no love in buddhism? (part 2)

Continued from part 1

So, into the flood, so to speak.

On writing this I have left a comment on eliron’s post asking which sources he drew on for his knowledge of Buddhism. Having said that I will still proceed with this even though at this point I haven’t heard back from him.

So, where should you go for information on what Buddhist teachings are really about? Below I have reproduced a section from the introduction of the excellent book Basic Teachings of the Buddha; A New Translation and Compilation with  a Guide to Reading the Texts, by Glenn Wallis, published by Modern Library New York:

Why the Pali Canon?

Why should we use the Pali texts, the suttas, preserved by the Theravadin communities of Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia, as our basis for “the Buddha’s idiom” as opposed to, say, the Chinese versions of the same old works, the agamas, or even the later Mahayana sutras or Vajrayana tantras? There are three good reasons for this decision.

(1.) The Pali canon is the only extant complete Indian collection of Buddhist texts. While there were certainly other whole collections, most of this literature would have been destroyed by the invading Islamic armies that, by the end of the twelfth century, had devastated the great Indian Buddhist monastic libraries. Sine the Pali collection had been transmitted as far away as Sri Lanka in the third century B.C.E., it was spared this fate. In Sri Lanka, the canon has been preserved with great care down to the present day by the lone surviving sect of ancient Indian Buddhism, namely, the Theravada. This is not to say that the texts have not undergone alterations over time. In fact, to speak of a Pali Canon is somewhat misleading. There are, for instance, Burmese and Thai recensions of the canon – though nonetheless in Pali – in addition to the Sri Lankan version. There are also plenty of instances of later scribal emendations. In fact, some of these alterations occurred as late as the twelfth century. But again, the insbustantiality of the disagreements between these versions serves more to accentuate the consistency of Buddhist textual transmission since the Buddha’s own day than to reveal serious divergence. So, if your aim is to get as close to “the Buddha’s idiom” as possible, the Pali suttas are the logical starting point.

(2.) Linguistically, too, the Pali canon holds an advantage over the Chinese and Tibetan collections. We don’t know what the Buddha’s mother tongue was. But assuming that he followed his own advice, he would have taught in the local dialects of his listeners. Scholars refer to the vernacular languages spoken at the time of the Buddha as Middle Indo-Aryan, and distinguish it from Sanskrit, which was the learned language of the time. It is a common misconception that Pali is one such regional vernacular. In fact, the term pali simply means “text”. Nowhere in the entire canon itself does the term appear, rather, it apparently derives from the usage in later commentaries on the canonical literature, which referred to the palibasa, “the language of the texts”. As might be expected from a two-thousand-year transmission history, Pali, “the language of the texts”, also exhibits linguistic features from other Middle Indo-Aryan dialects, as well as attempts to transform certain terms into Sanskrit – a process known as “sankritization”.

How do these points about language bear on my decision to translate from the Pali? Look at an example close to home. William Blake’s language, though fine English, sounds somewhat foreign even to present-day English speakers. Add to this everyday English usage his technical vocabulary, and Blake’s language becomes nearly impenetrable. This, though his language is English and only two hundred years old. Now, imagine how Blake comes across in Mongolian. Then, imagine the Mongolian Blake translated into Japanese. Blake’s technical vocabulary, which he chose with great care, can really only be roughly approximated in another language. But if I were a Japanese reader of Blake, I would want a translation from English, not from Mongolian. The Pali suttas, of course, are certainly not to the Buddha what Songs of Innocence and Songs of Experience are to Blake. The suttas are already a translation – and an edited one at that. But this point adds even more ballast to the decision to look to the Pali canon as the basis for what has become the multitudinous assortment known today as “the teachings of the Buddha.” Simply put, the language of the Pali canon mediates the conceptual world of ancient Buddhism, and probably of the Buddha himself, to an extent impossible for Chinese and Tibetan, or for that matter, English.

