A drug that removes desire and craving?

Brian Resnick (@B_resnickbrian@vox.com), Vox.com, March 7, 2024; Dhr. Seven, Amber Larson, Pat Macpherson (eds., Wisdom Quarterly

Is Buddhism (or Jainism because this is Mahavira) about hallucinatory drugs? NO! Wake up.

.

WWJD? Smoke ganja between healings? No.

People say all "desire" (tanha) is bad in Buddhism. This is inaccurate. Desiring liberation, enlightenment, nirvana, or to be free of desire are desires. Who would knock those ambitions? Can Buddhism be explained in a single post to explain why desire is not all bad yet has a central role to pay in our liberation? Probably not but here's a try.

Brian Resnick introduces findings of a new scientific study that show why we crave and what can be done about it. Hint, it's has a lot to do with the neurotransmitter dopamine has a lot to do with it, and the class of drugs to which Ozempic belongs may be a cure (or for-profit "treatment") for addiction.

.

What's with Buddhism and desire (craving)?

Westerners are taught that the Buddha and, therefore, Buddhism oppose desire -- as if, just by wanting not to want we could get our wish. What's wrong with wanting?

As humans we rarely get what we want, and we often get what we don't want. So wanting can't be the key.

The reason for this teaching is that the Buddha discovered Dependent Origination in answer to his quest to answer the question, Why do we suffer?

He found that like all things, "suffering" (dukkha = disappointment, pain, woe, ill, distress, unsatisfactoriness) arises dependent on conditions and not without them.

Dependent Origination is that answer, 12 causal links: This leads to that; when this is, that comes to be; when that is not, that does not come to be. The suffering of this moment is based on causes and conditions rooted in the past.

As he reviewed each of these factors, the links of this causal chain, he asked a key question: How can this be put to an end so that it (suffering) doesn't arise again?

Its antecedents (things that came before) are rooted in the past, and its results come to fruition fortuitously when they meet with the opportunity in subsequent lives. He saw actions (karma) in past lives bearing fruit at a later time, sometimes much later, and in this present moment.

It is because there was this (karma in the past) that that (present results) came to be, and it is because of ignorance that that kind of action (unskillful karma) was produced. What kind? The kind that produces painful results.

Ignorance is the fundamental basis of attraction (craving and clinging, desire and attachment) and aversion (manifesting as hate or fear).

And these three -- attraction, aversion, and ignorance, lobha, dosa, and moha, popularly translated as "greed, hatred, and delusion" -- are the roots of ALL bad karma.

It's only called "bad," not as a moral judgment but because the Buddha -- and anyone who gains the power of knowing-and-seeing -- could see beings meeting the result of their previous and present actions. Edgar Cayce could see it, too. Any rishi can, and anyone who successfully strives can become a seer of such things, directly, independently, not based on anyone else.

One can see these things in this Doctrine and Discipline (Dhamma-Vinaya) because Buddhism is not a faith, and this is not a belief system but a verifiable practice.

In fact, if one does not practice it, one will not be able to know-and-see, to penetrate the Truth and be set free by it. The whole point of Buddhism is the gaining of enlightenment (bodhi, spiritual awakening) and reaching the safety of nirvana (amata, nirodha, moksha, nibbana -- the deathless state, cessation, liberation, complete freedom from all substrates of rebirth and suffering of every kind).

We are here on this side, beset by darkness (ignorance) and in great danger (of old age, sickness, death, desire/thirst/craving, not getting what we want, and getting what we don't want, losing what we love, and being paired with what we hate), to use a simile, and we can see across the water a further shore.

That shore is free of these things, free of danger. But we are here, on this dangerous side, so how do we get to that side?

A Buddha (a supremely enlightened teacher capable of teaching the path to that enlightenment) comes into being, makes known the Teaching (Dhamma/Dharma), establishes the practice and a community of practitioners (Sangha). These are the Three Jewels.

