Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

I have really tried to explain to the best of my ability. But I find it unfair when words that I have not spoken [fig] are put into my mouth [fig] afterwards

Ben wrote:

TMingyur wrote:experiencing "deliciousness" as a characteristic of some food is far from mere discerning in the context of depending origination.

Really, how is it different to describing a taste as 'pleasant'?

Description is not experience. Description is a mental synthesis which may have an experience as its basis but it is not the same.

Ben wrote: And where is the inherent clinging in discerning taste as pleasant?

What I expressed originally is that it is in the experience of "deliciousness" of some food. It is you who equates " experience of "deliciousness" of some food with "discerning taste as pleasant".

Ben wrote:Or the inherent aversion in discerning a taste as unpleasant? Or the inherent indifference to discerning a taste as neutral?

You should ask these question to the person who asserted these things. I did not assert such things.

Kind regards

TMingyur wrote:I have really tried to explain to the best of my ability. But I find it unfair when words that I have not spoken [fig] are put into my mouth [fig] afterwards

What I am trying to do, Ming, is to understand what you are talking about.

TMingyur wrote:

Ben wrote:

TMingyur wrote:experiencing "deliciousness" as a characteristic of some food is far from mere discerning in the context of depending origination.

Really, how is it different to describing a taste as 'pleasant'?

Description is not experience. Description is a mental synthesis which may have an experience as its basis but it is not the same.

Yes, I think we knew that. What I am getting at is 'deliciousness' is an adjective used to describe the experience of taste as being pleasant.

TMingyur wrote:

Ben wrote: And where is the inherent clinging in discerning taste as pleasant?

What I expressed originally is that it is in the experience of "deliciousness" of some food.

Where is the inherent clinging in the experience of the deliciousness of some food. And why is there no inherent clinging in the experience of the deliciousness of other food?

TMingyur wrote:

Ben wrote:Or the inherent aversion in discerning a taste as unpleasant? Or the inherent indifference to discerning a taste as neutral?

You should ask these question to the person who asserted these things.

I am just trying to understand you, Ming. I am trying to understadn the Dhammic and/or logical basis for your statements.

Ben wrote:

TMingyur wrote:

Ben wrote: And where is the inherent clinging in discerning taste as pleasant?

What I expressed originally is that it is in the experience of "deliciousness" of some food.

Where is the inherent clinging in the experience of the deliciousness of some food. And why is there no inherent clinging in the experience of the deliciousness of other food?

"deliciousness of" any food. It is contacting food or its taste, and vedana, muddled perception and papancas arising from this contact. The whole collection of the aggregates that is what is called "experience"

Kind regards

TMingyur wrote: "deliciousness of" any food. It is contacting food or its taste, and vedana, muddled perception and papancas arising from this contact. The whole collection of the aggregates that is what is called "experience"

Argument by definition, but there is no reason one needs to define '"deliciousness of" any food' that way.

Ben wrote:
Tell me Ming, if one discerns a vedana as pleasant, unpleasant or neutral, does it infer that one is experiencing clinging, aversion or indifference towards that vedana?

Hi Ben, Tilt, TMingyur

It has been my experience that craving can be quite subtle, and because of nandi or the defilement delight arising (caused by craving) along with sukha vedana (pleasant sensation) the 'deliciousness' is seemingly enhanced. Once these defilements are removed it goes back down to realistic levels ie pure sukha vedana.

With metta

Matheesha

Reading this thread has caused me to crave a large tub of ice-cream...oh dear

Spiny O'Norman wrote:Reading this thread has caused me to crave a large tub of ice-cream...oh dear

I think there is no need to confirm that craving is ubiquitous.


kind regards

i never forget that how i obsessed with the thought of hamburger during a retreat...

i eat for taste absolutely, unfortunately it is hard to weakened the attachments

pedro1985 wrote:Simple question: Do you eat for taste or nutrition?\

Smart people do both. If you get nutrition, your energy levels and everything else in your life will suffer. If you don't get taste, there is a tendency to go nuts and binge on crap.........more crap than you would have had if you let yourself have a little bit of taste.

Jhana4 wrote: If you get nutrition, your energy levels and everything else in your life will suffer. If you don't get taste, there is a tendency to go nuts and binge on crap.........more crap than you would have had if you let yourself have a little bit of taste.

I think you may be confusing "taste" and some special category of "taste" here because it is usually the "crap" that has got intensive "taste" which however might be the one you dislike.

IMO if you renounce "taste" and focus on the nutrition aspect exlusively the likelihood you will be totally renouncing "crap" is very high.

kind regards

As the "origional poster" of this thread: One of the reasons why I posted this question, was because I was surprised to learn the effects that eating for taste can have on people.

Let me start by saying that I am in no position to judge people, and I am not posting this to judge others, but I post this merely out of "my observations".

Alright, let me explain:

What I noticed among people who tend to eat mostly for the taste that food gives them, is that they tend to go for the somewhat more expensive food. Expensive food mostly have more taste added.

But, now my observation:

When people experience financial difficulties, the weird thing is, I see many taste addicted people, who rather go a day without eating, then eating tasteless food.

For example, people addicted to taste rather skip dinner and be hungry than to eat a bowl of brown rice with a carrot. (1 bowl of brown rice and a carrot costs only 0,15 Euro in Central Europe.

I have heard things like: I will not eat that, that's disgusting, it has no taste at all.

My conclusion: Based on my personal experience, I can see the benefit of eating tasteless food that are nutritious, because it makes you more humble and less dependant on taste.

And when in financial difficulty, you can turn to cheap and tasteless, but highly nutritious food without complaining or thinking that you are deprived of "better " food.

" It makes you more humble ".....well I am glad that we have got that sorted.

Sanghamitta wrote:" It makes you more humble ".....well I am glad that we have got that sorted.

Of course I am only talking from my own perspective. Just my own personal experience. It's not meant to impose my views on anybody else.

Well just as long as you are happy to post on a public forum that you are more humble as a result of lunch, and not see any irony in that at several levels..
It reminds me of a joke.

It is the day of Yom Kippur the Jewish day of Atonement.
The Rabbi kneels before the congregation and says " I am but dust and ashes "
The Cantor ( choir master ) kneels before the congregation and says " I too am but dust and ashes "
At which point the synagogue janitor kneels next to the cantor and says " I too am but dust and ashes ".
At this the cantor whispers to the Rabbi " who is HE to be but dust and ashes ? "

Sanghamitta wrote:Well just as long as you are happy to post on a public forum that you are more humble as a result of lunch, and not see any irony in that at several levels..

I'm not really sure what you mean? What irony is there about it?