Why is “identification“ with a form always problematic?

Question

I was kindly asked to rework my question as the intent - which wasn‘t clear to me from the beginning, that is why I asked the question - wasn‘t clear enough. I have now re-edited the question and thank my teacher in the comments for this exercise.

I understand that identification leads to suffering because we cling to states that are impermanent. Identification happens when we name things, feel part of them, label, or judge them. By doing so, we try to uphold a fleeting moment, which is impossible and leads to suffering.

However, I am curious about how this applies to experiencing a moment, like feeling the air on your face. This might lead to labeling the experience as "nice," which doesn’t necessarily mean I want to cling to this state, though I might feel a brief disappointment when it's gone.

Does labeling an experience intensify it, even though it might also lead to suffering by creating an attachment? Living in the "here-and-now" is easy during sensory experiences, but labeling these experiences as "good" or "bad" seems to pull us out of the present moment.

Am I understanding correctly that labeling our experiences can both enhance and diminish our perception of them? How can we experience the present moment fully without falling into the trap of labeling and attachment?

Answer 1

Labeling transforms lived experience into mental constructs. Say you take a morning walk in the woods, feeling the sun and the wind and hearing all the nature sounds: that's lived experience. Then you get home and someone asks you: "How was your walk?". There's no way to transfer that lived experience directly to the other person, so we apply a label and say "It was nice." That transfers the mental construct that the walk was a pleasant experience they might want to try themselves.

The moment we start labeling, we pull ourselves out of lived experience into mental constructs. If we stop in the middle of our walk and say: "Gosh, this is nice!", we have (for that moment) ceased to experience the walk. We have entered into thought to make a mental note that we had (to that point) been enjoying ourselves, to remind ourselves to do it more in the future or to sigh about not doing it more in the past.

Labeling focuses our attention on one specific facet of lived experience to the exclusion of all other aspects. It enhances that facet and diminishes the others by bringing the one into the foreground and pushing the rest into the background. It's like the tale of the blind men and the elephant: one grabs the trunk and labels it a snake, another grabs a leg and labels it a tree, a third grabs the tail and labels it rope… Labels are often useful, but never wholly accurate.

The issue with labeling ephemeral experiences is that the label 'sticks' even though the experience doesn't. Now that we've labeled our morning walk as 'nice, we've created an expectation, so the next morning when bound out of bed and scurry out into the woods to discover that it's all cold rain, muddy earth, and blustery winds, we feel disappointment. That's dukkha: walking in the rain can be 'nice' too, but it violates our newly solidified expectation of what a 'nice' walk 'should' be.

The last question is a bit of a mind-trap in its own right. Imagine I asked you: "How can you walk in the woods without smashing into a tree?" It's a valid question on the face of it: there are a lot of trees in a woods, and usually there's no straight-line path that avoids them all. But the point is that we don't have to think about not-smashing-into-trees; we just do it naturally as we walk. In fact, the only time we're likely to smash into a tree is if we get caught up in mind (e.g., if we're worrying about not-smashing-into-trees) and lose awareness of lived experience. So if you find yourself labeling ephemeral experiences, then (since you've slipped into mind anyway) remind yourself that you're missing the very experience you're trying to capture in a label. Then bring your attention back to the experience.

Answer 2

In Buddhism, the word 'identity' refers to 'self' rather than merely 'labelling:

"But, lady, how does self-identification come about?"

"There is the case, friend Visakha, where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

"He assumes feeling to be the self...

"He assumes perception to be the self...

"He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self...

"He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. This is how self-identification comes about."

MN 44

Similarly, the word 'attachment' refers to 'self' rather than to 'labelling':

And what is clinging (attachment)? These four are clingings: sensuality clinging, view clinging, precept & practice clinging, and doctrine of self clinging. This is called clinging.

SN 12.2

Buddhism says the end of suffering is the ending of craving & attachment rather than the end of labelling. If we read the Buddhist scriptures, the Buddha engaged in lots of labelling.

Answer 3

Labels is associated with information. Information is tied to language and language is a part of culture. We are the only species that possess an advanced culture steep in abstract meanings, concepts and ideas.

By abstracting out aspects of reality into labels, words and expressions, we are able to encode these aspects permanently, communicate and transmit information across vast space and time. Imagine a caveman who come across drawings on the cave walls depicting a hunting scene. Who left those drawings? What was the author trying to communicate and why?

We had evolved as a species with the ability to abstract information from reality. We can encode this information and transmit them across generations, hundreds and even thousands of years apart. But in the process, there are some drawbacks.

One, these abstractions (e.g. labelling) are not the real thing as @Ted Wrigley had pointed out. They often only capture a tiny part of reality and are static in nature.

Two, the moment we began to label reality (scenery, people, objects and events) we lose that deep touch with reality and enter a virtual one; one that is created and only existing in our mind. This can be illustrated by the story of Lao Tzu who forbid a student from joining him in his morning walks because the student broke the silence to remark on the beauty of the dawn.

Three, once we have a virtual reality within our mind, problems begin to appear that are unique to humans. Sometimes, these problems become so severe that they lead to serious issues such as schizophrenia, panic attacks and chronic depressions.

Four, many of these abstractions require the audience to have an understanding of the contextual background. Supposed that 5000 years from now, a researcher came across a passage written today where the author described love to be bittersweet like coffee. Now, supposed that people living 5000 years later no longer drink coffee but wild coffee plants still existed. The researcher would be puzzled as to how brewed coffee can be sweet, not knowing that it came from the sugar added.

Therefore, this ability to create abstraction of reality has its usefulness and relevancy but also its drawbacks. Sadly, an inordinate amount of our time today is spent in the virtual world we created in our mind. In reality, there is no need for us to do so as it can lead to unnecessary mental issues and lowers our mental well-being. Years ago, I heard a story about a former colleague who went to a 7-day meditation retreat. On the first day, he felt so much mental anguish that he quit the retreat and took the first plane home the very next day.

Learning to be alone, in silence with just ourselves yet feeling at peace can be very enjoyable. Drop all the labelling, it gets in the way of directly experiencing. Don’t get in the habit of living in virtual reality; just be.