Buddhism_A Serious Discussion

[VincentRJ]

One strong impression I've received from the current discussion is the importance of the precision of meaning with regard to key words we use in our arguments. Sometimes people will dismiss such attempts to be precise with an implication that it's mere semantics or nitpicking, but semantics may often address the root cause of the problem. After all, Semantics is a study which specialises in the meaning of words and phrases, and their meaning within a context.

Back in post #16, Brucenkhamen criticised my use of the word 'sin' because of its associations with Christianity, yet the meaning of the word does cover all crimes, misdeeds, injury and mischief, as well as the purely moral wrongdoings and offences against God. If one uses the word within a Buddhist context, then clearly the last part of the definition, an offence against God, doesn't apply.

We then had a confusion about the meaning of 'obstacle', followed by a confusion about the meaning of the word 'emotion', Bruce claiming that the word 'emotion' is neutral, which seems completely absurd to me.

Out of all of the billions of words in all the languages of the world, in the present and in the past, there's is only one word which is neutral, and that is the word 'neutral'.

There may be many foreign words which can be translated to be approximately equivalent in meaning, and perhaps even precisely equivalent, to the English word 'neutral', but 'emotion' is not one of them.

The next word of confusion was 'desire'. This is a general word that covers a huge range of feelings that motivate us in so many ways. A principle of the 4 Noble Truths is that desire is the cause of all suffering. But here it seems we have an example of something which is both true and false, a type of expression which Trd often uses, as in post #239 where he writes:'Both are true. Both are fake.'

It seems that all desire is not necessarily the cause of suffering; only some types of desire. It seems again we're into Semantics. Is it better to use the word 'craving'?

Now, my understanding of the word 'craving' is that it is an intense, urgent, and even abnormal desire or longing for something. The associated term 'addiction' springs to mind. Obese people have a craving for tasty food. Alcoholics have a craving for liquor. Cigarette smokers have a craving for cigarettes, and of course all drug addicts have a craving for the drugs they are addicted to.

Do we need Buddhism to tell us that craving is a problem? If we define the concept of suffering in terms of 'dissatisfaction', is it only craving that causes dissatisfaction? Would it be truer to claim that there are many levels of desire and dissatisfaction, with craving being amongst the stronger of the desires resulting in the greater dissatisfaction?

Finally, I'd like to comment on the frequently used term, 'transcendent'. According to my understanding, transcendent refers to a state which is beyond and outside the ordinary range of human experience or understanding, therefore any transcendent state cannot be described in ordinary words relating to the normal range of human experience. The ineffable is ineffable.

One reason I'm attracted to Buddhism is its tendency to admit the truth of this, in contrast to other religions which go on and on with elaborate descriptions of the ineffable, ie. a Creator God.

[rockyysdt]

One strong impression I've received from the current discussion is the importance of the precision of meaning with regard to key words we use in our arguments. Sometimes people will dismiss such attempts to be precise with an implication that it's mere semantics or nitpicking, but semantics may often address the root cause of the problem. After all, Semantics is a study which specialises in the meaning of words and phrases, and their meaning within a context.

Back in post #16, Brucenkhamen criticised my use of the word 'sin' because of its associations with Christianity, yet the meaning of the word does cover all crimes, misdeeds, injury and mischief, as well as the purely moral wrongdoings and offences against God. If one uses the word within a Buddhist context, then clearly the last part of the definition, an offence against God, doesn't apply.

We then had a confusion about the meaning of 'obstacle', followed by a confusion about the meaning of the word 'emotion', Bruce claiming that the word 'emotion' is neutral, which seems completely absurd to me.

Out of all of the billions of words in all the languages of the world, in the present and in the past, there's is only one word which is neutral, and that is the word 'neutral'.

There may be many foreign words which can be translated to be approximately equivalent in meaning, and perhaps even precisely equivalent, to the English word 'neutral', but 'emotion' is not one of them.

The next word of confusion was 'desire'. This is a general word that covers a huge range of feelings that motivate us in so many ways. A principle of the 4 Noble Truths is that desire is the cause of all suffering. But here it seems we have an example of something which is both true and false, a type of expression which Trd often uses, as in post #239 where he writes:'Both are true. Both are fake.'

