Hatred: don't get worked up about impossibilities

The world is insufficient, insatiable. (From the 4 dhamma summaries). Especially, there is suffering for YOU around hatred and frustration if you feed and engage in it.

It is common in Buddhist circles to regard hatred as self-harming. This is true in the early texts (see Dhammapada). This is true in pop-buddhism you might find in a magazine. And true for Mahayanists and across Buddhist sects.

I recently found an amusing take on how to address hatred. It starts: "There are these ten ways of subduing hatred. Which ten?

Then it goes through having harm done now, in the past, and possibly in the future. And it says, "but what can you do?"

Then, it concludes with a flourish: [10] "One does not get worked up over impossibilities"

The impossibility (in my reading) is that you convince the other person to act differently.

--

The other person may be breaking custom, breaking a social norm, be in the wrong, motivated by a misunderstanding, malicious, or even breaking a federal law. And it may be very true that they would harm others less and harm themselves less if they didn't cause that harm. But, from the equanimity chant, that all beings are the owners of their own actions, we don't get to make choices for others. If we wish it were different, one is getting worked up about impossibilities.

This is not to dominish the harm or to say law enforcement or a polite note isn't in order. But the hating... That just harm's our own mind. It breeds a hating habit when we don't get what we want. And speaking for myself, that hatred can spread quickly and broadly. I have hated mosquitoes. I have hated business partners. I have hated students. I have hated monks. I have hated the rain.

But all those things don't change by my hatred. The rain doesn't care. And the mean neighbor isn't going to be persuaded by my hatred. So, why get worked up over impossibilities.

Part of hatred is being hurt. And that part, we can look at carefully to gain wisdom. But the part of hate that is revengeful, story-making, and full of ill-will, that part isn't very helpful.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.080.than.html

Antidotes

I keep on looking this up, so I'm gonna post it here. This is from page 100 of The Island, essays on Nibbana.

5.17) “Contemplation of unattractiveness of the body should be

cultivated for the overcoming of sexual desire; loving-kindness should be

cultivated for the overcoming of ill will; mindfulness of breathing should

be cultivated for the cutting off of discursive thinking; contemplation of

impermanence should be cultivated for the dispelling of the conceit ‘I

am’ (asmi-māna). For when one perceives impermanence, Meghiya, the

perception of not-self is established. With the perception of not-self, the

conceit ‘I am’ is eliminated, and that is Nibbāna here and now.”

~ Ud 4.1, A 9.3

5.18) “Seclusion is happiness for one content,

who knows the Dhamma, who has seen;

“Friendship with the world is happiness

for those restrained toward all beings;

“Dispassion amidst the world is happiness

for those who have let go of sense desires;

“But the end of the conceit ‘I am’ –

that’s the greatest happiness of all.”

~ Ud 2.1

True, but not helpful: The Buddha's first encounter with teaching

 Right Speech is characterized as having 3 qualities: it is true, it is beneficial, it is well timed. The first time the Buddha tried to "teach", he was truthful, but not helpful.

In Pañcavaggiyakathā (Mv.I.6.1) (https://www.dhammatalks.org/vinaya/Mv/MvI.html), the Buddha is a few weeks after his moment of full awakening. Upaka the Ājīvaka meets him on the road and asks him who his teacher is and what his teachings are."Who is your teacher? In whose Dhamma do you delight?”

When this was said, the Blessed One replied to Upaka the Ājīvaka in verses:

“All-vanquishing,
all-knowing am I,
with regard to all things,
unadhering.


All-abandoning,
released in the ending of craving:
having fully known on my own,
to whom should I point as my teacher?"

etc.

And the Buddha goes on for a bit. It's all "true", but isn't very helpful or persuasive. It directly answers the question of who the teacher is, but doesn't give any flavor of what is being taught.

How is Upaka supposed to differentiate the Buddha from another person claiming great attainments? What wisdom has the Buddha shared? None.

It continues:

Upaka: “From your claims, my friend, you deserve to be an infinite conqueror.”


Buddha: “Conquerors are those like me
who have reached fermentations’ end.
I’ve conquered evil qualities,
and so, Upaka, I’m a conqueror.”


When this was said, Upaka said, “May it be so, my friend,” and—shaking his head, taking a side-road—he left.

