Fri, 30 Oct 2009
Contradiction or Not?
I got the following email pointing out a seeming contadiction in Buddhism:
Now, for any person to follow Buddhism he should first have the desire to follow the Four Noble Truths and the Eight Fold Path. The Third great Noble Truth says that desire should be removed. Once you remove desire, how can we follow the Fourth Noble truth i.e. follow the Eight Fold Path unless we have a desire to follow the Eight Fold Path. In short desire can only be removed by having a desire to follow the Eight Fold Path. If you do not follow the Eight Fold Path, desire cannot be removed. It is self contradicting as well as self-defeating to say that desire will only be removed by continuously having a desire.
This is a common criticism, or misunderstanding of the Four Noble Truths, so I thought I should say something about it. The term "desire" in the Four Noble Truths is both too narrow and too brad. It's too narrow because what is meant is that suffering arises through afflictive emotions. It's said that there are 84,000 afflictive emotions, but usually they are classified as five: desire, anger, bewilderment, envy, and pride. Desire is mentioned in the four noble truths, because it is both constant and obvious. Bewilderment is also constantly with us, but it is not obvious and anger, pride, and envy are obvious, but they are not constantly present. But desire is also too broad a term because not everything that is a desire is an afflictive emotions. One approximate way to distinguish between afflicted and unafflicted desires is that afflicted desires are strengthened when their object is achieved and unafflicted desires are satisfied when their object is achieved. If one desires fame, or wealth, or the approval of others, there is no definite limit on the desire, it is limitless. However, if I desire to go home from work, the desire is satisfied when I get there and is thought of no more. It's easy to see that desires of the first sort are suffering, they're like a fire that can't be extinguished. But desires of the second sort aren't a problem unless one is aiming at a result that itself is suffering. If there is a good goal and one will be satisfied when one achieves it, then what could be wrong with that? It's easy to see that the desire for enlightenment is unafflicted and thus not a problem. So the contradiction in the Four Noble Truths is based on a misunderstanding.
I'm shortly going to be attending a weekend meditation retreat at the Tibetan Meditation Center. Time has been short and I have had many commitments, which is why I have not been posting so often. I should have more free time in two weeks so I will be posting more often. I will be abandoning my previous intentions to blog on the Ganges Mahamudra and Atisha's Lamp for the Path. Neither has worked out as I originally intended.
I read in the papers that an American boy of Tibetan parents has been recognized as the tulku of a great Tibetan teacher, Lorepa. This is unusual because so far there has been no lineage for this teacher and thus a seven hundred year gap between the lives of the former lama and this kid. The news is almost a year old, but was recently printed in the Indian papers and has spread from there. The best account of the new incarnation of Lorepa that I found is on this Taiwanese site. Lorepa was a great lama and is quoted often in the Ocean of Certainty (Ngedon Gyamtso). But I can't repeat the quotes here, as it's a restricted text.
