Hunger

[BlueSky]

I use to think that the consciousness that I experience was some underlying essence of which I mistakenly called me only to be replaced by mistakenly believing that it was something solid, something underlying experience, some source or essence.

I have been on this journey for my whole life and I have traveled done every road imaginable, I finally can say that with regard to Buddhism that I get it.

The realization of what The Buddhas teachings were about is all very clear now. It is so obscure that no one would ever believe it and I imagine not many have. I’m left understanding why there are so many different beliefs in seeing why I never got it until now…………..the truth is unimaginable and difficult to accept unless it is found without ambition, unless it is sought for what it is, not for what one wants it to be.

With that said, I want to share this realization using hunger as an example with the hope that it will prompt discussion. I’m not trying to teach what I have realized, I’m just so blown away by it that I really want to hear what others think.

I use hunger as an example because I feel that we all see hunger as a basic need, a part of life and simply part of the way the body works not as a thing of its own perpetuating itself.

In short, there is hunger and there is hunger consciousness. Without hunger consciousness, there is no hunger. Without hunger there is no hunger consciousness. Hunger exists because it was consciously created by a consciousness that exists relative only to it because of its intent to create it.

It’s not my consciousness. It’s a consciousness that exists only relative to what is clings to because it clings to it, it feeds off of it and they feed off of each other. Consequently it grows and from it more desire, more clinging and more the reason it must continue to grow, even if it takes forever or multiple lifetimes and bodies.

Every consciousness of every part of us mentally and physically is this way, dependent and relative on that which it is conscious thru. Eye consciousness, nose consciousness, thinking consciousness, etc

This is a far stand from viewing hunger as something that I am conscious of.

The Buddha taught that actions have effects. Skillful ones have skillful effects and unskillful ones have unskillful effects. This was to help us see that we can choose to act skillfully with this discernment and thereby cause it to lose its hold on us, eventually us becoming “released” from all such clingings and stress.

For me it’s easy to see hunger as a type of stress or suffering in this light. It actually feels like stress.

To act skillfully, for me, means to first see the truth of all this and then to not feed into its cravings as much as humanly possible. I can eat so that it is not about enjoyment. I can limit myself to the kinds of food I eat so that it is not about taste and enjoyment. It is the clinging to and the craving of that feeds the consciousness we know as hunger.

Doesn’t that sound outrageous and yet doesn’t it seem to fall in line with what you’ve read about those who are enlightened. Some as far as I have heard have to be forced to eat. It’s just not on their mind to eat. They have reached a place where the fire of that consciousness has gone out because it was starved of the fuel it requires and that is craving and clinging.

It’s all a little unsettling for me but I just can’t deny this realization nor can I allow myself to try to put a spin on it to make it more palatable. I can skillfully act the best I can though.



Thoughts?

[Gem]

Well written. To me, the sensation we recognise as the body requiring nutrition is the arising in body consciousness, and the craving of food is a separate reactive psychology, like, 'I'm starving'. By this we see how egocentricity, indicated by the 'I statement', is tied to the reactivity, which is kamma, which produces results. That reactivity in the mind consciousness immediately manifests as sensation in body consciousness, as a tension of some sort, resulting from that craving anxiety.

If one can be aware of the sensation itself, but not repeat habitualised craving reactions we may be accustomed to, that breaks this particular element of the kammic cycle. We discern that the body requires nutrition by the sensation that indicates it, find that food, and enjoy the taste referred to as 'contact with taste consciousness'. From that contact feeling arises, and craving can be the reaction to that feeling, and that reaction then arises in feeling, sensation, body consciousness contact, which again can be reacted to, again manifesting in feeling, in a loop of reaction sensation reaction sensation... which gives the illusion of the ego enduring time. The reaction is created at a feel level and hence it ceases at that level - cessation of volition, cessation of kamma, cessation of false senses of self.

Eating is enjoyable in the detail of tastes and textures, but not pleasurable in that lustful, glutinous sense. Taste contact manifests in the feeling sensation, as do all contacts, and without clinging to, or anticipation for, that sensation, we can be mindful of all the details of the flavour, textures and feeling, in wonderment of how intricate it is, full well knowing the momentary nature of the experience in passing.

[BlueSky]

Thanks Gem for that explanation. It has actually allowed me to consider it all a little less stressfully. I can see from your comments that body consciousness, as an example, requires mind consciousness to induce cravings and clinging.
I was/am looking at it as if body consciousness and hunger were the result of craving and clinging which as result perpetuated body consciousness and hunger.
My way of thinking makes life itself the result of stress, the effect of stress.
Your way, seems to make more sense in that it all goes back to the mind and thus why mindfulness is stressed.
I think the source of my thinking that life is suffering and such that it either perpetuates itself or allows for it to stop within itself comes from the idea that the end of becoming is said to be the pinnacle of Buddhism.
Your way as I understand it, while I like it, seems to suggest that the pinnacle of Buddhism is to live a mindful life.
Do you know what I'm trying to say?
It's all so new to me so please bare with me. Thanks

[Gem]