I bolded the "shaking his head" to emphasize that the Buddha didn't impart any knowledge. He didn't teach any Dhamma. Upaka couldn't discern the Buddha from just another mendicant hopped up on their own sense of accomplishment.

And hence, the first "teaching" was a failure. I say this with caution, because it may very well be that the Buddha wasn't actually trying to teach, so no real failure occurred. He met a traveller on the road, and then answered his questions. But, it's undeniable that based on what was said, Upaka was not persuaded. The Buddha would have had to change his tack.

I find it interesting why this story is included in the Pali Canon. The Buddha would have been the only person to know this story besides Upaka. The Buddha could have skipped this story in his telling and gone straight to his (successful) turning the wheel of dhamma with the five monks. But, I find it helpful to see the contrast. To Upaka, he seems to boast, which gets nowhere. And with the 5 monks, he points to patterns of experience which the monks could understand and know (in their bones, in their own experience). The contrast illustrates a bit that the reasoning matter a lot in the teaching. Not the stature of the teacher. In fact, in the Kalama sutta, the way to evaluate what is genuine dhamma cautions about following a teaching just because the stature of the person who said it.

For me, this is a warning to watch out for grandiosity. I feel that I need to talk less and listen more. I do have this attitude that I am smart and know a lot. That other people should listen to me. But I want to be careful so that that doesn't slow down my development. Or, worse yet, I turn into a Devadatta.

Mad Libs for the Craving Mind

For a while, I've used the phrase "if only ____, then everything would be great" as a prime example of delusion. I.e., delusion as part of the trifecta: Greed, Aversion/Anger, Delusion.

But today I found that the Buddha actually gave the formula in the suttas, AN 4:199. He gave 36 of them.

• 18 craving verbalizations, and
• 18 craving verbalizations dependent on what is external

1. I am.
2. I am here.
3. I am like this.
4. I am otherwise.
5. I am bad.
6. I am good.
7. I might be.
8. I might be here.
9. I might be like this.
10. I might be otherwise.
11. May I be.
12. May I be here.
13. May I be like this.
14. May I be otherwise.
15. I will be.
16. I will be here.
17. I will be like this.
18. I will be otherwise.

The 18 "dependent on externals" adds "because of this" to each of the above phrases.

Take the word "this" and making it a fill in the blank, we have the Buddha's mad libs for a craving mind.

• I am ___
• I am ___ because of ____.
• May I be like  ____.
• May I be like _____ because of ____.
• etc.

My brain spends so much time cycling through these 36 templates. The templates are phrased a bit archaically, but they capture the verbalization of cravings, i.e. cravings put into words. In their raw form, there are three: sensual pleasures, becoming, and non becoming. Or in casual, everyday terms, "gimme what feels good", "gimme that", and "get rid of that". 

Meditation changed a bunch when I shifted from wanting to change what I am (I want to be happier), to just looking at what Jack Kornfield has called the pasta factory of the mind, endlessly churning out thoughts like pasta. Different shapes, all made from the same craving dough.

====

SOURCE:

Reading from: https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/OnThePath/Section0008.html#sec126

 “And which craving is the ensnarer that has flowed along, spread out, and caught hold, with which this world is smothered & enveloped like a tangled skein, a knotted ball of string, like matted rushes and reeds, and does not go beyond transmigration, beyond the planes of deprivation, woe, & bad destinations? These 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is internal and 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is external.

“And which are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is internal? There being ‘I am,’ there comes to be ‘I am here,’ there comes to be ‘I am like this’ … ‘I am otherwise’ … ‘I am bad’ … ‘I am good’ … ‘I might be’ … ‘I might be here’ … ‘I might be like this’ … ‘I might be otherwise’ … ‘May I be’ … ‘May I be here’ … ‘May I be like this’ … ‘May I be otherwise’ … ‘I will be’ … ‘I will be here’ … ‘I will be like this’ … ‘I will be otherwise.’ These are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is internal.

“And which are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is external? There being ‘I am because of this [or: by means of this],’ there comes to be ‘I am here because of this,’ there comes to be ‘I am like this because of this’ … ‘I am otherwise because of this’ … ‘I am bad because of this’ … ‘I am good because of this’ … ‘I might be because of this’ … ‘I might be here because of this’ … ‘I might be like this because of this’ … ‘I might be otherwise because of this’ … ‘May I be because of this’ … ‘May I be here because of this’ … ‘May I be like this because of this’ … ‘May I be otherwise because of this’ … ‘I will be because of this’ … ‘I will be here because of this’ … ‘I will be like this because of this’ … ‘I will be otherwise because of this.’ These are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is external.

