thanks for the responses. Sorry for missing that the issue has been treated in a similar way by lojong1, on March 14 already. I am a newbie on this forum, though not
with Buddhist lists activities. ( Briefly: German with long experience in S.E.Asia , living in Hamburg now , retired , my refuge is the Triple Gem.)
My question , the same lojong1 raised , was not only the interest in a punchy response but as well to say hello and possibly looking forward to joining the discussions of Dhamma related topics. I am not yet sure how to use proper editing acc. to the choices on top , respectively about the style .. eventually will learn it in time , .
Directly to the messages :
kirk5a » Thu Mar 14, 2013 2:02 pm
In college, a philosophy professor expressed exactly the same objection to me. Too bad I didn't know how to respond at the time. I knew it was fishy reasoning, but I couldn't put my finger on why.
D: that's what I meant as well: why is that why seemingly so difficult to express?
David N. Snyder » Thu Mar 14, 2013 9:17 pm
Aah. The Unnabha Paradox. See SN 51.15.
That is a great Sutta. The issue comes up somewhat often at Dhamma centers where someone will state that all desire is bad, that even 'desire' for enlightenment is bad and having that desire will prevent it from happening. This is not true and when I get the chance I tell them about chanda, the wholesome desire. Ananda explains it much better in this Sutta.
D: the sutta is of course useful for contemplation.. quoting:
"If that's so, Master Ananda, then it's an endless path, and not one with an end, for it's impossible that one could abandon desire by means of desire."
"In that case, brahman, let me question you on this matter. Answer as you see fit. What do you think: Didn't you first have desire, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular desire allayed?"
The brahman's statement made an answer a bit easier than Kirk5a's professor by refering to an endless path , as the Brahmana Sutta doesn't treat the more general background ' why to take a path which seemingly needs to replace one evil with another'.
y kmath » Thu Dec 19, 2013 6:09 pm
In Pali, there's two different kinds of desire. There's tanha which is translated as craving and which leads to "misery." Then there's chanda which is a wholesome desire for well-being and which does not lead to misery. So one does need desire (chanda) in order to remove desire (tanha).
D: I think the matter of chanda and tanha has been discussed quite often. Common understanding seems to me wholesome and unwholesome desire.
I wonder however whether the use of desire as a term covering both is suitable. Chanda in respect to the Noble Path is related to ' quest for (ultimate) truth' , whereas tanha refers to wordly desire. Kim seems to have a similar idea:
Kim OHara » Thu Mar 14, 2013 11:33 am
Aah. The Unnabha Paradox. See SN 51.15.
An alternative (and I am not claiming it is a better one
) is to distinguish between desire/craving/greed and intention.
I can intend to follow the path which leads to my workplace tomorrow morning but that isn't really the same thing as desiring to do so.
binocular » Thu Dec 19, 2013 10:03 pm
How would you have responded if you had the chance?
It's not possible to defeat an ignorant man in argument, nor a dishonest one.
Until he learns what exactly it is that Buddhism teaches and is able to correctly repeat it in discussion, it's like ... talking to a wall ... only worse.
D: I do not know Dr. Naik and so not his ability to be open enough of a religious dialogue , more of interest to me is the auditorium he addressed and the likely bias
binocular:Interestingly, this is the kind of understanding and criticism of Buddhism I have heard also from some Christians and Hindus. And from some people without an apparent religious affiliation. These people work out of this strawman, and even when provided with an explanation (SN 51.15), they have just ignored it, insisting in their strawman. Which would suggest that they are not interested in actually discussing the topic, but in pushing their particular agenda.
Come to think of it, maybe that agenda doesn't even have anything to do with Christianity or Islam, but with something much more general - possibly simply people protecting their desires as such, fearing what it would be like to be desireless. Ordinarily, people seem to equate a state of not desiring anything with misery, not happiness.
D: we live in a society of consumerism ..but I believe Jon and Jane Doe may get an understanding when it is properly explained..
sanjay wrote:i have often come across people who are such , they however do not realize the two truths ; being desire free is the most difficult task ( people think its a cake walk , but a wasteful way of living ) in the world , secondly it results in real happiness .
D: possibly a bit more explanation needed to get an understanding by those
Mkoll » Fri Dec 20, 2013 4:24 am
Tanhā is literally translated as thirst. It's not the same thing as desire. I'd say desire is wanting to do something and craving is to be impelled towards doing something.
Ven. Analayo wrote:
The term tanhā literally stands for "thirst", a meaning echoed also in its near synonym tasinā. Tanhā − as a figurative type of thirst that demands the satisfaction of desires − manifests as a sense of lack or want, and has its root in dissatisfaction. Various aspects of craving are reflected in the use of a range of imageries and similes in the discourses.
D: yes.. the term tanha, thirst , serving as a metaphor for the urge of : I -moha, want- lobha , do not want-dosa , one may consider whether term desire is really fitting.
y chownah » Fri Dec 20, 2013 5:12 am
A person is far above the ground clinging to a rope. Clinging to a rope is stressful but letting go will mean falling to death. Some one tells that person to cling a bit lower on the rope and move downward a bit.....and then cling yet again lower on the rope and move downward again.......eventually you will reach the ground and you can relinquish your clinging to the rope. Another person says that it is impossible to eliminate clinging to a rope by clinging to a rope so it will not work.
who is right? chownah
D:the idiom to 'pulls oneself up by one's own bootstraps ' is fitting here, similar to the self who is supposed to work towards anatta
(greetings to the Thai farmers
so far .. I intend to write shorter messages in future
with Metta Dieter