It seems that all desire is not necessarily the cause of suffering; only some types of desire. It seems again we're into Semantics. Is it better to use the word 'craving'?

Now, my understanding of the word 'craving' is that it is an intense, urgent, and even abnormal desire or longing for something. The associated term 'addiction' springs to mind. Obese people have a craving for tasty food. Alcoholics have a craving for liquor. Cigarette smokers have a craving for cigarettes, and of course all drug addicts have a craving for the drugs they are addicted to.

Do we need Buddhism to tell us that craving is a problem? If we define the concept of suffering in terms of 'dissatisfaction', is it only craving that causes dissatisfaction? Would it be truer to claim that there are many levels of desire and dissatisfaction, with craving being amongst the stronger of the desires resulting in the greater dissatisfaction?

Finally, I'd like to comment on the frequently used term, 'transcendent'. According to my understanding, transcendent refers to a state which is beyond and outside the ordinary range of human experience or understanding, therefore any transcendent state cannot be described in ordinary words relating to the normal range of human experience. The ineffable is ineffable.

One reason I'm attracted to Buddhism is its tendency to admit the truth of this, in contrast to other religions which go on and on with elaborate descriptions of the ineffable, ie. a Creator God.

Very incisive V.

Much can be said about our conditioning and conditioned interpretation of the meaning of words.

Moreover, many of us automatically assume others are on the same page (interpretation) when words are exchanged, even though individual parties have differing mindscapes/thoughts.

My short cut is to say that Dukkha comes from attachment to "greed", "aversion" & "delusion".

The way to overcome these is initially through deep meditation, in which samadhi comes easily and can be maintained for extensive periods.

After which insight and wisdom can be developed.

I like this quote from the Ven. Maha Boowa's book "Arahattamagga".

Samãdhi’s main function on the path of practice is to support and sustain the development of wisdom. It is well suited to this task because a mind that is calm and concentrated is fully satisfied, and does not seek external distractions. Thoughts about sights, sounds, tastes, smells, and tactile sensations no longer impinge upon an awareness that is firmly fixed in samãdhi. Calm and concentration are the mind’s natural sustenance. Once it becomes satiated with its favorite nourishment, it does not wander off where it strays into idle thinking. It is now fully prepared to undertake the kind of purposeful thinking, investigation and reflection that constitute the practice of wisdom. If the mind has yet to settle down—if it still hankers after sense impressions, if it still wants to chase after thoughts and emotions—its investigations will never lead to true wisdom. They will lead only to discursive thought, guesswork and speculation—unfounded interpretations of reality based simply on what has been learned and remembered. Instead of leading to wisdom, and the cessation of suffering, such directionless thinking becomes samudaya the primary cause of suffering.

Edited December 20, 2014 by rockyysdt

[VincentRJ]

My short cut is to say that Dukkha comes from attachment to "greed", "aversion" & "delusion".

Hi Rocky,

I would have little objection to those terms, except perhaps 'aversion'. Greed is another extreme form of desire which could be described as a desire which is 'excessive or rapacious'. Neither greed nor craving can reasonably be sanctioned as good, regardless of one's religious leanings.

Likewise, all sensible people would want to avoid states of delusion. Interestingly, the word delusion derives from the Latin 'de', meaning 'from', and 'ludere' meaning 'to play'. Presumably, if one is playing a part or acting, and one imagines that it is real, or one is not aware that one is playing, then one is delusional.

I have a slight problem with the use of the term 'aversion', especially considering its original meaning of 'turning away from'. Doesn't a monk sometimes have to cultivate an aversion towards sex by contemplating the disgusting nature of the body, which is merely hidden by a thin layer of skin?

Edited December 20, 2014 by VincentRJ

[trd]

When you are hungry, there is a craving for food. When your belly is full, there is no more craving for food. You are satisfied.

When samadhi fills you full of peace and stillness, there is no more craving for anything. You are satisfied. You have already fulfilled all potential desires.

The mind says, I am the mind. The mind is me. I am looking for meaning and purpose in my life. All can be explained by mind. So the idea of transcending it goes against the ingrained idea of needing meaning to justify your very existence. It is threatening.

When the mind is transcended and merges into the one pointedness of stillness, where is the meaning? There is only life itself being what it is from moment to moment.

