No one wants sensuality
A summarized transcription of the video No One Wants Sensuality.
Source PDF
Q: Bhante, you once said that the only reason one gives into sensuality is because one doesn't want it. What do you mean by that?
Ajahn Nyanamoli (Nm): Well, what I meant was that universally, literally every human mind, regardless of the culture, education or religion, when a desire in regard to anything obtainable through the senses arises, that desire is oppressing. Desire is a need, a thirst, a hunger, it pressures you to act. You don't have to act and that's the whole point. As a human being you have a choice. But when desire arises, the automatic response is to give into that pressure of desire, and why would you be giving into the pressure of any desire? It's because it's unpleasant. If the pressure of the desire is neutral or pleasant, you wouldn't then make any effort and spend time trying to gain what your desire wants, because you'll already be at ease. But that desire is already unpleasant and in order for you to try and deal with that displeasure, you just give in to whatever the desire promises. That's what I mean, by engaging in sensuality, you do so to be free from the sensual pressure of the desire. When people say, "No, I enjoy my senses." That's a mistake, because if they were to stop and think, "When there is an unsatisfied desire, is that pleasant? Is that what I want?" They would realise that it isn't, or, "Can I fulfil desire by giving in to it?" No, you can never fulfil desire, because the point of desire is to stay a desire.
Q: It's based on non-satisfaction.
Nm: Exactly, it requires non-satisfaction for it to be. That's why if you stop and think about it you realise the only reason you are engaged with sensuality is because the pressure of sensual desire is unpleasant and you don't know any other escape from that pressure other than the temporary release of sensual indulgence.
That's the whole point, whenever you encounter any form of displeasure, your only way of trying to deal with it is through acts of sensuality, which is why and how people turn to food, music, sexual intercourse or even meditation hoping for some pleasurable experience to lift them up when they're feeling down or depressed, they just commit harder to sensual activity, because that's the only thing that seemingly relieves oneself of that pressure. However, you're just making it worse because the more you're dependent on running away from that pressure of sensual desire, the more pressure that desire will exercise over you.
Q: So what should you do?
Nm: Well,in a way, you don't have to do anything. If you start seeing your own sensual desires as something that's controlling you, something that you are enslaved by, then you have to start seeing that 'nature' before you give into the desire. And then it becomes obvious, clear as day, that it's very unpleasant. Even sometimes when you can satisfy your desires, but maybe not quick enough, that's unpleasant. Either way, that desire is rooted in a disagreeable feeling, i.e. that pressure that's very unpleasant. So if you want to free yourself from it, you have to first start restraining your senses and from making it worse through giving in to that pressure of desire.
You're training yourself to be stronger than something else. But in order to start doing that, you need to start resisting that thing. If you just habitually give into desire, and at the same time expect to somehow magically be free from the pressure of the desire, well that's just a contradiction in terms. Restraint needs to come first if you want to be free from desire. Then the obvious painful nature of the desire in itself becomes apparent. Initially when people start restraining, they notice more pain and they assume that it's because of their restraint. But it isn't. The restraint cannot cause you pain, it can only reveal the underlying pain of the desire that is already there.
Imagine that you're tied to five powerful animals and they are running towards the objects of their desire, you naturally run with them to avoid that extra painful pull that you will experience if you try standing your ground. The animals are stronger than you, they pull you. It's unpleasant. But that doesn't mean that that initial pain is not there if you run with them. Running with them enables them to pull you even harder. So initially, you have to accept that sharp pain of restraint, which eventually you can see that actually it's not the restraint that's the problem, the restraint just shows you what happens when these animals are pulling in their respective domains. If the animals wouldn't be pulling, there wouldn't be any pain revealed by the restraint. Imagine the animals are tamed and calm, and they just move around slowly and you can just remain seated and not have to run with them. You are restrained, the senses are tamed and there is no pull, no pain.
