|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 13, 2009 21:18:41 GMT -8
Kirbstomp,
Before I forget, tonight I briefly mentioned one major disagreement with Buddhist thought- namely the idea that desire is to be eradicated, whereas I don't see desire as inherently evil.
You said you thought there might be some misunderstanding there. I'm curious what else you were going to say (when you have a chance)
|
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Oct 14, 2009 11:35:00 GMT -8
Not so much misunderstanding, but perhaps mis-application. First, we must define "desire". I've always thought it referred to selfish desire (in this context, anyway). I think you would agree that selfish desire (pride, or sin) would lead to suffering (or death, spiritually speaking).
However, some Buddhists define this as all desire, and an argument can be made that desire leads to suffering. (I really want another slice of cake...I am going to eat that other slice of cake because I desire it so much...now I have a belly ache because I ate too much cake, and further, I ate the slice that my wife desired, so now she is suffering because she does not get to experience the sweetness that I did...moreso, the sugary sweetness led to a cavity etc. etc.) If I had eliminated that desire for cake, my wife and I would not have suffered so.
I think this principle is best applied as an understanding of pride and selfish desire. Master Hua writes in "The Ten Dharma Realms Are Not Beyond a Single Thought":
So, I think that the Buddhist idea of "desire" has more to do with selfishness than with a want or what we normally think of when we think of "desire".
As we discussed last night, perhaps suffering of some sort is absolutely necessary to complete restoration. I'm not sure I fully agree with that. The Buddhist ideal of eliminating desire in order to eliminate suffering is noble, but impractical. Instead, we should work toward eliminating selfishness, so that we are "not big" as Master Hua suggests.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 14, 2009 12:18:55 GMT -8
I may be wrong, but I have never encountered Buddhists to mean that only "selfish" desire is to be eradicated, but rather "all desire".
I certainly wouldn't disagree that all "selfish" desire should be put to death- and neither would Jesus (or Moses or Mohommed for that matter) However, that there is such a thing as a noble desire I have no doubt.
And of course it's true that the elimination of all desire would eliminate most of the suffering in the world, but at what cost?
You see, from what I can tell at least, Buddhists think suffering is the worst thing in the universe. But to Christians and many other religions, it is actually sin/ evil that is the worst thing.
And I do definitely believe that there are worse things than suffering, so I think the four noble truths, though logical, are missing the mark.
But I'm interested in more dialogue on this if I'm mistaken in some way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Oct 14, 2009 13:35:42 GMT -8
I agree, Josh, and perhaps did not make that clear enough. The point I am trying to make is that there are some Buddhists that make that distinction. The few American Buddhists I have met and spoke with make this distinction.
But isn't sin/evil kind of synonomous with suffering? I mean, sin/evil is spiritual death in a lot of Christian worldviews, and what is death but the ultimate form of suffering?
I honestly have not delved into Buddhist thinking much more then some cursory readings. I am trying to formulate a middle ground here, instead of representing what Buddhists believe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 14, 2009 16:27:08 GMT -8
I agree, Josh, and perhaps did not make that clear enough. The point I am trying to make is that there are some Buddhists that make that distinction. The few American Buddhists I have met and spoke with make this distinction. Hmmm. Without that distinction I don't see how it could really be called Buddhism anymore, unless I guess the strategies the person is using to eradicate "false" desire have a decidedly traditional Buddhist approach. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 14, 2009 16:29:22 GMT -8
But isn't sin/evil kind of synonomous with suffering? I mean, sin/evil is spiritual death in a lot of Christian worldviews, and what is death but the ultimate form of suffering? No, I don't think so. Sin and suffering are related, but not synonymous. More in a bit... |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 14, 2009 18:47:11 GMT -8
For instance, Jesus suffered and yet was without sin.
Hindus and Buddhists* often find Jesus' suffering during death evidence that he wasn't as advanced or enlightened as he could have been. Had he been truly liberated from all desire, He certainly would not have cried out "Eloi eloi lama sabachthani".
Yet I think the notion that God condescended to our experience is one of the most sublime ideas ever conceived.
