Did the Buddha ever state flatly that he had no grasping (lobha) and aversion (dosa) whatsoever? Or did he list the things that he no longer felt grasping or aversion for and it is implied or could be inferred that he still had grasping and aversion for other things that he didn't mention?
I've read that lobha and dosa are only the negative aspects of grasping and aversion. If that is the case, then is it stated or implied that the Buddha still had lobha and dosa but only positive types? Or did he uproot all lobha and dosa in totality; positive, negative, neutral or any other way it could be understood? Was he 100% free of all lobha and dosa? Did he have zero desire for anything whatsoever and zero aversion to anything whatsoever without any subtle meanings involved or complicated, nuanced interpretation; could such a statement be made or is it found in the suttas?
Please provide sutta references.
Did the Buddha ever state flatly...
Did the Buddha ever state flatly...
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.
"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
Re: Did the Buddha ever state flatly...
AN 3.35“What do you think, prince? Is it not possible that a fever born of greed—physical or mental—might arise in that householder or householder’s son, burning him so he sleeps badly?” “Yes, sir.”
“The greed that burns that householder or householder’s son, making them sleep badly, has been cut off at the root by the Realized One, made like a palm stump, exterminated, and unable to arise in the future. That’s why I sleep well.
What do you think, prince? Is it not possible that a fever born of hate … or a fever born of delusion—physical or mental—might arise in that householder or householder’s son, burning him so he sleeps badly?” “Yes, sir.”
“The delusion that burns that householder or householder’s son, making them sleep badly, has been cut off at the root by the Realized One, made like a palm stump, exterminated, and unable to arise in the future. That’s why I sleep well.”
https://suttacentral.net/an3.35/en/sujato
With regard to whether the Buddha had desire for anything (as opposed to specifically harmful things) there is this:
https://suttacentral.net/an4.23/en/sujatoIn this world—with its gods, Māras and Brahmās, this generation with its ascetics and brahmins, gods and humans—the Realized One is the undefeated, the champion, the universal seer, the wielder of power. That’s why he’s called the ‘Realized One’.
Directly knowing the whole world as it is,
and everything in it,
he is detached from the whole world,
disengaged from the whole world.
Re: Did the Buddha ever state flatly...
Thank you! So does this mean he had no desires or aversions at all? Or just didn't have negative ones?Sam Vara wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 10:00 pmAN 3.35“What do you think, prince? Is it not possible that a fever born of greed—physical or mental—might arise in that householder or householder’s son, burning him so he sleeps badly?” “Yes, sir.”
“The greed that burns that householder or householder’s son, making them sleep badly, has been cut off at the root by the Realized One, made like a palm stump, exterminated, and unable to arise in the future. That’s why I sleep well.
What do you think, prince? Is it not possible that a fever born of hate … or a fever born of delusion—physical or mental—might arise in that householder or householder’s son, burning him so he sleeps badly?” “Yes, sir.”
“The delusion that burns that householder or householder’s son, making them sleep badly, has been cut off at the root by the Realized One, made like a palm stump, exterminated, and unable to arise in the future. That’s why I sleep well.”
https://suttacentral.net/an3.35/en/sujato
For example if he saw someone who needed instruction on how to suffer less would he desire to help them? Would he feel aversion toward their suffering or to the idea of not helping them?
Or was he totally free from grasping and aversion to the point that he would feel neither for this person and would help them for some other reason?
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.
"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
Re: Did the Buddha ever state flatly...
Have a look at the last bit of my post. Apologies: I was editing it to add that bit in but our posts crossed! It appears his desirelessness was universal.zan wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 10:16 pm Thank you! So does this mean he had no desires or aversions at all? Or just didn't have negative ones?
For example if he saw someone who needed instruction on how to suffer less would he desire to help them? Would he feel aversion toward their suffering or to the idea of not helping them?
Or was he totally free from grasping and aversion to the point that he would feel neither for this person and would help them for some other reason?
Whether the motivating factor for helping suffering beings is called desire or something more elevated like "compassion" is perhaps just a matter of semantics, but there may be a real difference. I'm afraid that attempting to answer that is above my pay grade!
Re: Did the Buddha ever state flatly...
Fascinating thank you!Sam Vara wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 10:23 pmHave a look at the last bit of my post. Apologies: I was editing it to add that bit in but our posts crossed! It appears his desirelessness was universal.zan wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 10:16 pm Thank you! So does this mean he had no desires or aversions at all? Or just didn't have negative ones?
For example if he saw someone who needed instruction on how to suffer less would he desire to help them? Would he feel aversion toward their suffering or to the idea of not helping them?
Or was he totally free from grasping and aversion to the point that he would feel neither for this person and would help them for some other reason?