(3.) Just as students of history and philosophy sometimes quip that the bulk of work done in their discipline is but a footnote to Plato, it is arguable that the bulk of the developments within Buddhism over the centuries are but elaborations on, local adaptations of, and cultural inflections of what we find in the Pali texts. This goes for central Mahayana notions such as emptiness (Sanskrit: sunyata; Pali: sunyata and anatta) and compassion (Sanskrit and Pali: karuna) as well as for foundational Vajrayana ritual practices such as recitation of mantras for subduing hostile forces (Pali: mantas and parittas). In this regard, the suttas can as a rule be shown to be the fountainhead of subsequent teachings, even those that have been radically developed. With the exception of a remarkably miniscule number of doctrinally anomalous traditions, the chorus of Buddhisms evoked in the first paragraphs of this introduction can, by and large, be traced to this source, to the suttas of the Pali canon.

(Pages xxv – xxvii)

It is generally agreed that the Pali Canon of the Theravadins is the oldest collection of texts available to us today representing what the historical Buddha actually taught. Glenn Wallis makes a good case for this above. This is where I will look to address the issues eliron has raised.

So to the first point I mentioned above: 1. Buddha’s goal is ‘self-extinction’.

Buddha didn’t teach ‘self-extinction’, however this is a common misunderstanding and is something I’ve heard many times before. The goal of the Buddhist path has various renderings in English: awakening, liberation, enlightenment, unbinding etc, none of these indicate extinction.

For Buddhists the ‘self’ is illusory. Experiences arise but pasting the notion of ‘self’ onto them does not make a concrete being. However, this is not something to believe, this is something to see for ourselves. There is no ‘self’ to render extinct, so to speak. I understand, however, that this is not commonly understood and most people will take things as either existing or non-existing, in concrete terms. The Buddha’s teachings point to something beyond this.

Furthermore, a cursory knowledge of the traditional story of the Buddha’s enlightenment should lead one away from the assumption that he sought and taught ‘self-extinction’. The Buddha actually tried to extinguish ‘the self’ before realizing that it was a fruitless enterprise. The deeply ascetic practices he engaged in prior to changing tack and eventually reaching his goal involved self-mortification and self-denial, not just physically but mentally as well. He was trying to force this upon himself and realized it was a waste of time. This is a well-known aspect of the traditional story of the Buddha. It was the fact that he rejected these practices that led his companions to reject him, initially, until he returned after his enlightenment.

Buddha did teach, however, that we should abandon attachment to self, which is something quite different. For the Buddha self-indulgence was one extreme and any attempt at self-extinction was the other extreme; both doomed to misery. It was the middle way that he discovered, between total self-indulgence and total self-denial, that proved fruitful. This is common knowledge to most Buddhists. I will admit that the notion of abandoning attachment to self probably sounds fairly abstract and may even frighten some people. That’s fine, maybe Buddhism isn’t for you. Either way, the Buddha most certainly never taught ‘self-extinction’.

Alternatively, here are some descriptive examples, from the scriptures, of the goal of Buddhism (from Access to Insight):

Nibbana names the transcendent and singularly ineffable freedom that stands as the final goal of all the Buddha’s teachings.

Defined in terms of what it is…

“This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Nibbana.”

— AN 3.32

There’s no fire like passion, no loss like anger, no pain like the aggregates, no ease other than peace. Hunger: the foremost illness. Fabrications: the foremost pain. For one knowing this truth as it actually is, Unbinding is the foremost ease. Freedom from illness: the foremost good fortune. Contentment: the foremost wealth. Trust: the foremost kinship. Unbinding: the foremost ease.— Dhp 202-205

The enlightened, constantly absorbed in jhana, persevering, firm in their effort: they touch Unbinding, the unexcelled safety from bondage.— Dhp 23

…and in terms of what it is not

“There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor stasis; neither passing away nor arising: without stance, without foundation, without support [mental object]. This, just this, is the end of stress.”

— Ud 8.1

“There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned.”

— Ud 8.3

Where water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing: There the stars do not shine, the sun is not visible, the moon does not appear, darkness is not found. And when a sage, a brahman through sagacity, has known [this] for himself, then from form & formless, from bliss & pain, he is freed.— Ud 1.10

One’s first breakthrough to Nibbana puts an end to so much suffering

Then the Blessed One, picking up a little bit of dust with the tip of his fingernail, said to the monks, “What do you think, monks? Which is greater: the little bit of dust I have picked up with the tip of my fingernail, or the great earth?”

