Desire

[EternalReturn]

I am consciously experiencing desire, learning, reading and thinking about it and I cant seem to grasp the idea. The desire leads to suffering - ok I get it it does, and I can only explain it with the pendulum concept of the Kybalion. But what is desire?

What if I think that I would like some ice cream right now? - this is the example neutral question on which all of this philosophy is based. But I see other two dimensions to it.

1. I would like some ice cream right now, but I can live without it. (Not accompanied with emotional surge)
2. I would like indulge my whole spirit and body in some ice cream right fucking now. (Emotional surge)

If I define desire as a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen - then number two would be great example for what is. There is emotional surge - there is completion - there is pendulum swingin' back.

But desire in my language is synonym with "wish" or "to wish". Our christian religion teaches us very different thing. If you have strong desire, the God will give it to you but only if you put some effort into it. It is good to be guided by your desires. But also, it is not good to wish - you have to be content with what you have.

So I was living my life for some time with playful desires spinning in my thoughts but without real intent. I never wished for much - I just wished love an joy. And it was good for some time. Then came the moment when my life spun around weird axises moving my experience into another dimension, and suddenly I found myself desiring things. It was lacking; some things were taken from me and I wanted them back.

This is really childlike behaviour as I later thought about it. But something stuck with me - desire to perfect myself, and my life, desire to lead peaceful life with enough money for my needs, desire to create. I cannot see this as a toys. This is more like something who I am, rather than what I wish to have.

Then I have found some thoughts on desire. There are good and bad desires and it has been eternal philosophical question how to discern between the two.

But no matter all desire leads to suffering, it is just the matter of paying the price?
Why this sounds like an Cosmic destiny shop?

"Please give me five good life's and one true love."
"That will be one eternal suffering and two nervous breakdowns."
"Do you take credit cards?"

But if I'm led with universal principle of reincarnation where my soul is playing MMORPG and doesn't like munchkins* or mary sue characters*, that means that my true desire is my true will. So is it a desire or is it a will?

There is a way to know this if you're attuned with your true will. There is no way of knowing it. Desire is fulfilled with your own sweat and tears. Desire cannot be fulfilled because it is the same shit as a eternal return - illusion where you perceive completion, but there is none. And when you get that your ego defends you with some excuses but deep down inside you feel something's wrong and that is the pain.

If I have a desire to drink water and if I give some space to the development of the intent, I can with the use of will drink that water. I have lost nothing and no suffering is there unless the thirst is suffering. Do we avoid desire by transmuting it into the will? Is it the rule of the cause and effect? My desiring butterfly wings flap and tempest of my soul is bound to happen? Is desire the strongest drug so we're all addicted to the fun and terrifying ride of the reality-acid?

These are all theories I have read, heard, thought of and I cannot see the whole. But I discern some things:

1. Desire causes suffering.
2. There are different variations of the said desire.
3. There is no way to escape desire unless you want to not-exist on this plane of cause and effect.

So my questions are:

1. Is there such thing as a true desire?
2. Is this true desire same as true will?
3. Is this true desire bound to lead to suffering?
4. Why does desire lead to suffering?
5. Should desire to make yourself suffer not result in exclusion of suffering or fulfilment?
6. Can the desire be "paid" with sheer effort to acquire it? (sheer effort = pain which accompanies the brave souls who don't know how to give up)

*munchkin = roleplaying gamer that strives for mathematical perfection, not fun to play with
*mary sue = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue

[palindrom]

1. Is there such thing as a true desire?
2. Is this true desire same as true will?
3. Is this true desire bound to lead to suffering?
4. Why does desire lead to suffering?
5. Should desire to make yourself suffer not result in exclusion of suffering or fulfilment?
6. Can the desire be "paid" with sheer effort to acquire it? (sheer effort = pain which accompanies the brave souls who don't know how to give up)

1. why should a desire not be true when it exists? everything that is is true.
2. (true )will is what happens. (true) desire is what wants to happen
3. no. desire doesn't automatically create suffering. it's just the wish to fulfill it that creates suffering.
4. it doesn't have to. burn this particular bridge
5. you mean like in the SM-joke: M: "hit me"; S: "no"?
6. i try to love it. who do you want to pay?

thanx for your questions - i like questions : )

pali

[Frumens]

4. Why does desire lead to suffering?

That depends on what you mean by suffering. When you hear a Buddhist say that life is suffering, what they are really talking about it the Pali word dukkha. Dukkha doesn't have an exact English equivalent, so translations can vary between suffering, stress, and unsatisfactoriness. I think of it as meaning "the feeling you get when things don't go well." Here is how Joseph Goldstein explains dukkha in his book Mindfulness: A Practical Guide to Awakening:

