Two things are true. 1. There is no self. In other words, all things are marked by the characteristic of being impersonal ("empty"). 2. Whatever arises arises dependent on causes and conditions, which is known as Dependent Origination.
Only by comprehending both will someone avoid confusion and an apparent paradox. Of course, there are two "truths," the conventional everyday truth (honesty) and the ultimate truth (reality). That there is, ultimately speaking, no ongoing persisting surviving transmigrating self is of the latter variety.
How could that possibly be true if all that we have is ourselves and our experiences, our conscious awareness and this body?
It is completely counterintuitive, but it can be known-and-seen directly, which results in enlightenment (awakening) if penetrated as it really is. Before that, it can be comprehended intellectually.
This is a very advanced teaching for dedicated meditators and monastics, not easily understood by them until they develop direct insight into the Truth. Therefore, how is any ordinary, uninstructed person ever to figure it out? They will not. But anyone can receive intellectual instruction to understand it without being liberated by the Truth. For liberation, practice of direct-seeing and insight (vipassana) into the true nature of existence is necessary:
Not-self (anatta) is the central doctrine in Buddhism, without understanding which a real knowledge of Buddhism is altogether impossible.
This uniquely Buddhist anattā doctrine teaches that there is neither within the body or mind -- the bodily or mental phenomena of existence -- nor outside of them can there be found anything that in the ultimate sense could be regarded as a "self" (a real self-existing ego-entity, soul, or any other abiding substance.
This is the pivotal central doctrine of Buddhism, that which without comprehending, no real understanding of Buddhism (i.e., the historical Buddha's Dharma) is possible.
This strange doctrine is the only really specific Buddhist teaching, with which the entire structure of the Buddha Dharma stands or falls.
All other Buddhist doctrines might, more or less, be found in other philosophical systems or religions, but the anattā-doctrine (that ultimately ALL things are impersonal) has been clearly and unreservedly taught only by a buddha, which is why the Buddha was known in his day as the Anattā-vādi or "Teacher that all is Impersonal."
Whoever has not yet penetrated the impersonal nature of all existence, who does not comprehend that in reality there exists only this continually self-consuming process of arising and passing bodily and mental phenomena (called the Five AggregatesCLUNG to as self), and that there is no separate soul, self, or ego-entity within or without this impersonal process, such a person will not be able to understand Buddhism, that is, the teaching of the Four Ennobling Truths (sacca) the fourth of which is the Ennobling Eightfold Path, in the correct light.
One will necessarily assume (wrongly think)
that it is one's self, soul (atta, atman), ego, or personality that chooses and performs skillful and unskillful karma (intentional actions),
that experiences suffering, neutral feelings, and happiness as a result (phala, vipaka, the fruition and resultants of previous actions),
that will be reborn according to that karma (those former deeds),
that will enter or fail to enter nirvana (nibbāna, the quenching and cooling of the threefold fire of greed, hatred/fear, and delusion),
that walks or fails to walk the Eightfold Path to awakening.
"Mere suffering exists, no 'sufferer' is to be found;
Deeds are, but no 'doer' of deeds is really there;
Nirvana is, but not any 'person' who 'enters' it;
The Path is but no 'traveler' on it is to be seen."
"Whoever is unclear with regard to conditionally arisen phenomena and fails to comprehend that ALL actions are conditioned through ignorance and so on [through the 12 causal links of Dependent Origination], that person [necessarily assumes] thinks that it is one's soul, self, ego, or personality that understands or fails to understand, that acts or causes to act, that comes to existence at rebirth and passes out of existence at death...that has sense-impressions, feels, desires, becomes attached, continues, and at rebirth reappears or enters a new existence" (Vis.M. XVII. 117).
[The Three Universal Characteristics of Existence are that all things are radically impermanent, unable to fulfill (ultimately unsatisfactory, disappointing, liable to suffering), and impersonal.]
While in the case of the first two characteristics, it is stated that all "formations" (sabbe sankhārā) are impermanent and subject to suffering, the corresponding text for the third characteristic states that "all things are not-self" (sabbe dhammā anattā, MN 35, Dhp. 279).