Originally Posted by BlueSky

Thanks Gem for that explanation. It has actually allowed me to consider it all a little less stressfully. I can see from your comments that body consciousness, as an example, requires mind consciousness to induce cravings and clinging.
I was/am looking at it as if body consciousness and hunger were the result of craving and clinging which as result perpetuated body consciousness and hunger.
My way of thinking makes life itself the result of stress, the effect of stress.
Your way, seems to make more sense in that it all goes back to the mind and thus why mindfulness is stressed.
I think the source of my thinking that life is suffering and such that it either perpetuates itself or allows for it to stop within itself comes from the idea that the end of becoming is said to be the pinnacle of Buddhism.
Your way as I understand it, while I like it, seems to suggest that the pinnacle of Buddhism is to live a mindful life.
Do you know what I'm trying to say?
It's all so new to me so please bare with me. Thanks

At least in the tradition I'm familiar with, the enlightenment within oneself is called 'Buddha', and the formalities of the culture require aspirants to 'take refuge', which might translate as 'surrender', in the three jewels, also known as triple gem, which is what my avater name refers to. Refuge in the Buddha is the first jewel, but it was explained that 'Buddha' doesn't refer to any person, but to the enlightenment within oneself and all sentient beings. We can regard it as 'true self' or something like that. This is the wellspring of awareness, vitality and infinite love. In the non-dual discourse the conscious realisation of this is called 'enlightenment' but in Buddhist discourse this is a stage or even a beginning, for the realisation might occur to anyone at any time, and there's no way of knowing, anticipating how or why or when it will come about. What they call 'full enlightenment' refers to a complete purification of the lifeform, the utter depletion of 'sankaras', which is the work of meditation. Over the years a lot of people have altered the dhamma teachings and the practices which purify the lifeform, and there are many who realised themselves that haven't completed the purification.

[BlueSky]

Nice analogy IMO

"Just as fire is classified simply by whatever requisite condition in dependence on which it burns — a fire that burns in dependence on wood is classified simply as a wood-fire, a fire that burns in dependence on wood-chips is classified simply as a wood-chip-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on grass is classified simply as a grass-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on cow-dung is classified simply as a cow-dung-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on chaff is classified simply as a chaff-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on rubbish is classified simply as a rubbish-fire — in the same way, consciousness is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which it arises. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the eye & forms is classified simply as eye-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the ear & sounds is classified simply as ear-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the nose & aromas is classified simply as nose-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the tongue & flavors is classified simply as tongue-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the body & tactile sensations is classified simply as body-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the intellect & ideas is classified simply as intellect-consciousness."

[Gem]

Originally Posted by BlueSky

Nice analogy IMO

"Just as fire is classified simply by whatever requisite condition in dependence on which it burns — a fire that burns in dependence on wood is classified simply as a wood-fire, a fire that burns in dependence on wood-chips is classified simply as a wood-chip-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on grass is classified simply as a grass-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on cow-dung is classified simply as a cow-dung-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on chaff is classified simply as a chaff-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on rubbish is classified simply as a rubbish-fire — in the same way, consciousness is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which it arises. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the eye & forms is classified simply as eye-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the ear & sounds is classified simply as ear-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the nose & aromas is classified simply as nose-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the tongue & flavors is classified simply as tongue-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the body & tactile sensations is classified simply as body-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the intellect & ideas is classified simply as intellect-consciousness."

That does articulate the Buddhist meaning of 'consciousness' very well.

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by Gem

That does articulate the Buddhist meaning of 'consciousness' very well.

So what I am seeing as I try to put this all into practice is, for example I have noticed that sexually the body has a consciousness of its own long ago. If one tries to Sustain from sex, over time this consciousness is made this obvious.
From that I can see mindfully how the mind has learned to reacte to the bodies needs and as a result hopefully mindfully become free from that unconscious reaction.
I'm not sure where this will all lead but as a path is seems helpful and good.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by BlueSky

So what I am seeing as I try to put this all into practice is, for example I have noticed that sexually the body has a consciousness of its own long ago. If one tries to Sustain from sex, over time this consciousness is made this obvious.
From that I can see mindfully how the mind has learned to reacte to the bodies needs and as a result hopefully mindfully become free from that unconscious reaction.
I'm not sure where this will all lead but as a path is seems helpful and good.

You've described the path well, and I think that's great insight.

In the meditation school I trained in, celibacy was part of practice, 'abstain from all sexual activity' - so I think you mean abstain when you say 'sustain'. It's the same as I said before, the sensation arises we recognise as sexual arousal, just as hunger sensation arises, and people are habitualised (learned to react) into immediately reacting with craving, lust. When unsated they call it 'sexual frustration', denoting that emotional reactivity, so the practice in mindfulness is: the sensation arises, and one can notice their mental/emotional reactivity which goes with it, so it is no longer unconscious, and being conscious of this reactivity to sensation means the 'frustration' can't play out as automated habit - rather it is understood with insight - and when a person can observe this without any objective to change it, fix it, satisfy it or make it go away, they are no longer compelled to act upon reactivity to their sensations. The now consciously aware person finds the sensation rises up, and later it goes away, without them doing anything, and as such a transient, impermanent experience, it loses importance. Thus reactivity to it subsides, and the mind settle into equanimity. Henceforth, sexual arousal (or other sensation) may arise and the past sankara/old emotion attached to it may also arise, but no reaction anymore, - just better conscious awareness and insightful understanding - no more reaction, no new sankara. The old sankara arising, revealed to conscious awareness and thus dissolving away.

