Showing posts sorted by relevance for query lust. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query lust. Sort by date Show all posts

Tuesday, January 9, 2024

LUST, Lust, lust

Wisdom Quarterly (EXTENDED COMMENTARY) orig. pub. 12/12/10, 11:40 AM

Prince Nanda was young. He was the Buddha's brother [of the same father, King Suddhodana, but with different mothers, who were biological sisters, and Nanda's mother, Maha Pajapati Gotami (who later became the world's first Buddhist nun), adopted Siddhartha seven days after his birth, after his mother, her older sister, Maha Maya, passed away, which is when the younger sister took over her duties and raised Prince Siddhartha to be king of the Scythians/Shakyians].
 
One source says Nada was 16, which was the marriable age among the Scythians/Shakyians, who were later thought of as kshatriya warrior/noble caste members, the administrators at the time. Sixteen was the age Siddhartha, who at age 35 had a great enlightenment (maha-bodhi) to become the Buddha, "the Enlightened One," was married off to his 16-year-old cousin, Bimba Devi (Princess Yasodhara).
 
Brahmins (priestly caste members, who underwent a rigorous period of study as brahmacaryas under a guru to learn Sanskrit and the Vedas, the ancient "Knowledge Books" of the Indus Valley Civilization and proto-India) were expected to be celibate students, unlike modern Brahmins.

Don't think about, no, don't think about it. Don't name it. Breathing in, breathing out...
The best teen "sex" comedy ever made. It's The Scarlet Letter that shows us ourselves!

Because Nanda was young and not enjoined to be celibate, Scythia prudently prescribed marriage. He, as well as Prince Siddhartha, were not restricted to monogamy, however, not even our modern serial-monogamy.

The brothers and their royal cousins had "dancing girls" and female musicians and what seem to have been harems (ensuring palace pleasures for polygamist royals). Lust and warriorship were ways of life for Scythians/Shakyians and later Indian rulers.

This was Central Asia after all (not Nepal but ancient Gandhara, now Afghanistan, as Dr. Ranajit Pal realized), which continues these traditions. It's the same in the American "caste" system, not only the ubiquitous middle class.

Goodness knows. Perhaps Shakyian princesses had dancing boys (or girls) of their own. It is certain that all six of their senses were indulged with banquets (tastes), perfumes (smells), art (sights), music (sounds), baths and foot massages (tactile sensations), elaborate clothes and conquests (mind). Princes certainly had concubines when they ruled.

The point is, lust for sensual desires was the name of the game. So we say: Do it when you are doing it, and abandon it internally when you have given it up externally. To do otherwise is a sure way to misery.

Our Judeo-Christian mores, transplanted from the Near and Middle East, have been heavily influenced for millennia by contact with Buddhism. Ancient Jews were in Kashmir, India, and in places along the Silk Road from at least the time of the Buddha. So what happened in the Greater Indian Empire ("Maha Bharat") influenced what went on in Egypt, Jerusalem, Nazareth, and later Greece, Rome, Britain, Israel, and America, from East to West.

Chanda, what are these strange visions I'm seeing? - Real life, Prince.

But the message has been corrupted. We Americans are averse to discussing lust. We cringe. We blush. We're humiliated to talk about sex, sexuality, or even nudity.

We overcompensate in certain parts of the country, flaunting our pornography and "liberalized" attitudes toward free love, sex, and pleasure. But just under the surface, we exhibit as many hang ups as most of the rest of the world, which looks to the Great Western Empire (America) for how to act and think.

Wisdom Quarterly says, enjoy pleasures when indulging them, AND temporarily abandon lust if serenity and insight are a meditative aim.

What are those two up to? - I don't know, but it looks like they're having fun. Shall we? - Let's.
.
Why only temporarily? Wisdom Quarterly is different from other Buddhist websites for one thing: We taught a young American the Dharma and saw it eventually result in literal enlightenment.

This took place in this decade. (Many people say there's no chance for enlightenment nowadays. Yet, we have seen it and have come to know of at least 21 other people to attain one or more stages of enlightenment). The person we personally helped was nice, neither angry nor dumb, yet lusty. Shockingly, this person continued to have and enjoy lust AFTER attaining.

That's not the popular conception of what the tradition teaches, but it is in the texts. In the Buddha's time, most of the people who attained were ordinary householders. Monastics were intensive practitioners and some of them became teachers if they were able. Whenever the Buddha taught, which was just about daily for 45 years, someone in the audience would come to realization. Most of them were invisible devas (the majority of the audience).

Monastics had a better chance than ordinary humans, but since ordinary humans outnumbered monastics, more ordinary humans reached one or more of the stages of awakening. This, of course, led many of them to seek ordination but not all of them. Many more stayed householders, with homes, spouses, chidren, and ordinary responsibilities.


We are not surprised, at least we shouldn't be (but still are sometimes), because there are a lot of examples of this in the ancient texts. Lust is set aside to attain, but it comes back unless one advances to the point of outgrowing the Sense Sphere (kama loka).

The many kinds of stream enterers (enumerated and explained in the Path of Freedom or Vimuttimagga and the once returners can carry on as before; only the nonreturners and arhats have internally changed so much as to not be able to carry on like ordinary Sense Sphere inhabitants. That is why nonreturners do not return to this world of the ordinary senses in the human world or lower Sense Sphere heavens. They are reborn in the Pure Abodes, Fine-Material, or Immaterial Sphere planes.

