Uprooting vs Management of Dukkha

T: You’ve been saying, many times, that the problem is that we are affected in the first place. In other words, anger is possible, lust is possible, we can get confused.

N: Suffering is possible.

T: Suffering is possible for us. So the goal, really, is to not be affected in the first place. Not to do something on account of…

N: Well, that’s the kind of fundamental difference that I often try to highlight. Dhamma, the practice of Dhamma, is not supposed to just help you with things, help you with things that bother you, help you deal with them. It’s basically supposed to uproot your liability to it, to things that bother you. So it doesn’t manage your suffering, it removes the possibility for you to suffer in the first place. As a personal goal for your practice, it should be ‘I don’t want to be affected by things to begin with’ not ‘I want to have a perfect management technique that will always help me deal with whatever suffering has arisen’. See, that’s the problem already—suffering has arisen. You might be very skilled in dealing with it, but you’re not skilled in not having it arise in the first place. And that’s what should be your issue. That’s why the Buddha would often describe his teaching that frees you from suffering, brings cessation of being. The ending of bhāva. The ending of these things becoming for you. Manifesting, enduring, that you have to manage them later. Means they’re not any more. Being has ceased. They are gone. So that is the goal of the Dhamma, cessation of being. Not management of things that are for you, here and now.

T: Cessation of…

N: Suffering. Cessation of greed, aversion, delusion.

T: So I can get angry, I can get angry, then I can find out some sort of technique to manage my anger.

N: Yeah, ‘oh, when you are angry, think these thoughts’. When you’re angry, do this. When you’re angry, do that. That’s how you start. You need to want to be free from anger to begin with, and then inevitably your first effort will be directed at how to manage and subdue the anger. But you mustn’t confuse that for the actual practice of the Dhamma, which if done rightly will uproot the anger. And then there’s nothing for you to manage. No burden for you to have to deal with, and if you don’t do it, you will then suffer. There is nothing to be dealt with, because nothing affects you to begin with.

T: You say it’s not the Dhamma, that management is not the Dhamma.

N: Exactly, it’s like an approximation of the Dhamma. But it’s not the direct way, one way only, the way the Buddha would describe the Dhamma was always that it would only result in the purification of beings. Like, removing all the unwholesomeness and making bhāva cease. Management doesn’t do that. Only that direct insight into what uproots suffering, what is uprooting the greed, what is uprooting the aversion and delusion.

T: So what is the Dhamma?

N: It’s that direct path for uprooting, not management. So you are responsible for whether, things you’re doing, whether you’ve taken them as Dhamma, whether you’ve taken them for the purpose of uprooting the issues, not dealing with it but making yourself not liable to them, even in the future. Or, have you taken the Dhamma instruction as a means of helping yourself deal with these things? So it’s more like, it’s more determined by you, by your attitude. Whether that instruction will be taken as the Dhamma, or as management. That’s the difference I’m pointing at. You know, you can do satipaṭṭhānā which is the Dhamma, the way the Buddha described, but you can do it for the reasons of managing your suffering, not for the reasons of uprooting it. Which means you are responsible for whether it’s management, or it’s the Dhamma. And yeah, that’s the why Dhamma arises in those who see. You can tell the Dhamma directly, the Buddha would teach the Dhamma to somebody, but it wouldn’t be the Dhamma for them, because they’re not understanding it. So there is no arising of Dhamma in their experience. He hears the thing Buddha said, but they’re not understanding it. So the Dhamma can only arise on that individual level.

T: The Dhamma, the way, knowledge of the way.

N: The knowledge of the way of uprooting things, basically that’s what it is. The knowledge of overcoming liability to suffering once and for all, not just the knowledge of how to manage it skilfully when it arises.

T: So you can look and see, I am subject to suffering. I will—things can go wrong.

N: Well exactly, it’s really on that level of ‘I will’. I will experience this, I am liable to this. We often say that, that’s why the Buddha would often say the wise man will reflect, the young man who leaves home, ‘I am prey to suffering’. It’s not necessarily suffering now, but the suffering will catch me at some point. It’s inevitable. And you should have the mental clarity, enough mental capacity, sufficiently enough, to start seeing that as the actual root of the problem. Not the fact that you might be like ‘oh, I suffer now, but I won’t suffer tomorrow’ or whatever. The fact is that I will, at some point. It’s inevitable, and that’s the true problem. Even if I spend the rest of my life skilfully avoiding all the major suffering, the fact is, it will still have to happen, I am still liable to it. I still have to make the effort to avoid it. That’s already the issue. The divine messengers, you know, the Buddha was neither sick, nor old, nor dying when he saw a sick, an ageing, a dead person. So you see that, ‘ah, this is directly present in my experience as the inherent liability’ and that’s where the issue is. And that’s why there’s this difference in the practice of management and the practice of uprooting, let’s call it that way.