This is for emphasizing that the wrong view of assuming, believing, holding that it is an abiding self or substance is neither applicable to any "formation" or conditioned phenomenon, nor to nirvana (the "unconditioned element" (asankhatā dhātu)
The "Discourse on the Characteristic of Not-Self" (Anattā-Lakkhana Sutta) was the second discourse delivered by the historical Buddha after his great awakening, enlightenment (maha-bodhi) to his first five disciples, who after hearing it attained to the same awakening (arhatship).
The contemplation of not-self (anattā-anupassanā) leads to the freedom of the "emptiness liberation" (suññatā-vimokkha).
At the next two stages of enlightenment, one becomes a "vision-attainer" (ditthippatta or "right view reacher"), and at the ultimate stage of "full awakening" (arhatship), one is called "liberated by wisdom" (paññā-vimutti). More
Tao Temple (video); Ven. Nyanatiloka (Buddhist Dictionary) edited and clarified by Dhr. Seven and Amber Larson, Wisdom Quarterly, summer 2026
(One Timeless Witness) He meditated for 20 years [seeking moksha or liberation] then the Buddha said "stop," an apocryphal tale to make a point.
Bhava-taṇhā is "craving for becoming," grasping leading to "clinging" (upādāna), which inevitably results in disappointment, dissatisfaction, misery, suffering...not getting what one wants, getting what one doesn't want, all of which is dukkha.
Bhava-taṇhā ("craving for becoming") [5] is craving to be or become something, to unite with an experience [16].
This is ego-related, says Buddhist scholar Peter Harvey, the eternal seeking for identity and the desire for some type of rebirth or other [5].
This last donut will fulfill and satisfy me!
Other scholars explain that this type of craving is driven by the popular wrong view of permanence and Eternalism (Sassatavada, the view that a "soul" or "self" never dies because something survives, as if consciousness unchanged carries on, never realizing that what carries on through the "continued wandering on" of saṃsāra is an impersonal PROCESS clung to as "self") [4, 17].
The opposite wrong view is Annihilationism (Ucchedavada), the wrong view that there is something that is annihilated at death, which is a transition, passing from one state to another, of an impersonal process. But Western "logic" tells us it has to be one or the other: either we carry on or come to an end. How could both be wrong? This is what the Buddha tried to explain, and he succeeded by explaining Dependent Origination. If there is no self, of course it does not carry on in samsara. But a process carries on, so there must be "self" doing the carrying on, right? No, for in every moment and submoment, phenomena arises
It is not eternal life for an eternal soul, not an independent ego, not something personal, not a "self" or "soul" -- without actually living up to the definition of "soul" or "self" we have always assumed is there). More
How to reach enlightenment here and now (an over-explanation for non-practitioners)
Dhr. Seven, Amber Larson, Ananda (DBM), COMMENTARY FOR WISDOM QUARTERLY
What is the true nature of all things, of all phenomena? They are (1) impermanent, (2) unsatisfactory, and (3) impersonal (not-self).
But it is foolish to assume that this "impermanence" is eventual. In fact, it is radical(from the Latin radix, at its "root")! From moment to moment, things do not stand. They constantly fall away. They are always arising, turning, and passing, not only at every moment but at every submoment.
In a "moment," such as a citta or "mind-moment," there are three phases: (1) arising, (2) turning, (3) passing. The exact same thing is true of physical particles, rupa kalapas (form phenomena).
This impermanence goes by so quickly that it is not possible to see directly, but there's a trick. The arising and falling away is recorded by the mind and can be reviewed (replayed) in slow-motion to observe the process.
One would learn this in a monastery that knew what it was doing -- such as those in the lineage of the great Pa Auk Sayadaw -- from a long line of practical advice handed down from accomplished teachers to students. So far as we can determine, it is not recorded in the texts, either discourses or commentaries. This seems to be the case with the practical application of many of the teachings mentioned in the Pali canon sutras. The Path of Purification is a compendium of Buddhist meditation practices, and some things are explained there. But it is so dense, in addition to being awkward in translation, that good luck making sense of it.
It's too confusing, too much to think about!
You know, "Buddhism" was much more fun when we were just joking about Zen (Taoism, always asking, "What is the Tao, what is Tao?" a question the Buddha never asked) and chitchatting about koans. Who knew the Buddha really taught something and that there was an actual path-of-practice to enlightenment (bodhi) and liberation (nirvana)? Shouldn't this be easy, and shouldn't it be that Buddhist monastics are wasting their time with all those pesky rules and meditations? Now we see there was a point and there was no time to waste. How long would it take to calm down (samadhi, jhana, stillness), how long would it take to develop insight (vipassana) through systematic mindfulness?
