Refute this idea for me
person
Don't believe everything you thinkThe liminal space Veteran
While combing the internet for a new book to read I came across this tidbit in the reviews for The Giver, soon to be released as a movie. I've studied enough about Buddhism to understand why Buddhism would refute the philosophy presented here but I'm having a hard time coming up with an 'elevator speech' that I could use to give to someone foreign to Buddhism that may bring up the idea at a dinner party or some other social situation.
This book is perhaps the best refutation that I have seen in some time of a common philosophy of pain that is sometimes found in the popular media and in some versions of Buddhism. According to this philosophy, pain is the ultimate evil, and so, to eliminate pain and suffering we must give up desire, and individuality. Self is an illusion, and leads to pain; desire and agency are dangerous, so we should give them up and join the cosmic oneness "enlightenment" to find a utopia without pain. As George Lucas unfortunately has Yoda say to Anakin, "you must give up all that you fear to lose."
And, of course, this is hogwash. Choice, agency, adversity, love, desire, and real pleasure are dangerous, they can lead to pain, but without them life has no purpose. Love could lead to the loss of that which we love, but life without love is empty. Purpose comes from choosing. Purpose comes from overcoming adversity. Yes, you could choose poorly, and that could lead to pain, choice is dangerous, but without it, life has no meaning, it is colorless. Greatness in life is found by overcoming adversity, not by the absence of adversity. Without opposition, there is nothing to overcome, and thus there may be no bad, but there is also no good, there may be no pain, but there is also no joy.
How might you defend Buddhism against someone who said something similar to you?
Comments
Why bother?
Buddhism needs no defense.
First off, "The Giver" has always been a controversial book. As a principal, I had to do a parent challenge on this book, although the challenge was about the masturbation part of the story. I read the whole book, and rather enjoyed it, but missed the masturbation segment. I guess it was very discreet.
But to get more to your question, first I'm not sure why Buddhism needs to be defended. For the most part, people will either generally accept Buddhist principles or not accept them. I think the difference, however, comes to how one deals in adversity.
Buddhism, to me, seems to want to avoid adversity through right thought, right speech, right action, and so forth.
The other point of view is to overcome adversity when it occurs.
To be honest, in real life, I think a little of both approaches is required. We can avoid a great deal of adversity if we lead the right kind of life (again, right thought, right speech, right action). But then there are things that happen to us that we have no control over. For example, a person fighting to overcome cancer. And, as I have pointed out in a number of posts recently, I don't think it has to be one approach OR the other. Both paths can help us.
Pain is normal.
Suffering is optional.
I wouldn't.
Buddhism isn't for everyone.
This book is perhaps the best refutation that I have seen in some time of a common philosophy of pain that is sometimes found in the popular media and in some versions of Buddhism. According to this philosophy, pain is the ultimate evil, and so, to eliminate pain and suffering we must give up desire, and individuality. Self is an illusion, and leads to pain; desire and agency are dangerous, so we should give them up and join the cosmic oneness "enlightenment" to find a utopia without pain. As George Lucas unfortunately has Yoda say to Anakin, "you must give up all that you fear to lose."
I'm not sure how we can refute such a mishmash of Eastern philosophy and religion. It's not Buddhism, not even "some versions" of Buddhism that I know of. The most dualistic Buddhist teaching I can think of doesn't say anything is an ultimate evil, or that we must give up our individuality. It's true that the garden variety Guru likes to mumble on about cosmic oneness and such, but that's certainly not Buddhism.
The overall point from the quote in the opening post is that struggle and pain are necessary in life and that we have to accept the good with the bad if we're going to lead a full life. To this, all I can as a Buddhist say is, "So what's the problem?" Buddhism says people suffer because they divide life into good and bad and desire to avoid the bad and cling to the good. Buddhism says we carry the seeds of our own unhappiness around with us in the form of defilements: anger and greed and lust and so on. We make ourselves unhappy because we desire what causes pain and then don't want the pain, not because life throws pain our way.
Buddhism does not claim to be able to remove all pain from your life, only show you how to rise above it. In the same way we selfishly try to eliminate what might be painful from our lives out of fear, we cling tightly to what is enjoyable. Buddhism doesn't say love is bad, only that love, like life itself, is impermanent and we must learn not to cling to what makes us happy.
But what I've just said is sensible, easy to comprehend, and nothing like the picture of Buddhism people see in most movies. Still, it's a start.
I might say that Buddhism doesn't teach pain avoidance. Suffering is first. You have to accept the truth of pain and suffering before you advance to the next level.
Desire is not given up. Attachment to desire, maybe. There are things we want but we understand that sometimes things don't work out, and we try to let it go. Karma.
Buddhism teaches facing the world and it's causes and conditions head on, with a clear mind, uncluttered by wrong views and ideas.
When you see things more clearly, life is more interesting, not less.
Straw mam [sic] argument. New age descriptions of Buddhism are often superior to this twaddled thinking. However this is a children's book, so simplistic dharma drama suitable for teeny philosophers is to be expected.