Not everyone who gains liberating knowledge-and-vision becomes a monastic. This leads to the paradoxical situation wherein worldly monastics have abandoned lust, but not noble (enlightened) lay practitioners.

It was this way at the time of the Buddha. Most people did not become monastics even after attaining one of the stages of enlightenment.

Even the deva-ruler Sakka (King of the Devas), is a stream enterer. He is the leader of two worlds in space, the World of the Thirty-Three and the Realm of the Four Great Kings (Tavatimsa and Catumaharajika deva lokaliteral extraterrestrial worlds we do a disservice to if we dismiss them as "heavenly fantasies" in Buddhist cosmology).

Sakka has not completely given up lust. He is concerned and involved in human and non-human affairs on Earth and the longevity and success of the Buddha's dispensation.

Maha Moggallana, the Buddha's second chief male disciple, had to shake Sakka and the partying devas (always finding diversion up there the way the rich seem to do down here) in their aerial spacecraft/heavenly mansions (vimanas).

Lust is that way; it is not fully abandoned until the the third stage of enlightenment.  

Wisdom Quarterly's own earthly friend, advisor, and newest teacher attained not the first but the second of the four stages of enlightenment.
  • The idea of only four stages is, however, a simplification; there are in fact finer distinctions that can be made: The Path of Freedom (pp. 308-309) explains that there are TEN STAGES: three kinds of stream enterers, the once-returner, five kinds of non-returners, and the arhat.
Lust will not yet be permanently abandoned until the stage of nonreturning (anagami). But to get to that stage, with a limit now placed on future suffering, there had to be a temporary letting go of lust.

Without setting aside lust (as well as ill-will and delusion) during meditation, there is no chance of staying serene (accessing the meditative absorptions or jhanas), developing the Four Foundations of Mindfulness (practicing "right mindfulness"), and gaining liberating-insight. Our friend accomplished this in just four intensive months on retreat.

Is there any better, more permanent happiness than sensual lust?
.
This meant temporarily leaving behind the home life and its all-consuming concerns. It was the same in the past: Many if not most of the people who attained a stage lower than full enlightenment at the time of the Buddha were living and continued to live at home.

The need to set aside lust and other distractions is emphasized in the Buddha's teaching on the Five Hindrances to meditation, which cloud the mind and obstruct any possibility of insight.

Jhana ("right concentration," samma samadhi, defined as the first four absorptions, in the Noble Eightfold Path) is the way to suppress the Five Hindrances, the first of which is lust, and other more subtle mental defilements (asavas and samyojanas). But vipassana ("liberating insight," wisdom, direct knowledge) is the way to uproot them.

One would be considered a literal "saint" in most religions by simply suppressing the defilements in this way, even gaining the psychic powers (abhinna, iddhi) that "prove" one's saintliness by doing so.


But uprooting these defilements, which often does not involve the development of psychic powers, is what makes one a Buddhist "saint" (an arya, a "noble one"). By achieving even the first stage of Buddhist enlightenment, one finally puts a limit on suffering (to no more than seven more lives). One has known-and-seen nirvana directly. One is destined to become fully enlightened and liberated from rebirth and every form of suffering within at most seven more rebirths.

(That may amount to a much longer period of time than it first appears: If one is reborn in any of the many celestial deva-worlds, where lifespans are measured in aeons (kalpas), the number of years to enjoy the senses is difficult to calculate in human years. Even the lowest celestial world has more and better pleasure to inspire lust and clinging, with access that lasts much longer).

What stands in the way of that? Lust. To be successful one needs to set aside a pleasurable thing for a much more pleasurable thing, which may sound like a paradox. This is generally only possible to do in the human world and the lower deva planes (sensual heavens), because otherwise the superior heavenly pleasures are too great in those worlds and the danger in them too hard to see.

How can we set lust aside even for a moment? Force, willpower, guilt, shame, submitting to someone else's control? No, these won't hold. The only way to set aside, abandon, let go, and detach from our innate lust (and the other hindrances that obstruct serenity and insight) is contemplating the disadvantages of lust or contemplating the many advantages of letting go.

If we "contemplate" (anussati, prolonged and well-rounded mindfulness, sati -- recollection, consideration, reflection), the heart/mind effortlessly lets go of what we cannot let go of using mere willpower.


Temporarily abandon lust. (Normally, we do not even dream of doing this even temporarily because it's the only happiness we know). Any kind of "permanent" abandoning will come by itself. There is no need to do it permanently. Do this:
  • Just for this moment, consider the repugnant aspects of sensuality: Lust shrivels up.
  • Just for right now, love (forgive and accept) someone who's done something to offend, hurt, or harm you: Anger wilts.
  • Right in this present moment, be mindful (bare, unembroidered awareness) of whatever is given attention (with no discursive thinking, evaluating, or judging): Delusion is dispelled.
The Dharma is immediate, unaffected by time. The relief happens right away. It invites one to come and see, to test, to experiment with and experience. The Kalama Sutta is the most popular original Buddhist discourse in America (according to Wisdom Quarterly). But it is often misunderstood to mean, "Do whatever, use common sense." It's not "common" sense. It's something one can see without blind faith, belief, or trust in a foreign authority, yet that's just the beginning: There is still truth to discover and preserve.