When a desire arises from that stillness, it has lost its power to force you to attribute a meaning to it. It is just a reflex action without the baggage of internal conflict and memory associated with a false person looking for meaning and purpose. Only then can a desire be enjoyed without being bound by it. It arises in the moment and disappears in the moment as a changing superimposition on the unchanging silence.

[rockyysdt]

I have a slight problem with the use of the term 'aversion', especially considering its original meaning of 'turning away from'. Doesn't a monk sometimes have to cultivate an aversion towards sex by contemplating the disgusting nature of the body, which is merely hidden by a thin layer of skin?

It all comes back to interpretation of words.

In Buddhism "Aversion (Pali: Dosa)", one of the 3 poisons, is loosely translated "anger, aggression, hatred".

Nothing to do with the traditional aversion we are familiar with.

TRD has eloquently indicated that just about the only way we can loosen the grip these 3 poisons have on us is by fully satisfying the mind with timeless stillness/peace, through sustained practice of Samadhi, thus freeing itself from the senses

The Buddha states that one abandons the fetters "when one knows and sees ... as impermanent (Pali: anicca) the six sense organs, objects, sense conscious, contact.

Similarly, in "Uprooting the Fetters" (SN 35.55), the Buddha states that one uproots the fetters "when one knows and sees ... as non self (anatta) the aforementioned five sextets.

Naturally, one must avoid addiction to such states.

Quote: Unless it supports the development of wisdom, samãdhi can sidetrack a meditator from the path to the end of all suffering. All meditators who intensify their efforts to develop samãdhi should be aware of this pitfall.

Edited December 20, 2014 by rockyysdt

[trd]

The possible pitfalls of samadhi can occur when the experience is temporary and not yet established as permanent and irreversible. You practice, the mind becomes still for a time and then when you become re-engaged in activity, the stillness begins to fade and it becomes easy to be distracted by thoughts and sensory stimuli. You may then decide that being in a cocoon of stillness is more attractive than being in the world with all its difficulties and disappointments. This is the trap. It is the inward stroke of meditation together with the outward stroke of plunging back into activity which cultures and purifies the nervous system. The alternation of both the inactive and the active are required.

There is a traditional method of dyeing where the cloth is dipped into the dye and placed in the sun to dry. The sun's effect is to bleach the colour causing it to partially fade. The process is repeated. This time the cloth doesn't fade so much. After doing this a number of times there comes a point when the sun cannot bleach the cloth anymore and it remains completely colour fast. So it is with meditation practice.

In Buddhist terms, to be permanently established in the unconditioned is an automatic fulfillment of the eightfold path. From silence springs forth the wisdom of right speech, right action, right understanding etc. It is spontaneous, inevitable and unavoidable. But mixed in with that are habits of the body. So for the awakened, you have a mix of the one unlimited, undifferentiated transcendent truth which is the same for others, but expressed through a limited body of habits which is different for others. That is why you can never totally judge another's state by mere outward appearance or behaviour. However from the perspective of the True Self, there are no others. There is only one.

[VincentRJ]

When you are hungry, there is a craving for food. When your belly is full, there is no more craving for food. You are satisfied.

Hi Trd,

I understand that you are using analogies here, however, for the sake of accuracy I want to point out that for most people in Europe and America, and increasingly in Asian countries, there is still craving for food when the belly is full. That's why people become overweight and obese.

It's not possible to become overweight without eating too much. The modern Western diet seems to include ingredients, such as fructose in particular, which interfere with peoples' awareness that their belly is full, so they continue to eat more than they need, purely for the pleasure of eating.

Unless something is done about this, the Laughing Buddha will become the norm.

The mind says, I am the mind. The mind is me. I am looking for meaning and purpose in my life. All can be explained by mind. So the idea of transcending it goes against the ingrained idea of needing meaning to justify your very existence. It is threatening.

As far back as I can remember thinking about such matters, I've always been aware that the 'self' or the sense of 'me' consists of a physical body and an interrelated mind, both existing within, and influenced by, a particular cultural. The source of suffering can originate in the body as well as outside the body, but is always felt in the mind. The only fear I have of transcending the mind is the fear of losing my marbles.

