How to lead a Buddhist life 1: Poisons

Dhr. Seven, CC Liu, Amber Dorrian, Ashley Wells, Wisdom Quarterly (edited from Alankhoo)

The 14th Dalai Lama admonishes happy Westerners (overgrownpath.com)

  
The fundamental message of Buddhism (of all previous buddhas) was summarized by Shakyamuni in the Dhammapada ("Dharma-path"):

 

To not do any harm,
To cultivate all that's good,
To purify one's mind --
This is the teaching of all buddhas.

 

The instruction is simple, but that does not mean the practice of it is easy. Even a three-year-old child knows this much, but that is not to say that such a child can practice it. Even a 100-year-old can hardly manage to put it into practice in daily life.

VIRTUE

Kwan Yin Bodhisattva (123Chic/flickr.com)

Virtue (sila) is the preliminary stage on the path to enlightenment whether as a disciple (savaka, "hearer") or as a supremely-awakened teacher (buddha). It is a necessary but insufficient condition, a foundation for the concentration (samadhi) and wisdom (prajna) essential for liberation.

  

Virtue in Buddhism is practical, ethical, and based on personally verifiable individual experience in this very life. It is regarded as the one of the best moral codes ever taught in the world, as it avoids extremes on both sides.

What is the criteria of virtue in Buddhism? In one admonition given by the Buddha to his son, the new and very young monk Rahula, an answer is discernible: 

"If there is a deed, Rahula, you wish to do, reflect: 'Is this deed conducive to my harm, to another's harm, or to harm for both?' If so then this is an unprofitable deed leading to suffering when it eventually comes to fruition. From such a deed, wishing to avoid suffering, you should desist.'

"If, however, there is a deed you wish to do, reflect: 'Is this deed neither conducive to my harm, to another's harm, nor to harm for both?' If so this is a profitable deed leading to happiness when it eventually comes to fruition. Such a deed do again and again."

  

So a Buddhist takes into consideration the interests of everyone involved -- oneself, the other, and "both" [the collective or everyone impacted, which includes future generations, animals, unseen beings, and the environment.]

  

To better understand this standard of virtue, one may study the Dhammapada, a collection of Buddhist aphorisms preceded by their origin story. Many other sutras are also very helpful. The most useful to lay Buddhists is the "Advice to Householders" (Sigalovada Sutra), a discourse with additional fragments that form a long sutra explaining the reciprocal duties of everyone in society -- children (like Sigala), parents, teachers, monastics, bosses, workers, servants, and friends. Also see:

• Vyagghapajja Sutra
• Mangala Sutra
• Mutta Sutra
• Parabhara Sutra
• Vassla Sutra
• Dhammika Sutra

THE THREE POISONS

Good (profitable) deeds are essential for one's emancipation. And when the ultimate goal (enlightenment/seeing nirvana) of the supreme life is attained, one transcends both good and bad. Virtue is a means to an end, not an end in itself. It is not that it is pleasing to some deity (though such deities may indeed be pleased by it, having reached their delightful rebirth due to it). It is that it leads to everyone's relief and happiness.
  

There are three "poisons" or unwholesome roots. In Mahayana Buddhism's "Flower Adornment Sutra" states that all detrimental karma created in the past is based on beginningless greed, hatred, and delusion born of body, mouth, and mind.
  
Wishing to no longer do harm but to become helpful and compassionate, one turns around. We have all done harm, and that is nothing to feel bad about. Instead, repenting of past harm, one reforms without wallowing in guilt (which would be a serious form of unskillful mental karma).  Rather than guilt, one lives anew, in the now, becoming a blessing to oneself and others.

  

In the ancient original sutras as well as the later Mahayana Repentance Verse, the distinction between what is "good" (beneficial) and what is "bad" (harmful) is straightforward: It hinges on the intention or motivation from which an action (karma) springs. "Karma" just means action, but the Buddha clarified that what gives karma its direction is intention (cetana). Deeds that are associated with greed/attachment, hatred/aversion (and fear), and/or delusion/ignorance are harmful.

