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.
If Desire is a Cause of Suffering - How Do I Not Desire?
Hi,
I'm new to buddhist teachings and in the process of reading about buddhism. Buddha's teachings say that desire is a cause of suffering, right? And thats not hard to see. But how do I not desire ? I have hopes, dreams, desires, etc. I have passions I would love to pursue. For example, I have a life-long involvement in a sport that I participate in competitively, and I would love to move up to the next level. Everytime I think about this I feel like "uh oh... buddha says desire causes suffering......". (which I can easily believe because more often than not when I get what I want it backfires on me).
So what do I do about desires? Am i just supposed to be a detached desire-less android? Yeah, life would sure be easier if I were. But thats not me. I'm confused.
thankyou.
I'm new to buddhist teachings and in the process of reading about buddhism. Buddha's teachings say that desire is a cause of suffering, right? And thats not hard to see. But how do I not desire ? I have hopes, dreams, desires, etc. I have passions I would love to pursue. For example, I have a life-long involvement in a sport that I participate in competitively, and I would love to move up to the next level. Everytime I think about this I feel like "uh oh... buddha says desire causes suffering......". (which I can easily believe because more often than not when I get what I want it backfires on me).
So what do I do about desires? Am i just supposed to be a detached desire-less android? Yeah, life would sure be easier if I were. But thats not me. I'm confused.
thankyou.
0
Comments
For example, there is the Desire to study the Dhamma, and the attachment we feel to our commitment to Loving Kindness, Compassion, Equanimity and Joy.
These are good for us...
But as the Buddha instructed us....
The Dhamma is like a raft, that once you have reached the other shore, you can abandon.
The thing about desire and attachment, is that we must be prepared to release and let go, once we feel we have achieved the purpose, or once it seems no longer useful or needed.
Want to win a race?
Did you win it?
get the accolades?
Enjoy them. Then forget them.
Cherish everything.
Achieve everything.
Be ambitious.
Have desires and attachments.
But let them go.
Release the unhealthy desire to keep a hold of them.
I'm not much further ahead of you (hoping to be able to join a sangha within a couple of months for better learning). But the understanding I'm developing is that there is a difference between a goal or plan and "attachment".
I don't think there's anything wrong or against Buddhist principles to want to do something specific with your life (unless the act itself is something that would harm another being). But the problem comes in when we are so attached to a certain outcome that we suffer when the desire does not turn out as we hoped/dreamed/planned.
Want to move to the next level in your sport? Go for it and enjoy every minute of the effort. If something happens to prevent you from making it, or it takes longer than you planned, THAT'S where you have to practice to avoid attachment to outcome. Finding balance comes in accepting what is, whichever direction it might go.
Same thing goes for relationships, new business ventures, losing weight, and anything else where we might be tempted to believe "if I just get *this* I'll be happy and no longer suffer." Same thing goes for things we want from other people.
That's the way it made the most sense to me, anyway. I hope Buddha did not intend for us all to sit still and do nothing in order to avoid desiring anything.
I agree - at least this is what I'm finding so far myself.
I agree with this too. Whatever I do in my life, I try to maintain a sense of awareness that everything is temporary. This may sound depressing, but I find it's the opposite. It can be very powerful if (or when) you experience loss, even when it comes suddenly, since deep down you were never attached to the expectation that it would last forever. Of course this doesn't mean that you'll never feel sadness or frustration if it's something major in your life, but I find the blow is usually a little easier to take.
I still have hopes and dreams of course - the same as anyone else. I'll do what I see as necassary to achieve my goals, but I've learnt over time to focus more on what's happening NOW rather than all the time being attached to the goal itself - there's no reason why you shouldn't enjoy the processes you need to go through in order to achieve the goal itself. Even when things don't work out quite as planned / hoped (as is often the case!) I think there's always something to learn from the experience. It's actually very freeing, and not at all android-like in my experience so far.
I seem to have gone off on a bit of a tangent so I guess I'll leave it there.
I think the buddhist method is to get ones "satisfaction" or pleasure through meditation mostly as a more practical way.
You can only do this from the context of your own life. How can your desire to go to the next level affect you? The good? The bad? For example you could not enjoy where you are because you are thinking of the next level. This happens not only in athletics but in buddhist practice. Sometimes people cannot enjoy where they are because they are not at the next level.
That is an example of how desire can harm you. Also in athletics we know that you win some and lose some. Look at Bret Favre. He is a great competitor and is 40 years old and lost the opportunity to go to the super bowl in american football. That is a loss. I wouldn't say his spirit of competition would make him suffer (very long) but if he stays attached to the idea that he should have won that last game he will only feel defeat in his mind when he should be happy for all the good things.
So that is how attachment and desire can cause suffering.
Finally often in our desires is concealed some very good things. Why do you want to go to the next level of competition? Why do you want that? Why do you want that? Always looking underneath why we want things. In the end it leads to the wish to be happy. Which is ultimate bodhicitta pretty much. Our true nature.
My teacher says that our sense of longing is reliable. But WHAT we long for is not. We might get injured and cannot be an athlete. But we always have that longing (for something). We could land on Jupiter and be in an alien society and we would still have a longing or yearning for something. The something is just a distortion. Just thinking. But the longing goes back to ultimate bodhicitta.
In general buddha said desire for something impermanent causes suffering.
In order to eliminate desire and other hindrances, the Buddha left his parents, wife, child, and great wealth and became a monk. His disciples did the same. Lay practitioners, like ourselves, cannot hope to rid ourselves of desire to the same extent as the monastics. Our lifestyle often includes certain activities that is fueled by some measure of desire: sensual pleasure, movies, music, sport, hobbies, pets, etc... The thing is to live mindfully and not get engulfed by desire. Yes... there will some desire, but we should not give it free rein to mess up our lives - use mindfulness to keep it in check.
