Hopefully Thusness and Simpo would comment too. In summary:
Buddhism is about the deconstruction of perception through insight,
so that proliferation (conceptualizing, perceiving constructs, and
craving) can end.
I was contemplating on whether sense of self still arise
nowadays and notice that despite nonduality and anatta (I no longer
conceive a dualistic agent or perceiver), sometimes there is the
bodily sensation of tension (even though it appears that the mind
is very calm but strangely these bodily sensations arise under
especially challenging circumstances - even though it is not
often). It is an entirely impersonal process, that occurs via
latent tendencies, via dependent origination. It is like a sense of
tension, even if there is no mental commentary. It doesn't stick,
but it can still arise. There is also still habitual seeking after
pleasant experiences, even if it is apparently harmless stuff like
music. I think all these are sense of self. Sense of self arise
whenever there is a perception, sign, or construct of something
inherent. ANY construct... is a construct of self, of some 'thing'.
The sense of self lives in constructs of I, me, mine, and
objects.
I think Buddha here below is saying any form of craving at all =
sense of self. Yes, if there is no sense of posessiveness, (I, me,
mine) how can there be at all any craving or fear or affliction? It
is quite subtle but also apparent.
The commentator says “This second approach is the one
recommended in this discourse: when the Buddha talks of "smashing,
scattering, & demolishing form (etc.) and making it unfit for
play," he is referring to the practice of analyzing form minutely
into its component parts until it no longer seems a fit object for
passion & delight. When all five aggregates can be treated in
this way, the mind is left with no conditioned object to serve as a
focal point for its passion, and so is released — at the very least
— to the stage of Awakening called non-return.“
In other words, no craving can arise without a craving after a
sign, and a sign means a perception or construct of something
pleasant. If there is no signs at all due to full deconstruction,
there cannot be an object of craving! Thereby ending attraction,
clinging to, to sense pleasures, to forms, to the formless, or to
the opposite sex (or same sex for some), or any kind of sexual
craving.
Those who still likes good food, sex, rest, money, women, etc
etc, I do not consider him as having overcome craving. There are
those like Actualist Richard who likes sex and smoking and yet
claim to have no craving. I do not consider him as being honest.
Frankly it is bullshit to me. To be honest, at a certain phase of
my practice I too thought I have overcome such 'emotions' but upon
much reflection I think what I wrote is bullshit (ok, maybe not
entirely bullshit but somewhat exaggerated) so I edited my preface
2. I don't really lust after girls nowadays unlike in the past (or
guys for that matter just in case you think I'm gay haha) and I
have serious doubts I am going to get married (but shall see, lol,
I definitely prefer liberation over marriage ;) ), but I still
listen to music, eat my snacks, and occasionally even go for
parties and dance (if my friends invites me that is). I don't
notice much 'craving' but how can I deny that there is this
tendency and subtle almost subconscious and habitual urge which
drives this process of going after what is sensually pleasant!
In other words, even though strong passions no longer
arise, there is still a subtle preference for the pleasant over the
unpleasant. Yes it appears even in my experience that such
passions can be dwindled to a large degree and is replaced by an
effortless ongoing flow of pure and naked apperceptive awareness
without a 'self' (like even right now, there is simply the intimate
and pure sensate clarity/experience of hearing/sound, seeing/sight,
typing, no sense of self/Self whatsoever), so I do not doubt that
there is certainly a significant change after anatta which does
sometimes give the mistaken impression that one has 'overcome' -
but I do not believe there can be actions of seeking after sensual
pleasures if there is no craving fuelling them, however subtle they
may be compared to before. Afterall the Buddha made clear that
Arahants who overcome craving cannot possibly have sex. Why?
Because sexual acts require sexual and sensual arousal which
requires the perception and sign of pleasantness and its craving
for sustenance.
By the way readers, I do not imply that Buddhism is only those
who give up sex and sensual pleasures. You can still progress quite
far without giving up lay life and sensual enjoyments of such
nature. The Buddha in the suttas made it very clear that hundreds
and thousands of his lay students continue to enjoy sensual
pleasures while in the stream-entry and once-returner level of
awakening (also, despite realization of twofold emptiness,
afflictions like craving are only lessened in 2nd bhumi and totally
removed in 8th bhumi in the Mahayana Bodhisattva scheme). It is
just that when you transit to non-returner, you will naturally give
up such pleasures because there is no more craving after them.
My point is just this: do not think that you have reach
there if you still have any form of craving after sensual
experience!!!
So back to topic - everything in buddhism is about deconstruction.
Even the contemplation of the impurity of the body is to
deconstruct the body into its impure constituents through insight
so that there is no longer this solid image of something pleasant
to crave after!
It is like a person with an eye disease, that when
looking from afar appears to see a paradise - but when walking
nearer to the object discovers that there is no paradise over there
- it is a mere illusion! Similarly, all signs of attractiveness are
due to poor-sight, poor vision, of the way things are.
