July 13, 2010
- Thanissaro Bhikkhu on Desire -
The whole path to awakening consists of sticking to the most skillful desire; you progress along the path as your sense of ‘skillful’ gets more refined. If you act on an unskillful desire, take responsibility for the consequences, using them to educate that desire as to where it went wrong. Although desires can be remarkably stubborn, they share a goal—happiness—and this can form the common ground for an effective dialogue: If a desire doesn’t really produce happiness, it contradicts its reason for being.
The best way to make this point is to keep tracing the thread from the desire to its resulting actions and their consequences. If the desire causes suffering to others, notice how their corresponding desire for happiness leads them to undermine the happiness you seek. If the desire aims at a happiness based on things that can age, grow ill, die, or leave you, notice how that fact sets you up for a fall. Then notice how the distress that comes from acting on this sort of desire is universal. It’s not just you. Everyone who has acted, is acting, or will act on that desire has suffered in the past, is suffering right now, and will suffer in the future. There’s no way around it.
(from here)
Interesting… … … …
Comment by speedbird — July 13, 2010 @ 11:58 am
The whole article is great:
http://www.tricycle.com/dharma-talk/pushing-limits?page=0,0&offer=dharma
I am thinking I might just read this every morning for a month and see if things look any different.
Comment by Ian — July 13, 2010 @ 12:24 pm
I love the article because it shows very clearly that Buddhism is not nihilistic, rather, its about actually getting what we want, in such a way that we don’t lose it. Pretty awesome way of looking at life, to think such a thing is possible. :)
Comment by Ian — July 13, 2010 @ 2:19 pm
… … … interesting because some of my happiest experiences have been with some very ephemeral technology. In a literal and a Buckminster Fuller sense.
Should I cling to this technology? Probably not. So what is it about this ephemeral stuff, or my relation to it, that brings happiness? How do we get more of it?
My boss says you just can’t recapture the feeling of being twelve years old again. I /know/ he’s wrong, on principle ;)
Comment by speedbird — July 13, 2010 @ 3:27 pm
Agreed, the article is great. I’m really grateful to Tricycle for providing all the free offerings they do (but like all those disseminating the teachings, could probably use our support).
All of Thanissaro Bhikkhu’s teachings are available (donation only) Access to Insight. Highly recommended, if you’re not already familiar with the site. It’s a treasure trove of commentaries, contemporary teachings, and translations of the suttas from Thanissaro and others in the Theravada tradition.
And thanks Ian for the link back. Meeting you in the inter-web several times today, very nice!
Comment by Katherine — July 13, 2010 @ 3:44 pm
@ speedbird: Not quite sure I follow you. Though Alan Watt’s advice on drugs springs to mind (not that I think you mean drugs, necessarily, but it applies to other “ephemeral tech” as well, I think): Once you get the message, hang up the phone.
@ Katherine:
Agreed on Tricycle’s wonderfulness. I am also familiar with “access to insght”, one of my favorite online sources for the pali cannon (to which I have donated at one time or another).
Nice “meeting” you on line today as well. I particularly liked that link-up between Crashingly Beautiful and myself that you pointed out. Wonderful stuff. :)
Comment by Ian — July 13, 2010 @ 4:47 pm
Yeah, guess that’s unclear. Very tired here.
>> If the desire aims at a happiness based on things that can …
So much happiness comes from transitory things. If I sing a song, it gives me happiness. And then it’s gone. I can sing it again and again, but that can wear out the novelty. Still, ‘singing’ remains…
Except sometimes it’s hard to find a song. So clearly I’m not at the bottom of this metaphor…
Comment by speedbird — July 14, 2010 @ 2:22 am
No, I think you’ve got it. I’ve been thinking recently that “happiness” as the Buddha described it might better be thought of as resting happiness. Its the happiness that doesn’t go away, doesn’t wear out, and doesn’t lead to sadness. At the end of that article, it’s described as:
If desire springs from a sense of lack or limitation, what happens to desire when it produces a happiness with no lack or limitation at all? What’s it like not to need desire?
Comment by Ian — July 14, 2010 @ 10:05 am
Its a very subjective thing. “Singing” might remain “singing” but your relationship to singing has changed.
It’s the search for a relationship that doesn’t change that the Buddha’s said he’s found an answer for. Though he’s also said that he found no thing that was permanent and unchanging, for what its worth. One of those contradictory spiritual things, I guess…
Comment by Ian — July 14, 2010 @ 10:09 am
>> but your relationship to singing has changed
Yes, that’s part of it. But my relationship to a thing is part of the thing…
Comment by speedbird — July 14, 2010 @ 3:52 pm
And so you’re part of the thing as well, and the part of the thing that is you is unhappy.