  

These three "poisons" of the heart/mind -- broad categories called greed, hatred, and delusion are called the "Three Poisons" and the "Three Unwholesome Roots." They are the primary source of all suffering by their intrinsic nature. It is for this reason that the Buddha pointed them out to his hearers. It is because the three antidotes -- broad categories called simply nongreed, nonhatred, and nondelusion -- ripen in happiness that he pointed them out and encouraged seekers in that direction. 

Ancient temple complex, Indonesia (LittleMissBigFeet/flickr.com)

  
Ultimately, one does not become attached to either. But in the meantime, the good is helpful (when the real goal is liberation) in all places everywhere -- even in harmful scenarios. For example, it is only because of past good karma that a criminal succeeds in business, not because of the unwholesome business s/he is engaged in now. It is very hard to accurately label anyone "good" or "bad" because prior to full enlightenment, everyone is a mix of both. But not all of it is manifesting its results at the present time. It will.

  

So we may consider ourselves "good" but know that our motives are flawed even as others applaud us. Moreover, we may consider ourselves "bad" forgetting how much good (nonharming) we do everyday. It all stores up and comes to fruition opportunistically. And the one thing almost everyone wishes on his/her dying bed is having racked up a greater store of merit, which follows one into lives to come.

These three -- craving, aversion (including cowardice), and confusion -- create all bad karma. What makes it "bad"? The results, when experienced, are unpleasant, unwelcome, and unwished for. One may think that "Crime doesn't pay." But it does pay for a while, as one exhausts one's store of merit. When it is exhausted and one begins to experience the results of unwholesome karma, it is universally unpleasant and unwelcome.

  

Unskillful karma results in all kinds of unsatisfactoriness, unpleasantness, disappointment, distress, and suffering of all kinds. But this is not due to a strict cause-and-effect relationship. For if it were, everyone would know it and understand it. It is infinitely more complex, a net, a web, an entanglement, a thicket. Nevertheless, many seers discern general laws (axioms). Like begets like, good good and bad bad. We do unto others knowing that that is what will (eventually) come to us. The thought that it will or should come immediately to us is a delusion a wrong view, and that leads to disappointment.

  

The Buddha to come (Snap-shooter/flickr.com)

The law of karma is much more subtle, much more uneven or asymmetrical. The little good we do becomes great; the little harm is magnified. Killing, for instance, is very harmful and is not easily exhausted. It may drag us at the time of death to realms of woe, the return from which is very difficult and uncertain.
  
And even when we return to the human world or better, it may still dog us. In just the same way, a small good grows. It connects to other good and forms the basis of far greater good than it should if karma were "cause and effect." One cause will have many effects, and each of those effects will go on to become a cause.

The Three Poisons are an obstacle, a hindrance, a frustration to attaining merit (a general term for one's store of good karma). So it is something we are wise to abandon by all means. And even if we do not abandon the unwholesome, it is extremely beneficial to cultivate the good. Why else are "bad" people handsome, rich, debonair, cunning (intelligent), and so on? It is not from cultivating harm but rather by misspending it through current choices.

GREED

Greed (sensual desire, craving) is the proximate cause of many offenses. The five greedy or selfish desires are for wealth, sensual enjoyment, fame, eating, and sleeping. 

  

Greed-based desire is endless and can therefore never be satisfied. The lesser the greed we entertain, the happier and more satisfied we are. The best prescription to deal with greed is giving (letting go) for the benefit of others. 

  

HATRED
Hatred (aversion, anger) is another cause of unwholesome karma. When we lose our temper and get angry, we are unhappy while making others miserable as well. The best prescription for calm and patience is kindness and appreciative joy (or again and again reflecting on the harm that arises based on hate).

DELUSION
Delusion (wrong views, ignorance, confusion) means holding persistent beliefs at variance with reality, distortions, perversions, misunderstanding, or simply not knowing any better. The best prescription is mindfulness (not "thinking" but being clearly cognizant of the present moment). It is also very useful to hear the Dharma, investigate it, ask questions, observe, and think (or at least reflect) in an objective manner. It is very useful to avoid or abandon our prejudices, which only hinder our understanding.

