Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

Because that statement seems to contradict the whole notion of MN 10, which states that one understands mind affected by lust as mind affected by lust.

But if we understand, see mindfully, a mind affected by lust, what happens?

tiltbillings wrote: Modern Theravada is not an anti-Abhidhamma zone.

Perhaps not, but I have started a topic here:
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2051" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
about some of the issues that it seems to me would be off-topic on this thread...

Mike

tiltbillings wrote:But if we understand, see mindfully, a mind affected by lust, what happens?

We recognize that the mind is thus affected, and we recognize its nature as anicca. That's how I'd answer the question, any way. Would you answer differently? I think there are probably different legitimate ways of answering ...

Jechbi wrote:

tiltbillings wrote:But if we understand, see mindfully, a mind affected by lust, what happens?

We recognize that the mind is thus affected, and we recognize its nature as anicca. That's how I'd answer the question, any way. Would you answer differently? I think there are probably different legitimate ways of answering ...

But what happens to the lust?

tiltbillings wrote:But what happens to the lust?

I suppose that will depend on the underlying fuel.

Jechbi wrote:

tiltbillings wrote:But what happens to the lust?

I suppose that will depend on the underlying fuel.

If there is really mindfullness: nibbuti.

Is that the test of true sati? That it conditions extinguishing of lust all by itself? Because in my experience, sati does not exhaust the nutriments but merely enables one to observe their fruition and be aware of what is occuring. But then my experience of sati might well be flawed ...

But sati is obviously a crucial factor.

Jechbi wrote:Is that the test of true sati? That it conditions extinguishing of lust all by itself? Because in my experience, sati does not exhaust the nutriments but merely enables one to observe their fruition and be aware of what is occuring. But then my experience of sati might well be flawed ...

Being mindful of what is arising changes the situation.

That it conditions extinguishing of lust all by itself?

It does not condition extinguishing of lust; rather, it shifts the perspective of lust, depriving it of it is impulse, which in turn deprives it of it fuel. It is interesting to experience the shift of a mind raging with "I want to do the ins and outs" to cool, attentive awareness. Also, there is a point where it does not matter what the content of experience is: it is just rising and falling, anicca, empty.

Hello Individual and Dhammabodhi,

Individual wrote:

Dhammabodhi wrote:

Many monks have wet dreams when they indulge in some types of food or drink, like cheese or coffee in the afternoon.

Is there any particular reason behind this? What other kind of foodstuff have such effects?

Thank you
Dhammabodhi

Some of it might be superstition, but certain foods are capable of stimulating libido:
http://www.askmen.com/dating/love_tip_2 ... e_tip.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm not sure about the science behind this, the suggestion that I have received is to test different types of food and see what is good for meditation. I don't think there is any fixed diet that everyone should eat. It depends on a person. This is a refined practice for those who are meditating. Some food induce sleepiness, some food induce restlessness. Some food induce anger, some lust...

There is something to be learned from the yoga traditions in regards to different types of food. I'm not an expert on this, so don't ask me.

With coffee, the possible sexual side effects may stem from the caffeine, but I don't know why drinking coffee at a certain time would have a distinct effect.

The Vinaya prevents monks from eating in the afternoon, as you know. Same rule applies for those who are keeping the 8-precepts. Coffee is allowed as a "tonic" or "medicine" in the afternoon. When you are living in a very quit and restrained way, coffee can be very powerful stimulant. Cheese is allowed in some monasterys in the afternoon. It's very sensual... the lust inducing effects of cheese, chocolate, sugar and coffee are well document amongst the monastic community. As I said, some people have problems with them, some don't.

tiltbillings wrote:Being mindful of what is arising changes the situation.

I agree that with mindfulness, the situation changes.

tiltbillings wrote:However, if a hinderance does not have a set unchanging nature, it does not necessarily have to hinder anything.
...
If a hinderance always hindered, you would never get free of it.

A hindrance is called a hindrance because it's function is to hinder. It hinders the arising of jhana. Always. The fact that a hindrance is dependently arisen means it doesn't necessarily have to arise. When this is, that is. When this isn't, that isn't.

"Herein, monks, a monk knows the consciousness with lust, as with lust."

One can certainly train to be mindful of lust as it arises. But this doesn't change the fact that lust hinders the arising of jhana. And none of this changes the fact that indulging in a sensual pleasure like masturbation is not the same thing as being mindful of sensual desire when it arises. Rather I would say the former obstructs the latter.

If one wants to claim otherwise, then I would think it is on that person to differentiate their view from the pernicious view of Arittha Formerly-of-the-Vulture-Killers in MN 22.

"The Blessed One said to him, "Is it true, Arittha, that this pernicious viewpoint has arisen in you — 'As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, those acts the Blessed One says are obstructive, when indulged in, are not genuine obstructions'?"