It's something anybody could benefit from, just learning how to say no to themselves, gradually, in regards to this and that, in regard to unnecessary things like luxuries and indulgences. Because each time you give in carelessly like that, the animals get more to feed on which means they get more powerful, which means each time they pull you, you'll be less and less able to resist those desires.
Quite often, and I'm pretty sure many people can relate, your own desires take you to places you don't want to be, that you know you will regret even before you go there, yet you can't help it and you're just dragged there. How will it then be when old age or sickness sets in? When your senses start to fail, yet your mind is fully dependent on that pleasure that you get from that temporary satisfaction of your desires. When the only resemblance of relief from any disagreeable feelings, is now taken away. When the senses can't enjoy sense objects anymore, when eyes can barely see, when it's hard to hear, when it's difficult to chew, when the body doesn't move correctly, when it's not young and doesn't have that much energy. Yet your mind is dependent on that constant chasing after sense pleasures and now that's just taken away. How will it be when the unpleasant feelings arise, and they will, and you have even less ground to deal with it.
Q: It will feel like an unwanted solitary confinement.
Nm: Exactly. That's why people are terrified of solitude. They can no longer escape what they have been running away from.
I don't agree, at least not as a universal rule. People do actively enjoy moving toward the fulfillment of desire. We often actively build up our desire before we fulfill it, even adding impediments that are not there naturally, because the process — rather than the final end state — can be quite enjoyable. Merely because the first step of this process (building anticipation) is predicated on the second step (fulfilling anticipation) does not mean that the first step is unpleasant.
To give a more concrete example, I enjoy making art. In fact, I enjoy making art so much that I prefer it to having already made the art. I will often spend a very long time on a piece of art — sometimes overworking it and ruining it because I don't want to stop — and then I do not care what happens to the art afterwards. I will draw pictures in the sand, and then smooth them over when I'm done so that I can start drawing again. However, I am not interested in drawing random lines; instead I take pleasure in drawing toward some goal, and the more effectively I move toward that goal, especially if it is a challenging goal, the more pleased I am in my journey. In other words, the journey is pleasurable because the destination generates anticipation.
We see this same pattern throughout other aspects of life: Reading a good book is more enjoyable than having already finished a book. Playing a fun video game is more enjoyable than having already finished a video game. Partaking in an interesting conversation is more enjoyable than having already finished a conversation. We are creatures of movement.
What is being talked about precedes what you are thinking of. What you gave as examples of pleasurable activities are the acting out of sensuality. The sensuality is what motivates one to act. The act might have pleasurable feelings, but the sensuality is not pleasant. This becomes evident if you practice restraint towards your sensuality i.e. not act out of your sensuality. Not acting out of sensuality is commonly mistaken as a source of unpleasant feelings, but it is not the case; it is the sensuality that is unpleasant. Sensuality is painful, so we act to manage that pain. Not acting out of sensuality only makes us more aware of the discomfort of sensuality. An analogy can be a heavy backpack; it burdens the wearer and hurts the wear's body. The wear shifts the backpack around trying to get some relief from the weight, and there are some moments of relief, but never an unburdening. The weight of the backpack is still there; the backpack is painful to wear, even if there are pleasant moments of relief from shifting and squirming under the weight. The real solution is figuring out how to become unburdened.
It seems this is an unusual definition of "sensuality" then, or at least not a definition that I am familiar with. Can you explain what is meant by it here?
I am also confused by the backpack analogy. If I am in the spirit of the challenge, I find the burden of a heavy backpack to be enjoyable, so long as I ensure it does not cause me injury (which may require me to shift it away from areas on my body that have begun to chafe or bruise). The pain is how my body tells me that I am being injured, but if I remove the injury, then I can return to backpacking with pleasure and enjoy the healthful benefits of it.
Is it your opinion that should eliminate fulfilling burdens and challenges from our lives, or are you talking about things that are actively harmful to us even when we can take steps to make them seem less harmful (such as taking a painkiller to mask the symptoms of an illness, when the ideal would be to treat the illness itself)?
