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.
what seems to be the most common buddhist misunderstanding
aHappyNihilist
Veteran
On these forums particularly, but even when i talk to people in real life about buddhism there is one recurring issue with people's understanding.
It's the issue of craving. People seem to think that not craving means you can't do anything. People seem to think that if you do anything you have to crave to do it so ending craving is impossible. This is founded on a misunderstanding of what "craving" means in Buddhism. I'll try to give as good as possible a definition.
Heres dictionary.com's definition
to long for; want greatly; desire eagerly
I don't think this works for the Buddhist sense of craving, this implies craving is the same as desire or preference but just in a higher degree. Here is a better definition for Buddhism:
The painful, needy, attachment to a preferred outcome.
The point of this thread is to explain that you can still want things and not crave them. You can want to help others, you can want to learn, you can want to be happy etc. as long as you don't attach to the outcome. You can still have a preferred outcome in any given situation, and as long as you don't attach to it you won't cause yourself suffering.
The suffering of craving comes solely from the attachment. But this is not to say it is the only form of suffering. If you prefer, without attachment, an unskillful outcome, you won't suffer from craving, but you could still suffer from the other consequences of your preference.
Basically, prefer skillful things, and what you do prefer, don't attach to.
The same concepts works with aversion. The difference between aversion and preference against is the same as the difference between preference and craving. If you prefer not to have something (some pain) you'd prefer it didn't exist. If your averse to that pain then you prefer it doesn't exist, and if it does exist you are constantly straining yourself against it in vain. Or even worse straining against it when it is not even there yet, in both cases your just hurting yourself.
Buddha had a good metaphor of the arrow here. That normally when we are shot with an arrow (we are hurt) we shoot ourselves again with aversion to the first arrow.
So to sum it up. There is pain and there is pleasure. We as humans prefer pleasure prefer not to have pain. If we keep it at the level of preference, that is fine. It is when we are averse to pain or crave pleasure that we shoot ourselves right in the freaking face with an arrow.
People are still having a tough time with this so I'll throw in a metaphor that helped me get it.
Imagine that you are chained to a wall, go on imagine it. You are hungry and there is a bowl with some food out of your reach because of the chains. You know with 100% certainty that it is completely impossible to break loose from the chains without a key and that the key is out of your reach. Would you sit there, or would you strain against the chains constantly and painfully? Of course, you would sit there. In our lives we are bound by millions of little chains. We are bound by our physical bodies, we are bound by the will of others, we are bound by gravity, we are bound by our need for air, our need for food, you could go on for days. Craving is the straining against the chains. If you would prefer to win a football game, do you strain against the chain of time? Do you constant pull at the future? Do you pull at that unbreakable chain or do you work within your limitations? Even if you wanted to build a time machine to break free from the chain of time, do you strain against the chain of not having enough money to afford the pieces do you mentally strain for the money or do you work within the limitations of the world and earn it? Even if you went to break that chain and rob a bank, do you strain against the chain of the fact that you don't have superman strength or do you work within your limitations to rob the bank? Even if you take steroids do you strain against the chain of the fact that you don't have a syringe or do you work within your limitations and get a needle?
....................... yea. mental straining against chains is useless. you can work to break from the chains, getting some key or another to undo a lock, without straining uselessly against them.
It's the issue of craving. People seem to think that not craving means you can't do anything. People seem to think that if you do anything you have to crave to do it so ending craving is impossible. This is founded on a misunderstanding of what "craving" means in Buddhism. I'll try to give as good as possible a definition.
Heres dictionary.com's definition
to long for; want greatly; desire eagerly
I don't think this works for the Buddhist sense of craving, this implies craving is the same as desire or preference but just in a higher degree. Here is a better definition for Buddhism:
The painful, needy, attachment to a preferred outcome.
The point of this thread is to explain that you can still want things and not crave them. You can want to help others, you can want to learn, you can want to be happy etc. as long as you don't attach to the outcome. You can still have a preferred outcome in any given situation, and as long as you don't attach to it you won't cause yourself suffering.
The suffering of craving comes solely from the attachment. But this is not to say it is the only form of suffering. If you prefer, without attachment, an unskillful outcome, you won't suffer from craving, but you could still suffer from the other consequences of your preference.
Basically, prefer skillful things, and what you do prefer, don't attach to.
The same concepts works with aversion. The difference between aversion and preference against is the same as the difference between preference and craving. If you prefer not to have something (some pain) you'd prefer it didn't exist. If your averse to that pain then you prefer it doesn't exist, and if it does exist you are constantly straining yourself against it in vain. Or even worse straining against it when it is not even there yet, in both cases your just hurting yourself.
