 |
| Do you approve of greed? - No, not at all. "The love of money is the root of all evil." |
That's what the lengthy explanation was for. Is greed good or bad? Actually, it depends how one defines "greed/" Sure, in English it's bad. That's why early British translators of Buddhist sutras into English chose it.
The Buddhist term lobha is meant to connote the bad parts of craving, grasping, greediness, selfishness, possessiveness, clinginess, avarice, stinginess, the unwillingness to share, to help, to care for others. Of course, that's bad.
The enlightened self-interest to plant seeds of good that will only serve us later (unless the mental karma bears its results much sooner, that feeling of contentment, health, generosity, and the Four Divine Abidings or Brahmaviharas).
That is to say, giving, sharing, and sacrificing for others is SO good that, later, one will regret not doing it when one had a chance. Give. Help. Comfort others. We certainly will wish for comfort and kindness. Will we have set out the causes and conditions to receive it? This world is ruled by karma, the ability of deeds to give rise to a later result on a moral plane.
It is wholly wrong to think that someone is going to thank us, that a hungry dog is not going to bite the hand that attempts to feed it. "No good deed goes unpunished." But that is NOT karma. Karma is the fruiting, the ripening of a deed. That act has not yet ripened. So it may be that we have a dog bite, but it is not at all true that we have exhausted our well-intentioned act to provide a canine with sustenance when it was hungry.
 |
| King, let go as I let go. It's good. |
So greed (a self-centered unwillingness to give) is bad.
What? Why? "You just said greed was good."
To be exact, Gordon Gekko said it was good. We just found a way in which that statement is self-evidently true. It's semantics. Is greed good? Well, it's good in a common way of speaking, using the meaning of the word "good" in the sense of meaning "what will work."
- Will greed work? Will it make someone rich? It could in the short run. What the Buddha was talking about, what we are talking about, is the long run, the full course of the karma (action) playing out. Steal out of greed. What that act of stealing comes to fruition, will it be looked back on as having been a good deed? No way. The act of stealing is incapable of yielding (karmically resulting in) a welcome, pleasing, pleasant, wished for result. But what happens immediately (like being in possession of what was stolen) may indeed feel pleasant and may alleviate the painful desire when one did not have it. That good feeling is NOT the karmic result (vipaka or phala) of stealing. What is? Deprivation, neediness, wanting, poverty, and so on -- the very things one did not want, was trying to avoid, wished to be rid of. IF one knew the results of bad karma, one would not do it. The results are too painful, too exponential (one single deed bearing many unwelcome results). One would do good deeds because of the pleasant results, which are also exponential. One act of giving leads to receiving many times over. It's a kind of thing of which one might say, "It's not fair. It's not right. It's not just." We know neither what we did in the past (in countless past lives) nor what others did in the past, so how could we begin to judge either ourselves or others or what's fair and what's not? We judge in utter ignorance, full of wrong view (miccha ditthi), and we become confused and confuse others. A Buddha emerges from the world, explains things, and we fail to learn that Teaching that would guide us to the good and be of such benefit. We needn't give up our favorite religion or cultural attachment to learn or practice the Dharma. But, indeed, this Dharma, this Teaching, this Path runs against the stream, counter to our customs. If we were already living in the right way to eventually make us happy and fulfilled, what need would there have been for a Buddha to teach anything? It would be superfluous. But exactly because we have been living for a long time in the wrong way, in a way that yields suffering after suffering (disappointment after disappointment, dukkha in all its forms), the Buddha had something to say, something vital, something of use to the many blind beings with no idea what reality is.
How is greed good? Let's say you're going out tonight because you want to meet someone, and you ask me, "Is this cologne good?" (It stinks! And you smell like a horny skunk!) So, yeah, it's good -- inasmuch as it will get you the attention you seek in the Meat Market you'll be visiting, where everyone's drinking and carousing, being deafened and blinded by drums and lights from a disco ball.