It’s basically in recognising like, OK, so there is no lust in my experience here and now, there is no greed in my experience here and now, there is no delusion in my experience here and now. OK, I’m fine then—no. But now, as the Buddha would say, OK, so you ask yourself further. It’s good that those things are not present here and now, but your next question should now be ‘so is it possible for non-arisen lust to arise later on?’ Now it’s not here, but can it be here tomorrow? Oh, have I addressed that? Here and now, not waiting for tomorrow to address it. And that’s literally the crossroads between, are you heading in the direction of uprooting it, or are you heading in the direction of management? And most people go down the path of management. As in, I’ll deal with it when it arises, failing to understand that that liability to future lust is an arisen issue now. You don’t have to wait for it to arise. Is there a chance for non-manifested lust, non-manifested aversion, to manifest in my experience later? If you’re not sure, it means that there is a chance. If you know for sure, there you go, you’ve confirmed it. So there is a chance that these things will arise. That’s the issue for me now, when those things are not present.

T: Anger is a problem. Possibility for anger is a problem, now. Not in the future, it is now a problem.

N: And that’s what differentiates your practice from, are you aiming at uprooting, or are you just aiming at skilful management. And you’ve heard that yourself before, it’s a very common attitude of ‘oh well, you know, most of the time you’re not lustful, most of the time you’re not angry, so see, you’re doing fine’. If most of the time you’re not angry, it means anger is still your liability, your possibility. Which means you are as angry. Yeah, you’re not acting out of that anger as often as others, but that’s just because you learned some management of your anger. You’re certainly not uprooting anything if you have the attitude that, most of the time, these things don’t arise for me. Yeah, but could they arise at any time? Yes. That’s the issue you’re not seeing, and that’s why you’re not uprooting anything.

T: So you see that there is a problem, because you see and know that there is the possibility of anger.

N: Yeah. So you have to train your mind to start seeing these possibilities as actually present, because they are.

T: So you can think to yourself, I can manage my lust or my anger quite well, I’m really skilled at that. I know all these different techniques, psychological methods to employ so that I can ease that anger, ease that lust, be calm again.

N: If your way out of suffering is skilfully managing it, you need suffering to arise first. So management requires suffering in order to manage it. So management cannot free you from that suffering. It can only deal with it once it has arisen. And for most people, that’s the kind of problem that’s, sort of, relatively subtle I suppose. People, as I said, their natural tendency is to turn towards management first—oh, that can get rid of the problem, do it skilfully or whatever else—but there is this kind of conflating that occurs then, or rather, confusion. So, through your management of suffering you experience less dukkha, and then at the same time you kind of start, basically, tacitly assuming, hoping, that all you have to do is manage your suffering long enough, and then somehow, magically, liability to dukkha will disappear. All I have to do is adhere to this management and skilful avoiding and so on, and there’s already implicit wishful thinking, that implies that you hope for suffering to then just—poof!—eventually. From your management, it will just evaporate. But it won’t. That’s the point. The only way that suffering will evaporate is if you evaporate it. If you understand the core of it. Pull the thorn out. It won’t come out by itself. So uproot it. If you keep managing it with the hope that somehow it will disappear, on the level of that ‘I am still liable to it’, means your practice revolves around wishful thinking. There is no direct insight, ‘this is what is to be done for freedom from suffering’.

T: Because you don’t want—everyone’s goal is to not have anger arise…

N: Exactly, everybody wants to be fully free from suffering, which means everybody wants to not even be liable to discomfort and displeasure.

T: So I start doing mettā, mettā, mettā, mettā, mettā, every day, every day, every day, and I stay calm, I don’t get angry. But I have to keep doing mettā.

N: So your calmness then is dependent upon the factor of you sustaining your effort towards whatever you percieve mettā contemplation to be. Which means if sometimes circumstances change, you get sick or something happens, or too many things happen, you don’t have enough time, so you cannot engage to that necessary extent of your mettā contemplation, means you’re back within anger. So you haven’t really uprooted anger, you’ve just suppressed it with certain practices. And as I said, it’s not inherently wrong to do that to begin with, but it is inherently wrong to adopt the view that doing that uproots things somehow, magically. The only way to uproot things is to directly see what uprooting is. And I just described what it is, it’s recognising that liability to the possibility of anger, the possibility of ill-will, the possibility of sensuality, the possibility of delusion, the possibility of dukkha, as the dukkha right now. Not to wait for it when it occurs.