The word [dukkha] is made up of the prefix du and the root kha. Du means “bad” or “difficult.” Kha means “empty.” “Empty,” here, refers to several things—some specific, others more general. One of the specific meanings refers to the empty axle hole of a wheel. If the axle fits badly into the center hole, we get a very bumpy ride. This is a good analogy for our ride through saṃsāra. On my first trip to Burma, a group of friends and I went up-country to visit Mahāsi Sayadaw’s home temple. We made part of the journey in an oxcart, and it was undoubtedly similar to modes of transportation in the Buddha’s time. This extremely bumpy journey was a very visceral example of dukkha, the first noble truth. In more general philosophical terms, “empty” means devoid of permanence and devoid of a self that can control or command phenomena. Here we begin to get a sense of other, more inclusive meanings of the term dukkha. Words like unsatisfying, unreliable, uneaseful, and stressful all convey universal aspects of our experience.

Goldstein mentioned the first noble truth. Here are all four noble truths, as explained by Wikipedia:

1. Dukkha: all temporary things and states are unsatisfying;
2. The start of dukkha: yet we crave and cling to these things and states; thereby, we're continuously reborn;
3. The end of dukkha: if we stop craving and clinging, we won't be reborn;
4. How to end dukkha: by following the Noble Eightfold Path, namely behaving decently, not acting on impulses, and practicing mindfulness and meditation.

Your question is answered by truth number two. Our desires lead to suffering because most of the time, we desire things that are impermanent. You can't have your cake and eat it too—this is dukkha. We feel unsatisfied with the way things are in the present, and in our ignorance we seek solace in objects and emotional states that cannot permanently fulfill us. When the objects of our desire disappear we are left with even stronger desires for more objects, all to fill up the hole in our hearts that makes us unsatisfied with reality as it is. Continuously seeking out these objects is like pouring gasoline onto a fire. We fell unhappy with the way things are, so we seek objects, which leads to more unhappiness, which leads to more seeking.

Is there such thing as a true desire?

I'm not sure what that means, but if you mean a desire that doesn't lead to suffering, the Buddhist answer would be the desire for enlightenment.

Is this true desire bound to lead to suffering?

If it's the desire to be free of dukkha, no.

[manofsands]

Every desire is a tit on which we suckle.

It IS of benefit to ween oneself from the tit
which I believe can only come from looking inward

[EternalReturn]

Concerning this distinction between "true" and "false" desire. It can be put into the categories "good" and "bad". I've read it somewhere on the internet and it was quite confusing. Dualistic philosophy in Buddhism? It is, of course, a westerner who wrote it.

"Bad" ones lead to suffering. "Good ones" are your true purpose.

1. Is there such thing as a true desire?
2. Is this true desire same as true will?
3. Is this true desire bound to lead to suffering?
4. Why does desire lead to suffering?
5. Should desire to make yourself suffer not result in exclusion of suffering or fulfilment?
6. Can the desire be "paid" with sheer effort to acquire it? (sheer effort = pain which accompanies the brave souls who don't know how to give up)

1. why should a desire not be true when it exists? everything that is is true.
2. (true )will is what happens. (true) desire is what wants to happen
3. no. desire doesn't automatically create suffering. it's just the wish to fulfill it that creates suffering.
4. it doesn't have to. burn this particular bridge
5. you mean like in the SM-joke: M: "hit me"; S: "no"?
6. i try to love it. who do you want to pay?

thanx for your questions - i like questions : )

pali

Thank you for your answers [grin]

But you just gave me another idea concerning desire. So one could describe desire as wanting?

So my experiments in analyzing desire are missing one variable.

5. Yes [grin]
6. Well no one if it can be avoided.

4. Why does desire lead to suffering?

That depends on what you mean by suffering. When you hear a Buddhist say that life is suffering, what they are really talking about it the Pali word dukkha. Dukkha doesn't have an exact English equivalent, so translations can vary between suffering, stress, and unsatisfactoriness. I think of it as meaning "the feeling you get when things don't go well." Here is how Joseph Goldstein explains dukkha in his book Mindfulness: A Practical Guide to Awakening:

The word [dukkha] is made up of the prefix du and the root kha. Du means “bad” or “difficult.” Kha means “empty.” “Empty,” here, refers to several things—some specific, others more general. One of the specific meanings refers to the empty axle hole of a wheel. If the axle fits badly into the center hole, we get a very bumpy ride. This is a good analogy for our ride through saṃsāra. On my first trip to Burma, a group of friends and I went up-country to visit Mahāsi Sayadaw’s home temple. We made part of the journey in an oxcart, and it was undoubtedly similar to modes of transportation in the Buddha’s time. This extremely bumpy journey was a very visceral example of dukkha, the first noble truth. In more general philosophical terms, “empty” means devoid of permanence and devoid of a self that can control or command phenomena. Here we begin to get a sense of other, more inclusive meanings of the term dukkha. Words like unsatisfying, unreliable, uneaseful, and stressful all convey universal aspects of our experience.