The Buddha's son, Ven. Rahula, also suffered from intense lust at 16 (according to Ven. Dhammadipa, 2008 BAUS lectures), which is when his father had him apply himself to meditation to break through by temporarily laying that burden down. (It's there to pick up again later if one wishes).

Rahula saw that he, his father, and Ananda all had the "marks of great men" (lakkhana) and were therefore destined to be world-monarchs over the entire subcontinent or this world (this cakkavala as cakkravartin kings) or to become buddhas, depending on whether or not they renounced the world.

His son Rahula had renounced it (at age 7), under his father's prompting (his father being the Buddha, returning after seven years absence to become enlightened himself), but his brother Nanda had not. Both gained the unsurpassable bliss and safety of personal enlightenment. Both did it by sidestepping the lust that was arising as humans in the Sense Sphere.

Maha Pajapati (the Buddha's adoptive mother) and Janapada Kalyani (his half-brother's fiance) also contemplated. And their minds became calm, dispassionate, detached from craving, grasping, and clinging. This temporary freedom allowed them to win enduring freedom.

Even the Buddha's father, King Suddhodana, became fully enlightened -- in spite of the fact that he had lived sunk in sensual pleasures and administrative responsibilities, overseeing and defending Shakyian land holdings other clans wanted to overtake.


How did the Buddha's brother, sister, son, wife, adoptive mother, biological mother, father, and cousins become enlightened whether they had joined the Sangha or not? They did it the way everyone does, by settling and unifying the mind (with the first four jhanas or levels of Zen) then contemplating the Four Foundations of Mindfulness with that concentrated mind. It all starts with temporarily setting aside the craving called lust.
Nathaniel Hawthorne would be proud his Puritan American message was understood.

Sunday, May 26, 2024

How Christians and Buddhists deal with lust


Stop fighting LUST! Do this instead | Christian method
(Lion of Judah) Jan. 31, 2023: This is an original narration recorded specifically for this video in the Lion of Judah studio. Footage licensed through: Filmpac/Videoblocks. Music licensed through Audiojungle/Artlist. Social media links: cmlionofjudah instagram.com/cmlionofjudah...

For prayers subscribe to prayer channel: @lionofjudahprayers.  👉 Subscribe and enable 🔔 for weekly Christian motivational videos.
  • If you would like to feature on this channel, work with Lion of Judah, or have any other enquiries, please get in touch: team.lion.of.judah@gmail.com.
Resist not evil: be mindful and stop | Buddhist method

How to stop dirty thoughts | How to not be controlled by lust | Buddhist story
(Wake Up Stories) Nov. 23, 2023: Everyone can be a successful person in their life. We might just need someone to motivate us. [This is not the Buddha's full teaching on overcoming lust.]

#Animated_stories #Motivational_stories #Cartoon. Social media links: Instagram: wake__up__stories, Whatsapp channel: whatsapp.com/channel/0029Va9L..., Twitter (X): wake_up_stories. Patreon: wake_up_stories. Subscribe to YouTube channel and follow for short motivational stories. 🧑‍🎓🥰

Disclaimer: This channel does not promote or encourage any illegal activity. All content provided by this channel is for educational purposes only.

Copyright disclaimer: Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational, or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

What is the Buddhist method?
Man, religions is bummer, Sid. - I know, Jess.
[The Buddha's Dharma (Teaching, Doctrine and Discipline, Buddh-ism) has much to say about lust, in many sutras, throughout the Disciplinary Code (Vinaya), in terms of etiquette (the minor observances), and in the Abhidharma, or Buddhist psychology, when it comes to intensive meditation and a deeper study of the Dharma at the higher or ultimate (abhi-) level.

But this is cute story (second video) suggests the first three very important things to do to tame lust:
  1. guard the senses,
  2. choose good companions/friends, and
  3. practice "right mindfulness" (samma-sati).
Wrong mindfulness won't work and may well be harmful, and regular "mindfulness" is not likely to include what the Buddha meant by this word (sati = mindfulness, bare awareness, vigilance), which modern psychology and pop culture has adopted and hollowed out until it's nearly a meaningless shell of a buzzword meaning nothing more than "awareness" or "attention."

The most important component of Buddhist mindfulness is not awareness of what is happening in this moment but to radically accept and dispassionately observe what is happening at this moment without rejecting it, encouraging it, or distorting it. See what is and let it be. Being vigilantly attentive to all that is going on internally without turning away or trying to make it something else, this is mindfulness.

The opposite of mindfulness is distraction, inattention, personal involvement, getting carried away by what is observed, identifying with it, judging it, measuring it, trying to fix it, struggling against it, resisting it, craving it, getting confused by it, thinking about it, reacting to it, or taking it personally.

Just be the watcher, accepter, and patiently dispassionate observer of whatever arises and all that is because in this way in time it may be possible to see through things and see their true nature. Then there is no need to cling, reject, or become bored or confused with anything.

It takes a lot of play and persistence until it becomes habit, but it is immediately effective when done correctly. A lustful thought arises. The moment we are aware of it, it has already passed. We do not reject it, try to push it away, resist it, berate ourselves for it having arisen, nor anything like that; we do not reach for it to grasp it, become attached, cling to it; we do not become involved, identify with it, try to change it. or make it something else, or take it personally.