We must try to reduce desire, at least gradually....
You have hopes, dreams and passions you love to pursue. Go ahead and go for it. When you have achieved what you wanted, stop and see if you feel complete. If you reach the top of the game you fear loss. The greater the desire, the greater your suffering aka the higher you go the harder you fall. Think Tiger Woods.
All are impermanent and will some day pass away as all things do. The training is to let go so that when "bad" things happen you will be prepared.
I imagine it as kind of like stickiness. Desires are kind of really sticky. What we want to do is make stuff a lot less sticky. I went from imagining having 'sticky' desires to kind of lightly 'tacky' wishes.
I've heard that in the office at Bo and Sita Lozoff's farm they posted the saying:
Works for me!
How to abandon the attachment? Practice fully experiencing and welcoming it.
Attachment (this is the problem): Oh, I'm getting a cup of coffee. *walk walk walk* Oh there is no coffee. *walk walk walk to work* Oh my God, without the coffee I feel like I haven't woken up, this sucks *thinks thinks thinks about coffee* *Acts lazy* *Is distracted* *Feels like getting up and getting coffee somewhere* Oh I think I am starting to have a headache, it must be the lack of coffee *walk walk walk somewhere* *Acts nasty* *Blames it on the lack of coffee* [6 months later...] Oh, I am getting a cup of coffee...*acts nasty, distracted, lazy* [two weeks] *acts nasty, distracted, lazy*[a month] *acts nasty, distracted, lazy* [...a pattern begins to form...] "When I don't get what I want, I will act nasty, distracted and lazy" *it spreads beyond coffee and affects many things, your own idea of self might turn into a lazy, nasty and distracted person ; people view you as a lazy distracted and nasty person *after much laziness, distraction and being nasty bad things start to happen, things that usually happen to lazy, nasty and distracted people* :-( (this is how I view it)
If you loosen up and practice Dharma, decided to give up your coffee attachment: *Oh my God I need my coffeeeeeeee* [Dharma detox week going nuts] *OK I must admit setbacks right? I will have just a teeny weeny cup* [you are still attached] *This is stupid, I wanna cry, I need coffeeeee >;*(* [you realize the problem is not the coffee, it is the way you view it, you start loosening the grip] Ok now I can have coffee [honey, you still are attached] *WHAT!! I am gonna hit you! Buddhism is supposed to make me happy! [your attachment is making you miserable not Buddhism, things start making sense in your head] *you defeat coffee attachment, than sugar attachment, you start getting good at it, you look back and boom huge difference in your life.
That is how I see it
So often, it is not what do, so much, as how you do it that makes all of the difference.
For instance, if you want to do very well in a particular sport, than we should stay in the moment and do our very best to do it well and enjoy it right now. Find the immediate joy and love it, in the doing, so that we can continue in doing it with consequential improvement. Nothing achieves success like love does…in this case loving your sport.
Throwing ourselves off into the future, and future living by weaving dreams about what may or may not come out of your efforts, will never bring you true happiness. Perhaps this is what the Buddha meant by not desiring. Don’t desire it…do it now.
The thing about the joy that you gain in any one moment by doing something well, is that that actually belongs to you right now, and it is quite fulfilling. Far more than any ‘pie in the sky dreams,’ which can often be disappointing or never happen.
If you make every single (now) moment fulfilling and happy, than you will have a rewarding and happy life. I can guarantee you this. : ^ )
And:
If you do something really well, with a lot of heart, true success will eventually take care of itself. : ^ )
Warm regards,
S9
Thinking this way can be dangerous as well though. The ideas that you "gain" if you experience enjoyment, or that you "lose" when you experience pain, or that the joy belongs to you all, all serve to increase attachment to the self-view.
My advice would be to do what you feel like, but don't labor under the misapprehension that any success is yours to take refuge and delight in. Experience the success as you experience the failure: with balance and equanimity.
I think what we are running into here is that you are speaking on one level, and I are speaking on a different level. I am inclined to say that we are both right. But, because you are speaking more deeply than I, and further below the surface level of everyday life, that you in fact are actually more right than I am.
I was addressing desire more within finitude, or life as/if it was really taking place. Whereas you, on the other hand, had moved on to equanimity. I think this is a far deeper lesson, a great lesson, and an excellent subject to address at this point. : ^ )
How do we come to understand equanimity? It certainly isn’t through force of our will. I believe rather that it is through 'Clarity' or seeing directly, (AKA Realization).
We actually begin at some point to see that true happiness isn’t affected by circumstance, or rather the exterior world, and that pleasure isn't happiness, and also that pleasure is fleeting.
I don’t believe that this mean that we refuse to enjoy anything anymore, or that we learn to endure suffering with a grim expression. I see it more like, that in seeing clearly, we realize that neither one of these (pleasure and pain) are actually happening to our self.
At this point we can dis-identify both with the joyous fellow who is laughting and the victim of pain and unhappiness who may be crying. (Both appropiate responses within finitude.)
The way that I see it is, it is only the ego self that both seeks balance, and any improvement, either in his lot in life or in his character.
In this way life may go on, with this ego fellow seeking joy and avoiding sorrow to the best of his ability, until the end of his days. But at the same time he is taking it more like a lucid dream, or none of his.
Q: "Liberation isn't liberation of the (ego) self, but liberation from the self."