Goldstein mentioned the first noble truth. Here are all four noble truths, as explained by Wikipedia:

1. Dukkha: all temporary things and states are unsatisfying;
2. The start of dukkha: yet we crave and cling to these things and states; thereby, we're continuously reborn;
3. The end of dukkha: if we stop craving and clinging, we won't be reborn;
4. How to end dukkha: by following the Noble Eightfold Path, namely behaving decently, not acting on impulses, and practicing mindfulness and meditation.

Your question is answered by truth number two. Our desires lead to suffering because most of the time, we desire things that are impermanent. You can't have your cake and eat it too—this is dukkha. We feel unsatisfied with the way things are in the present, and in our ignorance we seek solace in objects and emotional states that cannot permanently fulfill us. When the objects of our desire disappear we are left with even stronger desires for more objects, all to fill up the hole in our hearts that makes us unsatisfied with reality as it is. Continuously seeking out these objects is like pouring gasoline onto a fire. We fell unhappy with the way things are, so we seek objects, which leads to more unhappiness, which leads to more seeking.

Is there such thing as a true desire?

I'm not sure what that means, but if you mean a desire that doesn't lead to suffering, the Buddhist answer would be the desire for enlightenment.

Is this true desire bound to lead to suffering?

If it's the desire to be free of dukkha, no.

Aha! There's the confusion. Every piece of text uses dukkha as a synonym with desire. That was mind boggling, as I see that this cannot be the case. So every wish to deal with permanence with impermanent things is a dukkha? This is why it is good to be content, to accept all things one cannot change?

I don't see myself as having the problem with desire then. Unless it can be related with some deep psychological problems and quirks. Personally I smoke cigarettes. That could be considered as having no aim in life or not being connected with my purpose, but this is not the case. I have no desire to achieve/fulfill anything with cigarettes. I just like the sensations they produce. For some time it has actually worked quite the opposite. I was "calming down". Now I know how to do that at any given moment.

So I could say that this was the case of dukkha, but now?

And thank you for a detailed response, this cleared up a lot of things [smile]

Every desire is a tit on which we suckle.

It IS of benefit to ween oneself from the tit
which I believe can only come from looking inward

I will continue to do that then. [thumbup] Thank you.

[Frumens]

Aha! There's the confusion. Every piece of text uses dukkha as a synonym with desire. That was mind boggling, as I see that this cannot be the case. So every wish to deal with permanence with impermanent things is a dukkha? This is why it is good to be content, to accept all things one cannot change?

Dukkha isn't desire. Dukkha is created when we feel that we need objects in order to be content with life. All objects disappear, and due to our emotional dependence on objects our contentment disappears with them. You could have desire without dukkha if you were wholely unattached to the results of your actions. For example, the Buddha had a desire to spread his teachings, but he wasn't attached to the results of his actions such that he would experience dukkha based on whether he was successful or not. Instead of thinking, "I'll be happy if my teachings are accepted and I'll be sad if they are rejected," he simply acted out of compassion for sentient beings and stoically waited to see the result of his actions.

So every wish to deal with permanence with impermanent things is a dukkha?

If you need to find something in the world that is permanent in order to be content with life, you will always be discontented. The lack of content that you experience is dukkha.

So I could say that this was the case of dukkha, but now?

In theory it's possible to do anything free of dukkha if you have the right attitude. You would have to ask yourself, what would your emotional response be if cigarettes were no longer available to you? Everything is impermanent, so one day you will have to part with cigarettes.

[cyberdemon]

Dukkha literally translates to sadness, in the Bengali language.
I'm a native speaker.

I desire for everything, even happiness-for-eternity. Therefore I always have a drive to try and eagerness to experience. Desire of things, materialistic or otherwise, I wish for it all. No loop-hole.

[EternalReturn]

So desire is good. But rational desire.

