A bear is confused about desire
The nature of existence is unsatisfactoriness, and I want to be unsatisfied, but is that the end of the story?
I find myself confronting some difficult questions, very old questions with antecedents not just in Buddhism but in Stoicism. Truth be told, I am confused and out of my depth.
All that we do is driven by a refusal to accept things as they are now. To exist is to desire that things be a different way. The truly satisfied would not act at all. On the surface, we seem to want to have everything we want, indeed this seems almost definitional to wanting, but I would not want to have everything I wanted, because I relish existing, and acting in the world.
I relish life, even though I am burdened with illness and pain. I relish the struggle of existence, even though there is much that I would change about it, I would not want a world where everyone had what they wanted all the time because such a world wouldn’t have people in it. The truly, deeply satisfied who want for nothing whatsoever would not even think, because thinking exists to satisfy curiosity, lack of stimulation, and the need to create.
This is not to say that I think the balance is right now. There is too much pain. There is a difference between the artist driven by dissatisfaction to create her masterpiece (good) and the man dissatisfied because he is starving to death (bad). Only the second sort of unsatisfactoriness seems like it must go, the world should not be without the striving of the first, the world should not be without striving because it is better with life in it.
On the whole, then, it seems like I should reject Buddhism, stoicism, and other doctrines that counsel equanimity, and yet I am told that this is a simplistic, western, Schopenhauerian vision of Buddhism. The aim is not to reject feeling and motion, but… clinging? I don’t reject this, I’m just trying to understand the distinction.
I’d like to seek some path to hold onto the world less tightly. To cry when one’s loved ones die, when our lovers leave us, to take special joy in our children, to thrill in the ambition fulfilled, and yet to hold the world more lightly. To seek justice, but not revel in anger. To view loss with sadness, but not to wallow in anxiety before it comes. What exactly would this be, to hold the world but not hurt your hands by gripping? Is this just a step further towards the non-existence of desirelessness, or is there something qualitatively different, an accepting that is not accepting? Desire without Dukha?
Reader suggestions, are, as always, welcome.
Beginning of this essay was reminiscent of pre-Newtonian mechanics... If an arrow continues flying through the air, there must be something continually pushing it. A more dynamic view is that an object in motion will stay in motion. A living creature is born with a set of behavioral responses and will live out those responses. I ate 3 meals yesterday. That I eat another 3 today doesn't really imply desire, definitely not desire for change. It is stasis played out through time.
I liked your post, it gets me thinking. To your question of how to hold the world without hurting your hands by gripping: I think there is something to be learned in mindfulness and perhaps cognitive behavioral therapy. By paying attention to your grip you can notice the thoughts that are causing your suffering. By rewiring the thoughts your perspective can change. To use your analogy, you are not letting go, but simply adjusting the grip. I think it is something that can take a lifetime to master, but you dont need to master it to benefit.
To the question of desire, I'm not sure I understood exactly what you meant. From my (limted) understanding of Buddhism, it is not so much about getting rid of your desires as much as it is about detaching yourself from them. If you *want* to get rid of desire, you immediately fall into a contradiction. If you detach yourself from them, you are still acknowledging the desire but do not place so much importance on it.