Warm Regards,
S9
Actually I think you just get tired of seeking whatever it is and start sitting with your mental pain\concerns\meditation instructions\whatever the same way you would sit with sore feet. It just is there and that is it. You can't cover it up with joy or suffer it away, and it is okay because that is what being a human being is all about. Once you start doing that you start developing great compassion.
I think as we grow older that we begin to see that fighting with the fates is a losing battle. So we become a little bit more accepting. But isn’t that a ‘Clarity’ of sorts, even if not exactly precocious?
Sufi quote: “You will either go along with Allah’s Will, or He will grab you by the hair and drag you.”
Ain’t that just the truth?
Smiles,
S9
Palzang
I wonder if ego ever really buys the whole idea that there is no self? Ego sees that as death.
Because it is impossible to satisfy the ego, how can ego actually ever step out of desire?
Of course some things are easier, like giving up on having a new car every year. But, other things like wishing the terrible pain of cancer would stop, even more so if it is in one’s beloved mate, are far more difficult.
Lets face it, even when most of us sit down to meditate, we are wishing for something, (improvement or Liberation), or meditation just wouldn’t happen.
Quote: “It is by desire that we move.”
However, I think that wisdom mind can understand that there is no lasting satisfaction in this temporary, ever changing finite world.
And:
I also believe that in understanding our own true Buddha Nature, or our Original Mind, that we can transcend identification with ego mind, her dissatisfaction, and her ever present desires.
We can train our mind to give us less trouble, (skillfull means), but even this is a desired outcome.
Respectfully,
S9
One thing I think to consider is that it isn't simply desire that is the cause of suffering, but the various illusions that feed into and feed back from desire. These are illusions of self, permanence, others, value, importance, future, past, status...
Tanha seems deeper and wider than "mere craving"..
Yes, this is what I meant... but perhaps I didn't put it accross very well.
I'm not sure if I've put that across very well either.
Palzang
I have to wonder if ego isn’t the root of all these other illusions that you have mentioned and if these others aren't just the branches that grow out of this same tree.
In defining ego in too restricted a manner, we do not understand the vastness of the connotation that grows out of her, many of these are simply wishes like permanence of this imaginary identity and the fear of death. We also have separation and all that comes along with that.
But, let us once see with great ‘Clarity’ that ego it a dream figure within a lucid dream, we are able to drop all this baggage once and for all.
This doesn’t mean that the dream will not continue to self correct, and continuously change, much as Palzang has mentioned, but if you don’t take it quite as seriously as before, (after all it isn’t even you) it will be more like play after that, or perhaps more like virtual reality.
I am not sure about the real difference between a desire and a craving, do you? Usually when people speak of craving, it is something more like a drug habit, or a need to ‘over do’ even after you have thought it out and seen the error in it. So that craving might be more like a desire that has you by the throat, and simply won’t let go. It would not really a lesser form of desire in that case.
I know that some people say stuff like, “You know what I’m craving, I sure could use a piece of chocolate cake, right now"…but is that good usage?
So let me ask you this. How is Tanha different than mere craving? (In further detail than simply deeper and wider, which isn’t that useful for application to our lives without more detail.)Thanx
: ^ )
Respectfully,
S9
>>I have to wonder if ego isn’t the root of all these other illusions that you have mentioned and that these others are just the branches that grow out of this same tree.
I see ego as one instantiation of the illusion of object where there is only system. In this sense the object of desire and the desiring ego object are both products of the same illusions of perspective. Ego is certainly the hardest to see, extinguish and keep extinguised:)
But also we should not forget that this is not the only illusion that leads to dukka, the illusion of perminance is equally a cause. This illusion is that which totally obscures the moment and hinders mindfullness:)
>>>In defining ego in too restricted a manner, we do not understand the vastness of connotation that grows out of her, many of these are simply wishes like permanence of this imaginary identity and the fear of death. We also have separation and all that comes along with that.
I think I agree:)
>>>But, let us once see with great ‘Clarity’ that ego it a dream figure within a lucid dream, we are able to drop all this baggage once and for all.
I don't see it as a dream but more a product of the perspective of experience. There has to be a perspective to any experience, a focus, a point in the moment, and that is what is easily mistaken as something with substance.
>>I am not sure about the real difference between a desire and a craving, do you? Usually when people speak of craving, it is something more like a drug habit, or a need to ‘over do’ even after you have thought it out and seen the error in it. So that craving might be more like a desire that has you by the throat, and simply won’t let go. It would not really a lesser form of desire in that case.
Ya not sure either. Perhaps we could say a desire for X is more of a perpetual disposition to want X whereas a craving for X is more immediate in its temporal scope?
>>I know that some people say stuff like, “You know what I’m craving, I sure could use a piece of chocolate cake…but is that good usage?
I don't know:) Dies it make sense if you use it? if it does its probably good usage!
>>So how is Tanha different than mere craving? (In further detail than simply deeper and wider which isn’t that useful for application to our lives,)
OK.. as I see it Tanha is a want for the satisfaction of the illusions or object and perminance. When these illusions arise with them come all of the inevitable negatives, existential wants, qualitative wants , future based wants, past based failed wants, the want for more of this, the want for more than them....
"I want that ice cream"
"I want the tenth lick of the icecream to be like the first."
"I wish I had had the other ice cream."
"Look at their icecreams!""
In these kind of examples of Tanha the ego illusion is the same and the object of desire is the same but the tension between them are distinct.
Does that make sense? (I am not sure if it does to me!)
mat
I think you explained yourself really well. I guess I was just agreeing with you in a rather long-winded manner. But that is my fun. ; ^ )
I find that when I write something, it is a little like thinking out loud for me. Some people can analyze really well in their heads, and not bother other good people with it. But, I only get thinking with a pencil in my hand. (Well computer keys now that I’ve upgraded.)
