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.
Idealism causes great sorrow
betaboy
Veteran
Deep down we are all idealists. We want the best of everything. We want utter perfection - perfect world, perfect love, beauty, justice, etc. We won't settle for less. But this makes us compare the present state with the idealistic picture we have in mind. There is a huge gap, naturally, and this gap causes pain and frustration.
Neither can we just turn it off and pretend to be realists. It is easy to say, at least outwardly and on the surface level, that one should accept things as they are, that sorrow/death are part of life, and so on. But the truth is, everybody longs for a state devoid of pain and death, strife and struggle. Everybody wants immortality. Everybody wants paradise.
This longing causes great pain.
2
Comments
Desire is not the same as craving. We actually need desire to survive. We have to have a desire and strive for something. It makes life more livable.
The comparison between what we have and what we want is what causes the suffering. Pay attention to when yor "comparative mind" kicks in, and you'll realize what is going on and it will be easier to stop. After all, the ideal doesn't exist, so why get bent out of shape wanting something that isn't real. Accept what is here now and you will have contentment.
@betaboy
Disagree. We can become realists. Take me for example. I'm dying. Can't stop it, can only prolong it. I know I will not live as long as someone my age (38) should. Does it upset me? Yes, but not as much as it used to. I've had almost 12 months to accept it. There's no point fluffing around, I take the opportunity to do as much as I can, when I can. I'm not going to sit around and ask "Why me?" (though I did at first). It has taken a hell of a lot of hard work, but it can be done.
Sounds like a case of the First Noble Truth to me. There is indeed suffering. Part of that suffering is undoubtedly the gap between reality and our ideal. Alas, in today's society a lot of marketing dollars and magazine column inches are spent on drawing attention to that gap and how you can't be truly happy whilst that gap exists.
I wouldn't call what you have just described "idealism," but rather a severe case of unrealistic expectations about life. If you set the bar too high, you're in for big disappointments. If you go one step at a time, instead, acknowledge every little glimpse of inner contentment and enjoy the landscape as you move, there is no bitter aftertaste of craving, nor suffering. Suffering is highly overrated in Buddhist forums these days. And craving, for that matter.
Indeed. Some seem to feel that it is compulsory and ideally acceptable in some sort of 'ah well karma' way. The allowing of flaws, dukkha, the imperfection of our experience is a relaxation in the face of reality. Not grabbing for perfection, not cowering from difficulties. It is equanimity in our life.
The more we practice, the more this calm and real benefit becomes apparent. Buddhism is an ideal way to live in a real world that is not always ideal . . . well that's my ideal . . .
There you go. TELLING us all what WE are, again.
We keep telling you - speak for yourself...
Right now, I'd be happy to settle for a full night's sleep and a nice cuppa.
Ah yes. This is that 'Ignorance' and 'Clinging' you were going on about yesterday, isn't it?
It's easy to say, but with Practice - capital P - these things become apparent, obvious and transfixed. We actually SEE precisely what is, and how things are, ans Acceptance comes.
I emphasise the word 'Practice' because it seems apparent, with these huge sweeping generalising statements that you have a habit of making, that you assume simply because YOU haven't practised the Dhamma, then neither has anyone else, and we're all as deluded as you are.
Where do you get all this crap? I most certainly do NOT want immortality, and as for Paradise, it is of your own making, here and now. Just as Hell is.
And this appears to be - YOUR hell.
You're welcome to it - include me out.
I've tried to reply with quote but somehow I failed twice. I wanted to address what @lobster so fantastically expressed above. "Buddhism is an ideal way to live in a real world that is not always ideal." We should mark that, though the whole passage is wonderful.
It's okay to practice and learn in order to deal more satisfactorily with dukkha when it presents itself. But @betaboy, I don't think the Buddhist ideal should be yet another excuse to berate ourselves with unattainable expectations. Don't put the goal-oriented template into your practice.
I can't remember in which sutra the Buddha mentioned that the first recipient of our compassion should be ourselves.
Immortality? Paradise? Too big for my size! Buddha forbid!
Idealism is the practice of forming or pursuing unrealistic ideals, I prefer realism, the practice of being, well real, and not just what I think I am... Its the perfect way to escape the sorrow idealism seems to bring...
@betaboy -- Without disrespect, do you think you could modify -- or better yet, eradicate -- the well-lubricated use of the word "we" in your assertions? I know it's a safe-sex approach and has the appearance of sitting in some imagined high seat, but I for one would be more impressed and perhaps better informed if you simply told me what you thought/felt/enjoyed/despaired of. Did you ever notice that the best 'teachers' were those who seemed to be devoid of any notion of being a 'teacher?'
