My Beef with Buddhism (Earth, followers, point of view, religions)

[Green Gaia]

Originally Posted by Paraprakrti

So Buddhism teaches atheists to give up desire altogether because even though it may lead to joy

I disagree. The Buddha never said we shouldn't seek joy, but rather give up desire that is selfish. There's a difference. I can have joy and not be selfish.

[Mr Spinkles]

Hey, thanks Maize! You're explanations make sense. Apparently I had some misconceptions about Buddhism's teachings on 'desire'.

Lightkeeper-- I don't really have a "beef" with Buddhism. I just wasn't sure if I agreed with some things about Buddhist philosophy, but I also knew that my knowledge of Buddhism is limited--that's why I posted here, so good-hearted people like Maize could clarify some things. I just thought "My Beef with Buddhism" sounded catchy.

HelpMe-- I guess I should say "aren't desires what make us alive?" If we didn't have desires, how would we be any different from nonliving matter?

[Green Gaia]

You're welcome! Thank you for asking the question.

[Master Vigil]

Heres the thing... Are we happy ALL the time? No. We are happy until something makes us sad. An illness, hitting our toe off of the wall, the death of a loved one, or just things not going our way, etc... This is what suffering is in the eyes of buddha. Our clinging to these negative things. If you hit your toe off the wall, and then completely forget about it by just letting it drop, then you won't be mad. This is the joy buddha was talking about. And it goes in the opposite way as well. If you prize joy and success extremely, most likely something will happen and it will fail. This of course will bring on suffering. And the more joyful you were, the more suffering you will have. But if you do not prize joy, than no joy can be taken from you. And if you do not care about suffering, no suffering can affect you. This was the idea of the middle road. Does that make sense?

[HelpMe]

Originally Posted by Mr_Spinkles

HelpMe-- I guess I should say "aren't desires what make us alive?" If we didn't have desires, how would we be any different from nonliving matter?

sure, it simply is not what seperates us from other species(or 'makes us human'* so to say).

*although, with elaboration on the specific type of desire you may of been referring to, the statement could be made right.just not at it's former face value.

[robtex]

I got in this really late sorry. Had long day yesterday and couldn't jump in. Spinkles I died laughing when you titled it "Beef with buddism" since there is meat eating issues in the belief.

In your origninal post you said desire was root of all pleasure and not of all evil. I would contend that it is not a dicotomy and not mutually exclusive. Meaning two things:

1) evil can be pleasurable
2) dicotomic mutual exclusion is not a buddhist belief

1) evil can be pleasurable

premise one:
whe are drawn to what is pleasurable. It is natural for us to be attracted to things which bring us pleasure

Premise 2: There is evil or bad done with disregard or in sacrifce of others good . Gain at from deliberate cause of others misfortune and pleasure from others suffering.

If we are drawn to what is pleasurable and there is evil than I would say that evil is done by those who find it pleasurable. If one buys into both my premises than a logical conculsion would be that both "desire is the root of evil" and "desire is the root of pleasure" can happen at the same time in many instances.


If they can mutually co-exist than they cannot be mutually exclusive. Buddhism as I understand it , (which is not all that well) does not subscribe to the notion of dicotomy like western philosphies do. They don't see opposites like black is opposite of white, or light is opposite of dark or tall is opposite of short but instead see the two western opposites as connected by all things that are (in a state of being). Polarity in western thought is seen as linear but in eastern thought (such as buddhism) is seen as an ebb and flow of pieces that make up the whole. Instead of lightness being opposite of dark it is what leads to dark and vice versa..the two are parts that make up the whole.

Taking that idea and putting it back into the buddhist notion of "desire is the root of all evil" desire, in my understanding, is one componet of many in the composite of evil and as it exists in the universe is also a componet is that which is plesurable so that is exists in both forming a connection between that which is plesurable and that which evil connected with the common but not mutually exlusive bond of desire.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Master Vigil

If you prize joy and success extremely, most likely something will happen and it will fail.

Why/how? I could prize a successful Bears NFL season as "extremely" as you wish, and any and all failures of this to fail will have nothing to do with me.

Originally Posted by Master Vigil

And if you do not care about suffering, no suffering can affect you.

But how is this anything other than tautology, i.e., the statement that if you don't care about suffering you won't care about suffering. Furthermore, I suspect that you care a great deal about the suffering in such places as Darfur, and I would argue that it's a good thing.

[anders]

Originally Posted by Master Vigil

Heres the thing... Are we happy ALL the time? No. We are happy until something makes us sad. An illness, hitting our toe off of the wall, the death of a loved one, or just things not going our way, etc... This is what suffering is in the eyes of buddha. Our clinging to these negative things. If you hit your toe off the wall, and then completely forget about it by just letting it drop, then you won't be mad. This is the joy buddha was talking about. And it goes in the opposite way as well. If you prize joy and success extremely, most likely something will happen and it will fail. This of course will bring on suffering. And the more joyful you were, the more suffering you will have. But if you do not prize joy, than no joy can be taken from you. And if you do not care about suffering, no suffering can affect you. This was the idea of the middle road. Does that make sense?

It not only makes sense, it is difficult if not impossible to improve it. I especially liked your parallelling discomfort to a toe with intense grief when explaining dukkha. And did you ever see a picture of an unhappy Buddhist? They all tend to smile, always and everywhere. That is probably because they know that there is a way of evading dukkha.

Perhaps, though, it is even easier to be content for a Daoist. Follow the Way, and you'll be all right in every way.

[Master Vigil]

Think of it like this Deut, The more stuff you have, the stuff can be stolen from you. The more joy you have, if something happens, the more joy you lose. But if you do not cling to the bears season (which I hope you do not) than even if they have a horrible season. It won't matter. (If I have failed to put the idea into words, I do apologize.)