I don’t believe there is anything wrong with desiring/dreaming/planning. Even a goal, like a road sign, can give us direction. Only you can say when you personally have slipped into a mode of thinking that prevents you from enjoying your now to its fullest, or even that you are using the future to escape into from a present you cannot live in harmony with.
If you need something to look forward to, because your present isn’t rich enough for you, than you may be stealing from yourself and pretending your life away.
I am not saying this is what you are doing. But many have. These persons are called dreamers, and often accomplish very little. : ^ (
Warm regards,
S9
Perhaps as you say, all illusion comes back to the doorstep of an incorrect perspective. The whole concept of desire is, of course, basically a dualistic notion. This notion is that there is something (out there) separate from ourselves, and that we need that separate something in order to be satisfied.
Q: “The idea of separation is the only sin.”
Perhaps ego is the hardest to see, because we sit right in it, identify with it, and actually make it our home. This would be similar than to an eye trying to look at its self. We can only infer ego by symptoms within our life, and actions that point out that this perspective called ego is taking place.
Ego is certainly most difficult to keep extinguished, simply because very often it is our ego self that wishes to extinguish ego. We want this because we have been told that we can possess ‘Liberation’ in doing so.
But wanting to possess anything (no matter Holy it may seem) is ego very thinly disguised as “wanting.” And so in the very wanting of it, we have once again planted the seeds that rapidly grow into the plant of ego once again.
In other words, we are just kidding ourselves.
It is only with complete annihilation of identification with the ego that the job is finally done. We must 100% disassociate from this limited self, and transcend all the object-ness of mental definitions.
Q: “We must die b/4 we die.”
In other words, “Suffering is, and it can be made to stop,” simply because we see that it is not our suffering.
Bhagavad Gita: “ You only dream that you are the doer.”
Mindfulness will not remove suffering. It is only a tool for pointing suffering out, and showing you conclusively that it is not you, or yours.
Q: “Liberation is not for the self, but from the self.”
M: I don't see it as a dream.
S9: Let me ask you this, isn’t an ongoing story that lives in our head with absolutely no essence, one that is only temporary, and one that you can wake up from (Buddha’s words) pretty much the definition of a dream?
Tanha:
I Googled this word, and found that they defined it as both craving and desire again and again on a number of sites. They did say that literally it meant thirst, and was in juxtaposition with peace of mind, or well-being.
I would imagine a Buddhist scholar could write a whole book on its ramifications though. ; ^ ) Ain’t nothing easy about many of these concepts.
Respectfully,
S9
>>>The whole concept of desire is, of course, basically a dualistic notion. This notion is that there is something (out there) separate from ourselves, and that we need that separate something in order to be satisfied.
I hadn't seen it like that before:) My understanding of dualistic implies two separate substances or incompatible domains which I don't really see having a play here. The "seperation" seems to remain one of perspective rather than substance?
>>>Ego is certainly most difficult to keep extinguished, simply because very often it is our ego self that wishes to extinguish ego.
Maybe, or maybe because as you note, the perspective is so compelling and hard to separate. Remember the ego is illusionary, it doesn't have desires itself because there is no ego, the desires it has are within the aggregate mind, they are illusionary desires. There is no ego, only wants.
Some people extrapolate the ego into this idea of a useful "bad guy inside" who taints us with Tanha. This may be a great tool for understandng and practice but it seems fairly distinct from how i understand the buddhist mind theory.
>>>But wanting to possess anything (no matter Holy it may seem) is ego very thinly disguised as “wanting.” And so in the very wanting of it, we have once again planted the seeds that rapidly grow into the plant of ego once again.
Yes, agree. But to add to that there is a clear sense in which the understanding of where ego comes from, by definition, undermines that ego.
>>It is only with complete annihilation of identification with the ego that the job is finally done. We must 100% disassociate from this limited self, and transcend all the object-ness of mental definitions.
I disagree. I think that is the masculinisation of Buddhism tainting things (again). These "all or nothing" and "hard quest" and "deep and unobtainable" signposts that have been placed on the path make the task seem to require 100% completion and a life of failure(which is what it is if according to the masculine way 100% enlightenment isnt met in this life).
Remember these are later (1000 years plus?) additions to Buddhism, it seems from what we can sift from the suttras, in the time of the Buddha enlightenment was pretty abundant and mundane....
These people who became enlightened after a short time with Dharma (not even with the Buddha) cannot have anhiliated their ego totally, I belive. I imagine in his 50 enlightened years the Buddha also let slip a few times with letting the ego slip in. He was only human, I believe.
>>In other words, “Suffering is, and it can be made to stop,” simply because we see that it is not our suffering.
Yes, I agree with that, but again, where does the 100% creep into such notions?
>>>Mindfulness will not remove suffering. It is only a tool for pointing suffering out, and showing you conclusively that it is not you, or yours.
It is also a tool for enjoying the moment and understanding things as they seem:)
>>>Let me ask you this, isn’t an ongoing story that lives in our head with absolutely no essence, one that is only temporary, and one that you can wake up from (Buddha’s words) pretty much the definition of a dream?
Umm.. not to me. whatever this life of mine is it is consistently bound by its foundational laws. The laws of nature and dharma. Dreams are not like this at all, they have their foundations largely within themselves, within the dreaming mind.
There is a world outside my mind. There was a world before my mind, before this galaxy was made. This is a profound distinction between my world and my dream world.