“The great earth is far greater, lord. The little bit of dust the Blessed One has picked up with the tip of his fingernail is next to nothing. It’s not a hundredth, a thousandth, a one hundred-thousandth — this little bit of dust the Blessed One has picked up with the tip of his fingernail — when compared with the great earth.”

“In the same way, monks, for a disciple of the noble ones who is consummate in view, an individual who has broken through [to stream-entry], the suffering & stress that is totally ended & extinguished is far greater. That which remains in the state of having at most seven remaining lifetimes is next to nothing: it’s not a hundredth, a thousandth, a one hundred-thousandth, when compared with the previous mass of suffering. That’s how great the benefit is of breaking through to the Dhamma, monks. That’s how great the benefit is of obtaining the Dhamma eye.”

— SN 13.1

[Aggivessana Vacchagotta:] “But, Master Gotama, the monk whose mind is thus released: Where does he reappear?”

[The Buddha:] “‘Reappear,’ Vaccha, doesn’t apply.”

“In that case, Master Gotama, he does not reappear.”

“‘Does not reappear,’ Vaccha, doesn’t apply.”

“…both does & does not reappear.”

“…doesn’t apply.”

“…neither does nor does not reappear.”

“…doesn’t apply.”

“How is it, Master Gotama, when Master Gotama is asked if the monk reappears… does not reappear… both does & does not reappear… neither does nor does not reappear, he says, ‘…doesn’t apply’ in each case. At this point, Master Gotama, I am befuddled; at this point, confused. The modicum of clarity coming to me from your earlier conversation is now obscured.”

“Of course you’re befuddled, Vaccha. Of course you’re confused. Deep, Vaccha, is this phenomenon, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. For those with other views, other practices, other satisfactions, other aims, other teachers, it is difficult to know. That being the case, I will now put some questions to you. Answer as you see fit. What do you think, Vaccha: If a fire were burning in front of you, would you know that, ‘This fire is burning in front of me’?”

“…yes…”

“And suppose someone were to ask you, Vaccha, ‘This fire burning in front of you, dependent on what is it burning?’ Thus asked, how would you reply?”

“…I would reply, ‘This fire burning in front of me is burning dependent on grass & timber as its sustenance.'”

“If the fire burning in front of you were to go out, would you know that, ‘This fire burning in front of me has gone out’?”

“…yes…”

“And suppose someone were to ask you, ‘This fire that has gone out in front of you, in which direction from here has it gone? East? West? North? Or south?’ Thus asked, how would you reply?”

“That doesn’t apply, Master Gotama. Any fire burning dependent on a sustenance of grass and timber, being unnourished — from having consumed that sustenance and not being offered any other — is classified simply as ‘out’ (unbound).”

“Even so, Vaccha, any physical form by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of form, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. ‘Reappears’ doesn’t apply. ‘Does not reappear’ doesn’t apply. ‘Both does & does not reappear’ doesn’t apply. ‘Neither reappears nor does not reappear’ doesn’t apply.

“Any feeling… Any perception… Any mental fabrication…

“Any consciousness by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of consciousness, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea.”

— MN 72

The victory cry of the arahants

“Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.”

— SN 22.59

The end of samsara

Some are born in the human womb, evildoers in hell, those on the good course go to heaven, while those without effluent: totally unbound.— Dhp 126

In reference to these passages I’ll make a couple of points. First it is the notion of freedom that is a key element of the descriptions of nibbana. Yes, there is mention of cessation but this refers to cessation of suffering, and of deluded fabrications, and of karma. Notions of cessation of existence are avoided. Second, and more profoundly, nibbana is beyond the duality of existence and non-existence. This is where misunderstandings arise and perhaps lead one to assume the Buddha sought ‘self-extinction’. Critics may say I am splitting hairs but for Buddhism it is a subtle but important differentiation. The Buddha advises us to overcome craving for non-existence as well as craving for continued existence.

Moreover, whether there is a self or not isn’t the point, and whether there is extinction or not isn’t the point. This is why he befuddles Vaccha initially. The Buddha is interested in directly observable realities, not philosophical conceptualisation. What he saw directly was anatta, anicca and dukkha and nothing else. Discussions of there being a self or not, or whether there is extinction or not are nothing but unhelpful distraction and certainly not what he wanted his followers to be concerned with. This is why he told Vaccha that all his conceptions about reappearing or not didn’t apply. It was a direct way of trying to break down his conceptual barriers.