*even Muslims share a version of this view and therefor insist that Jesus didn't die on the cross, but someone else in His place.
It's interesting to me to note how offensive the cross is to all the major religions outside of Christianity.
|
|
|
|
Post by robcantrell11 on Oct 15, 2009 4:16:51 GMT -8
Fun topic. There are a few things I think I can add from my own experience.
1) The "goal" of Buddhism as a Way of Life is Enlightenment - something that is not easily defined. Those teachers who have experienced this have spoken about it in many different ways, and for the most part it is difficult for those who have not experienced it to understand what they are saying. This has to do with the way that the un-Enlightened experience the universe on a day to day basis - through their desires and aversions.
2) But desire-for-whatever (pleasure, power, money, stuff) and aversion-to-whatever (fear, pain, suffering, loss) are part of the human condition. It is the essence of what we are born with - instinctual, if you will. That is a little facile, but stick with me before you stop here. So the human condition is set, full of desires, full of aversions, leading us throughout our lives to whatever degree we are attached to them. The more we let go of these, the closer we get to the mind of God. Really, selfishness is too simplistic, but it is essentially what this is - whatever can help Me survive in an objectified world. The great teachers have always known that you can't eradicate desire and aversion - but you can learn to work around them, and in spite of them.
3) So, learning to deal with your desires and aversions - learning to let them go, in spite of them being ever present in us, is to become un-attached to them. Thus, the Attachment to desires and aversions is the primary goal of the Eightfold Path. Attachment to desire and aversion can be eradicated, even if the desires and aversions are still ever present within us. We don't have to identify ourselves with these. Not to speak in Dualisms, where I am here and my desires and aversions are something else, just that we are more than these things. We are the Children of God, sharing the self-same mind as He has - even if through a glass darkly. The greater the attachment to desires and aversions, the darker the glass.
4) Attachment to desires and aversions causes suffering. Thus, when Christ suffered on the Cross he did so in spite of his desire for His own safety, or his aversion to pain. He took our Suffering of the Ages and relieved us of them. And when He cried out the words of the prophet, He did so to fulfill the Prophecies. He had already given up his attachments to His Self - which He knew, was already One with the Father. Being fully human, yet fully God, he had known desire and aversion, but not been attached to them. His Enlightenment, if you will, was perfect. Liberation is from the concept of Otherness. Again, He knew His Oneness with the Father. There was no Other.
5) Though there are many aspects of Buddhism, and many, many religious faces of Buddhism, it is essentially a Way of Life and not a religion. There is no deity. There is Samsara and Nirvana - Separation and Oneness - and it is not an actual place, it is a state of Mind. Being One with the Father, but not knowing it. Being born into sin nature, we are born into separation, into Otherness. This is the greatest Hell - you are isolated in the Universe and separated from your self. When the bride and the bridegroom are united there is no separation. The sad thing is that the bride is lying in bed with the bridegroom, but she is so isolated in her mind, with her eyes closed, lost in her attachment to her desires and aversions, that she never knows that the bridegroom is already there, waiting for her to open her eyes.
|
|
|
|
Post by robcantrell11 on Oct 15, 2009 4:17:19 GMT -8
BTW, hey Josh and Kirby.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 15, 2009 6:52:20 GMT -8
Thanks for that overview. It's like the old days but we're all grown up  Your comments clarify some things for me on this subject- especially about the difference between the experience of desires and aversions and attachment to them. That, of course, is not much different that how Christians have classicly viewed temptation- the experience of temptation is not sin, but it is the indulgance of it that we call sin. Still, I don't believe that desire is intrinsically negative. Are you saying that Buddhists don't see desire itself as negative, but only the attachment to desire? I think desire is placed within us by God in order to draw us to Him. We can settle for counterfeit desires which lead us to more suffering and discontent, but I don't think the answer is detachment from desire. Rather, it seems to me that God wants us to follow our desires all the way home, as it were. Also, another point of disagreement (or misunderstanding?) I have with Eastern philosophy is around the concept of Self, which you commented on. I see Self and Otherness as something God actually delights in, not something to be shed. Of course Self is dangerous, of course our ideas of it can be corrupted. But I don't think the goal of the universe is for all pesonalities to be subsumed into Oneness, but rather for all individuals to remain individuals yet become One in purpose, goodness, and cooperation. I think God gave us a great analogy in the experience we have of family. Though none of us had a perfect experience of family, we all have a sense of how a perfect family might operate. And to be family is for a variety of distinct, unique individuals to remain distinct and yet become One in purpose and perfect relationship. What do you think? And I'm also curious to hear the story of your experience with Buddhism and more on your thoughts on how Christianity does or doesn't overlap with Buddhist thought. |
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Oct 15, 2009 12:37:19 GMT -8
i agree alot with buddhist thought on desire. i believe that desire is caused by the archetypal "self" or "otherness" that the ego creates. our desire is for something to live up to these unrealistic expectations, and when they dont, we have suffering. ego creates desire, desire creates sin, sin when fully birthed brings forth death.
