Greed, Aversion or Delusion, which is the best?

MatSalted

hi, that is a joke title:p

But I have a serious question on these root defilements. I am trying to simplify them in my mind, so how do these three sound as dharmic definitions:

• "Greed" is caused by ignorance of the value of things and self.
• "Hatred/Aversion" is caused by ignorance of the value of others and self.
• "Delusion" is caused by ignorance of the nature of self.

Thanks in advance:)

Mat

NamelessRiver

For me it is more like Aversion is the shadow of Craving. As long as you crave for something - usually a lot of things - the rest of your experiences are overshadowed by it, so you are always on a mode of probing yourself continuously to know if you are getting what you crave or not. When you don't get your 'fix' you get mad >:-0

Craving and aversion have an effect of augmenting the characteristics of something, like drugs, for example. It is obvious that a heroine junkie is gonna get screwed eventually, but he doesn't see the bad side so clearly as the next person. So you might say then when you crave or have aversion for an object you perceive it differently than what it really is, so it kind of creates ignorance. Or is it that you crave it because you are ignorant of the true characteristics of the drugs in the first place?

Do you crave because you are ignorant or are you ignorant because you crave?

MatSalted

NamelessRiver wrote: »

Do you crave because you are ignorant or are you ignorant because you crave?

Hmmmm... I think you crave due to ignorance? Isn't craving in the tanha sense different, more total, than greed as in the defilement sense?

Valtiel

I've never liked the translation of "hatred" because a lot of times it gets associated with people specifically.

For me, greed and aversion are simply "I want" and "I don't want" with clinging in reference to anything. They arise with delusion. That living outside the present moment is dukkha.

NamelessRiver

Hmmmm... I think you crave due to ignorance

Yeah I guess that is more reasonable.

Isn't craving in the tanha sense different, more total, than greed as in the defilement sense?

No idea.

RayfieldNeel

In my simple novice terms, it's always seemed to me that the Poisons all wind up being manifestations of Delusion. Of course, I may be missing something in the translation.

NamelessRiver

Isn't craving in the tanha sense different, more total, than greed as in the defilement sense?

Now I am confused. What is the difference between Tanha, Upadana and Lobha ? :P

RenGalskap

As near as I can figure out, trsna (tanha), raga, and lobha are all equivalent; they are all desire for unhealthy things. Upadana is a more intense form of trsna. Chanda is desire also, but it is divided into healthy, unhealthy, and neutral.

Sanskrit and Pali seem to be like English in having a lot of different words for longing/desire/clinging/craving/wanting/etc.

NamelessRiver

Another interesting word for consideration is the
word ``Craving'' (Tanha). The common definition means ``to want or
desire'', but there is much more to this word. According to the
Buddha there is a definite pattern with everything that arises. For
instance, in order "to see" there is a set way things happen. First,
there must be a functioning sense door such as the eye. Next there
must be color and form. When the eye hits color and form then eye-
consciousness arises. The meeting of these three things is called
eye-contact. With eye-contact as condition eye-feeling arises
(Feeling [Vedana] is pleasant, painful or neither painful nor
pleasant and this is either physical or mental feeling.) With eye-
feeling as condition, then eye-craving arises.

Now ``Craving'' (Tanha) in all of its many different forms
(seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, bodily sensations, and
thoughts) always arises as being a tightness or tension in both mind
and body. ``Craving'' (Tanha) always manifests as the "I like it or
I don't like it" mind and can be recognized as tension or tightness
in both one's mind and body.

The Buddha saw that when ``Craving'' (Tanha) was let go of, mind
became clear, open, and very observant. He saw that the thinking
mind did not arise. The thinking mind in Buddhism is
called ``Clinging'' (Upadana). So, when a teacher says something
like "Cling To Nothing" they are actually saying to ``stop thinking
about things and just observe''. which is good advice as far as it
goes. Actually it would be better to say "Crave Nothing" but that
would be misunderstood because how are we supposed to do
that? "Crave Nothing" means ``to notice and let go of the tightness
or tension in one's mind and body before it arises''. How does one
do this? When one sees a ``Feeling'' arise, if they relax at that
very moment, then the ``Craving'' (Tanha) won't arise. ``Craving''
(Tanha) is the weak link in the cycle or process of Dependent
Origination. It CAN be recognized and let go of, and when it is
released then the ``Clinging'' (Upadana) won't arise.

One thing that has become popular today is the putting together
of these two words, ``Craving/Clinging'' and I think it helps to
cause even more confusion. ``Craving'' is the "I like it, I don't
like it" mind and ``Clinging'' is all of the thoughts, ideas,
opinions, and concepts why mind likes or dislikes a feeling when it
arises. They are two very different and separate parts to the
process of how things work. So putting them together just makes
one's understanding of this process, even more cloudy.

Also, there is the word ``delusion'' (Moha). In some Buddhist
traditions the word "delusion" (Moha) is linked up with two other
words which are ``Lust'' (lobha) and ``Hatred'' (dosa). Together
these three words are sometimes called "the three poisons".

He doesn't explain Lust further, but for me it gives an idea of a strong Clinging. Don't know what to think =\

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dhammapada2all/message/238

upekka

o0Mundus-Vult-Decipi0o wrote: »

greed and aversion are simply "I want" and "I don't want" with clinging in reference to anything

anything because we still do not know there is 'nothing' but we think there is a 'thing'

if we see (not with eyes but with wisdom) there is nothing where is a thing for us to cling?

Valtiel

I think we're talking on two different levels, Upekka.

And I'm not sure if you're talking of non-duality (in which case I agree) or of nothingness (in which case I do not).

upekka

o0Mundus-Vult-Decipi0o wrote: »

I think we're talking on two different levels, Upekka.

are we?

And I'm not sure if you're talking of non-duality (in which case I agree)

Jeffrey

Its all the same delusion of a 'you' who is having an experience. Rather than you ARE your experience. So you try to put things into your experience and take them out. Rather than leaving it undisturbed. Muddy water let it sit still and it clears. Instead we try to manipulate our experience to get all 'good' things and not have 'bad' things which is hardened rigid thinking. It becomes a battle against the world where the harder you fight the worse it gets. Like you are punching a wall made of tar to get get it away from you and you just keep getting stucker and stucker.

upekka

Jeffrey wrote: »

we try to manipulate our experience to get all 'good' things and not have 'bad' things which is hardened rigid thinking.

what do you mean by 'harened rigid thinking'?

is it 'we are conditioned to manuipulate'?

Jeffrey

By hardened rigid thinking I mean sort of that we are taking passing thoughts as the voices of lordly judgement. Anyhow thats what I think I am meaning. Yes habitual thoughts that are coming up. The specific root of the thought is that our experience is outside of us. And that we have to manipulate that experience to get good things for us. Which makes it become a battle of us against the world. Instead of trusting our own nature and working with experience, instead of that we struggle against our experience. And punch the tar wall continually getting more and more stuck.