[Arximedus]

Greetings

In Ajahn Sumedhos teachings he states that


Samyutta Nikaya LVI, 11]

The Second Noble Truth with its three aspects is: 'There is the origin of suffering, which is attachment to desire. Desire should be let go of. Desire has been let go of.'

The Second Noble Truth states that there is an origin of suffering and that the origin of suffering is attachment to the three kinds of desire: desire for sense pleasure (kama tanha), desire to become (bhava tanha) and desire to get rid of (vibhava tanha). This is the statement of the Second Noble Truth, the thesis, the pariyatti. This is what you contemplate: the origin of suffering is attachment to desire He goes onto teach


GRASPING IS SUFFERING
Usually we equate suffering with feeling, but feeling is not suffering. It is the grasping of desire that is suffering. Desire does not cause suffering; the cause of suffering is the grasping of desire. This statement is for reflection and contemplation in terms of your individual experience.

You really have to investigate desire and know it for what it is. You have to know what is natural and necessary for survival and what is not necessary for survival. We can be very idealistic in thinking that even the need for food is some kind of desire we should not have. One can be quite ridiculous about it. But the Buddha was not an idealist and he was not a moralist. He was not trying to condemn anything. He was trying to awaken us to truth so that we could see things clearly.

Once there is that clarity and seeing in the right way, then there is no suffering. You can still feel hunger. You can still need food without it becoming a desire. Food is a natural need of the body. The body is not self; it needs food otherwise it will get very weak and die. That is the nature of the body - there is nothing wrong with that. If we get very moralistic and high-minded and believe that we are our bodies, that hunger is our own problem, and that we should not even eat - that is not wisdom; it is foolishness.

When you really see the origin of suffering, you realise that the problem is the grasping of desire not the desire itself. Grasping means being deluded by it, thinking it's really 'me' and 'mine': 'These desires are me and there is something wrong with me for having them'; or, 'I don't like the way I am now. I have to become something else'; or, 'I have to get rid of something before I can become what I want to be.' All this is desire. So you listen to it with bare attention, not saying it's good or bad, but merely recognising it for what it is. both found in the same book

http://www.buddhanet.net/4noble.htm



I have usually interpreted the teachings as stating that craving should be got rid off. However to get rid of something is aversion whereas to abandon something you simply let it be (via sai).


"And this, monks is the noble truth of the origination of dukkha: the craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming."



"Monks, any desire & passion with regard to craving for forms is a defilement of the mind. Any desire & passion with regard to craving for sounds... craving for aromas... craving for flavors... craving for tactile sensations... craving for ideas is a defilement of the mind. When, with regard to these six bases, the defilements of awareness are abandoned, then the mind is inclined to renunciation. The mind fostered by renunciation feels malleable for the direct knowing of those qualities worth realizing."


So is craving the problem, or the adherence/taking up of craving?



Do you think this is correct understanding?

[medshop]

desire & passion

chanda [desire] rāgo [lust]

passion & delight

nandī [delight] rāga [lust]

"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the origination of stress: the craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming.

"Vision arose, insight arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before: 'This is the noble truth of the origination of stress'... 'This noble truth of the origination of stress is to be abandoned' ... 'This noble truth of the origination of stress has been abandoned.'

On seeing a form with the eye, he is passionate for it if it is pleasing; he is angry with it if it is displeasing. He lives with mindfulness to the body unestablished, with a limited mind and he does not understand realistically the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom wherein those evil unwholesome states cease without remainder. Engaged as he is in favouring and opposing, whatever feeling he feels - whether pleasant or painful or neither-pleasant-nor-painful - he delights in that feeling, welcomes it and remains holding on to it. As he does so, delight (nandi) arises in him. Now, delight in feelings (vedanàsu nandi) is clinging (upàdàna). Becoming is conditioned by his clinging; becoming conditions birth; birth conditions ageing-&-death; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair come to be. Thus is the arising of this entire mass of suffering.

[heilyprollecyspor]

As he does so, delight (nandi) arises in him. Now, delight in feelings (vedanàsu nandi) is clinging (upàdàna). the 2nd noble truth states


"And this, monks is the noble truth of the origination of dukkha: the craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight So is there is only dukkha if craving is accompanied by delight and lust? So when one is awake there is craving but it does not lead to dukkha as there is no delight and lust?


metta

[Nfxutkpa]

So is craving the problem or the adherence/taking up of craving?

Hi Craig

Interesting. I would kind of say the later.

What is vague is the term 'samudaya'. The term 'samudaya' means 'origin' or 'arising'. This is different than the word 'hetu' or 'cause'.