 

For instance, if we don't believe in karma (the fruition of deeds long after they are performed in accordance with an impersonal law or principle that is not a judgment by the universe or a god. Instead, we usually commit offenses in line with our mistaken belief or wrong views and much later suffer the natural result. CONTINUED IN PART II

Read More

Buddhism and American lay life (video)

Ven. K. Sri Dhammananda (Buddhism in Society and Seclusion) edited by Wisdom Quarterly

An all-American guy goes from birth, to the shower, to the rest of his life with a song, Dove commercial, Super Bowl XLI (WR Films|2.0, wrfilmshd.yolasite.com, WRfilmshd).

 

The Buddha addressing female monastics

Some believe Buddhism is so lofty and sublime a system that it cannot be practiced by ordinary men and women in our workaday world. Does someone have to retire to a forest monastery or some quiet place if one wishes to be an authentic Buddhist?
   
This misconception comes from a lack of understanding the Buddha. We jump to such conclusions after casually reading or hearing something about Buddhism. We form impressions of Buddhism after reading  magazine articles or books that only give a partial or lopsided view of Buddhism.
  
Authors of such articles and books only possess a limited understanding of the Dharma, the Buddha's Teaching. It is not meant only for monastics in hermitages or those on retreat. It is for ordinary women and men living at home with families.
  

"Little monks," novices (annecam.blogspot.com)

The Noble Eightfold Path is the Buddhist way of life, and it is intended for all people [regardless of their "religion"]. It was an offering to all humankind without distinction.
  
The vast majority of people cannot become monks or nuns who retire into caves and peaceful wooded glades. However noble and pure Buddhism may be or seem, it would be useless to the earthlings if we could not follow its guidance and advice in our daily lives in this modern world with all its complexity.
  
If we understand the spirit of Buddhism, we can surely follow and practice it while living the life of an ordinary "householder."
  
There may be some who find it easier or more convenient to accept Buddhism by living in a remote place, by cutting themselves off from others. Yet others may find that this kind of retiring into seclusion -- instead of being a means to uninterrupted practice -- actually dulls and depresses their entire being, physically and mentally. It wold therefore not be conducive to the development of any kind of spiritual or even intellectual life.
  

  Our lives seem so special and different from one another but boil down to an animated short.

   
Real renunciation does not mean physically running away from the world. We can let go right here. (We often fool ourselves, of course, and never get around to actually letting go).
   
Sariputta, the Buddha's chief male disciple (whose female counterpart was the nun Khema who was also declared "foremost in wisdom" by the Buddha), said that one might live in a forest devoting oneself to ascetic practices and yet might be full of impure thoughts and "defilements" of the heart/mind. Another might live in a village, town, or city practicing no ascetic discipline yet be purifying the mind/heart freeing it of defilements.
 
"Of the two," Sariputta explained, "one who lives a pure life in the village, town, or city is definitely far superior to and greater than the one who lives in the forest" (Middle Length Discourses).
   
The common belief that to follow the Buddha's guidance one has to retreat from normal family life is a definite misconception. It is actually, when examined carefully, an unconscious defense mechanism against practicing! And it works.
  
Nirvana now

Ten Precept nuns (Ragg Burns Imaging/Flickr)

There are numerous references in Buddhist literature to men and women living ordinary family lives while successfully practicing what the Buddha taught and realizing nirvana.
   
Vacchagotta the Wanderer once asked the Buddha in a very straightforward way: "Venerable sir, are there laymen and laywomen leading the family life who follow the Dharma successfully and attain high spiritual states?"
   
The Buddha categorically answered that there are many laypeople leading the household family life who follow this Dharma successfully and attain high spiritual states.
   
It may be agreeable for certain people to retreat and live a retired life in a quiet place away from noise and disturbances. But it is certainly more praiseworthy and courageous to practice Buddhism wherever one is. Making the excuse that we will begin to practice when conditions are better than they are is a sure way delay and even permanently put off doing good for ourselves, others, and everyone we impact.
   
It is better to undertake our self-training while living among our fellow beings (often with us because of karma working itself out in mysterious ways), helping them and offering service to the planet. It may perhaps be useful in some cases for a person to live in a hermitage or alone for a time in order to improve mind and character, as a preliminary to training in virtue, spirituality, and intellectual pursuits. (We often do not get a vision quest or any kind of official rite of passage nowadays to graduate from total dependence to full participation in society).

