Love and Fear

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Love and Fear

Post by binocular »

retrofuturist wrote:Kusala (love?) based ones are defined by the abstenttion of these akusala kammas.
Reference, please?
/.../
When this was said, the Blessed One said to Pañcakanga: "In that case, carpenter, then according to Uggahamana's words a stupid baby boy, lying on its back, is consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest attainments. For even the thought 'body' does not occur to a stupid baby boy lying on its back, so from where would it do any evil action with its body, aside from a little kicking? Even the thought 'speech' does not occur to it, so from where would it speak any evil speech, aside from a little crying? Even the thought 'resolve' does not occur to it, so from where would it resolve on any evil resolve, aside from a little bad temper? Even the thought 'livelihood' does not occur to it, so from where would it maintain itself with any evil means of livelihood, aside from its mother's milk? So, according to Uggahamana's words, a stupid baby boy, lying on its back is consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest attainments.

"If an individual is endowed with these four qualities, I do not describe him as consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest attainments. Rather, he stands on the same level as a stupid baby boy lying on its back. Which four? There is the case where he does no evil action with his body, speaks no evil speech, resolves on no evil resolve, and maintains himself with no evil means of livelihood. If an individual is endowed with these four qualities, I do not describe him as consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest attainments. Rather, he stands on the same level as a stupid baby boy lying on its back.
/.../
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
retrofuturist wrote:Either that, or your defining of love and fear may be too narrow to accommodate the comparison I'm making.
But why are you making that comparison? What do you try to accomplish by making it?

Are you just exploring possibilites, or is there more to it?
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Love and Fear

Post by daverupa »

retrofuturist wrote:... (fear-based?)...(love?)
Eh, there needs to be a better reason to use these terms I think; a direct translation of a/kusala is inaccurate when done this way, and otherwise I wonder about what sorts of connotations are getting snuck in through the back...
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17190
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Love and Fear

Post by DNS »

Dan74 wrote: Image
Only 2? What about uppekha?

Pure love being completely kusala may be only metta and mudita. Is it possible with the relationship type of rāga, sexual-love relationship? I don't know; I know it is allowed for lay people (obviously) to have relations, but is it pure love? The term for the relations 'rāga' also means lust and greed.

Can a spouse or partner truly be free of all jealousy and possessiveness? What if the other partner strays?
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Love and Fear

Post by binocular »

daverupa wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:... (fear-based?)...(love?)
Eh, there needs to be a better reason to use these terms I think; a direct translation of a/kusala is inaccurate when done this way, and otherwise I wonder about what sorts of connotations are getting snuck in through the back...
Yes, "kusala" and "akusala" just don't have much drama in them - unlike "love" and "fear". And everybody likes good drama! Had Shakespeare written about "kusala" and "akusala," 'good' and 'evil', 'skillful' and 'unskillful', he'd be long buried under the dust of history that thickly covers all great moralists.

:alien:
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Love and Fear

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings David,
David N. Snyder wrote:Only 2? What about uppekha?
By my reckoning uppekha is an act of acceptance, thus an act of love.
David N. Snyder wrote:Is it possible with the relationship type of rāga, sexual-love relationship? I don't know; I know it is allowed for lay people (obviously) to have relations, but is it pure love? The term for the relations 'rāga' also means lust and greed.
Greed would be fear (i.e. fear of not having).... lust could probably still afford to be broken down further into its constitutent components.
David N. Snyder wrote:Can a spouse or partner truly be free of all jealousy and possessiveness? What if the other partner strays?
Good question. What would be kusala and akusala in that circumstance?

Metta,
Retro. :)
"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."
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Love and Fear

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
binocular wrote:But why are you making that comparison? What do you try to accomplish by making it?

Are you just exploring possibilites, or is there more to it?
Now that I think about it further, I guess some of the underlying impetus behind this topic is that many Dhamma teachings seem to be about "fighting defilements" or patiently observing them, rather than eliminating them by substituting them with their opposite qualities or breaking bad habits through substitution (which is normally how you would break a bad habit).

So instead of being anti-badness, why not cultivate goodness? Instead of obsessing over the unskilful, cultivate the skilful. Instead of fearing fear, why not embrace love?.... if one casts out the other, aren't we missing a trick by obsessively watching and fighting negative traits, rather than mindfully transforming those imperfect traits through cultivating their positive opposites? Why not take the most direct path to breaking these tendencies/defilements etc.? i.e. flush them out with their positive opposite.

:?:

Metta,
Retro. :)
"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."
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4529
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Love and Fear

Post by Dan74 »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

Now that I think about it further, I guess some of the underlying impetus behind this topic is that many Dhamma teachings seem to be about "fighting defilements", rather than eliminating them by substituting them with their opposite qualities or breaking bad habits through substitution (which is normally how you would break a bad habit).

So instead of being anti-badness, why not cultivate goodness? Instead of obsessing over the unskilful, cultivate the skilful. Instead of fearing fear, why not embrace love?.... if one casts out the other, aren't we missing a trick by obsessively watching and fighting negative traits, rather than mindfully transforming those imperfect traits through cultivating their positive opposites? Why not take the most direct path?

:?:

Metta,
Retro. :)
To me this sounds like a much more joyful and fruitful practice than the futile and sad 'whack-a-mole' exercise. And I suspect that this is in fact how the vast majority of practitioners do practice. That said, noticing defilements as they arise is very important too.
Last edited by Dan74 on Tue Mar 18, 2014 10:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_/|\_
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Love and Fear

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Dan,
Dan74 wrote:That said, noticing defilements as they arise is very important too.
Agreed. It's the impetus behind the conscious choice to choose something better. To not be mindful would be to rob oneself of the opportunity of doing that...

Metta,
Retro. :)
"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."
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17190
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Love and Fear

Post by DNS »

retrofuturist wrote:
David N. Snyder wrote:Can a spouse or partner truly be free of all jealousy and possessiveness? What if the other partner strays?
Good question. What would be kusala and akusala in that circumstance?
Kusala would be to free of all jealousy and possessiveness, regardless. But in any [rāga]relationship, monogamy or otherwise, there is bound to be at least an implicit 'you're mine' thinking. Sure there may be trust, a contract, separate trips, some separate friends, but there is still that implicit 'mine' thinking that seems to only invoke the akusala in any intimate relationship.
edit:
Not to say that I am down on all intimate relationships, just that they can be works in progress toward the more wholesome metta and mudita where the partners can be best friends and kalyana-mittas too.
retrofuturist wrote: So instead of being anti-badness, why not cultivate goodness? Instead of obsessing over the unskilful, cultivate the skilful. Instead of fearing fear, why not embrace love?.... if one casts out the other, aren't we missing a trick by obsessively watching and fighting negative traits, rather than mindfully transforming those imperfect traits through cultivating their positive opposites? Why not take the most direct path to breaking these tendencies/defilements etc.? i.e. flush them out with their positive opposite.
:thumbsup:
culaavuso
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:27 pm

Re: Love and Fear

Post by culaavuso »

retrofuturist wrote: So instead of being anti-badness, why not cultivate goodness?
The suttas seem to suggest doing both depending on what the circumstances require. Anti-badness is the first two of the four components of right effort, while cultivating goodness is the second two.
SN 45.8: Magga-vibhanga Sutta wrote: 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
Similarly there are fermentations to be abandoned by destroying and fermentations to be abandoned by developing.
MN 2: Sabbasava Sutta wrote: And what are the fermentations to be abandoned by destroying? There is the case where a monk, reflecting appropriately, does not tolerate an arisen thought of sensuality. He abandons it, dispels it, & wipes it out of existence.
...
And what are the fermentations to be abandoned by developing? There is the case where a monk, reflecting appropriately, develops mindfulness as a factor for Awakening dependent on seclusion
...
When a monk's fermentations that should be abandoned by seeing have been abandoned by seeing, his fermentations that should be abandoned by restraining have been abandoned by restraining, his fermentations that should be abandoned by using have been abandoned by using, his fermentations that should be abandoned by tolerating have been abandoned by tolerating, his fermentations that should be abandoned by avoiding have been abandoned by avoiding, his fermentations that should be abandoned by dispelling have been abandoned by dispelling, his fermentations that should be abandoned by developing have been abandoned by developing, then he is called a monk who dwells restrained with the restraint of all the fermentations. He has severed craving, thrown off the fetters, and — through the right penetration of conceit — has made an end of suffering & stress.
Similarly replacing an unskillful thought with a skillful one is the first of the five methods of relaxing thoughts. It's interesting to note that MN 20 specifically mentions the other four approaches as something to do when the first approach of replacing unskillful with skillful doesn't work.
MN 20: Vitakkasanthana Sutta wrote: There is the case where evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — arise in a monk while he is referring to and attending to a particular theme. He should attend to another theme, apart from that one, connected with what is skillful. When he is attending to this other theme, apart from that one, connected with what is skillful, then those evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — are abandoned and subside.
...
If evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is attending to this other theme, connected with what is skillful, he should scrutinize the drawbacks of those thoughts
...
retrofuturist wrote: Instead of obsessing over the unskilful, cultivate the skilful. Instead of fearing fear, why not embrace love?
Fearing fear seems to be a self-defeating strategy.
retrofuturist wrote: Why not take the most direct path to breaking these tendencies/defilements etc.? i.e. flush them out with their positive opposite.
When this works, it's a great approach. The fact that this is often a very useful approach is perhaps why it's the first suggested technique in MN 20. When this isn't sufficient on its own, however, it seems beneficial to have other tools in the tool box.
Last edited by culaavuso on Tue Mar 18, 2014 11:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4529
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Love and Fear