Greed is bad (avarice leads to ruin), which should be obvious but obviously isn't because we need an enlightened world teacher to tell us, "Hey, watch out for this motivation." Greed, in English, means going too far. "How much is enough?" Charlie Sheen asks the Gordon Gekko character. Gordon came up from the streets, so it's not a matter of enough. It's a matter of winning, of taking it all.
And that's the thing with money and sensuality and worldly things, "One thing is too much, and all of it is not enough." Alcohol, for example. One drink is too much, yet all the drinks is still not enough. Stealing one dollar is too much, yet stealing all the dollars would not be enough." That wouldn't fill the void, fulfill us, satisfy us, satiate us, bring us contentment. The same with coke, heroin, sex partners, cars, real estate, gold bars, flesh, fame, glory, and on and on.
What could possibly fill the void?
 |
| Sir, no cash is allowed in the safe deposit boxes. |
The Sigala Sutta lists some of them, but karma (what goes around comes around, justice, getting back from the world what we give to others, crime and punishment, cause and effects, law of attraction, calling into our experience what we put other through, and so on) can be thought of as the results of our deed or deeds. Even one deed has many results. Many deeds have an exponential number of results.
Out of greed, I screw over my business partner. Not satisfied with my portion of the profits, I take that person's portion, too. That's greed, right? That's what the English term means. So so far we've been talking about the result of just going after and getting our portion, but now we see what greed is really like. Greed is bad because I can't get enough, and I start to steal more. Does stealing more get me what I want? No. Not good. Now, instead of a fat pension, a golden parachute, a mansion, and a gorgeous arm charm, I'm facing charges, fines, lawyer's bills, and ignominy. Greed has ruined everything. Far from getting me what I wanted, it got me exactly what I didn't want, what I tried so hard to avoid. How could it be? I thought Greed was my friend! Some friend. The Sigala Sutta could have taught us about bad friends and good ones.
Greed leads to ruin, to constant dissatisfaction, to a feeling of poverty and want even when we have plenty. American capitalism is like that.
 |
| Killing Osage Indians for cash |
The Buddha pointed this out in terms of karma (actions that have the ability to produce their results much later), saying that because of stinginess one will fail to give, and by failing to give, one will not receive. One wants to receive. That's what we want. But it will not happen because we didn't give. We didn't have enlightened self-interest to think of the future beyond what we could see.
The very person who failed to protect others will not be protected, who deprived others will be deprived...will get what comes around. Is that what you wanted? Is that what you called "good"? No, no way. It's the exact opposite of what we wanted. It's unenlightened. It's ignorant. It's hateful and based on fear. Why? Because it's greedy, and greed is that way. Greed, ultimately, is bad. It gets us what we want at the moment, sure, but it gets us a bunch of trouble we never wanted.
Montaigne's French philosophy
The French philosopher Michel de Montaigne (via Wiki) had something to say about it. Of greed he thought that
- "It is not want, but rather abundance, that creates avarice."
- "All moneyed men I conclude to be covetous," and that:
- 'Tis the greatest folly imaginable to expect that Fortune [Fortuna or Lady Luck] should ever sufficiently arm us against herself;
- 'Tis with our own arms that we are to fight her;
- Accidental ones will betray us in the pinch of the business.
- If I lay up, 'tis for some near and contemplated purpose; not to purchase lands, of which I have no need, but to purchase pleasure:
- "Non esse cupidum, pecunia est; non esse emacem, vertigal est."
- [That is, "Not to be covetous is money; not to be acquisitive is revenue." — Cicero, Paradox, vi. 3.]
- "I neither am in any great apprehension of wanting, nor in desire of any more:
- "Divinarum fructus est in copia; copiam declarat satietas."
- [That is, "The fruit of riches is in abundance; satiety declares abundance." — Idem, ibid., vi. 2.]
- "And I am very well pleased that this reformation in me has fallen out in an age naturally inclined to avarice, and that I see myself cleared of a folly so common to old men, and the most ridiculous of all human follies" [40].
- Seth MacFarlane. American Dad, "Saga of the Golden Turd"; Pink Floyd; Dhr. Seven, Ashley Wells, Wisdom Quarterly
No comments:
Post a Comment