Whether the motivating factor for helping suffering beings is called desire or something more elevated like "compassion" is perhaps just a matter of semantics, but there may be a real difference. I'm afraid that attempting to answer that is above my pay grade!
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.
"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
- Polar Bear
- Posts: 1348
- Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:39 am
Re: Did the Buddha ever state flatly...
He obviously retained a mild preference for drinking water, eating food, urinating and defecating, meditating, teaching as opposed to dying of dehydration, starvation, bladder or intestinal explosion, not meditating and not teaching.
The Jains for example would go all the way to total abandonment by practicing asceticism for many years, restricting their food intake until eventually they would stop drinking and eating all together and sit in one place until they died. The Buddha did not recommend this.
The Jains for example would go all the way to total abandonment by practicing asceticism for many years, restricting their food intake until eventually they would stop drinking and eating all together and sit in one place until they died. The Buddha did not recommend this.
"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."
"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."
"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."
Re: Did the Buddha ever state flatly...
Interesting points. How do the suttas reconcile this with the above statements? Perhaps it is implied that the function of a Buddha or arahant simply is to teach, eat, drink, etc. And that these things are wholly unconnected to desire/preference/like/want or aversion/dislike? Rather like a flame gives light but does not desire to allow a book to be read nor feel aversion for people not being able to see it's light.Polar Bear wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 10:40 pm He obviously retained a mild preference for drinking water, eating food, urinating and defecating, meditating, teaching as opposed to dying of dehydration, starvation, bladder or intestinal explosion, not meditating and not teaching.
The Jains for example would go all the way to total abandonment by practicing asceticism for many years, restricting their food intake until eventually they would stop drinking and eating all together and sit in one place until they died. The Buddha did not recommend this.
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.
"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
Re: Did the Buddha ever state flatly...
Without the skilful desire which is central to right effort and the ardency that is repeatedly mentioned in the Satipatthana sutta, it would be impossible to develop the path:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Re: Did the Buddha ever state flatly...
Naturally, but what about after the path is fully realized? The above statements make it unequicovally clear that the Buddha had no desire or aversion and was wholly detached from the world. So after that, what reasoning is given to do the things in polar bear's post?paul wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:38 pm Without the skilful desire which is central to right effort and the ardency that is repeatedly mentioned in the Satipatthana sutta, it would be impossible to develop the path:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Again I believe it is just what Buddhas and arahants do. No desire or aversion, just a natural function like a candle gives light.
Saying he had desire, skillful or otherwise, contradicts the above sutta quotes.
However I'm curious as to where or how this is explained in the suttas.
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.
"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Did the Buddha ever state flatly...
Greetings Zan,
I had a quick look, but can't find it. I'll take another look but if anyone knows the sutta in question do please feel free to share.
Metta,
Paul.
Somewhere in the suttas there's a simile given about walking to the other side of the park, to demonstrate the difference between skilful and unskillful desire or intention.
I had a quick look, but can't find it. I'll take another look but if anyone knows the sutta in question do please feel free to share.
Metta,
Paul.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
- Polar Bear
- Posts: 1348
- Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:39 am
Re: Did the Buddha ever state flatly...
I’m not aware that they do. There are similar things too, like some suttas where the Buddha says he delights in seclusion and others where he says you shouldn’t delight in anything. I just chalk it up to language being a bit messy and that it’s okay to be a little loosely goosey when describing psychological states.
"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."
"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."
"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."
Re: Did the Buddha ever state flatly...
When you refer to the "above statements" I assume that you are referring to:zan wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:45 pmNaturally, but what about after the path is fully realized? The above statements make it unequicovally clear that the Buddha had no desire or aversion and was wholly detached from the world.paul wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:38 pm Without the skilful desire which is central to right effort and the ardency that is repeatedly mentioned in the Satipatthana sutta, it would be impossible to develop the path:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
“What do you think, prince? Is it not possible that a fever born of greed—physical or mental—might arise in that householder or householder’s son, burning him so he sleeps badly?” “Yes, sir.”
“The greed that burns that householder or householder’s son, making them sleep badly, has been cut off at the root by the Realized One, made like a palm stump, exterminated, and unable to arise in the future. That’s why I sleep well.
What do you think, prince? Is it not possible that a fever born of hate … or a fever born of delusion—physical or mental—might arise in that householder or householder’s son, burning him so he sleeps badly?” “Yes, sir.”
“The delusion that burns that householder or householder’s son, making them sleep badly, has been cut off at the root by the Realized One, made like a palm stump, exterminated, and unable to arise in the future. That’s why I sleep well.”