Of course, all of this will seem impossible, but come and see. The process of purification gives the mind incredible powers it does not now possess. This defiled, corrupted, dissolute mind can't see these thing, but that purified, clarified, intensified mind can. The ignorant, uninstructed person cannot see, but an instructed disciple can. That is what the Buddha has been saying all along.
This is what we do not understand, what we do not directly know-and-see, until we develop the path of purification and dispassionately look on at all phenomena (as explained in detail in "The Four Foundations of Mindfulness Discourse" or Satipatthana Sutta).
When we are finally able to see things (cittas and kalapas, mind-moments and material particles) behaving as they have always behaved when we were blind to and deluded about what was really there all along, the mind/heart automatically lets go. There is no effort to do so. Seeing their true nature, we stop clinging.
Furthermore, when we see that all things are utterly incapable of ever fulfilling, satisfying, or doing anything but being ultimately disappointing, we stop craving, stop expecting any new thing to be any different.
Moreover, when we finally know-and-see as it truly is that what we thought (assumed) was personal and self is not, what in the universe (with three spheres of sensual, fine material, and immaterial worlds -- with "heavenly" places in each) is there to cling to?
Why have we been holding on to suffering (dukkha, this unsteady, askew cartwheel making the road so bumpy and painful) and to things always hurtling towards destruction? It is exactly because we did not see, did not know.
I get it! Now I know and see!!
And now are we undeceived, having seen things as they really are and always have been, there is no "effort" to let go. Letting go happens naturally and one knows-and-sees the ultimate, nirvana. This process is "awakening" (bodhi, enlightenment).
Then it is as if everything -- all ignorance and darkness -- dissolves (nirodha), and light arises, and there is awakening out of painful ignorance to ultimate unending bliss. This is the bliss of nirvana, the highest happiness and peace. There is no use in describing it, but it can be directly experienced here and now, free of concepts and views.
How to stop sexual thoughts in the mind | Buddhist story on how to control lust
(Words of Wisdom) April 13, 2024: Buddha Life Stories. If we keep thinking about sex all the time then we can become victims of hypersexuality. Hypersexuality can make us addicted to pornography and masturbation. But if we want to overcome excess sexual thoughts in our mind then here is advice.
This Buddhist story of a Zen master and a young boy can teach us how to overcome sexual thoughts in the mind. These wise tips of the Buddha can help us rid our minds and bodies of sexual addiction and masturbation.
#sexuality #lust #overcomeaddiction #howtocontrolmind #desire #controlemotions #buddhastory
Twitter: wordsofwisdom_5
WOW Instagram: wordsofwisdom.motivation. Personal Instagram: shaill03
Facebook: words-of-wisdom-quotes-stories-11062425731...
Explore the podcast
86 episodes
Buddha Life Stories
Words of Wisdom
Independence Beach: Celebrating our American freedom from swimsuits
You only live many times (Ariana Viera)
(Wonderhussy Adventures) Welcome to Wonderhussy Adventure #809. Date: July 2, 2024, pre-Independence Day, spending the Fourth of July at Wonderhussy's favorite clothing optional beach, celebrating our independence from bathing suits. Website: Wonderhussy.com. Support: wonderhussy. Help fuel next trip: paypal.me/wonderhussy,cash.app/$Wonderhussy.
CREDITS: Theme song by Michael Saint-Leon switchyardstudios.com. Fluffing a Duck by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/... Cattails - Thatched Villagers by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Why didn't Buddhist ascetics go naked like Jains and yogis?
Jainism has two sects, white-clad and sky-clad, whereas Buddhism has saffron robes for all.
.
Ah, nudity is great. - What about white robes?
It was hot in proto-India in the Buddha's time. Pointing the way to freedom and final liberation or moksha was as free as the deer, wandering where they list in search of (alms) food. But there were obstacles. The Awakened One, the Buddha, had freed himself. Now it was time to make known the Path to Freedom, the Dharma. But how long would that knowledge last in the world? It had gone out before and was sure to dim again.
