Page 3 of 5

Re: Do you eat for taste or nutrition?

Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 8:46 am
by 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

Re: Do you eat for taste or nutrition?

Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 8:50 am
by tiltbillings
On other words, this:

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

is wrong.

Re: Do you eat for taste or nutrition?

Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:03 am
by Ben
TMingyur wrote:
Ben wrote: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?

Re: Do you eat for taste or nutrition?

Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:20 am
by tiltbillings
Ben wrote: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.

Re: Do you eat for taste or nutrition?

Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:20 am
by ground
tiltbillings wrote: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

Re: Do you eat for taste or nutrition?

Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:23 am
by tiltbillings
TMingyur wrote:
tiltbillings wrote: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.

Re: Do you eat for taste or nutrition?

Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:27 am
by Ben
tiltbillings wrote:
Ben wrote: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

Re: Do you eat for taste or nutrition?

Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:36 am
by ground
Ben wrote:
TMingyur wrote:
Ben wrote: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

Re: Do you eat for taste or nutrition?

Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:40 am
by tiltbillings
TMingyur wrote: But experiencing "deliciousness" as a characteristic of some food is far from mere discerning in the context of depending origination.
Not necessarily.

Re: Do you eat for taste or nutrition?

Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:43 am
by Ben
TMingyur wrote: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?

Re: Do you eat for taste or nutrition?

Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 10:03 am
by ground
I have really tried to explain to the best of my ability. But I find it unfair when words that I have not spoken [fig] are put into my mouth [fig] afterwards
Ben wrote:
TMingyur wrote: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'?
Description is not experience. Description is a mental synthesis which may have an experience as its basis but it is not the same.
Ben wrote: And where is the inherent clinging in discerning taste as pleasant?
What I expressed originally is that it is in the experience of "deliciousness" of some food. It is you who equates " experience of "deliciousness" of some food with "discerning taste as pleasant".
Ben wrote:Or the inherent aversion in discerning a taste as unpleasant? Or the inherent indifference to discerning a taste as neutral?
You should ask these question to the person who asserted these things. I did not assert such things.

Kind regards

Re: Do you eat for taste or nutrition?

Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 10:25 am
by Ben
TMingyur wrote:I have really tried to explain to the best of my ability. But I find it unfair when words that I have not spoken [fig] are put into my mouth [fig] afterwards
What I am trying to do, Ming, is to understand what you are talking about.
TMingyur wrote:
Ben wrote:
TMingyur wrote: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'?
Description is not experience. Description is a mental synthesis which may have an experience as its basis but it is not the same.
Yes, I think we knew that. What I am getting at is 'deliciousness' is an adjective used to describe the experience of taste as being pleasant.
TMingyur wrote:
Ben wrote: And where is the inherent clinging in discerning taste as pleasant?
What I expressed originally is that it is in the experience of "deliciousness" of some food.
Where is the inherent clinging in the experience of the deliciousness of some food. And why is there no inherent clinging in the experience of the deliciousness of other food?
TMingyur wrote:
Ben wrote:Or the inherent aversion in discerning a taste as unpleasant? Or the inherent indifference to discerning a taste as neutral?
You should ask these question to the person who asserted these things.
I am just trying to understand you, Ming. I am trying to understadn the Dhammic and/or logical basis for your statements.

Re: Do you eat for taste or nutrition?

Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 10:37 am
by ground
Ben wrote:
TMingyur wrote:
Ben wrote: And where is the inherent clinging in discerning taste as pleasant?
What I expressed originally is that it is in the experience of "deliciousness" of some food.
Where is the inherent clinging in the experience of the deliciousness of some food. And why is there no inherent clinging in the experience of the deliciousness of other food?
"deliciousness of" any food. It is contacting food or its taste, and vedana, muddled perception and papancas arising from this contact. The whole collection of the aggregates that is what is called "experience"

Kind regards

Re: Do you eat for taste or nutrition?

Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 1:32 pm
by tiltbillings
TMingyur wrote: "deliciousness of" any food. It is contacting food or its taste, and vedana, muddled perception and papancas arising from this contact. The whole collection of the aggregates that is what is called "experience"
Argument by definition, but there is no reason one needs to define '"deliciousness of" any food' that way.

Re: Do you eat for taste or nutrition?

Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 10:49 pm
by rowyourboat
Ben wrote:
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?
Hi Ben, Tilt, TMingyur

It has been my experience that craving can be quite subtle, and because of nandi or the defilement delight arising (caused by craving) along with sukha vedana (pleasant sensation) the 'deliciousness' is seemingly enhanced. Once these defilements are removed it goes back down to realistic levels ie pure sukha vedana.

With metta

Matheesha