Post by Dan74 »

Dhammapada wrote:To avoid all evil, to cultivate good, and to purify one's mind—this is the teaching of the Buddhas
_/|\_
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Love and Fear

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings culaavaso,

Thanks for the excellent quotations. I'd like to specifically call these out....

- 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. (SN 45.8)
- He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen. (SN 45.8)
- And what are the fermentations to be abandoned by destroying? There is the case where a monk, reflecting appropriately, does not tolerate an arisen thought of sensuality. He abandons it, dispels it, & wipes it out of existence (MN 2)

.... and personally, I see no reason why the cultivation of kusala (or "love", defined as per the original post) isn't the best way to achieve what is bolded above. As you allude to, MN 20 suggests it's the first (and therefore best) place to start.
culaavaso wrote:Fearing fear seems to be a self-defeating strategy.
Indeed it is, as anyone who has experienced (or tried to support someone suffering from) anxiety knows all too well.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"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."
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Love and Fear

Post by binocular »

retrofuturist wrote:Now that I think about it further, I guess some of the underlying impetus behind this topic is that many Dhamma teachings seem to be about "fighting defilements" or patiently observing them,
Which Dhamma teachings? Some popular ones?
rather than eliminating them by substituting them with their opposite qualities or breaking bad habits through substitution (which is normally how you would break a bad habit).
Which requires a very definitive morality, faith in the Buddha's teachings, commitment to them - which makes such an approach very specific, and which would explain why it may not be all that popular among those who want to appear politically correct and not "fanatic Buddhists."
So instead of being anti-badness, why not cultivate goodness?
There is even the soundbite "Abandon the bad/evil, develop the good."
Culaavuso and Dan have already provided some canonical references.

"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.'"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Translated and edited by Nyanaponika Thera & Bhikkhu Bodhi
Abandon Evil
Abandon evil, O monks! One can abandon evil, monks. If it were impossible to abandon evil, I would not aks you to do so. But as it can be done, therefore I say, "Abandon evil!"
If this abandoning of evil would bring harm and suffering, I would not ask you to abandon it. But as the abandoning of evil brings well-being and happiness, therefore I say, "Abandon evil!"

Cultivate the good, O monks! One can cultivate the good, monks. If iut were impossibleto cultivate the good, I would not ask you to do so. But as it can be done, therefore I say, "Cultivate the good!"
If this cultivation of the good would bring harm and suffering, I would not ask you to cultivate it. But as the cultivation of the good brings well-being and happiness, therefore I say, "Cultivate the good!"1
(Anguttara Nikâya2, chapter 2, vagga 2, sutta 9)
Instead of obsessing over the unskilful, cultivate the skilful. Instead of fearing fear, why not embrace love?.... if one casts out the other, aren't we missing a trick by obsessively watching and fighting negative traits, rather than mindfully transforming those imperfect traits through cultivating their positive opposites? Why not take the most direct path to breaking these tendencies/defilements etc.? i.e. flush them out with their positive opposite.
I can think of some popular teachings which suggest what you take issue with.
But the suttas take a two-pronged approach on this to begin with. The dichotomy you bring up seems spurious.
Why not take the most direct path to breaking these tendencies/defilements etc.? i.e. flush them out with their positive opposite.
On a practical note: because it doesn't always work that way.