We shramanas existed long before the Buddha
He realized he needed a spiritual community of successful practitioners, a Noble Sangha, where "noble" means "enlightened" (Ayran) and Sangha means "spiritual community." There are various stages of enlightenment, from four kinds of stream entry to arhatship. They are detailed in the Path to Freedom and condensed in the Path of Purification. This Sangha would have them all.
To keep it going and to preserve the Teachings, the Buddha laid down rules in a Disciplinary Code (Vinaya Pitaka), with explanations for why each rule was instituted. The monastics recited about 227 core rules, the Patimokkha ("Path to Liberation"), each fortnight. If followed, they would ensure the long life of Buddhism (the Dharma), enlightened beings on earth (a Noble Sangha), and inspire confidence in new practitioners.
The Guru is naked (Jainism)
How was it going to look if monks and nuns went around naked? It was not unheard of. The Jains led by contemporary teacher Mahavira ("Great Hero"), the Nigantha Nattaputta, had already accepted females into the monastic community. That was a first. The Buddha always intended to, as he knew that his Sangha would not be complete until there were the four kinds of people (male and female monastics and laypersons).
This whole business about extra rules for nuns or not wanting to accept women is very suspect and seems more a conspiracy by male monastics to keep their all-boys club or wrest control of it from any kind of actual democracy. The Buddha had set up the first democratic rules, pre-Greece for its governance. See the scholarship of Ayya Tathaloka for evidence in the Bhikkhuni Vinaya of the later appearance of the garudhammas or "eight additional rules" and their unlikely back story.
Naked Mahavira: We don't need Five Requisites
The Buddha explained exactly why he allowed Five Requisites for Buddhist wandering ascetics -- robes of stitched cast-off garments, ceramic bowl, allowable medicines, shaving razor, needle and thread -- and the kinds of accommodations they were permitted. Rather than hairy, disheveled, wild men and women wandering around the hillsides naked and covered in ashes, he foresaw a better way, the perfection of the "pure life" of blamelessness for intensive practitioners wishing to make a quick end of all suffering.
Nude is not all it's cracked up to be, but the view at night in the Sierra Nevada, it's awe inspiring!
Nirvana was here. And now a means of enlightenment and attainment of the bliss of nirvana had arrived with the Buddha. Many made use of it and so, even today, the world has arhats and those on the path to full enlightenment. And Buddhism became the first universal missionary religion spreading far and wide, outside the subcontinent into neighboring countries and lands. The rules made that possible. Hooray for the Monastic Disciplinary Code (Vinaya). And people, if they want, they can go about naked.
Wonderhussy Adventure #809, Summer 2024, Ananda (Dharma Buddhist Meditation); Dhr. Seven, Amber Larson, Pat Macpherson (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly
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: cmlionofjudahinstagram.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.]
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:
guard the senses,
choose good companions/friends, and
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.
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.
If we learn nothing else about giving and power of giving, we should know a famous quote the Buddha uttered concerning nongreed (alobha).
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.
But, wait, that's not all. That's not what's wrong with greed. There's something much worse. Not only will it never lead to satisfaction or contentment (whereas internal letting go would), it is going to lead to a lot of troubles.
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
There's a better way English writers call "enlightened self-interest." That means creating win-win situations wherever we go. I take from a business, but I make sure that business keeps going, keeps producing, keeps making everyone rich. I keep them healthy to keep myself healthy. I make them healthy to make myself healthy. I, rather than only thinking of myself in a selfish and self-absorbed way, think of others as a means of preserving myself. That means that wherever I go, everyone is happy to see me, happy with me, praising my actions, and profiting me over the long term. Doesn't that sound much better than being greedy, being selfish, being all about Number One? Of course. It's probably harder to do, so people do the easy and come to ruin. Not all greedy people succeed, so greed is not good. Greed is bad. Greed is bad because even when it works (in getting us what we wanted), it screws us in also getting us exactly what we didn't want.
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
All materials on this site are submitted by editors and readers. All images, unless otherwise noted, were taken from the Internet and are assumed to be in the public domain.
In the event that there is still a problem, issue, or error with copyrighted material, the break of the copyright is unintentional and noncommercial, and the material will be removed immediately upon presented proof.
Contact us by submitting a comment marked "private."
Do not follow this journal if you are under vinaya or parental restrictions. Secure protection by Sucuri.
Wisdom Quarterly: American Buddhist Journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at creativecommons.org/about/licenses.