I may make the following point repeatedly throughout these responses to eliron’s points, so here goes: the truth of this is strictly off limits to you if you do not meditate. Or to put it another way: if you do not meditate the truth of this is strictly off limits to you.

Either way, the Buddha does not really ask us to ‘believe’ in these things; believing it is true or not is not the point. He asks us, if we would like, to experience it directly for ourselves, thereby obviating belief. Whether you choose to follow the path or not is up to you. If you do not, that’s fine, but then the direct experiential truth of this is off limits to you, regardless of whether you believe it to be true or not.

To assume the Buddha teaches ‘self-extinction’ at the very least misses the subtlety of his teaching and at worst demonstrates a total misunderstanding of what he was actually concerned with. Extinction, non-extinction, both extinction and non-extinction, or neither extinction nor non-extinction do not apply. To be honest, who cares about self-extinction? It’s got nothing to do with Buddhism. The Buddha observed the three marks of existence (as one way of naming them). I’ll admit that they may be hard to imagine but they are not beyond our experience, and experience is what counts if we want to see the truth of the dhamma.

On to the next theme:

2. ‘Love and compassion, do not exist in Buddhism’ as the ‘ultimate goal of Buddhism [is] – extinction of the personal, loss of personhood and identity.’ Buddhism teaches the elimination of desire. Desire springs from love, therefore Buddhism teaches non-love. ‘Love, compassion, and even egoless love are contrary to Buddha’s teachings.’ ‘All love involves personhood and desire of some sort. So if we value any sort of love, we must value personhood and desire as intrinsically good’ and Buddhism does not value these ‘since its goal is to eliminate personhood and desire’. Any love and compassion in Buddhism ‘is a Westernized, even Christianized Buddhism.’ If you feel love and compassion this must tell you that something is wrong with Buddhism as ‘these virtues generate all kinds of desire, noble though they may be, which in turn causes suffering.’

On a strict scriptural and doctrinal basis, saying that love and compassion do not exist in Buddhism is fundamentally incorrect. With all due respect to eliron, and indeed anyone who makes such an assertion, I would really want to know what sources they have been reading to get their information. Also, claiming that if there is any love and compassion in Buddhism, it is really due to Western or Christian influence is equally incorrect, as this assumes that love, in any form, was never a consideration of the Buddha, which is also not true. Having said that (and in trying to be fair) I think the thrust of eliron’s argument is that because Buddhism teaches abandonment of desire, therefore it cannot really teach love, as love and desire are intricately bound together, along with valuing people.

Fortunately, the Buddha never taught that we should destroy or overcome all desire.

To begin with I have reproduced below a translation of what is commonly known as the Metta Sutta (again see Access to Insight).

Karaniya Metta Sutta

This is what should be done

By one who is skilled in goodness,

And who knows the path of peace:

Let them be able and upright,

Straightforward and gentle in speech,

Humble and not conceited,

Contented and easily satisfied,

Unburdened with duties and frugal in their ways.

Peaceful and calm and wise and skillful,

Not proud or demanding in nature.

Let them not do the slightest thing

That the wise would later reprove.

Wishing: In gladness and in safety,

May all beings be at ease.

Whatever living beings there may be;

Whether they are weak or strong, omitting none,

The great or the mighty, medium, short or small,

The seen and the unseen,

Those living near and far away,

Those born and to-be-born —

May all beings be at ease!

Let none deceive another,

Or despise any being in any state.

Let none through anger or ill-will

Wish harm upon another.

Even as a mother protects with her life

Her child, her only child,

So with a boundless heart

Should one cherish all living beings;

Radiating kindness over the entire world:

Spreading upwards to the skies,

And downwards to the depths;

Outwards and unbounded,

Freed from hatred and ill-will.

Whether standing or walking, seated or lying down

Free from drowsiness,

One should sustain this recollection.

This is said to be the sublime abiding.

By not holding to fixed views,

The pure-hearted one, having clarity of vision,

Being freed from all sense desires,

Is not born again into this world.

