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.
neutrality or equanimity
aHappyNihilist
Veteran
This issue has pretty much come up constantly throughout all my (admittedly small) experience with Buddhism. The issue generally comes up in some sort of question of, "well if you can't crave then how can you do anything?" Or "if you can't crave then how can you become enlightened because you have to crave enlightenment?" This is usually resolved with the idea that craving and aversion can be separated from preference. You can prefer things be a certain way without attaching to them and craving them. I use this metaphor a lot, it's like being chained to a wall with food 10 feet away from you, the guy who is reaching for the food in vain is the guy craving for it, the guy who just sits there is not craving, though he'd prefer to have it.
So then the question turns to, does enlightenment mean that you don't prefer issues of pleasure one way or the other? Or are you like that guy who sits there, he'd like the food but doesn't crave it. Is the goal to prefer nothing in terms of pleasure or is the goal to not attach to pleasure and not have aversion towards pain. I'd definitely say that it is the latter, equanimity. But there are those who would disagree so I'll try to build a case for it.
1. Without preferring things one way or the other you would starve to death. You can't not prefer things because then you couldn't even prefer life.
The counter-argument here is usually that it is only ok to prefer certain things, like life over death, helping others over not helping others, being healthy over being sick.
My rebuttal is that there is essentially no difference between these cravings, one example is just more extreme than the others. Life over death is more extreme than salt or no salt on your rice. You must prefer some things to live, this is a fact. What exactly makes your preference for life different than your preference for salt on your rice I'm not sure.
2. The Buddha taught the middle way. Even if you take the position that ok, you should only prefer things necessary to your life or necessary to helping others (which is illogical, if that is ok why not salt on your rice?) then I'd say that your not really a Buddhist. Buddha taught the road between indulgence and asceticism he taught us not only to love others but to love ourselves. He spent years fighting his body, his urges, before realizing that this only caused anger and aversion and was not conducive to compassion. He found that ascetics are simply worse, they are less happy, less compassionate people. And what is the worth of asceticism if those are your results?
3. That we are fighting suffering and preference does not cause suffering. Just think about it, what causes the suffering, the preference or the attachment to that preference? To me the answer is obviously the attachment to the preference, but I can't really demonstrate this so I'd just ask you to do a little introspection, is it the preference or the attachment?
I teach one thing and one only:
that is, suffering and the end of suffering.
- The Buddha
Does preference really cause suffering?
There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensual pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction: painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of these extremes, the middle way realized by the Tathagata.
- The Buddha
Thank you. Prove me wrong!
So then the question turns to, does enlightenment mean that you don't prefer issues of pleasure one way or the other? Or are you like that guy who sits there, he'd like the food but doesn't crave it. Is the goal to prefer nothing in terms of pleasure or is the goal to not attach to pleasure and not have aversion towards pain. I'd definitely say that it is the latter, equanimity. But there are those who would disagree so I'll try to build a case for it.
1. Without preferring things one way or the other you would starve to death. You can't not prefer things because then you couldn't even prefer life.
The counter-argument here is usually that it is only ok to prefer certain things, like life over death, helping others over not helping others, being healthy over being sick.
My rebuttal is that there is essentially no difference between these cravings, one example is just more extreme than the others. Life over death is more extreme than salt or no salt on your rice. You must prefer some things to live, this is a fact. What exactly makes your preference for life different than your preference for salt on your rice I'm not sure.
2. The Buddha taught the middle way. Even if you take the position that ok, you should only prefer things necessary to your life or necessary to helping others (which is illogical, if that is ok why not salt on your rice?) then I'd say that your not really a Buddhist. Buddha taught the road between indulgence and asceticism he taught us not only to love others but to love ourselves. He spent years fighting his body, his urges, before realizing that this only caused anger and aversion and was not conducive to compassion. He found that ascetics are simply worse, they are less happy, less compassionate people. And what is the worth of asceticism if those are your results?
3. That we are fighting suffering and preference does not cause suffering. Just think about it, what causes the suffering, the preference or the attachment to that preference? To me the answer is obviously the attachment to the preference, but I can't really demonstrate this so I'd just ask you to do a little introspection, is it the preference or the attachment?
I teach one thing and one only:
that is, suffering and the end of suffering.
- The Buddha
Does preference really cause suffering?
There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensual pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction: painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of these extremes, the middle way realized by the Tathagata.
- The Buddha
Thank you. Prove me wrong!
0
Comments
1. craving (tanha), ignorant desire, 2nd noble truth, cause of suffering
2. right aspiration (samma sankhappa), wise desire, 2nd factor of noble eightfold path
Buddhism is very simple. You live your life and use the mind as a tool to help yourself and help others around you. Meditation is used to see things as they are so one doesn't suffer whilst engaging in this service to others.
But yes i agree that living Buddhism is far more important that talking it. Talking still has a place.
poor impression if we wish to share liberation of mind but we use language inaccurately & misrepresent the subject
buddha said:
(40) Others will have no learning; we shall be learned here — thus effacement can be done.
Sallekha Sutta
what is samsara?
I wasn't meaning to contradict you just saying how I see doubt and neutrality.