"You see, a contradiction in Buddhism..."

Ask your professor to show you where Buddha says his goal was the end of desire. His goal rather was the cessation of tendencies which propel one to commit the same mistake of avidya over and over through adoption of vidya.

Rather, adoption of awakening awareness - bodhicitta - was the goal of Buddha, and not some paltry philosophical commandment to acheive some impossible state of voidness of humanity. Desire is life.

Dependent Origination is what Buddha taught. If something has a cause then that cause will also cease. If it does not have a cause then it will not cease. Therefore search for the ceaseless, and waste no more time upon those things which have a start or finish.

Ignorance is the source of confusion, not desire. Desire is a latter stage of avidya or ignorance.

College professors are mostly conceited and smug dipshits since they have studied for many years and then they lord it over students really shaping the rhetorical response through the slant of their questions. This does not mean that what they have to say has any relation to the experiential truth of the matter.

 

How do you view causality, within a Buddhist context?

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~grassie/StudentProjects/Lucier.html

I am of the opinion that Enlightenment can occur without apriori causes, at least that is what Zen seems to say (specifically Hyakujo).

I think that many people have problems with re-incarnation and karma, specifically that if one cannot know prior mistakes which is causing present suffering, then of what use is it?, it seems no different than a fanciful dream like Christians have of an afterlife reward of Heaven; that neither past lives nor the after life can be proved, so it is a mental construct, an illusion.

We, as Buddhist, assert that it is indeed possible to know past lives. But the person trying to be convinced of it will not believe it. So how is subjective truth (?) to be imparted (??) to others without "making it sound" (???) like dogma and belief?

 

The wish to continue being is a desire of its own. The "desire" to end desire can not loop indefinitely. For once you have eliminated your "wants" or "deires" the "desire" to eliminate your "desires" has been achieved and is no longer something you desire for you cannot desire to eliminate something that does not exist.

 

We need not know what prior mistakes cause present suffering. We merely must know that our current suffering is caused by prior mistakes. The thought is not to fix the mistakes we made previously. The thought is that those mistakes cause our hardship, and to let that serve as a reminder in our daily lives of the effects of kharma.

 

IMHO. We are clinging to matter; matter is something, tangible, mutable, subject to change. Space is nothing; nothing is unchanging; it is eternal. So if you wish to be eternal, you must cling to nothing.

But there is time enough for that. In the meantime, make the best of this matter granted to you.

 

The operative word is "know". How does one "know" that it was prior mistakes? (By meditation, of course.) If it is strictly a rationalisation, without it being a realisation, then it is a belief and it is not existential.

 

I think the key to extinguishing all your terrible desires and eliminating the root of your suffering is just to shut up. I mean, if everyone just simultaneously shut up, and if all of their thoughts shut up, and if they stopped saying pointless things and asking pointless, stupid questions, then everything would be calm and quiet for them.

Unfortunately, it seems that people will always ask stupid questions, and no one will ever shut up!!!!!

 

-----Well, I have only really made any judgements about causality from a more Dzogchen POV, and it's really about recognition of the spontaneously self liberating manner of all actions if left be. Things arise and they subside, generally with all requisite circumstances intact, based mostly on convenience of circumstances for something to arise. Tamas, or inertia, occurs at once in proportion to sattva. Dzogchen Buddhists are working on resultant Trikaya. Thus stability of emptiness experience, which is the only vehicle producing the result from the path with no recourse to any action. Thus the instant path to freedom from karma. By purely leaving things entirely alone. If one would liberate karma the quickest thing would be to leave it alone completely at the outset and that karma will never arise. And recognizing that all karmas that manifest have done so, but the real karmic work is the same as always in tantra the union of sun, moon and fire. In Dzogchen, all actions arising spontaneously instead becomes auspiciousness of occasion for liberation thus the Great Perfection.