In everyday life, sexual abstinence is not going to be cool... It makes no difference difference anyway if one still has all other distractions, computers, phones, music, everywhere, doorbells, conversations and the rest. In a monastic context - all day meditation on long retreats away from all daily life distractions - only then would celibacy be relevant or beneficial.

The way I look at it is a bit simpler, so for example, imagine an itch appears somewhere on the body - we are used to immediatly scratching it to relieve that adverse sensation, but imagine for some reason you couldn't scratch it, then it starts to drive you nuts - and you start to notice the highly reactive aversion you tend to. Soon enough, within but a few minutes, the itch goes away all by itself even though you didn't scratch it. Next time an itch arises you already know it will intensify, but then go away in a minute or two, so this time you don;t react quite so srtongly. The next time you're already accustomed, this will pass, and it doesn;t drive you crazy at all. After say 10 times, an itch arises and you are in no way disturbed by it, no reaction at all - complete equanimity with the itch sensation...

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by Gem

You've described the path well, and I think that's great insight.

In the meditation school I trained in, celibacy was part of practice, 'abstain from all sexual activity' - so I think you mean abstain when you say 'sustain'. It's the same as I said before, the sensation arises we recognise as sexual arousal, just as hunger sensation arises, and people are habitualised (learned to react) into immediately reacting with craving, lust. When unsated they call it 'sexual frustration', denoting that emotional reactivity, so the practice in mindfulness is: the sensation arises, and one can notice their mental/emotional reactivity which goes with it, so it is no longer unconscious, and being conscious of this reactivity to sensation means the 'frustration' can't play out as automated habit - rather it is understood with insight - and when a person can observe this without any objective to change it, fix it, satisfy it or make it go away, they are no longer compelled to act upon reactivity to their sensations. The now consciously aware person finds the sensation rises up, and later it goes away, without them doing anything, and as such a transient, impermanent experience, it loses importance. Thus reactivity to it subsides, and the mind settle into equanimity. Henceforth, sexual arousal (or other sensation) may arise and the past sankara/old emotion attached to it may also arise, but no reaction anymore, - just better conscious awareness and insightful understanding - no more reaction, no new sankara. The old sankara arising, revealed to conscious awareness and thus dissolving away.

In everyday life, sexual abstinence is not going to be cool... It makes no difference difference anyway if one still has all other distractions, computers, phones, music, everywhere, doorbells, conversations and the rest. In a monastic context - all day meditation on long retreats away from all daily life distractions - only then would celibacy be relevant or beneficial.

The way I look at it is a bit simpler, so for example, imagine an itch appears somewhere on the body - we are used to immediatly scratching it to relieve that adverse sensation, but imagine for some reason you couldn't scratch it, then it starts to drive you nuts - and you start to notice the highly reactive aversion you tend to. Soon enough, within but a few minutes, the itch goes away all by itself even though you didn't scratch it. Next time an itch arises you already know it will intensify, but then go away in a minute or two, so this time you don;t react quite so srtongly. The next time you're already accustomed, this will pass, and it doesn;t drive you crazy at all. After say 10 times, an itch arises and you are in no way disturbed by it, no reaction at all - complete equanimity with the itch sensation...

Yes for me it was with the case of a bad habit, smoking cigars, and the hold it had on me, that recognizing the the urge goes away as quick as it rises that gave me strength.
I have no intentions such as giving up sex or eating chocolate cake but I also have no intentions to continue. I really want to simply be mindful with this understanding of consciousness and see where it goes. I can see why the middle way is important though otherwise you might be inclined to stop eating
altogether
Thank you for your response.

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by Bohdiyana

That's the way I see it too. Being aware of what is present, changes what is present and opens up new choices and experiences. It's like being unaware an ant is on your arm, so then the itching without an awareness of the cause is one thing, then if you become aware there is an ant there, now the experience is something else. All that was added there was more awareness of what was, but then this new element, "aware of more," in itself brings in a whole new range of new stuff. The awareness of what is there, (here) changes your relationship with it and introduces new choices in action and experience. "Understanding of consciousness," well we are consciousness, so it is about understanding ourselves, or having an awareness and understanding of what we are, and are not.

It's different for me. It's not about expectations of new stuff nor is it looked at from any thoughts of what I or am not.
It's simply being mindful from the perspective that what arises does so because it is fueled by the consciousness that it arises from. That consciousness does not exist the way the mind spins it and it is not apart from what it is made conscious thru.
What you are saying here, if it was me saying it, would be creating more clinging and more dependent consciousness that I need to be mindful of in order to halt.