Such preparation makes us strong enough to come out later and help others and recognize how to best help ourselves. But if a person lives all her life in solitude, thinking only of one's own happiness and liberation, without caring for one's fellow travelers through life, it is surely not in keeping with the Buddha's Teaching, which is based as much on loving compassion and serving the interests of ourselves and others as it is on insightful wisdom and having advanced ourselves spiritually to aid us in the many lives to come.
   
(We are not likely to be conscious of the Dharma, karma, or how life really works for a long, long time. If we have that awareness now, it will be very profitable to advance now to ensure the future we would wish for ourselves in the future. How can I make that person happy, that person I will be far in the future? If I only worry about this person, I indulge and doubt and shortchange myself terribly!)
   
What are monastics for?

American nuns (Sylvia Boorstein/Huff Post)

One might now ask, "If a person can follow Buddhism while living the life of an ordinary householder, why was the Monastic Order, the Sangha, established by the Buddha?"
  
The Order provides opportunity for those who are willing to devote their lives not only to their own spiritual and intellectual development, but also to serve others. An ordinary person with a family cannot be expected to give oneself over to an entire life of service to others, whereas a monastic freed of family responsibilities and other worldly ties is in a position to devote oneself "for the good of the many" (Ven. Walpola Rahula, Ph.D. author of What the Buddha Taught).
   
What is the "good" that many can benefit from?
  

Where in the world can I find reliable guides?

Monastics can provide spiritual guidance to those troubled by worldly, family, and emotional problems even if they cannot give laypeople material comfort. Monastics devote their lives to the pursuit of knowledge-and-vision of the Dharma taught by the Buddha.
  
They then explain and inspire untutored laypersons to benefit from what the Buddha taught. And if the layperson is well educated, the monastic is there to discuss the deeper aspects of the Dharma so both can gain insight from the discussion.
   
In Buddhist countries, monastics are largely responsible for the education of the young. As a result of their contribution, Buddhist countries have very literate populations well-versed in spiritual values without the expense many other nations expend. Monastics also comfort the bereaved, soothing their emotional upset by explaining how all humankind is subject to similar disturbances now as in the time of the Buddha, who also soothed a great deal of grief.
  
In turn, the laypeople are expected to look after the material well-being of monastics who do not gain income (even if they work from morning to night). Monastics are provided with the basics of life -- food, robes, shelter, and medicine.
   
In common Buddhist practice, it is considered meritorious to contribute to the health of a virtuous person, such as a monastic, because by so doing one makes it possible for the monastic cultivate virtue, serene concentration, liberating-insight, and to continue to minister to the spiritual needs of the community. More: Previous - Contents - Next

Read More

"Sex and Buddhism," Part 3: Sin and Marriage

Maurice O'C Walshe, Buddhist Publication Society (bps.lk), edited by Wisdom Quarterly

Sexual Pleasure and the Concept of "Sin"

Reduced to essentials, the great debate about sex revolves, for many people, around the [Christian] concept of "sin."

To the Puritan, indulgence in sexual activity for the sake of pleasure is evil, wicked, or "sinful" (i.e., displeasing to God). To the permissive person, this is nonsense.

We probably reject the term "sin" as meaningless, and not only see nothing evil in sexual pleasure but regard it as highly legitimate, perhaps as the highest pleasure there is and certainly as something to which, in principle at least, everybody has a right.

  

Many people, coming from a more or less Christian background, with at least some puritanical overtones, find the true Buddhist attitude to this problem rather difficult to see. 

  

Perhaps they have never even been given a clear explanation of it or, if they have, it may have seemed too technical for them, and they have not grasped the point.

  

The point, in fact, is of considerable importance, so it is worthwhile attempting to make it clear. It involves a proper elementary grasp of what is meant by karma -- something which many people, who may have been "Buddhists" for years, have never had. 

  

We may, however, perhaps begin more profitably by considering the word sin. Sin to a Christian is primarily thought of as a breach of God's commandments. This explanation is, of course, not wrong in terms of Christian theology. But it is not applicable in Buddhism, where there are no such "commandments" that one can infringe.

   

As already indicated, the so-called precepts are in fact undertakings to oneself, which is something different. They are more on a par with the instruction, "Look both ways before you cross the road." 