In theory it's possible to do anything free of dukkha if you have the right attitude. You would have to ask yourself, what would your emotional response be if cigarettes were no longer available to you? Everything is impermanent, so one day you will have to part with cigarettes.

Cherish the moment, but don't take it with you [grin]

That was very helpful thank you Frumens [smile]

And thank you all, I've learned a lot [thumbup]

[palindrom]

Concerning this distinction between "true" and "false" desire. It can be put into the categories "good" and "bad". I've read it somewhere on the internet and it was quite confusing. Dualistic philosophy in Buddhism? It is, of course, a westerner who wrote it.

the wish to overcome something certainly is based on perceiving two things - me, and the obstacle...
an intersting way to look at it is, to take the "perceiving" into the equation as a third part.
so it looks like me - perceiving - obstacle.
this perceiving-place is one i feel i should keep my attention on...

personally, i'm very vary of esoterics who claim to have overcome duality - the ones i met who claimed to be above it all tended to not respect borders, which i think is just impractical on this planet, and can be hurtful, if the border they ignore is my own personalitiy.

whatever you do, however mind- and soulfreeing your overcoming of borders is, keep it personal, just inside your own garden - that's the most practical idea i have at the moment.

"Bad" ones lead to suffering. "Good ones" are your true purpose.

i'd say they just happen. the ones i can't handle feel bad to me...

But you just gave me another idea concerning desire. So one could describe desire as wanting?

perhaps. how do you feel it? i feel desire as longing mixed with an impulse to fulfill this longing. wanting, to me, is not longing, it's, well, just wanting...

what frumens and cyberdemon wrote, about what the word dukkha literally means, is an important aspect i think. i'm not into eastern teachings really (which doesn't mean that i never wonder about desire [wink2] ), but i learn hebrew in order to understand the bible-teachings better. and i find it really helps...

5. Yes [grin]

and did you try that approach already?
...i think, the subconscious might play quite a role in all this kind of (magical) games...

6. Well no one if it can be avoided.

so, why not just not pay? perhaps you might get some things for free? just an idea... [yay]

have a good day!

pali

[EternalReturn]

Concerning this distinction between "true" and "false" desire. It can be put into the categories "good" and "bad". I've read it somewhere on the internet and it was quite confusing. Dualistic philosophy in Buddhism? It is, of course, a westerner who wrote it.

the wish to overcome something certainly is based on perceiving two things - me, and the obstacle...
an intersting way to look at it is, to take the "perceiving" into the equation as a third part.
so it looks like me - perceiving - obstacle.
this perceiving-place is one i feel i should keep my attention on...

personally, i'm very vary of esoterics who claim to have overcome duality - the ones i met who claimed to be above it all tended to not respect borders, which i think is just impractical on this planet, and can be hurtful, if the border they ignore is my own personalitiy.

whatever you do, however mind- and soulfreeing your overcoming of borders is, keep it personal, just inside your own garden - that's the most practical idea i have at the moment.

I agree with that. Some consider that as a limitation, but I don't know if they have explored how far can it go. Personally I consider duality similar to the wu-meter - you have a range from minimum to maximum of that specific thing. But, maybe I'm wrong, what I was trying to say that dualistic philosophy seems like out of place in Buddhism. Like it doesn't belong there and was never a part of this philosophy.

And this three part equation seems interesting. Meta-cognition all the way [smile]

"Bad" ones lead to suffering. "Good ones" are your true purpose.

i'd say they just happen. the ones i can't handle feel bad to me...

But control would be a very bad way of describing this process, right?

But you just gave me another idea concerning desire. So one could describe desire as wanting?

perhaps. how do you feel it? i feel desire as longing mixed with an impulse to fulfill this longing. wanting, to me, is not longing, it's, well, just wanting...

what frumens and cyberdemon wrote, about what the word dukkha literally means, is an important aspect i think. i'm not into eastern teachings really (which doesn't mean that i never wonder about desire [wink2] ), but i learn hebrew in order to understand the bible-teachings better. and i find it really helps...

That's the interesting part. It manifests as a guilt mostly, sometimes as energy-sucking fatigue, sometimes as a very good dopamine high, but wherever it goes it has certain characteristics. There is something that simply allows me to indulge in something which results in pleasure, and sometimes am caught up in a daydreaming fantasy or feel the negative effects which I try to shrug off by being zen-present.

5. Yes [grin]

and did you try that approach already?
...i think, the subconscious might play quite a role in all this kind of (magical) games...

