As I understand it, one of the Four Noble Truths is that desire is the root of all suffering, and that to escape suffering, one must renounce desire. But isn't that a desire, in and of itself?

Yes, thats why it's such a hard path.

One must seek without seeking.

But, that - argh!

Thanks, though.

A second question ... for those of you who've seen The Professional ... would you consider Leon to have some Buddhist qualities, before he meets Mathilda?

Yes, the desire to be desire-less is also a desire, but a neccessary first step. The desire to achieve enlightenment will dissolve when enlightenment happens. Buddhism is not precisely a creed, but a method to bring about a shift in conciousness. Since enlightenment is the rediscovery of your own true nature, to desire awakening is to dream about something you already have. The practice of Buddhism up to the point of awakening is not free from suffering, in fact, it is intentionally challenging and paradoxical.

why carry the boat on your shoulders when you have crossed the river?

Its inflatable and only weighs 4 pounds, why not?

Paradoxes abound in eastern religions, and unlike in western religions, you are not supposed to attempt to ignore them or lie and say they don't exist, but instead treat these profoundly stupid statements as if they are profoundly wise, and meditate on them, and attempt to create models of the world that contain them. More than for religious reasons, they are there for social engineering reasons, to keep people introverted, contemplative, and docile, while trying to exist in a world full of profoundly stupid paradoxes that you must treat as wisdom.

It's a lot easier for China to march into Tibet that way, moose.

I think there is a little Buddha even in you SpyMoose. :p

Ill take that as a complement, he seemed very happy. Besides, there are many discussions about what enlightenment is, but I don't think the Buddah was supposed to have been terribly conflicted by these paradoxes, as am I not.

Paradoxes abound in eastern religions, and unlike in western religions, you are not supposed to attempt to ignore them or lie and say they don't exist, but instead treat these profoundly stupid statements as if they are profoundly wise, and meditate on them, and attempt to create models of the world that contain them. More than for religious reasons, they are there for social engineering reasons, to keep people introverted, contemplative, and docile, while trying to exist in a world full of profoundly stupid paradoxes that you must treat as wisdom.
That was profoundly stupid.

I take it that since we are discussing eastern religion, you don't have an argument to back that up, you just want it to be gnomic like a koan.

You didn't seem to have much of an argument, just an uneducated opinion.
You are not supposed to treat any statement as profoundly wise without seeing the wisdom for yourself.
You are not supposed to create models of the world that contain them, for eastern religion is not the creation of a model, but the awareness of what's real.
Most people, even in Buddhist countries, are not monks, so the social engineering reason is nullified.
The purpose of Buddhist (as an example of eastern) thought is not to make people introverted or docile, and if it was, would this really be so horrible? Would you prefer a world of unintellectual aggressive socialites? Don't we have enough of those?

Was the Buddah so catty? Meow!

Do you desire to live? Do you desire to die? You desire neither of these, they are simply a state of being. By claiming that there is a contradiction in the teaching is just a play on words. People too often associate symbols with the actual object or concept, thus confusing reality with thought.

I see no point in arguementing the value of the teachings of Buddha, or anyone for that matter.

Let him who finds wisdom in a word be enlightened by it, let him who does not find it seek it somewhere else if not that he should return to it at a later time.

why carry the boat on your shoulders when you have crossed the river?

If you're a Mahayana Buddhist you could help others across the river with the boat.

If you're a Mahayana Buddhist you could help others across the river with the boat.
Why wouldn't a Theravada Buddhist? :confused:

Why wouldn't a Theravada Buddhist? :confused:

Oh you old-schoolers...

It was just a little pun. Hinayana means "small-vessel" whereas Mahayana means "large-vessel". Hinayana Buddhists concentrate on enlightenment of themselves, whereas Mahayana belay their own elightenment to first help others across. This is a very simplistic explanation, but all the discussion of boats brought it to mind. Theravada is "old-school" roughly, and they tend to be more Hinayana then Mahayana, though things are not as rigid as they once were.