It is worth noting that this sutta is a staple of Theravadin tradition. For those who don’t know, Theravada is sometimes questionably referred to as ‘hinayana’ by some Mahayana Buddhists. This is a separate issue and probably warrants another post but I’ll make a point about this briefly. According to a general view (and this is a huge generalisation!), hinayana Buddhism is only interested in the liberation of the individual practitioner; it is ‘selfish’ in motivation, for want of a better phrase. This is incorrect. The practices known alternatively as ‘The Four Immeasurables’, ‘The Divine Abodes’ or ‘The Brahma Viharas’ can at least be traced to the Pali texts.

Even taking into account possible changes over time in the suttas as mentioned by Glenn Wallis, by the Buddha’s own account, the Brahma Viharas are central to his teaching. In fact, he recounted that in one of his previous lives he was a monarch who, after retiring from worldly duties, dedicated his time to practicing and developing these divine states of consciousness to a high degree.

In reference to the issue at hand however, I think there are a couple of lines from this sutta which apply here: ‘Even as a mother protects with her life her child, her only child, so with a boundless heart should one cherish all living beings; radiating kindness over the entire world‘.

Eliron uses the words ‘personhood’ and ‘identity’ in his criticisms. At the risk of sounding pedantic I’m not entirely sure what he means by these so it would be unfair for me to tackle them. However, in reference to valuing, caring for, and feeling compassion for others, the Metta Sutta and the passage on the Brahma Viharas (see below) are unequivocal. And again, it’s worth making the point that this is from so-called ‘original’ or ‘early’ Buddhism.

Buddha instructs us to develop metta, loving-kindmess, towards all living beings without exception. We should love them as a mother protects her only child. Regardless of whether you think this is a tall order or not, it is central to Buddhist teaching and, far more essentially, to Buddhist practice. Again, for those who do not meditate, this may be harder to get to grips with, but metta-bhavana meditation is important not just for developing universal loving-kindness.

In order to realise the three marks of existence (anicca, anatta, dukkha) it is generally agreed that we should attain jhana or mental stabilisation, at least to a certain degree. Although, personally I’m coming from the Theravadin teachings on this front, this is a generally held view across the Mahayana world too. Certainly the practices have slightly different names or formulations but samadhi (concentration) and vipassana (insight) practices generally go hand in hand. One of the best ways to attain jhana / samadhi is with metta practice as by developing universal loving kindness we can gradually free the mind from many of its selfish concerns, and at least temporarily subdue them. In doing so it helps bring subtle mental and physical fabrications to stillness, allowing the mind to settle more and draw closer to jhana.

A passage concerning the Brahma Viharas, again, from Access to Insight

I. Here, monks, a disciple dwells pervading one direction with his heart filled with loving-kindness, likewise the second, the third, and the fourth direction; so above, below and around; he dwells pervading the entire world everywhere and equally with his heart filled with loving-kindness, abundant, grown great, measureless, free from enmity and free from distress.

II. Here, monks, a disciple dwells pervading one direction with his heart filled with compassion, likewise the second, the third and the fourth direction; so above, below and around; he dwells pervading the entire world everywhere and equally with his heart filled with compassion, abundant, grown great, measureless, free from enmity and free from distress.

III. Here, monks, a disciple dwells pervading one direction with his heart filled with sympathetic joy, likewise the second, the third and the fourth direction; so above, below and around; he dwells pervading the entire world everywhere and equally with his heart filled with sympathetic joy, abundant, grown great, measureless, free from enmity and free from distress.

IV. Here, monks, a disciple dwells pervading one direction with his heart filled with equanimity, likewise the second, the third and the fourth direction; so above, below and around; he dwells pervading the entire world everywhere and equally with his heart filled with equanimity, abundant, grown great, measureless, free from enmity and free from distress.

— Digha Nikaya 13

And concerning samadhi and vipassana (Access to Insight):

Samadhi Sutta: Concentration (Tranquility and Insight), translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

“Monks, these four types of individuals are to be found existing in the world. Which four?

“There is the case of the individual who has attained internal tranquillity of awareness, but not insight into phenomena through heightened discernment. Then there is the case of the individual who has attained insight into phenomena through heightened discernment, but not internal tranquillity of awareness. Then there is the case of the individual who has attained neither internal tranquillity of awareness nor insight into phenomena through heightened discernment. And then there is the case of the individual who has attained both internal tranquillity of awareness & insight into phenomena through heightened discernment.