Though maybe I’m still missing something?
Comment by Ian — July 14, 2010 @ 4:36 pm
I think what I mean is that my happiness in transient things must inhere in something non-transient that they represent. But I have no real idea what that is. Perhaps I’m not supposed to, but that’s not the feeling I get.
Comment by speedbird — July 15, 2010 @ 2:16 am
But what’s a non-transient thing?
I think that makes sense. Like it says in the quote “If a desire doesn’t really produce happiness, it contradicts its reason for being.” It’s all pointing toward something, but what? I wouldn’t say were not supposed to know what it is, it’s just playing hard to get. :)
Comment by Ian — July 15, 2010 @ 9:18 am
Indeed!
This has been a very helpful (if vague!) discussion.
Some seriously deep sh!t here!
Comment by speedbird — July 15, 2010 @ 5:08 pm
On same topic, I remember hearing Thanissaro Bikkhu give Dharma talk at IMC, my local sangha, and saying something to the effect of, “Wouldn’t you want to trade a string of short-term happinesses for long-term happiness?”
I am with him . . .
He is a wonderful man by the way. Great teacher. Very inspiring presence.
Comment by Marguerite Manteau-Rao — July 16, 2010 @ 12:23 am
>> Wouldn’t you want to trade a string of short-term happinesses for long-term happiness?
Cool.
I think that at an early age I was fortunate enough to encounter some things that pointed at The Big Something. I know (and probably knew then) they weren’t The Big Something; but still, I miss them a lot. In fact, I’d like to be able to make more things that point at The Big Something. If all the world of forms pointed to the ineffable, rather than away from it … well, what then?
Comment by speedbird — July 16, 2010 @ 9:10 am
I mean, this is a bit cliche, but some days… :D
Bring me my bow of burning gold
Bring me my arrows of desire
Bring me my shield -
O, clouds unfold!
Bring me my chariot of fire
I shall not cease from mental strife
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England’s green and pleasant land
*
This too…
Let faith be my shield and let joy be my steed
‘Gainst the dragons of anger, the ogres of greed
And let me set free with the sword of my youth
From the castle of darkness, the pow’r of the truth
(Ah, the wonders of a C of E upbringing.)
Comment by speedbird — July 16, 2010 @ 9:21 am
@ Marguerite:
Would love to hear him give a talk. I am with him on that as well!
@ speedbird:
What if it already does and we’re just not spreading our net wide enough? The Heart Sutra seems to imply this, when it says “form is not other to emptiness, emptiness not other to form”.
And thanks for sharing the C o’ E hymns, cliche maybe, but very inspiring. I remember being very inspired by some of the the church (R.Ca.) hymns of my youth, though I’m no longer as clear on the lyrics as you are. But there’s something pure and beautiful about that kind of sentiment, even if it is the same sentiment behind a lot of horrible colonialism/conquistadoring.
Reminds me of Gurdjieff’s “way of the monk” which is the unification of our being through the dedication of all our emotions to God (or, if you’re more inclined, a Guru…)
Its the Sacred Heart of Jesus, beating a promise for us all. If only things actually played out that way more often…
Comment by Ian — July 16, 2010 @ 10:51 am
> What if it already does?
Maybe it does and it’s a matter of perception. But if so it’s not in a trivial way, or you’re in danger of falling down the you-create-your-own-reality rabbithole.
> even if it is the same sentiment behind a lot of horrible colonialism
Well yes. A lot of religion seems to end up there. That in itself is worth thinking about.
Comment by speedbird — July 16, 2010 @ 1:25 pm
Sorry, been away for the past week. Vacation in Seattle (pics soon, I hope) and a self-imposed internet fast.
I agree, the you-create-your-own-realty is a subtle little bitch of a rabbit hole. In this case though, I think the world of forms (freudian slip there, I almost typed “words” instead of “forms) carries us along toward the ineffable like a river, or like the grass grows. We just have to stop trying to do stuff and open to it. Its like there’s this energy that collects when we’re still, that feeds us like the sun feeds a seed, but we have to make a conscious effort to turn to it and let it feed us. every move on our part is a move away from it.
And a spirituality that forgets the ever-presentness of the ineffable quickly turns into one of those “religions”. Very important to keep in mind, I agree.