T: So you can see that possibility, so what do you do? How do you uproot this possibility when tomorrow you might suffer? You’re being aware of that, but then what?

N: Well it’s sustaining that. So can you sustain that if you’re not keeping the precepts? Can you sustain that elevated state of mind that recognises liability to dukkha without the actual dukkha being present there? If you’re drinking, smoking, running around distracting yourself, engaging in entertainment, no, impossible. So the Noble Eightfold Path, that’s how you do it. Right livelihood—right view, first of all. See, if your view still regards management as the way out of suffering, you will not stay on the level of, wait, it’s the possibility of suffering, that’s the problem that must be dealt with, not the actual suffering when it arises.

T: So yeah, how do I deal with that? The possibility, now, here.

N: By the Noble Eightfold Path. So, right view, knowing that that’s where the issue is, not looking elsewhere. Right intentions, not entertaining, not delighting, not giving in to greed, aversion, delusion through your speech, through your body, in your thoughts. On every front, you need to build yourself up in order to be able to sustain that recognition of liability here and now, that that’s what the issue is. If you ask yourself, how do I deal with the possibility of future suffering, here and now, you’re basically asking ‘how do I manage it?’. That’s what you’re implying, because you want to deal with it now. You deal with it properly, not giving in to the view of management, by realising that you have no right to resist it. So you have to be careful when you start recognising, ah, the liability to suffering is the problem for me, you have to be careful to now not give in to the attitude of wanting to manage that.

T: So, I want it to end, I want that possibility to be gone.

N: Then you really have to understand where the dukkha is there. Is the possibility in itself dukkha? Is that possibility of future discomfort, future disagreeable things, is that in itself dukkha?

T: The idea.

N: Yeah, the thought of it. Is that the dukkha? So what’s the dukkha then?

T: I would say it’s that unpleasant feeling. It’s the displeasure that is there when I have that idea. So I feel uncomfortable with the fact that, in the future, I will suffer pain which I’m…

N: …suffering presently. So then the next question you should ask yourself is, the unpleasant feeling then. That you have when you think those thoughts. Is that the dukkha in itself?

T: It is what it is, that pain. The problem is I don’t want it there.

N: So what is then the dukkha?

T: I mean, I would say, OK, it’s the craving to get rid of it.

N: OK, so how is that manifested, what is that? Practically, in your experience.

T: As resistance, I resist it.

N: That’s what I mean, that sense of entitled ‘I should not have this’. So you realise, you suffer because you resist discomfort. Even before the discomfort comes your way. See, you resist the thought of the possibility of discomfort, here and now, and that’s why here and now you experience dukkha. That’s why the Buddha didn’t say vedanā is the cause of dukkha. He didn’t say feelings are the cause of suffering. He said taṇhā, craving, is the cause of suffering. Craving in regard to what you feel. So you have such and such a feeling when you have such and such a thought, present future or past, but it’s your implicit attitude towards the feeling of either craving towards it or away from it, that’s why that experience is dukkha. And see, you would have not seen that if you hadn’t forced yourself to discern the level of that possibility of dukkha, is dukkha right now. You wouldn’t have seen that if you were just fully bent on managing the dukkha as it arises. Or managing the dukkha before it arises.

That’s what I mean, like, when people recognise sometimes the future dukkha, liability to the future dukkha, they can even take that as something to manage. Ah, so I’ll do this, I’ll do this, so these things will not happen to me. Which carries the implicit view that dukkha is in those actual things, or in your actual feelings, and you don’t see that it’s in your attitude toward these things. And that’s right here, right now, always present. The relationship between taṇhā and dukkha, between craving and suffering, it’s always present. Always simultaneously present. Presence of suffering means presence of taṇhā. Presence of taṇhā means presence of suffering. So to the extent that taṇhā is present, to that extent, suffering is felt. Or to the extent that suffering is felt, to that extent, the attitude of taṇhā is present. There is no delay, or like a few seconds later dukkha comes as a result of your craving. No, presence of suffering means presence of craving, presence of craving means presence of suffering. So that’s why if you were to remove the presence of craving, there is no suffering amidst things that used to cause you to suffer, so much. And that’s why liberation from suffering is visible and possible, here and now. So that’s what I mean, you need to start seeing, as dukkha, the liability to suffering. Not actually wait for the actual suffering, and then manage it.