One hears the Dharma from the Buddha or a member of the Sangha who heard it from the Buddha, applies what is heard (puts it into practice rather than making a theory, faith, or belief of it), and comes to know-and-see for oneself.

This knowledge and vision has to do with the true nature of reality. One can be told it, and it can be grasped conceptually, but it won't do much good. What's worse, it may just lead to a lot of thinking or believing, debating and conceptualizing, rationalizing and endless questioning.

At some point the questions have to stop, and with confidence that this path holds promise and is verifiable, the practice of it has to start. There's no other way.

The wandering ascetic Siddhartha was not sitting under a bodhi tree when a bo fruit (tiny fig) fell, hit him on the head, and he instantly became Newton. How then did it happen?

He tried many things, in this life and in many previous lives. And, as in the past, he practiced the absorptions or levels of samadhi (stillness), which temporarily purified the mind, and he attained bliss then peace, but he realized that this was not it, not the highest, not liberation (moksha), not enlightenment, not nirvana (the ultimate).

So he practiced something more that we call vipassana or "insight meditation" on top of that stillness. He practiced the systematic pondering of the Four Foundations of Mindfulness (body, feelings, mind, and mental phenomena), still asking the question, "Why is there suffering?"

He then realized suffering (and everything else, too) was dependently-originated, that is, it was born of causes and conditions. "What were they?" he asked. And he saw that this present suffering depended on, for example, having been born. Why was he born? The karma of the past? Why was there karma in the past? And so on... CONTINUED ON FOLLOWING POST

Is Ozempic an anti-desire drug? Scientists are realizing GLP-1 drugs have the potential to turn down cravings — for more than just food

We look at what we like, fixate on what will stimulate dopamine and/or serotonins, slaves to pleasure, bug-eyed for sugar, fat, and starch (Tim Lahan/Vox).

.

Brian Resnick is Vox’s science and health editor and is the co-creator of Unexplainable, Vox's podcast about unanswered questions in science. Previously, Resnick was a reporter at Vox and at National Journal.

Dr. Marco Leyton, Ph.D., assures me the cocaine he purchased was legal. [Likely story, but the Coca Cola company has the legal right, granted by the US government, to see cocaine from processed coca leaves it imports into the US because coke used to be an actual addictive ingredient of Coca-Cola.]

Plus, it wasn’t for him, definitely not. It was for recreational cocaine users who had answered Dr. Leyton’s ad in a local newspaper to do drugs and collect 500 Canadian dollars — risking their nasal passages for science.

Dr. Leyton had jumped through many hoops to get to this point — getting an okay from the Canadian equivalent of the FDA, exempting him from criminal prosecution, and clearing his own university’s ethics approval.

“I wasn’t asking people to bring in their own [illegal] cocaine,” Dr. Leyton, an addiction neurobiologist at McGill University in Canada, tells me. Now that could be unethical. It was all in pursuit of one of the deepest questions that haunts us as individuals:

“Why do we really care about some things and not too much about others?” as Dr. Leyton says.

Really: Why do we want what we want? With the drugs in hand, Dr. Leyton ran a small study for some insight [and valuable medical knowledge].

It involved just eight participants, but it’s noteworthy because it’s a relatively rare human experiment in a field that more commonly tests rodents (which have found similar results as the human studies).

Plus, it’s just wild. I have never read these words in an academic journal before: Participants “were presented with cocaine paraphernalia consisting of a mirror, a razor, [a credit card,] a straw, and a bag with 3.0 mg/kg of cocaine hydrochloride.”

The study took place over four days. And while the cocaine is the eyebrow-raising component of the study, a special protein shake was the actual key.

On any given day, half the participants were randomly assigned to ingest a shake that was missing a key ingredient called phenylalanine, an important amino acid that helps our body manufacture the neurotransmitter dopamine. That’s the chemical released when our brain is expecting, or sometimes demanding, a reward, like a sweet treat or, as here, cocaine.

So if one is like these study participants, fasting before this experiment, and were then only given a food source without phenylalanine, our body chemistry would subtly change.