When the mind is transcended and merges into the one pointedness of stillness, where is the meaning? There is only life itself being what it is from moment to moment. When a desire arises from that stillness, it has lost its power to force you to attribute a meaning to it. It is just a reflex action without the baggage of internal conflict and memory associated with a false person looking for meaning and purpose. Only then can a desire be enjoyed without being bound by it.

It arises in the moment and disappears in the moment as a changing superimposition on the unchanging silence.

Surely there is always only life itself, being what it is from moment to moment, regardless of any transcendence of mind, especially considering that any state of transcendence is 'ineffable' by definition.

I don't get any sense, personally, of being forced to attribute a meaning to anything, whether desire, emotion or sensory input of any kind. Simply in order to recognise a sensory input, emotion or desire, I automatically try to attribute a meaning to it. If I fail, I think, 'That's weird. What on earth was that?'

I'm not sure a moment is long enough to enjoy the desire.(Sorry! I can't resist having a bit of fun. )

Edited December 20, 2014 by VincentRJ

[VincentRJ]

I have a slight problem with the use of the term 'aversion', especially considering its original meaning of 'turning away from'. Doesn't a monk sometimes have to cultivate an aversion towards sex by contemplating the disgusting nature of the body, which is merely hidden by a thin layer of skin?

It all comes back to interpretation of words.

In Buddhism "Aversion (Pali: Dosa)", one of the 3 poisons, is loosely translated "anger, aggression, hatred".

Nothing to do with the traditional aversion we are familiar with.

Yes, Rocky, it does come back to the interpretation of words. I would describe myself as being relatively free of anger, aggression and hatred, but I do have certain aversions towards many things and situations, which I would be very reluctant to free myself of.

I have an aversion towards white bread, white rice and junk food in general. I have an aversion towards the noise and congestion of city life, as well as the polluted atmosphere of most cities and the unaesthetic visual appearance, which is why I live in a rural setting in Australia.

The term 'dislike' could sometimes be used instead of aversion, but not always. It would be misleading to claim that I dislike white bread, pastry made from white flour, ice cream, chocolate, and Kentucky fried chicken.

If I were to claim that, it would be another example of something that is both true and false. I like the taste of chocolate cakes and ice cream, but I don't like the effect they might have on my health, in combination with other unwholesome foods. The term 'aversion' in the sense of 'turning away from' is more accurate in this context.

[trd]

I understand that you are using analogies here, however, for the sake of accuracy I want to point out that for most people in Europe and America, and increasingly in Asian countries, there is still craving for food when the belly is full. That's why people become overweight and obese.

It's not possible to become overweight without eating too much. The modern Western diet seems to include ingredients, such as fructose in particular, which interfere with peoples' awareness that their belly is full, so they continue to eat more than they need, purely for the pleasure of eating.

Analogies are never perfect. However you do have a point. Even when a desire has been satiated, the mind will never be satisfied. A new desire will quickly replace it or a comparison will be made with a similar experience or there will be the expectation of a future experience based on the current desire. A vicious circle. This truly is dukkha.

The only fear I have of transcending the mind is the fear of losing my marbles.

A very common fear, but unfounded. Naturally the ego does not want to commit suicide. But why the fear? You have transcended many times already for short periods without paying any attention to it. Everyone has. This natural state is completely devoid of fear. Also when you are asleep, there is no mind, yet you wake up and know who you are.

Surely there is always only life itself, being what it is from moment to moment, regardless of any transcendence of mind, especially considering that any state of transcendence is 'ineffable' by definition.

Yes there is always only life itself. In one scenario there is psychological conflict and angst. In the other there is not. It has fallen away, never to return. Without it, there is an intensity of presence hitherto obscured by ego. That presence doesn't argue with life as it unfolds from moment to moment. It is called acceptance. Edited December 20, 2014 by trd

[trd]

I don't get any sense, personally, of being forced to attribute a meaning to anything, whether desire, emotion or sensory input of any kind.

Forced whether consciously or unconsciously, there are usually many thoughts and ideas continually cluttering the mind. The mind thrives on complexity.

I'm not sure a moment is long enough to enjoy the desire.(Sorry! I can't resist having a bit of fun.

