Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Piyavagga (question about affection)
nakazcid
Somewhere in Dixie, y'all Veteran
From Buddharakkhita's translation of the Dhammapada:
If I'm reading this correctly, the speaker is advising the listener to avoid all sorts of worldly love. From what I understand, universal compassion is the Buddhist ideal, and that one should strive to avoid attachment in our relationships. Not being enlightened, I can't say that I feel universal compassion for all living beings. However, it seems that I am being advised to 'dump' my fiancee and family and dispense with them. I do love them, and would feel some grief at letting them go, but I think I could do so if it would mean greater happiness for them. However, I think their lives are better for my presence. I believe there is something wrong with the way I'm reading this, and would appreciate clarification.210. Seek no intimacy with the beloved and also not with the unloved, for not to see the beloved and to see the unloved, both are painful. 211. Therefore hold nothing dear, for separation from the dear is painful. There are no bonds for those who have nothing beloved or unloved.
212. From endearment springs grief, from endearment springs fear. From him who is wholly free from endearment there is no grief, whence then fear?
213. From affection springs grief, from affection springs fear. From him who is wholly free from affection there is no grief, whence then fear?
0
Comments
I once met Ram Dass, who is not specifically a Buddhist, and for a while there I didn't like him. Over the years, it came into perspective. His (probably) most famous book is titled Grist For The Mill, that is, "It's all grist for the mill of enlightenment."
All I see is you may possibly be the wrong person reading it.
As Westerners & 2,600 years post Buddha, we seem to think the Buddha preached his doctrines to all beings.
The Buddha taught distinctly for householders & for monks.
If we study the suttas, we will find that Buddhist lay devotees of the Buddha's time did not even know the Four Noble Truths.
For householders, he taught suitable teachings such as the Samajivina Sutta and the Sigalovada Sutta.
The Dhammapada may be short & poetic but it is one very serious book & definitely designed with monks in mind.
Kind regards
:smilec:
this is very wrong indeed.
"to avoid" and "Seek no" is very different.
"to avoid" means to attempt to stay away from something.
"to not seek" mean to not attempt to get something.
to avoid is to control.
to not seek is to let things fall as they may.
hope this help
Indeed, context is everything. It may be helpful to read the commentary to these verses, nakazcid:
Once in Savatthi, the only son of a family first became a bhikkhu; the father followed suit and finally, the mother also became a bhikkhuni. They were so attached to one another that they rarely stayed apart. The family stayed in the monastery as if they were in their own house, talking and eating together, thus making themselves a nuisance to others. Other bhikkhus reported their behaviour to the Buddha and he called them to his presence, and said to them, "Once you have joined the Order, you should no longer stay together like a family. Not seeing those who are dear, and seeing those who are not dear to one, are both painful; so you should not hold any being or anything dear to you".
Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:
Verse 209: He who does what should not be done and fails to do what should be done, who forsakes the noble aim of life (i. e., Morality, Concentration and Insight) and grasps at sensual pleasure, covets the benefits gained by those who exert themselves (in meditation).
Verse 210: Do not associate with those who are dear, and never with those who are not dear to you; not seeing the dear ones is painful, and seeing those who are not dear to you is also painful.
Verse 211: Therefore, one should hold nothing dear; separation from the loved ones is painful; there are no fetters for those who do not love or hate.
Patbb, that is indeed an important distinction. While I did indeed seek out love, I was patient and took my time about it. I'm getting married for the first time at 41. Things look good right now, but I'm also aware that thing are subject to change, and one day one of us will leave this relationship, though perhaps it will indeed be death that separates us.
This is what is being advised. However, like somebody else mentioned, this message is directed toward the monk or somebody who is ripe for 'going-forth'. It is not suitable for everyone, and most may incur more suffering than if they did not.
I am not saying that the Buddha is wrong or right, however his view, and agenda, is to eliminate suffering once and for all.
However this reasoning leads to the conclusions:
- Inherent in life is suffering, so one should work to not be reborn again (into this world) so that he does not incur suffering.
- Also, (as you mention) one should not have affection for (hold dear) others since it is inevitable that things will change and ultimately be lost and thus incur suffering.
He does not consider happiness (and experiences most people would consider to be good or positive) to justify suffering or life.
Some say it is better to love and to lose than to never have loved - the Buddha does not concur with this.
I still question the agenda of the Buddha. After all, life is *not* all suffering.
However one must admit that he is correct in regards to the fact that if one is attached to another - that is, depends on another persons affection then that person will suffer when it changes or is lost. And certainly, all things will be lost.
There is also the view that affection is a requirement for us humans, in which case one will suffer without it and never be detached from it.
My understanding is not that the teachings disagree with a it is better to love and lose than never be loved at all attitude - rather they do not address such a view of love - unconditional love can not be lost ... we may not always get what we want, however.