I think that a careful reading shows that this indicates that the buddha has cut off greed and cut off delusion......it does not seem to support your assertion that "the Buddha had no desire or aversion and was wholly detached from the world."
Perhaps more importantly, the buddha taught how WE as unawakened beings can enter onto the path towards awakening......he doesn't seem to say much about his condition which I think is an indication that it is not important for US to enter onto the path towards awakening (which I think is all that the buddha taught).
chownah
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12879
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: Did the Buddha ever state flatly...
That and when I asked if that maybe was pointing only to certain types of desire or aversion sam vera was already posting this:chownah wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 2:33 amWhen you refer to the "above statements" I assume that you are referring to:zan wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:45 pmNaturally, but what about after the path is fully realized? The above statements make it unequicovally clear that the Buddha had no desire or aversion and was wholly detached from the world.paul wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:38 pm Without the skilful desire which is central to right effort and the ardency that is repeatedly mentioned in the Satipatthana sutta, it would be impossible to develop the path:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html“What do you think, prince? Is it not possible that a fever born of greed—physical or mental—might arise in that householder or householder’s son, burning him so he sleeps badly?” “Yes, sir.”
“The greed that burns that householder or householder’s son, making them sleep badly, has been cut off at the root by the Realized One, made like a palm stump, exterminated, and unable to arise in the future. That’s why I sleep well.
What do you think, prince? Is it not possible that a fever born of hate … or a fever born of delusion—physical or mental—might arise in that householder or householder’s son, burning him so he sleeps badly?” “Yes, sir.”
“The delusion that burns that householder or householder’s son, making them sleep badly, has been cut off at the root by the Realized One, made like a palm stump, exterminated, and unable to arise in the future. That’s why I sleep well.”
I think that a careful reading shows that this indicates that the buddha has cut off greed and cut off delusion......it does not seem to support your assertion that "the Buddha had no desire or aversion and was wholly detached from the world."
Perhaps more importantly, the buddha taught how WE as unawakened beings can enter onto the path towards awakening......he doesn't seem to say much about his condition which I think is an indication that it is not important for US to enter onto the path towards awakening (which I think is all that the buddha taught).
chownah
So that is not my assertion but rather is a flat, unambiguous statement: he is detached... disengaged from the whole world. I fail to see how someone could be disengaged and detached from the whole world but still have any desire or aversion whatsoever.In this world—with its gods, Māras and Brahmās, this generation with its ascetics and brahmins, gods and humans—the Realized One is the undefeated, the champion, the universal seer, the wielder of power. That’s why he’s called the ‘Realized One’.
Directly knowing the whole world as it is,
and everything in it,
he is detached from the whole world,
disengaged from the whole world.
I think he was as perfect as these statements demand he be seen as: desireless and without aversion. There are doubtless many other suttas that speak of him in ways that make it extremely difficult or even impossible to argue that he had desires or aversions. And there are surely suttas that seem to imply that he did have desire and aversion.
However, it seems easier to find unambiguous statements about him having absolutely no desire or aversion than it is to find ones that are as unambiguous that state the opposite.
For example: "detached from the whole world"
Statements like this are common and varied in language enough that we can assume it was meant as such because it is said in many different ways with different words used.
You are unlikely to find "has great desire to help the whole world."
Or
"has deep aversion toward incorrect understanding of the Dhamma and beings suffering."
Or something similar.
The canon does not make firm, sweeping statements that clearly state such things about him having desire or aversion but does frequently go in the opposite direction.
I think a Perfect One does not have these qualities and helps people because it is simply the way they are.
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.
"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
Re: Did the Buddha ever state flatly...
Thank you. Is it as direct about the Buddha as the many firm statements that seem to clearly state that The Buddha had no desire whatsoever? Like does it specify that the Buddha specifically had skillful desire. If so, are there any suttas that clarify how he both had desire but also was detached and disengaged from the whole world?retrofuturist wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 12:35 am Greetings Zan,
Somewhere in the suttas there's a simile given about walking to the other side of the park, to demonstrate the difference between skilful and unskillful desire or intention.
I had a quick look, but can't find it. I'll take another look but if anyone knows the sutta in question do please feel free to share.
Metta,
Paul.
I see no reason why he couldn't be totally free of desire and aversion and still teach others to use skillful desire to achieve enlightenment and become free from even skillful desire as well but I do not have enough knowledge of the suttas to be certain.
SN 51.15 has Ananda addressing this very problem: how does one get rid of desire using desire? A person thinks this is impossible but Ananda explains that once you reach the goal the desire that got you there is gone, having been fulfilled. This seems to imply, again, that once one reaches arahantship, they will no longer have desire, and, specifically, it implies that even skillful desire used to walk the path will cease.
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.
"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa