|
Post by enigma on Jul 30, 2018 16:10:50 GMT -5
Yeah. Of course, all manner of egoic and delusion based desire can be momentarily fulfilled, but when such is the basis of a desire, it runs counter to the natural flow of creation. Ultimately, instead of creation providing what one desires, one begins to desire what creation is providing. One aligns, not with what is created, but with the force of creation itself, because the individual IS creation. My understanding of the way the Buddhists look at it is that since any desire fulfillment is temporary it will always have the potential to lead to more craving as time goes on, regardless of how in alignment the original desire might have been. The way I see it, if someone's SR and significantly "out of alignment", they might feel the pain of getting smacked down in pursuing an "impure desire", but they ain't gonna suffer from it. The practice of Buddhism is, itself, motivated by desire, along with whatever else the person does, so the seeming hard line that Buddhism takes on desire has always been a non-starter for me. The distinction between desire and craving seems more to the point, as craving is likely illusion and self identity based. As such, I agree with your take on it, though not all a-twitter about the phrase "impure desire".
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Jul 30, 2018 17:33:40 GMT -5
First you need a huge amount of unfulfilled desire that causes suffering and disillusionment. That's what prompts a turn to the spiritual path.
Then you need to cull all desires but the desire for liberation and for what furthers that.
Finally it no longer matters one way or the other. Desire has lost its fangs.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 31, 2018 2:23:16 GMT -5
My understanding of the way the Buddhists look at it is that since any desire fulfillment is temporary it will always have the potential to lead to more craving as time goes on, regardless of how in alignment the original desire might have been. The way I see it, if someone's SR and significantly "out of alignment", they might feel the pain of getting smacked down in pursuing an "impure desire", but they ain't gonna suffer from it. The practice of Buddhism is, itself, motivated by desire, along with whatever else the person does, so the seeming hard line that Buddhism takes on desire has always been a non-starter for me. The distinction between desire and craving seems more to the point, as craving is likely illusion and self identity based. As such, I agree with your take on it, though not all a-twitter about the phrase "impure desire". The phrase turns sort of naturally from the dialog about alignment, and thanks, I thought you might. The craving/desire distinction strikes me as quite similar to the pain/suffering distinction: very useful and potentially illuminating if we refrain from analyzing it. While I think that some Buddhists might take that hard line, the ones that catch more than a passing glance of interest from me seem quite hip to those subtleties. They're not that hard to find, and certainly the Zen "sit down and shut up approach" short-circuits the analysis. But, not having spent much time getting a feel for Buddhists communities generally, I really can't say what the norm is.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 31, 2018 2:29:05 GMT -5
First you need a huge amount of unfulfilled desire that causes suffering and disillusionment. That's what prompts a turn to the spiritual path. Then you need to cull all desires but the desire for liberation and for what furthers that. Finally it no longer matters one way or the other. Desire has lost its fangs. Yes, "lost it's fangs" is a great way to put it, and if this ever happens then it's got to be auspicious. But not every spiritual path is driven by suffering, how much one encounters along the way is entirely subjective -- which isn't to say that there aren't objective circumstances related to the underlying hardship and pain -- and intense suffering just as often as not seems to harden a person away from where nonduality invites.
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Jul 31, 2018 7:14:16 GMT -5
I think another interesting aspect of this is...where does 'desire' begin/end? Does a plant desire water? Does a sperm cell desire to meet the egg? Does a virus desire to deliver its dna into a host cell? (those might not be the correct technical terms). If yes, in one way, it could perhaps be said something along the lines that the unfoldment of life is the unfoldment of desire itself. There is no aspect of life that 'desire' is not part of, or touching. Sure. And yet, many human desires tend to be fear driven.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 31, 2018 7:17:57 GMT -5
I listened to an interesting A-H dialog recently. Someone asked Abraham if desire is the cause of all suffering as the Buddhists teach. Abraham first acknowledges that this is the truth but as the dialog unfolds, the bottom line seems to be that the Buddhists got it all wrong after all. They were onto something but they missed the point. I'll see if I can post a transcript later. The dialog is rather long and a bit jumbled. So I have to cut it down to the key points first (which will take more time than I initially thought). But I'm curious what others here think about this. Does desire inevitably lead to suffering? From the outside looking in, and rather casually, seems to me that Buddhism is a pretty big tent. Some of the people who write from a Buddhist perspective are very specific about what they mean by how desire relates to suffering. Some of them are explicit as to how desire and suffering are related, in turn, to the false sense of personal identity. Here's an example of what I'm referring to. So while I take your point about how (in my words) some Buddhists can make a sort of enemy out of the natural flow of human experience, I wouldn't say that all of them do this. If the suffering created by desire is related specifically to the illusion of separation, then I agree, there is the appearance of causation. So with that qualification, I vote "yes". Yes, I think we should make an exception for Zen. But the typical Buddhism seems to be built on flawful logic in a way. And what A-H seem to be implying there that the reasoning of the Buddha's original teaching was actually sound, but his followers turned into something else.