T: Because if you’re not seeing that liability then, you’re complacent.

N: If you’re not seeing the liability, means you are not seeing where your craving is.

T: You’re not seeing dukkha.

N: Yeah, you need to see the dukkha first, in order to see the cause of dukkha. You can’t just be dealing with the dukkha without understanding what dukkha is. That’s what the Buddha said, I teach only two things: suffering and freedom from it. That’s it. So if you don’t see that that possibility of future discomfort is already dukkha now, means you’re not seeing the nature of dukkha to begin with. So it doesn’t matter what happens to you, you will not see it with the correct set of eyes, so to speak. And if you’re not seeing what the dukkha is here and now already, you’re not going to see your craving. Because as I said, to the extent that the dukkha’s felt, to that extent, craving is present. But you’re not seeing the felt dukkha, thus how can you see that which determines it, the actual craving? So that’s what I mean. Management, looking to deal with it over there, without seeing where the actual dukkha is because you give in to that need to manage it and remove the pain as opposed to understand it, it’s inherently bound in the wrong view. It’s inherently bound in the wrong direction.

That’s a way you could reflect: why are you entitled to manage pain? Have you had a say in its arising? Dwell on the nature of that dukkha, even the actual dukkha or the future dukkha, just reflect. Have you had a say in its arising? Can you prevent circumstances from becoming disagreeable at any point in the future? Is that even conceivable, actually? It’s just a pure fantasy. Fantasy rooted in this complete misconceving of the problem. The problem is in these things happening to me, problem is not in me implicitly resisting the idea of these things happening to me. So how do you stop resisting the pain? How do you then stop craving, or rather welcoming the pleasure? How do you remove craving? Well, we just outlined it. By not trying to manage it, but by seeing it here and now already. And then by sense restraint, because you cannot possibly be welcoming pleasure and then just dealing with the unpleasant experiences when they arise. You can’t just selectively pick and choose which cravings you want. If there is any form of craving present, means liability to suffering is present. So you have to abandon craving for pleasure, inasmuch as you have to abandon craving against pain. Pain comes, pleasure comes, you have no say in its arising. So why do you then constantly entertain the attitude of ‘I want this, I don’t want this, I’m right to want this, I’m right to not want this’? Why do you go after one, and try to avoid the other one? Where is your attitude rooted? Why are you doing it?

T: Because pleasure and pain are felt, it’s a pressure, it pressures you, you feel it.

N: So it’s painful to not do it. So you do it because you want to avoid pain.

T: Because it’s pressuring, that pain is pressuring.

N: Pain is pressuring, exactly. So you don’t know how to deal with dukkha, thus you try to get rid of dukkha. That’s basically the nutshell of every management. And that’s why I say it’s inherently wrong. Even if you’re doing the Dhamma, all the Buddha’s instructions, but you’re taking them as management, means you still entertain the same attitude because of which you suffer in the first place. Which is, I can’t handle this, I want to get rid of it. Which is the attitude of craving. So how can you then withstand the pressure?

T: How can you withstand the pressure? By withstanding the pressure.

N: But can you withstand the pressure if even your physical behaviour is not kept in check? Can you withstand mental pressure there? Impossible. If your verbal behaviour is not kept in check? Like the outputs of lust and anger through your physical action, through your verbal action, if you don’t keep a lid on that, can you possibly withstand things mentally? Not a chance. And how do you do that? By doing it! How do you become stronger? Well, by exposing yourself to things that will make you stronger. By training.

I’ve said it many times, like even when I first read the Suttas, I was a bit puzzled by how the Buddha kept talking about “he trains himself thus”. A monk, a skilled monk, trains himself thus. Because, you know, you had all these notions about enlightenment and so on, it’s like, what is there to train? You know, you do things, and then enlightenment happens to you. No—you train the strength. Out of which wisdom comes, which is what enlightenment is. So that’s why sense restraint is not optional. That’s why virtue is not, you know, ‘oh I can do it for a while’. It’s a necessary basis that has to remain throughout. So you will be able to withstand the pressure by not giving in to pressure. By not giving in to pressure, you get to outline what the actual problem is. Your liability to future pressure, to future discomfort, is already a problem right here, right now. And you see that now because you haven’t just blindly given in to managing of the pressure in order to get rid of the pressure. Manage the stress in order to get rid of the stress. Practise the Dhamma so you don’t get this particular stress any more.