James 1:13-15
13When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. 15Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.
what this desire is: coollectively known as the Desire to Recieve. we were once one with the Lord's Desire to Give. But, then we broke off from that desire in the fall, and developed an ego and "desire to recieve." now, we are trying to become one with the Lord's desire again- eradicating the Desire to Recieve and building the Desire to Give.
(however, the orginal Base Ego was given by God as a blessing. this includes things like sex, need for clothing shelter, food, etc- all the Base Desires and Needs. these are not to be eradicated in this world- that is impossible. the Base Ego is to be destroyed in the Mellinium. it is the expansion of this ego that we develop as a child that we can rid ourselves of in Olam Hazeh. [note: Ego is NOT individuality.])
the opposite of ego is love. the opposite of the "i" is the "you". The lord is Love (Desire to Give) and we broke away from this desire and developed Ego (Desire to Recieve). all sin is done out of ego, in one way or the other. (sin merely means to "miss the mark." purity laws and such are not "sin" when broken, for those things are different for each culture). most good works are done out of love. we are becoming more like god every day by loving.
so, love does not count as a "desire" that we are to eradicate. only egoic desires are those that the buddhist tries to rid themselves of.
shalom
john
|
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Oct 15, 2009 12:51:51 GMT -8
there is no theistic deity, or rather, the traditional deity. in buddhism. remember that "self" and "otherness" are generic terms that are used to convey an abstract idea. i think you are misunderstanding how they are understood by the buddhist. i will try to explain it, but first click on the link below: share.acrobat.com/adc/document.do?docid=318aad92-7144-44fb-9aa7-0ad6fb7faee6First, there is the Base Ego which was given to us by God as a blessing. we were orignally in Oneness with his Will. We oringally saw everything under the unbrella of Love or the WTG. This caused happiness. but when we fell, we had to have a base ego. we had to worry enough about ourselves to feed ourselves and survive. so the base ego is that original blessing. but then, we expanded that base ego, creating the Ego. i will have to post later... i am about to update something. sorry for the cliff hanger. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 15, 2009 17:32:16 GMT -8
Whiile I'm waiting, what's the WTG?
|
|
|
|
Post by robcantrell11 on Oct 16, 2009 9:30:03 GMT -8
It IS just like the old days. But in our grown-up-ness, we have grown to learn and see more. The most hilarious thing is, we are now as we were when we were younger. I tend toward the ephemeral, and you (Josh) tend towards the concrete. It's awesome. We had some amazing conversations dancing around these personalities.
Here are a couple of thoughts on what you brought up.
1) Buddhists don't see desire as being bad or evil. It is our tendency toward attachment to them that is evil. And here, even the word evil is wrong. Buddhists believe in a concept of good and evil, but we like to take the power out of certain words to get to their base concepts. For the Buddhist there is that which puts your face toward the light (good), and that which turns it away (evil). Attachment that turns your face away from the light does just that. No value is placed, if you do such and such, if you're attached to your money, your family, your things, the desires for them or the aversion to losing them, then this will turn your face away from the light. Nothing more. Attachments aren't necessarily bad, per se, but they turn your face away from the light. More or less they are just a distraction from your true nature.