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Jul 31, 2018 7:24:10 GMT -5
Are you leaving open the possibility that desire can be fulfilled out of alignment with creation? I spose you are, but then we wouldn't be looking at fulfillment but rather temporary absence of self seeking due to an egoic restructuring or a fleeting mind state. Which roughly translates into what desire is a compensation for pain and which desire is present in the absence of such pain? Yeah. Of course, all manner of egoic and delusion based desire can be momentarily fulfilled, but when such is the basis of a desire, it runs counter to the natural flow of creation. Ultimately, instead of creation providing what one desires, one begins to desire what creation is providing. One aligns, not with what is created, but with the force of creation itself, because the individual IS creation. Well said. And yet, you agree that nobody really wants pain, which is precisely what creation provides to those out of alignment, even if they are in the process of avoiding that pain or seeking a sense of self through delusion based desire. Or, in some ways, identification unfolds through the desire for creation to be other than it is. The key distinction being the potential for that desire to run unconsciously, as opposed to consciously being aligned with or partaking in the change that's always the case anyway.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Jul 31, 2018 7:26:26 GMT -5
First you need a huge amount of unfulfilled desire that causes suffering and disillusionment. That's what prompts a turn to the spiritual path. Then you need to cull all desires but the desire for liberation and for what furthers that. Finally it no longer matters one way or the other. Desire has lost its fangs. Yes, "lost it's fangs" is a great way to put it, and if this ever happens then it's got to be auspicious. But not every spiritual path is driven by suffering, how much one encounters along the way is entirely subjective -- which isn't to say that there aren't objective circumstances related to the underlying hardship and pain -- and intense suffering just as often as not seems to harden a person away from where nonduality invites. It's an interesting point. You're certainly right if we just look at people's current lives in isolation. I guess I find the idea of past lives persuasive, and believe that people who seem to have come spontaneously or even accidentally into nonduality have gone through the suffering part of the path (and maybe other parts of it too) in some earlier incarnation... no way of proving that, of course. The Hindu viewpoint is that through a series of lives one eventually comes to realize that the usual life activities are like being a hamster on a wheel. Lots of effort, and you never get the sought-after permanent fulfillment. That's what prompts a turn, a sense that "there's got to be something more."
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 31, 2018 7:56:12 GMT -5
At the root of any instance of suffering is an unfulfilled want, but a want that is in the process of being fulfilled does not cause suffering, so suffering is caused by desire but desire doesn't necessarily cause suffering. This makes it important to know the difference between a desire that can be fulfilled and one that cannot be fulfilled in alignment with creation. This roughly translates into, what desire is in alignment with the truth and what desire is in alignment with illusion? As such, the goal is not a desireless state, which is my relatively uninformed impression of Buddhist teaching, but rather a 'purified' state in which desire is not driven by illusion. Right, a desireless state as the goal seems absurd. Desires are natural. And most importantly, desires are life giving. When you run out of desires, you stop summoning life force and become a mummy. To your first part though I'd add that it isn't really about desires that can be fulfilled vs desires that cannot be fulfilled but more about the perception of it. If I am new in town and want a donut but can't find a donut shop nearby even though there's one just a couple of blocks away then I may suffer from an unfulfilled desire even though - in a factual sense - that desire could be easily and effortlessly fulfilled if I only knew about that shop. And that's where alignment and inner guidance comes into play again.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 31, 2018 7:59:18 GMT -5
There are two tragedies in life, not getting what you want, and getting what you want. Oscar Wilde That's very true. Once your desire is fulfilled, you'll have another unfulfilled one. That's why being focused on manifestations isn't really satisfying but focusing on the process of manifesting actually is. A-H used to say there's nothing better in the whole universe than the hatching of a fresh new desire, it's what we are all here for.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 31, 2018 8:05:51 GMT -5
I think another interesting aspect of this is...where does 'desire' begin/end? Does a plant desire water? Does a sperm cell desire to meet the egg? Does a virus desire to deliver its dna into a host cell? (those might not be the correct technical terms). If yes, in one way, it could perhaps be said something along the lines that the unfoldment of life is the unfoldment of desire itself. There is no aspect of life that 'desire' is not part of, or touching.Precisely. Denying desire essentially means denying life. And those who actually do deny desire very often look rather lifeless. Also, if you try to suppress your natural desires, you may end up in the shadow aspects of those desires as the story of that naughty nun I mentioned a while ago shows.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 31, 2018 8:15:16 GMT -5
Yeah. Of course, all manner of egoic and delusion based desire can be momentarily fulfilled, but when such is the basis of a desire, it runs counter to the natural flow of creation. Ultimately, instead of creation providing what one desires, one begins to desire what creation is providing. One aligns, not with what is created, but with the force of creation itself, because the individual IS creation. Well said. And yet, you agree that nobody really wants pain, which is precisely what creation provides to those out of alignment, even if they are in the process of avoiding that pain or seeking a sense of self through delusion based desire. Or, in some ways, identification unfolds through the desire for creation to be other than it is. The key distinction being the potential for that desire to run unconsciously, as opposed to consciously being aligned with or partaking in the change that's always the case anyway. Yes, hence the subtle distinction between aligning with creation vs aligning with the force of creation.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 31, 2018 8:22:22 GMT -5