Here a part of a discourse by the Buddha that explains what is meant by sensuality. The verse portion is particularly important.
— AN 6.63
Most people have never not known the burden of sensuality (the backpack), to the point it isn't recognized as a burden. Their whole experience is imbued with sensuality that it is unnoticed/invisible. There isn't a knowledge of how become unburdened from sensuality, or even that it is an option. The backpack has been on before birth, and there wearer doesn't know how to take it off, or even that it is possible to take off. What is known is that there is a pressure that is felt unpleasantly, and that acting out of that pressure manages the unpleasant feelings, but never actually removes the pressure. It is a constant search for comfort under the weight of the burden.
There are worth while pursuits, but pursuits born of sensuality are inherently dangerous, because the more sensuality is given into, acted out of, the more entangled and trapped within sensuality we become.
This is pushing the party line on Buddhism but here's a reminder that it often contradicts common sense:
I think it's important to clarify that you can delay acting, but it's a good idea to eat and drink eventually. Even buddhists will admit to this.
This is confused thinking. "Hunger" and "eating" are different words for good reason. Remaining hungry is unpleasant and eating is pleasant.
No, the point of hunger is to get you to eat. That's fulfillment. Until next time.
Another question might be whether you should rid yourself of hunger or thirst if you can, because they're so unpleasant? And the answer is no, because hunger and thirst are reminders to do what needs to be done. Sometimes we need reminders.
But desires aren't always useful and pursuing them can be trouble! I agree with the buddhists that learning to see desires as external and something you can take or leave is a good skill to have. Sometimes it's better to follow your desires and other times it would be better to dismiss them like an unwanted notification.
It might clarify to think about the relationship between pain and health. If something causes you pain, you should probably stop doing it, or at least consider whether it's safe to continue. It's important for noticing health problems and not doing yourself further damage. But often, it causes suffering with no purpose. Learning to ignore it can often be done, but pain medication often works better.
This doesn't follow. It's good to learn not to be a slave to desires that lead to doing things you regret. But this has little to do with knowing that someday you will be old and sick. You might as well say you shouldn't enjoy fresh fruit when it's in season because winter is coming. That's a reason to enjoy life while you can. (And also to prepare for winter.)
In my personal life, I have found that my deepest regrets are not the things I used to be able to do but can do no longer. They are things I wanted to do, but did not do while I still could. I regret not shirking my homework so that I could play more as a kid; I regret not having flings and fun dating experiences when I was single; I regret not visiting my grandparents more when they were still alive.
Knowing that I may some day be too old and frail to do the things I enjoy now doesn't make the think I should get practice not doing those things. It makes me think I should do them more — as much as possible! — so that I am not filled with regret when I can no longer.
The imagery of consuming is very common in the discourses of the Buddha in relation to the sense and the aggregate. The use of thirst and hunger in this context is referring to something more basic than food and water. For example, taṇha, which is often translated as craving, means thirst. For further discussion on the imagery related to feeding/consuming, I refer you to "Abandon food, having relied on food" in The Shape of Suffering by Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu.
Ajahn Nyanamoli is not in anyway advocating for mortification.
Think about what it means to be old and sick. Your body does work well and the senses diminish. If you only know pleasure through your body and through your sense—acting out of your sensuality—what are you going to do when you can no longer seek please with your body and senses? What is being talked about is preparing for death. For those engrossed in sensuality, death is the losing the only source of pleasure known. Learning that sensuality is not your friend and not to your benefit now prepares you for that time when you can no longer hold onto to your body and senses. Consider that if you are unwilling to prepare for death now while your body and mind have some level of health and vitality, do you think you will be capable of confronting your death when you are weak and sick?
You're right, I don't understand a lot about Buddhism, even though I've read a few things and what they talk about in this interview seems pretty standard. I have trouble matching up the problems alluded to in this interview with concrete problems that I'm familiar with, so I'm unconvinced.
