Posted by David S. (126.96.36.199) on October 06, 2000 at 05:54:05:
In Reply to: Re: Sergio:Quit his desire posted by Michael Pollard on October 04, 2000 at 11:22:53:
Opps, I misplaced the first post of this...
I think we agree.
I don't "insist" on any definition, actually. The definitions in that post were defined for use in that post only. We do have to know what we mean in a particular sentence, context, etc. I defined the terms as used there to help clarify what I meant by the certain term or phrase used in that instance. In a post on the five skandhas, I think I defined one of the same terms, pure desire I belive, somewhat differently.
As you say, they are just words and we each have our own prejudice to the meaning of a particular word. That's the only reason I offer a definition, not to establish THE definition. Anyway, defining a word rigidly whether in writing or in our own mind and interpretation of it is believing in permanence and characteristics, isn't it? We all do it, but it should be a red flag for us, and something to address with our practice.
If the post was not clear it is my fault for poor writing and lack of understanding.
: Well, that's right I gues. What I am hung on are these definitions you insist on. I see desire as the unnesecary attachment we have for somthing, and pure desire as something we need or require. So, we need to eat, but we do not need to eat pizza and should we have pizza we will not over eat once the need is filled. Please note I say need 'cause it's shorter then require. We may neither need or desire for something, like a spouse. We don't really need one and we may not desire one, but if we have one then fine. Is this completely out to lunch? I don't think it is. They're just words, not everyone understands the same way. Metta.
Post a Followup