Isn’t “non-identification with our desires” also a form of control? In fact, everything we do is a means of controlling our perceptions to be in accordance with our goals/expectations (or “references” as they’re called in Perceptual Control Theory).
When we are capable of “seeing desire like any other externally arisen phenomenon that has no import to you,” it’s because the perception of that desire does not result in error — our perceptions are in line with our goals. That is, perhaps, that we have over time developed in such a way where we operate according to a high-level goal such as “non-attachment”. We have a high level goal that controls for and values not chasing after or identifying with arising desires.
Furthermore, this is not because “there’s no you there”. In understanding ourself as a hierarchical control system (as described by PCT), we can also come to see that all control, action, desire, perception - everything including our very self is dependently arisen and empty of inherent existence. Living in such a way doesn’t require convincing ourself that we don’t exist, but rather seeing ourself and how we are and act as empty and dependently arisen. This is deeply freeing and is the door through which we can naturally develop such high-level guiding principles like non-attachment, where we transcend the need for both enkratic and sophron methods of self-regulation that ultimately don’t work and only prolong a life of suffering.
I posted an article yesterday on this topic that you may find of interest:
>Isn’t “non-identification with our desires” also a form of control?
In a sense, yes, but not in the same sense that we normally use the word. In a very technical sense, we can understand letting go as controlling the letting go process, and similarly we can view the action of letting go as holding on to the action of letting go, but in more standard speech, they're opposites.
Something that people with a very analytic mind often struggle with (myself included) is accepting that some of Dhamma practice is kind of just "vibes" — there's a sutta that specifically says that Dhamma can't be understood through logic alone. So a lot of Dhamma speak naturally falls into "it's not quite like this, but this is the best way to get the direction across". If I said that Dhamma practice requires holding on to or controlling letting go, I think that would get the wrong direction across.
That said, this does pose a problem from an analytic perspective, I don't deny that. There are certain things that just don't seem to make sense within Buddhism if we try to be very analytic, at which point we're posed with the question: do I give up what works because it doesn't quite work out as a series of propositions? Or do I just forget trying to make everything propositional? The third option is to try to figure out how to bridge the gap, but I'm not entirely convinced it's possible (although I've been trying to work on it in my more academic writing, which I haven't published yet).
Your next paragraph I agree with — it's largely an exposition of what taming the citta means but from a more modern, scientific perspective.
>Living in such a way doesn’t require convincing ourself that we don’t exist, but rather seeing ourself and how we are and act as empty and dependently arisen.
Definitely not — convincing oneself that you don't exist has pretty much nothing to do with not-self. I saw not-self once framed very succinctly as realizing that even self is not-self.
Isn’t “non-identification with our desires” also a form of control? In fact, everything we do is a means of controlling our perceptions to be in accordance with our goals/expectations (or “references” as they’re called in Perceptual Control Theory).
When we are capable of “seeing desire like any other externally arisen phenomenon that has no import to you,” it’s because the perception of that desire does not result in error — our perceptions are in line with our goals. That is, perhaps, that we have over time developed in such a way where we operate according to a high-level goal such as “non-attachment”. We have a high level goal that controls for and values not chasing after or identifying with arising desires.
Furthermore, this is not because “there’s no you there”. In understanding ourself as a hierarchical control system (as described by PCT), we can also come to see that all control, action, desire, perception - everything including our very self is dependently arisen and empty of inherent existence. Living in such a way doesn’t require convincing ourself that we don’t exist, but rather seeing ourself and how we are and act as empty and dependently arisen. This is deeply freeing and is the door through which we can naturally develop such high-level guiding principles like non-attachment, where we transcend the need for both enkratic and sophron methods of self-regulation that ultimately don’t work and only prolong a life of suffering.
I posted an article yesterday on this topic that you may find of interest:
https://open.substack.com/pub/aaronlessin/p/no-self-no-problem?r=oevw8&utm_medium=ios
>Isn’t “non-identification with our desires” also a form of control?
In a sense, yes, but not in the same sense that we normally use the word. In a very technical sense, we can understand letting go as controlling the letting go process, and similarly we can view the action of letting go as holding on to the action of letting go, but in more standard speech, they're opposites.
Something that people with a very analytic mind often struggle with (myself included) is accepting that some of Dhamma practice is kind of just "vibes" — there's a sutta that specifically says that Dhamma can't be understood through logic alone. So a lot of Dhamma speak naturally falls into "it's not quite like this, but this is the best way to get the direction across". If I said that Dhamma practice requires holding on to or controlling letting go, I think that would get the wrong direction across.
That said, this does pose a problem from an analytic perspective, I don't deny that. There are certain things that just don't seem to make sense within Buddhism if we try to be very analytic, at which point we're posed with the question: do I give up what works because it doesn't quite work out as a series of propositions? Or do I just forget trying to make everything propositional? The third option is to try to figure out how to bridge the gap, but I'm not entirely convinced it's possible (although I've been trying to work on it in my more academic writing, which I haven't published yet).
Your next paragraph I agree with — it's largely an exposition of what taming the citta means but from a more modern, scientific perspective.
>Living in such a way doesn’t require convincing ourself that we don’t exist, but rather seeing ourself and how we are and act as empty and dependently arisen.
Definitely not — convincing oneself that you don't exist has pretty much nothing to do with not-self. I saw not-self once framed very succinctly as realizing that even self is not-self.
I'll check out that post!