Kāma
Sense Pleasures
Kāma
Sense-Pleasures
When trying to determine what is meant by the Buddha when using the term kāmā one should picture not a single state or class of states, but a spectrum of classes of states from the own-making (saṇkhāra-ing) born of the yearning of the deluded Pajapati for the companionship of other beings, to common experience of [caring about] enjoyment of the sensations produced at the senses, to sexual intercourse. Visualize these images as superimposed over one-another. (A = B = C) Its not Freud's 'everything is just sex' and its not 'ultimately everything is Pajapati's problem'. It depends on where your mind is at present. Start there. Its from there that detachment is possible. To help cultivate the mind to detachment from wherever it is focused, the Master has concocted a number of similes: Pleasures of the senses are:
Like a bone thrown to a dog
Imagine a dog,
overcome with hunger and thirst
who chances upon a slaughter-house
and the cattle-butcher,
or his skillful apprentice,
tosses him a bone,
scraped,
much-scraped,
devoid of meat,
but with a shmere of blood.
What do you think?
Could that dog,
gnawing that bone,
scraped,
much-scraped,
devoid of meat,
but with a smere of blood,
find in that
the satisfaction of his hunger and thirst?
Of course not.
How come?
Because he would wear himself out
before ever he got satisfaction from that bone,
scraped,
much-scraped,
devoid of meat,
but with a smere of blood.
■
Like Carrion
Imagine a raptor
— a condor or eagle or falcon or hawk —
that has ripped off a piece of carrion and
flown off and
imagine that other raptors
— condors or eagles or falcons or hawks —
are circling round
diving at that piece of meat
trying to grab a piece
for themselves.
What do you think?
If that raptor
— that condor or eagle or falcon or hawk —
did not quickly let go
of that piece of carrion,
would it not come to death,
or deadly pain?
■
Like carrying a torch
against the wind
Imagine a man
coming forth
carrying a flaming grass torch
against the wind.
What do you think?
If that man
did not quickly let go
of that flaming grass torch
would it not
burn his hand, or
burn his arm, or
burn another part of his body and
because of that
would he not come to death,
or deadly pain?
■
Like a pit of glowing coals
Imagine a pit of glowing coals,
deeper than a man is high
— coals neither flaming up
nor smoking — and
here a certain person comes along,
loving life,
not wishing death
wanting happiness,
averse to pain, and
two strapping men,
taking his arms
were to drag him off
to that pit of glowing coals,
deeper than a man is high
— coals neither flaming up
nor smoking.
What do you think?
Would not that man
twist and turn his body
this way and
that
thinking:
'If I fall in
that pit of glowing coals
I will come to death,
or deadly pain!'
■
Like a dream
Imagine seeing
beautiful parks, and
beautiful forests, and
beautiful plains, and
beautiful mountain ranges, and
beautiful lakes,
in a dream,
and then waking up
to find they have vanished.
■
Like a loan
Imagine a man who has taken out a loan,
got himself rigged up with a new car,
right snappy duds,
rings, earrings, buttons and studs,
aglitter with diamonds and rubies
and other precious gems,
gold and silver chains and medallions,
pockets stuffed with cash,
delighting in the admiration of the crowd
that thinks this is the way
a wealthy man struts his stuff.
Then imagine that right there
the collector,
or his skillful apprentice,
comes along and repossesses the new car,
the new duds,
his jewels and his cash.
Strips 'im right down to 'es boxers
right there in front of everyone.
Then he has second thoughts ...
and takes the boxers too.
What do you think about that?
Would that man's embarrassment
convince him
that he had had enough of pretending?
■
Like being up a tree
Imagine a fruit tree
growing in the dense forest
laden with ripe fruit,
but with no fruit yet fallen to the ground,
and here comes a certain person,
hungry and thirsty for fruit,
looking around for fruit,
with a wanna, needa gotta hafta hava
piece
of fruit.
And he thinks:
Although this fruit tree is laden with fruit,
no fruit has yet fallen to the ground.