When it just is, whatever it is, then it is fine. As soon as there's a problem it's because we have fallen into one of the defilements (one of the specific characteristics of the Big Three: greed, hatred, delusion or passion, aversion, ignorance).

Who in the world would want to give up lust?
This is cool, Jess. - I know, we're helping ppl, Sid!
"Resist not evil" sounds like horrible advice. Why would the Buddhist Saint Issa have given it to his disciples? It never made sense, but the first video does a nice job of explaining why. See, Saint Issa is another for Yeshua (Yezu, Yazoo, Iesous) of Nazareth, the famous founder after which they named Christianity.

According to ancient sources he studied as a Buddhist monk or lama at Hemis Gompa, a Tibetan Buddhist monastery in Leh, Ladakh, modern India, when this Himalayan region was part of Tibet.

The Lost Years of Jesus
The original source of this documented historical fact was a Christian, not a Buddhist. It was Nicholas Notovitch. Buddhists maintained the written records, but Christendom was not going to stand for such an intimate connection between an Abrahamic faith and a Dharmic religion.

Whether people want it to be true or not, the written record still says what it says. Notovitch was neither the only one to see nor the only one to publish an account of seeing it firsthand, And there is that giant gap of time in the official Christian record of where St. Issa was a missing 18 years. He was studying spirituality and coming into his mission (ministry).

The parables of this teacher are to this day very Zen, and people have noticed, and the BBC has made a documentary about it, but Christians prefer to live in ignorance and to turn their back on biblical scholars about what Christianity teaches and what it does not.

No Jew was answering questions in such a way, but an Essene, a monastic (wandering ascetic) going around rebelling against the temple religion just as the Buddha had done centuries before him as he turned his back on the Brahmin priests and their ancient Vedas ("Knowledge Books").

Neither Siddhartha Gautama nor the Buddha (the "Awakened One") needed St. Issa (Jesus) or the Jewish God (YHWH, Jehovah, Asherah's husband). The Buddha, by his awakening, realized the solution to suffering. The solution is not rebirth in heaven. Such rebirths are very nice, and there are many levels of heaven.

The Buddha taught the path to rebirth in all of these heavenly worlds. But he did not give that as a solution to suffering. While such worlds are very pleasurable, very peaceful, very long lived, and bright, they are not release, not freedom, not the end of suffering. Sadly, as long as life lasts there, they are not eternal. So rebirth in such worlds cannot be the solution.

Think other faiths have figured some things out?
What then is the final solution, the end of ALL suffering? It is the realization, the touching, the "refuge" (sarana) of nirvana. This alone is the end of suffering. The Buddha, therefore, taught to paths, one that leads to better rebirths in heavenly worlds and the end of rebirth and the bliss of release of nirvana. We may choose either. 

If we choose rebirth in heavens (sagga), it is important to be good. But how good? At a minimum, humans are wise to keep five precepts: to abstain from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, deceiving, and intoxication. Doing so leads to rebirth in the human world or in the lower sensual heavens. These planes of existence are considered the lowest good rebirths.

Below the human planes, rebirth is considered the "downfall" or niraya. It includes rebirth into animal, demon (demigod), ghost, and hell realms, each being worse than the former. Rebirth in these places is called the "downfall" or "downward path" because it is uncertain when one will ever get out again as there is no easy way to make any good karma (deeds).

The opportunity for doing so is very rare. One must then rely on past good karma to come to fruition. Rebirth as a human is good but it is fraught with dangers. One is very close to the edge here, and it is not likely one ever hears a good teaching or doctrine that instructs one even in the basics of good conduct (meritorious karma that ripens in better worlds).

Jesus Lived in India
As good as any "heaven" or deva ("shining one") world is compared to the human world, each higher heaven is far better than the former. What sort of karma results and bears fruit by leading to or sustaining a life in a heavenly world of beauty, ease, pleasure, longevity, and progress?

It is maintaining the Eight Precepts, Ten Precepts, or attaining the meditative absorptions (jhanas), which are weighty good deeds. Each leads to rebirth in a corresponding heavenly world determined by its strength (initial, intermediate, or mastery).

What, however, will ruin, obstruct, or be a hindrance to the doing of any of these good deeds? Greed (lust), hatred (anger, aversion, fear), or delusion (not knowing, wrong views, ignorance, confusion).

We can then begin to appreciate the value and importance of getting lust under control or, at least, not being controlled by it. How wonderful lust seems when we are able to get what we seek and wish for?

But when we are not able, how does lust feel? How does craving, grasping, and clinging to what we are unable to get? It is torment. It is hellish. It is or can be excruciating. Let it go. But we can't! We're attaching, we're obsessed, we're addicted!

When, for example, one is about to ingest heroin it is probably good to crave heroin, desire heroin, and cling to heroin. (If one does it mindfully, one may see that this cycle of addiction and ingestion is a trap, a trick, an unsustainable process with no way out because it will not end. That is to say, the heroin will certainly end but not the craving for it.