Buddha had a good metaphor of the arrow here. That normally when we are shot with an arrow (we are hurt) we shoot ourselves again with aversion to the first arrow.
So to sum it up. There is pain and there is pleasure. We as humans prefer pleasure prefer not to have pain. If we keep it at the level of preference, that is fine. It is when we are averse to pain or crave pleasure that we shoot ourselves right in the freaking face with an arrow.
People are still having a tough time with this so I'll throw in a metaphor that helped me get it.
Imagine that you are chained to a wall, go on imagine it. You are hungry and there is a bowl with some food out of your reach because of the chains. You know with 100% certainty that it is completely impossible to break loose from the chains without a key and that the key is out of your reach. Would you sit there, or would you strain against the chains constantly and painfully? Of course, you would sit there. In our lives we are bound by millions of little chains. We are bound by our physical bodies, we are bound by the will of others, we are bound by gravity, we are bound by our need for air, our need for food, you could go on for days. Craving is the straining against the chains. If you would prefer to win a football game, do you strain against the chain of time? Do you constant pull at the future? Do you pull at that unbreakable chain or do you work within your limitations? Even if you wanted to build a time machine to break free from the chain of time, do you strain against the chain of not having enough money to afford the pieces do you mentally strain for the money or do you work within the limitations of the world and earn it? Even if you went to break that chain and rob a bank, do you strain against the chain of the fact that you don't have superman strength or do you work within your limitations to rob the bank? Even if you take steroids do you strain against the chain of the fact that you don't have a syringe or do you work within your limitations and get a needle?
....................... yea. mental straining against chains is useless. you can work to break from the chains, getting some key or another to undo a lock, without straining uselessly against them.
0
Comments
One I see very commonly, especially on sites with many ex-Christians, is the idea that it is selfish to seek to avoid suffering, or even that "suffering is good for the soul". Christians, of course, consider suffering a virtue; Buddhists consider it a result of ignorance.
I took an awful long time to grow out of the belief that suffering was an inherently good thing, and a sign of spiritual progress. Being a miserable sinner was a hard habit to break!
Then of course is the assumption that suffering = pain (mental or physical). It is hard for former theists to accept that it is possible to be in pain, or unhappy, or helpless and yet not suffer. They either think that Buddhists don't feel pain or sadness and become sort of Star Trek Vulcans (no emotions, supposedly), or they do feel pain and sadness and therefore inevitably suffer. It's a tricky concept to get your head around.
Oh and I wonder if the last misunderstanding is just mine: I thought that in order to be a Buddhist, you had to be a quiet, antisocial person who liked being alone. Seeing as I'm a very noisy, gregarious person and the last person on earth people would accuse of being a Buddhist, I assumed I'd last about 5 seconds in most sanghas. No disrespect to the quiet types, but I'm not one!
I do understand the frustration, I have felt it myself. But you can only show people so much, they've got to take it on themselves to believe it.
But I can understand why you feel angry about it. But just imagine if you were them, thinking happiness is a sin. To them, it seems right. It's like you thinking that suffering is ignorant.Through understanding there is forgiveness. And I truly believe that. Maybe if you understood their reasons for thinking that, you would wish better, than be angry or think they're 'evil'. But I'm not judging you, it's the same for me with murderers, but I don't hate the person, just dislike the action. Because, how can you hate skin, hair, eyes, smell, or claim that as evil? It is the action, after. And they are simply deluded, blind, whatever you prefer. But I do wish they wouldn't harm others in their quests. That's like adding salt to the wound. So to speak.
Consider ... summoning ALL of his powers.
You highlight one of my strongest battles: accepting the ignorance and suffering all around. Especially when that suffering is caused by the teachings of people who arrogantly assume they are not ignorant, but actually very wise (like Christian priests).
But we must remember that until we encounter the dharma (which is an amazing blessing) we may try to develop all sorts of wacky ideas to stop suffering. People are just trying to be happy and to stop suffering - we should have compassion on them and remember that. Perhaps if our compassion can develop, our anger would dissipate and we would see the suffering for what it is.
[EDIT] No need to elaborate, don't want another vegetarian debate.
Ah, now......:D
I think part of it is that many westerners(espc. people in the US) did not grow up around Asian culture or have not been exposed to it all. The notion of respect for skilled/wise teachers may seem like worship if one does not understand the cultural aspects.
I really don't believe that the word 'Dukkha' is a solidly translatable word, with another single word, of 'suffering'. The etymological root (so I hear) also has connections to 'a wheel that has been badly fixed onto a cart. It gives a wobbly, and not entirely satisfactory (but nevertheless acceptable) ride'.
