What is desire? What is craving?

[Lucky7Strikes]

As an offshoot of an earlier thread on opposite sexes...

 

It is often accepted among Buddhist circles that the source of suffering is craving/desire. As a result, people try to suppress and control their desires in order to cultivate samadhi, mindfulness, etc. Most of you probably know this basic route.

 

In Daoism, there is more focus in following the ways of nature. For example, in Chunag Tzu, there are counless stories where the virtuous Confucious gets criticized for his upright ways. He even gets lectured by a bandit.

 

So what exactly about craving brings suffering? What does it mean to subdue desire?

 

It is my personal opinion that there really is nothing wrong with desire and wanting. But rather it is the attachment, a definition, a habit, and a concrete thought (energetic blockage if you will) that creates suffering. One inevitably arises from the other, but the true cause of suffering seems to be more about the latter. The difference can be subtle, but very very impotant.

 

What you think?

[Vajrahridaya]

As an offshoot of an earlier thread on opposite sexes...

 

It is often accepted among Buddhist circles that the source of suffering is craving/desire. As a result, people try to suppress and control their desires in order to cultivate samadhi, mindfulness, etc. Most of you probably know this basic route.

 

In Daoism, there is more focus in following the ways of nature. For example, in Chunag Tzu, there are counless stories where the virtuous Confucious gets criticized for his upright ways. He even gets lectured by a bandit.

 

So what exactly about craving brings suffering? What does it mean to subdue desire?

 

It is my personal opinion that there really is nothing wrong with desire and wanting. But rather it is the attachment, a definition, a habit, and a concrete thought (energetic blockage if you will) that creates suffering. One inevitably arises from the other, but the true cause of suffering seems to be more about the latter. The difference can be subtle, but very very impotant.

 

What you think?

 

In Vajrayana we transform negative desire into positive desire, through application of various methods. We transform the energy itself into inward fulfillment as craving arises out of ignorance of one's true nature. When one's true nature is known directly there is always bliss and freedom as well as a sense of completion from deep within, thus no craving arises. But there is still positive desire to serve the cosmos of still suffering beings, even though we see that they too do not inherently exist thus we are not attached, but practical.

 

In Dzogchen we just see that everything is liberated upon arising and don't transform anything, because everything is inherently empty and merely just a display of color vibrations that are radiance's of clear, non-dual awareness. This view can be dangerous though and lead to intellectual excuses and emotional excuses allowing us to just do whatever we want thinking we are great. One must be anchored in Rigpa to do Dzogchen correctly and wisely. Which is why it was guarded with great secrecy and only taught to highly realized beings for so long.

Edited July 15, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

Hi Lucky,

 

Yes, Chuang Tzu speaks often regarding desires. And more often than not he says 'lessen your desires' instead of eliminate your desires.

 

I think that if we were to try to eliminate all our desires we would be somewhat less than human. And for sure we would not be true to our individual nature.

 

The point is, I think, is that we should get rid of all the artifical desires society has and is currently placing on us. To be true to our oun nature is key. We will have desires. Most are instinctual, part of being human.

 

But I agree that we should not over-burden ourselves with our desires. If we carry them around with us all day we will probably forget to live.

 

Peace & Love!

[Lucky7Strikes]

Vajrahridaya, is that like internalizing your desires so that it is "fulfilled" without external exertion of any sorts? Reminds me of visualization of union with a dakini.

 

Marble, I think what you're saying is much easily said than done, especially when living within society.

 

Getting "rid of" artificial desires and realizing one's own nature sounds great, but I think the path that people take to control and repress their innate yearnings for the sake of doctrine can really mess them up. IMHO, "repressing" should be done through understanding of why desires cause suffering in the first place.

[hyok]

This is an interesting topic for me too because I always found it odd that we should suppress desire, but so many practitioners desire greater spirituality, attainments, abilities, power, and in a sense the practices recommends it.

 

I can also understand the reasoning behind non-attachment, but I would add to it that abysmal and black pain derived from great loss is in-and-of-itself beauty. Its pureness and emptiness is unique in the spectrum of human emotion thus I see value in it, at least in a single experience of it to know what true loss and what attachment can do. Perhaps the teachings are assuming that almost everyone will experience loss and hardly anyone will ever transcend it, but it's a way to make it easier.

