Craving, aversion and delusion: the essence of Buddhism, seen through one map

Buddhist teaching names three causes of suffering: craving, aversion and delusion. Wanting, pushing away, and not seeing clearly. It is one of the clearest descriptions of suffering I know, but for years it stayed an idea for me: true, but hard to use in the middle of an ordinary day. The map I practise with, the Present Attention and Happiness Matrix, is where it became practical. This is how I see the essence of that teaching through it. It is the first in a series: other traditions, and what they say about the mind, will follow through the same map.

The short version

• Buddhist teaching names craving, aversion and delusion as the roots of suffering
• Seen through the matrix, the Likes row is craving and the Dislikes row is aversion, and the book uses both words
• Delusion has no row on the grid. It sits in the other direction: attention in the past or the future, taking a thought as reality
• That is why even the neutral past and future positions disturb peace, which surprises most people
• Present + Neutral is the one position with none of the three. The map asks you to notice, not to believe

What Buddhist teaching says

In Buddhist teaching, craving, aversion and delusion are the roots from which suffering grows. Craving is the pull toward what is pleasant, and the wish for it to last or return. Aversion is the push away from what is unpleasant, from mild irritation to hatred. Delusion is the failure to see things as they are, most of all taking our own mental constructions for reality.

I am not a teacher of Buddhism, and this is not an explanation of it. It is one practitioner's way of seeing it, through a map anyone can use.

Craving and aversion: the two charged rows

The matrix has two axes. One is time: past, present, future. The other is charge: whether attention likes what it finds, dislikes it, or is neutral toward it. Three times three gives the nine attention states.

The charge axis is where two of the three causes of suffering appear, and the book uses the words in its own description. Future + Likes, it says, creates craving, impatience or fantasy. And of the one state at the centre: there is no push toward Likes, no craving; there is no push away from Dislikes, no aversion.

So the Likes row is craving in three tenses: longing for what was, grasping at what is, fantasising about what could be. Present + Likes surprises people most, because it feels like the good tile. It is craving in its quietest form, a small grip on a pleasant moment so that it does not end. That is why feeling good is the part nobody trains.

The Dislikes row is aversion in three tenses: resentment about the past, resistance to the present, dread of the future. The future version, held often enough, is what anxiety actually is.

Delusion: the axis the grid does not label

Delusion is harder to see, and the matrix does not give it a row. The way I see it, delusion is the time axis, and what happens there.

The book describes the sequence every disturbing thought follows. A thought arises. We become identified with the thought, taking it as reality. That identification produces emotional and physical reactions, which produce more thoughts, until a cycle is running. The second step is delusion in plain language: a memory or a projection, experienced as if it were happening now.

This explains the part of the map that puzzles most newcomers. Why would Past + Neutral or Future + Neutral disturb anything? Planning is useful; remembering is harmless. The book's answer is careful: these positions can seem harmless but often lead to charged ones. Nothing is charged yet, but attention has left what is actually here and is living inside a construction. There is no craving and no aversion yet, but the ground for both is laid.

Neither indulgence nor aversion

The book describes two wrong responses to a disturbing thought. Indulgence follows the thought and elaborates it. Aversion hates the thought, suppresses it and argues with it. Between them is recognition: noting the thought for what it is and letting attention return.

This matters because the second mistake is easy to make with good intentions. Pushing a craving away is aversion. Fighting an angry thought is more anger. It is the single most common mistake in practice, and it has its own post: recognising a thought is not the same as rejecting it.

The one position with none of the three

Present + Neutral is direct contact with what is here, with no charge and no story. No craving, because nothing is being reached for. No aversion, because nothing is being pushed away. No delusion, because attention is on what is present, not on a construction about it.

The book is specific that this is not an achievement or a special state. It is what remains when the other eight are not running. That is the state you do not have to build.

What the map does differently

If this is an old teaching, what does a grid add?

Speed, mostly. "Is this craving, aversion or delusion?" is a question that takes reflection. "Which tile am I on?" takes about a second, because it asks only two things: which direction in time, and which charge. The answer arrives before the thought has built its chain, and the earlier the recognition, the book says, the easier it is to step out of the cycle.

And it asks for nothing. The book describes itself as a practice, not a philosophy: no complex techniques, no special beliefs, no elaborate rituals. A Buddhist practitioner may find the map familiar. Someone of another faith, or none, can use it without taking on anything they do not already hold. It describes what attention does, not what anyone should believe.

What this does not claim

It is one practitioner's reading, not the voice of any tradition. The book itself names no tradition; this way of seeing the two together is mine.

It does not claim the correspondence is exact. Traditions describe craving, aversion and delusion with a depth that no grid captures, and anyone who wants that depth should go to a teacher and a tradition, not a blog.

One instruction from the book

Seeing the two side by side is not an invitation to combine them. The book opens with a plain instruction: do not mix this with other practices, physically or mentally, and expect results. Allow your own judgment to come at the end of the practice, not before.

So this is a way of seeing, not a way of practising, and Buddhism is only the first tradition this series will look at. If you practise within a tradition, keep practising it as it is taught. If you take up the Return of Attention practice, practise it on its own, as the book lays it out, and judge it at the end. Comparing is for understanding. Mixing is what the book asks you not to do.

Common questions

What are the causes of suffering in Buddhism?

Buddhist teaching names three roots: craving, aversion and delusion. The pull toward the pleasant, the push away from the unpleasant, and not seeing clearly.

Do I need to be Buddhist to use the Present Attention and Happiness Matrix?

No. The book asks for no belief. It describes what attention does, so a Buddhist practitioner may find it familiar, and someone of another faith, or none, can use it as it is.

Is mindfulness Buddhist?

Many mindfulness techniques come from Buddhist practice, and much secular mindfulness is taught without the religious framework. The Return of Attention is secular: it asks for no belief.

Is craving the same as enjoying something?

No. Enjoying is contact with the pleasant. Craving is the grip that wants it to continue or return. The first is attention meeting something pleasant; the second is Present + Likes.