T: I recognise that there’s a possibility of suffering, and I see that suffering right now. It’s suffering because I resist the displeasure here and now in regard to the possibility. It’s suffering because I resist. So I don’t resist it, that discomfort here and now. But I must still have the idea. I don’t have to keep on thinking about that there’s a possibility of me suffering tomorrow.

N: No, that will come and go.

T: So basically, I have to look at whatever I’m feeling, right now.

N: Yeah. Because that’s where the resistance occurs. That’s where craving is, it’s where you feel.

T: I can put the possibility of suffering aside, because now I know what the problem is here and now.

N: Sure, sure. You contemplate the possibility of suffering when you forget where the problem is, here and now. Or when you’re not seeing it.

T: Like Sāriputta, he asked himself, I think it was Sāriputta, what am I liable to? Am I liable to any suffering? Was it something like that? Is there any suffering that can arise?

N: Yeah, it was something like that. Is there any possibility of suffering that hasn’t been addressed, so to speak. And he was like, no, I don’t see any, OK. He still doesn’t decide, ‘OK, I’m done now’, no. You remain with that vigilant attitude. ‘OK, I’ll check, I’ll check in every now and then and see if something has changed’. If possibility for lust, aversion, delusion, possibility for pressure, possibility for sensual pull, possibility for suffering, has that arisen? No, not the actual suffering. But the possibility for it being? Oh, look, yeah now I see it, it’s possible. Well there you go, that’s your issue, right there and then. So what do you do? Well, you don’t lose the sight of it, to begin with. You don’t welcome, it if it’s the possibility towards pleasure and sensuality, and you don’t resist it if it’s the possibility towards pain and discomfort.

T: Is there any possibility for me indulging in…

N: Welcoming. “Indulging” is too coarse already, it’s the result of it.

T: …welcoming pleasure in the future?

N: Exactly. So it’s on the level of the possibility of pleasure or possibility of pain, which means it’s on the level of welcoming or kind of shying away from. It’s subtler.

T: So I think, if someone brings me a pizza tomorrow, and I love the taste of pizza, will I welcome that pleasurable taste? Will I get lustful…

N: And you would know that, if you’re looking at things rightly, you would know that already now. You know even if you are perfectly restrained and don’t express your joy over the particular type of food brought to you, you already internally know what it is. And that’s the problem.

T: And there’s the work.

N: And that’s the work, exactly, that’s what the issue is. And people would say ‘oh, I’ll tell them never to bring that thing again, because I like it too much’. It’s like, well, you can do that if you really can’t deal with things, OK, put it aside, but that’s really masking the issue. The issue is not the pizza or whatever people have brought to you. The issue is you are unable to restrain yourself. You are unable to have a mind free from greed. So now you’re just trying to remove things that make you greedy.

T: You’re unable to not be wanting pleasure.

N: You are unable to, exactly, to not welcome that pressure of that pleasure. You’re unable. Which means that’s why you will remain liable. You can spend a hundred years of that management, you will never uproot your sensuality.

T: So you feel the pressure of pain, that resistance against it, and you stop.

N: Well, exactly. You don’t try to get rid of it, you don’t try to psychologise, manage, explain, prevent things from arising. If it’s something obviously unwholesome, like when that man came and wanted to offer his daughter to the Buddha. And the Buddha said no, don’t even bother, I will not accept that. Certain things cannot be done rightly, such as sexual intercourse and so on. But there are things that, like there’s nothing wrong with eating food, whether it’s tasty or not. But it’s wrong in eating it with sensual reasons. And you eat you eat your food with sensual reasons when you’re unable to not be overwhelmed by that pressure towards accepting pleasure. So that’s why the Buddha would say, when you practise in regard to food, it’s not like you stop eating. No, you eat mindfully. You maintain the reasons for your eating clearly, and you eat while those reasons are present. Reasons for health, sustaining the body, so that you can practise further. Not reasons of beautification, chasing the taste and so on. But if you just think if I avoid the food I don’t have to deal with these reasons, well, you’re sorely mistaken. You’re just covering up the basis of your sensuality.

So even if you just eat horrible stuff all the time, because you don’t want to experience any sensual joy of the taste, you still need to look at these reasons and keep the vigilant eye on them, because that’s where sensuality is rooted. Not in the actual taste. So, am I welcoming, am I delighting, am I accepting this elation on account of a sensual prospect that is pleasing to me? That’s the issue, my acceptance, not seeing the danger in it. That’s the issue, not the issue is ‘oh, I must not have this thing arise for me at all’. Call people tell them never to bring their food, you’ll never see anything, you’ll never hear anything, you’ll never taste anything agreeable. Means you’re misconceiving where the issue is.