   

Still there is much agreement between the content of the Five Precepts and some of the Ten Commandments, so it may be wise in many cases to behave accordingly, whichever formulation one follows.

 

However, there is another rendering of the word "sin" itself. In fact, although less well-known, it comes much closer to the Buddhist view of things. In the Bible "sin" [is an archery term that] actually renders Hebrew and Greek words which literally mean "missing the mark," that is, behaving inadequately or unskillfully.

  

The sinner, then, is like an unskillful archer who misses his or her target aimed at. (Could this be the real meaning of Zen and the Art of Archery?) Surely this comes very close to Buddhism's idea of akusala kamma ("unskilled action").

   

The Pali word kamma, or English and Sanskrit karma, literally means "action" (an act resulting from volition or cetana, the mental/heart motivation that impels it. It can be either skillful (kusala) or unskillful (akusala). 

  

The results of action (called vipaka and phala) accrue to the doer as resultant (vipaka), which is pleasant when the action was skillful, unpleasant when it was unskillful.

• SKILLFUL: karma motivated by the broad categories of non-greed, non-hatred, non-fear, or non-delusion.
• UNSKILLFUL: karma motivated by greed, aversion, fear, or delusion.

If I look before I cross the road, I shall get across safely, which is pleasant. If I don't look, I may get run down, which is unpleasant. The feelings we experience are in fact of the nature of mental resultants (vipaka): They are dependent on past karma. And, of course, we are continually creating more karma for a good part of our time.

  

   
It should therefore be noted that the feeling of pleasure (sexual or otherwise) is NOT an action, but a result. There is, therefore, nothing either "skillful" or "unskillful" about experiencing such a feeling. We should therefore not regard it as either "virtuous" or "sinful." So far, so good. [But we should be wary of what we do for the sake of getting that feeling.] 

   

Such pleasant feelings can be enjoyed with a clear conscience and no guilt feeling. If this were all, there would be no problem. The Puritans would be routed and the permissive people justified. 

    

Unfortunately, there is another side to the matter. We may recall that a few years ago there was a song "Money is the Root of all Evil." Some people pointed out that [biblically] not money but the love for money is the root of all evil (well, of a lot of evil anyway). And here is the snag. 

   

Sexual pleasure (like money) is not "evil" or unskillful. But attachment to sexual pleasure (like the love of money) is. If we can experience the pleasure without attachment we are all right; if we become attached to it, we are not "hitting the mark." [We become susceptible to the Seven Bonds of Sensuality and other troubles and disappointments.]

   

Now, of course ,it is rather difficult (to put it mildly) to experience pleasure of any sort without feeling attached to it. 

   

But attachment is karma. And it is unskillful karma at that. The results of that will inevitably, according to the Buddha, result in something unpleasant in the future. [The time of ripening is hard to know because it is opportunistic, coming to fruition when circumstances permit, which may not be for aeons or in this very life.]

  

What?!

Many people will find this explanation novel. Some will find it puzzling. Some will undoubtedly reject it -- with or without investigation -- with the excuse that it is overly subtle, or arbitrary, or something of the sort. 

  

What we mean, of course, is that we find it inconvenient. But it will repay a lot of consideration and mindful investigation. Careful study, in fact, shows that it is the key to the whole problem.

   

The matter can also be considered in terms of the lawful [regular] operation of Dependent Origination: 

• "Contact is the basis for the arising of feeling; feeling... of craving; craving... of clinging;" and so on, the ultimate outcome being the continued process of becoming, with all the suffering and disappointment entailed.

Thus, if we wish to adjudicate between Puritans and permissive folk, we cannot say that either side is entirely right. We might, however, suggest that the Puritans are partly right for the wrong reasons. Sexual indulgence is not "wicked," but it may be to some degree inadvisable. Most people will not feel able to refrain altogether (nor are they being urged to). There is merit in moderation.

   

Marriage

Setting aside all ideas derived from other sources, other religions and philosophies of life, what is the Buddhist attitude towards marriage?

   

For many Buddhists, East or West, there is no great problem. They live a reasonably normal married life just as do many Christians, humanists, and others. We may say they are lucky, or enjoy the results of favorable karma in this respect. For others, of all creeds or none, serious problems arise and must be somehow faced.