I think another interesting aspect of this is...where does 'desire' begin/end? Does a plant desire water? Does a sperm cell desire to meet the egg? Does a virus desire to deliver its dna into a host cell? (those might not be the correct technical terms). If yes, in one way, it could perhaps be said something along the lines that the unfoldment of life is the unfoldment of desire itself. There is no aspect of life that 'desire' is not part of, or touching. So I'm reading this book by a famous "beat-poet" who took up Buddhism and in it there's a scene where he's describing these wild orgy's that are going on around him and he thinks about joining in. But then he's on a walk outside and he sees a dead crow and thinks "and that's all sex leads to, after all". So there's like one extreme for defining desire: any want, of any sort. I think that E&R's points are more subtle than this, because it's sort of easy to see when someone goes to the extreme of trying to extinguish all desire that there's probably a futility to that. While I can't say so for sure because I've never tried to do that, it's just common sense that, say, for example, wanting to drink water isn't going to lead to suffering if I've got a clean glass and a cold clear tap. Another way to grasp the subtlety is to consider it from the suffering side of the equation. Maxy's put up some good posts about Buddhist dukkha in the past, and what I remember from that is that there's various shades and type of suffering they account for. At one end of the spectrum is a form of dukka that is just a sort of baseline of being alive: just age, wear and tear, and inevitable deterioration. If we accept that last idea as a form of suffering then it has nothing to do with any conscious, overt desire, but instead, this suffering could be related to desire by way of the attachment to being alive. Well, that's a weird conclusion. But it shows rather poignantly where a purely intellectual approach will lead you. To me, this desire topic is naturally connected to the alignment and inner guidance topic, as well as what A-H call 'contrast'. In alignment and fully in touch with your inner guidance, you won't run after bogus desires. On the other hand, being out of alignment and following bogus desires isn't such a big deal either because this provides contrast. And contrast means variety. And variety means options. And options means new desires and expansion which means summoning of life force again. So maybe it is balance what it is all about. In that sense, I'd say as silly as the goal of eternal total desirelessness is, so is the goal of eternal total alignment.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 31, 2018 8:34:55 GMT -5
Yeah. Of course, all manner of egoic and delusion based desire can be momentarily fulfilled, but when such is the basis of a desire, it runs counter to the natural flow of creation. Ultimately, instead of creation providing what one desires, one begins to desire what creation is providing. One aligns, not with what is created, but with the force of creation itself, because the individual IS creation. My understanding of the way the Buddhists look at it is that since any desire fulfillment is temporary it will always have the potential to lead to more craving as time goes on, regardless of how in alignment the original desire might have been. The way I see it, if someone's SR and significantly "out of alignment", they might feel the pain of getting smacked down in pursuing an "impure desire", but they ain't gonna suffer from it. Yes, that's the game. And there the Buddhists have a point, of course. But instead of learning how to play and enjoy the game (as A-H teach), because they don't know how to play the game (as most people do), they throw their cards on the table in frustration, get up and try leaving the fun house altogether. And it's this tendency of escapism that was also Seth's main point of criticism re: Buddhism.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 31, 2018 8:47:19 GMT -5
Yes, "lost it's fangs" is a great way to put it, and if this ever happens then it's got to be auspicious. But not every spiritual path is driven by suffering, how much one encounters along the way is entirely subjective -- which isn't to say that there aren't objective circumstances related to the underlying hardship and pain -- and intense suffering just as often as not seems to harden a person away from where nonduality invites. It's an interesting point. You're certainly right if we just look at people's current lives in isolation. I guess I find the idea of past lives persuasive, and believe that people who seem to have come spontaneously or even accidentally into nonduality have gone through the suffering part of the path (and maybe other parts of it too) in some earlier incarnation... no way of proving that, of course. The Hindu viewpoint is that through a series of lives one eventually comes to realize that the usual life activities are like being a hamster on a wheel. Lots of effort, and you never get the sought-after permanent fulfillment. That's what prompts a turn, a sense that " there's got to be something more." Back in the 90's way before I had any interest in spirituality, my wife and I used to have long philosophical talks. This reminds me of how she described the Christian/Jewish 1st Commandment. My take on it was condescending incredulity because I was taking it literally. She explained it as she'd been taught: what it really means is that everyone has a sense of incompleteness to them that they'll try to fill whether they're aware of the effort or not. What the commandment really means is that if you don't do that with God then you'll find something else just as compelling: sex, wealth, good works, drugs, power .. something. SR, is, of course, the end of that.
|
|