Comment by Ian — July 25, 2010 @ 1:34 pm
> We just have to stop trying to do stuff and open to it.
Sounds like you had a good vacation ;D
> feeds us like the sun feeds a seed
Yeah, I suppose that’s the ‘do not worry’ thing; and yes, I can relate to that on several levels.
> every move on our part is a move away from it.
I’m pretty sure we’re supposed to perform some sort of action in this world. I suppose this is about overthinking stuff, trying to be what you’re not. The best action is the effortless action, the sense of flow.
Comment by speedbird — July 26, 2010 @ 2:43 am
Yeah, it was a good vacation, while it lasted.
Yeah, that’s something I need to keep telling myself. But how? I can’t figure it out…
So yeah, vacation was good. Being back? Not so much. Blech.
Comment by Ian — July 26, 2010 @ 1:39 pm
> But how? I can’t figure it out…
Yes, I know the feeling. Sometimes it looks like all the ‘conventional’ avenues are sewn up tight. But sometimes the tiniest things can seem like the biggest magicks.
Actually I find the Tao Te Ching quite inspiring on this.
“Therefore the Master
acts without doing anything
and teaches without saying anything.
Things arise and she lets them come;
things disappear and she lets them go.
She has but doesn’t possess,
acts but doesn’t expect.
When her work is done, she forgets it.
That is why it lasts forever.”
In western thought, Transactional Analysis; some Jung; and the work of Chris Argyris spring to mind:
http://www.actiondesign.com/resources/research/action-science
(lots of reading, but quite cool)
Comment by speedbird — July 26, 2010 @ 3:46 pm
In fact, going back to the Tao, there’s LOADS about action in there…
Comment by speedbird — July 26, 2010 @ 3:49 pm
Yeah, the Tao Te Ching always soothes my soul. Thanks for that. Will have to pick it up again.
Comment by Ian — July 26, 2010 @ 3:59 pm
> acts without doing anything
I understand this as something like ‘right action is effortless’. Though ‘right action’ sure as heck /looks/ almost impossible until you try it. There’s a massive cultural perception filter in the way…
Comment by speedbird — July 27, 2010 @ 8:40 am
Seriously. How do you say ‘right action is effortless’ to a culture that places such a high value on making an effort? Can you make effort without effort?
And if we’re culturally used to judging the value of an action by the struggle gone through in order to succeed in that action, how can we learn to judge/value actions that are effortless?
Then again, ‘right action is effortless’ implies that any resistance = not-right-action, which makes for a rather passive take on life. So there must be some better way to translate the relationship between the two.
Perhaps “true effort feels effortless?” And trying to create an image of oneself as “one who is worthy because they have struggled” immediately kills that feeling of effortlessness, because if we’re trying to a pose of having made an effort, how can we know if its a good one unless we weigh the effort ahead of time?
Because if we can feel the effort, then it doesn’t “feel effortless”. But that’s the only way to know if our appearance as “someone who has made an effort” is secure. :)
If THAT makes any sense…
Comment by Ian — July 27, 2010 @ 1:42 pm
My T’ai Chi master once said,
‘Western exercise, feel tired afterward. Chinese exercise, more energy afterward.’
If you’re working at something you love, ever notice how time flies by and you just feel invigorated the more you do it? Of course there’s that matter of starting out, calming the monkey mind, turning from the world and saying, ‘This needs doing now.’ Maybe from outside it looks a struggle (and there’s the whole ‘rejection by the rest of the world’ thing), but from inside you feel better the more you do. Because you know it’s right.
Comment by speedbird — July 27, 2010 @ 4:07 pm
Hey, didn’t some German bloke once write a book called ‘My Struggle’? ;D
Comment by speedbird — July 27, 2010 @ 4:10 pm
I heard that same thing! :)
Yeah, I do indeed notice that. There’s a flowing aspect to it that needs no description. :)
Got this from the I Ching recently:
The superior man sets his person at rest before he moves; he composes his
mind before he speaks; he makes his relations firm before he asks for
something. By attending to these three matters, the superior man gains
complete security. But if a man is brusque in his movements, others will not
cooperate. If he is agitated in his word, they awaken no echo in others. If he
asks for something without having fist established relations, it will not be
given to him. If no one is with him, those who would harm him draw near.
Comment by Ian — July 27, 2010 @ 4:13 pm
Nice.
Comment by Ian — July 28, 2010 @ 11:51 am