“The individual who has attained internal tranquillity of awareness, but not insight into phenomena through heightened discernment, should approach an individual who has attained insight into phenomena through heightened discernment and ask him: ‘How should fabrications be regarded? How should they be investigated? How should they be seen with insight?’ The other will answer in line with what he has seen & experienced: ‘Fabrications should be regarded in this way. Fabrications should be investigated in this way. Fabrications should be seen in this way with insight.’ Then eventually he [the first] will become one who has attained both internal tranquillity of awareness & insight into phenomena through heightened discernment.

“As for the individual who has attained insight into phenomena through heightened discernment, but not internal tranquillity of awareness, he should approach an individual who has attained internal tranquillity of awareness… and ask him, ‘How should the mind be steadied? How should it be made to settle down? How should it be unified? How should it be concentrated?’ The other will answer in line with what he has seen & experienced: ‘The mind should be steadied in this way. The mind should be made to settle down in this way. The mind should be unified in this way. The mind should be concentrated in this way.’ Then eventually he [the first] will become one who has attained both internal tranquillity of awareness & insight into phenomena through heightened discernment.

“As for the individual who has attained neither internal tranquillity of awareness nor insight into phenomena through heightened discernment, he should approach an individual who has attained both internal tranquillity of awareness & insight into phenomena through heightened discernment… and ask him, ‘How should the mind be steadied? How should it be made to settle down? How should it be unified? How should it be concentrated? How should fabrications be regarded? How should they be investigated? How should they be seen with insight?’ The other will answer in line with what he has seen & experienced: ‘The mind should be steadied in this way. The mind should be made to settle down in this way. The mind should be unified in this way. The mind should be concentrated in this way. Fabrications should be regarded in this way. Fabrications should be investigated in this way. Fabrications should be seen in this way with insight.’ Then eventually he [the first] will become one who has attained both internal tranquillity of awareness & insight into phenomena through heightened discernment.

“As for the individual who has attained both internal tranquillity of awareness & insight into phenomena through heightened discernment, his duty is to make an effort in establishing (‘tuning’) those very same skillful qualities to a higher degree for the ending of the (mental) fermentations.

“These are four types of individuals to be found existing in the world.”

AN4.94

As I said earlier, however, I think eliron’s main point is that because the Buddha teaches that we should be rid of desire, therefore he did not teach love. Indeed the line from the Metta Sutta says ‘By not holding to fixed views, the pure-hearted one, having clarity of vision, being freed from all sense desires, is not born again into this world.’ However if we take into consideration the teaching of the Brahma Viharas, which clearly must involve the desire for others to be happy and be free from suffering, it is clear that the Buddha does not teach abandonment of all desire.

I will concede a point here, to an extent. Somewhere in the passage from East to West, possibly in the education systems of Western schools, the Buddhist message was over-simplified to the point of inaccuracy. I can’t say this is 100% certain but, for example, I’ve seen school text books on Buddhism saying that the Buddha taught that we should ‘get rid of desire because wanting things makes us unhappy.’ In fact, last time I looked in the British Museum in London at some of their Buddhist exhibits a similarly brief and questionable rendering of the dhamma was plastered on a sandwich sized information card.

Clearly, to abandon all desire of any kind whatsoever under any circumstances is ridiculous and counter-productive, as we would have to desire to abandon our desire – another common and unwarranted criticism of Buddhism. Let’s look again at some of the Pali text:

From Access to Insight:

Iddhipada-vibhanga Sutta: Analysis of the Bases of Power, Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

The four bases of power, when developed & pursued, are of great fruit & great benefit. And how are the four bases of power developed & pursued so as to be of great fruit & great benefit?

“There is the case where a monk develops the base of power endowed with concentration founded on desire & the fabrications of exertion, thinking, ‘This desire of mine will be neither overly sluggish nor overly active, neither inwardly restricted nor outwardly scattered.’ He keeps perceiving what is in front & behind so that what is in front is the same as what is behind, what is behind is the same as what is in front. What is below is the same as what is above, what is above is the same as what is below. [He dwells] by night as by day, and by day as by night. By means of an awareness thus open & unhampered, he develops a brightened mind.