2) I'd like to explain that attachment to desire and aversion is an abstract term. The truth is attachment to your self. If you are not willing to lose your Life - the story which you have created for yourself, the Who You Are - then you turn your face away from the light. If you put anything between you and God, then you cannot see God face to face. As soon as you lose the attachments to your life, your self, you can then truly see your Self, which is the Mind of God. That is really it. The Art of Meditation and Mindfulness is just that - you fill your mind with God and nothing else, and then see that everything that you "have" and "are" are truly aspects of the Mind of God as well, gifts, for lack of a better term. They are not objects in a world that you created, they are part of the Mind of God itself, and not an extension of you.
3) Really I don't know if this is the pure Buddhist view, but it is the one that I have aquired in my experience with both Christianity and Buddhism. God is not Other. There is One God, and the Universe, the Cosmos, is all within the Mind of God. So everything that exists in our world is part of the Mind of God. We are God experiencing Himself in His many facets. So, we are separate, but the same. My sister is living in Nepal right now, and there they greet each other with the word Namaste. It means, Everything that is Holy in me recognizes the Holiness in you (my paraphase). When I was speaking about the Otherness we experience, what I am speaking about is the objectification of the world - making people and things, life in general, an object that can be owned by me, dominated by me, destroyed by me. But that is a lie. The object is none other than God Himself. Something cannot own itself. The suffering comes from the aloneness that springs from this. When you detach yourself from you attachment, and realize that you are the Mind of God, and the person in front of you is also the Mind of God, then at-one-ment can be experienced. It's not an achievement, it is a way of living within the world. At-one. God delights in each of us in our uniqueness because He is delighting in Life itself. I delight in my wife because she is unique from me, and also because she is the Mind of God. We play in this Universal playground. When separated from our-Self, we suffer. When atoned with our-Self, we delight.
Obviously these are things that greater minds then mine have contemplated for centuries, and my short, human answers do not suffice. This is a journey that takes a lifetime, or lifetimes, and one that doesn't end when we come face to face with the Lord. I have a feeling that, instead of giving us the answers, He delights in our journey. God likes the journey - He likes to discover Himself. I realize that not much of this follows any Biblical truths, so that you could definitely cut through several of the ideas with them. This is just one persons thoughts as he has journeyed, suffering and loving the mysteries of this life.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 16, 2009 11:37:49 GMT -8
It IS just like the old days. But in our grown-up-ness, we have grown to learn and see more. The most hilarious thing is, we are now as we were when we were younger. I tend toward the ephemeral, and you (Josh) tend towards the concrete. It's awesome. We had some amazing conversations dancing around these personalities. Reminds me of Annie Dillard's via positiva vs. via negativa. However, I think you'll find I've come a long way toward appreciation of the via negativa. It's actually a firm conviction of mine that we should all see the value of both as only together do both perspectives even begin to adequately describe reality. Good conversation all. I have much more to respond with soon! |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 16, 2009 18:26:03 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Oct 16, 2009 18:40:08 GMT -8
Granted, Jesus taught that we were to "lose our lives". Paul taught that we were to "put to death" the "old man". However, doesn't the similarity with Buddhism end there? Rather than seeing ourself as "the mind of God", the Christian sees themselves as a "New Creation", partaking in God's divine nature, but still remaining "other" in the sense of unique, autonomous personality. The end goal to the Christian is not the bliss of the loss of identity, but the finding of a true, God given identity. Do you see any fundamental disagreements here? There is certainly MUCH in common, but, I think, much that remains in contradiction. A couple issues I have with this (I hope you don't mind teasing this out further): Firstly, a major difference between the Buddhist and the Christian view here is that to the Christian not everything in existence is "a part of God"- namely evil. Now, evil is not an independent "thing", it is merely the absence of good. Still, God is not the "author of evil". Secondly, if everything that exists is part of the mind of God/ God's Self, how can anything in existence be separated from it? Talk about a Zen conundrum  You've described the problem from the Buddhist perspective (attachment), but what do Buddhist's say is the origin of the problem in the first place. If there ever only was nothing but God, how did God ever go astray? |
|