Dr. Leyton thought the participants who consumed this weird breakfast would have less dopamine available in their brains. After their shake, the participants were then invited to do blow [sugar, snot rocket, Columbian dandruff, the Devil's ashes].

Or as the study plainly states, the participants “used the razor to divide the powder into three equal lines.”

“TOO MANY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN PUT IN AN UNFAIR BATTLE AGAINST THEIR WANTS. THEY’VE BEEN TOLD TO SOMEHOW EXERT WILLPOWER OVER A SYSTEM THEY HAVE LITTLE CONSCIOUS AWARENESS OF AND CONTROL OVER.”

They snorted it. But remarkably, on the phenylalanine-free shake days, Dr. Leyton says, “they decreased their craving for cocaine.”

They said they were less interested in snorting it. But it was more than that: The special shake “decreased the ability of the cocaine itself to produce more desire for the drug,” he says.

And strangely, “it had no effect on the drug-induced euphoria,” Dr. Leyton claims. In other words, they still liked cocaine. They just didn’t want it as much.

While talking to Dr. Leyton about his cocaine study, I wondered, Why isn’t the phenylalanine-free shake The Answer to addiction, to overeating, to similar problems of compulsive consumption?

Well, for one thing, because it’s impractical. Phenylalanine is in just about all protein food sources. So unless someone wants to solely eat specially lab-generated shakes their whole lives, that’s not going to work. More

"Greed" is bad? Yes, very bad (cartoon)

Do you approve of greed? - No, not at all.
"The love of money is the root of all evil."

"Greed is good," we read Wisdom Quarterly say. How could this publication possibly defend "greed" of all things?

• "Greed is good"? Yes

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).

“If one knew what I know about the power of giving, one would not let a single meal pass without sharing” – the Buddha (Iti. 1.26)

• Family Dharma: The Joy of Generosity (Tricycle: The Buddhist Review)

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

My Brit kids won't behave: Send 'em to Beirut

World's Strictest Parents, 1/30/22; Pat Mac, Amber Larson, Dhr. Seven (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly

Wild British teens in strict religious Lebanon | World's Strictest Parents

(World's Strictest Parents) Strict religious rules around alcohol, makeup, and modest dress codes make the teens' experience hard to acclimatize to.

Think you've got the World's Strictest Parents? How do they stack up against these ones? From cutting logs to walking into ponds, these parents have the answer to any disobedient teen. How would you survive against the World's Strictest Parents? #WorldsStrictestParents

▶ Subscribe for more: bit.ly/worldsstrictestparents ▶ UK full episodes: bit.ly/2WZftVr ▶ Australia full episodes: bit.ly/3kWy6FG ▶ That'll Teach 'Em full episode: bit.ly/2OZJujw.

▶ How strict parents deal with love, se, and dating: bit.ly/2AP75N7 ▶ Teens get their bags searched: bit.ly/2FAXrRp ▶ Alcohol is BANNED: bit.ly/2VSdwIe ▶ Most shocking moments: bit.ly/2STv2de

What is the Buddhist attitude towards parents?

The Buddha gave his mother who raised him the greatest gift, ordaining her as the first nun.

.

Your father's back, Rahula. Go ask him.

The Sigalovada Sutra or "laypersons' code of discipline" is full of our reciprocal social obligations, children to parents and parents to children. It goes both ways. But children have an advantage because the Buddha spelled out in many places the special place of parents from a karmic point of view. What is done toward one's parents, good or ill, has a much greater impact, karmically speaking, redounding with beneficial results and painful consequences that would seem greatly disproportionate to the deeds themselves.... More

There's a third sex and many genders

Pfc. Sandoval, Seth Auberon, Ashley Wells, CC Liu (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly

(Sky News Australia) July 4th, 2023. Whose side is Piers Morgan on? "Go be equal": Anti-feminist female clashes with pro-female journalist over the preposterous notion of scaling back women’s rights.

That's right. Anti-feminism YouTuber Hannah Pearl Davis clashes with political journalist Ava Santina over women’s rights and equal pay. Female morbid obesity is getting worse, as the average woman in the USA is 170 lbs., which is many stones and kilos over any kind of ideal weight or healthy BMI (body mass index).

Eating cornfed livestock and starchy Monsanto corn itself, we're turning our human-bodies into obese and unhealthy cow-bodies. What we do to others, in this case cows, we soon do to ourselves, it seems.

Gender dysphoria and ideology are real: Dr. Miriam Grossman

• Pres. Joe Stalin Biden: They're not your kids. "They're all our kids [especially the government's, and if you don't provide 'gender affirming care' upon demand, the state will take them away from you]"

The CIA put women to work by creating the Feminist Movement, a shocking fact that seems to strange to be true but was an act of war, bringing women into the workplace to replace the men sent out on imperial adventures for the state.

Now the CIA is promoting transgenderism (and transhumanism). For what reason? It is unclear, as there seem to be multiple agendas.

Famous and beloved feminists like Gloria Steinem were funded by the CIA, as was Ms. Magazine. There was an agenda, much like the mind-warping move to make everyone on the Left pro-war when it comes to Ukraine and Russia and indifferent to war as long as it's presented as an anti-Islamic "crusade."

What's worse, no one's allowed to talk about it or is accused of being as nutty as Ms. Davis here.

Yes, the CIA put me on its payroll. It was secret

Was the current Dalai Lama paid by the CIA? Were his relatives and collaborators brought to Colorado, trained by the military, armed and funded and sent back to Tibet to fight a US-proxy war against China? Yes. That makes this hallowed figure of a pope-king (a secular and religious figurehead) a CIA asset, an operative, and he admits it, and the Los Angeles Times openly documents it, but no one believes it, much less Buddhist monks.

Is the CIA doing anyone a favor behaving like this? They do it all the time.

Can I manifest from EGO? (Eckhart Tolle)

(Eckhart Tolle) Aug. 18, 2022 - Eckhart Tolle explains that it is indeed possible to manifest while engaging in egoic thinking, but the material results of these achievements will disappoint; they will not bring about long-term satisfaction to our lives.

Truly enduring manifestation in the realm of form arises from Presence [mindfulness of the present moment].

With all this said, Eckhart Tolle also emphasizes that understanding how material achievement is [by its integral nature] unfulfilling is a major step toward realizing Presence. “One of the most useful things in life is mistakes,” states Eckhart.

“Make as many as possible, and then you will learn what your path is.” [In other words, as Alan Watts frequently quotes, "The fool who persists in his folly will become wise." That is to say, one will learn from one's folly after a while. We may have to repeat it a million times, but we'll learn.]

Subscribe. More of Eckhart Tolle's teachings? Membership or enjoy a FREE 10-DAY TRIAL.

NEW Buddhist joke: "I'm Nothing"

Dhr. Seven, Sheldon S. (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly retold by Taj (la.shambhala.org); PPR; Tp, TP

Because the Dalai Lama was coming to the meditation center, the director was frantically trying to clean up and get things ready, a big task. She'd ordered the assistant-director to come help her. Finally, the assistant-director arrived with a young volunteer.

"Thank god you're here!" the director said. "I really need your help. This job is too big for me and this visit too important for the center!"

"Yes, I know," exclaimed the assistant-director. "That's why I brought a volunteer to help us. He's new, but he's strong and willing."

Just then the director broke down with gratitude. Overwhelmed by the magnitude of who they were preparing for and what this could mean for them, she started to cry: "I'm nothing! I'm nothing! I really am nothing, oh my god."

The director fell to the floor as if in satori and cried and cried. The assistant-director and volunteer gave her her space, let her have her moment. And after about 15 minutes, she pulled herself together and got back to work, blissfully cleaning and arranging things.

.

