Grigoris wrote:If an un-afflicted object can give rise to an afflicted state, then why would the reaction to the object (an object in it's own right) not be capable of giving rise to an afflicted state?
I mean surely one can approach circling a stupa as a possession: "My circumambulation."
Or circumambulation can be practiced for self-centred purposes.
Etc...
Even the Buddha talked about "his robes, his sangha." Conventional markers of identity and possession are not necessarily afflictive.
The point of practicing Dharma is to cause positive path dharmas to arise in the mind, and transforming afflictive positive mental factors into nonafflictive positive mental factors.
I really have no idea why anyone practicing Dharma would practice for any other reason. Certainly there are people who appear to be practicing sublime Dharma who are in fact practicing the eight worldly Dharmas, but what is the point of dwelling on the mistakes of others?
You initially brought up this unqualified example:
I can, for example, have a pleasurable feeling while circling a stupa and then get attached to the action and feeling, so that when I am not circling a stupa I feel distress (or I feel a desire/need to experience the positive feeling again and this brings me distress.
I responded to your example with the assumption that you were presenting in good faith an example of sublime Dharma practice that somehow could lead to suffering. Now I find myself in another exchange with you that seems to be heading nowhere but to pointless nitpicking over what are, from my perspective, needless trivialities.