|
Contrary to popular belief, Buddhists can have desire. The problem is in our translation and understanding of "desire". Mahayana Buddhism (most schools we run into) holds that a Bodhisattva has crossed over the state of "worldly" desire but retains the desire to relieve the suffering of all beings, so returning to the world rather than dwelling in Nirvana. Nirvana could be considered the Buddhist "death" Csflim is approximating, although the Buddha refers to the cessation of desire, not necessarily a "heaven" after death. A realized one dwells in Nirvana here and now, not merely after death, although that means subjecting oneself to the slings and arrows of the world, so there is still some suffering involved.
One can indeed continue to function in the world without desire in the usual sense of the word, albeit not free of motivation. There are motivations besides "desire" in this world. We call them "selfless" desires. It's the difference between "My loins are on fire for her, so screw my marriage vows!" and "I see she is so beautiful, my loins are burning, but I consider her as a flower, fully realizing that the act of sex will result in suffering for myself and others." The desire will fade, which is why we practice the awareness of impermanence to get to this point of non-attachment. Eventually, we can get to the point where the desire does not even rear it's ugly head. In the mean time, if it does, we use skillful means to counter it. For example meditating on the fact that her beauty is also impermanent to the point of watching her age and wrinkle up before our very eyes. (Kind of like countering stage-fright by imagining the audience is naked.)
I think my goal as a Buddhist (how's that for a paradox?) is to enjoy life more fully through non-attachment. Another paradox. All the biggies are..
For example, I go out to dinner desiring a great meal served by a competent waiter while having an enjoyable time with my wife. If the conversaton, service, or food is lacking in some way, I am likely to feel unfulfilled, as my predetermined desire/expectation was not met. On the other hand, if I simply desire to fully experience a dinner with my wife I am freer to accept pleasurable occurences as a pleasure rather than a given. Ideally, even an argument can then be seen as an opportunity to grow and learn rather than an intrusion in "my" dinner date. It has to do with a mental stance of interest rather than a stance of entitlement or a quest for fulfillng a desire. We should all know by now that a new desire follows on the heels of each accomplishment. So why be rude or driven about it ? That's why I think it is clearer refer to "clinging" and "reliqushment" instead of "desire" and "renunciation". Semantics only, but it trips up many westerners learning to read past the literal wording, IMHO.
|