How good, then, is sexual lust or attachment to any of the senses? (Desire for pleasant sights, sounds, scents, sensations, or savors is a lure with a hidden hook, a shiny thing with a hidden danger, like licking honey from a razor used to scrape it off a honeycomb. It's pleasant until the tongue is nicked or sliced open.

Why do people take aphrodisiacs? It is because when sexual contact and release are available, impotence or lack of appetite is terrible. When food is unavailable, hunger is horrible, and no one takes hunger-stimulants. Instead, we seek appetite-suppressants. So when are appetizers good? When food is abundant and our interest in eating it is lukewarm, suddenly appetizers are considered good. That's why we order them before the main course.

Bible scholars say one thing, Christians say another
So this should be understood about lust while living in a place of abundance like America during the good times (because certainly the bad times come). Lust will hurt, even to the point of committing suicide to stop that hurt, two times in two different ways? What are they? We are all intimate with lust. But how many of us see the twofold danger in it?

When we fail to get what we wish for, lust for it hurts. Paradoxically, when we get what we wish for (and it fails, as it must, to fulfill us, to finally-satisfy us, to satiate us once and for all). Isn't that strange? Whether we get what we want or fail to get what we want, lust still hurts.

Think about it. I want a car and a better car and the best car -- and I don't get it. That sucks! Now look at my rich, lucky, and successful neighbor. S/he wants a car and a better car and the best car -- and gets it. That sucks! How? S/he got what was wished for. It sucks because that person is not satisfied. It has all the costs of protecting it, insuring it, worrying about it, maintaining it, and keeping it but not of the implicitly promised rewards.

It did not cure my neighbor of wanting it, wanting an even better or different car; it didn't make her/him sexy and irresistible; it didn't make that person powerful, young, beautiful, healthy, long lived, smart, cool, or the envy of all the world the way the commercials and advertisements implied that it would. Those things are what we actually want from a car but do not get.

Only the successful get to find this out. Everyone else keeps being deluded: "If only" I had that, I would be happy, I would no longer want for anything, I would be fulfilled, I would be complete.... Just ask any heroin addict, "How is this heroin going to make you feel?" I would be happy, I would be fulfilled, I would be complete, I would be done...until it wore off and I needed the next dose and, you know, I don't even get much of any pleasure out of it anymore, and yet I can't do without it. That's lust.

It is never satisfied by fulfilling our lusts, and yet we are miserable without it, not seeing the hidden danger. There is actually a third danger, maybe one too obvious to mention. And that is, What will lust make us do to get what we want, crave, need, desire, are attached and clinging to? What won't we do for it if the lust gets bad enough? So, yeah, there's that. But only anyone with leisure and plenty has much chance of figuring that out.

So we tread on and on and on, wishing for this, searching for it, getting it, devouring/experiencing it, then seeking for something else to give us the same rush and thrill and promise of fulfillment (that never comes) but we keep falling for it, like a donkey chasing a carrot on a stick strapped to our own head.

So continue with sexual lust and trying to satisfy the abyss or find a way to remove the lust so that peace and progress toward a better future can be made?

People nowadays would rather be nihilists and hedonists. There's no future, no tomorrow, no rebirth, no afterlife, and so the only sane thing to do is become hedonists now (which seems to be the secular Jewish approach after rejecting the tougher religious Jewish way) and enjoy everything by any means necessary, morality be damned, others be damned, the whole world and God with it be damned cuz I gots to get me mine and expect yous to do the same. What a world, what a world, so all we can say is
  • rebirth is real,
  • there is an afterlife,
  • we get our just desserts in the long run,
  • and therefore karma can be our best friend or our accuser, as we make it.
  • "Karma: It's wherever you're going to be."
  • That being the case, choose to refrain from harm, choose the profitable, choose the compassionate, kind, beneficial, and even if it's Christianity, choose it and do it.
  • And know that lust is harmful, and if there's a way to overcome it (because fighting it sure hasn't been working), learn it, try it, do it.
  • The Buddha has answers, and apparently so do other religions for the basics.
  • Morality is basic; it is not exclusive to Buddhism.
  • What is exclusive to Buddhism is the end of all suffering by means of nirvana. No other teacher teaches that, and it is not for everyone. It is for the wise.
  • Remember, Christians may hate Buddhism, but Buddhism does not hate Christianity or Jesus or the God. It's fine with the Buddha if anyone wants to follow those things or anything else.
  • Christian may hate Buddhism, but we don't think God or Jesus or Mother Mary hate it. They might. But we think it's just some Christians acting out of fear, ignorance, allegiance, or identification. Ask God, "Hey, God, do you hate Buddhism?" He might. Who knows? He's an "angry and jealous god" according to his bestselling book. Ask nice Jesus, too, "Hey, Jesus, WWJD? Would he hate Buddhism?" We hardly think the good lord hates anything, but he might. Maybe it's sin, and maybe he hates sin. Ask Mary, too. Then ask Christians. See how they rage or condescend, close their minds or imagine they're doing their God's will.
  • What the Buddha taught transcends those things, brings defilements to cessation (for the one who practice this teaching regardless of what one "believes"), and leads to higher rebirths or the end of rebirth.
  • None of this may make sense now, but when one matures and has a great deal of life experience, one will see how extraordinarily wise the Buddha was and why he is known as the unexcelled teacher of devas and humans.
  • Say what you want about your religion, whichever religion it is, but all that matters is that we practice, and those practices either work to free us or do not.
  • TAGS (🧘) #Stories #Successful #Business #Story #Hard work #Job #Education #Dedication #Shorts #Short_stories #Motivational_stories #Time_management #Achievement #Life goals #Motivate #Focus #Goals #Study #Learn #Earn #Life_achivement #Success_stories #Trending #Trend #Wake_Up_Stories #Study_to_success #Buddha #Quotes #motivational_speech #motivational_video #motivation #motivational #short_stories #wisdom #english #english_story #storytelling #dare_to_do_motivation #words_of_wisdom #inspirational_video #motivational_quotes #Knowledge #English #Animated_stories #Successful_peoples #Stories_for_motivation #Motivational_story #Successfull #Education #Dedication #Shorts #Motivational_stories #Time_management #Achievement #Life goals #Motivate #Animation #Animated #Focus #Goals #Study #Learn #Friends #Life_achivement #Shortcuts #Success_stories #Motivational_animated_stories #Cartoon #Trending #Trend #Reels #Wake_Up_Stories  #Study_to_success #Labour #Hard_labour
  • Dhr. Seven, Amber Larson, Ashley Wells (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly

Saturday, June 18, 2011

What a Beautiful Tree! Is that Lust?

Amber Dorrian, Wisdom Quarterly response to Figleafforum.com
Bodhisattva under a redwood tree, Sequoia Nat'l Park, CA (AllegoryImaging/Flickr.com)

"Lust" (kama- or raga-chanda, sensual-craving) is a strong desire to possess something. (Desire can seem neutral, but in Buddhism it is translating terms with a negative aspect since there are certainly "good" desires like the will and zeal to realize the liberating truth).

Christians and Muslims have a similar word in is covet. Christians learn that lust and covetousness are "sins" often without considering how or why. What about admiration, the wish to understand, the desire to find harmony? Love, compassion, altruism, and impartiality all express a desire but with a free and happy heart: It does not possess the object of our admiration.

Of course, it is impossible to "possess" things. But what is possible are the harmful mental actions of grasping and clinging, obsession and attachment. The heart is unable to let go. It binds itself. It does not have the object of its craving, yet it does have all the worries and costs of possession.

In a conventional sense, a person may be described as being possessed by objects one clings to. But who -- other than the Five Aggregates -- is clinging? Ultimately, "we" cling to the "factors of clinging." Those factors are called the Five Aggregates. But ultimate truth eludes us.

The title of this article may seem absurd; the story behind the article is even stranger. Our nude Christian friends at Fig Leaf Forum first asked the question in a theistic context. It was like an episode of the Daily Show's "This Week in God." It's beautiful the way things are explicable even with different assumptions about this world.

Do beautiful objects in our perceptual field -- like trees, sunsets, newly nubile gals/guys/ponies -- come about as acts of heavenly Creation or evolve along Evolutionary lines? There's truth in both views, except the polarities won't budge a whit. They thereby turn a blind eye to what is real and what is not. Taking sides is easy, reconciling why the sides exist is less easy but more beneficial. "It's a trap!" we can Admiral Ackbar and Cherry say. Both views are a trap.

No peace is coming between camps, just a few conversions, mostly of sciencey types turning churchy. The truth stands apart, and there would be much more peace if we could see what is right about each pole rather than dismissing one side as kooks and lauding ourselves as the great non-kooks. It's kooky. Keep your view, but keep all eyes open and investigating. Any bias, even a well intended one, causes us to look for confirmation not information. It's our confirmation seeking tendency.

If a particularly stunning tree or model or mountain or magazine cover comes into view, there is great pleasure in taking it in and enjoying its proportions, symmetry, interactive bits, and pleasing fullness (abstract concepts explaining why something strikes us as beautiful that, for less abstract thinkers might just be termed, oh who knows, "God's" handiwork).

Musicians appreciate well performed works and composing skills, jewelers are impressed by well set gems, nature buffs love natural (fractal, Fibonacci, golden mean) beauty. And the wise derive joy from truth, however counterintuitive the Truth may be.

As human beings we find other human beings most beautiful of all -- attractive, creative, evolved, faithful, or intelligent, it hardly matters.

When the mind/heart first hits upon the idea of possessing, we're in line for disappointment and dissatisfaction (dukkha). What if we could be mindful instead, mindfulness being fully aware without thinking, judging, evaluating, planning, or measuring. "It is what it is," people foolishly say, but there's great wisdom in this foolishness. Of course, it itself doesn't say anything, yet something is being said.

Bare awareness means not becoming attached or enmeshed but just seeing, just knowing, just accepting, just allowing. It's very peaceful. It allows the right brain (our silent co-consciousness) to have a say. Of course, it won't speak, but it will communicate with feelings and a bodily sense we react to. ("We" being the left brain thinking portion that thinks, judges, and tries to possess). "Let it be, let it be," the Beatle said.

Will lust help or harm? We can have all that is, but we can possess none of it. What will we choose to try to do?

To carry this analogy further, beauty appears in all sorts of ways. Beauty is not to blame when lust arises. It's not even the reason for admiration. If it were, how would Buddhas, bodhisattvas, and arhats ever be freed from lust (craving, thirst, bondage, disappointment)?