To say he hopes to die sooner or later, is a foolish/unskilful statement. To me it shows that he has himself misunderstood the meaning of Suffering (Monks are not all-wise, infallible teachers, I think we need to remind ourselves of this) and that actually, he will get his wish, because guess what? it happens to all of us! Did he mean he wanted to die sooner RATHER than later?
Definition 1 and 2 sound basically the same. Except if we take example #2 of ending craving. We would essentially not care about the outcome of the thing we long for; want greatly; desire greatly.
Am I missing something here? Were just not supposed to care about the things we care about? Its ok to want something, but it's not ok to care about the result of thing your trying to obtain?
How do you want something if you don't care about the result? I can't possibly understand how it is possible to have any motivation if you don't have any attachment to the result. I have tried my best but you slowly spiral down to a completely boring useless life. It has to be a two way street. Meaning that in order to not suffer when something goes wrong you also can't take too much joy when something goes right. If you take a ton of happiness when things go right then it leaves more room disappointment when they go wrong. This process just leaves you completely apathetic. The benefit is a completely stress free and peaceful state. Its like taking a handful of Valium everyday. With my apparent misconception of this idea, I really don't understand how society would even function if everyone followed it thoroughly.
I don't understand the argument that you would just do good things because its good. People do good things for their own selfish interests. Sad but true you do good things so you feel good. If you didn't care about that feeling of good you received from doing your duty you wouldn't do it. Isn't this basically why monks are completely satisfied sitting all day. Show me a bunch of capitalistic monks who own drug and oil companies. Then I would be convinced that you can crave without attachment.
I must add I think this is the danger of this business. Many monks have completely gone off the deep end. Many beginners including myself have fallen into depression. This very concept can really make you believe that there is nothing worth caring about. To me Buddhism has a very nihilistic view.
Your confused friend
I accept that I can't change that, but that doesn't mean i wouldn't prefer to. So i'm not going to ignore the suffering, I'm going to be aware of it, do what I could to change it but remain equanimous.
Lay persons (unlike monks) can enjoy a lot of pleasures: romantic relationships, houses, cars, investments, hobbies, anything really, so long as it does not cause them or other beings to suffer. They can have desires (and cravings too!) for things that are possible, its natural. But to desire for something unattainable, like staying young forever, is painful. You can enjoy pleasant sensations but know that they are impermanent and clinging to them can bring suffering. There's a time for getting, there's a time for keeping, and there's a time for letting go. Doing this skillfully, IMHO, liberates one from a lot of disappointment, agitation, pain, and suffering (from dukkha).
It is the opposite of the Middle Way, which is about balance and not going too far one way or the other (craving on one end, aversion on the other).
Or to use another analogy, it is the difference between a person wanting a drink because they're thirsty, and an alcoholic craving a whiskey.
You can want something without craving it. If you want without craving, and you get it, great. You are grateful, you consider how blessed you are, you are happy because you are so fortunate. But if you don't get it, that's fine too. You'll cope. It doesn't mean you won't be disappointed, but not overwhelmingly so. It does not destroy your peace.
My teacher is Tibetan and he misses his homeland. When he talked about New Year celebrations as a boy (their equivalent of Christmas) his eyes went misty and he had a rueful smile. But he doesn't crave it. He missed Tibet, but UK is OK too. In fact, he considers UK to have given him a wonderful life, wonderful friends and wonderful experiences. Tibet was a blessing growing up: UK is a blessing now he's grown. His eyes went misty when he discussed his current life too!
Equanimity is not about becoming a robot, it is about confidently facing anything that comes your way calmly and always seeing the good in it. It's a permanently optimistic frame of mind because you know that samsara is not the ultimate reality.
This is towards Beta too. The difference isn't just in degree of intensity! The difference is in equanimity. If you prefer something you would like it to be that way. You could really really really like it to be that way and it would still just be a preference, would still not cause suffering. Craving is when you would prefer something be a certain way, and you mentally grasp for it, when it is not present. You need it, you identify with it. If you prefer something be a certain way you won't suffer at all if you don't get your way, even if you really preferred something strongly. Like your living through the rest of this day.
This is a difficult to explain difference, but the difference isn't in intensity, that's just an easy way to explain it. It's not in imbalance. It's in the mental grasping. Because the difference is so hard to conceptualize i like to use this metaphor.