Well I should hope so! The question is, does the desire leave an impression? When it does not it is like trying to leave a footprint on water. Edited December 20, 2014 by trd

[redandyellow]

Has anyone else heard that Buddha predicted the coming of Jesus 500 years prior? A Thai lady Buddhist turned Christian showed me that it is in the Buddhist "Bible" but it was written in Thai..

[Sheryl]

One has to strive to reduce, and eventually eliminate all sexual thoughts, through a process of 'letting go' and 'not resisting'. The presence of Bhikkunis may hinder that process of 'letting go'....

Perhaps (though strict sex segregation is practiced in monasteries).

But why should women have to pay for men's difficulty in managing their sexual urges?

And why would Bhikkunis be more of a threat than mai chee (nuns) , who are allowed and found in most temples?

I think men do indeed tend to project responsibility for their own sexual issues onto women (in Buddhism and outside it) but I don't think you can trace the resistance to female ordination to this, or at least not to this alone.

And let us remember that a very basic part of practice is understanding that the cause of suffering lies within, in your own craving, which though it may appear to be caused by an external object or person, in fact is not. So anyone under the delusion that their sexual or any other cravings are "caused" by the apparent object of their desire has missed a very, very basic point, one easily discerned tand witnessed hrough meditation practice.

[VincentRJ]

But why should women have to pay for men's difficulty in managing their sexual urges?

Good question. I wish I knew the answer. I can only speculate that the reason is embedded in our animal ancestry when the female showed off her wares and the males fought each other, sometimes to the death, in order to mate and propagate their genes.

In such a scenario, the male victor who had destroyed his rivals would be preferred by the female as a suitable mate because of his strong genetic make-up which would ensure strong offspring. A case of 'survival of the fittest'.

As humans developed into agricultural societies with a religious, social and cultural hierarchy, this constant battling amongst males for the privilege of mating, had to be managed. Perhaps part of the management was to sometimes blame women for being so seductive in luring the males into fighting for their favours.

And why would Bhikkunis be more of a threat than mai chee (nuns) , who are allowed and found in most temples?

Possibly because the Bhikkunis have a higher status and are therefore 'potentially' more seductive, or perhaps because they would represent a greater challenge to male authority.

I think men do indeed tend to project responsibility for their own sexual issues onto women (in Buddhism and outside it) but I don't think you can trace the resistance to female ordination to this, or at least not to this alone. And let us remember that a very basic part of practice is understanding that the cause of suffering lies within, in your own craving, which though it may appear to be caused by an external object or person, in fact is not. So anyone under the delusion that their sexual or any other cravings are "caused" by the apparent object of their desire has missed a very, very basic point, one easily discerned and witnessed through meditation practice.

I'm not sure this point is valid. Does anyone have a craving for a TV set who hasn't seen a TV set and has no understanding of what it can do?

The object of desire and the desire itself are clearly related. Removing the object of desire is an attempt to remove the desire. To remove the internal desire rather than removing the external object of the desire is certainly preferable in my view, but I suspect more difficult for most people.

Certain Muslims have a huge problem in this respect. They can persuade many of their women to cover themselves from head to foot, but they can't persuade the rest of the non-Muslim women in the world to do so, which probably disturbs some of them greatly.

I see this as a weakness of some Muslim males and think that their sometimes violent nature, as in ISIS, is at least partly an unconscious act of compensation for this unrecognised weakness. But I'm perhaps getting into dangerous territory here. Let's stick to Buddhism.

As I understand, Gotama Buddha lived in an era of extreme sexual discrimination. Buddha is reported to have been initially reluctant to ordain women, but later agreed.

Even today, Indian society is still rife with discrimination. I'm led to believe that acts of rape by men in India today are often not properly dealt with because of a widespread belief that the woman is at least partly responsible for seducing the male with her dress, looks and behaviour.

As I've speculated, this attitude in the male is probably due to a hangover from a deeply embedded instinctual form of behaviour which was prevalent during the time of our ape-like ancestry.

I agree that meditation practices should help the male overcome such barbarism.

[trd]

If the elimination of craving is to remove the object of craving, you could not function in the world. You would have to be locked up in a room. This is not any kind of teaching of Buddhism.

The whole point is that craving comes from within. Most craving doesn't need an object to be perceived, but merely a thought and you can't get away from them.