Naturally, you are free to express yourself as you will ... much as I am free to express my reactions. I simply suspect you might serve your own cause better with a little more openness.
Actually I left Christianity because I don't believe in the ideals of immortality (LOL thanks to @anataman for pointing out my "immorality" mistake) and paradise. Instead of putting everyone in the basket with you, why don't you change all the "we" to "I" and see what it gets you? Saying "we" just takes the charge out of applying all the statements to yourself. Not everyone feels or thinks exactly how you do.
I hadn't seen what @genkaku said before I started typing. I agree with him.
My perception of reality is no closer to the truth of reality than my ideal world. They are both false states. People can most certainly work to see things in a manner that is more consistent of what they actually are. That is why we practice.
Non-attached idealism causes no pain.
This might be what my new red metallic toaster is trying to tell me, @lobster. It's OK to love. Know the consequences. Love and loss might be the same.
I believe that an ideal can become your reality as long as you really want it. Thus if you do not strive towards it you are the creator of your own torment. There are things you can't change of course, and with which you need to learn to live, but the things that you can aspire too, the things you want and are possible to reach. The only thing that seperates you from your ideal becoming a reality is the mind set to get there.
Allthough it just occured to me that that may be a dangerous path towards never being really satisfied, i suppose it depends from person to person
Mahayana buddhism is a great ideal, as is the boddhisattva. The non-attached striving by so many buddhists empowers it, but it is still just an ideal, and we have to settle with what is. But that shouldn't make us hang our heads in sorrow; we should delight in the delight it brings.
LA LA LA LA LA.
This is my happy mantra for today infusing the world like mental jasmine tea (with flower petals)
LA LA LA LA LA.
LOL
There is always attachment to an ideal.
yesI I probably am in agreement with you, there is always attachment to an ideal, which would mean that to attain the ideal of non-attachment, would require that you should not strive for non-attachment. Starting to sound familiar?
No? - there is a middle way to approach an ideal, and that is with equanimity
The secret is to KNOW when it's time to let go.
The problem as I see it is that, you either DON'T know - or don't want to.
Attachment, depending exactly what one means by it, might not even necessarily be the problem. Sometimes, attachment can be seen as a good thing, we are attached to our children so that we take proper care of them, and so on. It's the attachment to a particular outcome that causes the problem. We get upset when our children don't follow in our footsteps, or achieve what we wish they would. We get upset when we strive towards a Bodhisattva ideal but we fail. It's not about not having any goals in mind, ever, and being indifferent. It's about letting go of the outcome and not being attached to how, or if, you might even achieve that ideal. The ideal itself isn't the problem. Your thinking that you know how to make the ideal happen, and then reacting in one extreme way or another when it doesn't is the problem.
You know what else causes great suffering?
Complacency.
"Emo, Emo, Emo..."
"I'm the one in the middle, you drunken slob!"
Thats really cool - how did you manage to do that!
Do what?
As in hide a message that can't be seen until you quote someone
Oh I think there was a glitch in that I was responding as you were posting. It's sorted itself out now, but are you drunk?
I would go further it is Perfect.
In other words our true nature as it becomes more apparent, is compassionate and loving. However this is an ideal, altruistic, non clinging love. This is how to enjoy toasters and the fleeting nature of experience. It is not just we who love but the objects, people, experiences that reflect back on us . . .
This is how we can experience without being constrained. We literally give in, surrender to the perfect toaster.
_. . . and now back to the grilling . . ._
:wave:
I don't agree in the slightest. You seem to think that thinking in ideal terms is inherently discursive thought, which is something I fundamentally reject, as that would entail such thinking as having a sort of svabhava. Thinking is empty, thus thinking in ideal terms is also empty (of svabhava). One can think ideally without getting caught in a discursive web.
Why do you think attachment is fundamentally linked to ideal thinking? I think this is an association fallacy, where you are unable to recognize the possibility of thought-without-attachment, specifically ideal thought without an attachment.
I would love to hear your specific reasons you use to justify your claim, because I surely observe the exact opposite in my own study and experience.
Ajahn Chah put it so nicely: "If you let go a little, you'll have a little happiness. If you let go a lot, you'll have a lot of happiness. If you let go completely... you'll be completely happy."
No big words but straight to the heart.
The pain probably comes from the clinging to the ideas and the desire to see that the ideas are acted out.