“He develops the base of power endowed with concentration founded on persistence…

“He develops the base of power endowed with concentration founded on intent…

“He develops the base of power endowed with concentration founded on discrimination & the fabrications of exertion, thinking, ‘This discrimination of mine will be neither overly sluggish nor overly active, neither inwardly restricted nor outwardly scattered.’ He keeps perceiving what is in front & behind so that what is in front is the same as what is behind, what is behind is the same as what is in front. What is below is the same as what is above, what is above is the same as what is below. [He dwells] by night as by day, and by day as by night. By means of an awareness thus open & unhampered, he develops a brightened mind.

“And how is desire overly sluggish? Whatever desire is accompanied by laziness, conjoined with laziness, that is called overly sluggish desire.

“And how is desire overly active? Whatever desire is accompanied by restlessness, conjoined with restlessness, that is called overly active desire.

“And how is desire inwardly restricted? Whatever desire is accompanied by sloth & drowsiness, conjoined with sloth & drowsiness, that is called inwardly restricted desire.

“And how is desire outwardly scattered? Whatever desire is stirred up by the five strings of sensuality, outwardly dispersed & dissipated, that is called outwardly scattered desire.

“And how does a monk dwell perceiving what is in front & behind so that what is in front is the same as what is behind, and what is behind is the same as what is in front? There is the case where a monk’s perception of what is in front & behind is well in hand, well-attended to, well-considered, well-tuned by means of discernment. This is how a monk keeps perceiving what is in front and behind so that what is in front is the same as what is behind, and what is behind is the same as what is in front.

And again from Access to Insight:

Right Effort; Samma Vayamo

The Four Right Exertions

“And what, monks, is right effort?

[i] “There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen.

[ii] “He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen.

[iii] “He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen.

[iv] “He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This, monks, is called right effort.”

— SN 45.8

Abandon the unskillful, develop the skillful

“Abandon what is unskillful, monks. It is possible to abandon what is unskillful. If it were not possible to abandon what is unskillful, I would not say to you, ‘Abandon what is unskillful.’ But because it is possible to abandon what is unskillful, I say to you, ‘Abandon what is unskillful.’ If this abandoning of what is unskillful were conducive to harm and pain, I would not say to you, ‘Abandon what is unskillful.’ But because this abandoning of what is unskillful is conducive to benefit and pleasure, I say to you, ‘Abandon what is unskillful.’

“Develop what is skillful, monks. It is possible to develop what is skillful. If it were not possible to develop what is skillful, I would not say to you, ‘Develop what is skillful.’ But because it is possible to develop what is skillful, I say to you, ‘Develop what is skillful.’ If this development of what is skillful were conducive to harm and pain, I would not say to you, ‘Develop what is skillful.’ But because this development of what is skillful is conducive to benefit and pleasure, I say to you, ‘Develop what is skillful.'”

It should be clear to see that the Buddha did not teach that we should abandon all desire. I’ve come across Buddhists of differing schools who have all used the words ‘skillful’ and ‘unskillful’. This is really what this gets at. We should abandon unskillful states of mind. The Buddha discovered that a lot of unskillful states of mind arise through attachment or aversion to the senses, including the intellect. So yes, we should abandon unskillful desires. This is the key. The Buddha is exhorting his followers to develop skillful desires, intention and persistence.

As a further comment, and to pick away a bit more at eliron’s criticisms, it’s very important to understand that none of Buddha’s teachings should be taken in isolation from any others. If we do this then we are in grave danger of missing the point, and it’s at times like these that assumptions such as ‘Buddha says abandon all desire’ arise. The heart of Buddhism lies in meditation, a practical activity, and not in intellectual conjecture or attachment to beliefs, even Buddhist ones. A lot of the suttas are addressed to monks as the Buddha was training them. To practice Buddhism is to undergo training.

To sum up on this point however, it is clear that the Buddha taught his followers to love all beings without exception, and to generate compassion for them, indeed to value them as one would value one’s only child. The Buddha also teaches us to abandon unskillful desires and states of mind, and to develop those that are skillful, and conducive to liberation.

Continued in part 3

Tagged: eliron, misunderstandings

Posted in: Uncategorized