Suffering, revulsion, loathsomeness

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Suffering, revulsion, loathsomeness

Post by ground »

norman wrote:We'll have to disagree on that one, ground.
No problem. Since I have been expressing to not share your view your disagreement follows naturally.
norman wrote: For example, doubt (though I think it applies to the others too): I would say doubt does not need to be labelled 'bad' or 'good' - it just exists. It should not be the subject of aversion which just adds another layer of problems. To need aversion to be there to be able to gather enough energy to tackle issues is itself a problem...
I cannot see a connection between this statement of yours and what I have written above, sorry.
norman wrote: I have heard the metaphor of 'using a thorn to extract a thorn' (not sure where that comes from) - but I think this is only useful in more positive situations - for example to want to follow the path is a prime mover for starting to follow the path (though I'd assume that later on even this want would be let go of).

Doubt about the 'teachings' to me is a good approach because it leads to a need to test the teachings for oneself - and if the test reveals the teachings as true (not judged true but seen directly as true) then the doubt about those teachings disappears for itself immediately. Doubt about oneself (for example - is my meditation getting anywhere?) I think is also useful and leads to a dispassionate and honest look at oneself - and maybe change or increased understanding (for example - meditating to 'get somewhere' isn't useful - meditating - 'being there' - perhaps is).

Just to add - kirk5a's signature seems to me to sum it all up perfectly (and can be tested by any one of us directly):
"When one thing is practised & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
Again I cannot see a connection between these statements of yours and what I have written above, sorry.

Let me repeat what I have written above and if you want to disagree then please directly refer to these words to point out what you disagree with:
ground wrote:Why should one follow the constructed ideal of " observation of the way things are without judgement"? There is nothing bad about aversion against fetters if one wants to get rid of these. The aversion does not necessarly have to become a fetter itself.
:sage:
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Suffering, revulsion, loathsomeness

Post by daverupa »

Aversion is unwholesome, but can be noticed by sati without engendering more aversion. This is observation without judgment, or bare awareness. Thereupon right effort can come to the fore, applying metta or uppekha or other antidotes as appropriate. But the intention can never be right intention if it is rooted in aversion.

Using a thorn to extract a thorn may refer to using conceit to be rid of conceit, or using desire to be rid of desire. These are attested approaches, while using aversion to uproot aversion is definitively said to never work, in a number of places.

:heart:
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Suffering, revulsion, loathsomeness

Post by ground »

daverupa wrote:Aversion is unwholesome, ...
If this is what you experience generally then be it so. However I cannot agree since I am experiencing that aversion can be wholesome in that it is an efficient motivator to act against what causes aversion. E.g. aversion against being distracted fosters mindfulness.
daverupa wrote: ... by sati ... This is observation without judgment, or bare awareness.
From my perspective this implicit definition is merely an ideological statement following a modern trend of interpreters. There is nothing bad about judgements. Even naming experiences is a judgments and buddhist religion with its rights and wrongs is full of judgements even if these are merely understood "technically".
daverupa wrote: Thereupon right effort ...
See... A judgement ...
daverupa wrote: But the intention can never be right intention if it is rooted in aversion.
That is mere ideology that strives to categorize the experience of others.

:sage:
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Suffering, revulsion, loathsomeness

Post by ground »

daverupa wrote:... This is observation without judgment, or bare awareness. Thereupon right effort can come to the fore, ...
Here we have a contradiction. If there would be no judgement at all, only so called "bare awareness" effort would never arise. Why? Because effort is connected with intention, intention to change one state into another, to change a state that is judged to be non-compliant with an ideal into a state that judged to be "better" or compliant with an ideal. That is judgement. If you fail to acknowledge this inconsistency how can you think you are in a position to make general claims about what may be called "aversion", general claims that cover all possible contexts, all individuals, all times and places? But if you acknowledge this inconsistency then your generalisations will appear as expressions of merely wanting things to be a certain way, i.e. ideological statements. :sage:
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Suffering, revulsion, loathsomeness

Post by daverupa »

You seem to think that practicing mindfulness necessitates making it ones entire raison d'être, with the consequence that any effort at all becomes impossible due to contradiction.

But mindfulness is basically an overarching awareness of what's going on, and as such has no part to play in responding to anything. It's simply a way of speaking about one aspect of the process of development and awakening.

I think that should cover the gist of things; the word salad was confusing, but so far you appear to me to be laboring under some misapprehensions.
AN 3.33 wrote:"Any action performed with aversion — born of aversion, caused by aversion, originating from aversion: wherever one's selfhood turns up, there that action will ripen. Where that action ripens, there one will experience its fruit, either in this very life that has arisen or further along in the sequence.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Suffering, revulsion, loathsomeness

Post by ground »

daverupa wrote:You seem to think that practicing mindfulness necessitates making it ones entire raison d'être, with the consequence that any effort at all becomes impossible due to contradiction.
I cannot see a connnection of your words to what I have written, sorry. Obviously your thinking is just your thinking leading to words that cause ideas of mine that are not yours.
daverupa wrote: But mindfulness is basically an overarching awareness of what's going on, and as such has no part to play in responding to anything. It's simply a way of speaking about one aspect of the process of development and awakening.

