Spritebox

...does he/she experience temptation?

lurkette

I'm not too familiar with Buddhist philosophy, but I would assume that an absence of desire would preclude temptation. What is temptation, after all, but a desire for something you think you shouldn't desire or shouldn't have/do? The moment you were tempted, you would desire a particular outcome and no longer be the perfect, desire-free Buddhist, right?

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

Lebell

If perfect, no.

That is one of the goals of the Noble 8 fold path, to extinguish desire. If you desire nothing, how can anything tempt you?

But who is perfect?

No one.

So to me, your question is a tautology.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Spritebox

Theoretical question is all. Just need to know to settle and argument with myself.

__________________
it's all nice on ice alright
and it's not day
and it's not night
but it's all nice on ice alright

ccxcone

No, the perfect buddhist would not. That's pretty clear-cut, because an enlightened buddhist feels no need.

Stiltzkin

"If practice makes perfect, but no one is perfect, why practice?"

I don't know who originally said this, but some chick that I really^100 like said this once, so I just had to quote it.

__________________
The most important thing in this world is love.

anti fishstick

the perfect buddhist would still experience temptation because it is a human emotion, but would have the ability to control it.

__________________
And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom.
~Anais Nin

Food Eater Lad

I am not trying to start a flame war, but I think Buddism is wrong fundamentally. To remove your self from desire sounds good, but if everyone did this, then the world would be a stagnant place.

Desire is neither good nor evil, and is paradoxically one of the greatest forces for either. No desire, no progress.

Moonduck

How is it wrong? If everyone removed themselves from desire and the world stagnated, what would it matter? If you do not desire anything, then you would not desire progress. You would simply exist in peace with your fellow man and step off the Great Wheel when your time came.

It would not be boring, as you would not desire excitement. It would not be tasteless, as you would not desire flavour. We would all be perfectly content as we would desire nothing.

This will, of course, never happen, as man is too mired in Maya to ever reach this state, especially on grand scale, but it is a worthwhile exercise in hope.

CSflim

Would you eat as you don't desire food? Would you recreate as you don't desire children/sex.
Would you get up in the morning, as you have no desire to do anything?
Would you even live, as you have no desire to do so?

__________________

twotimesadingo

While my knowledge of the subject is far from noteworthy, my answers are:

yes.
yes.
yes.

Absence of desire does not mean apathetic to the idea of life; it means true and deep contentment with what existence does offer. As existence requires metabolism, the Buddhist eats; as existence requires consciousness, the buddhist rises from his bed; as existence requires life, the Buddhist lives until his time expires.
Instead of striving for something, the Buddhist accepts what he already has.

That's my take, anyway.

__________________
I'll be the one to protect you from your enemies and all your demons.
I'll be the one to protect you from a will to survive and voice of reason.
I'll be the one to protect you from your enemies and your choices, son.
They're one and the same I must isolate you, isolate and save you from yourself."
- A Perfect Circle

CSflim

So in other words you desire existence?

__________________

Xell101

How does that exclude the knowledge that progress in many cases is a good thing?

To live you do not require desire.

mepitans

Part of the development of Buddhists(as well as countless other spiritual practices) includes becoming one with all(and nothing). If you are one with all, you already have everything. How could you desire?

CSflim

I just explained how you do. With no motivation to do ANYTHING, you would quickly die.
You may act in such a way that you eat, not because you desire the sensation of taste, but simply because you want to live, but that is still a desire.

Contentment does not mean a lack of desire.
Contentment means the lack of desire for change. If you are content you desire things to stay the same. You want to keep the status quo.
Keeping the status quo requires motivation. (e.g. eating). No matter how "at one" you are with nature, doesn't change the fact that you still need to physically act in order to feed yourself.