Objects there, responses here. The world is the world; the heart/mind looking out on it can choose to notice this about it or that (the beautiful or the disappointment inherent in it), and then choose to either attempt to possess it or not.

Buddhism is very pleasing because it syncs up with psychology. And we modern Americans love all things psychology. It's no coincidence so many psychologists, therapists, neuroscientists, and the like are Buddhists. The Buddha focused on our internal experience of the external world far more than he spent talking about physics. As interesting and elegant as physics is, it can hardly hold an atomic candle to cognition, perception, emotion, motivation...


The Buddha gave physics its due ("form" means materiality, fine and gross, basic and derivative, four interdependent qualities or characteristics of material bodies). But he elaborated on our experience of the physical by giving psychology the lions share: sensations, perceptions, volitions, and consciousness are what beings cling to and what they can be freed from clinging to.

That freedom comes with enlightenment, is brought on by enlightenment, so much so that many well intentioned teachers and even monastics think nirvana and bodhi are synonyms. But bodhi is enlightenment, insight, awakening, whereas nirvana is complete freedom, peace, the end of suffering.

Oh to be free! Sex is sex. But clinging, attachment, obsession, possession, being consumed instead of consuming, that's just sad. Naturally, in the Sense Sphere (kama-loka) we like sense objects. That's normal. Is it normal to imagine we can "possess" or "keep" or "own" the composed and decaying object of person, be it tree or person, wealth or self?

All are falling away every moment. And in the meantime, we miss what is available -- enlightenment and freedom.

We can't live without trees. Maybe some people can. But we can't. The trees, the trees, rooted in earth, reaching for the sky. Casting shade, dropping figs (and fig leaves), holding my back while I meditate. What meditation? I'm mindful. There is no straining in my striving. I'm just watching. Eventually I'm seeing things as they truly are. Ahhh. No words for it. The right brain knows. It's the left brain that conceives and tries to capture just the right wording.

But completely "detached from sensual objects, O meditators, detached from unwholesome states of mind/heart, a meditator enters into the first absorption, which is accompanied by applied attention and sustained attention, is born of detachment [withdrawal of the senses, samadhi, intensified-concentration opposing workaday dissolute-distraction] and filled with rapture and happiness" [the Buddha defining the first "absorption" or in Pali jhana, Sanskrit dhyana, Japanese zen, Chinese ch'an, Tibetan samten].

Turning this mind to objects of insight -- vipassana practices -- is suddenly fruitful. Loving-kindness! The breath having become a nimitta takes me to equanimity. The factors-of-absorption (jhana-anga) become my best friends. As such where have "my"
  • sensual desire (lust)
  • ill will
  • sleepiness and laziness
  • restlessness and worries
  • doubts
gone? Hindrances fall and opposing states come in peace:
  • applied attention (on my object of meditation)
  • sustained attention
  • rapture
  • happiness
  • concentration.
Turning the wheel (cycle) of "Dependent Origination" in mind, it becomes clear that this is the way to enlightenment. One persisting in this practice, strengthening absorption then applying that laser focus to insight practices, can see freedom in the distance.

Going, going, going beyond, going altogether beyond, O what an awakening, so it is!

It's a nice mantra not learned rote and repeated with bell and drum but uttered spontaneously -- as words fail and contentment overtakes me.
  • Thanks to the editors at Wisdom Quarterly for helping me putting into words.

Lust is discussed in Fig Leaf Forum revisited by Mark Roberts in a debate published in Issue 55/56 of their newsletter. This article is responding to Issue 59.

Fig Leaf Forum realizes that "Lust is a problem of the heart, not of the mind." But in Buddhism heart is mind (citta). Lust is a problem of both. If we were speaking the same technical English, we would agree. Lust does not help perception; it twists (kinks, perverts, distorts) it. "Love others as ourselves," yes! Love everyone! Choose lust at your peril. For what is possible here and what impossible is often found out too late. What is possible? Freedom from the bonds of craving.What is impossible? Actually possessing and controlling what we crave.

Friday, November 29, 2013

Lust, desire, and craving (video)

Dhr. Seven and Amber Larson, CC Liu, Wisdom Quarterly; Wikipedia edit raga
"Greed" lust as lobha in "Mondo Amore" (Williams/laluzdejesus.com)
  
Craving?
Young Buddhist Lisa Simpson fails to comprehend wanting stuff. While craving (tanha) is a source of disappointment (dukkha), it is typical of living beings, particularly beings like us living in a Sense Sphere (kama loka) world. Not ALL wanting is unskillful. The wish or desire, for example, for enlightenment (bodhi), complete-liberation (nirvana), wisdom (paññā), or compassion (karuna) is wholesome. Such a wish leads one to strive and eventually find them, even if one must let go even of that beneficial-wish rather than grasping at it to actually attain it. Letting go too soon is a big mistake. In the Parable of the Raft, one fashions a floating device for "crossing over" from enslavement to freedom. The time to let go is once meditation is something one looks forward to and the goal is at hand. Until then, keep doing it until you want to.
 
GREED (Pali lobha or raga, Tibetan 'dod chags) is usually translated as "attachment," "passion," "lust," or "desire." But this is far too kind. It actually refers to craving, clinging, grasping, or hankering.