Then suddenly it dawned on the assistant-director, who realized the magnitude of their efforts, and she started to bawl and stammer: "I'm nothing! I'M nothing!! Oh my god, I understand now! I really am nothing!" She cried uncontrollably. Welling up in sympathy, the other two gave her her space.

After a few minutes the assistant-director regained her composure and joyfully got back to work.

After a long time, the volunteer had an epiphany -- suddenly understanding why he was here, what his life was for, and the amazing karma he must have accrued to be called on to serve like this. So he started to cry, "I'M nothing! I'M NOTHING!"

Just then the assistant-director turned to the director. She rolled her eyes and said: "Huh. Look who thinks he's nothing."

• Realizing emptiness is realizing egolessness
• The Mahayana emptiness of the Heart Sutra

A Day at the Beach (no-self)

Sister Khema, Meditating on No-Self: Dhamma Talk (Edited for Bodhi Leaves) edited by Amber Larson and Dhr. Seven for Wisdom Quarterly

This is me, myself, and I...and my dog.

In Buddhism we use the words "self" and "no-self," so it is important to understand just what this "no-self" (anatta) is all about even if it is first just an idea.

This is because the essence of the Buddha's teaching hinges on this realization. This teaching is unique to Buddhism. No other spiritual teachers in history, other than buddhas, which are fully enlightened teachers establishing the Dharma in the world, ever come to realize and teach no-self. No philosophers, no thinkers, no debaters, no sages or seers. It may be the only teaching that has no parallel in other philosophies, religions, or doctrines.

Because of the way it was formulated by the Buddha, there exists the possibility of speaking about it. Otherwise, it would not even occur to one that it is true. Much has been written about no-self, but in order to know it, one must experience it. And that is what the teaching aims at, the experience (liberating insight) of no-self, egolessness, impersonality, suchness (utterly altruistic unselfishness).

 

Look at me, look at my body. This is me.

Yet in order to experience no-self, one has first to fully know what "self" is, actually know it. For unless we do know what this "self" we are slaves to is, the self called "me," "myself" and that grasps at things as "mine," it is impossible to know what is meant by the preposterous/perplexing claim, "There [ultimately speaking] is no self there." In order to give something away, to let it go, to abandon it, we first have to have it in hand. We have to know why we would want to do that.

 

We are constantly trying to reaffirm self. This already shows that this "self" is a very fragile and wispy thing. If it weren't why would we constantly have to reaffirm it? Why are we constantly afraid of the "self" being threatened, being insecure, worrying that i may not get what it needs for survival? If it were such a solid entity as we believe it to be, as we take for granted that it is, we would not so often feel threatened.

 

Southern California coast where the salt hits he sand, Point Dune, Malibu (wiki)

.

I bought all these clothes; they're totally me!

We affirm "self" again and again through identification. We identify with a certain name, an appearance, a memory, a story, an age, a gender, a habit, an ability, an occupation. "I am a lawyer, I am a doctor, I am an accountant, I am a student." And we identify with the people we are attached to. "I am a husband, I am a wife, I am a mother, I am a daughter, I am a son."

Now, in the manner of conventional speech, we have to use the word/concept "self" in that way -- but it isn't only in speech. We really think that that "self" we refer to is real, is enduring, is who we are. We really believe it.

There is no doubt in our mind that that "self" is who we are. When any one of these factors is threatened, if being a wife is threatened, if being a mother is threatened, if being a lawyer is threatened, if being a teacher is threatened -- or if we lose the people who enable us to retain that "self" -- what a tragedy!

 

The self-identification becomes insecure, and "me" finds it hard to say "look at me," "this is me." Praise and blame are included. Praise reaffirms "me." Blame threatens [but subtly reinforces the sense of] "me." So we like the praise and we dislike the blame. The ego is threatened. Fame and infamy -- same thing. Loss and gain. If we gain, the ego gets bigger; if we lose, it gets a bit smaller.

So we are constantly in a quandary and in constant fear. The ego might lose a little bit of its grandeur. It might be made a bit smaller by someone. And it happens to all of us. Somebody is undoubtedly going to blame us for something eventually. Even the Buddha was blamed.

