of right now would be trauma at a young age -- the evidence seems to be that this wrecks havoc on a self.

"Developmental" can mean a lot of different things. In terms of developmental disabilities, the problems are usually lifelong. But I think there is some validity to the ideas about "arrested development" (a great TV show, but I digress...), whereby one's normal development in some area gets stuck, but can later be un-stuck and further developed. Trauma may be one of those things that can arrest development, and may possibly be worked through later on. And yes, I think early childhood trauma can really do a number on one's ego development.

My brother, who was a traumatized mentally-ill addict himself, worked for years as a nurse in hospital pysch and detox wards. He was also an AA volunteer (answered the phones and took people to detox) and a volunteer for various homeless shelters off and on.

He claims that he can spot a person who was molested as a child within a couple of minutes of speakin to them. He also says he has the ability to spot a "borderline personality" type person right away as well.

(I've never been able to even understand what the borderline diagnosis really meant, myself)

More.

To address and I think reinforce the ideas of your first post:
I've always wondered about any teaching of a technique that starts with a concept and asks the yogi to then investigate and explore that concept.

If something like no self, or dukka or impermance begins with the yogi as just a concept then all it is at that point are words and ideas in their brains. it isn't real, it isn't seen. So, to go looking for something in reality that one essentially wouldn't be able to recognize is a waste of time and will cause much suffering I think.

Insights into truths like the three C's (what else would fit here?) have to be an original discovery of the yogi from direct equanimous perception of things. It's not a thought, or something one can figure out or analyze based on what the technique is telling them.

Fortunately, I think, if someone is doing these wonderful techniques correctly (without looking for anything specific) the three characteristics will present themselves in due course. It's just what happens. And THEN the yogi can maybe say to him or herself, for example: "oh, right, that's what the whole anatta thing is all about."

As some of you know I have a vague and undeveloped theory (that I think is actually said by a lot of teachers like Mahasi) that just the right continuity of direct perception of our experience that is developed with sufficient momentum reveals the three C's, that, in essence, the veil that hides the three C's from us is just our lack of skilled attention. That's it.

"In vipassana meditation what you name or say doesn't matter. What really matters is to know or perceive."
and
"There must be no gaps, but continuity between a preceding act of noting and a succeeding one, between a preceding state of concentration and a succeeding one, between a preceding act of intelligence and a succeeding one. Only then will there be successive and ascending stages of maturity in the mediator's understanding. Knowledge of the path and its fruition are attained only when there is this kind of accumulated momentum"
-- Mahasi Sayadaw

Right. Step one should not be to pick your favorite esoteric teaching and then try to find it or figure it out. Step one should be training in present-moment awareness, and there are a lot of ways to do this. Instead of looking for what you can't see, start with what you can see. I can't remember who said it, but there's a quote that reads, "Anything will give up its secrets if you love it enough." Love, here, is not other than careful and receptive attention. There are other strategies that sort of help the process along - like tricks of the trade (like knowing what the Three C's are in advance). But no trick can take the place of basic mindfulness and conscious receptivity of sensory experience.

Cool.

Anatta, for example, isn't the word anatta and all the things one can say or think about that word. There is ALMOST no relation between the word/concept and the thing itself.

Come to think of it, I can't think of anywhere in early Buddhist literature that describes anatta as an experience. I understand it more a truth to recognize which leads to release (nibbana, unbinding). I think the Buddha would have called awakening anatta if it was just an experience of non-self. The word nibbana is very telling, I think. Recognizing the truth of anatta leads to non-clinging, and non-clinging at its most complete is nibbana. Hmm... Just playing around with words, I guess.

Words suck.

Right, it felt funny to say 'the thing itself,' better maybe would be 'insight into the truth of' or something like that.

