Discussion about this post

User's avatar
AbhiC's avatar

Well written and well articulated as you usually do. It seems like a strong argument on the face of it. But I am going to differ :)

The premise - "Objects only end the disturbance created by desire. When that disturbance ends, what is already present shines through as happiness." seems a good enough solution.

Desire arises, I fulfill desire, I feel happy and content. Hunger arises, I eat food, I feel sated.

Do I expect not be hungry again ? Not at all. What do i do if I feel hungry again ? I repeat.

Do we blame food for the hunger ? No we do not. We take it as a necessity. So why can we not treat object the same way ?

In this argument, the author points to objects as the the obstruction to happiness (Step 2 - "Desire is born of mental projection, and that projection is of objects."). imo blaming objects is a problem with this argument.

And you can see the issue come up again in the solution in Step 5 "When the mental movement subsides, the mind rests in the Self". It does so in deep sleep as stated in Step 6. So why is deep sleep not the solution ? No objects, total happiness.

In second shloka in Step 6, imo the author has the implication reversed "There is no object, no mental activity,". Maybe it should be "no mental activity implies no mental object". Or maybe one has to understand what the author really means by "visaya".

Or maybe an expectation of eternal happiness is a problem in itself ? áthā kó veda :)

No posts

Ready for more?