In theory, many ways of meditation have been given to stop cravings and aversion.

What about practical life?
During day to day life, it has often been seen and experienced as well that, "we tend to lean towards comfortablity", whether it be of body or brain.

Let's take a basic example: one living in a rented house tend to go for a own-home(whenever possible).... even monks of modern era tend to go for own-kuti/monastery. For this one needs money. Reason being given is, "i feel more freedom inside my own-home instead of rented one".

Another eg. : Using technologies, more resources for making life easy-going. Resaon being given as: we have less headaches, more respect, easy-flow of society.

Even if i properly give time to analyze, realize, etc. bhlabhla, stay disconnected to this modernized life, there is definitely no need for me to ask this question!

If one doesn't go for maintaining status, using hi-fi techs, spending money(either for dana purpose or for anything else..), ........ It's more likely to be 99.99% that such person would be physically and mentally behind from others.

One simple solution came is:: live like a bpl(below poverty line) person but this will definitely decrease morale and enthusiasm of nearby-ones, decreasing their chances of learning dhamma.

(If possible, kindly don't include advice for meditation to a freak and too-ignorants)

i am more concerned into balancing the life(middle path for householders) such that both nearby ones and me can have less possible crave, more possible dhamma!


Maybe, this answer is somewhat talking about balance in last 3 paragraphs. But it is also saying to re-engage in earning money to get approval of others.....getting approval is ok but how would money change someone's behaviour, confusing to me?

  • In Canada the "poverty line" is defined as "almost all income is spent on necessities -- e.g. shelter, food, clothing, daily travel, plus e.g. telephone and toilet paper, and school supplies" -- which (i.e. being able to buy necessities) I find is comfortable. When you write, this will definitely decrease morale and enthusiasm of nearby-ones, I guess you're probably referring to family -- e.g. your wife or husband and children.
    – ChrisW
    Feb 12, 2020 at 9:55
  • A "good answer" is said to be based on something: a reference to scripture or personal experience. If I tried to answer this only based on personal experience then I worry that the answer wouldn't be Buddhist enough. What is it about this question that makes it Buddhist -- what about its answers which only a Buddhist could answer? Because a lot of non-Buddhist families too have arguments or different goals, different attitudes to money and spending -- why couldn't you equally ask this question on a non-Buddhist site for relationship advice?
    – ChrisW
    Feb 12, 2020 at 12:15
  • I don't want to be unwelcoming of the question -- I'm trying to figure out what you're asking or how to answer -- but from an explicitly Buddhist perspective? And some standard answer from scripture like "choose a partner with goals and attitudes to money which are like yours" -- e.g. here -- might be Buddhist but not especially helpful to your situation.
    – ChrisW
    Feb 12, 2020 at 12:21
  • You mentioned "nearby ones" twice in the question and again in your comment to OyaMist's answer. From that I get the impression that their feelings -- and your relationship[s] with them -- is central or important to the question, and/or to whatever personal problem or uncertainty you might be asking about. If it's "not about anyone's partner or relationship" then I'm not sure what it is about -- if it is "family" but is not "partner", is it a question about your relationship with your parents then, and their morale?
    – ChrisW
    Feb 12, 2020 at 17:25
  • 1
    Question has been edited in such a way that it is off topic
    – user13375
    Feb 15, 2020 at 18:50

2 Answers 2


From Mahayana perspective, your problem is self-centered (egotistic). Either when participating in society or when being BPL, in both cases your target is yourself, your concern is about yourself.

If you don't think about your own benefit, but focus on the benefit you can bring to any situation you are in, to anyone who surrounds you - then this problem does not exist. When your goal is to help others, you can either make millions / use technology, or be poor - it does not matter, what matters is that everything you do is altruistic as opposed to egoistic.

  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – ChrisW
    Feb 15, 2020 at 13:31

Dhammadinna once approached the Buddha asking about life balance and progress on the Noble Eightfold Path.

SN55.53:2.4: “Sir, we live at home with our children, using sandalwood imported from Kāsi, wearing garlands, perfumes, and makeup, and accepting gold and money. It’s not easy for us to undertake and dwell from time to time upon the discourses spoken by the Realized One that are deep, profound, transcendent, dealing with emptiness. Since we are established in the five training rules, please teach us further.”

And the Buddha answered:

SN55.53:3.1: “So, Dhammadinna, you should train like this: ‘We will have experiential confidence in the Buddha … the teaching … the Saṅgha … And we will have the ethical conduct loved by the noble ones … leading to immersion.’ That’s how you should train yourselves.”

Following the five training rules (i.e., refraining from killing living creatures, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, and drinking alcohol, which is a basis for negligence) is an important step in dealing with craving and aversion. It is important because it involves restraint. We don't steal what we want and we don't kill what we don't like. We restrain ourselves.

With restraint, craving and aversion diminish but we still suffer. So we study ethics to understand and deal with our cravings and aversions. MN8 has a long list of things to consider. For example:

MN8:12.2: ‘Others will be cruel, but here we will not be cruel.’

Yet as our body, speech and mind abide in ethical behavior, we still suffer from craving and aversion. So we study further to understand how craving and suffering arise. We might, for example, learn about dependent origination, which helps focus our restraint where it most matters.

SN12.23:4.3: I say that suffering has a vital condition. And what is it? ...

The Noble Eightfold Path ends with Right Immersion. Before that are seven other steps: Right View, Right Thought, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort and Right Mindfulness.

Note that Right Livelihood does not require us to be impoverished.

DN33:2.1.48: Firstly, an ethical person gains substantial wealth on account of diligence.

Right Livelihood requires that we give up Wrong Livelihood:

MN117:29.1: And what is wrong livelihood? Deceit, flattery, hinting, and belittling, and using material possessions to pursue other material possessions.

Living ethically is quite important. It is also not easy. Living ethically we learn and practice restraint. Practicing restraint, craving and aversion decrease along with our suffering.

Established in Right Livelihood, we can then face the rest of the Noble Eightfold Path: Right Effort, Right Mindfulness and Right Immersion. At that point we are back at meditation, which you asked to not discuss.

Regarding money and material goods, although monastics do not deal with money, householders do. So what is a householder to do with the madness of craving for more money?

Long ago, a king sent Ghaṭīkāra the potter five hundred cartloads of rice and other wonders. And what Ghaṭīkāra said is simply this.

MN81:22.6: I have enough.

Ghaṭīkāra sent the carts back to the king telling the messengers that the king worked very hard and was very busy and therefore it made more sense for the king himself to have such wealth. Ghaṭīkāra was Kassapa Buddha's chief attendant and was a non-returner.

Let others grasp at money and material wealth. Here let us have enough.

  • Ah thank you. I had misread your question. I think perhaps Ghaṭīkāra's story may be closer to what you asked. He was quite a remarkable householder.
    – OyaMist
    Feb 13, 2020 at 3:08

You must log in to answer this question.