I think that should cover the gist of things; the word salad was confusing, but so far you appear to me to be laboring under some misapprehensions.
Well so far you appear to me to be laboring under some misapprehensions (joking, because how should I be able to know your apprehension? I just see your words where no meaning inheres). And now? (No answer expected)
We may continue to make statements based on our experiences. But yours may not be mine ... however your experience seems to be depending on the experience expressed by me by means of the words I am applying. Why is this? (No answer expected)

:sage:
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Suffering, revulsion, loathsomeness

Post by ground »

daverupa wrote:
AN 3.33 wrote:"Any action performed with aversion — born of aversion, caused by aversion, originating from aversion: wherever one's selfhood turns up, there that action will ripen. Where that action ripens, there one will experience its fruit, either in this very life that has arisen or further along in the sequence.
I did not write anything about "actions performed with aversion — born of aversion, caused by aversion, originating from aversion". This is just your imagination. You may read my words again. Aversion may be helpful. There is no need to generate aversion against aversion. However if aversion causes poblems aversion against aversion may be helpful to get rid of it. :sage:
norman
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 6:13 pm

Re: Suffering, revulsion, loathsomeness

Post by norman »

Just to be clear: I would define aversion as 'strong dislike'

Living in society there are conventions that we (hopefully) are brought up with - for example a strong dislike of acts of cruelty. On a conventional level these are valuable as they act as an emotional check on behaviour which is destructive (and would be bad for the survival of the species).

I think though that this aversion can be a block to understanding oneself, and can lead to very destructive behaviour - for example taking revenge for an act of cruelty done against someone in one's community (and civil wars seem to be specially nasty in this respect). Aversion carries in its wake blind anger.

So on a conventional level it is good that we have these inbuilt emotional checks against doing wrong - but I think that following the Buddha's path has the potential to change things at their root: for example a destructive thought arises, and instead of identifying with it perhaps one can fearlessly see it just as a thought (not-self) which arises, and inevitably will eventually disappear. Aversion towards any thought (or emotion) makes a 'me with aversion' - which may arise and in the same way is just noted as 'aversion arisen' which in its turn is not-self and will disappear. In neither case is the event made 'mine' as some sort of tool to get something done. To feel aversion towards the aversion is to be caught in an endless cycle - maybe only broken by simply concentrating on the breath. To me following the path involves some trust - to try out what the Buddha recommended in a few main suttas (Dhammacakkappavattana, Satipaṭṭhāna) in the spirit of exploration - not treating them as dogma, and when fear arises (perhaps when seeing some of the contents of one's own mind) knowing that there is a large community that has followed and is following this path - so not to fear harm if honestly practised.

Perhaps it is possible instead to feel metta towards aversion - as not-self - after all can we not in some way feel at least pity towards a tyrant caught in a cycle of bad behaviour (I don't know)? That is not to condone it or rule out action on a conventional level of course.
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Suffering, revulsion, loathsomeness

Post by binocular »

norman wrote:I appreciate that there is difficulty in translating from Pali. However these words seem very loaded and for me imply an emotional engagement with things that seems just the opposite of dispassion, observation of the way things are without judgement, letting things that arise naturally pass away again. I appreciate that I see these things arise in my mind, but do not see a need to hang on to them - or make them a special subject of contemplation. Perhaps these as contemplations are a sort of antidote to attachment to passing pleasure - to be used like medicine when necessary?
Could you provide a reference to a sutta where it is instructed to practice "dispassion, observation of the way things are without judgement, letting things that arise naturally pass away again"?

norman wrote:Aversion towards any thought (or emotion) makes a 'me with aversion' .
That aversion that one feels may be just the tip of the iceberg, with a skillful basis.

For example, after having felt intense and persistent aversion for fashion photographs and advertisements, I eventually started to collect pictures at which I have felt aversion. I've looked at them regularly and tried to notice what goes on in my mind. The biggest insight has been that I simply feel dismayed over how I otherwise tend to live my life, paying to much attention to the actions of others, indulging in this or that activity that I am otherwise quite sure is not wholesome.
Eventually, it dawned on me that if I were to pay more attention to how I go about my daily life, I'd also feel less aversion to fashion photographs. Which in practice turned out to be true.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Suffering, revulsion, loathsomeness

Post by binocular »

ground wrote:There is nothing bad about aversion against fetters if one wants to get rid of these. The aversion does not necessarly have to become a fetter itself.
Sure. To be dispassionate about heedlessness would be quite heedless!