[Marblehead]

Hi Lucky,

 

Marble, I think what you're saying is much easily said than done, especially when living within society.

 

Just for the record and to put things into perspective:

 

I am an old man and I have already done everything I have wanted to do 'for the thrill of it'. I am retired and I have 'enough'. I am divorsed so my world is my world - I need not explain myself to anyone.

 

And I agree, repression is not good. It brings on anxiety. To place priorities is a better way, I think. (Like, do I need a new car just because my neighbor got one even though the one I currently have is running fine and getting respectable gas milage?)

 

No, we cannot remove all of our artificial desires, but we can reduce, or lessen the number we have.

 

Be Well!

[forestofemptiness]

Here is one view:

 

Craving is a movement toward what we like or away from what we don't like. Why is this a problem? Because pleasure doesn't last and pain is inevitable. Now by pleasure and pain, I mean the whole spectrum: from a slight itch to full blown torture; or from a pleasant sigh to extreme bliss.

 

So when something we like arises, we move toward it and try to hold onto it. But nothing lasts, and eventually it goes away. We want the pleasure again.

 

Or when something we don't like arises, we move away from it and try to get away from it. But this is not always possible, and eventually we have to deal with pain. We may even fear pain when it is not around.

 

We end up passing our lives bouncing around like a pinball, going from pleasure to pleasure, away from pain.

 

How to overcome it? Investigation. Removing our ignorance. Once we realize what is going on, all this loses its power. But not just intellectually. Deep into the fibers of what we are. So the problem isn't overcoming desire, but truly understanding it.

 

This is just one way of many.

[Lucky7Strikes]

We end up passing our lives bouncing around like a pinball, going from pleasure to pleasure, away from pain.

 

How to overcome it? Investigation. Removing our ignorance. Once we realize what is going on, all this loses its power. But not just intellectually. Deep into the fibers of what we are. So the problem isn't overcoming desire, but truly understanding it.

 

This is just one way of many.

 

Yup,

 

This is also a big part of desire: Habit.

 

Habit can be seen as an aspect of desire, but is really an attachment at its core. It arises from the tendency to define, organize, and distinguish experiences. And so judgments, concepts, and suffering arise.

 

Hmm...perhaps the sense of security, even though false, is what really drives ignorance.

[Trevcaru]

Suppressing desire is another desire. Control is desire. When we ask, 'how can we get rid of desire?' this is born of desire. Any movement in any direction is desire... so i ask, is there such thing as stillness? When the mind is capable of asking this question isnt that the end of desire?

 

We have the desire outwardly which is functional, practical, useful. I want to build a house to live in, so it takes time to build it. But does desire have a meaning inwardly? Instead of asking, how do we deal with desire, how do we suppress desire (cause maybe you also have come to the point where you see that all its doing is causing havoc when used inwardly)... but instead we question the whole of it. I see the contradiction of becoming greater, of becoming more, and therefore i question... does desire have a meaning inwardly? What if there was no movement in any direction? I feel anger or pain... and there is no movement inwardly from what is. What happens? If we see the conflict, dont we ask? not intellectually, but actually... Do we find out?

 

Its not something that can be given to you, or some hypothesis that you meet life with, is it? This would simply be the same movement. Thats why you find out if you are interested. Not interest that is born of desire to be free, but interest that is born of seeing the whole of the conflict.; of seeing that any movement inwardly is conflict, is dead.

 

Then another movement can take place. One that is not born of desire, but is constantly moving, because it is completely silent. Not moving in a certain direction. Not, 'i am sad, so i strive to be happy'. Another movement that is immediate, in the most literal sense of the word. Not.. 'i will become happy if i do this or that' because there is no strife involved, no achieving and this allows one to have every option available, but it takes none of them. In this instant is all the potential... the source. Sure there is action. but it is not the action that is born of desire, of becoming, of strife.

 

 

 

 

 

Or when something we don't like arises, we move away from it and try to get away from it.

 

 

Yes! So im questioning movement all together.

 

 

 

But this is not always possible, and eventually we have to deal with pain. We may even fear pain when it is not around.

 

 

Well put. We think we are fixing pain by running to happiness, nobility, courage, or whatever... but it only ends up prolonging it, burying it.

[yabyum24]

Desire and anger are sustenance.

 

As a result, people try to suppress and control their desires in order to cultivate samadhi, mindfulness, etc.