No it is just an idea, but it could very well work with the subconscious. But I love myself too much to cause myself such harm [grin]

But I just remembered something. This whole circle of life and death - something must go in order to make a room for something new - it kinda fits here [smile]

6. Well no one if it can be avoided.

so, why not just not pay? perhaps you might get some things for free? just an idea... [yay]

have a good day!

pali

"Nothing in life is free." - my mother, friends, and practically everyone around me. I'll have to contemplate and meditate on this.


And a good day to you too sir [yay]

[ultimafool]

I think I've read somewhere that even the desire for enlightenment/transcendence must be overcome? But I know very little about Buddhism. That being said...

I've always equated suffering in this sense with passion. Most people tend to think of passion as a purely internal emotional experience, and there is an internal component, however, passion actually means suffering, or to be more precise, labor. A passion is often referred to as a "labor of love". This means we are willing to suffer for what we desire. In this regard, we see that to labor for a love is to suffer gladly. Cooking a nice meal and setting a romantic mood for a our partner is done with joy in our hearts.

All of this is really just a complicated way of saying that on the physical level, we must do physical work to fulfill our desires. It doesn't always have to have a negative connotation. In fact, often times, it is the process itself that is most enjoyable, not the fulfillment. I love to write and paint and draw, and as much as I enjoy the finished product, it's the act of creation that really does it for me. But once a piece is finished, I feel a slight emptiness and the desire to "suffer" rises again!

This relates to my minimal understanding of Buddhism in a couple of ways. First, the word com-passion means to experience the passion of others - not just the "negative" suffering, but the "positive", work/labor aspects of passion as well. This speaks to the broader need for understanding others in general which requires getting the self out of one's own way in order to truly be one with others and the world.

Second, based on my experiences on the astral, there doesn't seem to be any "suffering", as in passion, there. It's a non-physical experience, therefore, no labor or physical work is required to fulfill your desires. Thoughts manifest instantly. This relates to nearly all models of the after-life. Your expectations/desires will be manifested instantly upon death.

From a reincarnationist perspective, if your physical passions rule your etheric/emotional body, these will manifest on the "other side" and your soul's vibrational frequency will resonate with these astra-l phantasms and lead you astra-y back to earth again. This is essentially what the Tibetan Book of the Dead is on about. If you are not ruled by these, then you don't need someone reading scripture to your corpse, because you will have no-mind/compassion/identify self with not-self and move on up to level 2 boss battle.

[EternalReturn]

ultimafool: to be honest, this is the third day I come here and every time this post of yours leaves me speechless.

I didn't want to leave short "thank you" because your post explained very important things to me in a way that I found the source of my inconsistency and work-anxiety which has haunted me for years. It was like an awesome meditation [yay]

This idea about passion is brilliant!

Thank you very much it was an amazing experience. [pray] I will surely return and read this thread again [crazy]

[manofsands]

Desire and aversion, opposite sides of a coin. They don't talk about aversion, but it's almost implied being the opposite pole of desire. Being 'poles' are what keep one from moving on. It highlights an imbalance. One ready to move on wound be balanced. So our desires and aversions are actually road signs to the topics with which one needs 'work'. This makes more sense to one who believes in spiritual evolution and life lessons.

[ultimafool]

Thank you, Eternal Return!

I only have a couple people IRL that I can talk to about occult matters and even then I can only go so far with certain subjects. That's why I joined OccultForum and hearing comments like yours validates my own theories and practices. People here ask novel questions that force me to think about things I never thought about before and puts a new light on old ideas.

Thanks again! And a thank you to everyone else here on OF for stimulating my hungry brain! [smile]

Indeed, manofsands. Was it Crowley that said something like invoking a thing automatically invokes its opposite? This idea is more complex than it seems at first and operates on many levels. As above so below, nawmean?

[EternalReturn]

ultimafool, there will be many more noob topics from me, you're welcome to join in [crazy]

Desire and aversion, opposite sides of a coin. They don't talk about aversion, but it's almost implied being the opposite pole of desire. Being 'poles' are what keep one from moving on. It highlights an imbalance. One ready to move on wound be balanced. So our desires and aversions are actually road signs to the topics with which one needs 'work'. This makes more sense to one who believes in spiritual evolution and life lessons.

Yes this is exactly what I figured out. If there is desire present, there will be "fruits for the picking". If aversion is present there will be rotten fruit. Goal is the same (to eat fruit).

I have an idea I thought about for some time now. If the desire gives a man energy to achieve this desire, there is a possibility that one can form many desires in striving for some goal. The more, the better. But I can see it only as a shotgun technique - your goal must be undefined enough to have many possible outcomes gravitating around the original goal, and defined enough to know where you're aiming.