Instead of fearing fear, why not embrace love?
Huh? This formulation strikes me extremely abstract. I have no idea how that would translate into practice.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Love and Fear

Post by binocular »

retrofuturist wrote:Now that I think about it further, I guess some of the underlying impetus behind this topic is that many Dhamma teachings seem to be about "fighting defilements" or patiently observing them, rather than eliminating them by substituting them with their opposite qualities or breaking bad habits through substitution (which is normally how you would break a bad habit).

So instead of being anti-badness, why not cultivate goodness? Instead of obsessing over the unskilful, cultivate the skilful. Instead of fearing fear, why not embrace love?.... if one casts out the other, aren't we missing a trick by obsessively watching and fighting negative traits, rather than mindfully transforming those imperfect traits through cultivating their positive opposites? Why not take the most direct path to breaking these tendencies/defilements etc.? i.e. flush them out with their positive opposite.
I've been trying to figure out where you're coming from with this (because it's really foreign to me), and it sounds like old-school fire-and-brimstone Christian background with a lot of emphasis on sin and not sinning. Some Christians themselves then turn the other way and begin to emphasize focusing on love and goodness. Which is where you got your quote from in the OP.

Secondly, it seems that the way many people approach dealing with unwanted behavior in general is to condemn it and try to stop it with brute force. "Just say No," "Just get over it," and "Just quit" are popular sentiments. I guess some people, when they come to Buddhism, bring those sentiments along with them and interpret the Dhamma accordingly.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Love and Fear

Post by Sam Vara »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
binocular wrote:But why are you making that comparison? What do you try to accomplish by making it?

Are you just exploring possibilites, or is there more to it?
Now that I think about it further, I guess some of the underlying impetus behind this topic is that many Dhamma teachings seem to be about "fighting defilements" or patiently observing them, rather than eliminating them by substituting them with their opposite qualities or breaking bad habits through substitution (which is normally how you would break a bad habit).

So instead of being anti-badness, why not cultivate goodness? Instead of obsessing over the unskilful, cultivate the skilful. Instead of fearing fear, why not embrace love?.... if one casts out the other, aren't we missing a trick by obsessively watching and fighting negative traits, rather than mindfully transforming those imperfect traits through cultivating their positive opposites? Why not take the most direct path to breaking these tendencies/defilements etc.? i.e. flush them out with their positive opposite.

:?:

Metta,
Retro. :)
You mean like this?
In the teaching of the Buddha the emphasis is on the cultivation
of good states. There’s nothing so surprising about that,
but we may still miss a vital point: we can conceive that the
practice is about getting rid of bad states when the cultivation
of good states is more fundamental. One should refrain from
picking up or acting on unwholesome states of mind, fully
cultivate the good and thus purify the mind by dispelling
residual bad habits. It’s important to acknowledge that the
Buddha’s teaching is based on the human capacity to refrain
from what is harmful and to cultivate that is good: on Original
Purity rather than Original Sinfulness. It’s only through reference
to that fundamental goodness (which we get drawn away
from through ignorance) that one can cultivate the good and
clean out the bad. We can’t clear out negative pyschological
or emotional habits through feeling negative about ourselves;
that doesn’t provide the will or capacity to dispel bad mental
habits. A more positive infl uence is required. And for that,
there has to be the presence of goodness, to give confi dence
and positive energy in relating to what is negative.
For example one should consider that spite or pride is
unworthy of oneself rather than an honest appraisal of ‘how I
really am.’ Otherwise, there is no dispelling of darkness from
the mind; when one comes across it, one just obsesses with it,
worries, punishes oneself or tries to distract or deny. These
reactions are also negative, even depressing, so their overall
effect is to increase the weight of negativity. Then negativity
can saturate the body, and people even become physically ill
with things like doubt, depression, worry or guilt. The subtle
body energy is affected by negative mind states; it dwindles
and the aspiration that should carry us along goes fl at.
From Ajahn Sucitto's book Kalyano. I hear him saying stuff like this most weeks, and so your point seems very well founded to me.
Post Reply