Such people mistake the means to enter samhadi.

 

Namaste

[Sunya]

well what is desire based on? what is craving based on? there is a fundamental 'assumption'

or 'deeply held thought held to be true' that is the root of desire. no? this is the thought of

"I" that this self exists and must continue to go on. that I must survive, that I must feel good,

that I musnt feel pain. that I must succeed, that I must have. I must be. this is the root of craving,

the root of desire. so the Buddha didn't necessarily teach that craving is bad, he taught that the

root of craving is ignorance that there really isn't a me, and nothing can be grasped anyway

because everything is temporary, nothing is 'real'.

 

this is not to say that the I doesn't exist and everything is One. that is another extreme.

the Buddha taught that the I doesn't exist because its interdependent (dependent upon

other elements for its existence) and compounded (made up of many different elements).

so this I is always changing and interdependent with environment and other beings,

how can we say that an I exists? there is no fundamental essence that carries forth.

you may think that you are the same person you were 10 years ago, but that isn't true.

modern science even shows that on a molecular level the body changes very often,

but Buddhism says even on a deeper, spiritual or energetic, level there is no fundamental essence or Soul.

what carries forth is volition, or will, and this is directly related with craving and desire.

though, I said earlier that craving is because of ignorance, it's kind of like the chicken and the egg.

there is no 'first cause' for ignorance.. rather the Buddha taught the 12 links of

Dependent Origination to teach the cyclical nature of existence, never teaching a 'first moment'

or any form of Creation.

 

12 Links o Dependent Origination

 

1. Ignorance is the condition for mental formation.

2. Mental formation is the condition for consciousness.

3. Consciousness is the condition for name and form.

4. Name and form is the condition for the six senses.

5. The six senses are the conditions for contact.

6. Contact is the condition for feeling.

7. Feeling is the condition for craving.

8. Craving is the condition for clinging.

9. Clinging is the condition for becoming.

10. Becoming is the condition for birth.

11. Birth is the condition for aging and death.

12. Aging and death is the condition for ignorance.

 

Nagarjuna said:

 

Two deluded actions (links 2 and 10) arise from three deluded causes (links 1, 8 and 9);

seven uncontrolled results (links 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11 and 12) arise from those two deluded actions.

Again three deluded causes arise from these seven results. Such a wheel of life goes round and round.

 

(further reading: http://www.bodhicitta.net/Wheel%20of%20Life.htm )

 

as symbolized by the Wheel of Life

 

Edited July 16, 2009 by mikaelz

[Lucky7Strikes]

well what is desire based on? what is craving based on? there is a fundamental 'assumption'

or 'deeply held thought held to be true' that is the root of desire. no? this is the thought of

"I" that this self exists and must continue to go on. that I must survive, that I must feel good,

that I musnt feel pain. that I must succeed, that I must have. I must be. this is the root of craving,

the root of desire. so the Buddha didn't necessarily teach that craving is bad, he taught that the

root of craving is ignorance that there really isn't a me, and nothing can be grasped anyway

because everything is temporary, nothing is 'real'.

 

 

12 Links o Dependent Origination

 

1. Ignorance is the condition for mental formation.

2. Mental formation is the condition for consciousness.

3. Consciousness is the condition for name and form.

4. Name and form is the condition for the six senses.

5. The six senses are the conditions for contact.

6. Contact is the condition for feeling.

7. Feeling is the condition for craving.

8. Craving is the condition for clinging.

9. Clinging is the condition for becoming.

10. Becoming is the condition for birth.

11. Birth is the condition for aging and death.

12. Aging and death is the condition for ignorance.

 

I agree that the questioning of the doer is an effective means of investigation.

 

But do all attachments and cravings arise because of the sense "I"?

 

To put it in a more practical sense, let's say I want ice cream. And I know it isn't good for me. But my body craves it. Will the mind questioning "who is this "I" that wants ice cream?" divert the body's conditioned love for ice cream? Especially within that precise moment at which the desire arises? I think not. (Haha, and I KNOW not )

 

The "I" might not be there, but the body has its natural desires that are conditioned. A "mental formation" if you will. Generally, desires are rooted deep in one's self yet too subtle to be noticed until they surface during our daily interactions. A moralistic dogma can be a great veil of a man's hidden longings (see Confucius in Chuang Tzu).

 

But when the "I" and attachments ("mental formations") are destroyed, would a desire truly be a desire? Perhaps not.

 

I find that to truly carry this out in practice is indeed difficult, because the ideas of suppression, manipulation, and change are all mental formations themselves. Even the 12 links of dependent origination is a mental formation.

 

Maybe it is the right approach to let the mind wander its own musings until it has burned out....

Edited July 16, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[Vajrahridaya]

Vajrahridaya, is that like internalizing your desires so that it is "fulfilled" without external exertion of any sorts? Reminds me of visualization of union with a dakini.

 

That's one method. There are many methods for different feelings, different desires. For anger, a wrathful deity is used. But only after one has used this wrathful deity and experienced it's emptiness and Buddhahoodness through practice. One lets the anger become as vast as the cosmos and one takes on the form of the wrathful deity, it's subtle because one has already used this wrathful deity as a Buddha form that wards off ignorance. The expansion of the anger dismantles the location of it and the single object focus of it, it naturally falls into the experience of emptiness. One doesn't repress it, one takes it to it's furthest edges and it falls into bliss. The sheer intensity and expansion of it changes it's chakra locations. It hard to explain when one is not really qualified to explain such things. But yes, there are all these methods taught in Vajrayana that are not at all suppressive.

 

Another method other than the Dakini merging method is to also use a wrathful female deity to have sex with, or a carcass image, a female falling apart turning to bones. These are methods used by monks though. I don't have to do that... haha! I used to though when I was a wana-be monk. It worked. The first month I had only two wet dreams, the second, only 1. After that, I was mostly walking in bliss and didn't even care about sex as my sexual energy was transmuted into an upward momentum. Even if during chanting I had an erection, I felt the purity of the energy and the energy made my spine erect and strong. Like those Shiva images with a strong boner that pointed right towards the navel. I could feel the energy going up my spine and my crown opening and all sorts of interesting things would happen. There was no sense of need for a physical female as my male and female were merging within my being and having elongated full body, all chakra orgasming.

 

Anyway... yes, we Vajrayana people aren't into suppression, more into understanding and transmutation, or spontaneous liberating of through Rigpa.

[Josh Young]

Desire and attachment are states of mind.

 

They bring suffering because of the dependence they entail.

 

 

This even applies to the desire to cease desire.

 

The role self plays has to do with the root of desire.

[Sunya]

 

 

But do all attachments and cravings arise because of the sense "I"?

 

yes

 

 

To put it in a more practical sense, let's say I want ice cream. And I know it isn't good for me. But my body craves it. Will the mind questioning "who is this "I" that wants ice cream?" divert the body's conditioned love for ice cream? Especially within that precise moment at which the desire arises? I think not. (Haha, and I KNOW not )

 

The "I" might not be there, but the body has its natural desires that are conditioned. A "mental formation" if you will. Generally, desires are rooted deep in one's self yet too subtle to be noticed until they surface during our daily interactions. A moralistic dogma can be a great veil of a man's hidden longings (see Confucius in Chuang Tzu).

 

But when the "I" and attachments ("mental formations") are destroyed, would a desire truly be a desire? Perhaps not.

 

I find that to truly carry this out in practice is indeed difficult, because the ideas of suppression, manipulation, and change are all mental formations themselves. Even the 12 links of dependent origination is a mental formation.

 

Maybe it is the right approach to let the mind wander its own musings until it has burned out....

 

you're speaking of the physical body as being separate.. look at the 12 links again. it all begins with ignorance then the chain continues. Birth is there.. so the Physical body you speak of is a cause of ignoranc and is formed as a direct result of the previous chains.. though in Buddhism its taught that enlightenment can happen in this very life, so its possible to have Pure Vision while having a body yes, but talking about it is impossible. whats it like? hows it happen? these are all questions I can't answer. though I can speculate that craving and desire simply don't exist. craving is much more than being hungry and going to get food. craving status for example, and wealth. craving pleasure. these are not needs, they are wants.

Edited July 16, 2009 by mikaelz

[Lucky7Strikes]

yes

you're speaking of the physical body as being separate.. look at the 12 links again. it all begins with ignorance then the chain continues. Birth is there.. so the Physical body you speak of is a cause of ignoranc and is formed as a direct result of the previous chains.. though in Buddhism its taught that enlightenment can happen in this very life, so its possible to have Pure Vision while having a body yes, but talking about it is impossible. whats it like? hows it happen? these are all questions I can't answer. though I can speculate that craving and desire simply don't exist. craving is much more than being hungry and going to get food. craving status for example, and wealth. craving pleasure. these are not needs, they are wants.

 

Well yes, the physical body may be the cause of ignorance, but I might still want that ice cream.

 

Craving can be much more than being hungry and going to get food,

 

But it could be as simple as that. Isn't that how a mental formation is created?

 

Pure Vision while having a body...I agree that that's a state one can only assume... unless you're a Buddha .

 

That's one method. There are many methods for different feelings, different desires. For anger, a wrathful deity is used. But only after one has used this wrathful deity and experienced it's emptiness and Buddhahoodness through practice. One lets the anger become as vast as the cosmos and one takes on the form of the wrathful deity, it's subtle because one has already used this wrathful deity as a Buddha form that wards off ignorance. The expansion of the anger dismantles the location of it and the single object focus of it, it naturally falls into the experience of emptiness. One doesn't repress it, one takes it to it's furthest edges and it falls into bliss. The sheer intensity and expansion of it changes it's chakra locations. It hard to explain when one is not really qualified to explain such things. But yes, there are all these methods taught in Vajrayana that are not at all suppressive.

 

Another method other than the Dakini merging method is to also use a wrathful female deity to have sex with, or a carcass image, a female falling apart turning to bones. These are methods used by monks though. I don't have to do that... haha! I used to though when I was a wana-be monk. It worked. The first month I had only two wet dreams, the second, only 1. After that, I was mostly walking in bliss and didn't even care about sex as my sexual energy was transmuted into an upward momentum. Even if during chanting I had an erection, I felt the purity of the energy and the energy made my spine erect and strong. Like those Shiva images with a strong boner that pointed right towards the navel. I could feel the energy going up my spine and my crown opening and all sorts of interesting things would happen. There was no sense of need for a physical female as my male and female were merging within my being and having elongated full body, all chakra orgasming.

 

Anyway... yes, we Vajrayana people aren't into suppression, more into understanding and transmutation, or spontaneous liberating of through Rigpa.

 

Cool!

 

This should really be posted on posts where people come here with problems with wet dreams or doing finger locks.

 

Visualization methods are very much underrated by practitioners today. People tend to think they are imaginary, too religious, or something in that line. It's good to try to "feel" the energy itself, but these methods can be incredibly effective. Ancient Mao Shan texts value visualization techniques as a "bridge" to carry the adept to higher realms.

 

I also speak from experience after failing a bunch of times with trying to mentally force the energy to places. Not a good idea!

Edited July 17, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[Marblehead]

Desire and attachment are states of mind.

 

They bring suffering because of the dependence they entail.

This even applies to the desire to cease desire.

 

The role self plays has to do with the root of desire.

 

Hi Josh,

 

I agree with what you said but I will suggest that there are times when we will bear the suffering in order to acquire one of our desires. (It's just too hard to get rid of all our desires.)

 

Be well!

[Josh Young]

I may be wrong but will share this view nonetheless:

 

Suffering is a term, not a state.

What suffers?

 

I know pain well, but being in pain does not mean I suffer.

I know pleasure well, but not being in pleasure does not mean I suffer.

 

Is suffering something we choose or can choose to avoid?

How can suffering be anything but a failure to accept things as they are?

 

How can pain make one suffer if they accept it when they are in pain?

How can loss make one suffer if they accept loss?

 

What a sad delusion it can be to think that to end suffering means to become something not human. To believe that the end of suffering is rewarded at the end of life is to suffer from desire and attachment.

 

Who will not suffer suffering?

Who is sick of sickness?

[Marblehead]

Hi Josh,

 

Just for the record, I agree with your last post (even though there were a lot of rhetorical questions in there - Hehehe).

 

Be well!

[Lucky7Strikes]

I may be wrong but will share this view nonetheless:

 

Suffering is a term, not a state.

What suffers?

 

I know pain well, but being in pain does not mean I suffer.

I know pleasure well, but not being in pleasure does not mean I suffer.

 

Is suffering something we choose or can choose to avoid?

How can suffering be anything but a failure to accept things as they are?

 

How can pain make one suffer if they accept it when they are in pain?

How can loss make one suffer if they accept loss?

 

What a sad delusion it can be to think that to end suffering means to become something not human. To believe that the end of suffering is rewarded at the end of life is to suffer from desire and attachment.

 

Who will not suffer suffering?

Who is sick of sickness?

 

Good theoretical investigations. Nice word plays.

 

But it could be that you're just babbling through those gate as well.

 

Who is it that questions? .

 

Acceptance...that's a tricky word.

[Vajrahridaya]

I may be wrong but will share this view nonetheless:

 

Suffering is a term, not a state.

What suffers?

 

I know pain well, but being in pain does not mean I suffer.

I know pleasure well, but not being in pleasure does not mean I suffer.

 

Is suffering something we choose or can choose to avoid?

How can suffering be anything but a failure to accept things as they are?

 

How can pain make one suffer if they accept it when they are in pain?

How can loss make one suffer if they accept loss?

 

What a sad delusion it can be to think that to end suffering means to become something not human. To believe that the end of suffering is rewarded at the end of life is to suffer from desire and attachment.

 

Who will not suffer suffering?

Who is sick of sickness?

 

That is a good start. It's said that as practice really bares fruit on the path of the yogi, that all sensations are experienced as they seem to be, but as well they are experienced as they are, luminous forms of emptiness, and are liberated in blissful awareness as each sensation arises.

 

So, for a highly realized yogi, all forms of experience are experienced blissfully in a non-dual dimension, while still seeing and understanding, acting and partaking dualistically.

Edited July 17, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Josh Young]

I cannot claim to be "highly realized"

but I believe that the following is true:

all forms of experience are experienced blissfully in a non-dual dimension, while still seeing and understanding, acting and partaking dualistically.

This state is ever present for all, but it is like a sound you cannot hear when you try to listen. The subtlety of existence escapes notice when mind cannot get past the limits of self. One cannot obtain what one has, one cannot become what one is.

This is why it is called Consummation of Incomparable Enlightenment.

No word there is trivial.

 

Incomparable in particular, for that is all ego is in a way, a comparison.

We know there is no line between what we are and the universe, and yet we compare ourselves to the universe unending. This comparison is a distraction from what we are and it is sourced in self.

 

This has been my experience, so it is my belief.

I do not claim to know my experiences.

 

 

 

Allow me to offer but a little more of my belief/experience:

the nature of mind is limitless, but the nature of self is itself a limitation.

Thus in self is the limitless focused upon the limited.

To release this focus results in experiencing the limitless nature of mind, which is (a) non-thing. It is not nothing though, that (nothing) is as limited as anything. So it (nature of mind) is neither a lack of something nor the presence of something.

 

This is why the Vipassana essentials of impermanence, suffering, and not-self are the same and they relate to change being unendingly inherent in all. But to explain this does not help because explanation is only something to focus on and thus it can only limit, even when it is true.

 

So I must apologize for offering explanation.

Sorry.

Edited July 17, 2009 by Josh Young

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

This is why it is called Consummation of Incomparable Enlightenment.

No word there is trivial.

 

 

 

I enjoyed your explanation Josh. But, thanks for the Tibetan style humility.

[Trunk]

What is desire? What is craving?

If you get an understanding of the basic mechanics of the central channel and bindus, then "desire, craving" etc are understood in contrast to those. It's basic understanding of channels, winds and drops (bindus). There are several essays at my site re: this. (Maybe it's already been mentioned in this thread, pardon me I haven't kept on it.)

 

Lots of things make sense once you understand bindus. It's a big pivotal key that many things lead to, are in support of.

[Lucky7Strikes]

If you get an understanding of the basic mechanics of the central channel and bindus, then "desire, craving" etc are understood in contrast to those. It's basic understanding of channels, winds and drops (bindus). There are several essays at my site re: this. (Maybe it's already been mentioned in this thread, pardon me I haven't kept on it.)

 

Lots of things make sense once you understand bindus. It's a big pivotal key that many things lead to, are in support of.

 

My original inquiry was into the very nature of desire and why it is commonly said to cause suffering.

 

I believe that it isn't a wholesome approach to oppress desires believing that there is something fundamentally wrong with "craving" itself. So when we talk about stillness, the outcome can easily turn into a needless struggle. Stillness has its limits for people who live and were cultured in a society like ours today.

 

But alchemy wise, your short essay on transforming jing to light is very concise and to the point. .