Personally I was too dense to understand any other view. Mine is based in personal recognition of ignorance as the basis of volition. Dzogchen doesn't deny 12 links of dependent origination since avidya itself is understood as the root of all things. A sudden path which passes as Buddhist, though it has other root Buddhas besides Shakyamuni. It has the tantric Buddha. Guru Padmasambhava - Heruka Buddha!

----Personally, I agree. Or if one acts in the manner of dualism which makes one very negative, though one might have good motives. Instead, if one follows their religions techniques they could all acheive liberation. Because they were formulated to teach tantras, of sorts, or means to preserve the mind from extremes of dualistic deluded vision. If all Christians did the rosary until they washed their minds they would be cleaned of karma quickly as well. All religions have always been for liberation, be it slow or fast. Mainly they have all taught meditation and fact of even now present union with the Divine. And then people forget the techniques and religion becomes about later and heavens and hells after life instead of about present liberation.

One will understand the value of the past the older they grow naturally, and as all the attachment and aversion to ones life wears thin one perhaps one themself might have the stability to then perceive past karmas, maybe from the very distant past. Especially when a person meditates alot and refines their breath they might get claravoyant scenes of past karmas. Then when one understands the value of the past they will understand the necessity for instant liberation.

 

One of the things that I greatly admire about Buddhism is it's ability to handle paradox and other, often complex logical questions in a uniquely "mystical" way that at the same same time remains thoroughly logical. Which is another paradox. It's the only system that I'm aware of that does it.

Though a "Christian" myself (after a fashion), one of the main downfalls of mainstream Christianity is it's inability to handle internal contradictions without resorting to "well, it's just a matter of faith then". Within Buddhism, however, contradiction is not a problem since much of the system in fact hinges upon it.

I have a bit of a beef with the whole concept of wanting to end desire at all, but that is another kettle of fish.

 

my own feeling isn't that there is anything insigniffigant, but rather that there are relative priorities, so that when two prinicples appear to conflict, it is priorities which deliniate which takes precidence, sometimes even in one specific situation at one particular point in time, more, other or differently then in one very similar at another.

teachings of ancient wisedom are full of examples of this.

=^^=
.../\...

 

I've been mulling this over as well. What exactly do we mean when we talk about desire? Or attachment, or motivation? What's the difference between those things, from a buddhist view?

I think there is a difference. Whatever it is, the point as I see it is to be open- instead of just talking about ending desire, maybe it would be more helpful if we talked about ending desire AND being open and aware to the reality of the present. As long as we are unattached and open to the truth of what is, we can still have motivations or even preferences (you could call those things desires of a kind, I think).

Am I on the right track here? Thoughts please! I'm still trying to process all this...

 

To take a practical example of desire. Say I am ill. Then I have an impulse to get better. Is this impulse desire or will? This can depend on definitions. Either way, I should seek a physician or take action to get better. Buddihism does not teach us that we should not do something to get better. It teaches us to practice non attachment to the body, life etc, so that if that if we might not get better and even dies, we are free from the mental and emotional suffering of it. Then it is only the body that suffers pain. Once we let go of attachments, our desires transmute and transform in their energy.

Peace and love to all.
Jnanic

 

ehh hard to say, giving up your desires leads to awakening, in fact its the majorty of awakening. so you can go about it in two ways by actully following through or by simply wanting to awake. Its something you cant put into words but is very real.

 

Recently, I've had the strange notion that it is not what one must become, but to realize what one is. To discover the beginning, not the conclusion.

 

havent read the whole thread cos im too tired. sounds lyk john lennon to me. let it be

 

Beautiful.

 

Exactly we had no desiers when we were born.
Just a few nessesities and we were happy.

Return to that and your set.

 

"What is the sound of one hand slapping,
your face before your parents were born?" - Stuart Davis

 

I believe one of the Gnostic Gospels say that where the beginning is, there is also the ending; if you know the beginning then you know the ending and there is no reason to go searching for it.

 

m