Return to Answer

“While experiencing that same painful feeling, he harbors aversion toward it. When he harbors aversion toward painful feeling, the underlying tendency to aversion toward painful feeling lies behind this. While experiencing painful feeling, he seeks delight in sensual pleasure. For what reason? Because the uninstructed worldling does not know of any escape from painful feeling other than sensual pleasure. When he seeks delight in sensual pleasure, the underlying tendency to lust for pleasant feeling lies behind this. He does not understand as it really is the origin and the passing away, the gratification, the danger, and the escape in the case of these feelings. When he does not understand these things, the underlying tendency to ignorance in regard to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling lies behind this.

 

“If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it attached. If he feels a painful feeling, he feels it attached. If he feels a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he feels it attached. This, monks, is called an uninstructed worldling who is attached to birth, aging, and death; who is attached to sorrow, lamentation, pain, dejection, and despair; who is attached to suffering, I say.

“While experiencing that same painful feeling, he harbors aversion toward it. When he harbors aversion toward painful feeling, the underlying tendency to aversion toward painful feeling lies behind this. While experiencing painful feeling, he seeks delight in sensual pleasure. For what reason? Because the uninstructed worldling does not know of any escape from painful feeling other than sensual pleasure. When he seeks delight in sensual pleasure, the underlying tendency to lust for pleasant feeling lies behind this. He does not understand as it really is the origin and the passing away, the gratification, the danger, and the escape in the case of these feelings. When he does not understand these things, the underlying tendency to ignorance in regard to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling lies behind this.

“If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it attached. If he feels a painful feeling, he feels it attached. If he feels a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he feels it attached. This, monks, is called an uninstructed worldling who is attached to birth, aging, and death; who is attached to sorrow, lamentation, pain, dejection, and despair; who is attached to suffering, I say.

Here is the bad way to relate to the senses:

“While experiencing that same painful feeling, he harbors aversion toward it. When he harbors aversion toward painful feeling, the underlying tendency to aversion toward painful feeling lies behind this. While experiencing painful feeling, he seeks delight in sensual pleasure. For what reason? Because the uninstructed worldling does not know of any escape from painful feeling other than sensual pleasure. When he seeks delight in sensual pleasure, the underlying tendency to lust for pleasant feeling lies behind this. He does not understand as it really is the origin and the passing away, the gratification, the danger, and the escape in the case of these feelings. When he does not understand these things, the underlying tendency to ignorance in regard to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling lies behind this.

“If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it attached. If he feels a painful feeling, he feels it attached. If he feels a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he feels it attached. This, monks, is called an uninstructed worldling who is attached to birth, aging, and death; who is attached to sorrow, lamentation, pain, dejection, and despair; who is attached to suffering, I say.

-- From SN 36:6, cited in In the Buddha's Words

here is the proper way to relate to the ''world''

“Seeing thus, monks, the instructed noble disciple becomes disenchanted with the eye, with forms, with eye-consciousness, with eye-contact, with whatever feeling arises with eye-contact as condition—whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant; becomes disenchanted with the ear … with the mind … with whatever feeling arises with mind-contact as condition…. Becoming disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion [his mind] is liberated. When it is liberated there comes the knowledge: ‘It’s liberated.’ He understands: ‘Destroyed is birth, the spiritual life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more coming back to any state of being.’”

-- From SN 35:28, cited in In the Buddha's Words

Yes the puthujjanas are obsessed with what they feel and phenomenology. Some even ask what does it feel like to be an arhant.

Anyway, since you care about what you feel, the only experience felt that you should care about is the jhanas, certainly not the sensual experience, and the of course in details it is piti, sukkha, samadhi and so on.

THe way to judge the result of your knowledge of the dhamma is certainly not to spend your energy writing about who you feel music or how you feel the taste of some food, or the scent of rubber . THe first famous step is the lack of doubt in the dhamma and of course the lack of ''sakkāya-diṭṭhi''.