>>> Tanha..I would imagine a Buddhist scholar could write a whole book on its ramifications though. ; ^ ) Ain’t nothing easy about many of these concepts.
I imagine they have!:) And no there is nothing easy about the dharmic concepts, not because they are internally inaccessible to our minds but because they are realised at so many levels of abstraction. Their roots can be found at every level of reality, but its only at the high levels of human experience they become so relevant to our suffering and joys.
Is the does the angry dog that wants the bone subject to tanha? I don't know, in many ways it doesn't seem like a gaping pang of existential angst our egos may experience, but in other senses it seems its very similar:)
salome:)
Mat
Respectfully,
S9[/QUOTE]
it sounds to me as if you have the desire to have no desires
What's important is your intention. Why do you want to become better in your sport? Do you like to exercise and to improve your skills or are you craving for confirmation? Most people reach for cofirmation in the outside world - the people around them have to admire what they do and what they have accomplished. These people think that they are worthless until they reach this or that. But that's the path to suffering, because you'll never find enough confirmation in this world to fulfill your needs. And there's always a next goal.
So think about your intentions. Do you want to become better in your sport, because you tend to think that this will make you a better person, a more valuable human being? Do you want to prove something? Do you want to show someone that you can make it? That's your path to suffering.
Can you accept the statement that you're perfectly complete now in this moment? That there's nothing to add to you? That everything you need to be or to have is already there? That's your path to a better life and less suffering.
And it doesn't mean that you are not allowed to improve yourself and your skills. But it means that you shouldn't rely your satisfaction on accomplishing something.
I think that you have made some very good points, that a person should be trying to understand what they are really going after, and if this prize is outside of themselves and therefore dependent on outside approval.
J: Can you accept the statement that you're perfectly complete now in this moment?
S9: I don’t think anyone can answer this question in the positive, until they have a pretty good idea who they are. We do this by knowing who we are not, and discarding illusion.
Also, I think we are speaking on multiple levels if we say that you are perfectly ‘Okay’ just as you are and then go on to say, "This is what you must change about yourself and your thinking in order to feel that you are Okay." I hope you can see how that may be confusing to someone.
; ^ )
J: That's your path to a better life and less suffering.
S9: Is seeking to better your life (conventionally speaking) actually the path beyond suffering? The word 'Your' shows ownership, (attachment, or at least wrongful identification with ego improvements of a story self).
J: It doesn't mean that you are not allowed to improve yourself and your skills. But it means that you shouldn't rely your satisfaction on accomplishing something.
S9: This is of course an excellent thing to warn against, because it is implicit in the whole idea of improvement and accomplishment out there, which brings us a lasting satisfaction, which it does not, and that a you that is presently here and now is simply not ENOUGH.
Warm Regards,
S9
Hello there ! As well as contemplating Buddha's teachings, its very helpful to us in general, if we meditate.
I don't know if you meditate already, but if you don't, I suggest you have a look at a series of meditation videos on YouTube which are given by Ven Ajahn Jayasaro of the Theravada Thai Forest Tradition.
The introduction.. Buddhist Meditation (1) is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rd7a9Ur2x0o
Kind wishes to you,
Dazzle
The overgeneralization and vilification of desires: Do all pleasures lead to suffering?
The main problem with Buddhist teachings is that they teach that "ALL desires as bad and leading to nothing but suffering" and therefore one should try to get rid of them. This is a big overgeneralization and inaccurate as well. To put all desires and enjoyments into one group is narrow and a form of black and white thinking, which religion is often guilty of.
In reality, it's more complicated than that.
First, not all desires are unwholesome or the same, and not all pleasures lead to suffering or misery. For example, if I enjoy watching the sunset or going to the beach, and do that, I will have a nice time experiencing those things. Of course such moments are fleeting, as Buddhism teaches, but that doesn't mean that when it ends, I will be in regret or end up in "suffering". Or suppose I enjoy an exciting three days at Disney World. When it's all over, sure I'll feel flat for a while. But will I regret it and wish it never happened? Probably not.
Some pleasures are more wholesome than others. For example, if I eat organic healthy food, I will get a sense of pleasure from consuming healthy food that is good for my body. Likewise if I work out and exercise, I will feel good about being in shape. But if I'm addicted to alcohol or consuming twinkies and donuts all the time, I will feel a sense of guilt about consuming unhealthy products, even if they feel pleasurable for a short moment. And if I help people through volunteer work or charity, I experience the "joy of giving" as well. So it's inaccurate to generalize all pleasures as the same.
Furthermore, if one desire is satisfied, one does not have to feel flat or empty afterward. One can simply fulfill other ones. That's why it helps to have a "wide variety of interests and passions". For example, if I get tired of watching TV, I can read, go outside for a walk, bake cookies, or call a friend. The trick is keeping a healthy mix of activities. Diversify, in other words. Likewise, if I get tired of writing essays like this one that you're reading right now, (which I enjoy of course) I can simply write about something else, watch a movie on my computer, play a video game to unwind, read a good book, or even do meditation. I don't have to sit here feeling empty and flat just cause I'm tired of writing this essay. Why should I?!
But even if you take a pleasurable experience that turns into suffering, that does not mean that it would have been better if the whole thing never happened. For instance, say you have an intoxicating romantic relationship that put you on cloud 9 for a while, and then your lover suddenly leaves you. Your heart would be broken and you'd be in withdrawal pain over having such an intoxicating experience suddenly end. It would be a classic case of great pleasure turning into great pain. However, after you've calmed down and gotten over it, would you in retrospect say "I wish that the passionate affair never happened?". Probably not. You'd probably see it from the perspective of this popular adage:
"Better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all."