So the 2nd Noble Truth describes more than one cause (hetu) or condition (paccaya). It describes various causes & conditions leading to the arising or originating (samudaya) of suffering.

Also, the 2nd Noble Truth describes more than a momentary craving or a mental 'pull' or 'push' in relation to forms, sounds, aromas, flavors, tactile sensations and/or ideas.

The 2nd Noble Truth includes lusting (overcome, seduced), delighting (indulging), spinning around in relishing & rejoicing (tatratatrābhinandinī).

Samudaya [saŋ+udaya] 1. rise, origin

Hetu [Vedic hetu, fr. hi to impel] 1. cause, reason, con- dition

Rāga [cp. Sk. rāga, fr. raj: see rajati] 1. colour, hue; colouring, dye

[fr. abhinandati, cp. nandin] rejoicing at, finding pleasure in (loc. or -- ˚), enjoying A ii.54 (piyarūpa); esp. freq. in phrase (taṇhā) tatratatrɔâbhinandinī finding its pleasure in this or that

tatra tatra, in t. -- t. -- abhinandinī (of taṇhā) finding its delight in this & that, here & there

tattha here and there, in various places, all over

[whatisthebluepill]

So when one is awake there is craving but it does not lead to dukkha as there is no delight and lust?

I would say a Buddha, fully awake, has no craving due to the power of their insight (vipassana).

Is his first words, the Buddha declared taṇhānaṃ khaya - the destruction of craving.

But other lesser enlightened beings may experience forms of craving without dukkha.

I probably would not agree with Ajahn Sumedho who is using hunger has an example of craving.

'Tanha' is desire under the power of ignorance.

[8IhGpvH0]

"And this, monks is the noble truth of the origination of dukkha: the craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight

So is there is only dukkha if craving is accompanied by delight and lust? So when one is awake there is craving but it does not lead to dukkha as there is no delight and lust?

I see where your question arises from, but i do not see the Buddha making the distinction you seem to be implying between "craving accompanied by passion and delight" and an implied, unspoken "craving that is not accompanied by passion & delight", and I have never seen the Buddha speaking of any sort of "craving that is not accompanied by passion & delight".

It seems to me that he is defining craving as being intrinsically accompanied by passion and delight.

[CO2490pL]

It seems to me that he is defining craving as being intrinsically accompanied by passion and delight.

Yes...

The consecuence of being unaware of passion and delight ends in craving...

[mymnarorump]

LETTING GO
If we contemplate desires and listen to them, we are actually no longer attaching to them; we are just allowing them to be the way they are. Then we come to the realisation that the origin of suffering, desire, can be laid aside and let go of.

How do you let go of things? This means you leave them as they are; it does not mean you annihilate them or throw them away. It is more like setting down and letting them be. Through the practice of letting go we realise that there is the origin of suffering, which is the attachment to desire, and we realise that we should let go of these three kinds of desire. Then we realise that we have let go of these desires; there is no longer any attachment to them.

When you find yourself attached, remember that 'letting go' is not 'getting rid of' or 'throwing away'. If I'm holding onto this clock and you say, 'Let go of it!', that doesn't mean 'throw it out'. I might think that I have to throw it away because I'm attached to it, but that would just be the desire to get rid of it. We tend to think that getting rid of the object is a way of getting rid of attachment. But if I can contemplate attachment, this grasping of the clock, I realise that there is no point in getting rid of it - it's a good clock; it keeps good time and is not heavy to carry around. The clock is not the problem. The problem is grasping the clock. So what do I do? Let it go, lay it aside - put it down gently without any kind of aversion. Then I can pick it up again, see what time it is and lay it aside when necessary.

You can apply this insight into 'letting go' to the desire for sense pleasures. Maybe you want to have a lot of fun. How would you lay aside that desire without any aversion? Simply recognise the desire without judging it. You can contemplate wanting to get rid of it - because you feel guilty about having such a foolish desire - but just lay it aside. Then, when you see it as it is, recognising that it's just desire, you are no longer attached to it. To me this rings true with Dhamma. To let something go you just observe and let them be. So to let go of desire/attachment is just just observe desire


On an after thought I feel that Ajahns teachings seem to relate to the gradual training. One has sati and so observes craving and attachment instead of following it or rejecting it (which is more craving). This then leads to an insight into the four noble truths. This then eventually leads to complete dispassion after more and more such insights


Anyone agree or disagree with Ajahns teachings here?


metta

[qp0yfHOf]

LETTING GO
If we contemplate...

This level of cotemplation brings you to awareness... once you are aware craving starts to loose its tighteness...

How do you let go of things? This means you leave them as they are; it does not mean you annihilate them or throw them away. It is more like setting down and letting them be.

This is part of the way of zazen...

Thanks clw_uk,