 

But the blame that is levied at us is not the problem. The problem is our reaction. The problem is that we feel smaller. The ego has a hard time reasserting itself. So what we usually do is we blame back, making the other's ego a bit smaller too.

 

Money, sex, food...am "I" enlightened yet?

Identification with whatever it is that we do and whatever it is that we have, be it possessions or people, is -- so we believe -- needed for our survival, "self" survival. If we don't identify with this or that, we feel as if we were in limbo. This is the reason why it is difficult to stop thinking in meditation. Without thinking there would be no identification. If I don't think, what do I identify with?

It is difficult to come to a stage in meditation in which there is actually nothing to identify with anymore.

 

Happiness, too, may be an identification. "I am happy." "I am unhappy." Because we are so keen on survival, we have got to keep on identifying... More

• Rebirth takes place according to perception even though there is no self to be reborn -- because this empty process (dependent on impersonal factors) rolls on (and is kept rolling by ignorance, craving, aversion)
  

Giving: the Buddha's Culture of Generosity

Ven. Thanissaro (aka Geoffrey DeGraff, WatMetta.org), No Strings Attached: The Buddha's Culture of Generosity edited by Ashley Wells, Amber Larson, Dhr. Seven, Wisdom Quarterly

Dana ("giving") monastic support in Theravada Buddhist Thailand (Bugphai)

.

“How can I ever repay teachers for teaching [Buddhism]?”

 

Good meditation teachers often hear this question from students, and the best answer is one that teacher Ajahn Fuang gave every time: 

 

“By being intent on practicing.” 

Each time he gave this answer, it was very noble and gracious. It wasn't just a formality. He never tried to find opportunities to pressure students for donations. Even when the monastery was poor, he never acted poor, never tried to take advantage of their gratitude and trust. This was a refreshing change from some run-of-the-mill village and city monks who were quick to drop hints [which is against the Monastic Code of Discipline] about their need for donations from even stray or casual visitors.

What is the purpose of a Disciplinary Code?

Discipline is for the sake of restraint,
restraint for the sake of freedom from remorse,
freedom from remorse for the sake of joy,
joy for the sake of rapture,
rapture for the sake of tranquillity,
tranquillity for the sake of pleasant abiding,
pleasant abiding for the sake of concentration,
concentration for the sake of knowledge-and-vision
of things as they truly are,
knowledge-and-vision of things as they truly are
for the sake of disenchantment,
disenchantment for the sake of release,
release for the sake of knowledge-and-vision of release,
knowledge-and-vision of release
for the sake of total liberation without remainder.
— Parivara.XII.2 (BMC p.1)

.

Thai rice farmer (Bugphai)

Ajahn Fuang's behavior is common throughout the Thai Forest Tradition. It's based on a passage in the Pali canon where the Buddha before final nirvana states that the highest form of reverence paid to him is not material or bowing, but the reverence of practicing the Dharma in accordance with the Dharma.

In other words, the best way to repay a teacher is to take the Dharma to heart and to practice it in a way that fulfills the compassionate purpose in teaching it. It is good to be part of a tradition where the inner wealth of this noble idea is actually lived -- where, as Ajahn Fuang often put it, teachers and monastics aren't reduced to "hirelings," and the act of teaching the Dharma is purely a gift.

On returning to America, one encounters the "dana talk" -- the talk on giving and generosity that often comes at the end of a retreat. The context of the talk -- and often the content -- makes it clear that it's not a disinterested exercise. It's aimed at generating "gifts" (donations, remuneration, payment) for the teacher or the organization sponsoring the retreat.

It places the burden of responsibility on the retreatants (meditation retreat participants) to ensure that future retreats can occur. The language of the talk is often smooth and encouraging, but when contrasted with Ajahn Fuang's answer, the sheer fact of the talk seems crass, ill-mannered, and demeaning.

