tiltbillings wrote:An earworm, a primary player in this topic, is a burden only if one makes it a burden, and seeing an earworm that has arisen as a burden, as a block to awareness, as an annoyance, as a distraction, and making one unhappy and then one wants it gone -- all of that is aversion. If renunciation is motivated by such aversion, then one needs to be aware of that, and that, then, is part of what one works with.
It is not aversion to identify something is a distraction and hindrance to meditation and then take steps to remove that hindrance. The aversion you are attempting to highlight is just not there.
Which includes much of life.
It certainly includes sensual indulgence.
Damdifino what you are talking about here; your statement is less than clear.
What I mean to say is, while that story is obviously a good lesson in dealing with things as they come, it does not imply that sense restraint is somehow unnecessary. I guarantee you, if someone asked Ajahn Chah whether or not they should listen to music, he would advise them not to.
There is more to meditation than just equanimity, and it is no sign of aversion should one turn away from a lesser happiness in order to facilitate easier access to a greater one. The OP is not trying to remake the world in his image or somehow banish these earworms from existence; he's just trying to take pragmatic steps to reduce their occurrence by following a set of restrictions enshrined in the precepts themselves. Why do you think the eighth precept exists if not for exactly this reason?
But the real source of such distractions and aversion, as Ajahn Chah made clear, is in oneself.
The source of the aversion is in oneself, but the distraction is obviously external. Even the Buddha went off into the forest to meditate. If all distractions are purely internal, why didn't he hang out in the city or do Jhana in the marketplace?
Removing distractions in order to meditate more effectively is a reasonable thing, but one needs to be willing to be aware of one's motivation when one chooses to act in a particular way. And one's motivation may be very mixed, indeed, and since motivations are not always immediately obvious, that is stuff that one should be willing to look at as it presents itself.
I absolutely agree.
Thank you for sharing your opinion, but I simply do not agree with what you are saying here. My point is simply that one needs to be willing to look a bit more deeply at why one does something as that plays itself out in one's life. Just because renunciation is a virtue does not mean that such an action should not be looked at as to why it is undertaken.
And there is no reason to assume this action is being taken for any reason other than one's desire for more effective and distraction-free meditation. What you are calling aversion is nothing more than pragmatism.
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.
Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.
His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti SuttaStuff I write about things.