What this adage means is that ultimately, it is better to experience both pleasure and pain, than to not experience anything at all, for such experiences make one feel ALIVE. They enrich you and are part of the growing and learning process. Artists and poets will tell you that the triumphs and tragedies of life are what enriches their work, as another example. You might also have heard this truism:
"You regret more what you didn't do than what you did do."
This conveys the same lesson that it's better to go for something you want, even if it results in an embarrassing mistake, than to do nothing and experience nothing.
Talk to European and Australian backpackers, the kind you find in youth hostels, or other perpetual travelers who live to experience the world. They will tell you that having enriching varied cultural experiences while seeing the world is what they live for. It's what drives their soul and makes them tick. Of course, these enriching experiences are impermanent. They know that. But they would rather have them than not have them at all, for the rewards that come from them are beyond words. Deep down, they believe that "life should be experienced to the fullest."
Let's say I take a trip around the world, having many enriching and exciting cultural experiences and meeting many fascinating people. Then when I come home, I go into reverse culture shock and am unhappy about having to readjust to the routine of mundane ordinary life again. Now, if you were to ask me if it would have been better if I had not taken that trip around the world, I would exclaim "Hell no! Even though I am having trouble readjusting back to normal life now, those experiences were priceless and I wouldn't trade them for anything in the world!" You see how that works?
In other words, just because something is fleeting and impermanent does not mean that not experiencing it is better than experiencing it. Everything has a valuable lesson for you after all.
Buddhist teaching is correct that desires are insatiable and the fulfillment of them is fleeting and transient. However, that does not mean that it is better to have no desires, or to not fulfill them. Buddhism does not prove that no pleasures is better than pleasure. I would argue that a life mostly consisting of joy and pleasure, in healthy amounts, is better than a life devoid of them.
Ask anyone who has been both poor and rich and they will tell you that being rich was better (except maybe in the movies). In most cases, having is better than not having, even though both cause some form of pain. Experienced travelers have observed that "the happiest people in the world are not those who have too little or too much, but just enough."
Sure Buddhism is right that enjoyments are transient, but that doesn't mean that not having them is better than having them. For most, transitory satisfactions and enjoyments are better than nothing. Shedding one's attachments and suppressing or abstaining from desire and pleasure, as Buddhism teaches, may be a path for some, but not for all. Not everyone is cut out to be puritanical. For some, it would go against who they are. For example, some are naturally festive and celebrate every moment of life, enjoying it to the fullest. In fact, this attitude is dominant in some cultures (e.g. Spain, Italy, Greece, Mexico, Latin America, Russia, The Philippines, Africa, etc). Such types would not be happy on such a puritanical path abstaining from enjoyment. After all, there is no one path, religion or lifestyle that fits everyone.
Buddhism does not address any of the lessons and considerations above. Instead it puts all pleasures and enjoyments into a box that it calls "suffering" and discourages one from pursuing them.
Nor does it assign any value to the concept of "living life to the fullest" or "having enriching experiences" either. Instead, such things are deemed pointless and distracting from the ultimate goal of Enlightenment and ending rebirth. Not only are they given no worth, but they are painted with a negative broad brush. The teachings clearly discourage enjoyment of life rather than encourage it.
The complete essay can be found here: http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Buddhism_Critique.htm
Palzang
I am not sure how you can know that in the 4 minutes between posts! You read and think fast Palzang!;)
I've been familiar with Buddhism for many years. If I have misrepresented anything in Buddhism, then I welcome you to elaborate on it. But please support your assertions with examples. And please address my examples above too.
Thanks,
Winston
Palzang
Yeah I address that. They don't say all desires are bad, but they do not encourage you to enjoy life, and its most devoted followers live lives without desires. Actions speak louder than words.
Consider this:
It's not what they SAY, it's what they DO
Now, in response to the charge that "Buddhism teaches that desires and pleasures are bad", Buddhist teachers will usually claim that this is inaccurate. They will clarify with something like this statement: (I know cause I've read books by Buddhist teachers and listened to their lectures)
Ok fine. I can acknowledge that. But that doesn't change the key points above, nor does it change the obvious anti-enjoyment and anti-pleasure nature of the serious Buddhist path. I can PROVE this and show YOU how you can see PROOF of this for yourself. Allow me.
First, keep in mind one simple truth:
"It's not what they SAY, it's what they DO."
In other words, "Actions speak louder than words." With that in mind, go find the most DEVOTED practitioners of Buddhism and see how they LIVE and BEHAVE. I'm not talking about the casual dabblers or the laypeople interested in learning about Buddhism. I'm talking about the serious devoted practitioners who regularly meditate in ritualistic fashion, attend meditation center retreats where they live in silence for weeks at a time, and flock to lectures by great Buddhist teachers.
When you meet them, you will notice these common characteristics:
Common characteristics of devout Buddhist practitioners
a) They are gentle, modest, and polite in their demeanor and voice, but also very reserved and quiet.
b) They are very peaceful of course, but their emotions and behavior seem highly restrained and subdued as well. It's as though part of their human nature, especially the part that enjoys pleasure, were removed, numbed or suppressed. They also appear to be devoid of any passion of any kind.
c) They are very private people who will not disclose much about themselves, and prefer to keep social interaction brief and limited.
d) They will have polite conversations with you, but will not be into mingling, bonding or socializing for long.
e) Their communication style is more traditional Asian style than Western. They are not assertive, articulate, skillful or eloquent in their speech, but say only what they need to and keep it brief. There is no passion in their voice either.
f) They seek solitude and quiet contemplation most of the time, like monks. They are not much into social interactions, social activities or even stimulating conversations.