It seems like if it's only metaphorical hunger and thirst that they mean, some more concrete examples would be helpful?
Well, you adjust. I read a fair bit about elderly care issues after my father became ill. When you get up there, you need to think about things like advance directives that explain your wishes when you can't make medical decisions for yourself. There was a story about an elderly man who said that he still wants to live as long as he can enjoy ice cream. I'm not quite sure how to take that, but it seems like elderly people do care about such things, and that's okay? Sometimes simple pleasures are all you have.
I suspect that by being "prepared for death," buddhists mean something else, but I don't understand it very well and I'm not sure it's necessary.
The next time you want to do something out of the desire for pleasant sense contacts—pleasing sights, sounds, tastes, tactile sensations, smells, and thoughts—just don't. Engage in restraint of the senses. What is it like to sit quietly by yourself without distractions? No phone, no computer, no TV, no book, no significant other, no masturbation, just sitting quietly by yourself in a room with no distractions. How long until you want to see something else, touch something else, taste something else? How long can you sit with that wanting without acting out of that wanting? Is sitting with that wanting comfortable, is it pleasant? Can you imagine sitting alone in a room with no distractions for three days as being pleasant? If not, why?
Death is not the end in Buddhism. The process that gave rise to birth continues, so after death there is birth. Death is a painful and disorienting process; the things one has held onto as one's self and one's tool to seek happiness can no longer be appropriated. It is becoming unmoored from whatever perception of safety one might have felt through the body and senses. That clinging and thirsting the gave rise to this birth is still present and will give rise to the next birth; an untrained mind that is confused, scared, and desperate won't necessarily be discerning about what it attaches to next.
I've tried meditation, though not recently. I think it can be useful, but not three days worth, because I have other things I'd like to do. Also, it seems a little risky and it's unclear how helpful it is. I've read that it's not entirely safe.
I take it the argument for being "prepared for death" in a Buddhist way presumes you believe in reincarnation, so it's more of a religious than practical thing.
This is an unnecessary concern for this content. The monks that produced the talk and summary transcript have no issue with it being shared non-commercially.
I definitely enjoy sensuality. I'm asexual, and I don't experience sexual desire. I have zero interest in satisfying sexual urges, because I don't have any. Nonetheless, I enjoy erotic sensuality. This should be proof that at least some people enjoy sensuality in the absence of desire.
I believe they were using sensuality referring to sensory pleasure in general (not necessarily sexual), based on this part of the quote:
But your comment makes me think of another aspect of sensuality that I'm not sure is covered here: Pleasing sensory experiences that are not preceded by desire. For example, when I hear a bird sing and enjoy it, it's not because I was previously hoping a bird would start singing; the singing is an unexpected pleasure. But for me, the pleasure of hearing a bird sing is not meaningfully different from noticing it's a beautiful day and going outside to enjoy it. They are both similarly pleasing to me. The latter requires a more active role on my part (which is the purpose that desire serves — to provide the motivation to act), but I guess I don't understand why it's a bad thing.
Is the idea is that if I'm unable to go outside on a nice day, that might make me unhappy, and therefore I should just not go outside even when I can? I think this might be a good exercise for people with impulse control issues, but I think it may be a harmful practice for most people in general. By my observation, most people have the opposite problem and hold themselves back from enriching their lives with small pleasures due to anxiety and social pressure to fulfill abstract responsibilities that do not actually make them very happy (e.g., working long hours in an office rather than pursuing personal interests). I think a lot of people have been pushed to disconnect from their mental state and lose touch with the things that make them feel alive, and it has led to a quiet epidemic of derealization and depression.
The understanding of sensuality is a bit different than the one used within the transcript. Sensuality is not the pleasant feeling sense contacts. Rather, what is meant by sensuality is the passion and resolve directed towards the senses. An abandonment of this sense of sensuality doesn't prevent the acknowledgment of the pleasantness of a sense contact, but rather that there is no delight, anticipation, or passion for sense contact.