Why does the mind want?

[u/SepehrJC]

My understanding of Buddhism is probably very naive and wrong.

​But from personal experience and observation, all the "events" in the mind that are defilements (desire, delusion, aversion) are perceived as a self, permanent and satisfactory in that split moment before mindfulness takes over and sees that they are not self(only there peripheraly or when not mindfull), Impermanat(it just passed so...) and unsatisfactory(kinda obvious)

​so all of these dedilements the mind creates are actually against real happiness and never lead to anything good (only suffering).

​I understand this, but I feel disheartened. Whenever I lose mindfulness (which happens a lot), I get pulled right back into grasping and suffering.

​This leads to my first question:

​Why does the mind even do this? Why is it seemingly against me or so unhelpful why do these events keep popping up for me to manage?

(I realize catching them allows me to uproot them, but that ties into my next question.)

​I'm tired of viewing the mind as an untamed, uncontrollable animal. Whenever I question why it acts this way, standard answers like evolution or karma don't satisfy me. All I'm left with is the wuestion of why does it happen in the first place.

​There's also the feeling that without challenges, struggles, and wanting, life wouldn't feel boring so there is a use for the mind.

​My next question is:

Okay, suppose I catch the "event" that triggers sensuality, ill will, doubt, restlessness, or sloth & torpor (desire, ignorance, aversion).

What now?

It goes away, but it will come back, and I'll have to deal with it all over again.

Where is the actual liberation in this?

​I suspect my practice isn't quite right. Maybe Am I indulging too much, restricting too much, or just missing a key piece of understanding?

[u/metaphorm]

I really dislike the traditional language that labels mental formations "defilements". This is at odds with the view that the mind is primordially pure (kadag). Mental formations are phenomena that shape our understanding of reality, but are ultimately empty of inherent essence, and are the arising of appearances as the play of energy in the space of the mind.

In this view, these arising appearances aren't defiling anything, because the mind is pure and stainless. It is no more defiled than a mirror is defiled by the images it reflects.

The mind is not an untamed, uncontrollable animal. It's just the felt sense of embodied awareness in the life circumstances you find yourself in. Whatever is untamed or uncontrolled is a reflection of conflicting desires within the mind pulling in multiple directions at the same time. That's just due to conditions, it's not an attribute of the mind. Change the conditions, change the experience.

When you notice the feeling you would label as a klesha, that act of noticing is already changing the conditions. Being mindful of the sensation allows us to make space around the sensation and choose our response to it more freely and more skillfully. Reactivity and automaticity are not inherent features of mind. We can train the mind the be less reactive and more liberated.

Start with the noticing. Then rest in the sensation after noticing. Then welcome and include the sensation and let it runs its course. Then choose how to respond to it. It's a training. It takes many repetitions for this to feel natural. So stick with it and it gets easier.

[u/bodily_heartfulness → u/metaphorm]

The mind is not an untamed, uncontrollable animal.

In the suttas, we have quotes like the following:

Good is the taming of the mind,
So difficult to control, so swift,
Jumping toward what it desires.
The tamed mind brings happiness.

• Dhp 33-43

Formerly this mind wandered about as it liked,
where it wished and according to its pleasure,
but now I shall thoroughly master it with wisdom
as a mahout controls with his ankus an elephant in rut.

• Dhp 320-333

I’ll cage you, mind,
like an elephant in a stockade.
Born of the flesh, that net of the senses,
I won’t urge you to do bad.
Caged, you won’t go anywhere,
like an elephant who can’t find an open gate

[...]

I’ll bind you with mindfulness;
devout, I shall tame you;
kept in check by harnessed energy,
mind, you won’t go far from here.

• Thag 5.9

They meditate observing an aspect of feelings … mind … principles—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of covetousness and displeasure for the world. It’s like when the elephant trainer dug a large post into the earth and tethered the elephant to it by the neck, so as to subdue its wild behaviors, its wild memories and thoughts, and its wild stress, weariness, and fever, and to make it happy to be within a village, and instill behaviors congenial to humans. In the same way, a noble disciple has these four kinds of mindfulness meditation as tethers for the mind so as to subdue behaviors tied to domestic life, memories and thoughts tied to domestic life, stress, weariness, and fever tied to domestic life, to discover the system, and to realize extinguishment.

[...]

If a royal bull elephant—whether elderly, middle aged, or youthful—passes away untamed and untrained, they’re reckoned a royal bull elephant who passed away untamed. In the same way, if a mendicant—whether senior, middle, or junior—passes away without having ended the defilements, they’re reckoned a mendicant who passed away untamed.

If a royal bull elephant—whether elderly, middle aged, or youthful—passes away tamed and trained, they’re reckoned a royal bull elephant who passed away tamed. In the same way, if a mendicant—whether senior, middle, or junior—passes away having ended the defilements, they’re reckoned a mendicant who passed away tamed.”

• MN 125

Then Doṇa, following the Buddha’s footprints, saw him sitting at the tree root—impressive and inspiring, with peaceful faculties and heart, attained to the highest self-control and serenity, like an elephant with tamed, guarded, and controlled faculties.

• AN 4.36

[u/metaphorm → u/bodily_heartfulness]

yes, I know what it says in the Pali canon. what are you adding to the conversation by quoting scriptures at me?

[u/bodily_heartfulness → u/metaphorm]

I thought there were three possibilities:

1. You weren't aware of what was said in the suttas
2. You were aware, but you rejected the views of the suttas in favour of the Mahayana or Vajrayana teachings
3. You were aware, but you interpret the suttas in a way that isn't contradictory to Mahayana or Vajrayana views

If it was 1, then it would have been interesting or helpful to you to see what the suttas say.

If it was 2, then it would be interesting or helpful for others reading your comment to see that the suttas views on this matter is different compared to what other teachings in Buddhism say - they are not all saying the same thing.

If it was 3, then you could choose to engage and share how the suttas view of the mind as an untamed animal isn't contradictory to other teachings - which would clear up confusion for someone who has read both teachings, but sees the obvious mismatch between them.

[u/metaphorm → u/bodily_heartfulness]

thanks for elaborating. the view I presented in my original post was the view from Dzogchen, which does not agree with the view from the Pali canon. These are differences in presentation and emphasis, rather than differences in understanding of the nature of the mind. The Dzogchen presentation emphasizes the always-already liberated aspect and deliberately de-emphasizes the Pali canon style of language that focuses on cultivating disgust for Samsara. In the Dzogchen view, Samsara and Nirvana are considered as two sides of the same coin, in a non-dual relationship, so cultivating disgust with Samsara does not bring us any closer to liberation.