Some guy is chained to a wall and he wants to leave. The key is sitting 10 feet from him, there is no way he can reach it or break his chains. The craver strains against his chains, reaches out in vain. The preferer just sits there, if someone threw him the key he'd use it, but even during his turning of that key he only prefers to turn the key, he doesn't crave it. when we crave we mentally strain and reach toward a goal which we can't achieve through mental straining. You could even strain very softly, you could strain for a chocolate bar. Conversely you could prefer very very much, without craving. I'd prefer to go to a good college, I really would prefer that. But my mind doesn't grasp for it.
Not craving is basically having complete equanimity towards all preferences. Whether it be the preference to eat food, the preference to not die, the preference to finish typing your next sentence. You can act in ways that favor these things happening without straining against the chains.
If you were chained and knew you couldn't break out of the chains it would be totally illogical to strain against the chains. But that is our exact condition. We have limitations. We are physical beings, there are laws of nature. We can't do anything at any time we are not omnipotent. Craving comes from this subconscious assumption of omnipotence. The assumption makes us strain against our limitations, pull uselessly against the chains to get something we prefer. No matter how much you prefer something, if you can't get it in the present moment, don't strain against the chains. Wait patiently to be freed, or find some way of unlocking them.
Yes, of course it makes me feel good to a degree, but this is not the reason I do it. I do it because I want to and genuinely enjoy and care about helping others and I am sure this is the case for most people who do good things. [/quote]
There is nothing wrong with feeling good because you do good, and there is nothing selfish in feeling motivated to compassion because you have mindfully observed it benefits you more than your recipient. That is karma in action
TBH I suspect anyone who claims they do good to others "just because" is either lying or unaware of themselves. But does it matter? If somebody said to me "You only did that because it makes you feel good" I'd probably smile at them and say "Yep". Although that is not my [b]only[/b] motivation, it is probably the strongest.
Besides, any distinction between "you" or "they" is an illusion - so whoever feels better, it's win-win. Provided it is true compassion, mindfully considering what are skillful actions in each particular case, not thoughtless "idiot compassion", like giving money to a drug addict or food that needs cooking to a beggar without a cooker.
True compassion is never the wrong thing to do and there are no wrong motives. That comes from the Judeo-Christian guilt-thing that says that we can do nothing right even if we do good, since we are miserable sinners. I'd advise you to forget about guilt-complexes and just enjoy what comes naturally.
In all of this, IMHO your problem is the "hurt" you feel when accused of doing it for "selfish" reasons. Selfishness is the opposite of compassion.
P.S. I think the person who needs your compassion most at the moment is yourself!
You are right though in that I do need a little self compassion (for other reasons), but then I think we all need a little of that!!
I decided to clean the beach again. This time some gay man wouldn't leave me alone. Doing things I can't describe here. I almost had to get in a fight. I had to leave early. Then found out my shoes were stolen. If I had this practice down would I go clean the beach the next day? Because today I didn't feel like cleaning the beach. The second beach cleaning was partly based on some level of selfishness.
This is a great example of how the world should be and how it really is. I mean how long can you take all the @#$%$%it and maintain loving kindness? Loving kindness is like a fancy toy a spoiled kid gets. As long as we have evil people acting on our behalf we can have all the loving kindness we want.( i.e)Government protecting your way of life by killing people for oil)
>>>>>"sisnarf">>>>This is a great example of how the world should be and how it really is.
Well how it really us, is dukka. The Buddha makes this very clear:) There is no "should" about the world, it is empty.
>>>I mean how long can you take all the @#$%$%it and maintain loving kindness?
It is not about taking the @#$%$%it, it is about seeing it for what it is and disattaching from it. Maybe next time you metta, try starting with the man who upset you on the beach?
>>>Loving kindness is like a fancy toy a spoiled kid gets.
Perhaps you dont know it yet? I don't think it is as you describe.
>>>As long as we have evil people acting on our behalf we can have all the loving kindness we want.( i.e)Government protecting your way of life by killing people for oil)
Maybe we will always have such people acting on our behalf, just as we always have.
The ideal is not real.
Start inside, with the thing you can change the most.
Smile:)
namaste
However I feel that in this thread there are a few misunderstandings coming from Buddhists. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is Buddhism not about seeing everything how it is without judging, including people? Can we not learn from all people, be it christian priests or people living christian lives?
I see no reason as to call them arrogant or stupid, they are living their life and every single person out there can teach any other person out there, including you/us, a lesson about something. In this way none of them are stupid.
As for calling christian priests arrogant, ignoring the fact that it is a huge generalisation, most priests dedicate their life to something believing it will help people. This may be ignorant but I would never go as far as to call it arrogant.
It appears to me that some practicing Buddhists that are walking the right path are looking down on others who walk a different path.