__________________

filtherton

Since i doubt-correct me if i'm wrong- that anyone of us has met anyone who is even close to enlightened in the buddhist sense of the word, i doubt we could claim to understand their M.O.
However, with this in mind I would speculate that if you were truly content you wouldn't desire life any more than you would desire death; you would be fine either way. If you still desire to live more than you desire to die, obviously you are not truly content. I'm not saying that you can't be content and still want to live, I'm saying you can't be truly content in the buddhist sense, or atleast in my interpretation of it.
You also have to realize that reincarnation is part of buddhism. Under that belief you can't not exist. Death is not feared, it is just one step in the journey to enlightenment.
Edit: Being content is not the same as wanting to uphold the status quo. Being content is realizing that the status quo is going to change or not change regardless of what you do. Being content is realizing that struggling against what is inevitable is useless and wasteful. Being content nowhere contains the desire to be content, because you can't be content if your trying to be content.

mepitans

Just go read some texts on Buddhism. You are using language to try to make yourself look right(and in some instances not even using the language correctly). Look past the language at the idea.

Also, 'at one' isn't being 'at one' with nature. If you were just 'at one' with nature, you wouldn't be one with All.

CSflim

Exactly. Death is inevitable. Why struggle against it? Eating is a wasteful struggle against the inevitable.

I know very little about Buddhism. Granted.
I made two points. Which one is incorrect?

1. Motivation is a requirement of continued survival. You cannot survive without motivation.

2. All motivation comes from a desire of some kind. In fact, motivation and desire are practically synonymous.

In other words, a requirement of life is a desire for life.

Now someone could very easily explain all this, by stating that Buddhists have desire....but only desire in an comparatively simplified way, in that they have no "materialistic" desires. (This is how I previously understood things to be).

Also by "nature", I meant it in the broad sense of the word, not the modern restricted version of it.

__________________

mepitans

need: 1 : necessary duty

desire: 1 : to long or hope for

You need to eat, you need to sleep, you need to reproduce.

I think all spiritual practice revolves around fulfilling your potential as a human as much as possible. That would require a need for life in the eyes of Buddhists.

I personally think there is a very big difference between needs and desires

CSflim

You're missing my point.
"You need to eat"....that's not true. Nothing is forcing you to eat. There is of course an implicit assumption in the statement "you need to eat", and it needs to be made explicit.

"You need to eat in order to stay alive"
The question is...why stay alive?

BTW: I don't mean to offend anyone in this thread. Arguing in this manner is how I come to an understanding. I am not arguing "in order to be right".

__________________

mepitans

I think there is a need to stay alive. I personally find the need to become the best person I can be. And not in a narcisistic sense(hopefully), but in what I hope is a universal sense. It isn't a desire, it is a need I cannot escape.

And thank you for arguing intellegently. It is one of the best ways to find solutions. I really suggest you(and any other open minded individual) go pick up any book by Ken Wilber. I started with Integral Psychology, most people suggest A Brief History of Everything. He has a way of explaining extremely complex things in a very easy to understand manner.

The things talked about in Buddhism and other spiritual texts are for the most part not mere ideas, but very real feelings. Unfortunetly most people do not realize them. Discussion will only get you so far. Direct experience is the only way to fully realize.

skinbag

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.

CSflim

Thats for the informative post skinbag.
That makes sense to me, unlike most of the other posts in this thread.

I believe it to be relatively close to my original interpretation:

A desire is present...but only a sort of "higher level" desire?

__________________

RelaX

As I understand it (I've been reading a lot about buddhism) desire is still present, just like every other emotion, you just don't identify with it. YOU are not angry, you feel anger, that is all, you can act on it or let it pass, the choice is yours. That's what I love so much about buddhism.

__________________
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed, most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents.
- Nathaniel Borenstein

MacGnG

i just started learning buddhism.
from what i understand a "perfect" buddhist would have ascended this existence and would be beyond desire.

an "ideal" buddhist would be tempted only by things that would help them to react their path to enlightenment. temptation is a human emotion and they would experience it but would restrain themselves to only "useful" temptation

hope ya get what i mean

Moonduck

"The question is...why stay alive? "

For the same reason any other sentient organism continues to live - to pass on your genes and your memes. In the case of a Buddhist, the enlightened one would continue to live to pass on Buddhist teachings and thus attempt to help others leave suffering behind.

Admittedly, monks don't attempt to pass on their genes, but their is nothing that says that monks have enlightenment all to themselves. They still have a duty to pass on the Buddhist meme though.