g) Good times, adventure, stimulation, excitement, fun, interesting knowledge, curiosity, and even wholesome enriching experiences, do not seem to do anything for them. They are not even fascinated or stimulated by intellectual topics. Just ask them out to do something fun, even if it's of a wholesome nature, and look how enthusiastic they react.
h) They do not live for dreams, aspirations or ambitions. Nor do they bask in the world of imagination, possibilities or exploration. Instead, they are simply subdued, as if all they wanted was solitude and quietness, all the time. Watch their facial expressions and behaviors and you will see this. It's like they are in another zone.
i) You will notice that they have a deep AVERSION to fun, enjoyment or pleasure, as if the ability to enjoy those things were gone from them. Like the traditional Chinese and Japanese mindset, deep down they do not believe that life needs to be enjoyed, but that one is meant to toil and suffer in life with some goal in mind, whether it's a career or the attainment of Enlightenment. What's funny is that serious Buddhist practioners who are white act far more "Asian" than mainstream Asians do!
j) Look at Buddhist teachers, lamas and leaders giving lectures to audiences. You can find them on Google Video or YouTube. You will notice that they have a very gentle subdued disposition that is devoid of any passion, charisma, inspiration and energy. They are fond of cracking lighthearted jokes and humor during their lectures to ease the tension. But you can see that there is an inhibition about them which signifies that they are highly restrained and unable to enjoy life or pleasures to the fullest.
(If you can't visit a Buddhist center near you, then just watch videos on YouTube of Buddhist teachers like the Dalai Lama or Jack Kornfield and look at the expressions of their audience.)
Now, the behaviors above should make it beyond obvious by now that these serious Buddhist practitioners do NOT live to enjoy life, live it to the fullest, experience pleasures, or to have an enriching and fulfilling variety of experiences. I mean, get real.
Furthermore, look at the lives of Buddhist monks, who have given up their whole lives for the Buddhist path. Everyday they follow strict routines and rituals of studying, meditating and chores, in silence. They do not talk much, not even to each other, but live extremely reclusive and subdued lives devoid of pleasure, enjoyment, stimulation or fun.
What does that tell you? That Buddhism at its heart is pro-enjoyment, pro-pleasure and pro-fun?! Certainly not! In fact, it tells you that its attitude toward enjoying life is rather quite grim and discouraging.
Of course, Buddhist teachers will deny that their path is anti-enjoyment or pleasure, for they do not want others to have a negative image of their religion (who does?). But they clearly cannot argue that Buddhism advocates the enjoyment of life or fulfillment of desires either. So where does that leave their position on "enjoying life"? In the middle? Nowhere? Or perhaps they have no position at all, since they prefer to sidestep this issue completely?
Regardless of their avoidance and neutrality on this matter, again it's what they DO, not what they SAY. In this case, the important thing is that the LIFESTYLE and BEHAVIORS of Buddhism's devoted and serious practitioners say more about its attitude toward enjoyment and pleasure than any official Buddhist canon does. It can't get any more obvious than that. Enough said.
Palzang
I believe that many Buddhist don’t simply abstain from what you consider to be fun. I think that many of us have outgrown them.
Most of what you have put forth as giving meaning to your life, would cause me to starve to death, spiritually. I don’t believe that our life is meant to be lived by simply skimming along on the surface, and grabbing thrills. This is a young man’s game. I did it once, too, believe me.
Living at a deeper level, may seem from the outside like nothing is happening, because there are fewer waves. But, there is a richness and quality to be gained from diving more deeply into who you actually are, beneath the foam of constant activity, and not continuing to rush about to no purpose.
This doesn’t mean, by any means, that you can’t enjoy anything in a light fashion, and with both wit and humor. What it actually means is that we can have both, surface enjoyment and a deeper understanding and satisfaction.
True Satisfaction is not synonymous with pleasure. Pleasure is usually more fleeting, and often like a roller-coaster ride. The human mind and heart requires both Deep Satisfaction and pleasure to be truly healthy and happy.
Constant change is only necessary to the mind that requires stimulation, or it grows bored and even depressed. But Constance without change is required for true happiness. Man indeed is a complex Being, living on multiple levels simultaneously.
Warm Regards,
S9
You obviously haven't visited the same Thai Theravada monasteries I have.
To be honest, I think it's a shame that you reduce Buddhism and its adherents to such pejorative stereotypes.
M: My understanding of dualistic implies two separate substances or incompatible domains which I don't really see having a play here. The "separation" seems to remain one of perspective rather than substance?
S9: Two ways of looking at it, sometimes perspectives, like right and wrong for instance, also falls under the heading of being dualistic.
M: Remember the ego is illusionary, it doesn't have desires itself because there is no ego, the desires it has are within the aggregate mind, they are illusionary desires. There is no ego, only wants.
S9: I’m not certain that I can agree with you here. (sorry) We believe the ego to be our self and desire things for this ego self, which we call “me,” so that this illusion of ego and wanting is of one piece.
Besides without this imaginary self, who exactly WOULD desire, and for that matter want it for who?
M: Some people extrapolate the ego into this idea of a useful "bad guy inside" who taints us with Tanha. This may be a great tool for understanding and practice but it seems fairly distinct from how I understand the Buddhist mind theory.
S9: I sometime think that Buddhist feel it is as easy to separate parts of the illusion into tiny separate pieces, as it is to separate words or labels. It is not. This illusion is of one piece, each portion supporting all of the other portions, like a hologram. If you grab a loose string of this illusion, and start tugging on it much like you might the yarn in a sweater, it all begins to unravel.