Dukkha is the common experience. We overcome it through giving up the attachment to the causes of dissatisfaction/unsatisfactoriness. Evil is a dualistic notion as is the imaginary utopia/heaven/pureland. Samsara and Nirvana are the same place.
Others in the thread have also easily corrected this ignorant, unskilful, painfully inadequate fantasy/deluded Puddhism reference.
A similar approach is explored in the film 'Equilibrium', where emotions are suppressed through avoiding art/music/literature and taking a compulsory societal super Valium (equilibrium) so that emotions are not experienced by the zombified citizens. 'Equilibrium' contains the fantastical 'Gun Fu' martial art, great fun and very well done but hardly realistic.
Oops seem to have strayed from the non evil . . .
How might you defend Buddhism against someone who said something similar to you?
My defense: "Please pardon me but I don't do drivel."
Buddhism has plenty of chinks in its armor, but suggesting that "According to this philosophy, pain is the ultimate evil..." shows either a willful ignorance or a flat-earth grasp of the subject matter.
As George Lucas unfortunately has Yoda say to Anakin, "you must give up all that you fear to lose."
It should be "You must give up all fear to lose"
The Jewel Ornament of Liberation says that the antidote to attachment to peace is love. Thus I think there is a grain of truth in what the article says. However there are multiple misunderstandings; of them I am not even aware of how many misunderstandings I think. One is a misunderstanding about individuality. It is not clearly explained what the author means by individuality. Thich Nhat Hanh teaches about 'interbeing'. So in my view that is a way Buddhism refutes 'individuality'. I don't however see how the feel of 'interbeing' is leading to a life 'without purpose'. In essence I think there is a grain of truth in wanting the qualities of love. However tanha or thirst is not the road to love.
I guess my refutation would be "You should try to actually learn about Buddhism"
Pain as the ultimate evil? Where did he get that?
And yes both pain and joy are passing. They come and go. Buddhism teaches to allow them to come and go. The author wrongly claims that Buddhism teaches to avoid passing joy etc.
A Buddhist might say that he is trying not to be affected by these winds.
The writer says that they are the things that give purpose to his life.
A short answer on a casual discussion with friends could be that the purpose in life can be found in less superficial things then those worldly winds.
Pursuing kindness, compassion and inner peace (or the four brahmavihara if you want to impress the audience) can be even more fulfilling than being blown away by these eight winds.
It’s something like maturing.
It all kinda does fall apart with the pain-as-ultimate-evil coloring of Buddhism. That's not what Buddhism is. Buddhism is recognizing what causes us suffering, and showing us how to overcome it. People from other religions tend to try and make Buddhism conform to their preconceived notions of what religion is supposed to be... but it's not. It doesn't fit in their box. They distort it, and pretty badly too.
I was struck by this sentence:
"Greatness in life is found by overcoming adversity, not by the absence of adversity."
It could be read as agreeing with the Noble Truths, if we assume that adversity means suffering.
Knowing Yoda's way of talking, wouldn't it be "Give up all fear to lose, you must!"
Thanks for the input everyone (*)
F.E.A.R. = F**k Everything, And Run!
OR:
F.E.A.R. = Face Everything And Recover.
According to a snippet on Fb today........)
While the idea was to demonize external pain as the ultimate evil, Buddhism is more focused on how we, can be our own enemy with our thoughts. As a consequence of unskilled thought, we get to suffer not only what was described as the ultimate evil, but it is compounded by punishing ourselves. The power of the challenge, is further compounded by our fear and lack of acceptance.
Buddhism is more practical and protective, in spite of the nature of a stresser. Since there are many externals that we are helpless to do anything about, we can be effective becoming skillful with our own emotions. It provides a person with an effective method to cope with reality, where as struggling with our fear can be futile effort that only results in feelings of defeat.
Indeed 'interbeing' is actually setting up MORE meaning rather than less because you care about more than your own interests.
Knowing Yoda's way of talking, wouldn't it be "Give up all fear to lose, you must!"
zenffHamsaka
Yes
Meetta
Cinorjer, Do you think it is true. For me it is. Does fear of death keep you from dying? Really we all have to die.
The Indians have a saying, for when they die.
To meat the great spirit with straight eyes and an open heart.
In aphorism-speak, I'd say it's more true that fear of death keeps us from living, like @ourself said. But then adrenaline junkies would use that to vindicate the wild risks they take climbing mountain cliffs without ropes and paragliding off buildings. There's lack of fear and then there's just crazy.
And on the opposite end, we have people desperate to live forever. Mostly they invent a life that goes on after death, some Heaven or reincarnated do-over life or such and that serves to keep their fear in balance. Fortunately, people understand reality enough now that the search for immortality in this life has been reduced to freezing your head in the off-chance some mad scientist in the future will find a way to restore you.
Death is a big subject. I've argued that we became human when we developed the awareness of our own inevitable death. We also collectively went a little crazy at that point.
Want to know what the Buddha said about this?
In other words get out of the Matrix. There are no answers within the Matrix.