One might also ask, "Why not Lamaists?"

theravadian priests are an elitist bunch. they do not go around doing good works. for them, salvation is for each individual to realize by themselves. that is what they do. that is what you should do. there is nothing romantic and comforting about their philosophy. just cold hard facts.

it makes sense. you cannot communicate an experience too well. the best would be a close approximation

in the meantime, they live like gods in their temples with the mindless slaving after their every need. there is the occassional chanting done to ward off the devils that plauge the masses. mostly there is gluttony and pedophilia (sexy little boys in their saffron robes - yummy)

so my respected friends, the moral here is...find your own goddamn way across the river

there is no escape from this paradox of desire

what then would be the next course of action? (or inaction as the case may really be) cease desiring to be desireless? what do you do when the paradox cannot be resolved? how about simply dropping it as an issue? let it go.

i do not think there are any paths that lead to nirvana. instead. it is here, within you, present at every instant. the reason why we are unable to comprehend it is because we are too busy analyzing all these buddhist texts, philosophies, theories, and injunctions and paradoxes as if there is some magic bullet contained within that will cause enlightenment

mind you, literature does have its use.

sit for at least an hour in meditation. sit until there is stillness of mind. perhaps then one could have a glimpse of what your perceptions are really capable of. keep at it and it turns into a natural state of being.

rational insight kicks ass! no inducing going on here. no deducing either. just plain and simple, manna from heaven (thank you jeeeesus!)

what comes after, or if there is an after, i have no idea

after all that is done, please get your lazy ass back to work.

Do you desire to live? Do you desire to die? You desire neither of these, they are simply a state of being. By claiming that there is a contradiction in the teaching is just a play on words. People too often associate symbols with the actual object or concept, thus confusing reality with thought.

But people have various material and sentimental desires. To withdraw from those requires a desire in and of itself, yes?

Of course, it makes perfect sense to call it a paradox. What I am attempting to do is to look into it further, as a state of being instead of a state of desired being. It's one of those things I can't quite describe, sort of Heidegger-ish.

As I understand it, one of the Four Noble Truths is that desire is the root of all suffering, and that to escape suffering, one must renounce desire. But isn't that a desire, in and of itself?


Yes, absolutely right. The more accurate description should be "desires are the root of all sufferings". One particular desire may create a particular suffering. In a sense, suffering is a kind of consequence you can not escape. The consequence may be viewed by some to be happiness while others suffering. But ultimately all consequence is not freedom. When you act, whether good or bad, without any consequence, you can get whatever you wish and also the things you wish are neither good or bad, just something selfless. In Buddhism scripts, the Buddha also told his disciples to renounce desires for or attachemnt to wealth, beauty, reputation, food, etc. but to learn how to free oneself from the aforesaid desires and finaly reject the desire for ultimate freedom. If you only have the desire for ultimate freedom, you may be well rewarded in terms of worldly pleasures in the present life or in the next life. it is somewhate a relationship like acting force and reacting force (effect of karma)

Samsara and Nirvana are one/ you can't figure it out, you have to 'know' it or whatever.

I'll give it a try though, and I'm a lazzy bastard so I didn't read anyother posts apart from the first few.

Yes, to achive liberation is a desire. ONLY after you've done it are you desireless, and only after that is they're no suffering. There is no life, no non-life, no nothing no something, none of that even, or even that, if you get my drift.

Buddha ate, he had a desire to eat.

Damn Western minds, I hate mine! Well, Damn Mind!

There is a problem with explaining it in words. What we call desire is a spectrum of feeling, from simple interest to extreme longing. Interest and determination are required for spiritual exploration, but desire can also swallow your mind in whirlpools of delusion, from which, it is a struggle to crawl out. The inherent meaning of Buddhist thought can be only hinted at, poked with short bursts of symbolic language like an x-ray, so the shadows of what it is not reveal our true nature.

As I understand it, one of the Four Noble Truths is that desire is the root of all suffering, and that to escape suffering, one must renounce desire. But isn't that a desire, in and of itself?

Sort of. For any practical purpose, no. By any metaphysical purpose, yes.

The easiest way to explain it is to say that there is no contradiction.

I defer generally to students of Buddhism, but will go so far as to speculate the following:


The Four Noble Truths (http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/fourtruths.html)

1. Life means suffering.
2. The origin of suffering is attachment.
3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.
4. The path to the cessation of suffering.

They're called "noble" truths for a reason; there is a moral assignation in the word "noble," despite the popular trend of assigning Buddhism some mystical neutrality. The Four Noble Truths, however, make no moral claims against which we might cite a contradiction.

Life implies, indicates, demands, means suffering. The origin of that suffering is attachment (desire).

If one suffers, as compared to what? The desire for something better is in itself a form of suffering. Rather than being a contradiction, the concept seems to circle in and buttress itself.
_____________________

Works Cited:

• "The Four Noble Truths." See http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/fourtruths.html

See Also -

• Rinpoche, Venerable Thrangu. "The Four Noble Truths." See http://www.rinpoche.com/fornob.html
• Access to Insight. "The Four Noble Truths." See http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/sacca.html