Someone with little insight looks at a girl and grows
infatuated, dwells into the sign of attractiveness of the body. But
one with insight is like the person with eye-disease walking closer
to the object. It is to discern and contemplate what exactly is the
'body' that he/she is attracted to? Is it really a solid entity? Is
it something really attractive? With clear discernment, one
discovers that the body is empty of any substantial entity that is
attractive - it is just a convention for a conglomerate of impure
parts - ‘In this body there are head-hairs, body-hairs, nails,
teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, bone-marrow, kidneys, heart,
liver, diaphragm, spleen, lungs, intestines, mesentery, contents of
the stomach, feces, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears,
grease, spittle, snot, oil of the joints, and urine.’
Please do not misunderstand that the Buddha is being
pessimistic - the Buddha simply wanted us to take a closer look at
our object of attraction to discern what exactly is it that we are
attracted to! He wasn't a pessimist, he was simply being realistic,
he wants us to see the nature of reality. And to our surprise, the
object of our craving is really NOTHING AT ALL like what we had in
mind...
And what about things like music? Even the desire for music
depends on the idea that there is 'something' there for you to
cling to, to crave for. But there is absolutely nothing at all - in
impermanent, insubstantial, dependently originated and empty
sensations and sounds that can be an object of clinging! There is
absolutely nothing that is I, me, mine, or having substantial
existence that could be an object of clinging. Nothing is
permanent, nothing pertains to self, nothing is not suffering, and
nothing is not empty.
Next time you have a strong craving for something - for
example, a girl, then ask yourself, what is it about the girl I
like? Her voice? Her voice is also a name for many audible tones,
which are impermanent, dependently originated, empty. Her body? But
body is also a name, what is it do you like? The skin? The skin is
just a scaly 'thing' covering the body. How is it attractive? The
eyes? If I gourge out the eyes, is it attractive? Etc
etc...
Or if you have strong craving for ice cream, what about
ice cream do I like? The taste? The taste too is more flickering,
empty, dependently originated sensations...
ungraspable.
A song? What about the song do I like? The drum beat?
The 'ting' sound? The notion of a 'pleasant song' too is an empty
construct! We link up the notes into one
substantial 'pleasant sign' which we crave after...
So deconstruction leads to the end of craving by exposing the
self and objects of clinging as what they are - phantasms. There is
just the audible-emptiness, tactile-emptiness, visual-emptiness,
etc - emptiness and form inseparable. Luminosity and emptiness
inseparable. Self-liberating!
There is no self, no music, no body, no ice cream, no life, no
death...!
Don't talk about self-liberation before going through this
thorough deconstruction. Engaging in craving, mistaking
proliferation for awakened mind is the greatest disease - the most
pathetic mistake!
SN 23.2
PTS: S iii 189
CDB i 985
Satta Sutta: A Being
translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
© 1999–2012
Translator's note: A number of discourses (among them, SN
35.191; AN 6.63) make the point that the mind is fettered, not by
things like the five aggregates or the objects of the six senses,
but by the act of passion & delight for them. There are two
ways to try to cut through this fetter. One is to focus on the
drawbacks of passion & delight in & of themselves, seeing
clearly the stress & suffering they engender in the mind. The
other is to analyze the objects of passion & delight in such a
way that they no longer seem worthy of interest. This second
approach is the one recommended in this discourse: when the Buddha
talks of "smashing, scattering, & demolishing form (etc.) and
making it unfit for play," he is referring to the practice of
analyzing form minutely into its component parts until it no longer
seems a fit object for passion & delight. When all five
aggregates can be treated in this way, the mind is left with no
conditioned object to serve as a focal point for its passion, and
so is released — at the very least — to the stage of Awakening
called non-return.
I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near
Savatthi at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Then Ven.
Radha went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to
him sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed
One: "'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one
said to be 'a being'?"
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one
is caught up[1] there, tied up[2] there, one is said to be 'a
being.'[3]
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling...
perception... fabrications...
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha:
when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a
being.'
"Just as when boys or girls are playing with little sand
castles:[4] as long as they are not free from passion, desire,
love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand castles,
that's how long they have fun with those sand castles, enjoy them,
treasure them, feel possessive of them. But when they become free
from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those
little sand castles, then they smash them, scatter them, demolish
them with their hands or feet and make them unfit for play.
"In the same way, Radha, you too should smash, scatter, &
demolish form, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending
of craving for form.
"You should smash, scatter, & demolish feeling, and make it
unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for
feeling.
"You should smash, scatter, & demolish perception, and make it
unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for
perception.
"You should smash, scatter, & demolish fabrications, and make
them unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for
fabrications.
"You should smash, scatter, & demolish consciousness and make
it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for
consciousness — for the ending of craving, Radha, is
Unbinding."
Notes
1.
Satta.
2.
Visatta.
3.
Satta.
4.
Lit.: "dirt houses."
Phena Sutta:
"Now suppose that a magician or magician's apprentice were to
display a magic trick at a major intersection, and a man
with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, &
appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing
it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear
empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be
in a magic trick? In the same way, a monk sees, observes,
& appropriately examines any consciousness that is past,
future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common
or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, &
appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without
substance: for what substance would there be in
consciousness?
"Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows
disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted
with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with
consciousness. Disenchanted, he grows dispassionate. Through
dispassion, he's released. With release there's the knowledge,
'Released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life
fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this
world.'"