If the organizers and teachers really trusted the retreatants' good-heartedness, they wouldn't be giving the talk at all. To make matters worse, the typical dana talk -- along with its companion, the meditation-center fundraising letter -- often cites the example of how monastics are supported in Asia as justification for how dana is treated here in the West.

Boy reclining on the Buddha (Bosforo65)

But they're taking as their example the worst of the monastic, not the best. The reasoning behind the talk is understandable. Lay teachers in the West aspire to the ideal of teaching for free, but they still need to eat. And unlike the monastics of Asia, they don't have a long-standing tradition of dana to fall back on. So the dana talk was devised as a means for establishing a culture of dana in a Western context.

But as so often is the case when new customs are devised for Western Buddhism, the question is whether the dana talk skillfully translates Buddhist principles into the Western context or seriously distorts them. The best way to answer this question is to take a close look at those principles in their original context.

 

It's well known that dana lies at the beginning of Buddhist practice. Dana, quite literally, has kept the Dharma alive. If it weren't for the tradition in ancient India of giving to mendicants, Prince Siddhartha would never have had the opportunity to explore and find the path to enlightenment.

The monastic community (Sangha) wouldn't have had the time and opportunity to follow the direct way to enlightenment. Dana is the first teaching in the gradual instruction of sutras, the list of topics the Buddha used to lead listeners step-by-step to direct insight into the Four Noble Truths, and often from there to a glimpse of nirvana and the first stage of awakening called stream entry or the opening of the "eye of the Dharma."

When stating the basic principles of karma, the Buddha would begin with the statement, “There is what is given.”

 

What's less well known is that in making this statement, the Buddha was not dealing in obvious (conventional) truths or generic platitudes, for the topic of giving was actually controversial in his time. For centuries, the Brahmins of India [and northwest remnants of the Indus Valley Civilization] had been extolling the virtue of giving -- as long as the gifts were given to them.

Not only that, gifts to Brahmins were obligatory. People of other castes, if they didn't concede to the Brahmins' demands for gifts, were neglecting their most essential social duty or dharma (obligation). By ignoring their duties in the present life, such people and their relatives were told they would suffer hardship both now and after death.

 

As might be expected, this attitude produced a backlash. Several of the [heretical] wandering ascetic schools (shramana movement) of the Buddha's time countered the Brahmins' claims by asserting that there was no virtue in giving at all. Their arguments fell into two camps. One camp claimed that giving carried no virtue because there was no afterlife. A person was nothing more than physical elements that, at death, returned to their respective spheres. That was it. Giving thus provided no long-term results.

The other camp stated that there was no such thing as giving, for everything in the universe has been determined by fate [a misinterpretation of the truth of karma, such as the Jewish theory of kismet]. If a donor gives something to another person, it's not really a gift, for the donor has no choice or free will in the matter. Fate was simply working itself out.

 

So when the Buddha, in his introduction to the teaching on karma, began by saying that there is what is given, he was repudiating both camps.

Giving does give results both now and on into the future, and it is the result of the donor's free choice. 

However, in contrast to the Brahmins, the Buddha took the principle of freedom one step further. When asked where a gift should be given, he stated simply, “Wherever the mind feels inspired.”

In other words -- aside from repaying one's debt to one's parents -- there is no obligation to give. This means that the choice to give is an act of true freedom, and thus the perfect place to start the path to total liberation (nirvana).
 

This is why the Buddha adopted dana as the context for practicing and teaching the Dharma. But -- to maintain the twin principles of freedom and fruitfulness in giving -- he created a culture of dana that embodied particularly Buddhist ideals.

To begin with, he defined dana not simply as material gifts and support (such as providing the five monastic requisites). The practice of the precepts, he said, was also a type of dana -- the gift of universal safety, protecting all beings from the harm of one's unskillful actions -- as was the act of teaching the Dharma.

This meant that lavish giving was not just the prerogative of the rich. Secondly, he formulated a code of conduct to produce an attitude toward giving that would benefit both the donors and the recipients, keeping the practice of giving both fruitful and free. More