   

In the Christian tradition, marriage is usually termed a "sacrament." In some branches of Christianity it is treated as an indissoluble bond, though usually there are a few loopholes. Other branches of Christianity permit divorce in certain rather narrowly defined circumstances. And, of course, in most (though by no means all) countries the state permits divorce and the remarriage of divorced persons, with or without the approval of the Church.

  

In Buddhism, marriage is not a "sacrament." Such a concept does not exist. And it is not any part of the functions of Buddhist monastics to join lay people together in holy wedlock (or deadlocked). If it is occasionally done today in Japan, this is just a modern idea in conformity with a general tendency among Japanese Buddhists to imitate (often perhaps unwisely) Christian institutions.

   

In the Buddhist tradition it is often the custom for monastics to give their "blessing" (or "protective chanting"] after the civil wedding-ceremony has been performed. But even this is really more of a concession to the laity than anything else.

   

If the marriage does not turn out a success, no monastic has any authority to say that the marriage should not be dissolved. Divorce, like marriage, is strictly a civil affair. Likewise, if a married couple decides to practice contraception, that is entirely their business. The Monastic Order (Sangha) will not feel called upon to interfere or object. 

   

It must be admitted that certain monastics have been heard to declare that contraception is wrong and should be banned -- but that is their private opinion. It is no part of the Buddhist teaching.

   

Abortion is a different matter. Because this involves the taking of life, it contravenes the first precept. It can only be condoned in cases of serious health hazards, where it may represent the "lesser of two evils."

  

In getting married, people obviously take on a responsibility, both towards each other and towards whatever children they have [and society or the human world beyond their new nuclear unit].

   

Any form of irresponsible behavior is clearly reprehensible by any reasonable standards, whether we call ourselves Buddhists or anything else. If we bear in mind, and try to observe, all five precepts, the chances of a successful marriage are obviously increased. Excessive drinking, for instance (in breach of the fifth precept), is a potent source of unhappy marriages.

   

  
What, it may be asked, about "adultery," that is, hurtful extramarital sexual relations? The short answer is that, quite obviously, this is something to be avoided. But the point should be made that Buddhism does not regard this, or any other sexual irregularities and deviations, as somehow uniquely "wicked."

• Sexual misconduct, it will surprise Christian and Islamic readers, is not as concerned with whether an actor or agent is married. That is not the special concern -- as it is for Americans -- making it "adultery." The special concern, the great karmic harm, results from the status of the other person. Yes, of course, it would be unskillful to cheat on one's partner. But is the person one is cheating with being caused or encouraged to cheat on someone? If this were the case in Islamic countries, unmarried rapists would be stoned rather than married rape victims as the "adulterers."

In nominally Christian countries the special kind of horror with which such things are, or recently were, regarded can be pushed to grotesque extremes.

   

Not many years ago a certain politician was solemnly declared by some to be unfit to become prime minister because he had been the innocent partner in a divorce case! More recently, another politician was hounded from office because of acts of adultery of which his wife forgave him. Yet many politicians in all countries have gotten away with far worse things of a non-sexual character without a word being said. 

   

Buddhists should try to behave themselves sexually, as in other respects, to the best of their ability -- but we should learn to exercise the maximum of charity towards the lapses of others. 

  

If a marriage has irretrievably broken down, even though it may continue in name, the situation is of course quite different. In such circumstances one may well feel that complete abstinence is a burden greater than one can reasonably be expected to bear.

   

The things that can go wrong with a marriage are legion. A partner can be impotent, ill, irresponsible, jealous, drunken, a compulsive gambler, deranged, promiscuous, miserly, unemployable, or more than one of these things.

   

Or both partners can be perfectly charming people yet utterly unsuited to each other. It may be that only the children hold the "marriage" together. At the same time, there may be many reasons which make a dissolution impossible or impracticable.

    

An extramarital relationship in such circumstances may serve to make the situation tolerable. Those who find themselves in such a situation must make the best job of it they can. It is not for others, more fortunate or more timid, to be excessively censorious.

   

Sex Outside Marriage

Here again, we look at things calmly and clearly and, above all, responsibly. Nowadays there is pretty frank acceptance of what has always been the case, that a lot of people in fact have sex without going through the formality of getting married.

Read More