Do you eat for taste or nutrition?

[rowyourboat]

Some people have told me that when they ate what they thought to be delicious food mindfully, it turned out to be less delicious than they thought- so even simply being mindful while eating helps. Overcoming senduality is a valid (albeit not popular) part of practice.

With metta

Matheesha

[ground]

Some people have told me that when they ate what they thought to be delicious food mindfully, it turned out to be less delicious than they thought- so even simply being mindful while eating helps. Overcoming senduality is a valid (albeit not popular) part of practice.

That seems to be implied by appropriate practice of mindfulness:

unsustained by (not clinging to) anything in the world
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Attachment (clinging) thus is shown to be inhering in experiencing "deliciousness"

Kind regards

[Ben]

Attachment (clinging) thus is shown to be inhering in experiencing "deliciousness"

Do you have anything to support this notion?

[ground]

Attachment (clinging) thus is shown to be inhering in experiencing "deliciousness"

Do you have anything to support this notion?

If you mean a sutta where the Buddha says "Attachment (clinging) is inhering in experiencing 'deliciousness'" then no, I do not have such a sutta reference.

Kind regards

[tiltbillings]

Attachment (clinging) thus is shown to be inhering in experiencing "deliciousness"

Do you have anything to support this notion?

If you mean a sutta where the Buddha says "Attachment (clinging) is inhering in experiencing 'deliciousness'" then no, I do not have such a sutta reference.

Kind regards

In other words, it is an idea of your making.

[ground]

In other words, it is an idea of your making.

What is not "an idea of our making" if expressed in words and terminology?

Actually I looked up the meaning of "deliciousness" in a vocabulary and presented my conclusion.


Kind regards

[Sanghamitta]

Its just not that complicated...sigh.
If you have a bowl of wholesome food that has been garnered with a minimum of suffering to sentient beings just eat it gratefully.

The centipede was happy , quite
until a toad in fun,
said "pray, which leg goes after which ? "
which worked his mind to such a pitch
he laid distracted in a ditch
considering how to run.

[tiltbillings]

Attachment (clinging) is inhering in experiencing 'deliciousness'

In other words, it is an idea of your making.

What is not "an idea of our making" if expressed in words and terminology?

Actually I looked up the meaning of "deliciousness" in a vocabulary and presented my conclusion.

There is no inherent reason that attachment must arise from the experience of "deliciousness." That would present some serious problems, if true.

[Ben]

Attachment (clinging) thus is shown to be inhering in experiencing "deliciousness"

Do you have anything to support this notion?

If you mean a sutta where the Buddha says "Attachment (clinging) is inhering in experiencing 'deliciousness'" then no, I do not have such a sutta reference.

Kind regards

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?

kind regards

Bne

[ground]

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?

kind regards

Bne

No.

In the case of the experience of "deliciousness of food" as soon as vedana is discerned the "deliciousness of food" fades away which is simply because consciousness cannot have two objects (vedana and alleged delicious taste of food) at the same time.

Kind regards

[ground]

But of course attachment may shift from the perceptual level of "taste of food" to the perceptual level of "vedana". "may" means "not necessarily 'does'".

Kind regards

[tiltbillings]

On other words, this:

Attachment (clinging) thus is shown to be inhering in experiencing "deliciousness"

is wrong.

[Ben]

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?

kind regards

Bne

No.

In the case of the experience of "deliciousness of food" as soon as vedana is discerned the "deliciousness of food" fades away which is simply because consciousness cannot have two objects (vedana and alleged delicious taste of food) at the same time.

Kind regards

I still don't understand how clinging comes about by discerning the pleasant nature of taste?
Can you explain it?

[tiltbillings]

I still don't understand how clinging comes about by discerning the pleasant nature of taste?
Can you explain it?

It is not just a matter of "attachment" coming about by, but he said it is 'attachment is inhering in experiencing "deliciousness,"' which says something a lot stronger than merely coming about by. If it may not come about by. But if it is inhering in the experience, it always comes about by.

[ground]

On other words, this:

Attachment (clinging) thus is shown to be inhering in experiencing "deliciousness"

is wrong.

Since the context of this statement was experiencing "deliciousness" of food I cannot agree.

Kind regards

[tiltbillings]

On other words, this:

Attachment (clinging) thus is shown to be inhering in experiencing "deliciousness"

is wrong.

Since the context of this statement was experiencing "deliciousness" of food I cannot agree.

Kind regards

Fine, but you have not made a case for this statement. I am thinking you do not know what "inhering" (inherent) means.

[Ben]

I still don't understand how clinging comes about by discerning the pleasant nature of taste?
Can you explain it?

It is not just a matter of "attachment" coming about by, but he said it is 'attachment is inhering in experiencing "deliciousness,"' which says something a lot stronger than merely coming about by. If it may not come about by. But if it is inhering in the experience, it always comes about by.

Yes, of course. My attention was being diverted by a delicious meal I was eating while not experiencing clinging or attachment to the meal, and trying to understand Ming's reasoning.
You are right - the real difficulty I am having with Ming's statements is the claim that attachment inherent in the experience of deliciousness. Its tantamount to saying that attachment is inherent in discerning the pleasant characteristic of vedana. Which is what I was getting at earlier.

Ben

[ground]

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?

kind regards

Bne

No.

In the case of the experience of "deliciousness of food" as soon as vedana is discerned the "deliciousness of food" fades away which is simply because consciousness cannot have two objects (vedana and alleged delicious taste of food) at the same time.

Kind regards

I still don't understand how clinging comes about by discerning the pleasant nature of taste?
Can you explain it?

Mere discerning in the context of dependent origination does not involve clinging. But experiencing "deliciousness" as a characteristic of some food is far from mere discerning in the context of dependent origination.

Of course you may agree or disagree. I have reached the limit of my verbal capacity so please accept if I leave it at that.


Kind regards

[tiltbillings]

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

Not necessarily.

[Ben]

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'?
And where is the inherent clinging in discerning taste as pleasant? Or the inherent aversion in discerning a taste as unpleasant? Or the inherent indifference to discerning a taste as neutral?