It is craving things within the three spheres of existence, which produces immediate frustration and eventual disappointment.
 
We crave for what is lasting, pleasurable, and personal in worlds that are radically impermanent, unsatisfactory, and impersonal

Indian words have a broad range of meaning, and this is true of lobha, which runs the gamut from bias or preference to agonizing lust and hoarding behavior. It is easy to see how hoarding and being unable to let go is harmful, but it is almost impossible for an ordinary person to perceive how the very arising of a preference sets one up for disappointment and dissatisfaction.*
 
Greed is identified as a factor in the following contexts:
I lust you. - I love you.
The Theravada commentarial text the Path of Purification (XIV, 162), which is analogous to the Path of Freedom preserved by Mahayana sources (although likely simply an early draft by the very same author), gives the following definition of "greed" (lobha):
 
...[G]reed has the characteristic of grasping an object like a monkey trap [a device where a monkey sticks its hand in a hole to get salt but can't get it out because of its grasped fist, which it never thinks to let go of even as it is captured by approaching hunters]. Its function is sticking, like flesh put on a hot grill. It is manifested as not letting go, like the dye of lamp-soot. Its proximate cause is seeing enjoyment [but not danger] in things that lead to bondage. Swelling with the current of craving, it should be regarded as sweeping (beings) with it to states of loss, just as a swift-flowing river sweeps to the great ocean.

Lust, lust, lust
I'm just saying, Tone it down. I was once young, too. - Mom, shaddup. You don't even know!!!
  
"Why is lust talked about so much in religion? We have to have desire to survive." It is not that lust is the only problem we face on the road to freedom and happiness. Most of us think lust is happiness, or a desperate emptiness that gives us something to fill, which feels good doing.

The Buddha talked a great deal about sensuality, and sex is promoted to the rank of poster child for the class of sense pleasures. But "greed" includes them all. What is usually translated as sexual misconduct (kamesu micchacara) actually, more broadly, refers to kāma or sensual misconduct.
 
Go on, take it; it makes me feel like a man. - OMG, my mom warned me about this!!!
 
What is sensual in this sense? Everything related to the five senses is sensual as is abuse of the sixth sense thinking about again and again enjoying the other five: (1) sights, (2) sounds, (3) tactile sensations [sex would be mostly here but can, of course, encompass all of the senses], (4) tastes, (5) fragrances, and (6) thoughts (or mind/heart as a sense that perceives or stands in for the other senses or takes in its own unique objects not accessible to the other five).
  • Most people think we only have five senses, but we have far more than that. The Buddha talked about six, but that is not a limit, just a handy convention. This is true of other numbers in Buddhism: If one looks carefully, the Five Aggregates of Clinging are not limited to five; those five groupings are pedagogical and can be extended to as many groupings or heaps as one wishes to define. More heaps will not change the fact that there is no being behind them experiencing the process; there is only the process. What are our other senses? According to Vsauce they include, proprioception or kinesthesia, balance, acceleration, temperature, pain reception, time lapse, pulmonary stretch, peripheral chemo reception, distension, esophageal reception, pharynx mucosal reception... If we were, or become, sea mammals we'll gain echolocation (which some humans already enjoy), thermal reception and/or broadened light reception to see in the dark, and so on, and if and when we become devas we will gain refined senses and psychic faculties, and so on, which some people and hybrids (like some Chinese children) already possess. What do chimeras possess?
What is "sexual misconduct" anyway?
As ordinary living beings, even as good Buddhists, we will enjoy and delight in the world (whether it be this one or the many superior worlds above it). In moderation and harming no one, this is fine. Lisa, it's okay! In the Sigalovada Sutra ("Advice to Householders," DN 31) the Buddha advises young Sigala the householder to make use of money earned by partitioning it into four parts: one to enjoy, one to pay expenses, one to restock shelves/promote one's livelihood, and one to save for times of need. This is enlightened self-interest: Enjoy now, and make sure there is something to enjoy in the future.

But in ultimate terms, this will never do. When one wishes to transcend the world (cyclical wandering through birth, death, rebirth, redeath, misery unutterable, and the uncountable lives already lived in worlds of staggering diversity, one must overcome bondage. One must break free of ALL "suffering" (disappointment, dissatisfaction, woe, ill, misery, tragedy, lack of fulfillment, loss, crying, pain, unhappiness...). That means putting away the toys for a minute, so to speak. One cannot attain enlightenment in the thick of one's mental defilements, defilements of the heart (broadly speaking, one's greed, hate/fear, delusion in their various manifestations).
 
The Buddha taught us to see what he saw.
One can, however, enjoy sensual pleasures after stream entry, the first stage of enlightenment. Having uprooted the main bonds and weakened others ensures that one will reach full enlightenment and final nirvana within seven lives. Even a once-returner can enjoy all these things and do so without grossly harming others. A non-returner can look forward to rebirth in the Pure Abodes, exclusive enlightened worlds where life is long and things are good yet the beings strive for final knowledge and liberation from rebirth. The Buddha spoke of these rarefied worlds, which should never be confounded with ordinary conceptions of heaven (sagga). They likely led to the devotional extremes of Pure Land Buddhism, a prominent bhakti tradition in Mahayana Buddhism which is an awful lot like the Brahminical conception of the World of Brahma in Hinduism.