“Thus there are 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is internal and 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is external. These are called the 36 craving-verbalizations. Thus, with 36 craving-verbalizations of this sort in the past, 36 in the future, and 36 in the present, there are 108 craving-verbalizations.

“This, monks is the craving that’s the ensnarer that has flowed along, spread out, and caught hold, with which this world is smothered & enveloped like a tangled skein, a knotted ball of string, like matted rushes and reeds, and does not go beyond transmigration, beyond the planes of deprivation, woe, & bad destinations.” — AN 4:199

By Thanissaro Bhikkhu / Ajahn Geoff. As part of https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/OnThePath/Section0008.html

his free ebook: On the Path

Prince Dighavu, quarreling, and revenge

 I only recently learned about the dramatic tale of Prince Dighavu in the Buddhist canon. It tells the story of a prince, whose parents are killed by a rival king. Prince Dighavu sees his parents being mercilessly killed in the public square. His father shouts to him some cryptic words:

"Don't, my dear Dighavu, be far-sighted. Don't be near-sighted. For vengeance is not settled through vengeance. Vengeance is settled through non-vengeance."

The prince, in a wild twist of events, becomes the trusted servant of the King who killed his parents. The king doesn't know he is the prince. One day, out in the forest, he has an opportunity to avenge/revenge his parents. He pulls out a knife, but then sheaths it again.

The king awakens, dreaming that the prince is about to kill him. The prince tells the king he is the prince, but does so peaceably. The king asks for his life to be spared, and the prince responds that his life should be spared, too. Accordingly, they grant each other life and swear to each other friendship.

Later, the cryptic words of the dead father are explained by Prince Dighavu.

"What my father said to me as he was about to die — 'Don't be far-sighted' — 'Don't bear vengeance for a long time' is what he was saying to me as he was about to die. And what he said to me as he was about to die — 'Don't be near-sighted' — 'Don't be quick to break with a friend' is what he was saying to me as he was about to die. And what he said to me as he was about to die — 'For vengeance is not settled through vengeance. Vengeance is settled through non-vengeance' — My mother & father were killed by your majesty. If I were to deprive your majesty of life, those who hope for your majesty's well-being would deprive me of life. And those who hope for my well-being would deprive them of life. And in that way vengeance would not be settled by vengeance. But now I have been granted my life by your majesty, and your majesty has been granted your life by me. And in this way vengeance has been settled by non-vengeance. That is what my father was saying to me as he was about to die."

It's quite an amazing story, and one very much against the grain of what I consider to be American (and global) myth making of revenge and vengeance. The amazingness is to go the other path.

What about if the king were to kill the prince? Well, there's the Simile of the Saw sutta for that. It says, even if bandits were to hack your arms off with a two handed saw, you should not generate thoughts of ill will. Also amazing.

NOTES

The Dighavu story is also discussed in the book Recognizing the Dhamma (pdf or online version) by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

The Prince Dighavu story is related in Mahavagga 10.2 (in context) and is told as part of an incident in the Buddha's community of monks. They were quarreling and wouldn't stop. (I think the quarrel was about bathroom etiquette and following the rules.) The Buddha found out and exhorted them to stop. He tells this story. But, even after 3 times of asking them to stop, they don't. So, he decides to leave.

Then the Blessed One, (thinking,) “These worthless men are hopeless—they’re not easy to convince,” got up from his seat and left.

Seclusion is not to be underestimated. But also not to be glorified. If one can find good companions, all the better. But, for myself, I have spent a lot of time reveling about people who care more about comfort than most else. Fun, but not the noble ones. Not bad people, but not ones where I benefit from following their example. So, I'm taking my friendship in many books, many chance encounters with goodness, and my own goodness, which I've taken a lot of effort to develop further and further.

Funnily enough, a quote came up from Jane Eyre in the Netflix show Anne with an "E" that seems to fit well:

“If all the world hated you, and believed you wicked, while your own conscience approved you, and absolved you from guilt, you would not be without friends.”

I didn't notice the parallel to Buddhism the first time I heard it, but it just so happened to spark a connection recently.

With metta blessing, EC.