But I know how to climb a tree —
how about if I climb this tree
and eat as much as I want
and stuff my pockets for later?
And that is just what he does.
Then imagine that
a certain man with an axe
comes along,
hungry and thirsty for fruit,
looking around for fruit,
with a wanna, needa gotta hafta hava
piece
of fruit.
And seeing that tree, thinks:
Although this fruit tree is laden with fruit,
no fruit has yet fallen to the ground,
and I do not know how to climb a tree —
how about if I chop down this tree
and eat as much as I want
and stuff my pockets for later?
What do you think?
If that first man did not quickly climb down from that tree,
would he not come to death,
or deadly pain?
In the same way as in these similes,
pleasures of the senses
are of much grief and aggravation at the time
and lead to real danger later.
Seeing the meaning of these similes
as they really are
with consummate wisdom —
you avoid
whatsoever is that which is diversity-situated diversity detachment —
whatsoever is that which is unity-situated unity detachment —
and develop that detachment
wherein all support for the world is completely dissolved.
Diversity-situated diversity detachment is the detachment of an individual who is himself diverse in nature from that which is diverse in nature. What is diverse in nature is form, sensation, perception, own-making and individualized consciousness. Ordinary detachment: aka: poise, equanimity, unflappability, detachment.
Unity-situated unity detachment is the detachment of an individual who is himself unified in nature from that which is unified in nature. What is unified in nature is the four formless realms and the state of ending perception and sense-experience. Temporary Release. Delivery from things of Time.
Detachment wherein all support for the world is completely dissolved is Nibbāna, the unseen consciousness, deathlessness, being outside Time. This is called "Release from things not of Time," and is an unshakable, permanent freedom.
See MN.29, discussion, and Mn.38.
This is precisely the difference between 'equanimity' and 'detachment' and why 'detachment' is the better translation for upekkhā.
There can be a worldly sort of detachment (equanimity) but there cannot be an equanimity without worldly objects.
Equanimity = Equal minded. Equal meaning towards either side of something. Something with two sides is not a unity. Balanced between two alternatives. You cannot be equal minded within unity.
Go back to the Seven Dimensions of Self-Awakening: Put Memory in charge. After doing your Dhamma Research so that you have a basis in knowledge; develop energy and enthusiasm; then progress from equanimity to serenity to detachment = equal-minded within it, serenely above it, detached from it.
So, in response to:
[Bhk. Bodhi's edited version of Ñanamoli Thera's translation]:
Having avoided the the equanimity that is diversified,
based on diversity,
do not develop the equanimity that is unified,
based on unity —
develop that detachment
wherein all support for the world is completely dissolved.
[Lord Chalmers]:
Having shed any equanimity
which is scattered and diffused
do not develop that real poise
which is one-centred and concentrated —
develop that detachment
wherein all support for the world is completely dissolved.
[Bhk. Thanissaro]:
Having avoided the equanimity coming from multiplicity,
dependent on multiplicity,
do not develop the equanimity coming from singleness,
dependent on singleness —
develop that detachment
wherein all support for the world is completely dissolved.
[Ms. Horner]:
Having avoided that which is equanimity in face of multiformity,
resting on multiformity,
do not develop that equanimity
which is equanimity in face of uniformity,
resting on uniformity,
ask yourself: 'What is "equanimity in the face of uniformity based on uniformity"'? and
how could there be an equanimity towards such without grasping?
and instead of following this advice —
develop that detachment
wherein all support for the world is completely dissolved.
Go back to the Mūlapariyaya: "He does not think about unity. He does not think: 'I am unity, unity is mine, I am of unity, unity is of me.'"
This discourse has been about how,
in the discipline for an ariyan,
there is an entire giving up in every way
of all avocations;
about what makes up the plenitude of universal giving-up
according to the Law of the Noble;
about how the cutting off of affairs in the Noble One's Discipline is achieved entirely and in all ways.
This discourse has not been about how to achieve a mentally balanced position in the world. That would be an avocation, an affair.