"Yes, indeed, lord. I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, and those acts the Blessed One says are obstructive, when indulged in are not genuine obstructions."

"Worthless man, from whom have you understood that Dhamma taught by me in such a way? Worthless man, haven't I in many ways described obstructive acts? And when indulged in they are genuine obstructions. I have said that sensual pleasures are of little satisfaction, much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks. I have compared sensual pleasures to a chain of bones: of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks. I have compared sensual pleasures to a lump of flesh... a grass torch... a pit of glowing embers... a dream... borrowed goods... the fruits of a tree... a butcher's ax and chopping block... swords and spears... a snake' head: of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks. But you, worthless man, through your own wrong grasp [of the Dhamma], have both misrepresented us as well as injuring yourself and accumulating much demerit for yourself, for that will lead to your long-term harm & suffering."

That said, I believe tilt left the topic of this thread some time ago and that is causing confusion. Considering the OP never came back after their first post perhaps it doesn't matter if the thread wanders. Still, it would be nice if tilt would state clearly if he was changing the focus of the conversation.

Chris wrote:Hello Tilt,

Tilt said: If a hinderance always hindered, you would never get free of it. A hinderance arises, a sensual thought arises, what happens?

For anyone not yet of perfect Sila ~ the odds are that you grasp it, get lost in day dreaming, perform unwholesome actions and thereby strengthen the underlying tendency to colour your thinking with greed and lust via the serial story playing on all forty-seven channels.
These channels have the two things in common. They never go off the air, and they all have the same lead actor ... the 'so precious' I.
Additionally, imbedded in the story are the justifications and excuses (some quite sophisticated) for the intentional actions of thought, word and deed, and their continuance.

metta
Chris

Well described, Chris.

tiltbillings wrote:

Chris wrote:Hello Tilt,

Tilt quoted: ...monk knows the consciousness with lust, as with lust; the consciousness without lust . . . Herein, monks, when sense-desire is present, a monk knows, "There is sense-desire in me

As this is the Masturbation what's wrong? thread. Are you maintaining that one can happily masturbate while thinking "there is lust in me" "there is sense-desire in me" and it is O.K. because you are mindful?

That might be an interesting thing to try.

Sounds like a justification disguised as an excuse...
A potential act of self-deception?

I see such things arise in my own mind and life almost daily.

It's very tiring...

christopher::: wrote:Hello Tilt,

Tilt quoted: ...monk knows the consciousness with lust, as with lust; the consciousness without lust . . . Chris: Herein, monks, when sense-desire is present, a monk knows, "There is sense-desire in me

As this is the Masturbation what's wrong? thread. Are you maintaining that one can happily masturbate while thinking "there is lust in me" "there is sense-desire in me" and it is O.K. because you are mindful?

I wrote:That might be an interesting thing to try.

="you"]Sounds like a justification disguised as an excuse...
A potential act of self-deception?

I see such things arise in my own mind and life almost daily.

It's very tiring...

Geez, you guys are rather grim, but then it is sex that is being discussed here, but not just sex but - gasp - masturbation - good old self abuse. My msg to Chris was a joke, son, a joke. As things go, matsurbation is pretty minimal, as long as we keep a healthy perspective on it.

http://www.wavsource.com/snds_2009-08-0 ... ay_off.wav

tiltbillings wrote:

Chris wrote:Hello Tilt,

Tilt quoted: ...monk knows the consciousness with lust, as with lust; the consciousness without lust . . . Herein, monks, when sense-desire is present, a monk knows, "There is sense-desire in me

As this is the Masturbation what's wrong? thread. Are you maintaining that one can happily masturbate while thinking "there is lust in me" "there is sense-desire in me" and it is O.K. because you are mindful?

That might be an interesting thing to try.

The citta can only be in one place at a time.

You can't be observing sense desire and engaging in it at the same time.

If one were to withdraw periodically from sense desire in order to observe it, one would still be spending more mind moments engaged in sense desire. One could never accomplish the goal of masturbation if one were to spend more mind moments observing sense desire than engaging in it.

Therefore one cannot justify engaging in sense desire on the grounds of observing it, and thus deriving some form of wisdom from it.
I've tried this all too many times.

BlackBird wrote: The citta can only be in one place at a time.

You can't be observing sense desire and engaging in it at the same time.

If one were to withdraw periodically from sense desire in order to observe it, one would still be spending more mind moments engaged in sense desire. One could never accomplish the goal of masturbation if one were to spend more mind moments observing sense desire than engaging in it.

Therefore one cannot justify engaging in sense desire on the grounds of observing it, and thus deriving some form of wisdom from it.
I've tried this all too many times.

If what you say is true, then how can one be mindful of sense desire?

As our famously disgraced and now quite dead former Vice-President Spiro Agnew once delicately said: "All of you with tightened sinews and constricted sphincters can relax," I am not justifying engaging in anything.