I guess I'm currently confused about nibbana. I guess like most people I at first thought it described some permenant or semi permenant state of bliss. Then, when that started to seem silly, I never really thought about it for a long time, until, I guess, when I started reading some of the vipassana stuff. Now I don't really know what it is, but I expect I get tastes of it fairly often but, strangely, the thing I think is the actual nibbana that I know about isn't all that great -- which then makes me think I'm wrong that I've been there.

Haha. Yeah, words are tricky. That sounds better, though. We'll never get it perfect, unfortunately :-/

The trickiness of words, the irritation we feel about them, and the uncertainties-- are great clues as to where our study/practice wants to go: it's like watching an egg rocking when the chick is doing its best to liberate itself.

From a post of triplethink's over at KFDh:

SN 44.10 Ananda Sutta: To Ananda (On Self, No Self, and Not-self) translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

Then
the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival,
exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly
greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there
he asked the Blessed One: "Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?"

When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.

"Then is there no self?"

A second time, the Blessed One was silent.

Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.

Then,
not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, Ven. Ananda said to
the Blessed One, "Why, lord, did the Blessed One not answer when asked a
question by Vacchagotta the wanderer?"

"Ananda, if I — being
asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer
that there is a self, that would be conforming with those priests &
contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is
an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the
wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self,
that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are
exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation
of consciousness]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if
there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in
keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"

"No, lord."

"And
if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self —
were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would
become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not
exist?'"

(emphasis mine)

Original post here: http://kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/thread/4409783/Is+4th+path+really+%22enlightenment%22%3F?offset=60

Done and done. Luckily, I am still able to revise the last post (hence the link that is now attached at the end). Good point Chris, no desire for ill will here!

Huh--- interesting video. I interpret the point, in relation to the thread topic, as being: when we shift from the for lack of better term raw feed of what is as it flows to the secondary level of labeling there is a shift from the natural function of things to a level of "explanation". Like once we label something as "X"-- as inertia, or subjective self-- that act of labeling enacts a total explanatory picture of inferred "realities", a total network of "explanations".

It seems like whenever we make the move from "is" to X is Y, to a sort of explanatory comment, then there is an accompanying sense of false certainty. Like we've shifted from the openness of what is, in which everything is functioning unhindered without being "known" per se, to a sort of conceptual enclosure which brings with it a total contextualization of what simply is...

This is what Heidegger meant by metaphysics, by the way-- sort of a global sense of X is Y, of beings are ... whatever a given age defines them as. Rather than opening up the basic is-ness or suchness of all beings, there is a projection or interpretation (assumed, presumed, pre-consciously inferred) that beings are... created by a creator, a substance which has attributes, the objects of a subject, conditioned and unconditioned, and so on in different "epochs" or socio-cultural spaces.

So any statement about reality which takes the form of or assumes a general definition of "things", of what it means to "be", is metaphysical in that it slides past the raw is-ness (which as we know is undefinable, even especially when it is vividly clear) into a total explanatory framework which sets everything up within a categorical structure.

So maybe the problem with these 'witch hunts" is that they are usually framed within such a metaphysical referential space, and therefor tend to confirm that referential network, rather than de-constructing the network...

Right you are sir! This reminds me of a game I used to play when I was a young kid. I would just allow my gaze to roam around my environment, and every time I had an explicit perception, I would immediately "name" it, without thinking about it any further-- like "tree, rock, grass, tree, sky, clouds, rocks..."

so I would do this for a minute or two and the 'naming" would viscerally separate from "what" was being named. the naming would just stop after I exhausted it in this way, and then everywhere I looked I would realize that I didn't know what anything was, I just assumed I did because I could name them!

I really liked this not-knowing space, which is I believe what you mean by "knowing" in which there's just direct presence of the mysterious beings we mysteriously find ourselves in the midst of, but at that age I wasn't ready to go deeply into the implications of the fact that I didn't actually, and in principle couldn't, know anything at all-- at least according to the conventional verbal-explanatory "this is that" sort of knowing.

But it was certainly a nice relief from all the knowing I was weighted down with...