I’ve been trying to examine my understanding/misunderstanding of the place of eros/desire” in Buddhism and Western philosophy. Re-read Plato’s “Symposium.” (Will had “Phaedrus.” Also the “Dhamappada.”)
Yes, it’s true. I got my understanding of Buddhism mainly through Western interpreters. Jacques Maritain’s “Introduction to Philosophy,” if I remember correctly, makes a distinction between Hinduism and Buddhism that’s quite striking. He says that while 11Hinduism saw INDIVIDUAL EXISTENCE as evil, Buddhism saw EXISTENCE ITSELF all Hindus meant the return to Brahman. (The world is maya/illusion.) The Buddhist Nirvana, on the other hand, is the “cessation of life,” which meant the “cessation of desire.”
In “The Birth of Tragedy,” Nietzsche tells this story about a man who confronts the laughing Silenus about the secret of life. Silenus tells the inquirer, “Do you really want to know? … Here it is: It were better for you not to have been born. And the next best thing? To die early.”
Nietzsche acknowledges the pessimist Schopenhauer as a major influence to his o thinking. Always the onfused mind, I may have mixed all these stuff in my head.
But it’s still quite true that “eros/desire” in both Christianity and Buddhism has been, so to say, problematized. The tradition of Christianity has a wealth of discourses on the dangers posed by desire and has probably more than a number within its tradition whose solution to the problem is to extinguish it, cut it off. The Buddhist notion of detachment/equanimity appears to be quite similar to Stoicism, a kind of indifference to life’s vicissitudes. And the way I see it, this detachment/indifference can only be attained through the weakening of eros/desire.
It seemed to me that eros/desire has been regarded more as something negative, rather than something positive. And I thought it was Nietzsche who unveiled the hidden resentment against reality in such a valuation of eros/desire.
I could feel with Peter Schaffer’s Salieri in Amadeus.” Why would God plant this burning desire in my heart and then expect me to give it up? Isn’t this the height of intolerable cruelty? (Err, wrong movie… =P )
While it is true that eros/desire is a daemon that can lead one astray, I believe that it actually points us the way. Towards home. Home where the heart is. (The truth of who we are, or who we’d like to be.) The heart which is God’s home. It is, as my good friend Albin says, “a homing device.”
But if, as you say, Buddhism doesn’t prescribe the cessation of desire, then I must say, it makes me rethink my questions. My assumption being: developing equanimity/detachment, while promoting compassion, necessitates the dissolution of passion.
Because admittedly, the easy way (not really that easy, because one goes against the very “nature” of human existence, to desire) to attain equanimity/detachment is by desiring no more (through either indifference/apathy or the gradual extirpation of passion).
What is harder is: to desire and love passionately… while remaining equanimous and unattached.
Is this possible at all?
That is what I have been thinking of as a Nietzschean Buddhism. Or is it simply Buddhism? Or perhaps even simply a Nietzscheanism? Or even Christianity?
Christ and Nietzsche referred to the innocence of the child. To such as these innocent ones belong the kingdom of God.
The innocence of the child is a sacrament of the innocence of becoming. We only have to observe the utter concentration of a child when s/he desires something. S/He will move heaven and earth (her/his parents and all) to get what s/he wants. And s/he bawls when s/he doesn’t get it. Hardly equanimous. Hardly unattached.
Yet watching her/him a few moments later, we’re likely to find her/him doing something else (perhaps even laughing, completely forgetting what transpired earlier).
The innocence of passionately desiring. The innocence of venting out one’s frustration/sorrows. The innocence of letting go and starting again.
Of course, not all children are like that. And of course, we cannot go back to such a pristine innocence. But we can probably approximate such an attitude.
To be passionate, compassionate, and equanimous! That is my ambition!
Buddhism? Nietscheanism? Christianity…?
What are these but labels?
Our religion is the religion of love. Or better…
This is our practice… love.
May we always strive to deepen our practice.
—
I mentioned the idea of “imperfection” in connection to the experience of “suffering” in my previous post because that is what started the Buddha in his path. The story tells us that he lived a sheltered life within the palace of his parents. Once, he crossed the boundaries and saw people who were not allowed to enter the inner sanctum of the palace, people who were old, sick/dying, poor. I interpreted these (age, sickness, death, poverty) as signs of imperfection (an imperfect life). Perfection being youth, health, life, wealth, etc.
The Buddha himself started on the path to Enlightenment. This would mean, conventionally, that there was a time when he himself was not yet the “Buddha,” the “enlightened one.” Zen Buddhism later gave the interpretation that the Buddha nature is always already here. I guess that’s also true, perfection is always already here, right here in this imperfect world. We just need “awakened hearts and minds” to be able to see it.
Ram Dass: “Be here now.”
Bhagavan Dass: “It is here now. Are you?”
—
An excerpt from Herman Hesse’s “Siddharta”:
“… And here is a doctrine at which you will laugh. It seems to me, Govinda, that love is the most important thing in the world. It may be important to great thinkers to examine the world, to explain and despise it. But I think it is only important to love the world, not to despise it, not for us to hate each other, but to be able to regard the world and ourselves and all beings with love, admiration and respect.”
“I understand that,” said Govinda, “but that is just what the Illustrious One called illusion. He preached benevolence, forbearance, sympathy, patience – but not love. He forbade us to bind ourselves to earthly love.”
“I know that, Govinda, and here we find ourselves within the maze of meanings, within the conflict of words, for I will not deny that my words about love are in apparent contradiction to the teachings of Gotama. That is why I distrust words so much, for I know that this contradiction is an illusion. I know that I am at one with Gotama. How, indeed, could he not know love, he who has recognized all humanity’s vanity and transitoriness, yet loves humanity so much that he has devoted a long life solely to help and teach people? Also with this great teacher, the thing to me is of greater importance than the words; his deeds and life are more important to me than his talk, the gesture of his hand is more important to me than his opinions. Not in speech or thought do I regard him as a great man, but in his deeds and life.”
Best regards,
ian
Tags: Buddha, Christ, Herman Hesse, Nietzsche
I really enjoy reading Xn3cTs » Blog Archive » Nietzschean Buddhism Redux . It’s very interesting. Hope you will post something like this again.