So i have heard. At one time the Buddha was staying in the land of the Sakyans, near Kapilavatthu in the Banyan Tree Monastery. Then Mahānāma the Sakyan went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one side, and said to him: “For a long time, sir, I have understood your teaching like this: ‘Greed, hate, and delusion are corruptions of the mind.’ Despite understanding this, sometimes my mind is occupied by thoughts of greed, hate, and delusion. I wonder what qualities remain in me that I have such thoughts?”
“Mahānāma, there is a quality that remains in you that makes you have such thoughts. For if you had given up that quality you would not still be living at home and enjoying sensual pleasures. But because you haven’t given up that quality you are still living at home and enjoying sensual pleasures.
Sensual pleasures give little gratification and much suffering and distress, and they are all the more full of drawbacks. Even though a noble disciple has clearly seen this with right wisdom, so long as they don’t achieve the rapture and bliss that are apart from sensual pleasures and unskillful qualities, or something even more peaceful than that, they might still return to sensual pleasures. But when they do achieve that rapture and bliss, or something more peaceful than that, they will not return to sensual pleasures.
…
If there’s a general principle here, it might be that people care about about sensual pleasures because they don’t have something better (like the jhanas). On the flip side, once you do have a better spiritual pleasure, you don’t care about sensual pleasure anymore.
IMO it does seem possible and reasonable given that there is such a thing as jhanas which can provide a superior form of pleasure and that can be attained. However, if one attains it one would probably be more likely to cut worldly ties and join a monastery.
Which comes first though, cutting worldly ties or jhanas? Kind of a chicken-and-egg scenario perhaps?
Crave: “To have an intense desire for; To need urgently; To beg earnestly for; implore.”
Desire: “To wish or long for; want; To express a wish for.”
Enjoy: “To receive pleasure or satisfaction from.”
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language third edition, 1992.
Clearly, to crave, to desire, and to enjoy are three distinct concepts. One can give up craving without giving up desire. One can give up desire without giving up enjoyment. Monks are required by precept to give up sexual enjoyment. Laypeople are merely advised to let go of craving since it is craving, not enjoyment, which leads to suffering.
The more they indulge in sensual pleasures, the more their craving for sensual pleasures grows, and the more they burn with passion for sensual pleasures. MN75
So just by indulging in sensual pleasures craving grows.
Thanks for saying this-- it was my thought too when I read this discussion. It is possible, and done in Asia not uncommonly-- but in the west with our patently unhealthy relationship to sexuality, celibacy is considered strange, even by “Buddhists”.
Craving seems to be a stronger version of wanting, making them not distinct. So you’re looking perhaps two distinct constructs (enjoying and wanting/craving).
Also, I don’t see a strong reason to assume that modern English linguistic concepts and ~2500 year old Pali concepts match up perfectly. Just because ‘craving’ is used as a translation for ‘tanha’, doesn’t mean that the two words refer to exactly the same thing. ‘Tanha’ could capture both craving and wanting, or not, that’s for the experts to argue about. This is true for other languages as well (like English to French, Finnish to Japanese, etc.).
And even if there are distinct concepts, that doesn’t in itself imply that one can be given up and not the other. Just because something is distinct, doesn’t mean that they’re not related or connected to each other.
Sorry for nitpicking so much on your post; there is this interesting interplay between translation of the EBTs and interpreting the concepts in the EBTs, that I think it’s worthwhile to bring up now and again. Be well!
I recommend carefulness with generalizations like this. There is a great deal of diversity in the West and in the East regarding views of sexuality; some seem evidently harmful, some unhealthy, and some not so much harmful or unhealthy. Additionally, behaviors involved in sexuality in both the West and East are diverse, difficult to use as evidence of “healthy” or “unhealthy”. In both regions, there continues to be sexual violence, exploitation, interpersonal confusion, grief, suffering. To reduce this suffering, i do not think labels as western or eastern help!
To bring this a bit back to the OP: can a lay follower eliminate or reduce cravings by disciplining behavior of thought, body, and speech? It seems the EBTs advise, yes. And th is seems to be applicable to lay and monastic.
Bad things happen everywhere and obviously there is a diversity of experiences within the human condition. That doesn’t mean our culture isn’t more toxic in its’ relationship to sensual desire than most. Nothing wrong with being able to admit where we are unhealthy.
yes, but attributing one’s (or another’s) behavior to culture might not support sila, insight, or tranquillity; and those three require imo diligence in what mental habits are cultivated.
“Us” and “them” may be toxic and persistent pernicious concepts in which to indulge, in my experience. Complacency might be nourished. Perhaps a difference between complacency and real tranquility is eradication of the three poisons…?
How could a man to sensual desires stoop
who pain has seen and that where from it sources?
who knows, they make for clinging in the world
should mindful train in guiding them away.
Extract from DN 16: “The nun Nandā had ended the five lower fetters. The laymen Kakkaṭa, Kaḷibha, Nikata, Kaṭissaha, Tuṭṭha, Santuṭṭha, Bhadda, and and Subhadda had ended the five lower fetters. They’ve been reborn spontaneously, and will be extinguished there, not liable to return from that world. Over fifty laymen in Nādika have passed away having ended the five lower fetters. They’ve been reborn spontaneously, and will be extinguished there, not liable to return from that world.”
So yes lay people can eliminate sensual desire and ill-will.
In the Majjhima Nikaya published by Wisdom Publications, I found a footnote from Bhikkhu Bodhi for MN 68 that reinforces this point.
It should be noted that whereas the declarations of attainment made by monks and nuns begin with arahantship, those for men and women lay followers begin with non-returning. Though early Buddhism recognises the possibility of lay persons attaining arahantship, in all such cases attested to in the Nikayas, they do so either when on the verge of death or just before requesting admission into the Sangha.
Now, I think by ‘relationship’ you mean a ‘sexual relationship’. It is common to use ‘relationship’ in that way, but it devalues non-sexual relationships as not (‘real’) relationships.
What I believe are the Hinduised Four Noble Truths, which can be found in the Early Buddhist Texts are:
Life is suffering
Desire/Thirst is the cause
End the cause to end the result
The Noble Eightfold Path is the only path to the end the cause.
Thus all desire is sought to be eradicated.
What I believe are the original Four Noble Truths, also found in the EBTs are:
Life with clinging is suffering
Ignorance is the cause
End the cause to end the result
The Path to the end the cause is taught in many different ways, with fewer than 8 to more than 8 steps: 1 step: ‘strive on with diligence’ (Buddha’s last words); 2 steps: develop calm and insight; 3 steps: develop ethics, meditation and wisdom and so on…
The Buddha is recorded to have said, he does not teach to stop all action, only to stop unwholesome action and out of metal, verbal and bodily action, he gives precedence to mental action, such as desire. Therefore it is not all desire that has to be stopped, only unwholesome desire. So ignorance is the cause, because we don’t know this and we try/think we have to stop all desire and thus create suffering for ourselves.
I don’t think there is a way to satisfy one’s partner and one’s boss without desire, but that it can be done without unwholesome desire.
another point though: as I understand, satisfaction in anyone, or happiness in anyone, is primarily their own responsibility and if one is caught in unwholesome desire, one will not find that satisfaction or happiness. One could be a perfect partner or employee, but the other person not see it, due to their suffering.
Of course, when it comes to social relationships, delivering a service to others, if the receiver is person focussed (for a boss: people are our greatest asset) and they know we are not in control of circumstances, but can only influence them, I think they would feel satisfied knowing the service deliverer has done their best, even though the goal wasn’t achieved.