[Brucenkhamen]

One strong impression I've received from the current discussion is the importance of the precision of meaning with regard to key words we use in our arguments. Sometimes people will dismiss such attempts to be precise with an implication that it's mere semantics or nitpicking, but semantics may often address the root cause of the problem. After all, Semantics is a study which specialises in the meaning of words and phrases, and their meaning within a context.

You're on the money here. When a group of people have a shared interest which they discuss and develop they develop a shared vocabulary and technical terms that have specific meaning in that context. Buddhism is no different. Compounded to that is a lot of translations of of pali or sanskrit words in common use are inaccurate or carry the cultural baggage of 19th century Christians who started the work of translation.

Added to that is that this board in particular attracts a relatively high proportion of people who don't practice Buddhism, so don't have the shared vocabulary. Normally guests in any context will just fit in out of politeness and not straightaway tell you how you should run your household, but some people have strong ideas of how Buddhism "should be".

Take the word "sin", I find it's very rare for that word to be used in a Buddhist context, so when it is used it sticks out.

The word "desire" is in common usage but creates problems because then you get people asking things like "I desire to get qualified and get a good job, why is that bad?". This is why I prefer to use the word craving.

Another example is that Rocky used the phrase "greed, aversion, and delusion", this is a common translation of the pali lobha, dosa, moha. I don't like the word greed here because to me greed is a very specific kind of craving, it's craving when you've already got more than enough but doesn't cover craving out of lack. One of my teachers also uses the word greed here, but then english is not his first language.

As you pointed out it's not just a matter of being fussy, imprecise wording leads to misunderstanding down the track.

Don't get me started on "suffering" as a translation of Dukkha.

[Brucenkhamen]

When you are hungry, there is a craving for food. When your belly is full, there is no more craving for food. You are satisfied.

The point of the Buddha's teaching is that the unawakened are never satisfied. Sure craving for food may have subsided but craving is a constant drive working in the background so it will crave then next thing it thinks will provide satisfaction. Maybe it will crave to feel less bloated with food for example, maybe it will crave to recreate that the feeling that meal provided by repeated the experience sometime in future.

When samadhi fills you full of peace and stillness, there is no more craving for anything. You are satisfied. You have already fulfilled all potential desires.

Then it changes, samadhi subsides, or the mind disengages from the peace and stillness, and craving starts the cycle again.

[Brucenkhamen]

Quote: Unless it supports the development of wisdom, samãdhi can sidetrack a meditator from the path to the end of all suffering. All meditators who intensify their efforts to develop samãdhi should be aware of this pitfall.

Good point. I think it was Ajahn Jayasaro who said to me one time something like that samadhi is good for weaning you of addiction to wordly sense pleasure by replacing it with something else. That's the first step, the next step is to wean oneself off addiction to samadhi.

[Brucenkhamen]

If I were to claim that, it would be another example of something that is both true and false. I like the taste of chocolate cakes and ice cream, but I don't like the effect they might have on my health, in combination with other unwholesome foods. The term 'aversion' in the sense of 'turning away from' is more accurate in this context.

Aversion is something felt and experienced in the body and mind, whereas your dislike of avoiding white bread etc is probably more about rational choice because you have the information on the lack of nutitrional value.

In the example of chocolate cake you might crave it and after eating it notice that it's made your body feel heavy or off-sorts, aversion to this feeling will arise in the body and mind and compound the original feeling produced by eating the chocolate cake. Objectively observing this happen again and again over time the mind will let go of it.

[Brucenkhamen]

And let us remember that a very basic part of practice is understanding that the cause of suffering lies within, in your own craving, which though it may appear to be caused by an external object or person, in fact is not. So anyone under the delusion that their sexual or any other cravings are "caused" by the apparent object of their desire has missed a very, very basic point, one easily discerned tand witnessed hrough meditation practice.

Well said.

[trd]

When you are hungry, there is a craving for food. When your belly is full, there is no more craving for food. You are satisfied.

The point of the Buddha's teaching is that the unawakened are never satisfied. Sure craving for food may have subsided but craving is a constant drive working in the background so it will crave then next thing it thinks will provide satisfaction. Maybe it will crave to feel less bloated with food for example, maybe it will crave to recreate that the feeling that meal provided by repeated the experience sometime in future.

When samadhi fills you full of peace and stillness, there is no more craving for anything. You are satisfied. You have already fulfilled all potential desires.

Then it changes, samadhi subsides, or the mind disengages from the peace and stillness, and craving starts the cycle again.

You have a talent for selective quoting.

Refer to posts 279 and 276 in that order.

[VincentRJ]

If the elimination of craving is to remove the object of craving, you could not function in the world. You would have to be locked up in a room. This is not any kind of teaching of Buddhism.

The whole point is that craving comes from within. Most craving doesn't need an object to be perceived, but merely a thought and you can't get away from them.

I thought we'd established that living in a cave, or a simple hut in the forest, could serve the purpose of making meditation practice more fruitful as a result of the removal from objects of distraction and desire.

All craving, all emotions and all thought come from within, of course. One can't deny that. But nobody lives in a vacuum. The human organism constantly interacts with its environment, as does every other animal on the planet.

Even someone living in a cave might have thoughts about spiders as he/she sees one dangling from the cave roof. The thought about spiders came from within but the thought was also initially inspired by, or provoked by something outside of the mind/body, the spider itself.

Because one thought can lead to another, the sight of the spider might result in a long chain of thoughts relating to a host of memories about spiders and snakes and related incidents in the past. Wow! What power a little spider can have!

[VincentRJ]

If I were to claim that, it would be another example of something that is both true and false. I like the taste of chocolate cakes and ice cream, but I don't like the effect they might have on my health, in combination with other unwholesome foods. The term 'aversion' in the sense of 'turning away from' is more accurate in this context.

Aversion is something felt and experienced in the body and mind, whereas your dislike of avoiding white bread etc is probably more about rational choice because you have the information on the lack of nutitrional value.

In the example of chocolate cake you might crave it and after eating it notice that it's made your body feel heavy or off-sorts, aversion to this feeling will arise in the body and mind and compound the original feeling produced by eating the chocolate cake. Objectively observing this happen again and again over time the mind will let go of it.

I tried to explain, I don't have a 'dislike of avoiding white bread', as you put it. I have an aversion towards white bread in the sense of 'turning away from it'. If I were to describe it another way, I would say I have a 'liking for avoiding white bread' rather than a dislike of avoiding it. Or was that a typo on your part? Did you mean 'like' rather than dislike?

By using the word 'aversion' I'm trying to avoid the 'both true and false' paradox. Let's choose another example that's more tasty than white bread, say ice cream. I avoid eating ice cream for reasons similar to my avoidance of white bread, but I can't deny that ice cream is delicious.

If I don't choose my words carefully I could make nonsensical statements such as, 'I like the taste of ice cream but I don't like eating it.'

However, I'm quite flexible and the English language has lots of words to choose from. I could simply say, 'I avoid eating unwholesome food', but that's not as expressive in my view. There is a lack of emotion in the word 'avoid'. Robots can be programmed to avoid obstacles.

The word 'aversion' has connotations of some degree of dislike or disgust, as well as connotations of avoidance or 'turning away from'.

One should also bear in mind that because a decision is rational does not mean it is devoid of feeling and experience.

[trd]

Vincent, It appears that Bruce has appointed himself as the authority on how these words can be used because he is a real Buddhist, so you will have to defer to him

[VincentRJ]

Let my rationality, suffused with a modest degree of emotion and wisdom, prevail.

[Brucenkhamen]

However, I'm quite flexible and the English language has lots of words to choose from. I could simply say, 'I avoid eating unwholesome food', but that's not as expressive in my view. There is a lack of emotion in the word 'avoid'. Robots can be programmed to avoid obstacles.

The word 'aversion' has connotations of some degree of dislike or disgust, as well as connotations of avoidance or 'turning away from'.

One should also bear in mind that because a decision is rational does not mean it is devoid of feeling and experience.

The problem is your understanding of the concept is informed by the definition of English words, its better to consider the meaning of the pali/sanskrit word that it is translating and how it is used in a Buddhist context.

Like you I prefer not to eat white rice because I know there is a better alternative, however I experience no aversion when eating it, I find it a very inoffensive food.

Lobha, dosa, and moha are not about rational choices based logical reasons but about involuntary physical and mental reactions to sense contact. Aversion (dosa) is an experience up to and including disgust or revulsion arising from unpleasant experience.

Rational choices based logical reasons dont tend to cause Dukkha the way lobha, dosa, and moha do.

[Brucenkhamen]

Vincent, It appears that Bruce has appointed himself as the authority on how these words can be used because he is a real Buddhist, so you will have to defer to him

cheap

[rockyysdt]

When a group of people have a shared interest which they discuss and develop they develop a shared vocabulary and technical terms that have specific meaning in that context. Buddhism is no different. Compounded to that is a lot of translations of of pali or sanskrit words in common use are inaccurate or carry the cultural baggage of 19th century Christians who started the work of translation.

Yes, a Pali/Sanskrit language scholar lectures on such inaccuracies.

One example is "Metta".

Far from meaning Loving Kindness, it's more accurately translated as meaning "Boundless Friendliness".

When you think about it, how can the unawakened traveler love all?

When speaking of Loving Kindness, who are you loving, an impermanent and conditioned ego?

If you observe the Dalai Lama, he is full of boundless friendliness to those he comes in contact with.

When you analyze it, you achieve the same affect, but without being false.

Edited December 22, 2014 by rockyysdt

[VincentRJ]

The problem is your understanding of the concept is informed by the definition of English words, its better to consider the meaning of the pali/sanskrit word that it is translating and how it is used in a Buddhist context.

In all matters that are communicated through language, my understanding of concepts is always related to the definition of English words, because that's my language. I'm not able to read Pali or Sanskrit. I'm totally reliant upon English translations.

Like you I prefer not to eat white rice because I know there is a better alternative, however I experience no aversion when eating it, I find it a very inoffensive food.

That is indeed strange. Who was it who said, "He who knows but does not act, doesn't really know"?

The mere belief (rational or not) that something is good or bad should have at least some effect on the desirability and enjoyment of that thing. On matters of drugs and sex, it's sometimes the case that prohibition actually adds to the desire and excitement experienced when breaking the law, especially for youths breaking a moral law.

The simple awareness that a particular vintage of wine is very expensive, or very cheap, can significantly affect the taste. Scientific experiments have demonstrated this, using an electroencaphalogram to measure activity in the pleasure centres of the brain, to ensure the subjects are not lying when they declare that they prefer either the expensive, or the cheap wine.

The nature of the experiment is to offer the subjects a choice of 'what is described as' a very expensive and a very cheap wine, except the contents of the bottles have been switched.

When the subjects drink the cheap wine, which they believe is the expensive wine, their pleasure centres light up. When they drink the expensive wine which they believe is the cheap wine, there is significantly less activity in those pleasure centres in the brain.

These effects also apply to wine connoisseurs but to a lesser degree. The wine connoisseur might give the expensive wine (which is in fact cheap) a similar or close rating to the cheap wine (which is in fact expensive), but less likely a higher rating.

Lobha, dosa, and moha are not about rational choices based logical reasons but about involuntary physical and mental reactions to sense contact. Aversion (dosa) is an experience up to and including disgust or revulsion arising from unpleasant experience.

Rational choices based logical reasons dont tend to cause Dukkha the way lobha, dosa, and moha do.

I imagine that rational choices based on logical reasons were not a common feature of life in ancient India, so it's understandable that their language wouldn't have addressed such issues. I don't think the Buddha and Aristotle were in communication, were they?

[rockyysdt]

In all matters that are communicated through language, my understanding of concepts is always related to the definition of English words, because that's my language. I'm not able to read Pali or Sanskrit. I'm totally reliant upon English translations.

Very true. I'm also very much reliant on English translations.

I think what was being suggested is that it's not the translation to English, but its accuracy.

If the translator was a 19th century Christian, as many were, then it can be said that there maybe considerable bias or influence.

This is what John Peacock (Pali/Sanskrit Scholar) found in abundance.

Edited December 23, 2014 by rockyysdt

[trd]

How is it possible to avoid bias as we all originate from one culture or another. To say the Christian translators were biased is in itself a biased remark. Clearly they could not have translated the texts without a knowledge of Pali. Bias and accuracy are interlinked.

It is never going to be possible to go back and ask Buddha what he meant.

Edited December 23, 2014 by trd