If you want to know what the lack of ''sakkāya-diṭṭhi'' is all about, you can read https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.089.than.html and his statements like

"In the same way, friends, it's not that I say 'I am form,' nor do I say 'I am other than form.' It's not that I say, 'I am feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness,' nor do I say, 'I am something other than consciousness.' With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, 'I am' has not been overcome, although I don't assume that 'I am this.'

that's all there is to the lack of ''sakkāya-diṭṭhi'' . the lack of ''sakkāya-diṭṭhi'' is itself a label regrouping all the statements in this quote.

I you want to now what ''''sakkāya-diṭṭhi'''' is all about, since you are a puthujjana, you already naturally regards the ''5 aggregates'' as ''I am this'' and even more stupid from you, you turn that into a ''I am'', typically by regarding as and calling them ''mine''. You have been doing this for many years already, so no need to explain more. Once you no longer regard any aggregate as ''mine'' you can claim that you lack ''sakkāya-diṭṭhi''. So ask yourself

"Concerning these five clinging-aggregates described by the Blessed One — i.e., form as a clinging-aggregate, feeling as a clinging-aggregate, perception as a clinging-aggregate, fabrications as a clinging-aggregate, consciousness as a clinging-aggregate: Do I assume anything with regard to these five clinging-aggregates to be self or belonging to self?"'"

If you reply by yes, then you are a puthujjana.

If you reply by

"Friend, concerning these five clinging-aggregates described by the Blessed One — i.e., form as a clinging-aggregate... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness as a clinging-aggregate: With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, there is nothing I assume to be self or belonging to self."

then you lack of ''sakkāya-diṭṭhi''.

Yes the puthujjanas are obsessed with what they feel and phenomenology. Some even ask what does it feel like to be an arhant.

Anyway, since you care about what you feel, the only experience felt that you should care about is the jhanas, certainly not the sensual experience, and the of course in details it is piti, sukkha, samadhi and so on.

THe way to judge the result of your knowledge of the dhamma is certainly not to spend your energy writing about who you feel music or how you feel the taste of some food, or the scent of rubber . THe first famous step is the lack of doubt in the dhamma and of course the lack of ''sakkāya-diṭṭhi''.

If you want to know what the lack of ''sakkāya-diṭṭhi'' is all about, you can read https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.089.than.html and his statements like

"In the same way, friends, it's not that I say 'I am form,' nor do I say 'I am other than form.' It's not that I say, 'I am feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness,' nor do I say, 'I am something other than consciousness.' With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, 'I am' has not been overcome, although I don't assume that 'I am this.'

that's all there is to the lack of ''sakkāya-diṭṭhi'' . the lack of ''sakkāya-diṭṭhi'' is itself a label regrouping all the statements in this quote.

I you want to now what ''''sakkāya-diṭṭhi'''' is all about, since you are a puthujjana, you already naturally regards the ''5 aggregates'' as ''I am this'' and even more stupid from you, you turn that into a ''I am'', typically by regarding as and calling them ''mine''. You have been doing this for many years already, so no need to explain more. Once you no longer regard any aggregate as ''mine'' you can claim that you lack ''sakkāya-diṭṭhi''. So ask yourself

"Concerning these five clinging-aggregates described by the Blessed One — i.e., form as a clinging-aggregate, feeling as a clinging-aggregate, perception as a clinging-aggregate, fabrications as a clinging-aggregate, consciousness as a clinging-aggregate: Do I assume anything with regard to these five clinging-aggregates to be self or belonging to self?"'"

If you reply by yes, then you are a puthujjana.

If you reply by

"Friend, concerning these five clinging-aggregates described by the Blessed One — i.e., form as a clinging-aggregate... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness as a clinging-aggregate: With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, there is nothing I assume to be self or belonging to self."

then you lack of ''sakkāya-diṭṭhi''.

Later on, you can wonder if you have a natural lack craving towards the senses and ill-will to see if you are at the next stage.