M: To add to that there is a clear sense in which the understanding of where ego comes from, by definition, undermines that ego.
S9: Yes, indeed. : ^ )
M: I disagree. I think that is the masculinisation of Buddhism tainting things (again). These "all or nothing" and "hard quest" and "deep and unobtainable" signposts that have been placed on the path make the task seem to require 100% completion and a life of failure (which is what it is if according to the masculine way 100% enlightenment isn’t met in this life).
S9: I don’t understand. Why would this be masculine? Perhaps you could say this whole paragraph slightly differently for me. Thanx
M: Remember these are later (1000 years plus?) additions to Buddhism, it seems from what we can sift from the suttras, in the time of the Buddha enlightenment was pretty abundant and mundane....
S9: I doubt that Enlightenment was ever abundant. People haven’t changed that much. Memories of what happened in history almost always gain a little bit of a shine in the retelling. Heroes were all braver, the women were all more beautiful, and our kids were all much more clever, as we look back at the good old days.
M: I imagine in his 50 enlightened years the Buddha also let slip a few times with letting the ego slip in. He was only human, I believe.
S9: Of course the Buddha had an ego. His ego was a tool that interfaced with his world, just as yours does. The only difference was that he knew (Fully Realized) that he wasn’t the ego. Once you truly know this, there is a Certainty that doesn’t waver. It becomes obvious.
M: Where does the 100% creep into such notions?
S9: When it is no longer a notion held by the mind, it becomes 100%. Mind wavers. But Realization isn’t of the mind.
M: It is also a tool for enjoying the moment and understanding things as they seem.
S9: Mindfulness doesn’t change everything into enjoyment. Imagine being mindful of the last stages of cancer? You wouldn’t enjoy it. You simply wouldn’t own it.
M: Whatever this life of mine is, it is consistently bound by its foundational laws.
S9: Dream laws, although consistent. Dreams need not be total chaos.
M: The laws of nature and dharma.
S9: Dharma maps out this dream for us, and aids our escape from identification with illusion/dreams.
M: Dreams are not like this at all, they have their foundations largely within themselves, within the dreaming mind.
S9: What is a dream foundation? Is it not merely more dreaming? We can Wake Up from this daily dream that we call life, much as we do from our nightly dreams every morning.
M: There is a world outside my mind. There was a world before my mind, before this galaxy was made. This is a profound distinction between my world and my dream world.
S9: How do you know all of this? You could be dreaming right this minute. Is it because people have told you? They could be dream people. Is it because you think you remember? These could be dream memories. Zen calls this, "The Don't Know Mind?" Or even "The Great Doubt."
Others have called this, "The Beginner's Mind." (Every moment like a new beginning, with the slate wiped clean.) What do you actually know?
Warm Regards,
S9
your thought will move u to do certain things to try n fulfill your desire.
at this point in time, i dont think u can stop your desire from arising.
just observe it. this may be a lousy analogy; like an itch , if you dont scatch
it after some time, it goes away.
what i am trying to say is take note of the thoughts going thru your head.
if u seek pleasure, enjoyment, stimulation or fun, try a club not a monastery.
rock stars hv plenty of pleasure, enjoyment, stimulation or fun but where
do most of them end up ? rehab?
Originally Posted by WWu777
Furthermore, look at the lives of Buddhist monks, who have given up their whole lives for the Buddhist path. Everyday they follow strict routines and rituals of studying, meditating and chores, in silence. They do not talk much, not even to each other, but live extremely reclusive and subdued lives devoid of pleasure, enjoyment, stimulation or fun.
( these are known as right View, right Intention, right speech, right Action, right livelihood in the Dharma path , right effort, right mindfulness , right concentration in the eightfold path)
They could be in Mahayana tradition, but many of them actually took the Nikayan (H word ) precepts ( this is where you are pointing to ).
And they are those in Mahayana tradition and take only the Mahayana Bodhisattva precepts ( this is where you might not awared and confused you ).
And there are also monk and nun in the Nikayan precepts but apsired into the Mahayana and Vajrayana teaching and invoke their Bodhi-cita / Bodhisattva vows ( this you might not commonly know, but it happened in Buddhist history , and continue even today )
therapy, cold turkey?
i desire to eat lots of ice cream n pizza. how do i stop?
practise restraint, meditation.
by observing your thoughts you understand why you desire something.
there is nothing wrong with desire but what is the consequence?
misery, if u cant get what you desire.
desire will arise but when you know its no big deal, you are on your way
to overcoming the power of desire.
the buddha taught about two kinds of desire
the first kind is called craving or thirst (tanha)
the second is called wise aspiration (sankappa)
craving is the cause of suffering whereas wise aspiration is the cause of well-being
sankappa is the second factor of the eightfold path
for example, i must educate myself so i can get a job or be motivated to meditate; these good things require wise aspiration
so if you wish to improve your life in a benefit way, you need wise aspiration
in other teachings, the buddha called this chanda iddhipada, which means passion as a factor of success
if we wish to be successful at what we do, the first quality we require is passion or love
the buddha taught like this
one must be careful so to not misunderstand the four noble truths
the four noble truths are about suffering; they are a medicinal diagnositic formula
when you suffer, look for the craving caused by ignorance
if you play sport to earn a living, improve your health or develop your character, this is wise aspiration
but if when you play sport you sulk & get very angry after you lose, this is craving
kind regards
ddhatu
attachment is caused by craving and craving is caused by ignorance
it is difficult for ignorance to abandon attachment but it is much easier for wisdom to abandon ignorance
:buck:
:winkc:
Examine a new born baby. It has no concepts of 'self' but is full of desires.