T: And you’re maintaining the issue, basically.

N: Well, you remain fully within it, yeah. That’s why you’re not stepping outside of the sensual domain. And that’s why asceticism of the utmost form, like the Jains, the perfect practice of obsessive ahiṃsā, non-violence, not eating, not harming anything, it’s utterly misguided. Because it’s fully misprojected. They don’t see where the issue really is. Avoiding food, any food, just eating every third day or something. To the point of, in the end, you die on account of starvation, and that’s like the ultimate goal of a Jain. Yet you realise you fully remain bound by the sensual domain. Never a step closer to escaping it.

T: Because, the Jains, it’s said that by avoiding things then you diminish them, diminish the pressure. Whereas the Buddhist way is…

N: It’s not, because it’s not always the same things. You don’t always have one attitude towards all things. If you were to only have the attitude of accepting everything, every type of feeling, every type of perception, then the Jains would have been right. All you need to do is avoid it, because you always accept it. But that’s not the case. You’re not accepting the unpleasurable feelings. You are actually trying to get rid of them. You’re only accepting certain things, but then you’re resisting some other things. And so it’s not a blanket rule, always avoid, because it’s not a blanket experience that’s always the same. That’s why what you do, whether you avoid or whether you have to basically endure, is determined by how you feel. And you don’t even feel always the same in regard to the same things. Sometimes the same food might make you happy, sometimes it might make you feel unpleasant. Sometimes it might make you indifferent. Which means you have three different types of feeling, which means you have three different types of attitude that will then exhibit the craving. But if you always avoid everything, you’re ignoring two thirds of that picture. And that’s why you will remain ignorant.

So how can you then know when to reject and when to accept? When you’re resisting, gratuitously, the future prospect of suffering, should you be rejecting that even more? No, you need to accept that these possibilities are there, present, and you have no say in it. That’s how you can then stop resisting it gratuitously, and thus you uproot the suffering. Or should you then accept the prospect of future pleasure that you’re already delighting in? No, you must reject it, you must contemplate the danger in it. So how do you know what you do? Well, by learning how to be properly mindful of an enduring feeling. Because that’s where things converge, that’s where things are rooted. You can’t just take a set of behaviour that, ‘I always do this when it’s this, and this when it’s that’. No. First, you just need to remain mindful of what’s the presently enduring feeling, and you will know then what attitude is there. If the presently enduring feeling is a pleasure, an agreeability, means you have the attitude of welcoming it. By default. So that’s what you reject. You reject your welcoming of this sensual pleasure. You don’t blame, like Jains, the actual objects of your sensual pleasure. So you will know what attitude is there by correctly understanding what present feeling is there.

T: That’s the root of the problem.

N: It’s always present, the root of the problem is always present. It’s not in the past, it will not be in the future.

T: And that’s the root of the problem, that attitude.

N: Exactly, and that present root is basically your attitude towards the presently enduring feeling.

T: So, it’s whatever suffering will arise in the future…

N: That’s the gateway. It’s within that. That doesn’t disappear when the suffering arises. That remains its vessel, so to speak. Its framework, as I say. Because no amount of future discomfort and suffering can affect you unless you’re holding on to that vessel of rejecting it. The vessel of rejection basically of any discomfort. That’s your mindset. So anything that comes of discomfortable nature is going to make you suffer because of your attitude of not wanting it. You remove that gratuitous attitude of not wanting the discomfort. Not necessarily seeking it out, but certainly not trying to get rid of it when it’s there. When it circumstantially arises which is inevitably will, ah, then you’re not cultivating that gratuitous mindset of resistance. Which means your craving is now, truly, diminishing. And same, you will diminish your craving when you don’t cultivate the gratuitous mindset of welcoming, as the Buddha would say, delighting, entertaining the notions of current and future pleasure. When you ask yourself, ‘am I liable to future sensual desire? Oh, yes’—why? Because here and now I’m still holding it dear. I’m still welcoming the prospect of it. Here and now I haven’t uprooted it. Not, I haven’t dealt with it rightly once it has arisen. No, it’s on the level of that possible future sensuality is only possible because, right here right now, I am still valuing it. I still haven’t thoroughly seen the danger in it. I am still, on some level, delighting in it. And that delight is to be dealt with here and now, not in the future when that thing arises.