"If evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is attending to this other theme, connected with what is skillful, he should scrutinize the drawbacks of those thoughts: 'Truly, these thoughts of mine are unskillful, these thoughts of mine are blameworthy, these thoughts of mine result in stress.' As he is scrutinizing the drawbacks of those thoughts, those evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it. Just as a young woman — or man — fond of adornment, would be horrified, humiliated, and disgusted if the carcass of a snake or a dog or a human being were hung from her neck; in the same way, if evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is attending to this other theme, connected with what is skillful, he should scrutinize the drawbacks of those thoughts: 'Truly, these thoughts of mine are unskillful, these thoughts of mine are blameworthy, these thoughts of mine result in stress.' As he is scrutinizing the drawbacks of those thoughts, those evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it.

MN 20
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
norman
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 6:13 pm

Re: Suffering, revulsion, loathsomeness

Post by norman »

Thanks binocular. I am no expert on the suttas - just a lay person trying out what is suggested - and am quite happy to be corrected...
Maybe I have mis-read this (MN10, Thera, I take covetousness = desire for, grief = dislike/aversion):
"Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu lives contemplating the body in the body, ardent, clearly comprehending (it) and mindful (of it), having overcome, in this world, covetousness and grief; he lives contemplating the feelings in the feelings, ardent, clearly comprehending (them) and mindful (of them), having overcome, in this world, covetousness and grief; he lives contemplating consciousness in consciousness, ardent, clearly comprehending (it) and mindful (of it), having overcome in this world covetousness and grief; he lives contemplating mental objects in mental objects, ardent, clearly comprehending (them) and mindful (of them), having overcome, in this world, covetousness and grief."
To me this points to comprehending ie seeing clearly - not deliberately followed by a further reaction eg aversion, approval etc. The 'overcoming' seems to me to be possible by seeing desire and aversion for what they are - mental artefacts that just appear similar in some ways to any arbitrary thought which is obviously not-self eg I now think of my car - that thought about a car, not by fighting them with further deliberate reactions which could go on ad infinitum. So to overcome is to render empty - not to stamp on until it (perhaps) goes away. This is not to deny the existence of a self - just not to be misled into thinking things to be self that aren't. I don't think I have enough insight to (yet?) see things much more clearly / deeper.
In your quote I would separate the young woman in everyday life who is naturally horrified, from the monk who coolly sees that something is unskilful. Maybe I misuse the word 'judgement' - or maybe there is a difference between judging a person and a thing? So I might judge that a certain quiet room is conducive to concentration, but I would want to avoid judging another human being if possible (not knowing what is going on inside their head). Judging a thought/state of mind though - labelling it good or bad, helpful or unhelpful - I'm not sure what that would mean - it seems to personify the thought as if it was an independent being not just the result of a chain of events that blindly (in a sense) produce it. On the other hand exercising judgement about an action that I might be contemplating would seem to be a very good thing (is this the basis for sila?). I also wonder if for a lay person because we often have to act quickly in everyday life just using the conventional ways of thinking, we could use meditation as the space where we can take things back to where this stuff comes from - and as far as possible see the flux of things as they really are?
The trouble is I just see more and more complex questions appearing if I try to logically look at all this - and then find a quiet relief by just watching the breath and seeing what being alive is!
Many thanks again
Norman

Just to add:
The Blessed One said, "Monks, Sariputta is wise, of great discernment, deep discernment, wide... joyous... rapid... quick... penetrating discernment. For half a month, Sariputta clearly saw insight into mental qualities one after another. This is what occurred to Sariputta through insight into mental qualities one after another:

"There was the case where Sariputta — quite secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful qualities — entered & remained in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. Whatever qualities there are in the first jhana — directed thought, evaluation, rapture, pleasure, singleness of mind, contact, feeling, perception, intention, consciousness, desire, decision, persistence, mindfulness, equanimity, & attention — he ferreted them out one after another. Known to him they arose, known to him they remained, known to him they subsided. He discerned, 'So this is how these qualities, not having been, come into play. Having been, they vanish.' He remained unattracted & unrepelled with regard to those qualities, independent, detached, released, dissociated, with an awareness rid of barriers. He discerned that 'There is a further escape,' and pursuing it there really was for him.
MN111 Anupada Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .html#fn-2)

So discernment is good judgement of value or quality (Wikipedia) - not to condemn I think, but to make wise choices.
I would conclude that this type of judgement must be beneficial!
norman
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 6:13 pm

Re: Suffering, revulsion, loathsomeness

Post by norman »

kirk5a wrote:If you're going to approach it that way, there's nothing stopping you or anyone from conducting a "trial" of not drinking alcohol and seeing what comes of it here and now. I would say 1 month of total abstinence at a minimum will probably reveal a few clearly visible things. :stirthepot:
Just to add - the month off alcohol was no problem - rather fun actually! No great insight - perhaps I drank too little beforehand to make much difference. Perhaps I'm lucky that people I know don't put pressure on to drink. Maybe a slightly greater clarity of mind, perhaps a little more sprightly jump out of bed in the morning (though that was not a problem for me anyway). One thing is sure though - I am clear that taking alcohol is not a compulsion... so maybe a month off once a year...
Post Reply